RR/2007/3515/P - Rother€¦ · Web viewIt is located on the northern side of the road, within...

Rother District Council Agenda Item: 6Committee - Planning

Date - 18 December 2008

Report of - Director of Services

Subject - Planning Applications

Planning Committee Procedures

Planning Conditions, Reasons for Refusal and NotesConditions, reasons for refusal and notes are primarily presented in coded number form within the report. The codes are set out in full in the Council’s Planning Conditions, Reasons for Refusal and Decisions Notice Notes Document.

Background PapersThese are planning applications, forms and plans as presented in the Agenda. Correspondence between the applicant, agents, consultees and other representatives in respect of the application. Previous planning applications and correspondence where relevant, reports to Committee, decision notices and appeal decisions which are specifically referred to in the reports. Planning applications can be viewed on the planning website www.planning.rother.gov.uk.

Planning Committee ReportsIf you are viewing the electronic copy of the Planning Applications report to Planning Committee then you can access individual reported applications by clicking on the link (View application/correspondence) at the end of each report.

ConsultationsRelevant consultation replies which have been received after the report has been printed and before the Committee meeting will normally be reported orally in a summary form.

Late Representations and Requests for DefermentAny representations and requests for deferment in respect of planning applications on the Planning Committee agenda must be received by the Head of Planning in writing by 9am on the Wednesday before the meeting at the latest. The Council will not entertain a request for deferment unless it is supported by a full statement containing valid reasons for the request.

Delegated ApplicationsIn certain circumstances the Planning Committee will indicate that it is only prepared to grant or refuse planning permission if, or unless certain amendments to a proposal are undertaken or subject to completion of outstanding consultations. In these circumstances the Head of Planning can be delegated authority to issue the decision of the Planning Committee once the requirements of the Committee have been satisfactorily complied with. A delegated decision does not mean that planning permission or refusal will automatically be issued. If there are consultation objections, difficulties, or negotiations are not satisfactorily concluded, then the application will have to be reported back to the Planning Committee or reported via the internal only electronic Notified D system as a means of providing further information for elected Members. This delegation also allows the Head of Planning to negotiate and amend applications, conditions, reasons for refusal and notes

1

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr????????

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/

commensurate with the instructions of the Committee. Any applications which are considered prior to the expiry of the consultation reply period are automatically delegated for a decision.

The Council does not allow the recording or photographing of its proceedings.

Order of PresentationThe report on planning applications is presented in the following order as shown below:-

Bexhill (All Wards)Battle (Battle Town/Crowhurst/Darwell Wards)Rye (Rye Ward)Ashburnham, Catsfield, Crowhurst, Penhurst (Crowhurst Ward)Brightling, Burwash, Dallington, Mountfield, Whatlington (Darwell Ward)Beckley, Northiam, Peasmarsh, Rye Foreign (Rother Levels Ward)Bodiam, Hurst Green, Salehurst & Robertsbridge (Salehurst Ward)Brede, Udimore, Westfield (Brede Valley Ward)Camber, East Guldeford, Icklesham, Iden, Playden (Eastern Rother Ward)Ticehurst, Etchingham (Ticehurst and Etchingham Ward)Ewhurst, Sedlescombe (Ewhurst and Sedlescombe Ward)Fairlight, Guestling, Pett (Marsham Ward)Neighbouring Authorities

REFERENCE PAGE PARISH SITE ADDRESS

RR/2008/2759/P 1 BEXHILL HILLBOROUGH HOUSE

RR/2008/2922/P 5 BEXHILL 16 EGERTON ROADPARK LODGE

RR/2008/3126/P 8 BEXHILL 27 MAYO LANE

RR/2008/3131/P 12 BEXHILL THE DEVONSHIRE ARMSDEVONSHIRE SQUARE

RR/2008/3069/P 13 RYE 9 LION STREET – LAND REAR OF

RR/2008/2930/P 17 CROWHURST CROWHURST PARK

RR/2008/3078/P 21 CROWHURST GREEN HILL CARE HOMESTATION ROAD

RR/2008/2998/P 24 BURWASH LUCK FARMVICARAGE LANE

RR/2008/2906/P 29 DALLINGTON HASELDEN OAST FARMBATTLE ROAD

RR/2008/3143/P 32 SALEHURST/ 18-19 CORONATIONROBERTSBRIDGE COTTAGES - LAND AT

ROBERTSBRIDGE

2

RR/2008/3067/P 36 WESTFIELD HOLE FARMWESTFIELD LANE

RR/2008/3230/P 37 ICKLESHAM DRUIMTHE RIDGEWINCHELSEA BEACH

RR/2008/3233/P 41 IDEN CALEMBEL – SITE ADJ

RR/2008/2912/P 45 TICEHURST SOMERTONSHEEN COTTAGE ANDCLARE COTTAGE – LAND REAR OFST MARY’S LANE

RR/2008/3193/P 50 TICEHURST PASHLEY MANORGARDENS

RR/2008/2461/P 52 ETCHINGHAM KING JOHN’S LODGESHEEPSTREET LANE

RR/2008/2894/P 54 ETCHINGHAM KING JOHN’S LODGESHEEP STREET LANE

RR/2008/3161/P 56 ETCHINGHAM KING JOHN’S LODGE –GRANARY BARN ATSHEEPSTREET LANE

RR/2008/2929/P 59 ETCHINGHAM ST MARY AND ST NICHOLAS’ CHURCHHIGH STREET

RR/2008/3116/P 62 EWHURST OCKHAM FARMDAGG LANEEWHURST GREEN

RR/2008/3237/P 65 SEDLESCOMBE THE QUEENS HEAD PUBLICHOUSE – LAND ATBREDE LANE

--oo0oo—

3

RR/2008/2759/P BEXHILL HILLBOROUGH HOUSECONVERSION OF EXISTING PROPERTY WITH ERECTION OF TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO FORM 14 SELF CONTAINED FLATSMr Kimber

Statutory 13 week date: 26 December 2008

This application was deferred at your last meeting for amended plans following a site inspection.

SITE Hillborough House is a substantial dwelling in the arts and crafts style constructed in 1929. The house has been extended and has a number of outbuildings, and is set within substantial gardens befitting of the dwellinghouse. There are a variety of trees and hedges to most of the boundaries. It lies within a residential area and within the development boundary for Bexhill.

Hillborough House along with its neighbours to the east, ‘Hillview House’ and ‘Foxley’ are situated on a ridge with views southwards. The rooftop and decorative chimneys of Hillborough House are visible from the surrounding area. The majority of the low level bungalows within Hillborough Close and Grenada Close, to the west and south, are located at a lower ground level. These developments were constructed on land formerly within the ownership of Hillborough House. 8 Hillborough Close is designed as a mirrored pair with no. 6, with the main glazed entrance and other windows on the side elevations facing each other.

HISTORYB/53/411 Greenhouse. Approved conditional.B/59/758 Extension to sun loggia. Permitted development.B/62/437 Swimming pool. Permission not required.RR/77/2035 Renewal of permission to retain greenhouse. Approved.RR/98/420/P Demolish existing workshop & sheds and rebuild with block

walls, clay tiled roof, walls plastered to match house. Conditional approval.

RR/2008/81/P O/A Demolition of Hillborough House and 8 Hillborough Close and erection of 12 dwellings, new vehicular access and provision of parking – Refused.

PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for the conversion and extension of the property to form 14 self-contained flats. Six units would be formed within the present dwelling each with two bedrooms with the majority having en-suite facilities. The extension would be two storeys, off the existing rear wing on the east side of the plot, providing a further 8 two bed flats. Rendered and tile hung walls under a plain tile roof matching the existing dwelling.

The existing vehicular access from Little Common Road would be utilised, the present double garage and single garage retained and a total of 14 parking spaces provided off the present access turning area and water feature. Both front and rear boundary screen planting and specimen trees would all be retained.

Rendered and tile hung walls under a plain tile roof matching the existing dwelling.

1

CONSULTATIONSHighways Agency:- No objection.Environment Agency:- Do not propose to respond.Southern Water:- There is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide for foul sewerage disposal.The sewer is a combined foul and surface water one. It is possible that by removing some surface water from entering the sewer additional foul flows could be accommodatedIn the event that consent is granted a drainage condition be attached. The Council’s Building Control officers should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways (see website for full text).South East Water:- No comments received to date.Sussex Police:- No major concerns in respect of crime risk identified.Planning Notice:- 8 letters of objection – Loss of privacy and outlook Increased noise Over development Loss of amenities Increased risk of flooding Sewers are at capacity Balconies may overlook Communal gardens may increase noise disturbance Increased light pollution No guarantee that screen hedges (Cupressus Trees) will remain to protect

privacy, they may die or be cut back/down Access to A259 with increased danger on a road already identified as most

dangerous in Sussex Backland development The previous bungalow scheme was refused as out of character – same

reasons apply to flats No need in present climate Reduced security for existing homeowners Noise/dirt/smell from construction Protected species may be affected An Environmental Impact Assessment should be provided Badgers and bats have been seen and should be considered Scale of building overwhelming Balconies should be excluded If approved external lighting should be controlled Soakaways probably will not work and may adversely affect neighbouring

gardens Boundary trees needed for privacy are increasingly oppressive Loss of light to Hill View House

SUMMARY Amended plans have been received.

Hillborough House occupies a site of about 0.46 hectares and it lies firmly within the development boundary of the town; it must be regarded as a previously developed site with re-development acceptable in principle.

The existing property is a fine house with most of its original detailing intact. The applicant has been careful to ensure that the conversion to 6 flats retains the building in its original form and detail. Other than the swimming pool extension, wherein the space would be sub-divided to form a single flat, the existing rooms are not sub-

2

divided and existing features such as wall panelling are retained. When viewed from the entrance gate, apart from additional parking, the property would scarcely change; it should not be obvious that the building had been sub-divided.

At the rear a substantial extension of two storey design under a tiled roof with flat top is proposed, linked to the rear service wing of the house. This addition measures some 40m by 14.5m overall with a slight deflection in its length at about the mid-point. That part of the site upon which the extension is shown is roughly level and the plans indicate a ground floor level comparable with the house.

The applicant’s agent has provided additional clarification of the site levels. Also a percolation test has demonstrated that soakaways are very likely to be an acceptable means of disposal for surface water.

Members will note letters of objection; these originate from the majority of dwellings adjoining the site. The relationship of the new works with these properties is not easily judged on site because of the extensive conifer hedging along the majority of the boundaries. Following Members’ inspection of the site my concern regarding the relationship with the garden of Hill View House was endorsed, as were design issues in respect of the rear extension. The result has been the submission of an amended plan indicating a design that responds more positively to the features found in the design of the existing house and also creates an irregular roof form giving a lesser enclosure to Hill View House and at the same time improving the elevational interest.

The site is about 0.46 hectares, development with 14 flats equates to a density of 30 units to the hectare. This is at the lower end of density sought by PPS3.

I believe the conversion of the existing dwelling to be well conceived and appropriate for the property. I have noted the objections raised but I do not believe that it would be reasonable to withhold planning permission for this part of the scheme since the existing situation with neighbouring properties would not be materially changed.

The rear extension has been considerably modified to address Members’ concerns. The amended plan has not been re-advertised as it is considered that representations from nearby residents are unlikely to have changed given that the principles of the addition remain the same. Members should therefore regard the representations as equally relevant to the revised application.

If Members are content with the scale and detail of the proposal and the revised design I would recommend a delegation to address one or two minor drafting inconsistencies between the elevations and the floor plans.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (CLARIFICATION OF PLAN)1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of

three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In accordance with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. No dwelling shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plan drawing no. 2008/59/4B date stamped 5 December 2008 for 17 number cars to be parked and it shall thereafter be retained for those purposes only.

3

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development reflects the character and/or appearance of the existing building and to preserve the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policies GD1 (iv) & (v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1 (f) & (j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. The existing boundary trees/hedging to the site shall be retained to a height of not less than 3 metres above ground level. Any trees/hedging removed or dying or being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased shall be replaced with trees/hedging of such size and species as may be agreed in writing with the local planning authority.Reason: To maintain as far as possible the appearance of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(b) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

5. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of foul and surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning authority and none of the dwellings shall be occupied until the drainage works to serve the development have been provided in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and to prevent water pollution in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 (g) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

6. Before occupation of the buildings hereby permitted commences, details of the siting and form of bins for the storage and recycling of refuse within the site (internally or externally), and a collection point, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the approved details shall be implemented and thereafter continued, with all bins and containers available for use, maintained and replaced as need be.Reason: To ensure satisfactory provision for waste disposal facilities in accordance with Policy GD1(ii), (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(o) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 and PPS1, paragraph 20.

Notes:i. This decision notice relates only to the amended proposals as shown on the

amended plan(s) (Ref 2008/59/6C) date stamped 5 December 2008.ii. This permission includes condition(s) requiring the submission of details prior

to the commencement of development. Following close consideration in the courts, it is now well established that if the permission contains conditions requiring further details to be submitted to the Council or other matters to take place prior to development commencing and these conditions have not been complied with, the development is unlawful and does not have planning permission. You are therefore strongly advised to ensure that all such conditions have been complied with before the development is commenced.

iii. The applicant is reminded of the need to provide storage facilities and a collection point within the site for both refuse and recycling containers.

4

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The site is within the Development Boundary for Bexhill as identified in the adopted Rother District Local Plan. As such there is a presumption for the principle of residential development. The proposed conversion maintains the character of the existing building, the proposed extension is of an acceptable design and the amenities of neighbouring properties would not be so affected as to justify withholding planning permission. No objection has been raised by the Highways Agency and it has been confirmed that drainage matters can be adequately addressed by planning condition. The proposal is therefore judged to be in compliance with Policies DS3, GD1(i)(ii)(iii)(iv) and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S5 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

View application/correspondence

RR/2008/2922/P BEXHILL 16 EGERTON ROAD, PARK LODGECHANGE OF USE AT SECOND FLOOR LEVEL FROM GUEST BEDROOMS INTO OWNER’S SELF-CONTAINED ACCOMMODATIONMr A Mansi

Statutory 8 week date: 28 November 2008

This application was deferred for a site inspection at the Planning Committee meeting of the 20 November 2008. This application has therefore been included on the Committee site inspection list.

SITE The site fronts the northern side of Egerton Road, in between the junctions with Park Road and Cornwall Road, within the Bexhill Town Centre Conservation Area.

HISTORY (Relevant)B/63/290 Change of use to dwelling house - Approved.B/71/78 Change of use of existing three storey dwellinghouse to a

guesthouse/hotel - Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL The property is currently used as a guesthouse. Permission is sought to convert four guest bedrooms at second floor level into a self contained two bedroom flat, which is to be used by the owner. The total number of guest rooms available at this property will be reduced from 10 to 6. No external alterations are proposed.

The applicant has provided the following additional information (12 November 2008) regarding occupancy data between January 2007 and October 2008. The applicant has explained that the data presented is ‘a weekly percentage of 140, based on the 20 bed spaces we have available for 7 days per week’. He also states that ‘It may be worth you bearing in mind that throughout the year, a large majority of our rooms are let on a single occupancy basis, particularly the rooms on the top floor with shared facilities. This application will incur the loss of 7 bed spaces.’

5

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20082759p

1 January 2007 – 31 December 2007

Week number % Week number %1 14 27 352 16 28 413 13 29 444 26 30 295 11 31 446 24 32 737 31 33 498 47 34 399 17 35 3110 29 36 4611 31 37 4512 24 38 3413 29 39 4414 24 40 2915 31 41 3716 31 42 4317 29 43 2418 18 44 3119 26 45 2020 41 46 2221 30 47 1922 42 48 1923 29 49 2124 39 50 2625 35 51 3326 33 52 29

1 January 2008 – 2 November 2008

Week number % Week number %1 17 22 302 16 23 333 13 24 314 18 25 325 31 26 346 31 27 387 26 28 628 30 29 449 30 30 4410 28 31 7711 36 32 4712 22 33 5213 15 34 5114 26 35 2315 36 36 5916 28 37 4017 27 38 4118 41 39 2119 29 40 33

6

20 21 41 2721 45 42 22

CONSULTATIONSDirector of Services - Head of Regeneration (Tourism):-(6 November 2008) Requests occupancy data for the last 2-3 years which will help in deciding whether there is a valid case to reduce the number of guest rooms.Comments that there has been a loss of a number of serviced accommodation providers in Bexhill recently and through the Hotel Futures Study, prepared by Hotel Solutions in April 2007, that there is a need to retain the smaller serviced accommodation properties near the seafront. Park Lodge is in close proximity to the seafront and is rated as Four Star by Visit Britain, which indicates a high standard of quality.(18 November 2008) ‘I do not support the application for the change of use to the second floor guest bedrooms, as this is contrary to Local plan Policy EM9. Park Lodge is a good quality accommodation establishment (recognised as 4 star by Visit Britain). The guest house is in a good location, near to the town centre and seafront as well as Bexhill’s main attractions; those being the De La Warr Pavilion and the museum.Bexhill has lost a number of serviced accommodation providers over the years. The 1066 Country Hotel & Guest Accommodation Futures Study, prepared by Hotel Solutions in April 2007 suggests there is a need to retain the smaller serviced accommodation properties near the seafront.With regards to the occupancy data supplied by the applicant, The 1066 Country Strategy 2004-2009 suggests that guest houses in 1066 Country (which includes Bexhill) are achieving 30-40% occupancy, therefore the applicant’s occupancy statistics reflect this trend.’Also recommends marketing opportunities for the current accommodation which the owners of Park Lodge are not currently taking advantage of.Planning Notice:- Tourism South East: ‘Tourism South East is the Tourist Board for the South East of England. We are tasked by SEEDA to develop, support and promote the tourism industry in the region. As part of this activity we regularly comment on planning applications that affect the sector. When assessing any application that proposes either an increase or reduction in the number of bed spaces in an area we are always conscious of the levels of supply and demand in the relevant destination.A recent Hotel Futures Study commissioned by Tourism South East and Rother District Council has identified a need to support hotel and guesthouse accommodation in Bexhill. The study highlighted that hotel supply in Bexhill was very limited and that the bed stock had already been reduced.For these reasons Tourism South East would like to oppose this application to reduce the number of bed spaces in Bexhill. The provision of visitor accommodation plays a vital role in assisting the wider local economy. Three quarters of visitor spending goes to enterprises outside the accommodation sector- to shops, pubs, restaurants, garages, train operators, museums, cinemas and theatres etc. These enterprises in turn support other businesses across a wide range of sectors.’

SUMMARY Visitors to Bexhill bring important benefits for the local economy. The loss of existing tourist accommodation to other uses should therefore generally be resisted unless it is of unacceptably poor quality or where a genuine lack of demand for the accommodation is demonstrated. Policy EM9 of the Rother District Local Plan provides that the loss of good quality visitor accommodation will be refused unless it can be demonstrated that there is no longer a demand for that accommodation.

7

The occupancy data submitted does not indicate that there is no longer a demand for the accommodation and considering the guest house has been rated as Four Star by Visit Britain, which indicates this is good quality visitor accommodation, I am of the opinion that the rooms should be retained as accommodation for the guest house.

Comments received from the Council’s Regeneration Department and from Tourism South East (Planning Notice) share the view that the guest rooms should be retained and the application not supported.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The scheme proposes the loss of four guest rooms within a guest house that

has been rated as having a high standard of accommodation. It is considered that there is still a demand for this good quality visitor accommodation and therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy EM9 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/3126/P BEXHILL 27 MAYO LANEDEMOLITION OF EXISTING GROUND FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION. ERECTION OF DETACHED CHALET BUNGALOW AND FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS.Mrs C Bugden


SITE The application site comprises the side garden of 27 Mayo Lane. It is located on the northern side of the road, within the development boundary for Bexhill. The lane is residential and comprises a wide mix of styles and types of dwelling.

HISTORYRR/2003/2335/P Erection of rear dining room extension and double garage with

utility room and WC to side including alterations to an existing access. Approved with conditions.

RR/2006/1099/P Erection of detached three bedroom house with rooflights and integral garage with provision of two parking spaces, alteration of existing access and formation of new access to 27 Mayo Lane. Withdrawn.

RR/2008/2051/P Erection of ground floor rear extension with conservatory. Addition of front porch. New roof with habitable accommodation within and dormers. Approved with conditions.

RR/2008/2056/P Demolition of existing ground floor side extension. Erection of detached chalet bungalow and formation of new vehicular access. Withdrawn.

PROPOSAL This application is a re-submission, following the withdrawal of a similar application in September. The proposal for a chalet bungalow remains in principle the same but the details have been amended by way of lowering the ground level to set the proposed dwelling on the same level as 29 Mayo Lane. The site is served by an existing access which has permission to be altered to serve a double garage in accordance with RR/2003/2335/P, these works have recently commenced. A new access is proposed to serve the existing dwelling with parking spaces to the front of

8


27 Mayo Lane. The proposed chalet bungalow indicates an eaves height to match those of 29 Mayo Lane but it has a steeper pitch to the roof which accommodates two bedrooms served by windows within the front and rear barn end gables. A small dormer is proposed to the western side facing 27 Mayo Lane containing a small obscure glazed window to serve a shower room. The dwelling has bay windows to the front with open parking spaces.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: Has no objections subject to conditions. Parking provisions meet the required standards and visibility is provided by the reduction in height of hedges to 0.6m as indicated on the plans.Southern Water: Has no objections. The existing foul sewer has capacity for an additional dwelling and there have been very few operational problems in this area. A single dwelling will have no effect on the operational status of the sewer. Soakaways are used locally for surface water drainage and this aspect would be covered by the building regulations along with that for run off from the highway. Planning Notice: 12 objections have been received from 9 neighbours on the following grounds: Cramped site Will increase on-street parking Increased traffic and conflict with pedestrians in the absence of a footway Loss of trees and wildlife Loss of rural character Will be overbearing on neighbours Loss of views Do not want a repeat of the problems encountered while the other new

dwelling was under construction Lowering ground levels will lead to flooding of frontage from highway water

run-off. Loss of light to rear and side window of 29 Mayo Lane, which has the large

new chalet to the other side too Previous highway objections on grounds of poor visibility Increase in noise and pollution Notice not posted (at the time of writing)

SUMMARY 27 Mayo Lane comprises a low level bungalow set within a wide plot, twice the width of many others within the vicinity. The site lies within the development boundary and as such there is a presumption in favour of development, subject to its design and impact on the visual and residential amenities of the area and having regard to highway implications. Planning permission has previously been granted for the construction of a chalet bungalow between 29 and 31 Mayo Lane, which is now substantially completed, reference RR/2006/919/P. This application also proposes a chalet bungalow but of a more detailed design with bay windows to the front and external parking.

The plot width proposed is comparable to others in the lane and gaps to the boundary are maintained with 2m between 27 Mayo Lane and the proposed and 2.8m between the proposed and 29 Mayo Lane. By lowering ground levels the new dwelling has the same floor and eaves level as the bungalow at 29 Mayo Lane, which reduces its impact. The front of the new dwelling is staggered between those of 27 and 29 Mayo Lane but as a consequence the proposed projects beyond the rear of no.29 by 5m. The applicant argues that this is acceptable, when compared to the 7m deep rear extension now under construction at 25 Mayo Lane, which has an overall projection of 10m beyond the rear wall of 27 Mayo Lane. The proposed

9

dwelling is also of the same length as the previously approved double garage but it does have a higher ridge to the roof. The proposal is likely to have some effect upon the light to the side window of 29 Mayo Lane but this window serves a room with a double aspect, having a window to the rear as well.

The side and front hedge have already been reduced in height to accord with the previous requirements for the garage to provide visibility. An additional section of the front hedge requires removal adjacent the existing pedestrian gate, to create the new access to serve the existing dwelling. No works are required to the side boundary hedge with 25 Mayo Lane. The parking/turning areas and visibility splays provided comply with highway requirements and thus there are no highway grounds of objection.

With regard to other comments by objectors, the Council’s tree officer advises that there are no trees worthy of protection by a Tree Preservation Order following their inspection of the site. The trees to be removed (have been removed) are fruit trees and would not be protected. While bats may be present in the surrounding countryside, they would not use the fruit trees for normal roosts. A degree of noise and disturbance during construction is unavoidable and not a reason for refusal. There are no known drainage problems in this vicinity and as advised by Southern Water drainage details in this instance would be the subject of compliance with the building regulations. The character of Mayo Lane is one of a very mixed appearance with a wide variety of dwelling types and materials. As such the proposed chalet is not considered to be out of character.

While respecting the comments of objectors, the site is considered to represent a suitable infill plot located within the development boundary and while some impacts are likely, they are not considered to justify a refusal of permission.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of

three years from the date of this permission.Reason: In accordance with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. Before commencement of any ground works for the development hereby approved, the finished ground floor levels of the building(s) in relation to existing and proposed site levels, the adjacent highway and adjacent properties, together with details of levels of all accesses, to include pathways, driveways, steps and ramps, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure the satisfactory accessible development of the site in accordance with Policy GD1 (i) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. No development shall take place until samples/details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwelling and drive/parking areas hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development reflects the character and/or appearance of the existing building and to preserve the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policies GD1 (iv) & (v) of the Rother District Local

10

Plan and Policies S1 (f) & (j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. No new dwelling shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plan drawing no. ‘amended block plan’, date stamped 25 November 2008 for the parking and turning of vehicles for both the new and existing dwellings at 27 Mayo Lane and it shall thereafter be retained for those purposes only.Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

5. The highway works/access shall be completed in accordance with the position indicated on the approved block plan, date stamped 25 November 2008 and the construction details, form HT401, attached to this permission.Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with the requirements of the Director of Transport and Environment of East Sussex in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(d) & TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.Note: To give effect to this condition you should contact the Transport and Environment Department of East Sussex County Council at Sidley Depot, Ninfield Road, Bexhill TN39 5AA (Telephone 0845 6080193) prior to the commencement of work and enter a Private Works agreement between yourself and the County Council.

6. Before the new access is first brought into use the side and front boundary hedges as noted on the approved block plan date stamped 25 November 2008 shall be reduced to 0.6m in height and thereafter retained at this height. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development and associated works do not restrict visibility or prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification), no extensions, buildings or structures as defined within classes A, D and E of Part 1 of the Schedule 2 of the order, shall be carried out on the site otherwise than in accordance with a planning permission granted by the local planning authority.Reason: To ensure appropriate development of the site and preservation of the residential amenities of the area in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed new dwelling located within the development boundary for Bexhill is considered to be of an appropriate design and location and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy S1 and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan.


11


RR/2008/3131/P BEXHILL THE DEVONSHIRE ARMS, DEVONSHIRE SQUAREINSTALLATION OF EXTERNAL AWNINGS. F Forte Developments


SITE This four storey building lies in a prominent position at the heart of the Town Centre Conservation Area on the corner of Devonshire Road and Devonshire Square. It is clearly visible from these roads as well as Western Road and the main railway line on the opposite side of Devonshire Square.

The use of the building is commercial at basement and ground floor levels with self contained flats on the upper floors.

The relatively ornate façades of the building are made up of brickwork on the upper levels with a rendered finish at ground floor level and render mouldings and key stone details at various levels and points. Large window and door apertures punctuate the ground floor level at regular intervals benefitting from both arches and flat heads to the upper levels of the openings.

HISTORY(Relevant) RR/2007/762/P Removal of external steps and construction of raised external

terrace – Approved.

PROPOSAL The application seeks to affix retractable awnings to the façade of the building at ground floor level. These are to provide protection to the customers from the sun/adverse weather when using the outside seating.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- No comments received to date. Planning Notice:- No comments received to date.

SUMMARY The proposed development will result in three retractable roller awnings mounted in cassettes on the northern elevation and one on the western elevation above the raised terrace. These are to be set below the moulding details on each elevation so as not to cause disturbance to the feature. It is not proposed to set the awnings over the doorways or the window in the north elevation, which has an arch feature.

The plans indicate the awning will extend some 2m from the façade and be coloured black to relate to the colours used on the render and mouldings of the building.

While it is appreciated in that the operators/owners wish to enhance the visual appearance of the both the building and Devonshire Square and provide some level of cover for patrons of the establishment using the external seating, I am not convinced the introduction of such awnings will achieve the desired visual improvements. Moreover, I have concerns that the awnings will not be sufficiently robust enough to provide long term positive visual impact to the streetscene and Conservation Area.

I am of the opinion the awnings will interrupt the rhythm of the façade and though black is the preferred colour, I have concerns regarding weathering and long term appearance. The development will lead to a deterioration of the visual amenity of the streetscene and Conservation Area.

12

It is clear that some shops within the town centre have such awnings. However, the subject building is so prominent in its setting and is not read against any shop front with a similar awning and therefore in isolation will adversely affect the character of the Conservation Area.

It is clear from the design of the building that there is no fascia boarding or any way of effectively recessing the blinds into the façade and I am concerned the cassettes, though slim, will be obtrusive when the awnings are not extended. The adopted guidance note entitled Bexhill on Sea Town Centre Conservation Area: Shopfronts and Design Guidance, does give guidance on such blinds and awnings and I am of the opinion the proposal will not accord with the guidance given.

In light of the sensitive location and the ornate façades, I am of the opinion the proposal could cause demonstrable harm to the character and setting of the Conservation Area. Section 4 of Planning Policy Statement 15 – Planning and the Historic Environment, in line with Section 72 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990, requires development preserves and/or enhances conservation areas. This requirement is also reflected in the Rother District Local Plan and the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 along with the adopted design guidance issued by Rother District Council, and I am of the opinion the proposed scheme conflicts with these documents and therefore cannot be supported.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed development will introduce an addition to two elevations of the

building, which will undermine the visual appearance of the ornate façades of the building and adversely affect the visual amenity of the streetscene as well as the character and setting of the Town Centre Conservation Area alike. Any such addition to the building will conflict with Section 4 of Planning Policy Statement 15 – Planning and the Historic Environment, Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2008/3069/P RYE 9 LION STREET – LAND REAR OFTO USE REDUNDANT SINGLE STOREY REAR WORKSHOP/STORAGE AREA AS INDEPENDENT BED AND BREAKFASTMr M Bloomfield


This application has been included on the Committee site inspection list.

SITE 9 Lion Street lies to the west side of Lion Street some 37m from its junction with High Street. All adjacent buildings are listed; however the application dwelling is not.

The single storey rear brick outshot has a floor area of 7.8m x 3.3m and has no internal link to no. 9. The proposed bed and breakfast unit is accessed by an

13


enclosed passageway adjacent to the antiques shop. This passageway also provides access to the residential maisonette above the shop.

HISTORY (Relevant) None

PROPOSAL The application seeks permission to use the redundant single storey rear workshop/storage area as independent bed and breakfast accommodation.

I am advised that the single storey flat roof extension to the rear of no. 9 was previously used as a workshop in association with the antiques business, which occupies the ground floor of no. 9. The extension has now been converted into a bedroom with en-suite facilities and provides a kettle, toaster, fridge and microwave for guests to use. It has no reliance on the adjoining residential maisonette.

CONSULTATIONS Town Council – Support refusal. “Overdevelopment – the property is considered to be inadequate for the purposes intended; insufficient information – no plan elevations nor access statement.”Highway Authority – “Do not wish to restrict grant of consent. The proposed development is to convert the existing workshop into an independent bed and breakfast room with Rye Town Centre. It is evident that there is no additional parking provision as part of the proposal. However, taking into account the accessible town centre location I feel that any recommendation for refusal in this instance could not be justified.”Director of Transport & Environment – County Archaeologist – “Although this application is situated within an Archaeologically Sensitive Area, I do not believe that any archaeological remains are likely to be affected by these proposals. For this reason I have no further recommendations to make in this instance. “ Director of Services – Regeneration – Initial comment: “I am keen to see additional good quality visitor accommodation in Rye. The town centre locations of these premises would make a valuable addition to the current accommodation stock in the area.The Tourist Information Centre in Rye are regularly asked by visitors for town centre accommodation which during peak times (summer and weekends) are especially busy.The only query I would raise would be regards to the catering facilities. From looking at the plans submitted there are no provision for guests to have breakfast, further clarification on this point should be sought from the applicants.” Planning Notice – Rye Conservation Society has no objection.1 letter of objection concerned with the following: Increase on fire risk. Inappropriate development in Conservation Area. Creates stress on both drainage and sewage. Illegally packed cars causing nuisance to neighbours. Change of use has been notified before commencement of trading, therefore

two businesses have been operating from one premises. Cars mounting the pavement outside my side. Traffic in Lion Street is extremely heavy. Customers collecting keys from 9 Lion Street for other ‘Rye Holiday Homes’

cause a traffic nuisance.2 letters of support raising the following points: Poses no increased fire risk.

14

How can use of extension built in 1928 be an inappropriate development in the Conservation Area.

It adjoins the George Hotel therefore B&B use is the same as that. Use on drainage systems less than previous use. Traffic is no more than any customer visiting an existing shop in the vicinity. No adverse impact on the use of the ground floor area for retail purposes. Loss of retail floorspace is minimal. Conversion is to a high standard.2 letters from the applicant in response to comments received and for purposes of clarification: It would appear that under my description of my proposal our Town Council

has missed in ‘Description of the Proposal’ (No 3 on the application) that access was via the enclosed covered passageway off Lion Street.

Nothing has changed either to the exterior or layout of the interior. How can change of use to a 1-bedroom B&B room be considered

overdevelopment? Concerns for the viability of Rye as a tourism centre. Please not this is bed without breakfast. There is a fridge, a toaster and a

microwave in this room. There is also a kettle for tea, there is no cooker. There is a fire extinguisher and a smoke detector. Single storey extension is about 80 years old. The walls have been lined on 3 sides by 3 inch thick fireproof rockwall and

half inch plasterboard. This premises has never had a fire. The drainage is exactly the same and the toilet is in the same place it has

been for years.

SUMMARY The site is set within the development boundary for Rye and the Rye Conservation Area and Rye Shopping Area as defined within the Rother District Local Plan.

Issues for consideration:The main issues to consider are the acceptability of this tourist accommodation within this locality and its impact upon neighbouring premises. Local Plan Policies apply and in particular GD1, EM9 and RY1.

Policy EM9 states, ‘Within development boundaries, proposals for the provision of an appropriate range and quality of tourist accommodation will be permitted subject to other policies in this Plan.’ Policy RY1(iv) states, ‘Proposals for development and Change in Rye should be compatible with and, whereas practicable, contribute positively to the following objectives :- (iv) to enhance the commercial and tourism attractiveness of the Citadel and the wider area as far as is compatible with preserving their character and environment.’

Although the site does lie within the designated Rye Shopping Area it is not a frontage location, and given the size of the floorspace and its self-contained nature it is not considered in this instance to be a significant loss of usable retail space. The economy of the Rother District is significantly boosted by the tourism industry, with Rye being a well-established tourist destination. Therefore in principle the proposed tourist accommodation would provide additional stock. While the unit is set to rear of no. 9, it is within an area of mixed use, commercial, retail and residential with the adjacent properties being the George Hotel. It is therefore unlikely that this proposed bed and breakfast unit would cause demonstrable harm to the amenities of

15

the locality. The physical impact of the structure already exists; therefore I do not consider it has as adverse impact upon the character of the Conservation Area.

With regard to parking/highway issues the Highway Authority has been consulted and conclude, “The proposed development is to convert the existing workshop into an independent bed and breakfast room with Rye Town Centre. It is evident that there is no additional parking provision as part of the proposal. However, taking into account the accessible town centre location I feel that any recommendation for refusal in this instance could not be justified “.

I note the concerns raised regarding the potential increase to fire risk, it is likely that the fire risk/implication from the unit would be subject to Building Control regulations. Members will be advised on this aspect.

Conclusion:The property is sited within a mixed use town centre location, as such it is unlikely to cause demonstrable harm to the amenities of the locality and proposes additional tourist accommodation stock within a popular tourist destination. The proposal therefore meets the objectives of Policies GD1(ii)(iv), EM9 and RY1(i) of the Rother District Local Plan, subject to no adverse comments being received regarding fire risk, I make the following recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (NO ADVERSE COMMENTS REGARDING FIRE SAFETY) 1. The holiday accommodation is to be occupied for holiday purposes only and

shall not be occupied as a person’s sole or main place of residence.Reason: To ensure that approved holiday accommodation is not used for unauthorised permanent residential occupation in accordance with Policies GD1(iv) and EM11 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

2. The proposed holiday unit(s) shall not be occupied for more than 56 days in total in any calendar year by any one person.Reason: To ensure that approved holiday accommodation is not used for unauthorised permanent residential occupation in accordance with Policies GD1 (iv) & EM11 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

3. The owners/operators shall maintain an up-to-date register of the names of all occupiers of the holiday accommodation hereby approved, and of their main home addresses, and shall make this information available at all reasonable times to the local planning authority.Reason: To ensure that approved holiday accommodation is not used for unauthorised permanent residential occupation in accordance with Policies GD1(iv) & EM11 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f)of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The property is sited within a mixed use Town Centre location, as such it is unlikely to cause demonstrable harm to the amenities of the locality and proposes additional tourist accommodation stock within a popular tourist destination. The proposal therefore meets the objectives of Policies GD1(ii)(iv)(viii), EM9 and RY1(i) of the Rother District Local Plan, and Policy S1(f)(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


16


RR/2008/2930/P CROWHURST CROWHURST PARKUSE OF LAND FOR THE SITING OF 49 TIMBER HOLIDAY LODGES FOR USE FOR 10.5 MONTHS PER ANNUM; RECYCLING/REFUSE STORES; TIMBER HOUSEKEEPING/ LINEN CABIN; LPG ENCLOSURE; ASSOCIATED ACCESS WAY AND PARKING; LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS & PLANTING; ASSOCIATED WORKS.Crowhurst Park


SITE Crowhurst Park is an established holiday complex situated to the south east of the junction of Telham Lane with the A2100 Hastings Road. It provides accommodation within static caravan holiday homes and log cabins. Part of the site also has planning permission for use by touring caravans although it is believed it has not been used as such for the past five years or so. The site is within the designated High Weald AONB and the principal building at the centre of the park is listed.

HISTORY (Relevant)A/53/330 Outline: Caravan site – ApprovedA/56/218 Outline: Permission for a caravan park for 250 caravans –

ApprovedA/61/448 Increase in number of caravans from 250 to 300 – ApprovedRR/91/0965/P Variation of occupation period to permit occupation from 1

March until 14 January in the following year – ApprovedRR/96/293/P Increase in number of touring pitches to 65 – ApprovedRR/2005/1916/P Change of use of land to siting of 69 timber holiday cottages for

all year available occupation and provision of associated parking spaces and access ways – Refused

RR/2007/3169/P Use of land for the siting of 49 timber holiday lodges, recycling/refuse stores, timber housekeeping/linen cabin, LPG enclosure, associated access way and parking, landscape improvements and planting and associated works – Withdrawn

PROPOSAL The previous application RR/2007/3169/P, referred to above, was withdrawn because the proposals had not fully addressed the reasons for refusal in respect of RR/2005/1916/P.

The revised application now before you is a further attempt to address all outstanding objections to the proposal.

Application RR/2005/1916/P above was refused in September 2005 for the reasons, briefly: impact on the AONB countryside; adequate measures to restrict occupation to holiday use had not been demonstrated; strategic gap between Hastings and Crowhurst; no Flood Risk Assessment had been provided; lack of comprehensive strategy for mitigating landscape impacts (new tree planting etc).

The revised application relates to an area of land (approximately 4 hectares) in the south part of the holiday park as before. It comprises land previously granted planning permission for seasonal use by touring caravans under ref. RR/96/293/P above and an area of grassland presently used as playing fields. As before, several supporting documents have been included with the application including:-

17

Design and Access Statement Planning Statement Landscape Assessment and Proposed Strategy Report Landscape Management and Maintenance Report Ecology Report Flood Risk Assessment Photographs

With respect to the application (RR/2005/1916/P), the proposed number of lodges has been reduced by about a third from 69 to 49. This has resulted in a lower density development over the application site. A variety of lodge types are proposed comprising two and three bedroom, single and double storey timber units. The supporting information indicates that the new proposal has been landscape led, incorporating new tree planting between the units, increased tree/hedge planting at strategic points on the boundaries to screen the new development and new/enhanced planting to mitigate against the impact of the existing lodges and caravans. Car parking provision would be in rows, adjacent to the proposed access roadways. The period of occupation sought for the proposed new lodges is 10½ months per year to match the restriction on the existing lodges and static caravans.

The supporting documents can be viewed on the application website. The applicant’s Agents have, however, produced an additional planning statement and have specifically requested that this is reported in detail to the Planning Committee when the application is considered. This covers in some detail an interpretation of the relevant policies and also outlines the discussions that have taken place with officers at ESCC and Natural England. The statement has been reproduced in full in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 18 December 2008. The key points of the Summary are as follows:

“The various issues raised by District and County Council officers, Natural England and the High Weald AONB Unit have been considered carefully and in detail. Our responses have sought to provide the additional justification that has been raised together with other issues raised by consultees.

Rarely does any application comply with each and every policy at every level and it is therefore necessary to take a balanced view of proposals. In this instance, officers will be aware that the proposed lodge scheme has gone a very long way since the first application for 69 units, with every effort made to meet the many requests and requirements of the planning authorities and their consultees. Previous issues raised by the Environment Agency have been addressed and it is genuinely felt that the application has presented every justification for the scheme and an extensive package of measures to ensure that the development is high in quality and sensitive to its location.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support proposal. “A Councillor has visited the site but was unable to contact the owner. Parish Council have no objections to this proposal and feel that it will encourage employment, tourism, and benefit local businesses in the area.”Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- No objection subject to conditions.Southern Water Services:- Stated on the previous application that it did not wish to comment.

18

Director of Transport & Environment – County Planning:- Considers that the application should not be approved. Detailed comments have been received and can be viewed in full on the website. The comments conclude: “Whilst I acknowledge that the applicant has gone some way to meeting the concerns outlined in the County Council’s response to the 2007 application, the applicant has failed to provide a justification of the need for significant development in this sensitive AONB location, contrary to both national and Structure Plan policy. Therefore, I consider that this application should not be approved.”Natural England:- No objection in principle but would request conditions dealing with the protection of (i) great crested newts; and (ii) adjacent Ancient Woodland. Also, a management plan for the woodland and identified wildlife features (such as hedgerows etc) to ensure long term viability should be secured by S106 Agreement.Planning Notice:- An objection has been received on the grounds that a full ecological report has not been provided and lacks information on protected species (great crested newts, water voles, dormice, bats and aquatic invertebrates).

Other representations:High Weald AONB Unit:- Objects to the application. The main reasons for objection are as follows: “Specifically the application represents a considerable change in character on the site, from an open and natural space with temporary uses, to a permanent and developed character with roads, surfacing and new built forms which are themselves quite out of character with the High Weald.Even allowing for the extensive landscaping indicated, the site could still have a broken and artificial ‘feel’ that is neither open grassland nor enclosed woodland, the principle land cover features of this area.The design and finish of the lodges themselves are distinctly out of character with the High Weald being as noted by the applicant of Scandinavian design and origin. Both the materials and finish of the lodges and the designs themselves do not reflect local distinctiveness and may have a negative affect on the character of the AONB.”See the application website for full text.Ramblers:- Object to the proposal. Summarised: Crowhurst Park is on a ridge position. The existing Park already represents a visual degradation of the countryside in its long views and close views.The Ramblers Association promotes the quiet enjoyment of the countryside. The proposal constitutes a major development and can only further detract from that, bringing in its wake major footfall (49 extra families/parties), roads/drives, surfacing, car parking, run-off, pollution etc in the long term, as well as major disruption, waste, excavation in the short term.The proposed development with its sturdy lodges, some having 3 bedrooms and two storeys, together with 10½ month occupation, is in essence not different from a residential development.

SUMMARY Planning policies acknowledge the economic benefits that tourism can bring to rural areas and support the provision of appropriately located, high quality tourist accommodation and facilities where this is compatible with the preservation of the landscape (Policy LT2 of the East Sussex & Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 and Policy EM9 of the Rother District Local Plan and Government Guidance in PPS7.

In assessing this application it is a material consideration that the proposal relates to the expansion of development at an existing holiday park and furthermore, there is an extant planning permission for touring caravans on part of the site. Nevertheless, the proposal will have environmental impacts and the principal issues for consideration are as follows:

19

Controls over occupation of the holiday lodges – The applicants’ agent has stated that the previous request for a legal agreement has been reconsidered and the applicant would now be willing to enter into a Section 106 Planning Obligation restricting the new lodges to holiday use only and restricting occupation to the period between 1 March to 14 January in any calendar year.

Environment Agency: The concerns previously raised by the Environment Agency have now been addressed and the Agency has confirmed that there is no objection to the development proposal subject to safeguarding conditions.

Natural England: Has now confirmed that there would be no objection in principle. The comments received have been summarised above and can be viewed on the website.

Whilst the above mentioned issues now appear capable of being overcome, the issues that have not been fully addressed are: the impact on the countryside landscape (AONB); and the need for the development and its location.

In this respect, Policy EM10 of the Local Plan is particularly relevant and requires that, in the countryside, proposals for additional static caravan and chalet accommodation for holiday purposes will not be permitted unless (i) it would result in a significant improvement in the appearance of an existing site; or (ii) is essential in association with a rural enterprise and otherwise meets the policies of the Plan. The Policy is supported by Policies contained in the Structure Plan, which require that all development in the AONB should be strictly controlled to safeguard the special character of the area (S1(j), EN2) and applications for tourism development in the countryside, which are not conversions of existing buildings, will require a justification both in terms of location and the need for the development.

Impact on the countryside landscape (AONB):On this issue it is noted that objections have been raised from both (ESCC) County Planning and the High Weald AONB Unit.

Key points of concern are: Although a justification put forward is that there is an existing (extant)

permission for the seasonal stationing of up to 65 touring caravans, which would be rescinded – this represents less than half the proved site area. Moreover, this relates to the temporary use of land, whereas the proposal now before you involves permanent operational development with infrastructure and buildings, which are themselves out of character with the AONB and would harm the openness of the countryside landscape.

The design and finish of the lodges themselves, being ‘Scandinavian style lodges’ pay no regard to the intrinsic character and local distinctiveness of the High Weald AONB and are quite alien features, which would have a negative impact.

Being mindful of the above, I would have to concur with the conclusion that the proposal would not result in a significant improvement in the appearance of the site and consequently would conflict with the first part of EM10.

20

The need for the development and its location:County Planning has stated that such applications must be accompanied with a business plan so that the ultimate extent of the proposal can be assessed both in terms of the overall viability of the enterprise, and to safeguard against the potential for further piecemeal development and intensification of the site. This is supported by government advice in PPS7, which indicates that a positive approach to proposed extensions to existing tourist accommodation should be adopted where the scale of the extension is appropriate to its location and where the extension may help to ensure the future viability of such businesses. It is noted that no such business plan has been provided and the business case put forward can be summarised as purely meeting the demands for holiday accommodation at this location. As pointed out by County Planning, it appears not to be integral to the continued viability of the business. It is, therefore, considered that the proposal would conflict with the second part of EM10.

Further information that has been received from the Agents has been sent to ESCC for consideration. Any responses received will be reported to your meeting. On the basis of the evidence available, however, I would anticipate making the

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The site lies within the designated High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural

Beauty where the prime objective of this statutory designation is the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the landscape for its own sake. Accordingly planning policies require that development proposals shall conserve and enhance the quality and character of the landscape. The proposed development would not result in a significant improvement in the appearance of the site but rather would have an adverse impact on the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient justification of the need for significant development in this sensitive AONB location. The development would not preserve the special character and appearance of the countryside and as such conflicts with national planning policies in PPS7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’ (paragraphs 21, 22 and 35-40), Policies S1(j), S10, S11, LT2(a)(d), LT4(b), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(iv)(v), DS5 and EM10 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/3078/P CROWHURST GREEN HILL CARE HOME, STATION ROADPROPOSED EXTENSIONS TO CARE HOME TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EN SUITE BEDROOMS AND INCREASED AREA OF COMMON ROOM SPACEMrs C Rooks


SITE This existing residential care home is located on the east side of Station Road and is within a line of several residential properties on that side falling within the development boundary of Crowhurst as defined in the Rother District Local Plan. The site is also within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The property is screened from Station Road by its elevated position and a thick tree belt.

21


A similar tree belt screens the site from fields to the east. Access to the site belongs to the applicant and over which the four houses to the north have rights of way.

HISTORYRR/79/0664 Permission in principle to form self-contained unit by converting

garages, 1 downstairs room and 3 upstairs rooms – ApprovedRR/82/0405 Change of Use from private residence to a registered rest home

for the elderly only – approvedRR/83/1278 Alterations to two garages to form bedrooms and bathroom –

Approved (as an alternative to RR/79/0664)RR/86/2568 One and two storey extensions to provide additional bedroom,

lounge with reception and amenity areas, laundry/store – Approved

PROPOSAL It is proposed to extend the care home in order to increase the current registration by 11 from 30 to 41 bed spaces and to provide en suite bedrooms to meet current standards and additional common room space. An internal lift would also be provided together with 7 additional parking spaces (plus disabled and cycle parking provision) adjoining the north side of the building. The proposed extensions would be mainly to the front and rear and are fully described in the accompanying Design and Access Statement, which can be viewed on the website and also includes some useful ‘Perspective Sketches’. This explains how the massing has been designed to avoid dominating the existing and adjacent buildings and avoid overlooking the adjoining properties. Only three minor trees are shown to be removed. All the most significant trees would be retained.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Has no objection commenting that 5 neighbours consulted also had no objections.Highway Authority:- Recommends a condition requiring proposed on-site parking to be provided before the development is occupied.Environment Agency:- Have no comments to make on this application.Southern Water:- Do not wish to comment.East Sussex County Council - Footpaths Officer:- Has no objection but advises that access to the public footpath running along Station Road should be maintained at all times.Ramblers Association:- No comments received.Planning Notice:- No comments received.

SUMMARY The main issues in this case relate to:(1) Size, design, materials and impact upon the existing building, surrounding

development and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty(2) Impact upon adjoining residential amenity(3) Highway safety.

Relevant Policies include GD1(ii)(iii)(iv)(v) and EM1 of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(b)(d)(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

With regard to (1):Policy EM1 of the Rother District Local Plan supports extensions to smaller-scale businesses in development boundaries provided general development considerations contained in Policy GD1 are met.

22

In terms of size, design and materials, whilst the proposed extensions are in total significant, they have been designed as several different elements of varying height and roof mass. None of the extensions therefore have a dominating impact upon the existing building and surrounding development. Each element has also been designed to pick up on and repeat the character of the existing building and its materials. Whilst the rear extension would extend slightly beyond the development boundary at the rear, this would be on a relatively small area of land that appears to have been part of the curtilage for a long time and is probably lawful. Incursion onto this area is however considered beneficial as it provides a good separation between the proposed rear extension and neighbour’s rear garden thereby avoiding any overbearing impact. The proposed front extensions would still not be as far forward as the front elevations of the two immediate adjoining properties and would therefore not be out of keeping with this character. Existing front and rear boundary tree screening will also ensure no adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Provided the nearest trees are protected during construction, they are unlikely to be harmed. The three trees within the site shown to be removed are not significant. The proposed impact from size, design and materials is therefore considered to comply with Policies GD1(iv)(v) and EM1 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and is supported.

With regard to (2):The proposed extensions have been carefully located and are of a size and height that would have no adverse overbearing impact upon the adjoining properties. Windows and doors etc have also been carefully placed so as to ensure no loss of privacy. An amended parking layout plan has been requested showing the six proposed parking spaces shown adjacent to the boundary fence with ‘Highfields’ relocated and the existing lay-by arrangement retained. The one new parking space under the canopy of the Horse Chestnut tree adjacent to that boundary is also not considered acceptable. In all other respects, the impact upon adjoining amenity is considered to comply with Policies GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(v) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

With regard to (3):The proposal includes provision for 11 on-site parking spaces. This accords with the Council’s adopted parking standards for care homes. The vehicle circulation areas within the site would also be large enough to accommodate a few more informally without the need to park in Station Road. The unmade access drive serving the property belongs to the applicant and the rights of way enjoyed by the four houses to the north are unlikely to be adversely affected. Subject to a condition requiring the provision of on-site parking, the Highway Authority has no objection. There is unlikely to be any adverse impact upon highway safety and the proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policies GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and is supported.

In conclusion, the proposed extensions are considered to be of an appropriate size, design and materials and will not adversely affect the character of the area, landscape and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or, subject to receipt of an amended parking layout plan, have an adverse impact upon adjoining amenity or highway safety. For these reasons therefore, the proposals are supported.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (AMENDED PARKING LAYOUT PLAN)

23

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: In accordance with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions hereby permitted shall match in materials, colour and texture those used in the existing building.Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the existing building in accordance with Policies GD1 (iv) & (v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1 (f) & (j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. The extensions hereby approved shall not be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plan drawing no. [amended plan] date stamped [……………] for 11 no. cars to be parked and it shall thereafter be retained for those purposes only.Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. The existing trees on the site which are shown to be retained on the submitted plan shall be protected during the course of building works in accordance with BS5837:2005 ‘Trees in relation to construction – Recommendations’.Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality in accordance with Policies GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

Notes:i. This decision notice relates to the proposals as shown on the originally

submitted plans and subsequently amended Block Plan 702/08/13 date stamped ____.

ii. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments contained in the enclosed copy letter dated 6 November 2008 and attached plan form East Sussex County Council.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed extensions are of an appropriate size, design and materials and will not adversely affect the character of the area, landscape and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or have an adverse impact upon adjoining amenity or highway safety and therefore complies with Policies GD1(ii)(iii)(iv)(v) and EM1 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(b)(d)(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2008/2998/P BURWASH LUCK FARM, VICARAGE LANECHANGE OF USE OF THREE FORMER POULTRY BUILDINGS TO B1 AND B8 USE AND THE INSTALLATION OF A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT TO REPLACE THE EXISTING CESSPIT. (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION).Letchmore Broiler Company Ltd

Statutory 13 week date: 11 February 2009

24


This application has been included in the Committee site inspection list.

SITE Luck Farm is a former chicken farm once part of Sovereign Works located off Westdown Lane. The site lies outside the development boundary for Burwash Common and within the High Weald AONB. It comprises three large chicken sheds with an access track and parking area, accessed via Vicarage Road and Vicarage Lane. The sheds are stepped down the hillside and partially screened by boundary trees and hedges. While not immediately adjoining residential properties the approach roads are through a residential area.

HISTORY (relative to site)A/70/217 Poultry housing and agricultural dwelling. Approved conditional.RR/83/2295 Outline: erection of 3 bedroom bungalow with garage for

occupation by farm manager. Refused. Appeal dismissed.RR/94/0431/P Change of use of plant and land to day centre, sports and social

facility for disabled and erection of bungalow. Refused. Appeal dismissed.

RR/94/727/O Lawful use of premises for manufacturing/packing/distribution of waterproofing/protective products and footwear/clothing. Lawful DC approved.

RR/95/254/P Change of use of poultry plant and land to day centre, sports and social facility for disabled, formation of workshops (B1) and erection of bungalow. Withdrawn.

RR/2008/77/P Change of use of existing agricultural buildings to B1, B2 and B8 use (retrospective application). Withdrawn.

PROPOSAL This application is retrospective and is a resubmission for that withdrawn in June this year, RR/2008/77/P. The application has been amended to remove any B2 use. The three former poultry houses are subdivided into 7 units, accommodating 3 workshops and a photographic studio (B1), 1 unit stores and manufactures educational aids, while the remaining 2 units are used for storage (B8). A new sewage plant has been installed as the old one had reached the end of its useful life.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: advised that they were sorry to see that this was a retrospective application and as it was the second one they made a site visit. The site was very tidy and the use of only B1 and B8 will reduce large vehicle movements. The traffic report was read and although they were aware of neighbours concerns they support the application. If the venture should fail they would like to see the use returned to agriculture and not for building houses. Previously there were traffic restrictions on this site and they would like them considered for this development. A second response has been received from the Parish following resident’s complaints regarding their support. The Parish confirm that they have followed the correct procedures and that any representations should be forwarded to Rother DC for consideration by the planning authority. Their support is maintained.Southern Water: does not wish to comment.Environment Agency: has no comments regarding this change of use, which is outside any flood zone.Highway Authority: advises that they would not wish to see any intensification of the use of Vicarage Lane nor the use of LGV’s (vehicles larger than a transit van) due to the poor alignment and narrow width of the road. Taking into account the existing permitted use of the site it is considered that the proposed B1 and B8 use would

25

generate less vehicular movements than a fully operational chicken farm. However, if either use intends to use LGV’s then an objection would be raised for the following reasons: Unsuitability of the approach roads and associated turning movements. Potential pedestrian conflict. Vicarage Lane is used by school children and

equestrian. Lack of passing bays. (The use of residents’ private driveways should not be

considered as passing bays).Head of Environmental Health: not yet received.Planning Notice: 2 letters of support from local residents on the following grounds: Brings employment to the local area benefitting the local community Extra volumes of traffic will be minimal Large heavy goods vehicles do not appear to be used The previous use by the chicken farm used larger lorries than the proposed

uses. Loss of the smells and traffic from the chicken farm is to be welcomed. The tidying of the site has improved safety having removed the rats and flying

debris from the broken roofs. The tidying of the site coincided with building works at Spring Farm in

Vicarage Lane who used large lorries, so the earlier complaints did not all relate to the application site.

The existing houses generate more traffic than the uses at Luck Farm.

30 letters of objection from 27 residents on the following grounds: Site lies within the AONB and should be retained for agriculture Access roads are narrow and unsuitable to serve the proposed development There are no pavements or street-lighting and industrial traffic would pose a

danger to pedestrians. The lane is used by children, the elderly and horse riders.

Weekend working should not be permitted Strong local objections should not be ignored Sewage plant should not be permitted within the field Should be B1 use only Traffic report is biased and misleading. No local residents were consulted There are no ‘passing bays’ only resident’s driveways which would be

damaged if used by lorries Previous use of site generated few vehicle movements, and not the hundreds

presumed by the traffic report Elements of the traffic report are incorrect Retrospective permission should not be granted and enforcement action to

cease the uses should be taken. The applicant advised residents that B8 would be removed from the proposals but this remains.

Vicarage Lane is unclassified and thus not of a suitable standard to accommodate large heavy vehicles

The farm has been unused for a number of years and thus comparable figures (vehicle movements) regarding use are not considered to be available

Previous highway recommendation for refusal should be upheld The traffic count is flawed It would be impossible to police vehicle size and weight Noise and pollution from vehicles and machinery would damage the

environment Vehicles have been smaller and fewer recently but would increase again if

permission is granted

26

Existing buildings were built for a functional purpose but they are out of character in the AONB

Car park appears excessive in size Views of the Parish are not representative of the local residents The proposal does not benefit the local community as only one person

employed at the site is local If permitted further applications would be likely on the adjoining land (edged

blue) Industrial use of the Sovereign site off Westdown Lane was refused because

the access was unsuitable and this also applies to this application site

SUMMARY This former farm site has been unused for several years and as such is considered to be redundant for agricultural purposes. Alternative business uses could therefore be considered having regard to Policy EM3 of the local plan. The buildings themselves do lend themselves to alternative commercial uses but a primary consideration in assessing these proposals is the potential impact upon the local highway network and associated affects to the residential amenities of the area.The site is located just outside the development boundary for Burwash Common with its access via the village. The access route through Vicarage Road and Vicarage Lane is lined by residential properties. Vicarage Lane in particular is very narrow in width, with poor alignment and lacking in footways.It is accepted that the previous use as a chicken farm could still be continued and that such a use operating under modern standards would involve vehicle movements by large lorries. It is unclear as to the number of vehicle movements that such a use would be likely to generate but utilising TRICS Data it is estimated that around 500 trips per week could take place.As highlighted by the Highway Authority, because of the unsuitability of the access route and given its location through a residential area, it is considered that any proposed alternative use should not involve the use of large lorries (LGV’s), even though their use could not be precluded by a continuation of the use of the buildings for agricultural purposes. The traffic count submitted with the application indicates that nothing larger than a small goods vehicle (6.5-11.5m long, although the large vans generally measure around 7m) visited the site during a normal working week and that the number of average trips equates to 210 per week. It is however, known that larger vehicles have previously accessed the site and that of Spring Farm. Those to Luck Farm are said to have been in the early stages of clearing and refurbishing the site and a ‘one off’ visit for a personal delivery to an occupier of one of the units. From information provided by the traffic survey and within the planning statement accompanying the application, it would appear that the normal daily operation of the site for business purposes is less than half that of a comparably sized chicken farm and that it could be undertaken with a limit to the vehicle sizes. Such a restriction, if operable and enforceable would assist in overcoming the primary objection from local residents regarding the size of vehicles accessing the site, and would also preclude detriment to the residential amenities of the area.The number of vehicle movements has also been raised as an issue. While there was a legal agreement restricting vehicle movements to the poultry unit off Westdown Lane there was no such restriction to that part accessed off Vicarage Lane. Westdown is even narrower and had a limit of no more than 37 trade vehicles per day (i.e. 74 trips). It would, however, appear prudent to introduce such a limit to the use of Vicarage Lane in view of the affects to residential amenity that may now be presented by traffic using the site.Other issues raised by objectors include the desire to retain the site for agricultural purposes or to restrict the use to B1 only. An old plan by Millwood Homes, developers of Westdown Park on the former Sovereign Works site, indicates that the

27

surrounding land, including the application site is subject to a covenant restricting it to agricultural use only. The Council has no information regarding such a covenant and the Section 106 legal agreement for Westdown Park does not include such a restriction. As such any covenant would be a private legal matter over which the Council has no control and which is separate from any planning policy considerations. The application seeks permission for B1 and B8 uses to reflect the users that are already on the site. The element of B8 is small and relates to two units, one storing books and office furniture and the other gym/leisure equipment, neither visits on a daily basis. The limited size of the units and a restriction of vehicle size would assist in controlling the type of storage at the site. The site is located within the High Weald AONB but generally screened by surrounding trees and hedges. The buildings themselves are capable of alternative business uses in accordance with Government guidelines and local policy. However, in view of the nature of the access route to the site it is considered that an alternative use would only be acceptable subject to restrictions regarding hours of work (as specified in the application) and the number and size of vehicle movements. Such restrictions should also be monitored over a period of time to assess their impact and allow the use to be reconsidered at a later date.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PERMISSION) DELEGATED (FURTHER DISCUSSION ON VEHICLE MOVEMENTS/SIZE OF VEHICLES)1. The uses hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the buildings vacated on

or before 1 June 2010.Reason: The uses are potentially detrimental to the residential amenities of the surrounding area by reason of the vehicular access via Vicarage Road and Vicarage Lane and this permission is granted temporarily to enable the local planning authority to monitor and assess the effects of the proposal, having regard to the criteria set out in Policy GD1 (ii) (iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 (d) (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. Vehicles visiting the site shall not comprise trailers and shall include small, single axle goods vehicles only, not exceeding 8m in length.Reason: The access to the site is narrow and of poor alignment without footways and therefore unsuitable for larger vehicles and lorries. Additionally by limiting the size of vehicle, associated noise and potential damage to the lane is minimized and thus the residential amenities of neighbours and the rural visual amenities of the area are maintained, having regard to Policy GD1(ii) (v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) (j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. The number of vehicles entering and leaving the site shall not exceed 25 in any one day (i.e. 50 trips per day).Reason: The access to the site is narrow and of poor alignment without footways and therefore unsuitable for use by large numbers of vehicles. Additionally by limiting the number of vehicles visiting the site, the associated noise and potential damage to the lane is minimized and thus the residential amenities of neighbours and the rural visual amenities of the area are maintained, having regard to Policy GD1(ii) (v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) (j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. No machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site before 7.00 a.m. or after 7.00 p.m. on weekdays; before 7.00 a.m. or after 1.00 p.m. on Saturdays, or at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

28

Reason: To protect the residential amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f)(j) and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan , and having regard to PPG24, Annex 4.

5. No vehicles, parts of vehicles, spares, accessories, rubbish, surplus materials or other articles of any description shall be stored or displayed for sale in the open other than to the extent and in such positions as may be set out on the approved plans.Reason: To preserve the amenities of the locality in accordance with Policies GD1 (ii) & (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 (f)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

6. The premises shall be used for B1 and B8 uses as specified in the application and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class B1 or B8) of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification). Reason: To protect the residential and rural amenities of the adjacent village and surrounding High Weald AONB in accordance with Policies GD1(ii) (v) & EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f)(j), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed changes of use subject to the conditions listed are considered to represent an appropriate form of development and should not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties. In order to monitor and reconsider the impacts of the conditions a temporary permission is however granted at this time. In conclusion the proposal is therefore considered to comply with Policy S1, S10, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 and EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/2906/P DALLINGTON HASELDEN OAST FARM, BATTLE ROADCHANGE OF USE OF EXISTING BARN FOR PARKING OF AGRICULTURAL MACHINES AND DRIVE CONSTRUCTION MACHINES INCLUDING REMEDIAL REPAIRS TO BOTH AND STORAGE OF SOME DRIVE MAKING MATERIALS. Mr John Nicholls

Statutory 8 week date: 05 January 2009

SITE The portal framed and profile metal clad barn lies outside any development boundary as defined within Policy DS3 of the Rother District Local Plan and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is set some 365m away from the highway to the north along a shared metalled access drive which also serves converted farm buildings to the east of the site. The aforementioned property lies some 130m to the east of the site.

The building is not readily visible from the highway though is clearly visible from the surrounding rolling countryside.

The building is served by an extensive cinder and road planing access drive and parking area which appeared at the time of the site inspection to be used for the

29


parking of staff cars, a large 360° excavator and the storage of rubble, tarmac a metal ISO container and what appears to be general waste material.

HISTORYRR/2000/415/P Change of use of agricultural building to 1/3 road repair storage

and 2/3 farming – ApprovedRR/2007/1830/FN Erection of steel and timber barn type building for storage of hay

and straw – Details Required. RR/2007/2306/P Erection of new barn for hay/straw storage – Approved.

PROPOSAL The owner seeks to regularise the use of 66% of the barn for the parking, storage and repair of vehicles and plant machines related to a drive construction business and the parking of agricultural machines.

This application is retrospective in that the greater part of the building is in use for the purposes described on the application form.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Any comments will be reported.Highway Authority: Any comments will be reported.Environment Agency: Any comments will be reported.Director of Services – Environmental Health Officer: This site is relatively remote and the environmental health service has no history of complaints about the current use.I therefore do not see the need to request any conditions.Southern Water: Southern Water does not wish to comment on the above application.Planning Notice: Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY Having carried out a site inspection it was noted the external areas around the subject building are not being used for the approved purposes under RR/2000/415/P, which are also restricted under a S.106 Agreement. However, these matters are being addressed independently of this particular application and I am simply dealing with the building. Indeed it may be that works being undertaken to crush salvaged road materials for re-use is a matter for the County Council.

In determining this application I have taken into account the provisions of PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and adopted plan polices along with the considered view that was taken in approving the partial use of the building for such an operation under RR/2000/415/P.

While the Environmental Health Officer has not recommended conditions be imposed, the applicant has suggested 8am to 5pm Monday to Fridays. I consider these to be reasonable and as such have recommended a suitable condition.

Given the above issues, I am of the opinion the scheme does not conflict with adopted plan polices and can be conditionally supported with a legal agreement which will require the building to be used for the purposes specified in the application form. The recommended conditions and legal agreement provisions are to safeguard the rural setting and visual amenity of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO SIGNING OF REPLACEMENT S.106 AGREEMENT)

30

1. Details of any floodlighting or external illumination currently in place and/ or proposed, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 31 days of the date of this permission. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and no other lighting shall be installed. Reason: To safeguard the visual and rural amenities of the locality and to control overspill and light pollution in accordance with Policy GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f)(s) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

2. Within one month of the date of this permission the vehicle parking areas for the site are to be identified on a scaled plan, submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To provide adequate on site parking facilities that do not prejudice the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety along the highway and to accord with Policies GD1(i)(iii) and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. The use hereby permitted shall be carried on only by Mr John Nicolls.Reason: In the interests of protecting the character of the area and the residential amenities of the rural setting and neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy GD1(ii)(iv)(v) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

4. No vehicles, parts of vehicles, spares, accessories, rubbish, surplus materials or other articles of any description shall be stored or displayed in the open other than to the extent and such positions as may be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: In the interests of protecting the character of the area and the residential amenities of the rural setting and neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy GD1(ii)(iv)(v) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

5. Within 31 days of the date of this permission, all plant machinery, materials relating to the operation being carried out by the applicants’ company are to be removed and the land returned to its previous state. Reason: In the interests of protecting the character of the area and the residential amenities of the rural setting and neighbouring properties in accordance with Policies GD1(ii)(iv)(v) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

6. No machinery shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no deliveries taken at or despatched from the building relating to the drive construction business before 8.00 a.m. or after 5.00 p.m. on weekdays and not at any time on on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank or Public Holidays.Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality in accordance with Policies GD1(ii)(iv)(v) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 and having regard to PPG24, Annex 4.

Note: This permission is the subject of an obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

31

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed use of the building as described in the application is an appropriate use and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy S1(d)(f)(j) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(ii)(iv)(v), HG8 and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/3143/P SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE 18-19 CORONATION COTTAGES - LAND AT, ROBERTSBRIDGEERECTION OF 1 NO. 3 BED DWELLING (RE-SUBMISSION FOLLOWING PLANNING APPLICATION RR/2006/2002/P)Mr S Clark


SITE The application site comprises the side garden of existing semi-detached houses within Coronation Cottages. The site lies within the development boundary for Robertsbridge and Salehurst and is also within the High Weald AONB. Ground levels on the site vary with an increase in height upto No.18 and a decrease down to No.19. There are trees to the rear of the site along the field boundary, including two oaks within the garden of No.19.

HISTORYRR/89/1899/PD Two storey extension. Approved conditional 7 September 1989.RR/2004/804/P Erection of 4 bedroom detached house with integral garage.

Refused 17 May 2004.RR/2005/918/P Erection of a pair of semi-detached houses with alteration of

existing access and provision of 6 parking spaces. Refused 1 June 2005.

RR/2005/2790/P Erection of a pair of semi-detached houses with alteration of existing access and provision of 6 parking spaces. Withdrawn.

RR/2006/2002/P Erection of a pair of semi detached two storey houses including alteration to an existing access. Refused. Appeal dismissed.

PROPOSAL This application follows the refusal of permission for a pair of dwellings and its dismissal on appeal and now proposes the erection of a single dwelling with parking. The size, design and layout have evolved taking into account the site restrictions, character and appearance of the neighbouring properties and the comments of the Planning Inspector in his decision letter. The proposal now comprises a 3 bed dwelling house with catslide to the north side. Parking is provided for 18 Coronation Cottages and the new dwelling with a separate turning area, surrounded by additional planting. A detailed Arboriculturist report is included and confirms that the dwelling is sited to avoid detriment to the oak tree at the rear and also providing details for construction of the paving to the rear to protect the edges of the roots. Sections are included along with details of the boundary retaining walls with fences above.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Not yet received.Highway Authority: Had no objection subject to conditions.

32


Planning Notice: Four letters have been received of which two are from local residents, on the following grounds: Previous refusals should be upheld Cramped and out of character with the charming inter-war development Loss of views Loss of residential amenity Will give rise to an increase in on-street parking, already a problem around

the hammerhead The existing path is shared and should not have a gate fitted. If approved a fence should be erected along the boundary with 17 Coronation

Cottages. The oak tree and post-development management of it should be upheld and

its importance for bats assessed. Tree works should only take place outside the bird nesting season.

SUMMARY This application follows that for previous refusals. The proposal has however, now been reduced in size and seeks permission for a smaller single detached house. The Planning Inspector previously concluded (RR/2006/2002/P) that the pair of dwellings would appear cramped and have an urban appearance to the detriment of the spaciousness and semi-rural character of the street scene. He also considered that the frontage of the dwellings was dominated by the extensive proposed hardstanding and parking area.

As a consequence the single house has a narrower footprint and maintains spaces of 8.4m between the front corner of no.18 and the new dwelling and almost 9m between the side elevations of no.19 Coronation Cottages and the proposed dwelling. The catslide to the north side also reduces the mass of the new roof adding to the spaciousness around the building and thereby assisting in the retention of some views through to the fields at the rear. The layout of the parking/turning areas has also been revised with changes in materials and inclusion of planting to the edges and in between to soften the appearance and maintain a more semi-rural character. As previously the design and materials are to reflect elements of the surrounding estate. By reason of the changing ground levels and staggered siting the proposal is not considered to result in loss of residential amenity for the existing neighbouring dwellings.

The comments made in representations are noted but the proposal is considered to be significantly reduced from previous schemes and as such the issues regarding cramped layout and change of character are not considered to remain. While sympathising with the problems of parking in the highway and blocking driveways, the District Council is not able to control this or use restrictive conditions to preclude it. The proposed development provides parking for the existing and proposed dwellings in accordance with the parking standards.

The erection of gates and fences could be undertaken in accordance with permitted development allowances and is not therefore a justification for refusing the development.

The Arboricultural Implications Assessment has been completed by a qualified specialist and is considered to accurately address all the tree issues. The proposal for the development of an area of lawn with a few shrubs is not considered to raise any ecology issues although the applicant should be reminded of the obligations imposed by the Wildlife & Countryside Act.

33

In the light of changes to the proposal I am now lead to a different conclusion and consider that the proposal no longer conflicts with local or national policies.



2. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwelling and access/parking/paving hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development reflects the character and/or appearance of the existing buildings and to preserve the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policies GD1 (iv) & (v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1 (f) & (j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. Before commencement of any ground works for the development hereby approved, the finished ground floor levels of the building in relation to existing and proposed site levels, the adjacent highway and adjacent properties, together with details of levels of all accesses, to include pathways, driveways, steps and ramps, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory accessible development of the site and protection of neighbouring residential amenities in accordance with Policy GD1 (i) (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. The new dwelling shall not be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plan drawing no. 08/03/08 date stamped 31 October 2008, for the parking and turning of vehicles to serve both 18 Coronation Cottages and the new dwelling, and it shall thereafter be retained for those purposes only. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

5. No development or site clearance works shall take place until tree protection measures have been implemented in accordance with BS5837 and the Arboricultural Implications Assessment prepared by ‘Broad Oak Tree Consultants Limited’, as submitted with the application documents hereby approved. All subsequent building and tree works shall also be completed in accordance with the details contained within the Assessment, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure the protection of the Oak trees and safeguard the landscape character and quality of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty having regard to Policy GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan, Policy S1(f), (j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Government guidance within PPS9, 'Biodiversity and Geological Conservation'.

6. No development in respect of the dwelling hereby approved shall commence until details for the landscaping of the site have been submitted to and

34

approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include a planting plan with schedule of plants/trees, noting species, plant sizes and positions and a timetable for planting. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(iv) (v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(j), EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

7. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the dwelling in accordance with the programme agreed with the local planning authority. If within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree/shrub that tree/shrub, or any tree/shrub planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies, [or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective] another tree/shrub of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the local planning authority gives its written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(iv) (v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(j), EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

8. At the time of construction and prior to the first occupation or use of the dwelling hereby approved, the dining room window at ground floor level within the south side elevation, as indicated on the approved drawing no. 08/03/07, date stamped 31 October 2008, shall be glazed with obscure glass of obscurity level equivalent to scale 5 on the Pilkington Glass Scale and shall thereafter be retained in that condition. Reason: To preserve the residential amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1 (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (as amended), (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification), no buildings, structures, alterations, installations or operations, as defined within Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A, B, D-F of the Order, shall be carried out on the site otherwise than in accordance with a planning permission granted by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the rural amenities of the High Weald AONB, to protect the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and to protect the longer term health, safety and amenity value of the oak tree, having regard to Policy GD1 & HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 and EN2 of East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. Reason for Granting Permission: The proposed development within an identified development boundary, is of an appropriate scale, design and layout and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy S1, EN2 and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development within an identified development boundary as now revised, is considered to be of an appropriate scale, design and layout and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy S1, EN2 and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

35


RR/2008/3067/P WESTFIELD HOLE FARM, WESTFIELD LANE ERECTION OF A BLOCK OF EIGHT TIMBER STABLES AS A REPLACEMENT TO EXISTING STABLE BLOCK AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FARM ACCESS DRIVEMrs E Collins


SITE This 40 hectare farm holding currently used for the keeping of agricultural livestock and horses is located on the east side of Westfield Lane, outside of a recognised development boundary and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The main cluster of farm buildings are located some 170m from the junction with the A28 (Westfield Lane) to the east and are accessed via a shared driveway, which also serves Ripleys scrap yard.

HISTORYRR/2005/2304/P Relocation and reconstruction of barn to form a dwelling

including formation of new access – Refused.RR/2007/497/FN Erection of steel framed multi purpose barn for the storage of

food for livestock and the housing of livestock – Details not required.

RR/2007/2512/P Siting of temporary mobile home for farm owner/manager – Approved temporary.

PROPOSAL Approval is sought to replace a dilapidated stable block with a new stable block measuring 15.4m (width) x 12.5m (depth) x 2.8m (height). Constructed out of timber weatherboarding and ‘onduline’ corrugated profile sheeting, the replacement building would be in the same position amongst a group of existing farm buildings. A new vehicular access, which would become the principal access to the farm, would also be formed some 220m to the north of the existing shared access. This would include a new 160m section of farm track, which would link with an existing track in the site.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: – Recommends an approval of the stables but considers that ESCC Highways’ opinion on the siting of the A28 access to be essential in view of the speed and volume of traffic using the road.Highway Authority: – No objection subject to a condition.Planning Notice: – No representations received.

SUMMARY The site is outside of a recognised development boundary in open countryside within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This application should be judged against Policy GD1 of the Local Plan and Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the Structure Plan. The proposal is connected with an existing equine and livery use.

The main issue to consider in respect of this scheme is the impact that both the proposed stable block and separately the vehicular access/farm track would have on the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Policy EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 specifically states that, “Conserving

36


and enhancing the landscape quality and character will be the primary objective in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This will be sought through measures including: - minimising the impact of any development within AONB’s by measures to carefully integrate the development into the AONB landscape.”

In terms of size, style, design and materials I am satisfied that the proposed stable block is acceptable, as it is of a traditional design. Moreover, I consider the position of the building to be acceptable, as it would be viewed in conjunction with the existing group of farm buildings. As such, its visual impact in the surrounding landscape would be minimised.

The proposed vehicular access/track was included on a previous application (RR/2007/2512/P) for the siting of a temporary mobile home on the land; however, it was deleted from the scheme because Members, having previously visited the site, took the view that it would be visually intrusive in the landscape. As such, it is not considered to be an acceptable part of this proposal.

Subject to deletion of the vehicular access/track I recommend the following:

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (DELETION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS/TRACK FROM APPLICATION)1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of

three years from the date of this permission.Reason: In accordance with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. No floodlighting or other means of illumination of the stable block hereby permitted shall be provided, installed or operated at the site, except in accordance with a detailed scheme which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policies GD1 (iv), (v) & CF5 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1 (f), (j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. There shall be no burning of manure or soiled bedding on the land.Reason: In the interests of the amenities of nearby properties and protecting local air quality in accordance with Policies GD1 (ii) and CF5 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 (i) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The replacement stable block will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy GD1 (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1 (f), (j), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2008/3230/P ICKLESHAM DRUIM, THE RIDGE, WINCHELSEA BEACHERECTION OF NEW DWELLING TO REPLACE EXISTINGMs H J Turner


37



SITE Druim is situated on the north west side of the unmade ‘The Ridge’ approximately 1km east of its junction with Smeatons Lane.

The site is set outside any town or village development boundary as defined within the Rother District Local Plan. The plot abuts the Dungeness, Romney Marsh & Rye Bay and Rye Harbour SSSI to the north west and south east and the Dungeness Special Protection Area to the north west.

To the south west of the existing dwelling – within the applicant’s ownership – is a recently constructed double garage allowed on appeal (RR/2003/467/P and RR/2003/2610/P). Beyond that is the residential property of ‘Field View’. To the north east is the residential property of ‘Curlews’ set some 18 metres away.

HISTORY (Relevant) RR/81/0098 Outline application for erection of a bungalow with

garage/parking space – RefusedRR/86/1502 Extension to kitchen and provision of cloakroom also

construction of dormers to form 2 bedrooms in roof – Approved Conditional

RR/2003/467/P Erection of detached double garage with family playroom over and garden workshop at rear served by new vehicular access – Refused – Appeal Allowed

RR/2003/469/P Erection of small balcony at first floor level to south elevation of dwelling house – Approved

RR/2003/1291/P Erection of double garage with games room above served by a new vehicular access – Refused

RR/2003/2610/P Erection of double garage with workshop/potting shed – with storage over, with formation of new access – Refused – Appeal Allowed

RR/2004/1370/P Realign part of rear roof to allow standard height back door – Approved Conditional

PROPOSAL The application seeks permission to demolish the existing dwelling and replace it with a two storey detached more contemporary designed dwelling under a mono-pitched roof. The agent states that the existing dwelling is now structurally unsound, partly demolished and indeed uninhabitable and does not comply with current building regulations.

The use of the garage as permanent residential accommodation is currently being investigated by the Council’s Planning Enforcement Section.

CONSULTATIONS Parish Council – Any comments will be reported.Highway Authority – Any comments will be reported.Environment Agency – Any comments will be reported. Natural England – Any comments will be reported.Romney Marshes Internal Drainage Board – No objection.Planning Notice – Any comments will be reported.

38

SUMMARY The main issues to consider are the design, scale and appearance of the replacement dwelling, impact upon the locality and neighbouring dwellings, and risk from flooding. Local Plan Policies apply and in particular GD1 and HG10.

Local Plan Policies:Policy HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan states that, ‘proposals for new dwellings in the countryside will be refused unless it:(i) is for the replacement of an existing dwelling on a one for one basis, subject

to meeting the criteria at Policy GD1, the replacement dwelling being within the same curtilage and of a comparable size; exceptionally, a somewhat larger dwelling may be acceptable where it would be more in keeping with the character of the locality in terms if its siting, design and materials.’

Design, scale and appearance of replacement dwelling:The proposed replacement dwelling would be on a one for one basis; the footprint of the new building would be similar to that of the existing chalet bungalow, although it is now a full two storeys not least to provide the main sleeping accommodation above ground floor. The building would be sited in a slightly different position – some 1.5m from the north east boundary whereas the existing is sited 4m – the element closest to this boundary is single storey only.

Although the two immediate neighbouring properties are a chalet bungalow and bungalow, the contemporary design of this two storey dwelling, including timber cladding at first floor level, large expanse of glazing and a mono-pitched roof, would not detract from the character and appearance of the locality as this section of Winchelsea Beach contains a mixture of different housing designs.

The replacement dwelling is sited some 16m from both neighbouring residential properties ‘Field View’ and ‘Curlews’, I consider that is distance is sufficient to preserve their residential amenities.

Flood risk:Annexe 12 of the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment states in para 29, ‘It is concluded that at Winchelsea Beach any planning applications received for the redevelopment of Previously Developed Land or for ‘Infill’ will require an Exception Test and will be informed by the Level 2 SFRA. It has to be assumed that proposals for new residential development or other vulnerable uses, on ‘greenfield’ land and outside of the existing Development Boundary are unlikely to pass the Exception Test.’

In terms of the Sequential Test this is the only piece of land in the applicant’s ownership, therefore they do not own alternative sites to construct a dwelling. Although set outside any development boundary it is a brownfield site and makes best use of previously developed land, I therefore consider it meets the Exception Test in this instance and there is no impediment to development.

The agent states that the dwelling will be constructed in flood resistant materials with safe siting of electrical components, all with reference to DTLR guidance notes Preparing for Floods 2002.

Conclusion:I consider the design and appearance of the proposed replacement dwelling would be acceptable and would not detract from the character and appearance of the locality or adversely affect the amenities of the adjoining properties given the

39

separation afforded to them. It addresses the relevant flood risk issues in this instance. As such the proposal meets the objectives of Local Plan Policies GD1(ii)(iv)(xv) and HG10(i), and subject to received no adverse comments from outstanding consultees I make the following recommendation.

RECOMMENDATIONS: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (NO ADVERSE COMMENTS FROM OUTSTANDING CONSULTEES)1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of


2. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of foul and surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning authority and none of the dwellings shall be occupied until the drainage works to serve the development have been provided in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and to prevent water pollution in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 (g) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or other openings (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be inserted into the north east elevation or roof slope.Reason: To preclude overlooking and thereby protect the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy GD1 (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) (England) Order 2008 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification), no extension, buildings, structures, alterations or installations, as defined within classes A, B, C, D, E of Part 1 of the Schedule 2 of the order, shall be carried out on the site otherwise than in accordance with a planning permission granted by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure appropriate development of the site and preservation of the amenities of the area in accordance with Policy GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

5. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development reflects the character and/or appearance of the existing building and to preserve the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policies GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

6. The ground floor of the dwelling hereby permitted shall at no time be used for sleeping accommodation.Reason: To ensure the safety of the occupants of the premises at all times, having regard to Policy GD1(xv) of the Rother District Local Plan, Policy S1(h)

40

of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and advice in PPS25.

7. Before any construction work is commenced detail methods of flood resilience and resistance techniques, which are to be incorporated into the construction of the extension, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. These techniques should be in accordance with 'Preparing for Floods' (ODPM October 2003).Reason: To reduce risk to life and damage to property in the event of flooding in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan, Policy S1(h) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and guidance within PPS25.

8. Before any construction work is commenced, a schedule of all floor levels for the house shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure that the finished levels take account of flood risk issues to reduce risk to life and damage to property in the event of flooding in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan, Policy S1(h) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and guidance within PPS25.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The design and appearance of the proposed replacement dwelling would be acceptable and would not detract from the character and appearance of the locality or adversely affect the amenities of the adjoining properties given the separation afforded to them. It addresses the relevant flood risk issues, which impact upon this site. As such the proposal meets the objectives of Local Plan Policies GD1(ii)(iv)(xv) and HG10(i), Policy S1(f)(h) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and advice in PPS25.


RR/2008/3233/P IDEN CALEMBEL – SITE ADJPROPOSED NEW DWELLING WITH FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS.Mr S Trendle



SITE The site lies to the south of the listed Bell Inn Public House and to the north of the recently constructed ‘Calembel’ approved under permission RR/2006/1203/P. The site was previously in the ownership of the public house and was used as part of the pub garden; however, this land was recently sold off from the public house and is currently under the ownership of the occupants of ‘Calembel’. The site has a road frontage of some 20m onto the B2082 and a depth of some 45m, it is set within the development boundary for the village of Iden as defined within the Rother District Local Plan, and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

There is a mature walnut tree close to the north boundary, which is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.

HISTORY (Relevant)

41


RR/95/329/P Change of use and conversion of storage barn to visitor accommodation – Approved Conditional.

RR/95/397/L Conversion of storage barn to visitor accommodation – Listed BC Granted.

RR/2006/1203/P Erection of two storey three bedroom dwelling with detached garage and formation of new vehicular access – Approved Conditional.

RR/2003/469/P Erection of small balcony at first floor level to south elevation of dwelling house – Approved.

RR/2007/1303/P Alteration of position of vehicular access to serve proposed new house from position agreed in planning permission RR/2006/1203/P – Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission for the erection of a two storey dwelling with formation of a new vehicular access on land between the grade 2 listed Bell Inn and the recently constructed ‘Calembel’ (RR/2006/1203/P). The proposed two storey dwelling will have first floor accommodation partially accommodated within the roof space, with a overall ridge height of approximately 7.5m and external footprint of 124m². The external walls are to be finished with white painted timber weather boarding to the upper storey with facing brick to the lower storey under a plain clay tiled roof.The agent has submitted a further statement in response to comments received and in support of the proposal.

CONSULTATIONS Parish Council – Any comments will be reported.Highway Authority – “Recommend that consent be refused; the proposal would lead to increased traffic hazards on the B2082 by reason of the inadequate visibility at the proposed access.It was evident from a recent site visit that the maximum achievable visibility to the north was restricted to 45m due to the alignment of the B2082. A speed survey was conducted in August 2006 that showed the 85 th percentile speed for southbound traffic to be 34.4mph which requires minimum visibility splays of 52m as set out in Manual for Streets. Therefore the achievable visibility falls below the minimum required visibility as stated above. On this basis I feel I must raise an objection.”Planning Notice – 11 letters of objection have been received concerned with the following; Land used to be delightful pub garden – a powerful amenity for a village pub. To permit a residence here would result in the permanent denial to the local

community of a traditional pub garden. Threatens the viability of the pub. Impact on mature walnut tree, which is subject to a TPO. ‘Calembel has been recently constructed – to have two such dwelling wedged

in between the existing village hall and the village pub would be overpowering.

Vehicular access will be sited on a very dangerous bend and junction on the Main Street.

The Bell Inn is a listed building. The Bell Inn is of central importance to the village. If approved it will inevitably lead to the eventual death of the village pub as a

business. Overdevelopment. Overcrowded site. Blight the privacy of surrounding homes.

42

Was change of use granted from pub garden to building plot? Impact on setting of listed building. Future occupants of the proposed dwelling will by virtue of the close proximity

of the public house and its garden, be likely to suffer an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance.

Restricting potential fro public house to expand in future. Application form incorrectly filled out. No benefit to local economy. Development few yards from a bed and breakfast unit, this proposal would

make these units unable to be let, which would result in a loss of tourist trade to the parish.

Windows from proposed dwelling would have direct views into the bedrooms of the B&B units, resulting in loss of privacy.

Loss of natural spring well. The public house’s LPG gas supply is on the border of the proposed

development. Development too close to the public house – if an application was submitted

to build a public house next to a residential property, then Environmental Health would lodge an objection, so surely it is only fair it works both ways. Future occupants of the proposed property could complain about noise, disturbance and the extract smells, to which this land at present forms a natural barrier.

The ability for the public to ask for a licensing review could lead to complaints from the occupants of a new dwelling.

Only pub in the village.

SUMMARYIssues for consideration: The site lies within the Development Boundary of Iden and the land has now been separated from the adjoining public house. In principle new residential development would be acceptable in principle. The mains issues which need to be considered are; the impact on the protected walnut tree, highway safety, design and scale of dwelling, impact on neighbours’ amenities and setting of listed building. Local Plan Policies apply and in particular GD1.

Protected tree:The protected walnut tree is towards the north east boundary of the site. The position of the proposed development set some 8.5 metres from the trunk of the tree looks acceptable, although the development and also construction activity would encroach on the root protection area. Some encroachment should not be significant, in this instance, as long as a good area is allowed for as the fenced off exclusion zone. If minded to approve this proposal this requirement can be imposed by way of appropriate conditions. The agent has submitted a revised plan indicating the line of protective fencing to be erected and protection measures methods statement.

Design and scale of dwelling:The size of the site is adequate to accommodate the proposed dwelling and provide adequate amenities space. A chalet style dwelling is acceptable in principle although the extended front garage with a room above under a full two storey roof would give a somewhat incongruous appearance from the road.

Setting of the listed building:While advice in PPG15 states, that the setting is often an essential part of the building’s character, in this instance given the siting on the proposed dwelling to the

43

rear of the listed building it is not considered that it would cause demonstrable harm to its setting.

Impact on amenities of neighbouring properties:The development area of the plot is restricted by the protected walnut tree. This means that any dwelling has to pushed towards the rear of the site, in close proximity to the B&B unit and public house garden. The B&B unit has two windows on the elevation facing into the site. By reason of its closeness the proposed dwelling would have a poor relationship with the B&B unit and public house, resulting in both loss of privacy and being overbearing upon their amenities.

Highway safety:The Highway Authority have been consulted and recommend that consent is refused as the proposal would lead to increased traffic hazards on the B2082 by reason of the inadequate visibility at the proposed access. They states, ‘It was evident from a recent site visit that the maximum achievable visibility to the north was restricted to 45m due to the alignment of the B2082. A speed survey was conducted in August 2006 that showed the 85th percentile speed for southbound traffic to be 34.4mph which requires minimum visibility splays of 52m as set out in Manual for Streets. Therefore the achievable visibility falls below the minimum required visibility as stated above.’

Other issues:The land in question is no longer part of the public house’s garden, and therefore would not result in the loss of amenity space as the public house no longer has the legal right to use it as such. However, as the last use of the land was as public house garden the application implies also a change of use of this land. In this respect the public house retains sufficient curtilage.

Conclusion:The proposed dwelling sited to the rear of the plot would have a poor relationship with the adjacent B&B unit and public house resulting in loss of privacy and being overbearing to their amenities. Notwithstanding this the proposal would lead to increased traffic hazards on the B2082 by reasons on its inadequate visibility. As such the proposal is contrary to the objectives of Policy GD1(ii)(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan, I am unable to support this proposal. RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) 1. The protected walnut tree governs the development area of the plot, thus

limiting any development to the rear of the site adjacent to the bed and breakfast unit and public house garden. Given this close proximity the new dwelling would have a poor relationship with these properties, resulting in loss of privacy and having an overbearing impact upon their amenities. As such the proposal is contrary to the objectives of Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. The proposal would lead to increased traffic hazards on the B2082 by reason of the inadequate visibility at the proposed access contrary to the objectives of Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan, and Policies S1(d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


44


RR/2008/2912/P TICEHURST SOMERTON, SHEEN COTTAGE AND CLARE COTTAGE – LAND REAR OF, ST MARY’S LANEERECTION OF FOUR DWELLINGS, ONE WITH INTEGRAL GARAGE, ONE DETACHED SINGLE GARAGE AND ONE DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE, AND FORMATION OF ACCESSMr and Mrs R Bruce and Mrs S Bridges and Mr and Mrs R Bayliss

Statutory 8 week date: 25 November 2008

The above application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 20 November 2008 when it was resolved to defer a decision on the matter pending an inspection of the site being made. The site has been included on the 16 December 2008 list of Committee site inspections.

SITE This ‘L’ shaped application site (approximately 0.16 hectares) is garden land to the rear of dwellings fronting St Mary’s Lane. The greater part of the site formerly formed part of the curtilage of Somerton. That dwelling is now in separate ownership from the application land. The site extends to the rear of a pair of semi-detached houses (Providence Cottage) next to Somerton that were allowed on appeal (RR/2004/2414/P). The owners of Somerton and the two adjacent houses are not party to the application. The remainder of the application site comprises the end of the long rear gardens of Sheen Cottage and Clare Lodge, St Mary’s Lane. The southern and south eastern boundaries of the site abuts the relatively new dwellings that have been erected (under RR/2004/2316/P) on the former County Council Depot site, now known as Lower St Mary’s Lane. The telephone exchange building lies beyond the western boundary. Ground levels across the site fall approximately from north (St Mary’s Lane) to south (Lower St Mary’s Lane).

The application site is within the Development Boundary for Ticehurst but lies outside the designated Conservation Area. The site is also within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

HISTORYRR/2004/1603/P Demolition of garage, construction of access road and new

vehicular access, erection of two maisonettes, four houses and one double garage and provision of eight parking spaces – Refused – Appeal Dismissed. (This relates to part of the application site).

RR/2008/143/P Erection of four dwellings, 2 with integral garages and two detached garages including formation of new vehicular access and provision of parking space – Refused

Neighbouring land:RR/2004/2316/P Redevelopment of former depot site comprising new estate

road, 16 dwellings, garages and parking – Refused – Appeal Allowed. Subsequent amendments approved under RR/2005/3151/P.

Neighbouring land:RR/2004/2414/P A pair of semi-detached houses on the side garden of Somerton

and next to Glyndale – Refused – Appeal Allowed. Subsequent amendments approved under RR/2006/136/P and RR/2005/2735/P.

45

PROPOSAL The application is a revised re-submission following the refusal of application RR/2008/143/P in March this year. The new application seeks full planning permission for the erection of four detached dwellings on the site with vehicular access via the new estate cul-de-sac comprising the Lower St Mary’s Lane development.

Three of the proposed dwellings back onto existing dwellings in St Mary’s Lane and are 2 and 3 bedroom bungalows with additional accommodation within the roof space and front facing dormers. The fourth dwelling is significantly larger than the others, being a 5 bedroomed house with a steeply sloping roof and an attached double garage. External materials are stock bricks and weatherboarding with plain tiles or slates on the roofs. A total of 5 garage parking spaces and 5 outside parking spaces would be provided within the development.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Object to the proposal. “Cllrs unanimously recommended refusal on the following points1. Over development of the site2. Piecemeal method of avoiding the requirement for affordable houses by the

developer of Lower St Mary’s was deemed unethical – application acknowledges that this would ‘complete’ Lower St Mary’s

3. Narrow road feeding the existing development is not suitable for more traffic especially for building vehicles and deliveries

4. Parking and turning space is inadequate5. The junction to St Mary’s Lane and High Street is already dangerous and this

will exacerbate this6. There are no pavements on the access road and this will make the existing

site more dangerous7. It is reported that there are bats on the site in trees that would be dismantled.Cllrs commended a site visit by the planning committee and that any development should be for affordable housing as identified in the housing need survey conducted last year – Hastoe Housing should be consulted.”Highway Authority:- No objection subject to conditions re: provision of parking spaces and a turning area in accordance with the submitted plan.Environment Agency:- Has no comments to make on this application.Southern Water Services:- Requests a planning condition requiring details of an alternative means of surface water drainage to be submitted for the consideration and approval of the local planning authority prior to the commencement of any development.Planning Notice:- 23 letters/emails of objection from local residents which are summarised as follows: Lower St Mary’s is a private road maintained by the owners The applicants have not negotiated with the residents for access There is a need for affordable housing in the village There are no pavements in the proposed development Car parking provision is inadequate Disturbance and nuisance for local residents during construction work The Construction Waste Identification and Management proposals are

unlikely to be environmentally sound If permission is granted it must be a condition that the developers

recompense local residents for any disturbance and damage to property The junction of St Mary’s Lane, Lower St Mary’s Lane and High Street has

become very confusing since the initial housing development was built –

46

adding more housing will mean even more traffic to a now very dangerous junction

Use of our access has become more difficult since the initial housing development was built

Gardens are too small for families with children Proposed properties are over-sized in comparison to neighbouring properties Light pollution Increased traffic Existing parking problems in the area; Lower St Mary’s is not fully occupied

and already they have insufficient parking The plans are still incorrect with regards to our boundary at Brimur – our back

garden runs along the back of Chilcote and Glyndale – therefore the windows in the corner plot will be looking, I believe into our garden. Our fruit trees and 2 other trees will lose the afternoon sunshine

This land should be used to provide either parking areas/extra garages for residents of Lower St Mary’s Lane to solve the parking problems they are already having or allotments for residents of Ticehurst

Existing houses in Lower St Mary’s development have not all been sold. In the current economic climate is it worth building more?

These four new houses do not help village people (not affordable) Unlike the depot site, this is not a ‘brownfield’ site but gardens, which provide

a ‘green lung’ in the village The development will turn St Mary’s Lane, an historic, charming, and unique

street, which is enjoyed by walkers, into an even busier road The development does not provide Ticehurst with variety or a broad mix of

housing The proposed new buildings will block even more precious daylight and

sunlight from our outlook Detrimental to the AONB These dwellings will not be marketed at a price suitable for people who work

in the local area to purchase Does not provide Ticehurst with a broad mix of house types The dwellings have insufficient size gardens for family housing Development would have a cramped, suburban appearance, which will have

an adverse impact on the area Concerned about the increased level of noise and air pollution, particularly

pollution our young children will have to experience during construction and the subsequent increase in traffic

Impact on wildlife, including bats, slow worms and a variety of birds – habitats would be destroyed for ever

The developers are attempting to avoid their obligation to provide affordable housing. Current plans are patently an integral part of the recently completed Lower St Mary’s Lane development which in itself provided significantly fewer than the 40% affordable homes required under planning guidance. All housing provided on the application site should be affordable to comply with planning guidelines.

SUMMARY The application site is within the Development Boundary for Ticehurst as identified in the Rother District Local Plan. Whilst there is no specific policy objection against the principle of new residential development, all proposals should have regard to other policies in the Plan. The previous planning application RR/2008/143/P was refused for the reasons (briefly):

47

(i) The proposed development comprised the construction of substantial, 4 and 5 bedroom houses and no provision was being made to include smaller and varied house types in accordance with Local Plan Policy HG3

(ii) The proposed development comprised the construction of substantial 4 and 5 bedroom houses that would be aimed at family occupation but failed to provide an amenity area that is commensurate with the size of the dwellings.

(iii) The height and mass of the proposed dwellings on plots 2, 3 and 4 combined with their close-knit grouping and proximity to the boundary would impact on the residential amenities of the occupiers of properties in St Mary’s Lane and also 10 and 11 Lower St Mary’s Lane. Specifically, in terms of loss of outlook and overbearing sense of enclosure.

The revised scheme is for the same number of dwellings as before and the layout of the dwellings remains unchanged. The revisions that have been incorporated in the application seek to address the previous reasons for refusal as follows:

(i) Mix of dwelling types:The revised scheme now incorporates the following type of units:- 1 no. two storey house with 5 bedrooms; 2 no. bungalows with first floor accommodation within the roof and each containing 3 bedrooms; 1 no. bungalow with accommodation in the roof containing 2 bedrooms. It is considered that the proposed development would now contain a mix of dwelling types in accordance with Local Plan Policy HG3 and the refusal reason has now been addressed.

(ii) Size of garden amenity area:The size of amenity area (or gardens) with the proposed dwellings has not significantly increased. The height and mass of dwellings on plots 2, 3 and 4 has, however, been reduced and it could be said that their respective gardens would now be rather more commensurate with the scale of the dwellings. Overall, the size of the proposed gardens is not that dissimilar to others in the Lower St Mary’s Lane development, which was allowed on appeal. In the circumstances, the original refusal reason would now be difficult to sustain.

(iii) Impact on the amenities of neighbour residents:This refusal reason related to Plots 2, 3 and 4. Whilst the footprint of the proposed dwellings on these plots remains the same, the height and mass of the dwellings on these plots has been reduced. Whereas they were shown to be two storey dwellings with additional second floor accommodation within the roof, it is now proposed to build single storey units with additional roof accommodation. The dormers associated with the roof accommodation would be fewer in number than previously shown and would not be positioned to face directly onto the properties in St Mary’s Lane. Furthermore, a previously proposed double garage to the rear of 10 and 11 Lower St Mary’s Lane has been reduced in scale and is now shown as a single garage. The changes to the original application have addressed the aforementioned concerns of overbearing outlook.

With respect to other matters, some concern has been raised in the consultation responses about car parking provision within the proposed development. The proposed number of spaces (10) would comply with your adopted standard. Furthermore, the Highway Authority has confirmed that this number of spaces satisfies the County Council’s adopted maximum parking standards which would

48

require between 8 and 11 spaces to be provided for a development of this type and scale.

The Parish Council has raised the issue of affordable housing provision stating that this site should have been considered at the same time as Millwood Homes developed the adjacent former ESCC depot site in 2005 and moreover, this should have been viewed as one large site and been subject to 40% affordable housing provision over the whole area; in response to this, land registry details that have been received show Millwood Homes having an interest in the current planning application site since only 11 September 2008. In the circumstances, it is difficult to argue that a piecemeal approach to developing the land is being pursued to avoid any obligation to affordable housing provision.



2. No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development reflects the character and/or appearance of the existing building and to preserve the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policies GD1 (iv) & (v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1 (f) & (j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design, height, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To safeguard the characteristics of the locality in accordance with Policies GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and none of the dwellings shall be occupied until the drainage works to serve the development have been provided in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and to prevent water pollution in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 (g) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

5. No surface water shall be discharged to the public foul sewer.Reason: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and area in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 (g) & EN11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan.

6. No dwelling shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plan drawing no. 1121/P/201/Rev.B date stamped 30 September 2008 for 10 no. of cars to be parked and it shall thereafter be retained for those purposes only.

49

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

7. The garages hereby approved shall be used for the garaging of private vehicles (together with incidental domestic storage) only and shall not be used as habitable accommodation or any other purpose in Class C3 of the Schedule to the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) or in any provision equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order.Reason: To provide adequate on site parking facilities that do not prejudice the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety along the highway and to accord with Policies GD1(i) & (iii) and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

8. The development shall not be occupied until a turning space for vehicles has been provided and constructed in accordance with the approved plans and the turning space shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used for any other purpose.Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

9. During any form of earthworks that are carried out as part of the development, suitable vehicle wheel washing equipment shall be provided within the site and shall be used to prevent contamination and damage to adjacent roads.Reason: To accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The site is within the Development Boundary for Ticehurst Village as indicated in the Rother District Local Plan. Accordingly there is no policy presumption against the principle of new residential development. The density of development is in accordance with Government advice in PPS3 ‘Housing’ and together with the layout of the proposed development, is in character with the pattern of the newly built houses in Lower St Mary’s Lane and the established dwellings in St Mary’s Lane. The subsequent reduction in the size and scale of the proposed dwellings on plots 2, 3 and 4, addresses the planning objections put forward in respect of the previously refused application RR/2008/143/P. The proposed development would now accord with the requirements of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies DS2, DS3, GD1 and HG3 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/3193/P TICEHURST PASHLEY MANOR GARDENSPROPOSED DETACHED SINGLE STOREY TICKET SALES AND GIFT SHOPPashley Manor Gardens


50


SITE Pashley Manor is an early 17th century timber framed building off the south west side of Pashley Road and is listed in Grade I. The gardens are open to the public from April to September and attract around 25,000 visitors per year.

HISTORY (relevant)RR/93/1473/P Open garden to public – Approved Conditional

PROPOSAL Planning permission is sought for a detached single storey building to be used as a ticket sales office and gift shop. The building would measure 15.4m by 6.1m sited off the south side of the access drive adjacent to the garden wall to the south east of the house some 50m therefrom.

The building specification includes brick and weatherboard elevations, plain clay roof tiles and hardwood window and door frames.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support approval: “It was felt that the proposed building was a necessity and that the design of the shop was very attractive and fitting for the setting.”English Heritage:- Comments awaited.Director of Services – Conservation & Design Officer:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY The issues to be considered in this case are the siting and design of the building proposed and its effect upon the setting of the Grade I listed house and the landscape generally. In this context the relevant policies are GD1(iv)(v) and (viii) and EM7 of the Rother District Local Plan, Policies S1(m), E1(i), E17 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and advice within PPG15.

The submission of this application follows pre-application discussions during which it was suggested that a new building might usefully take the form of a service type outbuilding. The submitted design follows this advice and the proposed siting would suit such an approach. No trees would need to be removed and the building would not be attached to the listed garden wall; I do not believe the setting of the Manor would be adversely affected. In the wider landscape the building would not be seen.

It is clear from visiting the property that a dedicated ticket office and shop is required. At present these activities are contained within a room of the private house which is generally not open to visitors. The gardens attract a large number of visitors, many from abroad, to the benefit of the tourist economy. Subject to conditions relating to the final agreement of external materials and the consideration of outstanding consultation responses, I find the proposals acceptable.



2. Before commencement of any building works/alterations or repairs as hereby approved, samples of the materials, bricks, roofing tiles and weatherboarding to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works shall be completed utilising the approved materials only.

51

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, and to ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the architectural and historic character of the Listed Building in accordance with Policy GD1 (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(m) & EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed building is considered to be of an acceptable design and siting having negligible effect upon the setting of the listed dwelling and no impact upon any other property or the character and appearance of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal is therefore considered to be in compliance with Policies GD1(iv)(v) and (viii) and EM7 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(m), E1(i), E17 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2008/2461/P ETCHINGHAM KING JOHN’S LODGE, SHEEPSTREET LANECHANGE OF USE FROM AGRICULTURAL BUILDING TO PLANT NURSERY INCLUDING NURSERY SHOP SELLING SUNDRY ITEMS; INCLUDING STATUARY, LOCALLY MADE HANDCRAFTS, ENVIRONMENTAL PRODUCTS AND OTHER GARDEN RELATED PRODUCTSIndependent Historical Research Group


This application has been withdrawn from the Notified D list of 21 November 2008. It has been included on the list of Committee site inspections for 16 December 2008.

SITE The application site (approximately 0.6 ha) contains two rows of refurbished former poultry houses. An outstanding planning application RR/2008/2894/P for the use of the end section (11m x 12.5m) of one of the poultry houses as an interpretation centre of local heritage is also being reported to this meeting.

HISTORY None relates specifically to the application site.

PROPOSAL The application is retrospective and follows planning enforcement investigations. The application is for the change of use of the buildings from agriculture to a mixed use. The mixed use would comprise: i) an agricultural or horticultural use involving the sale of plants grown on the

holding; and ii) a retail (or Class A1 use) comprising the sale of plants brought in from

elsewhere, and other items described in the application title. Planning permission is not required for the sale of (i) plants produced on the holding; it is the sale of (ii) goods brought in from elsewhere which takes the use beyond the scope of agriculture and into a mixed retail use. In addition to this, the advertisement information on site also points to the availability of tea and coffee and the sale of tickets to view the gardens which form part of the neighbouring house – King John’s Lodge. These commercial uses do not have the benefit of planning permission and have not been included on the application now before you.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- No comments received.

52


Highway Authority:- Recommends refusal for the reason that the proposal would lead to increased traffic hazards on the C213 by reason of the inadequate visibility at the proposal access. (See website for full text of comments).Planning Notice:- 1 letter of objection (Shortridge Farm) – summarised: Development being carried out includes tearooms open to the public The development does not seamlessly blend into the environment as stated

but is visually un-missable and obtrusive There has been no attempt to protect the visual amenities of the area Could not be considered as an enhancement to the natural AONB It is not the case, as stated, that neighbours have been consulted in advance

and actively support the garden centre It is not operating as an eco-green development as indicated in the application Some trees and vegetation, which screened the site have been removed The shop area indicated on the accompanying plans is many times greater

than the 134 sq.m. quoted – much nearer 450 sq.m. The application attempts to align itself with the primary residence of King

John’s Lodge yet the accompanying site plans make no reference to any adjoining land interest

7 emails/letters of support have been received (3 The Coach House, The Dutch House, Little Barden, Myskyns, Pashley Manor, Oakover Holdings Ltd and Fysie Hill):- Efforts have been made by the owner to establish sustainable working

practices at the nursery, including energy efficiency, water conservation, waste minimisation and on-site propagation

The nursery is a valuable rural business which benefits the community It is compatible in terms of both nature and scale with the rural character of

Sheepstreet Lane I have not experienced any trouble or disturbance as a result of activity on the

site The use is a focal point and has become an integral part of our community The nursery provides invaluable support to young people, by providing unpaid

work experience for college students studying horticulture The nursery is small and specialised and very much appreciated by local

gardeners The buildings are a vast improvement on the run-down broiler sheds they

were previously Any additional traffic is minimalAn email of support has also been received by County Councillor John Barnes (summarised): This represents a good use for what were formerly chicken runs and which

were in a dilapidated state They also provide a commercial outlet for a number of local craftsmen Provides considerable benefits to the local economySee the application website for full text of all letters/emails.

SUMMARY With respect to the first issue, the site is located in the countryside and within the designated High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is some distance away from the centres of population and is served by a network of rural lanes. Whilst planning policies make provision for the conversion of redundant rural buildings to other uses, the use must be appropriate in terms of scale, type and impact on its surroundings. Retail activity in the countryside is generally restricted to maintain environmental character and qualities, as well as to minimise car journeys. In this particular case, the retail use would attract outside business and increased

53

traffic, resulting in an unacceptable increase in traffic to and from the site, which would adversely harm the character of the AONB. On the second issue, it is concerned that the development would result in unacceptable traffic conditions in terms of both road safety and the free flow of traffic. In particular, visibility for the drivers of vehicles leaving the site and entering out onto Sheepstreet Lane is restricted and a hazard to road users. Sheepstreet Lane, itself is a ‘C’ class lane, which along with the other approach roads serving the application site, are considered to be inadequate by virtue of their narrow width and tortuous form to serve the development.Finally, and for information, there is an outstanding application RR/2008/2894/P for the change of use of part of one of the buildings into an interpretation centre of local heritage. It is intended that this and the garden centre/nursery use would be carried out on the site.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The site is located within the designated High Weald Area of Outstanding

Natural Beauty where new development will be strictly controlled. Moreover, it is a countryside location, remote from any centres of population and served by a network of minor rural lanes. New development in the countryside (AONB) is required to maintain environmental character and qualities, as well as to minimise car journeys. The retail use would attract outside business and increased traffic to and from the site, which would adversely harm the character of the area. The development is contrary to Policies S1(c)(d)(f)(j), S10 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(iii)(iv)(v) and EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. Visibility for drivers at the access to the site is restricted and inadequate to serve the development. The development is contrary to Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. The approach roads are considered to be inadequate by virtue of their narrow width and tortuous form to serve the development. The development is contrary to Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/2894/P ETCHINGHAM KING JOHN’S LODGE, SHEEP STREET LANECHANGE OF USE FROM AGRICULTURAL BUILDING INTO AN INTERPRETATION CENTRE OF LOCAL HERITAGEIndependent Historical Research Group


This application has been withdrawn from the Notified D list of 21 November 2008. It has been included on the list of Committee site inspections for 16 December 2008.

SITE This application relates to the end section (11m x 12.5m) of a former poultry house adjacent to St John’s Lodge. It is part of a larger site containing two rows of former poultry houses (0.6 hectare site) on which there is an outstanding planning application (RR/2008/2461/P) for a change of use to a garden centre/nursery.

HISTORY None relates specifically to the application site.

54


PROPOSAL The application now being reported proposes to use the end section of the building as an education/interpretation centre of local heritage. It is said that the building will be used by the community to help preserve local heritage – in particular the history and archaeology of the iron industry in the Weald since the Romans. This would be presented to visitors, including school children, as a not-for-profit enterprise. The details of the proposed enterprise are set out in the Design and Access Statement and the document from the High Weald Archaeology Centre, both of which have been submitted with the application. Also provided are letters of support from the County Archaeologist and other history and archaeology societies. All documents can be viewed in full on the application website. In addition to the area comprising the end section of the building, the application site also includes an outside area for exhibition/displays and associated parking.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- No comments received.Highway Authority:- Recommends refusal for the reasons: inadequate visibility at the access and inadequate on site parking a turning provision. (See website for full text).Director of Transport & Environment – County Archaeologist:- No recommendations to make in this instance.Planning Notice:- A letter of objection has been received from the occupiers of South View on the grounds: concerned that the owners are turning the King John’s Lodge site into a commercial venture, including B&B, plant nursery and hosting large events such as wedding receptions. This has led to problems of noise nuisance, extra traffic and parking problems on Sheepstreet Lane. This is a rural area and we object to the ongoing commercialism of the site.

SUMMARY The principal issues for consideration in the determination of the application are firstly the impact on the character of the area and secondly the highway implications.

With respect to the first issue, the site is located in the countryside and within the designated High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is some distance away from the centres of population and is served by a network of rural lanes. Whilst planning policies make provisions for the conversion of redundant rural buildings to other uses, the use must be appropriate in terms of scale, type and impact on its surroundings (including traffic impact). Whilst the proposed use in this particular case aims to promote knowledge of the history of the local iron industry, it is not considered that there is an overriding justification for establishing such a facility in a relatively remote rural location served by a network of minor roads. The proposed use would attract increased traffic to and from the site, including possible large vehicles in the case of school parties, which would adversely harm the character of the AONB.

On the second issue, there is concerned that the development would result in unacceptable traffic conditions in terms of both road safety and the free flow of traffic. In particular, visibility for the drivers of vehicles leaving the site and entering out onto Sheepstreet Lane is restricted and is a hazard to road users. Sheepstreet Lane, itself is a ‘C’ class lane, which along with the other approach roads serving the application site, are considered to be inadequate by virtue of their narrow width and tortuous form to serve the development.

Finally, whilst each application should generally be considered on its individual merits, I am mindful of the other proposals for commercial development at King

55

John’s Lodge (the open gardens, bed and breakfast, holiday lets and garden entre/nursery). The cumulative impact of such developments all focused within one small country lane within the AONB cannot be discounted.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The site is located within the designated High Weald Area of Outstanding

Natural Beauty where new development will be strictly controlled. Moreover, it is a countryside location, remote from any centres of population and served by a network of minor rural lanes. New development in the countryside (AONB) is required to maintain environmental character and qualities, as well as to minimise car journeys. The proposed use would attract increased traffic to and from the site, which would adversely harm the character of the area. The development is contrary to Policies S1(c)(d)(f)(j), S10 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(iii)(iv)(v) and EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. Visibility for drivers at the access to the site is restricted and inadequate to serve the development. The development is contrary to Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. The approach roads are considered to be inadequate by virtue of their narrow width and tortuous form to serve the development. The development is contrary to Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/3161/P ETCHINGHAM KING JOHN’S LODGE – GRANARY BARN AT, SHEEPSTREET LANECHANGE OF USE OF BARN FROM RESIDENTIAL TO FOUR HOLIDAY LETS. (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Mrs J Cunningham


This application has been included on the list of Planning Committee site inspections for 16 December.

SITE The application relates to a converted barn next to St John’s Lodge, a listed building. Both buildings are within the same ownership. Access to the barn is via the vehicular access onto Sheepstreet Lane that serves St John’s Lodge. The site is within the countryside (AONB) and lies outside any identified settlement boundary in the Local Plan. There is a neighbouring property (Tamarind) set within a large curtilage immediately to the west. Other residential properties are thinly scattered along this stretch of Sheepstreet Lane, mainly on its southern side.

HISTORYRR/2001/105/P Change of use and conversion of granary to residential use

served by a new access with parking area – ApprovedRR/2005/972/P Extension and alterations to the granary – Approved

PROPOSAL The application is retrospective and this application follows planning enforcement investigations. The building, which has planning permission for use as

56


a single dwelling (see RR/2001/105/P above), has been converted into 4 self-contained units. These are used for short term holiday rentals (3-4 day or 7 days).

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Any comments will be reported.Highway Authority:- Recommends that consent be refused for the reason (briefly) that the proposal would lead to increased traffic hazards on C213 (Sheepstreet Lane) by reason of inadequate visibility at the existing access.Director of Services – Building Control Manager:- Has inspected the building and would require works (specified) to be carried out under a Regularisation Application.Planning Notice:- 6 letters/emails of objection (from 5 addresses) on the grounds (summarised): The site is already overdeveloped. The services and facilities offered on their

website include –- 4 self catering apartments accommodating up to 24 people (the subject

of this application)- 4 bed and breakfast rooms at St John’s Lodge for up to 17 people- Use of swimming pool, tennis courts, croquet lawn- Gardens open to the public- Propagation nursery and garden centre- Weddings and other functions

The resulting traffic will put a strain on this rural road Noise, often at anti-social hours, has been a source of nuisance for

neighbouring houses Amplified music, including late at night The whole complex has been let out on an exclusive basis, with outdoor

discos and other attractions Planning permission should only be given subject to a noise control scheme

being implemented Historical evidence indicates that the Granary barn is a relatively new building,

which was built around 1990 without planning permission There have been complaints made to the Environmental Health Division about

excessive noise from functions and events

12 letters/emails of support have been received. This includes support from businesses such as The White Horse, Haydens Restaurant (Hurst Green), La Dolce Vita (Lamberhurst), Piccadilly Rare Books (Ticehurst) and Pashley Manor as well as private residential properties. The principal points can be summarised as follows:- There is a distinct lack of hotels and bed and breakfast facilities in the area King John’s Lodge brings in customers to a rural area which in turn supports

other businesses – such as restaurants, shops and pubs My business would directly suffer if the commercial activities at King John’s

Lodge were curtailed Provides important employment to local people There were a couple of occasions when we were kept awake by loud music,

however, this was as a result of wedding parties in the grounds and not noise from the Granary

Increased traffic would be minimal

An email of support has been received from County Councillor John Barnes on the grounds (summarised):- The tourist industry is important to the area It may no longer be possible to offer bed and breakfast in the listed house

without making alteration that would conflict with listing – this makes it all the

57

more important that the current use of the Granary for apartments is confirmed

There are not many beds available for tourists Tourism should be encouraged as visitors support a number of businesses in

the area

SUMMARY Planning permission has been granted for the use of this redundant storage barn as a single residential dwelling (RR/2001/105/P). Although a number of the letters of objection from neighbours question the legitimacy of the building itself, it is authorised under planning and benefits from a residential use. The question to be addressed here is whether the unauthorised development that has taken place to subdivide the building into four self-contained units of holiday accommodation is acceptable from a planning point of view. In principle, the change of use and conversion of appropriate redundant rural buildings to holiday/tourist accommodation is generally supported under planning policies (Policy S10 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, Policy EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan and PPS7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’). Such proposals are, however, required to accord with other Development Plan policies and general development control criteria. In this particular case there are a number of concerns about the development that has taken place.

(i) Impact on neighbouring residential amenity: Objections that have been received from neighbouring occupiers have raised the issue of noise disturbance and parking problems on Sheepstreet Lane as a consequence of social functions and parties that have been held at the John’s Lodge/Granary barn premises. Specific concerns have referred to such activities being carried out on a commercial basis as part of the wider business activities that appear to be operating from the premises. Members should however consider this application on its individual merits, and it should be noted that the use of the premises for social functions and parties is not being applied for in this application. Dealing specifically with the development proposal contained in the application, it is apparent that the accommodation that has been provided in the Granary has the capacity to hold probably in excess of 24 persons and is advertised as the ideal venue for a family reunion, a large group of friends or from which to host a party. Consequently, whilst it may be unreasonable to attribute any past noise disturbance solely to the occupation of the Granary, it would seem clear that the Granary has the potential for exclusive hire and large group occupation and furthermore, is being marketed as such. The potential for activities that result in noise disturbance cannot therefore be discounted.

(ii) Overdevelopment: As previously stated the building has been subdivided into four separate units of self-contained accommodation:- The Hayloft (sleeps max 6 adults, 4 children)- The Corn Store (sleeps max 2 adults, 2 children)- The Wheat Store (sleeps max 4 adults and 6 children)- Flat 4 – unnamed unit – occupation not specified but 6 bed spaces

shown on the layout plan

Whilst the Granary is a relatively large building it does not, in my view, lend itself to subdivision into this number of units. Furthermore, the rates of occupancy in the building as a whole appear excessive and an overdevelopment of the property.

58

(iii) Highway issues: Visibility at the exit onto Sheepstreet Lane is extremely restricted for the drivers of vehicles. I therefore share the concerns expressed by the Highway Authority that this would endanger road users, particularly in view of the potentially high rates of occupation.

Finally, the following applications on the adjoining St John’s Lodge site are also being reported to your meeting:

RR/2008/2461/P Change of use to plant nursery including sale of sundry itemsRR/2008/2894/P Change of use to heritage interpretation centre

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The subdivision of the building into four separate units of self-contained

accommodation and the associated intensive level of occupancy is an overdevelopment of the property. The development is out of character with the rural area and potentially detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers of properties in the vicinity of the site. The development conflicts with Policies S1(f), S10(b)(ii) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(ii)(iv)(v) and EM3(v)(vi) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. The development will lead to increased traffic hazards on Sheepstreet Lane (C213) by reason of the inadequate visibility at the existing access. The development conflicts with Policies S1(d) and S10(b)(ii) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(iii) and EM3(v)(vi) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/2929/P ETCHINGHAM ST MARY AND ST NICHOLAS’ CHURCH, HIGH STREETPROPOSED PROVISION OF EXTERNAL FLOODLIGHTINGEtchingham PCC


SITE The historic Parish Church is located in the eastern part of the village. It fronts the north-western side of High Street, between the recreation ground and Station Approach. The small cul-de-sac estate development known as The Orchard abuts the north-western corner of the church grounds. The church is a Grade I listed building.

HISTORY There is no planning history.

PROPOSAL It is proposed to install four low-energy spotlights within the grounds of the church to externally illuminate the building. Supporting information indicates that this would incorporate low-wattage lights to wash over the pale stone of the church within limited hours (set on a timer switch). The applicant has clarified the time during which the lights would operate as being between dusk and 11.15pm – 11.45pm at the latest.

59


The information states that, in essence, the reasons for wishing to floodlight the church is about public safety, church security and to enhance the importance of such a historic building.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Any comments will be reported.Highway Authority:- No objection.Director of Transport & Environment – County Archaeologist:- No recommendations to make in this instance.Director of Services – Environmental Health:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- 11 letters of objection have been received (9 addresses): summarised - If the use of floodlights is a nightly occurrence, it could cause light pollution Waste of energy At present it is a pleasure to enjoy a clear view of the night sky with minimal

light pollution Our house is nearest to the church and six of its rooms, three of which are

bedrooms, face the north and west sides behind the church. We therefore do not wish the proposed floodlighting to reflect into bedrooms until the early hours, disturbing us and our family of sleep

Inappropriate to allocate resources to floodlighting for the reasons put forward in the application

Guidance Notes produced by the Institute of Lighting Engineers recommends that Local Authorities specify Environmental Zones for the control of exterior lighting in intrinsically dark landscapes, including villages and AONBs. Etchingham should be considered to fall within Zone E1 and therefore, the church should not be floodlit

Floodlighting the church is not necessary on grounds of safety, and would constitute a nuisance in terms of light pollution

There is no street lighting in the village itself and consequently this is a dark landscape

Village community has always resisted footpath lighting Out of keeping with the character of a rural village Arguments regarding vandalism are not significant Church is a haven for wildlife whose natural rhythm may be disturbed through

artificial lighting Bats roost in the building; lighting such as that proposed can have a

detrimental effect on such creatures No details have been provided regarding financial cost. In order to assess its

worth, we should know how much we will be paying for the project

SUMMARY The site is within the countryside (AONB) and relates to a historic church in a village location. A principal issue for consideration is the impact on the illumination on the character of the area. Planning Policy S1(s) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 is relevant. This indicates that the criteria that should be taken into account in planning activities and development decisions should include avoiding and reducing unnecessary noise and artificial lighting. Whilst the justification put forward for the lighting has been noted, it is considered that some weight can be given to the applicant’s wish to pinpoint the existence of the church during hours of darkness. Clearly, whether or not this would be considered an enhancement is a subjective matter and it has to be weighed against the equally desirable objective of wishing to protect the night sky from light pollution.

60

It is not considered that it is an uncommon occurrence to find such buildings in the countryside identified by floodlighting, and on this first issue it is considered on balance that it would be particularly difficult to argue that the illumination would adversely affect the character of the area. In reaching this conclusion, I am particularly mindful of (i) the low level luminosity proposed and (ii) the existence of significant outside lighting at the nearby station.

A second issue for consideration is the impact of the lights on bats, should these be found to be present in the building. A bat survey has been carried out and Natural England has raised no objection in principle to the findings of the report.

On a third issue, whilst the lights would be seen from residential properties in the vicinity of the site, it is not considered that they would have a significant impact on existing residential amenity.

A further detailed supporting letter has been received from the applicants. This comments individually on each of the issues that have been raised in the letters of objection and can be viewed in full on the website.

Finally, in the event that Members are minded to approve the application you may wish to give consideration to controlling the hours during which the lights may be switched on. The supporting information states that they would be switched off between 15-30 minutes after the last train. This has since been clarified and the applicant has advised me that he would wish the lights to operate until about 11.15p.m. or 11.45p.m. at the latest. I would consider that a time closer to 11.00p.m. cut-off is probably more appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) 1. Each individual light shall not exceed more than 26w TCD (150w tungsten

Wattage equivalent) in the case of lights nos 1, 2 and 3 and 18w TCD (100w tungsten Wattage equivalent) in the case of light no.4 and the lighting units shall be positioned in a manner so as to shield the light source from outside of the site and to avoid light spillage beyond the site boundaries. The lighting shall be retained as such thereafter. In the event that any associated light spill or glare becomes visually intrusive within the landscape or detrimental to the residential amenities of the area, the luminaire aiming shall be adjusted to minimise any such impacts.Reason: To safeguard the visual and residential amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. The lights shall only operate between dusk and 11.00p.m. unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.Reason: To safeguard the visual and residential amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

Note:The applicant’s bat survey has identified the presence of bats in the building. Bats and their roosting sites are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (and amendments) and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994. To comply with the legislation, the works should therefore only be undertaken in accordance with the method statement set out in the letter from Natural England dated 28 November 2008.

61

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed lights will not have a detrimental impact on the character of the area, wildlife interests, or neighbouring residential amenity and therefore complies with Policies S1(f)(j)(s) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(ii)(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.View application/correspondence

RR/2008/3116/P EWHURST OCKHAM FARM, DAGG LANE, EWHURST GREENERECTION OF INDUSTRIAL UNITSDirect Recovery


This application has been added to the Committee site inspection list.

SITE The application site lies on the north side of Dagg Lane and comprises the eastern part of the larger Ockham Farm complex of commercial buildings. It was formerly a timber yard.

The site is set at a lower level from the road with a recently constructed industrial building toward the front of the site. To the rear is an open yard that also contains a range of dilapidated buildings as well as a number of storage containers towards the rear of the site.

The whole site is enclosed by green steel palisade fencing with trees externally on the road (north) and western sides.

HISTORYRR/88/1618 Replacement and extension forming light industrial units –

ApprovedRR/2003/2309/P Outline: Change of use to B1 and B8 and erection of small

business units and workshops – ApprovedRR/2005/1717/P Erection of Block 1 for three small business units pursuant to

RR/2003/2309/P – ApprovedRR/2006/2438/P Security fencing – Refused – Appeal DismissedRR/2006/726/P Security fencing – RefusedRR/2007/2619/P Security fencing – Refused – Appeal Allowed

PROPOSAL The scheme is for a single building to provide three small business units. The single storey metal clad building with profiled metal clad roof is 27.5 metres long by 12 metres wide with a ridge roof to 6.7 metres. The plans indicate an access route within the site and parking.

Together with Block 1 – recently constructed – the two buildings and car parking will occupy about two thirds of the total site.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support proposal.Highway Authority:- “The proposed erection of the Industrial Units will generate an increased demand for on-site parking. As part of this application 15 additional spaces are proposed. While I consider this to be slightly excessive of the 10 spaces

62


required to satisfy the County Council’s adopted parking standards, I am willing to accept the proposal as submitted to prevent any additional cars potentially parking along Dagg Lane.I am also keen to ensure that the area hatched green on planning permission number RR/2005/1717 remains clear and that the appropriate visibility splays are maintained to serve the additional vehicle movements associated with this development.”Director of Services – Environmental Health:- To be reported.Planning Notice:- No representations.

SUMMARY This is an established commercial site in the rural area, the redevelopment of which was accepted in 2003. A subsequent submission of reserved matters for Block 1 was approved in 2005. While this proposal for Block 2 follows the earlier outline scheme the period for submission of reserved matters has past and this application is submitted as a full planning application.

The application site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty outside any village boundary. The principal issues are any adverse impact on the immediate or wider rural area; traffic; and the other site specific requirements of Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

Impact:In the immediate area the building will be at a lower level than the road and sited behind Block 1 it will have very limited impact from Dagg Lane. The whole site is more open to the rear and there are some views of both this and the adjoining commercial site from Bodiam to the north and north east. However, from longer distances the building will be seen as part of the greater complex of new and old buildings at Ockham Farm and will not be unduly intrusive. There was a landscaping requirement for Block 1, yet to be implemented, but this building should also be subject to the same condition to enhance the enclosure of the site.

In design terms the building is broadly the same in floor area to Block 1, and while of the same overall height, this second building will have higher sides and therefore a shallower roof pitch. While the two buildings will be grouped together there is no reason for them to be identical in form.

Traffic and parking:No objections have been raised in the past for the redevelopment of this and the adjoining site.

As an established commercial site the Council has accepted its redevelopment as providing employment in the rural area and having limited traffic impact on local roads.

Parking for both Blocks 1 and 2 is provided in a single group within the site. In total, 25 spaces are shown which is appropriate for the combined floor space. Disabled spaces are included.

Conclusion:The principle of redeveloping this site was established in 2003 and work on the first phase has been undertaken. The second industrial unit can be comfortably located on the site and is close to the area of older buildings and structures to be removed from the land.

63



2. Prior to the commencement of development or at such a time as shall be agreed in writing, details of the colour and texture of the roof and the wall materials shall be submitted for the consideration and approval of the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure that the cladding colour and texture is appropriate to its rural setting and is not reflective in accordance with Policy S1(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping for the site.Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the locality and protect long term views in accordance with Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 and Policy GD1 (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the locality and protect long term views in accordance with Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011 and Policy GD1 (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. No floodlighting or external lighting of the site shall take place without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority and if lighting is to be provided such details for approval shall include methods of shielding the light source from outside of the site and the lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the rural locality in accordance with Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011 and Policy GD1 (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

6. The development shall not be brought into use until all parking, turning and servicing areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and the areas shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for those purposes. Reason: To ensure adequate parking and servicing arrangements within the site in the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 (iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

7. The units hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless the visibility splay shown on the attached plan, as approved in connection with planning permission RR/2005/1717/P, is safeguarded and free of all obstruction above 1.05 metres in height.

64

Reason: In the interests of highway safety in accordance with Policy TR3 (c) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 (iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

8. The units hereby permitted shall be used only for purposes as defined in Class B1 and B8 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1995 (as amended).Reason: The development of the site for such purposes is appropriate given the rural context of the site having regard to Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011 and Policy GD1 (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The site has benefitted in the past from an outline permission to replace former commercial buildings with light industrial/storage units: the first phase already having commenced. The application indicates a second building as envisaged in the 2003 outline scheme and it is of an appropriate design and siting for the site. With appropriate conditions in relation to the colour of the building, landscaping and control of external lighting the commercial units are appropriate in their scale and safeguard the appearance of the High Weald AONB in accordance with Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011 and Policy GD1 (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/3237/P SEDLESCOMBE THE QUEENS HEAD PUBLIC HOUSE – LAND AT, BREDE LANEOUTLINE: ERECTION OF TWO SEMI-DETACHED THREE BEDROOM DWELLINGS AND ERECTION OF ONE FOUR BEDROOM DETACHED DWELLING INCLUDING FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESSEnterprise Inns plc


SITE This application relates to a vacant plot of land between the Queens Head PH and the doctors’ surgery with a frontage to Brede Lane. The site lies within the Sedlescombe Conservation Area and measures 58m deep with a frontage of 25m widening to 32m.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/86/1093 O/A residential development – Approved Conditional

PROPOSAL Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of a pair of 3 bedroom semi-detached dwellings and one 4 bedroom detached house all served by a single central vehicular access to six parking spaces at the rear.

The application is accompanied by a plan indicating a brick and tile hung design annotated “Full details of the design/materials should be considered under reserved matters”.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support approval in principle. Layout not necessarily agreed, design needs careful consideration as within Conservation Area. The parish has

65


been asked by village Friendship Club if a Section 106 could be required for a drop in centre within one of the Queens Head’s outbuildings.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- Comments awaited.Director of Services – Tree Officer:- Comments awaited.East Sussex County Council – County Archaeologist:- Site has potential for archaeological deposits in good condition. Recommends imposition of archaeological condition.Planning Notice:- No representations received to-date.

SUMMARY The site is situated within the development boundary of the village and therefore residential development of the land is considered acceptable in principle. I concur with the Parish Council that as the site is within the Conservation Area a good standard of design is required; in this respect the illustrative plan appears broadly acceptable subject to detail and materials specification.

The trees within the site are shown to be removed; these were examined during pre-submission negotiations and at that time your Tree Officer raised no objection to this. Importantly the trees within the highway verge are to be retained and I am awaiting the Tree Officer’s response to the tree report and consideration of the impact of the access construction.

I do not expect any objection to be raised by the Highway Authority. I do however note the County Archaeologist’s request for an archaeological condition.

I am satisfied that the development proposed can be accommodated on the site together with appropriate car parking provision, which importantly is indicated at the rear of the site. The site is fairly level and it does not raise issues of amenity with neighbouring properties being flanked by the doctors’ surgery, public car park, a builders yard and an outbuilding to the public house.

I have considered the request, passed on by the Parish Council, that a Section 106 be used to require the use of accommodation at the public house as a drop in centre. However, notwithstanding that the applicants are the pub owners, this is not achievable. Section 106 agreements should only be required to secure provisions that arise from the development proposed and not for general gain.

I find the proposal in compliance with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan and subject to consideration of outstanding consultations I expect to support the application subject to appropriate conditions.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION)1. Before any part of the development hereby approved is commenced approval

of the details of the access; appearance; landscaping; layout; and scale, within the upper and lower limit for the height, width and length of each building of the site, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters"), shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing.Reason: In accordance with the requirements of Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended).

2. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 2 above shall be submitted in writing to the local planning authority and shall be carried out as approved.

66

Reason: In accordance with the requirements of Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended).

3. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

4. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.Reason: In accordance with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

5. Highway condition – if recommended by the Highway Authority:The highway works/access shall be completed in accordance with the construction details, form HT401, attached to this permission.Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with the requirements of the Director of Transport and Environment of East Sussex in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(d) & TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011. Note: To give effect to this condition you should contact the Transport and Environment Department of East Sussex County Council at Sidley Depot, Ninfield Road, Bexhill TN39 5AA (Telephone 01424 220022) prior to the commencement of work and enter a Private Works agreement between yourself and the County Council.

6. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design, height, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To safeguard the characteristics of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(b) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

7. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, including a timetable for the investigation, which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.Reason: a) The development is likely to disturb remains of archaeological interest; and b) In order to protect and record archaeological remains and to comply with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

8. Before commencement of any ground works for the development hereby approved, the finished ground floor levels of the building(s) in relation to existing and proposed site levels, the adjacent highway and adjacent properties, together with details of levels of all accesses, to include pathways, driveways, steps and ramps, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure the satisfactory accessible development of the site in accordance with Policy GD1 (i) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 (b)(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

67

Notes:i) The applicant is reminded of the need to provide storage facilities and a

collection point within the site for both refuse and recycling containers.ii) The proposed development shall be of traditional design and constructed with

vernacular materials in character with the locality.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The site is within the Development Boundary for Sedlescombe as identified in the adopted Rother District Local Plan. As such there is no presumption against the principle of residential development on the site. Accordingly, the proposed low-density housing scheme can be accommodated on the site in a manner that would reflect the density and design characteristics found in the locality within the Sedlescombe Conservation Area. The development accords with Policies S1(d)(m), S5 and S8 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(ii)(iii)(iv)(v) and (viii) and DS3 of the Rother District Local Plan.


--ooOoo--

68


RR/2007/3515/P - Rother€¦ · Web viewIt is located on the northern side of the road, within...

Documents

Transcript of RR/2007/3515/P - Rother€¦ · Web viewIt is located on the northern side of the road, within...