Rother District Council Agenda Item: 6

Committee - Planning

Date - 17 August 2006

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.

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

1

applications, conditions, reasons for refusal and notes 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:-

Ashburnham, Catsfield, Crowhurst, Penhurst (Crowhurst Ward)Brightling, Burwash, Dallington, Mountfield, Whatlington (Darwell Ward)Battle (Battle Town/Crowhurst/Darwell Wards)Bexhill (All Wards)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)Rye (Rye Ward)Neighbouring Authorities

REFERENCE PAGE PARISH SITE ADDRESS

RR/2006/1820/P 1 ASHBURNHAM GARDNERS FARM, BRAYS HILL

9/13/470 1 ASHBURNHAM GARDNERS FARM,

BRAYS HILL

RR/2006/1808/P 3 CATSFIELD WYLANDS INTERNATIONAL ANGLING CENTRE, POWDERMILL LANE

RR/2006/1757/P 4 BURWASH FRANCHISE MANOR FARM - LAND AT, SPRING LANE

RR/2006/1836/P 7 BURWASH SEA VIEW FARM HOUSE, VICARAGE LANE,

BURWASH COMMON

RR/2006/2037/P 8 BURWASH GRAND TURZEL CARAVAN PARKFONTRIDGE LANE

RR/2006/1558/P 10 BATTLE HAROLD TERRACE -

LAND AT

RR/2006/1916/P 13 BATTLE 140 HASTINGS ROAD, HIGHCROFT

2

RR/2004/2618/P 15 BATTLE KANE HYTHE ROAD -

LAND WEST OF, NETHERFIELD

RR/2006/1516/P 18 BEXHILL 1-4 CRANLEIGH CLOSE

RR/2006/1741/P 21 BEXHILL 56 TURKEY ROAD

RR/2006/1846/TN 24 BEXHILL COODEN SEA ROAD - LAND AT, (NEAR BUS SHELTER ADJ COODEN BEACH STATION)

RR/2006/1921/P 26 BEXHILL 8 THE GROVE -

LAND ADJ

RR/2006/2013/P 28 BEXHILL PEBSHAM FARM – LAND AT – PEBSHAM LANE

RR/2006/2044/P 31 BEXHILL 250 TURKEY ROAD, CEMETERY LODGE

RR/2006/2049/P 32 BEXHILL 25 LANDSDOWNE WAY

RR/2006/2088/P 33 BEXHILL 3 CLAVERING WALK - LAND ADJ

RR/2006/1740/P 34 NORTHIAM NORTHIAM SERVICE STATION, MAIN STREET

RR/2006/1943/P 37 NORTHIAM ALPINES – LAND AT, EWHURST LANE

RR/2006/1999/P 39 PEASMARSH BERRYNARBOR,

SCHOOL LANE

RR/2006/2099/P 40 RYE FOREIGN THANETS FARMHOUSE, IDEN ROAD

RR/2006/1294/P 42 SALEHURST/ SALEHURST PRIMARY SCHOOLROBERTSBRIDGE LAND ADJ, GEORGE HILL,

SALEHURST

RR/2006/1626/P 45 BREDE MARLEY PLATT - LAND ADJ, CACKLE STREET

RR/2006/1397/P 49 ICKLESHAM ASHES FARM, HOG HILL, WINCHELSEA

RR/2006/1677/P 50 ICKLESHAM ICKLESHAM JOINERY LTD, MAIN ROAD

3

RR/2006/1984/P 54 ICKLESHAM ASHES FARM,

HOG HILL, WINCHELSEA

RR/2006/1989/L 54 ICKLESHAM ASHES FARM, HOG HILL, WINCHELSEA

RR/2006/1203/P 56 IDEN THE BELL INN,

CHURCH LANE

RR/2006/1735/P 58 IDEN GROVE FARM, GROVE LANE

RR/2006/1959/P 60 IDEN THORNSDALE OAST, WITTERSHAM ROAD

RR/2006/1960/P 62 IDEN THORNSDALE OAST, WITTERSHAM ROAD

RR/2006/1676/P 64 TICEHURST THE RECREATION GROUND, HIGH STREET

RR/2006/1783/P 69 TICEHURST ELLIOTTS, SHRUB LANE

RR/2006/2055/P 70 TICEHURST ST MARY’S CHURCH,

CHURCH STREET

RR/2006/1770/P 72 EWHURST NORLIVEAN - LAND ADJ, MILL ROAD, STAPLECROSS

RR/2006/1559/P 75 GUESTLING HOLLYPARK, NORTH LANE

RR/2006/2017/P 76 PETT THE TWO SAWYERS,

PETT ROAD

--oo0oo--

4

RR/2006/1820/P ASHBURNHAM GARDNERS FARM, BRAYS HILLVARIATION OF CONDITION 2 IMPOSED UPON PLANNING PERMISSION RR/95/1375/P TO ALLOW OCCUPATION BY MR B M AND MRS S WARD-SMITH OF CHALET NUMBER ONE ON A PERMANENT BASISB M Ward-Smith

Statutory 8 week date: 01 September 2006

9/13/470 ASHBURNHAM GARDNERS FARM, BRAYS HILLMODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT IMPOSED UPON PLANNING PERMISSION RR/95/1375/P TO RESTRICT OCCUPATION OF THREE CHALETS TO NOW ALLOW OCCUPATION BY MR B M AND MRS S WARD-SMITH OF CHALET NUMBER ONE ON A PERMANENT BASISB M Ward-Smith

Statutory 8 week date: 25 August 2006

SITE Gardners Farm is remotely situated off the south side of the C412 road in the south east corner of the parish close to the boundary with Wealden DC. Access is via a long private track (1 Km) which is hard surfaced. The buildings, the subject of the application, are of traditional brick and tile construction and are sited close to the farmhouse amongst the working farm buildings.

HISTORY RR/95/1375/P Conversion of redundant farm buildings to form three units of

holiday accommodation including provision for the disabled - Approved, subject to conditions and a S106 planning obligation securing control of the occupancy of the units to ensure they do not become permanent dwellings.

PROPOSAL The applicant and his wife currently occupy the farmhouse. Supporting information states that the applicant’s wife has been unwell for many years and is in need of a high level of care (details have been provided with the application). The information explains that they are finding the 400 year old farmhouse too large and cold and the oak spiral staircase extremely difficult to manage. Consequently, they are seeking permission to permanently occupy one of the holiday units, which would then allow their son to occupy the farmhouse. Specifically, the applications are as follows:-

In respect of RR/2006/1820/P: the planning application seeks a variation to condition no. 2 of planning application RR/95/1375/P, which presently limits occupation of all of the three units to holiday occupation only (56 days maximum in any calendar year).

In respect of 9/13/470: this corresponding application seeks to have the S106 planning obligation modified to allow them to permanently occupy one of the holiday units.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support the proposal subject to:a) occupation only by Mr and Mrs Ward-Smith

1

b) no permanent change of use i.e. to revert to holiday accommodation when no longer required for occupation by Mrs Ward-Smith

c) the chalet to be used in conjunction with the main dwelling and not form a separate dwelling unit.

Planning Notice:- No comments received.

SUMMARY The site is located in an area of countryside (AONB) where national and local planning policies seek to permit the change of use and conversion of appropriate redundant rural buildings to holiday/tourism use over and above new residential development. Whilst the personal circumstances of the applicant and his wife have to be given weight as a material planning consideration, it is not considered that this is sufficient justification to allow a new dwelling in the countryside where one would not normally be allowed. The permanent conversion of the unit of holiday/tourist accommodation to a dwelling cannot therefore be supported. I agree, however, with the recommendation put forward by the Parish Council that a temporary and personal permission would be appropriate, with the exception that any personal consent to occupy the building should also apply to Mr Ward-Smith, should it no longer be required by his wife.

RECOMMENDATIONS: RR/2006/1820/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) 1. The building shall only be occupied for permanent residential purposes by Mr B

M Ward-Smith and/or Mrs S Ward-Smith. Upon such time as the building is no longer required for occupation by either one or both of these persons its use shall revert back to holiday accommodation in accordance with that permitted by application RR/95/1375/P.Reason: The building is located within an area of countryside where new residential development is normally allowed in accordance with Policies S1 and S10 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. The occupation of the building by Mr and/or Mrs Ward-Smith shall be ancillary to the main house known as Gardners Farm. The building shall not be occupied as a separate dwelling unit.Reason: The building is located within an area of countryside where new residential development is normally allowed in accordance with Policies S1 and S10 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

Notes:i) N12A (Section 106 Planning Obligation)ii) The conditions imposed on the original planning permission RR/95/1375/P, with

the exception of the variation to condition no. 2, shall remain in force.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: Whilst the site is within an area of countryside (AONB) where new residential development is not normally permitted in accordance with the criteria set out in Policy S10 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Government Guidance in PPS7, the personal circumstances of the applicant and his wife are capable of being a material planning consideration and have been given limited weight. Accordingly, it is considered that the personal circumstances can be addressed by the granting of a personal and temporary permission without being prejudicial to the continuing long-term use of the building in question as a unit of holiday/tourist accommodation.

9/13/470: GRANT (MODIFICATION OF S106) DELEGATED (FOR PREPARATION OF MODIFIED S106 PLANNING OBLIGATION)

2

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: Whilst the site is within an area of countryside (AONB) where new residential development is not normally permitted in accordance with the criteria set out in Policy S10 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Government Guidance in PPS7, the personal circumstances of the applicant and his wife are capable of being a material planning consideration and have been given limited weight. Accordingly, it is considered that the personal circumstances can be addressed by the granting of a personal and temporary permission without being prejudicial to the continuing long-term use of the building in question as a unit of holiday/tourist accommodation.

RR/2006/1808/P CATSFIELD WYLANDS INTERNATIONAL ANGLING CENTRE, POWDERMILL LANEDEMOLITION OF EXISTING OPEN FRONTED GARAGES AND STORES. REBUILD STRUCTURE AND PROVIDE DOORS TO CLOSE PART OF BUILDINGMr D P Bull

Statutory 8 week date: 28 August 2006

SITE Wylands Angling Centre lies off the south side of Powdermill Lane. This application relates to the replacement of an open fronted building on the north side of the cluster of buildings at the heart of the site.

HISTORY (Relevant)This site has an extensive planning history but is not considered to have direct relevance to this application. The following are currently undetermined applications:RR/2006/1284/O Lawful repairs to lean-to structures on north and south elevations

of brick barn - Not Yet DeterminedRR/2006/2021/P Replacement of barn and workshops with single storey agricultural

barn - Not Yet DeterminedRR/2006/2022/P Replacement of redundant buildings with meeting room, facilities

and café building - Not Yet Determined

PROPOSAL The building to be replaced is an open fronted structure under a corrugated sheet roof on the north side of the existing chalet accommodation close to the existing dwelling. The new building would be the same size, height and cross section profile but would be clad with dark stained weather boarding under a profiled green or grey sheet cladding. The new building would have two open fronted parking bays and two enclosed storage/garage elements.

CONSULTATIONSBattle Town Council:- No objection.Catsfield Parish Council:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY The existing building is used as garaging for the dwelling on site and general storage for equipment and materials for use around the site generally. The building is however in a very poor condition; the roof covering is old corrugated iron and the supporting timber trusses and posts are deteriorating and rotten in places.

3

The proposed building of blockwork clad with feather edged boarding, dark stained, is considered to be a suitable replacement. It would be the same size and used for the same purpose. I would wish to regulate the colour of the roof sheeting and entrance doors.I am satisfied that the building is required and that its appearance within the AONB would be acceptable. Indeed the structure would only be visible at close quarters from the north across House Lake and not from the wider landscape.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. The roof and garage doors of the building shall be coloured goosewing grey or

slate grey unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.Reason: RC2.

2. The building shall be used for the garaging of motor vehicles and the storage of plant, equipment and materials ancillary to the permitted use of Wylands International Angling Centre and buildings contained thereon and for no other purpose.Reason: RC35.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is considered to be reasonably necessary in connection with the use of the site. The building is considered to be of an acceptable design having no adverse effect upon the High Weald AONB landscape. The proposal is therefore regarded as in compliance with Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/1757/P BURWASH FRANCHISE MANOR FARM - LAND AT, SPRING LANEERECTION OF ORGANIC BEEF UNIT COMPRISING COVERED YARD AND FODDER/STRAW STOREHoneybrook Organics

Statutory 8 week date: 18 August 2006

SITE Franchise Manor Farm extends in all to approximately 103 hectares. I am advised that the applicant is negotiating to purchase a further 69 hectares of land. The land holding is shown to contain Franchise Manor, The Dower House, a lodge house and a complex of agricultural buildings. The existing farm access is a surfaced track off the north side of Spring Lane. The land holding surrounds a group of 4 dwellings located close to the farm buildings, which are shown to be in separate ownership (Franchise Oast, Franchise Mere, Little Franchise and Franchise Shaw).

HISTORYRR/97/596/P Proposed driveway from Franchise Mere to Spring Lane - RefusedRR/97/2235/P Revised proposals for proposed driveway from Franchise Mere to

Spring Lane utilising an existing access - Refused - Appeal Dismissed on countryside (AONB) grounds

PROPOSAL The application seeks to develop an organic beef rearing unit on a green field site, away from the existing farm complex. The new development would utilise an existing field gate (unmade agricultural access) onto Spring Lane, close to the

4

residential properties - St Joseph’s, Southover Place (flats) and The Presbytery. The development would comprise the following:- construction of a concrete surface over the existing unmade agriculture access construction of a new concrete road (4.0m wide) over a field (about 80m in

length) construction of a covered yard building 30m x 30m (partly open sided, partly

timber space boarding: with cement fibre roof cladding) construction of a fodder/straw building 30m x 15m (partly open sided, partly

green plastisol box profile cladding: with cement fibre roof sheets) the formation of an apron (concrete) between and around the two buildings

(about 60m x 66m)

A supporting letter from the agent is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 August 2006.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- No objection subject to highway conditions.Environment Agency:- No objection subject to conditions.Rural Estates Surveyor:- A full agricultural appraisal has been received. The conclusion is as follows:“i. The proposed expanded beef enterprise reflects Government policy regarding

locally produced foods. Organic standards require an increased floor area to accommodate the livestock and to address welfare issues.

ii. The only building presently on the farm that could accommodate cattle is 2 iv but this building has a low roof which provides inadequate ventilation leading to respiratory diseases. In addition the building would not accommodate all of the cattle.

ii. I have calculated the space requirement for 60 suckler cows and their progeny and I am of the opinion that the cattle yard will be appropriate for this use. The proposed Dutch barn will accommodate feed and bedding materials as the cattle will be straw bedding.

iv. The proposed new access will be necessary to take agricultural traffic which will be limited to livestock trailers on the farm for necessary trips to the abattoir. This will occur as and when necessary. All feed is produced on the farm so bulk food delivery wagons will not be a constant source of heavy traffic movement.

v. The buildings will satisfy the Organic Standards and address welfare issues. I am therefore of the opinion that both buildings are reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit.”

Planning Notice:- 4 letters of objection - St Joseph’s, Penshurst and Flat 16 (Southover Place) and Southover Management Ltd (summarised): there are two dwellings and Southover Place (15 separate apartments) within the

vicinity of the application site. There are substantially more people living close to the proposed siting than if it was to be incorporated into the present farmyard

our properties will be affected by noise, smell and flies the access point is unsafe previous proposals for an access at this point have been refused buildings will be an eyesore in an AONB concrete access road will be an eyesore over a rural field existing farm buildings are underutilised the existing farm driveway is more suitable alternative sitings are available

5

will devalue my property would increase the volume of traffic in Spring Lane concerned about liquid waste polluting the water environment (ditches etc) urge the planning committee to visit the site before making a decision

SUMMARY The site is within the countryside where established development plan policies indicate that all new development will be strictly controlled and the type of development must justify a countryside location. Agricultural development, in principle, can be said to justify a countryside location. For any such development to be permitted, however, it must satisfy all other policy caveats in the development plan and in this respect my overriding concern is the impact of the proposed development on the appearance of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Policies S1(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011). The application is for a large complex of modern farm buildings and other associated development on what is presently an undeveloped greenfield site within a very attractive AONB landscape. The proposed complex would be located in a position which is remote from the existing farm complex. This is acknowledged in the application and the reason given is that,“It was not considered feasible to locate the new beef unit next to the existing farm buildings as to the North is an existing woodland, to the East and West dwellings and to the South the land rises steeply. In addition it would have meant locating the beef unit close to existing dwellings.It is felt that the selected site will be well screened by existing trees and hidden from the north by a slight rise in the ground and the fact that the Covered Yard will be set into the ground.”The presence of the existing trees does not, in my view, mitigate against the overall impact of the proposed development on the AONB landscape. Moreover, whilst the need to safeguard existing dwellings in the existing farm complex is cited as a justification for the proposed remote position of the new complex, this can be given little weight in view of the fact that the chosen site has only served to place the proposed development in the vicinity of other dwellings. The principal purpose of AONB destination is conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape. Whilst the agricultural support for the proposal given by the Rural Estates Surveyor is noted, this does not override concerns in respect of the resultant harm to the AONB landscape if the application was to be permitted.The overall development includes a proposal to utilise and develop an agricultural access onto Spring Lane which was the subject of a dismissed planning appeal in respect of RR/97/2335/P for a new access driveway to Franchise Mere (see History above). In dismissing the appeal the Planning Inspector commented on the proposed surface driveway as follows:“It would still however be visible as a semi formal drive across open countryside. In any event I consider vehicles using the visually exposed lengths of the proposed drive would be incongruous when seen across open fields.The proposed development would therefore neither preserve nor enhance the natural beauty of the area and thus would not satisfy the objectives for which the AONB was designated as set out in paragraphs 4.7 and 4.8 of PPG7.”The proposed development contained within the application now before you is far more substantial than that contained in the 1997 appeal application and accordingly the consequences for the AONB landscape, if this application is approved, would be significantly more harmful.

6

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

Policies S(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan indicate that development will be carefully controlled to protect the character of the area. This is consistent with Government planning policy set out in PPS7 which states that in nationally designated areas, the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should be given great weight in planning policies and development control decisions (para 2.1). In addition, within such areas, in accordance with Sections 5, 11 and 88 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty is the prime objective. It is considered that the proposal does not meet this criteria and it would have a harmful effect on the rural character of the area.

RR/2006/1836/P BURWASH SEA VIEW FARM HOUSE, VICARAGE LANE, BURWASH COMMONADDITION OF DORMER AND TWO ROOFLIGHTS TO GARAGE ROOF.Ms A Morrissey and M Crouch

Statutory 8 week date: 28 August 2006

SITE Sea View Farmhouse is a detached residence on a plot to the western side of Vicarage Lane. The dwelling is set back from the road and accessed via an existing drive. The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is situated just outside of the development boundary for Burwash Common. Planning permission was granted in 2005 for the erection of a replacement dwelling house over the footprint of the existing and in 2006 for the erection of a detached triple garage with a storage area above. This work is currently underway.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2003/1031/P Outline: Demolition of existing two storey house and one storey

outbuilding and erection of new dwelling, covered pool and all associated works including alterations to existing access – Refused

RR/2005/1733/P Erection of replacement dwelling house – Approved ConditionalRR/2005/2993/P Amendment to roof of approved dwelling – Approved ConditionalRR/2006/104/P Erection of detached triple garage with storage area above -

Approved Conditional

PROPOSAL This application proposes the installation of a dormer window and two Velux windows in the roof space of the recently approved detached garage. These windows are to be located in the southern elevation of the garage.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaitedPlanning Notice:- No comments received

SUMMARY The proposed windows are to be installed in the southern elevation of the garage, facing into the application site. The windows would therefore have no adverse impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residential properties. The windows are

7

considered to be acceptable in both scale and design and would therefore have no significant detrimental impact upon the appearance of the High Weald AONB in this location. The use of the garage shall be limited to domestic purposes only and I therefore support this proposal.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7C (Matching external materials)2. The garage shall be used for domestic purposes ancillary to the main dwelling

only and not for any trade or business purposes and no residential accommodation shall be formed therein.Reason: RC35 and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting this Order) no windows except as shown on the approved plans shall be inserted into the building.Reason: To ensure appropriate development of the site and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASON FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed dormer windows in the garage are of an appropriate design and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/2037/P BURWASH GRAND TURZEL CARAVAN PARK, FONTRIDGE LANEERECTION OF TWENTY DETACHED GARAGES FOR RESIDENTIAL CARAVANSTingdene Developments Ltd

Statutory 8 week date: 26 October 2006

SITE This site of approximately 14ha is situated on the western side of a private road leading north from Fontridge Lane. Works are under construction in connection with the use of the site for 20 residential caravans.

HISTORYRR/1999/2914/P Erection of four houses, garage, associated works and alteration to

access – Refused.RR/2000/801/O Lawful use of land as caravan site with ancillary structures –

Approved – Use for 8 caravans.RR/2001/1077/O Lawful use as a caravan site for both permanent and touring

caravans – Appeal against non-determination allowed for 8 caravans.

RR/2001/2045/P Erection of 3 houses, garages and associated works with alteration to access – Recommend for Refusal – Withdrawn.

RR/2002/2895/O Lawful use of land as a caravan site for 9 caravan – Refused – Appeal allowed.

8

RR/2003/1640/O Lawful use of land as caravan site for 9 caravans – Not determined – appeal allowed.

RR/2004/279/P Erection of 3 detached dwellings – Refused.RR/2005/858/O Lawful use of land as a caravan site for 20 residential caravans -

approved with S106 unilateral undertaking to limit number to 20 caravans

RR/2005/2166/O Lawful use of land as caravan site for 36 residential caravans - Withdrawn

PROPOSAL Erection of 20 detached double garages so that each caravan has garaging . The agent accepts that whilst construction of hard surfacing for parking is permitted development as a requirement of the Caravan Site Licence, the Lawful Use Certificate does not authorise the construction of garages. The garages proposed are shown with a multi-coloured Derbyshire spar aggregate finish and terracotta granular steel roof tiles.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Director of Services - Environment:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Any representations will be reported.

SUMMARY Development of the site is proceeding in accordance with the Lawful Use Certificate for 20 residential caravans. The structures being erected on the site fall within the definition of a caravan.Whilst a certificate has been granted for the site I am concerned at the additional built development the proposal will represent, which will be out of keeping with the open aspect of the park and provide an urban character detrimental to the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In addition the siting of some of the garages would result in the loss of trees which are covered by a Tree Preservation Order.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed addition of 20 garages would introduce an urban appearance to

the rural character of the area and be out of character with and detrimental to the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and be contrary to policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. The siting of the garage would be likely to result in the loss of trees on the site which ar the subject of a Tree Preservation Order and would be contrary to Policy GD1(v) and (vi) of the Rother District Local Plan.

9

RR/2006/1558/P BATTLE HAROLD TERRACE - LAND AT OUTLINE: ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING WITH GARAGE AND PROVISION OF 2 PARKING SPACES AND FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS.Mr R Vidler

Statutory 8 week date: 22 August 2006

This application was deferred at your last meeting in order to seek clarification of the site levels and the status of the access road and legal rights of way over it. I have written to the applicant’s agent and the Highway Authority in this respect.

SITE The application site is located within the development boundary for Battle and within the High Weald AONB. The site comprises an area of overgrown garden attached to the property of “Kinross” in Kingsdale Close, although it is actually situated to the rear of 9 and 10 St Mary’s Villas, extending along the eastern boundary of St Mary’s Terrace to Harold Terrace. It is an irregular shaped plot with changing ground levels and boundary trees.

HISTORYA/57/273 Outline: Erect a detached bungalow and garage. Refused.A/64/764 Outline: Dwelling. Refused.A/73/0150 Outline: Demolition of existing house and erection of 18 houses.

Refused.RR/2005/778/P Outline: Erection of 3 town houses and block of 5 x 2 bed

apartments with parking, new access and alteration of existing access. Withdrawn.

RR/2005/2300/P Outline: Erection of detached dwelling with garage served by new access from Harold Terrace. Withdrawn.

RR/2005/2891/P Outline: Erection of detached dwelling with garage and provision of parking spaces and formation of new vehicular access. Refused - Appeal Pending

PROPOSAL This is an outline application with siting and means of access to be determined at this stage and as detailed on the “site plan”. The design and external appearance are to be ‘reserved matters’ with the elevations, floor layout and sections submitted, forming ‘indicative’ plans only for information purposes. The proposal is to erect a detached dwelling with parking and access off the eastern end of Harold Terrace. The site plan indicates the levels, new access and its gradient, with a turning head, siting for a dwelling and retention of the hedges and trees to the boundaries with adjacent residential properties. A new boundary would be erected to the remainder of ‘Kinross’ and with the allotments to the east. The indicative plans detail a two bedroom split level dwelling with an integral garage, respecting the changing ground levels of the site.The application is also accompanied by an independent highway traffic and transport report, compiled in response to a previous reason for refusal and in relation to the current appeal.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council: Consider that the only difference between this and the previous refusal is a slight redesign and relocation. They feel the design is out of character and maintain the view that it is an over-development and will create access problems. They are

10

concerned at a loss of parking in Harold Terrace and note that trees/hedge has already been removed at the end of Harold Terrace.Highway Authority: Highway safety concern is expressed by reason of the narrow width of Harold Terrace at its junction with Battle Hill (A2100). However, as Harold Terrace currently serves 25+ dwellings it is considered that there are insufficient grounds to justify a refusal for one additional dwelling. Therefore any consent should include conditions to ensure wheel washing facilities during construction, the access to be positioned as on the approved plan and parking and turning to be provided in accordance with the approved plan and thereafter maintained. They additionally advise that “in accepting a single dwelling on this plot that this recommendation should in no way set a precedent for further development within the Battle Hill location as a whole”. It is also confirmed that Harold Terrace is a ‘private street’, i.e. it is not adopted by the Highway Authority but has full highway rights.Southern Water: No comments received.Environment Agency: No comments received.Planning Notice: 20 letters of objection and a petition with 67 signatures on the following grounds: previous refusal should still stand the transport report is considered to be bias as there are existing vehicular and

pedestrian hazards while the accident record for Battle Hill may indicate a lack of fatal incidents it

does not record the increasing number of minor incidents loss of existing parking spaces concern that the access may also be used to serve the adjacent allocated

housing site on Highlands Farm it will destroy the quality of life of local residents noise and disruption during building works will lead to an increase in parking and subsequent highway hazards on Battle Hill access should be via Kinross and Kingsdale Close concern that the access may be used to redevelop Kinross access is substandard, narrow and unmade with no pedestrian footway the site would make a good play area for children the road is privately owned and the applicant has no right to access onto it could set a precedent children also play in Harold Terrace and the proposal increases dangers for

them

SUMMARY This application is a re-submission for those previously withdrawn and refused, RR/2005/2300/P and RR/2005/2891/P respectively. The site falls within the development boundary for Battle as defined in the Rother District Local Plan, and as such there is a presumption in favour of development, subject to its detail and compliance with other policy criteria. In this instance access, traffic generation, relationship with existing properties and precedent are of particular concern. This application differs from its predecessors in respect of the detail provided, the matters to be determined at this stage and those reserved. The siting and access are now to be determined at this stage and indicate that the site could accommodate a small dwelling with access, parking and turning to meet highway standards and in such a location as to minimise any detriment for neighbouring properties. However, this arrangement is only satisfactory for a small 2 bedroom dwelling of a comparable design to the indicative plans. Any increase in the size of the dwelling would have implications for additional parking requirements and be likely to result in additional traffic movements. Any increase in size would also be likely to result in the loss of boundary trees and

11

hedges with a more cramped form of development, detrimental to the residential amenities of neighbours and lacking in amenity and parking for future occupiers of the application property.The previous application was refused for two reasons, the first relating to a concern regarding increased traffic movements along an approach road, which has narrow width, poor alignment, restricted visibility and no footways. While the Highway Authority had expressed concern in respect of this issue, they were of the opinion that there were insufficient grounds to justify a refusal in respect of one additional dwelling. Neighbours had also expressed concern on this matter as well as the loss of two on-street parking spaces at the end of Harold Terrace to accommodate the new access. The independent highway report submitted with the application considers all aspects of the approach road, highway standards and the likely impact of traffic from the proposed dwelling. After careful consideration a refusal on this ground is not now recommended.The second reason of refusal relates to precedent and a concern that if permitted it would be likely to encourage similar proposals in the vicinity. Again this remains of concern, particularly in relation to the adjacent rear gardens of St Mary’s Terrace. However, it is argued that each site and application should be considered on its own merit and with no other reason for refusal the argument in respect of precedent would be difficult to justify.Subject to satisfactory responses being received in respect of the matters of levels and the status of the access road, it is considered that the applicant has now demonstrated that a suitable dwelling with access, parking and turning could be accommodated on this site, subject to restrictions and in particular in respect of its size and retention of the natural boundary screening.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING) 1. Standard outline – delete “siting and access” (as is part of this submission)2. The dwelling hereby permitted shall be predominantly of single storey

construction and shall not contain more than 97 square metres of gross floorspace, including an integral garage. Reason: The application site is physically constrained and a larger dwelling could not be satisfactorily accommodated without detriment to the residential and highway amenities of the area, having regard to Policies S1 and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1 and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. Before the first occupation of the development hereby approved, the car parking and vehicular turning facilities, as approved in respect of condition 1 above, shall be provided and thereafter retained for such purposes only. Reason: In the interests of and for the safety of persons and vehicles using the premises and/or the adjoining road and in order to secure a satisfactory standard of development. Policies S1 and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1 and TR3 of Rother District Local Plan.

4. CN13B (Landscape implementation) – “…as approved in respect of condition 1 above…”. Reason: To maintain and enhance the natural boundary screening and appearance of the development within the locality. Policy S1 of East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of Rother District Local Plan.

5. CN7G (Materials) - “dwelling” singular.

12

REASON FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is of an appropriate type and in an appropriate location and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policies S1, TR3 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1 and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/1916/P BATTLE 140 HASTINGS ROAD, HIGHCROFTOUTLINE: ERECTION OF THREE DETACHED DWELLINGS AND ONE GARAGE WITH PROVISION OF SIX PARKING SPACES AND DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGMr and Mrs Brown

Statutory 8 week date: 19 September 2006

SITE High Croft is a detached single residence on a plot to the western side of Hastings Road, Battle. The plot measures approximately 0.14 hectares and the existing dwelling is set back from the road and accessed via an existing drive. The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is situated within the development boundary for Battle.The site was inspected by Members of the Planning Committee on 17 January 2006 in connection with a previous application – RR/2005/3003/P.

HISTORYRR/96/2025/P Proposed alterations and improvements - Approved Conditional.RR/2004/2387/P Outline: Demolition of existing detached dwelling and erection of

six dwellings with provision of eight parking spaces - Withdrawn.RR/2005/595/P Outline: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of three

detached dwellings - Withdrawn.RR/2005/3003/P Outline: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of three

detached dwellings and provision of seven parking spaces – Withdrawn.

RR/2006/303/P Outline: Demolition of existing building and erection of two detached dwellings with two attached garages and provision of three parking spaces - Approved

PROPOSAL This is a further revised planning application for the residential redevelopment of the site. The application is in outline only. A layout plan has been provided showing three detached dwellings, one of which has an attached garage. The plan is similar to that submitted with a previous application for three dwellings (RR/2005/3003/P), however, whereas that indicated that the new built development would have a footprint of 159 sq.metres, the revised application now before you indicates that the total footprint would be 135 sq.metres. The footprint of each of the proposed new dwellings has been correspondingly reduced. Other illustrations described as an indicative elevation/plan treatment drawing and a three dimensional visualisation sketch are as previously submitted.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Comments awaited.Highway Authority – Comments awaited.Environment Agency – Comments awaited.

13

Southern Water Services – Comments awaited.Planning Notice – Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY The site lies within the Development Boundary for Battle as identified in the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). It is an existing developed site (brownfield land) and residential re-development of the land would not be opposed in principle under existing planning policies. A major issue for consideration however is whether the proposed scheme can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site being mindful of the existing character of the area, the need to safeguard existing residential amenity of neighbouring properties in close proximity to the site, and also the requirement to provide adequate on-site parking and manoeuvring areas to serve the new residential development.A number of successive applications have been submitted on this site in recent years. Members considered that the last application (RR/2006/303/P) for the redevelopment of the site with two dwellings and garages could be supported and granted planning permission accordingly. Members, however, in previously considering alternative applications for the redevelopment of the site with three dwellings (and garage/parking) had taken the view that it had not be demonstrated that this number of dwellings could be satisfactorily accommodated on the site and were minded to refuse planning permission on the grounds that the design and form of the proposed detached dwellings would appear ‘cramped’ and would not reflect the density and character of existing residential development in the surroundings. Members gave the applicant the opportunity to withdraw the application, which was accepted and the planning refusal notice was not issued. Although the footprints of each of the proposed dwellings has been reduced somewhat in this new application now before you, they have not been reduced by a significant degree. Moreover, the supporting indicative drawings which have been provided to illustrate the possible design and relationship of the dwellings on the street scene, remain as previously submitted. Circumstances have not materially changed since the last application for three dwellings was considered by the Planning Committee, and Members will therefore wish to be consistent in their view of this development proposal. I must therefore make the

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD, 22 AUGUST 2006)1. Whilst the application relates to the redevelopment of an existing development

site within the Development Framework for Battle as identified within the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(e) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 is noted, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site without resulting in a cramped form of development that would be out of character and harmful to the visual amenities of the area. The development proposal is contrary to Policy S1(a) and (b) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

14

RR/2004/2618/P BATTLE KANE HYTHE ROAD - LAND WEST OF, NETHERFIELDERECTION OF AGRICULTURAL BUILDING, HARDSTANDING AND CREATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS. CLOSURE OF EXISTING VEHICULAR ACCESSBeech Estate

Statutory 8 week date: 26 October 2004

This application was deferred at your last meeting for a site inspection and the submission of further information.

I have written to the County Archaeologist in respect of the proximity to an ancient settlement site known locally as ‘Creep Town’. In addition the applicants have been invited to provide any further information over and above that set out in the report of the Rural Estates Surveyor.

SITE This application relates to part of the Beech Estate along the west side of Kane Hythe Road. Specifically the proposed access and building is opposite the entrance to Foxhole Farm.

HISTORYThere is no history relevant to this proposal.

PROPOSAL It is proposed to erect an agricultural building 36.8m by 18.5m of steel framed construction with a green sheeted roof having a ridge height of 5.7m. As required blockwork and/or sleepers would be used to infill the bays between the steel stations.The existing access has substandard visibility so it is proposed to close this and create a new access about 20m to the north.The building would be used for agricultural/forestry storage and for over wintering cattle.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- “The agricultural need for the building has not been sufficiently established. Seems unnecessary and intrusive in area of ancient woodland in the AONB, close to an old settlement of archaeological interest.”Highway Authority:- Recommends highway conditions.Rural Estates Surveyor:-“1. Description -

i. The subject land extends in all to approximately 180 hectares and forms part of the Beech Estate extending in all to approximately 1000 hectares. Of this area approximately 50% is woodland.

ii. The subject land is rented to Mr White who farms in total 480 hectares in the locality.

iii. There are 34 hectares of grass on the subject land and 145 hectares of woodland.

2. Buildings -There are no buildings on the subject land.

3. Existing use -

15

i. The Beech Estate used to farm in hand. This type of farming operation has now ceased and all farmable land is rented to third parties such as is the case with Mr White.

ii. The woodland on the estate is retained in hand and is managed by the estate.

iii. Mr White is a livestock farmer with buildings at Deer Park, Catsfield. I visited this farm last year and prepared an appraisal in response to RR/2003/2523/P which was for a cattle building. This has now been erected.

iv. Mr White’s livestock consists of a suckler herd of 140/150 cows accommodated at Deer Park and a commercial flock of about 320 ewes.

v. The subject land is used to graze fattening cattle produced by the suckler cows. These number up to 60 or 70 head at any one time together with 100 ewes.

vi. At present there is no accommodation to over winter the cattle or have some accommodation for lambing. Neither is there any storage facility for bulk feed or bedding material.

4. Proposal -i. To erect a six bay general purpose building 18.25 metres x 36.26 metres

x 3.65 metres to eaves.ii. The drawing shows the building to be open sided. Details of materials

used to enclose the elevations and gables are contained in the agent’s letter dated 27 August. Elevations will consist of block or sleeper walling with Yorkshire boarding above to eaves. One gable end will be gated.

iii. The roof and part of the gables will be PVC coated profile sheeting.iv. There will be a concrete apron around the building but there are no details

of the size of this.v. The proposal would also require an improved access to the highway.

There are no details of this supplied with the application.5. Conclusion -

The subject land does not have any buildings at the present. The provision of the building will greatly assist the good farm management of the land and livestock enterprise and would also be available from time to time for the estate to use for forestry operations.I am of the opinion that the building is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture and forestry undertaken within the unit.”

Forestry Commission:- “The Government’s forestry policies discourage development that results in its loss unless there is overriding public benefit…. The value of ancient woodlands relates to the fact that they have never been converted to another land use and so retain some of the flora and fauna of our primordial woodland. Many ancient woodland sites have been ‘felled’ in the past and replanted with native and/or non-native trees, but still retain the flora and fauna which makes them so important.The proposed building is located in an area of woodland called Sprays Wood. This area of woodland is an Ancient Woodland Site. A building of this size will have a considerable impact on woodland flora and fauna and would involve the felling of a number of trees. The rides throughout this woodland area are also managed under a Woodland Grant Scheme to improve their value for conservation. The increased traffic using these rides as a result of the development would have a detrimental effect on this objective.”Planning Notice:- No representations received.

16

SUMMARY It can be seen from the report of the Rural Estates Surveyor that the tenant farmer occupies a substantial land holding and that the 180 hectares owned by the Beech Estate has no farm buildings. Given the substantial distance to the farmer’s existing buildings at Deer Park Farm, Catsfield I can accept the conclusion that the proposed building is reasonably necessary. Similarly, I have no objection to the creation of the new access. The necessary visibility splays can, I believe, be satisfactorily achieved without the need to remove hedgerows. To improve the existing access would result in hedge loss. I have investigated the Town Council’s reference to an old settlement of archaeological interest and found no such reference relating to this site within the known archaeological records. However, the building is shown to be sited within the designated area of ancient semi-natural woodland. The siting was chosen by the applicant to minimise the visual impact of the building believing that the landscape issue would predominate. I am also mindful that whilst the siting is in the edge of the ancient woodland the reality of the site is that the larger area has, for many years been a conifer plantation and thus the variety of flora/fauna normally associated with ancient woodland is not present.If the siting within the woodland is of particular concern the applicant would be prepared to re-site it within the adjacent field. This would, however, make the building very much more prominent in the landscape.It is my opinion, on balance, given the obviously poor quality of the woodland involved, that it be desirable to agree the proposed siting and the much reduced landscape effect. A revised site plan is however needed to enlarge the red site area so as to include the access and land for further landscaping and hard surfaced apron at the building entrance.I have also considered the use of the building for livestock in winter in relation to residential amenity. The nearest dwelling is Foxhole Farmhouse which is situated some 360m distant. I do not believe that loss of amenity is likely to be a significant risk.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (AMENDED SITE PLAN)1. CN7B (External materials - amend to roof and wall cladding).2. CN10A (Highway conditions).3. CN13A (Landscaping scheme).4. CN13B (Implementation of landscaping scheme).

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is considered to be reasonably necessary for agricultural purposes on the holding. The intended siting minimises the effect upon the landscape of the AONB and the new access an improvement in highway safety over the existing access arrangement. The development is therefore considered to be in compliance with Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

17

RR/2006/1516/P BEXHILL 1-4 CRANLEIGH CLOSEOUTLINE: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLINGS AND ERECTION OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTSummertree Estates Ltd

Statutory 13 week date: 09 October 2006

SITE The application site (0.521 hectares) is located to the north-east of Conquest House. It is served by Cranleigh Close, a private, gravel surfaced cul-de-sac off the north side of Collington Avenue. The application site presently comprises four detached bungalows (nos. 1-4 Cranleigh Close) and their respective garden curtilages. Two buildings front Collington Avenue at each side of the Cranleigh Close access - no. 30 (a large detached Edwardian building), which is now occupied as flats, and no. 28 (a detached dwelling): these dwellings do not form part of the application site.A small bungalow, no. 5 Cranleigh Close, also falls outside the application site. There are existing flats in the vicinity of the application site fronting Sutherland Avenue to the east, and set around Eridge Close to the north. The site is within the Development Boundary of Bexhill as identified on the Local Plan proposals map.

HISTORYNone.

PROPOSAL The proposed development consists of the demolition of the existing four bungalows and the erection of 76 no. flats on the site. Although the application is in outline form, drawings have been provided indicating the layout of the flats, and on-site parking, together with schematic illustrations showing the height and massing of the buildings. The information provided can be described as follows:

3 blocksBlock A - 6 stories - 50 units and car parkingBlock B - 2 stories - 1 unit and car parkingBlock C - 5 stories - 25 units

Car park provision is within the buildings at ground floor level (described as ‘undercroft parking’) and also around the outside of the buildings. In total, 76 parking bays are indicated.

Blocks B and C would comprise affordable housing units (26 in total). Supporting information states that there have been no discussions with a housing association to-date.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- Comments awaited.Southern Water Services:- Comments awaited.Director of Services - Housing:- Comments awaited.Director of Services - Amenities:- The application states ‘existing’ surface water system - there is no public surface water sewer available - Southern Water may accept some flows into the foul system but this is doubtful.Planning Notice:- 43 letters of objection from occupiers of neighbouring properties:- the new building will be a dominant structure that will dominate the skyline and

detrimentally affect the character of the area18

unacceptable loss of amenity to neighbouring residential properties by way of overlooking and overshadowing and additional noise

estimated traffic generated by 76 units could amount to some 600 vehicular movements daily (TRICS traffic data). This would introduce an intolerable level of traffic which would seriously affect the amenity of neighbouring residents

contrary to policy S1(b) of East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(ii) of Rother District Local Plan

the development is out of proportion to the site and surrounding properties doubtful that no trees would be felled - no tree protection plan has been provided

as advocated by the British Standard conflicts with Policy GD1(iv) of Rother District Local Plan - does not respect and

not detract from the character and appearance of the locality contrary to national advice in PPG3 - there is no evidence that the concept has

been influenced by the wider context, particularly given that this is a backland site

it will not create a place that is attractive, has its own distinct identify, and does not positively improve local character

proposed density is too high and inappropriate for the area extreme over-development of the area dangerous nature of the access - entering and leaving the site would be

extremely hazardous local authorities do not have the facilities or services to sustain this type of

expansion already serious danger of high volume of cars parked daily on Collington Avenue

and Sutherland Avenue no crossing for pedestrians this is a suburban area full of wildlife, birds, squirrels, foxes, toads and

woodpeckers, none of which should be disturbed is there a demand for this sort of accommodation in Bexhill? no pavement for pedestrians refuse vehicles would obstruct the access the area already has a water shortage problem

SUMMARY The application site is located within the Development Boundary for Bexhill as identified in the Rother District Local Plan, and as such there is a presumption in favour of development, subject to its detail and compliance with other policy criteria. Whilst this is a brownfield site, therefore, planning permission should only be given for the redevelopment of the buildings and gardens if this would be consistent with other policies in the Structure Plan and the Rother District Local Plan. In this respect, it is considered that the development would be inappropriate, as it would conflict with policies contained in the aforementioned plans, particularly in three main areas of concern:

The affect of the character of the area:The application site presently comprises an attractive residential area of low-density and low-rise residential properties. They are set within mature gardens and trees, particularly on the boundaries of the site. This gives the area an open and leafy, suburban character. There are flats in the vicinity of the site, however these front directly onto the road - Sutherland Avenue - and although close, that area is perceived as being quite separate from the application site, having its own distinct character. Although the application is in outline, the precise number of flats proposed is stated, and it is clear that whatever the design of the

19

buildings at any detailed stage, this will result in a substantial mass and height of new building development on the site with substantial areas given over to parking and hard surfaces and conversely, very little area remaining for amenity land or soft landscaping. In the circumstances, even taking into account the existing flats in Sutherland Avenue, it is considered that the resultant development would be excessive and out of character with the area. In reaching this conclusion, I am mindful of the existing Conquest House development close to the site, which in itself is a large monolithic building, dominating the immediate area. This office building has, however, existed for many years and, measured against current planning policies, it is highly unlikely that any present day proposal for this development would be approved. It is not therefore considered that the existing presence of Conquest House sets any form of precedent for high-density, high-rise redevelopment on the application site

The potential impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties: I am concerned that the proposed number of flats cannot be satisfactorily accommodated within the site without resulting in new buildings (or building) which, because of height, mass and proximity to boundaries, would:(i) overlook and result in loss of privacy for neighbouring occupiers;(ii) dominate neighbouring properties and result in an overbearing and

oppressive outlook for existing residents;(iii) result in nuisance and general disturbance from the intensive activity

associated with the day-to-day occupation of 76 new flats. On this final point, a particular concern would be the effect of vehicle movements associated with the development particularly in respect of the use of the narrow access road (Cranleigh Close) and its close relationship to existing properties. 76 accommodation units could potentially result in some 500-600 traffic movements daily (TRICS traffic data).

Highway implications: Comments from the Highway Authority are awaited and I would hope to receive these in time for your meeting. The aforementioned traffic generation resulting from the development is of concern particularly in respect of the standard of the existing access to the junction of Collington Avenue. The proposed level of on-site car parking is given to be 76 spaces for 76 flats. This is significantly below your adopted standard of 1 1/3 parking spaces per flat, which would provide in the region of 102 spaces. I am concerned that the level of on-site parking provision is inadequate for the number of units proposed, with no allowance made to accommodate visitor parking, deliveries and service vehicles.

On a further matter, some reference should be made to Government advice in PPG3 (Housing) which indicates that the redevelopment of brownfield sites for housing should be at appropriate densities that make efficient use of land. Whilst this is noted, it is also the case the PPG indicates that developers should think imaginatively about design and layouts that make more efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the environment. This goes on to state, “new housing development of whatever scale should not be viewed in isolation and consideration of design and layout must be informed by the wider context, having regard not just to any immediate neighbouring buildings but the townscape and landscape of the wider locality.” The density of development would be in the region of 140 dwellings per hectare, which far exceeds advice in PPG3 which specifies that normally not less than 30 units to the hectare is appropriate. Annexe C to the draft PPS3 sets out indicative densities for various types of location and suggests that densities in excess of 70 units per hectare are normally appropriate for city centre locations; this site is clearly not a city centre location but assessing the proposal in the light of such central government expectations for new

20

development demonstrates the extent to which the proposal put forward in the application would constitute a substantial overdevelopment of this land.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING)1. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the development can be

accommodated on the site without resulting in harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring residential properties. In particular, the height, massing and position of the buildings would be likely to result in overlooking and loss of privacy, an over-bearing development resulting in an oppressive outlook, and some overshadowing and loss of sunlight. Furthermore, the activity associated with the increased intensity of the use of the site would result in nuisance for neighbouring occupiers, including noise, fumes, and other disturbance arising from vehicles using the site. The proposed development conflicts with Policy S1(b) and (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the development can be accommodated on the site without resulting in harm to the quality of the existing character of the area. In particular, the development is likely to result in a dominant mass of building development on the site with much of the remaining site area comprising hard surfacing. No significant provision could be made for new planting, soft landscaping or amenity areas within the development. The proposed development conflicts with Policy S1(b) and (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan. The proposals also conflict with government advice in PPG3 ‘Housing’ (paragraphs 54 and 56 - ‘Designing for Quality’).

3. Inadequate provision is proposed for the parking, turning and loading of vehicles within the site. The proposed development conflicts with Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. Notwithstanding the guidance contained in PPG3 ‘Housing’ paragraphs 57 and 58 ‘Making the best use of land’, the proposed development constitutes overdevelopment of the land which, if permitted would be out of character with, and detrimental to, the amenities of the locality. The proposed development does not accord with present government guidance on indicative housing densities contained in Annex C of the draft PPS3 ‘Housing’.

5. Notwithstanding the policy objections to the principle of this development, the proposal fails to provide 40% of the total number of units as affordable housing for local people in accordance with Policy HG1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/1741/P BEXHILL 56 TURKEY ROADDEMOLITION OF WAREHOUSE AND ERECTION OF 5 TERRACED DWELLINGS INCLUDING PARKINGMr Farrant

Statutory 8 week date: 28 August 2006

SITE The site comprises a single warehouse building and service yard situated on the north side of Turkey Road. The property is wholly surrounded by residential properties in both Turkey Road and Camperdown Street.

21

HISTORY (selected)67/204 Use of vacant dairy premises for storage of motor coaches –

Approved70/431 Erection of motor coach garage – Approved84/2082 Change of use and alterations of coach garage to general

builders merchants – ApprovedRR/92/899 Change of use from builders merchants to antiques export

warehouse and workshop – ApprovedRR/2003/676/P Change of use from antiques workshop to builders yard –

ApprovedRR/2005/2319/P Change of use to timber merchant warehouse and trade counter –

Withdrawn

PROPOSAL This is a full planning permission application to replace the commercial use of the site with a residential scheme of five terrace properties. The five houses arranged in a staggered form, occupy the rear part of the site with a communal parking area to the front for eight cars. The terraced houses are two storey with pitched roofs. They have been staggered and orientated, south east/north west to prevent direct overlooking to the south. In this respect there are also no windows in the south east elevations. The application is accompanied by or supporting statement, a design statement and a statement on the marketing of the commercial property. All these documents are reproduced in the attached APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 August 2006.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority – Do not wish to restrict consent. However in line with ESCC parking standards consider 8 spaces to be an overprovision. Would also require covered cycle parking for each dwelling.Environment Agency – No objections in principle subject to conditions on contamination, surface water and protection of groundwater.Southern Water – To be reported.Director of Services - Head of Regeneration – To be reported.Planning Notice – Objections from 4 properties and from Vodafone:- loss of access to rear of 58 Turkey Road – proposed parking blocks historic

access- loss of privacy – overlooking from new properties- disturbance from five households in close proximity to garden- noise from vehicles- will the strip of land on which the mast is positioned be registered as a

‘ransom strip’ and will this show in the deeds and information provided to any potential buyers so that they are aware of all the implications should the mast be removed?

- reduction in property values- too much development in area already - additional traffic and too many access points to Turkey Road- detract from quality of life- Vodafone are concerned that development will restrict access to telecom mast

adjacent to the site

SUMMARY There are two principal issues in respect of this application:(i) the loss of employment premises; and

22

(ii) the impact and overall acceptability of the development proposed particularly on adjoining residents

Local Plan policies EM2 and GD1 particularly apply as well as the general encouragement of central government guidance to make the efficient re-use of urban land.Employment IssuesPolicy EM2 states:“Proposals to change the use of existing buildings or redevelop sites currently or last in employment creating use will be resisted unless it is demonstrated that there is no prospect of its continued use for business purposes or that it would perpetuate serious harm to residential amenities.In the event of the above qualifications being met, first consideration will be given to a mixed use development in accordance with Policy EM1 and the criteria of Policies DS1 and GD1.”Evidence of previous marketing attempts has been submitted by the applicants and I am awaiting observations from the Head of Regeneration. The area if predominantly residential in character. This is clearly not an ideal position for a commercial use, even though (recognizing its existence) the Council has approved a variety of uses in the past.Understandably some local residents would favour residential usage as an alternative. The applicants have also dismissed mixed use in terms of Policy EM2.The layout and form of the residential scheme proposedIf a residential use is considered appropriate for the site then the issue is whether the current proposal is acceptable.In wider townscape terms the site is relatively hidden and with the dwellings positioned towards the rear of the site (where the current warehouse is located) their impact would be minimal from general public views ie. from the street. The principal consideration is the direct impact on the Turkey Road properties immediately to the east and to the west. Those houses to the rear, in Camperdown Street by reason of their higher ground level, distance and intervening vegetation will be little affected.The site is long and narrow flanked to the west mostly, by the long garden of 60 Turkey Road and to the east by the similarly long garden of 52 Turkey Road.The terrace of houses with its staggered arrangement brings the frontages consistently to within 2 metres of the boundary with 52 Turkey Road. To the rear the houses are between 6 metres and just over 2 metres from the boundary with 60 Turkey Road. The gardens similarly reduce in size towards the rear of the site.To the front of the properties there are no upper windows except facing north-westward. In these positions views from the front bedrooms back away from the house at 52 Turkey Road. To the rear are bedroom windows on the first floor. These too are angled to the north west again looking ‘up the garden’ of 60 Turkey Road. While I acknowledge this design, to face windows away from the adjoining houses, it does not prevent overlooking of the gardens. It is a mistake to dismiss this aspect of overlooking. Furthermore, from the two adjoining properties the physical intrusion of the new houses would be unacceptable. It is not an argument, in my view, that the houses will replace the existing warehouse. They may occupy a smaller ground area but they will be taller. Added to this, the level of potential activity from the gardens facing 60 Turkey Road would not be acceptable I do not believe the scheme to have been well-conceived and in the form proposed would be an undesirable overdevelopment of the site detrimental to adjoining residents.

23

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed houses by reason of their size, bulk, orientation and position in

close proximity to the side boundaries with 52 and 60 Turkey Road would be unduly intrusive when viewed from these adjoining properties. As such the scheme would be contrary to Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan being harmful to the outlook of adjoining residents.

2. Notwithstanding their physical impact, the erection of five dwellings in the form suggested would give rise to direct overlooking at close range into the private gardens of 52 and 60 Turkey Road from first floor bedroom windows leading to an unacceptable loss of privacy to adjoining residents. In addition the provision of five small gardens facing the private garden of 60 Turkey Road would lead to an unacceptable level of general activity close to this private garden. For both reasons the scheme would be contrary to Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan in that it would be harmful to the amenities of adjoining residents.

RR/2006/1846/TN BEXHILL COODEN SEA ROAD - LAND AT, (NEAR BUS SHELTER ADJ COODEN BEACH STATION)ERECTION OF 8M DUMMY TELEGRAPH POLE WITH

EQUIPMENT CABINET AT GROUND LEVELOrange Personal Communications Services Ltd

Last date for decision: 27 August 2006

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

SITE The proposed site is highway land immediately adjacent to Cooden Beach Station.

HISTORYPrevious in locality:-

Land opposite Cooden Beach StationRR/2000/1802/TN 12m ultra-slim monopole with single tri-sector antenna - Refused

(One 2 One)

Cooden Beach sports and Social ClubRR/2002/2329/TN 12m replacement flagpole - Refused (H3G) (Appeal Dismissed)

Cooden Beach Golf ClubRR/2003/1288/P 20m high Scots pine tree mast - Refused (Orange)

PROPOSAL To erect an 8m high sepia brown coloured dummy telegraph pole together with a small midnight green coloured equipment cabinet on the grass verge between the Cooden Beach Station car park/turning circle and the telephone box. The following has been extracted from the Supplementary Information submitted with the application:-“1.1 Proposed Development -

…… The proposal has been placed to enhance the level of coverage to the Cooden Area of Bexhill .….. The height of the proposal is 2 metres taller than the existing street furniture due to the local topography, this will allow the

24

antenna to be above the clutter in the immediate area, i.e. trees and rooftops…… The telegraph pole has been located so that it is near to other existing telegraph poles therefore not seen as an alien structure. The proposal is away from the main residential area and the cabinets have been kept to one, which will be painted midnight green again helping to keep the visual intrusion minimal. The pole and cabinet are situated back from the roadside, a photomontage is enclosed to provide an idea of what the proposal may look like …… It is thought that by virtue of the design, size and material being used the proposal is in a good location and will have the minimal impact on the area possible ……

9.0 Consideration of Alternatives -1. Westbourne Court:

The block of flats was interested until health and safety issues were raised by residents. The freeholder pulled from negotiations.

2. BT exchange:Due to the local topography the rooftop is too low to utilize. A greenfield option at this location was thought to be too visually intrusive compared to proposal.

3. The Gorses:A greenfield option was investigated on Council owned land. After investigation it was felt that the proposal was less visually intrusive compared to the proposal.

4. Highways option on Withyham Road:Too visually intrusive compared to the proposal.

5. Ismay Lodge:There was no response from correspondence sent to the freeholder therefore could not be pursued.

6. Cooden Beach Golf Club:Orange failed planning for a 20m scotts pine in 2003.

7. Cooden Beach Hotel:They were interested in housing telecoms, but there are no viable options to pursue.

8. Cooden Beach Station:Orange and Rail Track cannot agree legal terms therefore no option on the station could be pursued.

There were no other suitable existing masts, buildings or other structures with willing site providers that satisfied the technical constraints ……

10.0 Health and Safety -…… The government guidelines state that provided a proposed base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure then it should not be necessary for the Local Planning Authority to consider the health effects and concerns about them.I confirm that the proposed base station will comply with ICNIRP guidelines and I have attached the Certificate of Compliance ……

11.0 Conclusion -The telecommunication installation proposed as set out in this application has been designed and sited, having regard to technical, engineering and land use planning considerations, in order to minimise its impact on the local environment. The proposal will provide good coverage to an acknowledged area of current

25

poor coverage. The proposed design and distance from residential properties is thought to keep the visual impact to a minimum on the locality. Accordingly, the proposed development is considered to conform to national and local planning policies.”

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice:- 5 letters of objection - health risk; only thing green is the bus shelter; antenna is higher than silver street lights; it is going to stick out like a sore thumb; out of character with area; is phone mast going to block out TV reception?; 8m height will dwarf the adjacent telephone box, bus shelter and lamp standard; will add to general clutter of street furniture on exposed corner; should be located in less densely populated area.

SUMMARY Members will be familiar with the difference between an application for planning permission and an application for prior approval. This application seeks prior approval for siting and design and the regulations provide for the development to proceed as proposed following a notice period of 56 days (i.e. after 27/8/2006) unless the Local Planning Authority refuses to give such approval.In terms of siting, Members will recall the refusal of a previous application from Orange for a 20m high Scots pine tree on the Cooden Beach golf course. Previous to that an application by One 2 One for prior approval of a 12m monopole on land opposite this current application and adjacent to the public toilets was refused on grounds that it had not been demonstrated that an existing building or structure could not be used. This current proposal is more modest and the list of alternative sites considered clearly demonstrates the issues involved in finding a suitable location. One of the merits of this location is that it would be close to existing street furniture which will help to reduce its visual prominence. It will be approx 2m higher than the nearby lamp columns. The effect on the visual amenities of the area is, in my opinion, the main judgement here. This also has to be balanced against the operator’s technical requirements. It is my opinion that an appropriate balance has been struck and that the siting and appearance is in this case acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: DETAILS NOT REQUIRED

RR/2006/1921/P BEXHILL 8 THE GROVE - LAND ADJ ERECTION OF DWELLING INCLUDING ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING ACCESS.Cromwell Country Homes Ltd

Statutory 8 week date: 04 September 2006

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

SITE The plot is located within the development boundary for Bexhill as defined within Policy DS3 of the Rother District Local Plan and in principle there is no objection to residential development on this site. The site lies to the far north of The Grove, on the boundary with Little Common Road (A259). The plot is the northern part of the garden of No.8 The Grove and has a frontage of approximately 12m and an overall depth of some 44m. Vehicular access to the existing dwelling is gained via The Grove and an

26

unmade lane runs across the sites frontage, which currently only allows pedestrian traffic through.

HISTORYB/58/371 WC in existing bathroom – Permitted development

PROPOSAL This is a full planning application which proposes the subdivision of the curtilage of the existing dwelling (No.8 The Grove) and the erection of a new dwelling to the northern section of the plot. The proposal necessitates the removal of the single garage on the north eastern elevation of the existing building, and apart from this the property remains unaltered.A detached two storey dwelling is proposed, comprising four bedrooms and a new access onto the unmade track, with the provision of two parking spaces in the frontage of the site. Parking provision is also proposed for the existing dwelling (No.8).

CONSULTATIONSSouthern Water:- Does not wish to commentEnvironment Agency:- No comments received Highway Authority:- Recommends that any consent contains highway conditionsPlanning Notice:- 4 letters of objection received from 3, 7, 9 and 10 The Grove:- Increase in traffic and the parking of cars is already a problem in The Grove. A 2

car hard standing will not be adequate.- The unmade lane is unsuitable for cars and there would be no room for cars to

manoeuvre, creating safety hazards.- Using the unmade track would change the rural nature of the area and change

the setting of the existing properties and area.- Incongruous with the surrounding neighbourhood which is predominantly

bungalows.- Would reduce the quality and historical importance of the original 2 cottages.- The east facing bedroom windows would look directly into the back garden of

No. 9.- The rear two storey building would overshadow No.7 and 8 leading to loss of

light.- Would result in a loss of trees which protect The Grove from traffic noise

generated by the A259.

SUMMARY The new dwelling is proposed in a location that comprises an array of different type of buildings. Whilst a pair of two storey semi-detached cottages are situated immediately south of the proposed plot, The Grove predominantly features bungalow style dwellings.It is proposed to erect the new dwelling in a prominent position, that would not only be visible from The Grove cul-de-sac but also from Little Common Road (A259), which is a main trunk road through Bexhill. The plot is relatively small in size and in order to adequately accommodate the proposed development which constitutes a four bedroom dwelling, it is proposed to remove or significantly trim back the existing hedging on the northern boundary of the site. It is considered that by virtue of its positioning and massing and the need to cut back this hedging, the proposal would constitute overdevelopment of the site and would be visually intrusive upon the street scene in this location. The development would be out of character with and detrimental to the amenities of the locality and would therefore be contrary to the requirements of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

27

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. By virtue of is location on a prominent site, its massing, and the need to remove

the boundary hedging to the north of the site to fully accommodate the new dwelling, the proposal constitutes overdevelopment of the land which, if permitted, would be out of character with and detrimental to the amenities of the locality. This would be contrary to the requirements of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/2013/P BEXHILL PEBSHAM FARM – LAND AT – PEBSHAM LANECHANGE OF USE OF GRAIN STORE FOR CLASS B1 PURPOSES, PARKING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS INCLUDING ADDITION OF ROOFLIGHTS AND ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING ACCESSMr Wossam

Statutory 8 week date: 11 September 2006

SITE The site lies near the eastern end of Pebsham Lane being one of a complex of farm buildings known as Pebsham Farm. Pebsham Farmhouse to the north east and its immediate outbuildings are now in a separate ownership. The other farm buildings, immediately to the east, are now in commercial use.The application building is a substantial grain store about 30 metres in length by 11 metres wide. It is slightly separate from the other farm building potentially having its own access and being the nearest to residential properties to the west (about 65 metres away).

HISTORY(Adjoining farm buildings)RR/2001/1/P Change of use of agricultural buildings to B1 use (retrospective

application) and alterations to existing access – Approved (temp)RR/2003/1731/P Removal of condition 2 imposed on RR/2001/1/P to allow

continued use on a permanent basis of former agricultural buildings for class B1 use – Refused – Appeal allowed

RR/2003/2969/P Continued use of the former agricultural buildings for class B1 purposes for a further two year period – Refused – Appeal dismissed

RR/2004/943/P Use of former agricultural buildings, occupied as class B1 units for a temporary period under consent RR/2001/1/P, for continued use for class B1 purposes – Refused – Appeal dismissed

A copy of the previous appeal decisions is included in the attached APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 August 2006.

PROPOSAL The proposal is to change the use of this agricultural building to a B1 industrial use. The change of use will specifically allow the relocation of a lubricant blender business from premises in Hastings who are in the need of alternative premises. Supporting statements from Howard Sharp and Partners and Locate East Sussex setting out the proposal in more detail are included in the attached APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 August 2006.

28

The proposal is for a permanent change of use which will involve a number of external changes including new windows, doors and re-cladding and internal changes to the building (although no extensions), the improvement of the existing access and provision of a new car parking area for 9 cars on part of the adjoining field between the building and the road.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority – To be reported.Environment Agency – To be reported.Southern Water – No objections.Rural Estates Surveyor – To be reported.Sussex Police – To be reported.Director of Services – Environmental Health – To be reported.Head of Regeneration – To be reported.Planning Notice – To be reported.

SUMMARY The application has been made on behalf of a specific local business but the first issue is the change of use from an agricultural use; the site being outside the Development Boundary of Bexhill and the building currently being in agricultural use.The applicant’s agent explains that their client (the farmer who owns and operates the grain store) is able to relocate this facility to alternative and better premises at Ashburnham, although the building could continue to be used with the attendant noisy drying activity remaining and articulated vehicles still using Pebsham Lane. The argument is that a B1 use could be a lower key activity.PPS7: Sustainable development in Rural Areas supports ‘the re-use of appropriately located and suitably constructed existing buildings in the countryside where this would meet sustainable development objectives’.Local Plan Policy EM3 states:“Policy EM3 Re-use and adaptation of rural buildings in the countryside for employment purposes, including tourism, or as community facilities that accord with Policy CF1, will be permitted provided:-(i) they are of permanent and substantial construction (including modern buildings);(ii) they are capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction;(iii) conversion does not lead to dispersal of activity on a scale to prejudice town and

village vitality or an over concentration of activity unrelated to the employment needs of a locality;

(iv) their form, bulk and general design are in keeping with their surroundings;(v) the proposal would not detract from the character of the building or its setting;(vi) the proposed use either has an acceptable impact on its surroundings, including

its traffic impact and on local amenity or any potentially harmful impacts can be dealt with by imposing reasonable conditions on a planning permission;

(vii) re-use and adaptation complies with other relevant policies in the Plan.”The application should also be viewed in the context of the use of the adjoining buildings for commercial purposes; uses eventually allowed on appeal on a permanent basis, though previously accepted by the Council temporarily. The Inspector accepted that the criteria for farm diversification schemes in PPS7 were satisfied in that case. At the appeal the Inspector considered the main issue to be the likely effect of the Class B1 uses on the living conditions of adjoining residents with particular regard to noise, vibration and pollution. A further issue was whether the removal of the temporary permission would be premature with regard to the emerging development policies for the Countryside Park. The uses are now permanent.

29

Having regard to Policy EM3, criteria (1) (ii) and (iv) are met. The building is capable of use.In terms of the impact of the proposal itself, (in relation to the other criteria) from the evidence submitted and from investigation of their present site in Hastings, the specific user, Slipstream, is a relatively low key user. Traffic figures have been supplied and the County Council’s highway advice is awaited. Traffic generation was a major issue at the previous public inquiry (see paragraphs 18-27 of the Inspectors Report). The major cause of concern at the time was traffic generated by a non-B1 use, Grilles Direct who no longer operate from here. The Inspector accepted the uses and did not believe the use of the other buildings for B1 purposes would lead to unacceptable traffic noise. He did however, impose a condition requiring a Transport Plan. ConclusionIn view of the history of the area and the scale of the use proposed I believe the scheme can be supported. Subject to satisfactory replies from consultations I recommend approval.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (RECEIPT OF CONSULTATION REPLIES)1. Prior to installation the colour and type of all external cladding, windows and

doors shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter the development shall be implemented only in accordance with the approved details.

2. CN13A (Landscaping scheme)3. CN13B (Implementation of landscaping scheme)4. CN12L (Floodlighting control)5. There shall be no external storage without the written prior approval of the Local

Planning Authority.6. No deliveries shall be taken at or dispatched from the site outside the hours of

0800 to 1800 on weekdays; 0800 to 1300 on Saturdays nor at any time on Sundays or Public Holidays.

7. Highway conditions.8. Noise and equipment control conditions. 9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no change of use shall be allowed or any extensions erected.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The adaptation of this existing agricultural building for B1 use would be an acceptable form of development in this locality which adjoins the existing B1 units at Pebsham Farm, and the proposal therefore complies with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1 and EM3(i), (ii), (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

30

RR/2006/2044/P BEXHILL 250 TURKEY ROAD, CEMETERY LODGECHANGE OF USE OF MAISONETTE AREA OF BUILDING TO OFFICE ACCOMMODATION.In Touch Hastings and Rother Home Improvement Agency

Statutory 8 week date: 20 September 2006

SITE The site which is the subject of this application is located to the north of Turkey Lane at the junction with St. Marys Lane. The access to the property also serves Bexhill cemetery. The building comprises existing office accommodation at the front of the ground floor and a residential maisonette at the rear of the ground floor and at first floor level. There is existing parking at the front of the building and an unused garage and store area at the rear of the building.

HISTORYB/54/141 Connection of drainage to main foul sewer – ApprovedB/67/441 Office extension – Approved

PROPOSAL This application seeks to obtain permission for the change of use of the maisonette area of the building into office accommodation. Five new offices are proposed. Three are proposed on the first floor and two on the ground floor, converting the existing kitchen at the front of the building into an office and retaining the kitchen facilities at the rear. No external alterations to the building are proposed.Parking facilities are as existing at the front of the building, which has four allocated spaces, including two spaces for visitors and there is additional space for two more cars on the roadway. New parking facilities are proposed at the rear of the building, which involves the demolition of the existing store building, the utilisation of the existing garage and the creation of additional parking bays, which would involve the felling of one tree.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- Comments awaitedPlanning Notice:- Any comments will be reported

SUMMARY This application results in the loss of a unit of residential accommodation, but this is not considered to be a significant loss and as such is not contrary to policy. The introduction of additional employment opportunities of this nature, within a building with existing employment use, is considered to be appropriate and would not result in any significant detriment for local residents. The proposal is therefore considered to meet the requirements of Policy EM1 of the Rother District Local Plan.Whilst comments are awaited from the Highway Authority regarding parking provision to the building to serve the additional office accommodation, it would appear that the creation of the additional parking space is feasible without significantly altering or detracting from the appearance of the area. Subject to no adverse comments from the Highway Authority I expect to make the following recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (NO ADVERSE COMMENTS FROM HIGHWAY AUTHORITY AND EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. CN12G (Hours of use)2. CN6A (Use limitation) Insert ‘Offices’ and ‘B1’

31

REASON FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The change of use is considered to be appropriate in this instance and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy EM1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/2049/P BEXHILL 25 LANDSDOWNE WAYEXTENSION OF GARAGE AT FRONT. ERECTION OF CONSERVATORY TO REAR AND ALTERATIONSM Phillips

Statutory 8 week date: 13 September 2006

SITE This is a detached house on the north side of Landsdowne Way.

HISTORYRR/1999/2900/P Construction of new bedroom over garage - Approved.RR/2001/2239/P Extension to front of garage to enable study at rear, increase to

first floor level to match accordingly - Approved.RR/2003/1310/P First floor addition to rear of property - Approved.

PROPOSAL The proposed development comprises the following three elements:-1. The forward extension of the existing garage attached to the east side by 1.9m.

This would bring it in line with the front porch and would be covered by a shallow angled sloping roof dropping from just beneath the existing dormer window to above the repositioned garage door.

2. The erection of a 3.75m x 3.1m white UPVC framed conservatory. This would be attached centrally to the rear elevation.

3. The infilling of the small gap between the cheek of the front dormer and side of the house in order to remove a skeiling from the bedroom. The front face of this would be tile hung.

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice:- Comments received from the adjoining owner:- extension of wall by 6 feet would be detrimental to value of my property; property overhangs my boundary by approx 15” bringing it to within 8” of my house; this is the third extension in 5 years; any outstanding planning permissions could force down price of our house; rooms created could be converted to non-residential use - treatment/therapy room or bathroom with hoist.

SUMMARY As originally submitted, the plans show the forward extension of the garage repeating the eaves overhang of the existing building. However, in response to the neighbour’s objection, the applicant has agreed to submit an amended plan showing no overhanging eaves or encroachment of footings. This would resolve any legal problems regarding the planning application. The applicant has nonetheless been advised of his obligations under The Party Wall etc Act 1996. The forward extension itself would not cause any loss of light to the adjoining property or any other significant loss of amenity and a refusal of planning permission would not be justified. The conservatory would have no adverse impact upon adjoining amenity and the proposed

32

dormer window cheek infill would have no adverse impact upon the street scene. Provided the amended plans are received, I would expect to support an approval.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (RECEIPT OF AMENDED PLAN/NEIGHBOUR CONSULTATION)1. CN7C (Matching external materials).N1A (Amended plans)N8B (Building constructed to site boundary)

RR/2006/2088/P BEXHILL 3 CLAVERING WALK - LAND ADJ ERECTION OF NEW DWELLING WITH INTEGRAL DOUBLE GARAGE PURSUANT TO OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2006/634/PMr B Hepburn

Statutory 8 week date: 15 September 2006

SITE The site lies to the south west of Clavering Walk in close proximity to the Junction with Cooden Sea Road, and currently forms part of the large garden of No.3 Clavering Walk.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2005/1976/P Outline: Erection of a detached house and garage with provision of

new vehicular access. Existing garage to be demolished – RefusedRR/2006/634/P Outline: Construction of new dwelling and demolition of garage with

provision of new vehicular access and two parking spaces – Approved Conditional

PROPOSAL Outline planning permission RR/2006/634/P was granted in April 2006 for the erection of a new dwelling with provision of a new vehicular access on this plot. This is an application for the approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline planning permission RR/2006/634/P. The plans indicate a four bedroom, two storey dwelling with an integral garage and a new vehicular access onto Clavering Walk. The floor area of the proposed dwelling in approximately 150m².

CONSULTATIONSSouthern Water:- Does not wish to comment on the applicationEnvironment Agency:- Comments awaitedHighway Authority:- Comments awaitedPlanning Notice:- Any comments will be reported

SUMMARY The principle of the development has been established with the granting of outline planning permission RR/2006/634/P at the 20 April 2006 Planning Committee meeting. The application now before you deals with the reserved matters of siting, design, external appearance and means of access.The proposal comprises a four bedroom dwelling with integral garage. The property is large, however is not disproportionate with the other dwellings in this location. The design and external appearance are acceptable and it is therefore considered that this proposal would sit comfortably in the street scene, without having any significant adverse impact upon the character or amenities of the locality.

33

It is not considered that the proposal would have any significant adverse impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residential properties. No windows are proposed in the south east elevation, and the garage that is located at this end of the building is single storey with a pitched roof. The proposal would therefore not overlook or be overbearing upon No.1 Clavering Walk. I have written to the agent requesting the removal of the first floor bedroom window in the north west elevation, and with receipt of this amendment, I do not believe the proposal would be detrimental to No.3 Clavering Walk. The Highway Authority did not wish to restrict grant of permission at outline stage, however I have not yet received any comments with respect to the current application. Subject to no adverse comments from the Highway Authority I expect to make the following recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE (RESERVED MATTERS) DELEGATED (NO ADVERSE COMMENTS FROM OUTSTANDING CONSULTEES, EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD AND AMENDED PLANS)1. CN7B (External materials) (a) the roofing tiles; (c) the facing bricks2. No windows shall be inserted into the side elevations of the property at first floor

level unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.Reason: RC22 and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASON FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is of an appropriate design and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/1740/P NORTHIAM NORTHIAM SERVICE STATION, MAIN STREETDEMOLITION OF EXISTING FORECOURT/WORKSHOP AND ADJOINING HOUSE. ERECTION OF NEW WORKSHOP AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING ACCESS ALTERATION PURSUANT TO OUTLINE CONSENT RR/2003/3182/PPASO Builders

Statutory 8 week date: 21 August 2006

This application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on Thursday, 20 July 2006 when it was resolved to defer a decision on the matter pending an inspection of the site being made. The application has been included on the list of Committee site inspections for 15 August 2006.

SITE The site is located in the centre of the Village and on the east side of Main Street. It formerly comprised a large workshop building constructed out of corrugated sheeting, a petrol forecourt with canopy, and an attached dwelling house. The land has now been cleared. The site is just outside the Conservation Area, and includes a small part of a larger area of land at the rear shown for proposed housing in the recently published Rother District Local Plan.

34

HISTORYRR/2003/2093/P Outline: Demolition of existing forecourt workshop and adjoining

house. Construction of new workshop, alteration to access and residential development including new estate road - Withdrawn.

RR/2003/2094/P Outline: Demolition of existing forecourt workshop and adjoining house, construction of new workshop, alteration to access and residential development - Withdrawn

RR/2003/3180/P Outline: Demolition of forecourt/workshop and adjoining house. Erection of new workshop/access alteration/residential development - Refused.

RR/2003/3182/P Outline: Demolition of existing forecourt/workshop and adjoining house, erection of new workshop/access alteration/residential development - Approved

RR/2005/2577/P Demolition of existing canopy/workshop and house, erection of shops with two flats over and 8 dwellings including alterations to an existing vehicular access and construction of a new road with associated parking - Refused

RR/2006/753/P Demolition of existing forecourt/workshop and adjoining house, erection of new workshop/access alteration/residential development pursuant to outline planning permission RR/2003/3182/P - Refused

PROPOSAL Planning permission has been granted in outline (ref. RR/2003/3182/P) for the redevelopment of the site comprising a mixed use development of new Use Class B1 workshops and residential units. The illustrative layout plan that was considered at the outline stage indicated a 3 bay garage/workshop with associated parking/loading/unloading bays and 8 no. residential units with associated car parking and a communal garden. The application now before you is for the reserved matters pursuant to the outline permission and seeks approval in respect of detailed matters of siting, design, means of access, external appearance and landscaping.The layout of the proposed development broadly follows that considered under the illustrative outline plan and comprises commercial business workshops on the frontage of the site with forecourt parking. This building is linked to two residential units by a first floor overdrive, under which is the ‘tunnel’ entrance to the rear part of the site. Within the rear of the site the plans show an ‘L’ shaped linked terrace of two storey cottages. The proposed external materials are described as a combination of bricks, plain roof tiles and slates, hanging tiles and weatherboarding.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “Council resolved to support approval of the application but is anxious to ensure that the units on the front of the development are workshops and are not allowed for any other use.”Highway Authority:- Recommends conditions in the event that the Planning Committee is minded to grant permission.Southern Water:- No objections to the application.Environment Agency:- “The Agency has no comments to make on the enclosed details but would like to take this opportunity to remind the applicant/agent that no works must commence on site prior to the submission and approval of contamination reports in line with condition 4 of RR/2003/3182.”Sussex Police (main comment):- “I have now re-examined the plans and wish only to reiterate my concern previously expressed about protection of ground floor windows.

35

This is especially important for the bedroom windows. The plan does not demonstrate how defensible space will be created.”Director of Services - Head of Environmental Health:- No objection subject to contaminated land, noise, odour control issues etc. previously raised at the outline stage, being addressed.Planning Notice:- 2 letters of objection from the occupiers of ‘The Willows’ and ‘Clench Green Barn’ - Excessive height of residential building overlooking our property No effective proposals to deal with land contamination Development would exacerbate existing localised flooding problems in the

area Loss of village facilities and local employment Dangerous access Over development Loss of natural wildlife habitat Height of the development will affect light values and privacy of the houses

bordering the site Density of development is too high Will result in noise pollution Style of houses is not in keeping with the village Would like to see fewer houses and more amenities for the families living

on the development

SUMMARY The principle of the redevelopment of this site for a mixed use of commercial workshops and residential units has been established by the granting of outline planning permission RR/2003/3182/P. The application now before you is for the details of the development proposal (reserved matters) in respect of siting, design, means of access, external appearance and landscaping. Previous reserved matters applications (RR/2005/2577/P and RR/2006/753/P) have been refused on the grounds of design and external appearance (particularly in respect of the dominant mass of the proposed building and impact on the street scene.) These are the principal issues for consideration in respect of this revised submission. Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan provides general guidelines for the control of development and along with other criteria, specifies that new development respects and does not detract from the character and appearance of the locality. Furthermore, Government policy in PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) recognises at paragraph 33 that: “Good design ensures attractive usable, durable and adaptable places and is a key element in achieving sustainable development. Good design is indivisible from good planning.” At paragraph 34, it advised that: “Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions should not be accepted.”The application site occupies a prominent road frontage position on Main Street and lies just beyond the northern edge of the Northiam village Conservation Area. Existing properties in the vicinity of the site comprise small-scale residential development which, although properties of individual style, incorporate a cohesion brought about by a common use of materials, proportions, and a general overall appearance that respects the traditional rural vernacular. The application now before you is for a mixed development that incorporates a significant element of commercial use. In this respect, any design proposal should ensure that the commercial element is designed both for its intended purposes, and also in a manner that respects the established character of the area. The principal differences between the previous reserved matters application and

36

the current application are not fundamental and relate mainly to the design and form of the roof on the frontage buildings and the front elevational treatment at the workshops. The development still incorporates a ‘tunnel’ entrance. As a design feature, however, this fails to replicate a traditional wagonway entrance, in view of the considerably larger opening required to accommodate modern motor vehicles (including delivery and emergency vehicles). Whilst the roof of the tunnel entrance has been reduced in scale it appears to serve no apparent purpose and in the context of any development, appears rather incongruous. The mass of the roof on the adjacent workshops building has been made significantly higher. The front elevation design of the workshops has been amended, however, the appearance of the building still fails to clearly display its intended function as a workshop. The façade appears stark and severe, being dominated by large roller shutter doors and covered by a hipped roof that is domestic in design but not in its scale and proportions. In conclusion, it is not considered that all the concerns that have previously been raised in respect of design and external appearance have been satisfactorily addressed.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS)1. The scale, form, design and general external appearance of the frontage

buildings is inappropriate in its context and fails to present an acceptable elevation to the street scene that would be sympathetic to the character and appearance of existing development in the area. The development, if approved, would be harmful to the village street scene and would not accord with established planning policies and guidance which indicate that all new development must be compatible with the requirement to safeguard the landscape quality of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal conflicts with Policy GD1(iv) and (v) and Policy HG4(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan, Policies S1(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Government guidance in PPS1 (para 33 and 34) which includes the provisions that new building developments should respect the character of the area, including safeguarding the special character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

2. Sussex Police has been consulted on the application and has stated that the proposed design of the development does not meet ‘Secure by Design’ standards. This is considered to be particularly important in respect of the need to protect ground floor windows and the need to create defensible space around the building. The security standards of the police scheme, ‘Secured by Design’ are capable of being a material planning consideration.

RR/2006/1943/P NORTHIAM ALPINES – LAND AT, EWHURST LANEERECTION OF CHALET BUNGALOW AND DETACHED GARAGESimon Wright Homes Ltd

Statutory 8 week date: 05 September 2006

SITE The site is part of the former garden of Alpines which is currently being developed with 4 new dwellings as allowed on appeal under RR/2004/2471/P. The proposed plot is immediately behind the bungalow fronting Ewhurst Lane known as Fairlea and is shown on the approved landscaping (condition 6) plan as an open grassed area planted with a single specimen ‘Heavy Standard Tree 3.6 – 4.25m’

37

together with shrubs adjacent to the boundaries of the adjoining properties. A single garage was approved flanking the site boundary of the garden with ‘Brentleigh’.

HISTORYRR/2004/2471/P Erection of 4 four bedroomed detached houses with construction of

new road and alteration to existing vehicular access – Refuse (Appeal allowed)

RR/2005/1742/P Erection of 3 four bedroomed detached houses with garages, construction of road and new vehicular access including alteration to existing access – Refused

PROPOSAL The proposed chalet bungalow would have rooms in the roof with dormer windows facing into the development site. The rear of the bungalow would face ‘Fairlea’ but contain no windows in that roof elevation. The proposed single garage would be similar to that already approved but set further back to provide a parking space in front. The materials proposed would be similar to those used on the existing 4 new houses.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support refusal for the following reasons:“- The proposal represents over-development of this backland site- The proximity of the proposed house to existing properties on Ewhurst Lane

represents a serious invasion of the residents privacy- Additional traffic onto this narrow country lane would be dangerous- The developers acquired planning permission for the currently built four houses

on appeal despite RDC’s preference for fewer properties. The Parish Council feels that this application represents a back door way of increasing their profit to the detriment of existing homeowners”.

Highway Authority – Comments awaited.Environment Agency – Comments awaited.Southern Water – Comments awaited.Planning Notice – 8 letters of objection – Height and design not in keeping with the area; loss of privacy and sunlight to Fairlea and Brentleigh; will dwarf Fairlea and severely restrict outlook; this piece of land was to be kept as a green conservation area; where will all construction plant and equipment be stored and labour force park their vehicles as parking in narrow lane would cause great danger to residents, pedestrians, motorists and children; verges and road surface already badly damaged and eroded by works vans; plant and extremely large lorries; more distress to local residents from noise dirt, mud on road and vans/lorries blocking the road; increased traffic from additional traffic; concerned about future water supply/pressure; quiet village is being turned into a dormitory town; not affordable housing; not a bungalow but two storey house; not enough room on this site and they are too close together; ghetto of urban density in a rural site.

SUMMARY The site is within the development framework for Northiam as defined in the Rother District Local Plan. The principle reason for refusing planning permission RR/2004/2471/P for the existing development of four dwellings was its potential adverse impact upon the amenities of Plum Tree Cottage. However, the Inspector did not agree and allowed the appeal. When originally submitted, that application proposed a layout with a dwelling on the land the subject of this application. However, by virtue of its close proximity to Fairlea and Brentleigh it was considered detrimental to their amenities and the layout was changed so as to keep it as open space in order to

38

preserve the open character of the former garden and achieve an acceptable density in keeping with the character of existing development in the area and its location within a rural village. In his decision letter, the Inspector acknowledged the density by saying that, although it was somewhat below the 30-50 dwellings per hectare advised by the Government in PPG3: Housing, “it does respect local distinctiveness”.The proposed chalet bungalow contains no first floor level windows that would overlook the adjoining properties Fairlea and Brentleigh. However, the depth of its rear garden would vary between 5m and 8m. The depth of the rear garden of Fairlea is similar. It is my opinion that the development of this small area of land in such close proximity to the rear gardens of Fairlea and Brentleigh would be detrimental to the residential amenities of those properties. Furthermore, the density of development would be more urban and would result in the loss of a landscaped open space that is considered important in order to retain a more rural character that would be in keeping with surrounding development and its location within in this rural village. For these reasons therefore, the proposal is not supported.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. By virtue of the small size of the proposed plot and its close proximity to the

adjoining properties Fairlea and Brentleigh, the proposed development would be detrimental to the residential amenities of those dwellings. The development would therefore be contrary to Policy S1 (b) of the East Sussex & Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 and Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. By virtue of the higher density of development and loss of a green landscaped area of land, the proposed development would be out of keeping with surrounding development and its location within a rural village in the High Weald AONB. For these reasons the development would be contrary to Policy S1(b), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex & Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 and Policy GD1 (ii), (iv) and (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/1999/P PEASMARSH BERRYNARBOR, SCHOOL LANEERECTION OF REPLACEMENT DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE.Mr Mike Wells

Statutory 8 week date: 09 September 2006

This application has been included on the Committee Site Inspection List.

SITE The lies to the south side of School Lane within the development boundary for Peasmarsh as defined within the Rother District Local Plan, and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORY RR/86/2218 Erection of detached garage – Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to demolish the existing bungalow, which is in a poor state of repair and replace with a larger chalet style bungalow. The existing bungalow is set behind the established building line of dwelling on this side of School Lane. The proposed replacement dwelling would be sited on a similar position

39

within the site, although turned through 90 degrees so that the main front elevation runs parallel with School Lane. The existing single garage towards the front of the site will be removed, the existing driveway reconfigured and a detached double garage erected adjacent to the side boundary of Eureka.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Any comments will be reported.Highway Authority – No highway impact.Planning Notice – 1 letter of objection concerned with the following:- stark interruption on view within High Weald AONB much larger than existing bungalow cars driving between two residential dwellings overshadowing garage adverse impact on neighbouring dwellings disposal of surface water 2 storey house out of keeping with surrounding bungalows.

SUMMARY In principle the replacement of this dwelling on a one for one basis is acceptable. However, I consider that the orientation of the proposed dwelling behind the line of neighbouring properties and increase in height means it will have an adverse affect upon their residential amenities, resulting in loss of privacy from first floor windows and loss of outlook, which the residents of those properties could reasonably expect to enjoy. This would be contrary to the requirements of Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan, I am therefore unable to support this proposal.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The replacement dwelling by reason of its increase in height, first floor windows

and orientation behind the line of neighbouring properties would have an unacceptable relationship with those properties, resulting in loss of privacy from first floor windows and loss of outlook which the residents of those properties could reasonably expect to enjoy. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/2099/P RYE FOREIGN THANETS FARMHOUSE, IDEN ROADDEMOLITION OF SINGLE STOREY BUILDING. ERECTION OF TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO ENLARGE DINING ROOM, WC AND UTILITY ROOM WITH TWO BEDROOMS OVER AND ALTERATIONSMr and Mrs P Osborne

Statutory 8 week date: 19 September 2006

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

SITE This detached property occupies the wedge shaped area of land between the junction of the A286 and B2082 near the Peace and Plenty Public House. The property

40

is in countryside and falls just inside the boundary of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Members visited the site before the last meeting in connection with an application RR/2006/1806/P for the erection of two timber framed garages.

HISTORYRR/2006/645/P Formation of new vehicular access and stopping up existing -

Approved.RR/2006/1806/P Erection of two timber framed garages - Delegated Approval.

PROPOSAL To remove a small single storey extension attached to the north west side and add a 3.8m wide two storey extension. This would be full depth and incorporate a double pitched roof linked to the existing building. A small pitched roof porch would be attached to the north east side and a brick chimney stack to the south east side. In a support letter, the applicant states:-“…… As you will see the extension takes the form of two storeys with eaves set at a lower level to the existing main house in order that the extension appears subservient to the same.In order to distinguish the extension, we have also tile hung the first floor elevations and constructed the same in sustainable materials i.e. timber framing. As far as possible, all materials used in the external finishes of the extension will match the existing.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Comments awaited.

SUMMARY Because the property falls within countryside, the proposal needs to be judged against Policy HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan which states “that particular care will be given to ensure that the extension or alteration is not intrusive in the landscape, particularly in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.” In terms of size, style, design and materials, the proposed extension would be in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling and its surroundings. The property stands alone and there are no adjoining properties. Furthermore, its size would be in proportion with that of the existing dwelling and would not adversely affect the AONB. The development would not therefore be contrary to Policy HG8 and is supported.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD - 22/8/06)1. CN7C (Matching external materials).

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is of an appropriate size, style, design and materials and will not adversely affect the character of the area or AONB and therefore complies with Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

41

RR/2006/1294/P SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE SALEHURST PRIMARY SCHOOL, LAND ADJ, GEORGE HILL, SALEHURSTERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY, PURPOSE BUILT CHILDREN’S CENTRE TO ACCOMMODATE PRE-SCHOOL CHILDCARE, TODDLER GROUP, HOLIDAY CLUBS, AFTER-SCHOOL CLUBS AND ASSOCIATED CHILDREN AND FAMILY SUPPORTAcrobat

Statutory 8 week date: 29 June 2006

This application was considered at the June meeting of Planning Committee when authority was delegated to the Head of Planning to grant full planning subject to the resolution of:1. Highway matters2. Possible resiting and change to layout of the building3. Landscaping4. Use of black boardingI have had further discussions with the applicants and an amended plan is expected which will show some resiting of the building, although the actual layout of the building is unlikely to be changed.

SITE Open land on the eastern side of George Hill and to the south of Salehurst Primary School and opposite to the Youth Centre. The land is owned by a charitable trust dedicated for use of the young people of Robertsbridge and surrounding areas and East Sussex County Council Trustees. The land currently has a timber building for the Guides and Brownies, skateboard ramp and basketball net with the remainder as open space. The site is within the development boundary and within the Conservation Area.

HISTORYRR/98/1937/P Creation of 9m2 hardstanding for basketball post and net –

ApprovedRR/2002/1563/P Earth sheltered pre-school facility in grounds of Primary School –

Approved (site to rear of school buildings)

PROPOSAL Because of difficulties with funding the approved scheme (RR/2002/1563/P) for preschool facilities is not being progressed and this alternative proposal is made because of the pressing needs to both pre-school and childcare provision. A single storey modular timber frame building is proposed on the existing open space land adjacent to the Guides building. It will be necessary to move the basketball net. The building will be constructed in a black stained timber cladding with asphalt roof singles. Overall dimension 5.9m x 26.3m with an attached module of 5.9m x 14.4m.No vehicular access or parking is proposed and access will be via the existing school drive with footpath access to the building. A school travel plan is submitted.A full supporting statement and travel plan was attached as an appendix document to the 22 June 2006 Committee.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – The Parish Council has some concerns regarding drainage but supports the application subject to highways concerns.

42

Highway Authority – “The application as submitted attracts a recommendation for refusal for the following reasons:1. The proposal would introduce hazards at this point of the C18 (George Hill) by

the slowing, stopping, turning and reversing traffic which would be created.2. The proposal does not demonstrate adequate parking facilities within the site

which would result in additional congestion on the public highway causing interference with the free flow and safety traffic on the C18 (George Hill).

Notes:Access:It is unclear from the submitted plans and documents how the proposed children’s centre will be accessed. Neither the existing Guide Hall access or school access are included in the red site area. Amended plans are therefore required giving details of the proposed access arrangements. It should be noted that I would not wish to see the existing substandard Guide Hall access used to serve this development. I would however, not object to the use of the existing school access.Parking:In accordance with the County Council’s adopted parking standards the proposed children’s centre should be provided with 1 vehicle parking space per 2 staff and 1 space per 4 children on site at any one time. No parking provision is proposed nor are the details of likely staff and children given. I understand that the intention is to use existing school parking. The school parking area should therefore be within the red site area and would only be acceptable if there is capacity within the school provision to accommodate the additional demand. I would not wish to see parking accommodated on street.Please Note:If the school access and/or parking is to be used to serve this development the school gates will have to remain open for the duration of the children’s centre operation.Travel Plan:It is noted that the proposed children’s centre will adopt the existing school travel plan to reduce reliance on the private car. This is welcomed by the Highway Authority and should be a condition of any planning consent. However, the travel plan should be in addition to providing a satisfactory access and adequate on site parking”.Environment Agency – No objectionSouthern Water – Do not wish to commentEast Sussex County Council (Children’s Services Authority) – Support approvalPlanning Notice -Rye & District Council for Voluntary Service – Support the proposal.52 letters of support received. 7 letters of objection received, which can be summarised as relating to:- land owned by Trustees and land can only be used to benefit the Trust

though the terms of the bequest for the youth of Robertsbridge - essential green open space that should be retained- impact on basketball and skateboard facilities- already traffic problems, congestion with dropping off and collection no parking

or access shown, exacerbate existing delivery problems- support principle but site inappropriate as area used for recreational open space - affect setting of Youth Centre (listed building) and Conservation Area- no history of land having been built on- design out of keeping- site not accessible to disabled- impact on Guides and Brownies by reduction of open space

43

- details of paths, car parks; landscaping and existing skateboard ramp and basketball facility not shown on plan

- skateboard ramp will be hidden from view and be less accessible- basketball net not safe at front of site- compromise fire safety and could cause antisocial behaviour- support is being given to the facility not the specific site- errors on correspondence- existing fencing insufficient- noise and impact on adjoining owners and livestockLetter from Guider in Charge at Robertsbridge:“I am writing as the Guider Leader of the Robertsbridge Rainbows and Brownies to express my concerns with the above planning application required by Acrobat.As a long standing resident and as a person involved with the Youth of the Village I do feel this is possible an important facility required by the Residents of Robertsbridge but I am not sure that it is the correct site for the building to go.We as an organisation were approached by Acrobat to join them on this venture but after much careful thought and consideration and a surveyors report being done on our present building, we chose for many reasons to stay as we were at present.As an organisation we did express our concerns for the loss of green space of which we use on a regular basis and we were advised at one time the building would be much further back near the hedge so the green space would remain, but looking at the plans, with the shape of the building and the area for the Children’s Centre to use and the relocation of the basket ball ring, there would be little green space for the Rainbows through to Rangers (5 through to 26 years) to use.We have on average 90-100 girls in our movement who attend on a regular basis, so for us as Guiders to carry out a varied and structured programme as required by The Guide Association without this facility would become increasingly difficult.Our other concern we showed to the Acrobat Committee, was the access and the extra volume of cars that would be used, on an already extremely busy corner. With the new houses being built on the George Hotel land, the use of the Youth Centre and the hazards marked for the School, we as Guide Leaders have already been warned by the Community Police on a Monday night.I do wish the Acrobat Committee well in the venture, but I do feel it would be a shame to lose the facilities that a very successful volunteer Youth Organisation already have to offer to many girls in the village”.

SUMMARY The principle of improved pre-school facilities is supported and there is considerable merit that this is associated with the primary school. The issues to be considered are:i) whether satisfactory provision can be made for dropping off and collecting

children, and adequate provision for parking and deliveries in conjunction with the school;

ii) the suitability of the building design and its impact on the Conservation Area;iii) the loss of an area of open space and whether sufficient open space is being

retained for use in conjunction with the other youth activities on the site;iv) relocation of the basketball net which will require a separate planning

permission, and whether a site in the front of the open space land is acceptable.Discussions are currently being held with the applicant and the Highway Authority and I consider that satisfactory arrangements are likely to be concluded to cover these issues. The adoption of the principles of the School Travel Plan will be an important aspect of resolving this issue.

44

The proposed building is utilitarian in design but will relate reasonably to the existing guide hut which will be set back in the site. In my view with some additional landscaping it will have a neutral impact on the Conservation Area. The front portion of the site will remain open and will still be available for outdoor use by existing users of the site. Members will be able to assess the disposition of uses on the site and the impact of the new building on the existing users.There is strong support for the establishment of pre-school facilities on the site and subject to the resolution of the matters identified in this report I consider the application can be supported.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SATISFACTORY AMENDED PLAN)1. CN13A (Landscaping).2. CN13B (Implementation of Landscaping)3. Prior to the commencement of development details of the following matters shall

be submitted to and be approved by the Local Planning Authority:(i) footpaths and any hard surfacing;(ii) external lighting;(iii) finished floor level for the proposed building and any changes in levels on

the site;(iv) fencingThe development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

4. Green Travel Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed building is appropriately sited with other youth and community facilities and lies within the development boundary for Robertsbridge. The proposed building will have a neutral effect on the Robertsbridge Conservation Area and with suitable landscaping can satisfactorily be accommodated on the site. The link with the Primary School Travel Plan will make a positive contribution to reduce car based trips to the site and with the use of the school access and parking facilities will have an acceptable impact on the highway network. The proposal therefore meets with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Modified Revised Deposit Rother District Local Plan (March 2006).

RR/2006/1626/P BREDE MARLEY PLATT - LAND ADJ, CACKLE STREETERECTION OF CHALET BUNGALOW SERVED BY EXISTING ACCESS AND CONSTRUCTION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS AND PARKING AREA FOR MARLEY PLATTConnected Developments Ltd

Statutory 8 week date: 07 August 2006.

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

SITE The site comprises part of the side garden of Marley Plat, a small semi-detached cottage on the north side of Cackle Street not far from the junction with Stubb Lane (to the east).

45

This small area of development around the application site is relatively tight-knit with two newer properties to the east of the plot; one to the road frontage and the other (Dig Tree House) in a “backland” position.Marley Plat itself currently shares an access with Dig Tree House onto the main road.

HISTORYRear of Marley Plat:RR/2004/2232/P Outline: Erection of chalet bungalow with shared access - Refused.Marley Plat:RR/2005/3163/P Proposed internal alterations and erection of two storey extension

to form breakfast room and kitchen with bedroom and bathroom above - Granted

Adjacent Marley Plat:RR/2005/3244/P Outline; Erection of dwelling with detached garage - Refused

PROPOSAL This is a full application for a three bedroom chalet bungalow set to the side of, but generally behind, Marley Plat. The chalet has a gable facing front and rear such that the roof slopes face Marley Plat and Dig Tree House.The roof area contains two bedrooms and a bathroom which necessitates a large dormer feature to one side.The new dwelling will take access direct from the main road by way of a new access which will also now serve Marley Plat. Thus, the Dig Tree House access will no longer serve Marley Plat.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support refusal believing this is an over development of the site. Fully agree with the Highway Authority report with regard to road safety.Highway Authority:- “… is now satisfied that visibility from the proposed access is acceptable after receiving the applicant’s report carried out by Mr Allen Rollings regarding the Vehicle Traffic Speed at Marley Platt. It is accepted that the 85th percentile speed is between 33-35 mph and therefore the 90 metres of visibility that is available in each direction is adequate.”Planning Notice:- Letters of objection from three properties - sewer for Dig Tree House crosses the site affect light to garden and dwelling adjoining unduly cramped; not contributing to character of the village; contrary to RDC

policy insufficient parking; car parking space insufficient to manoeuvre continued use of dangerous entrance site includes use of our (adjoining owner’s) drive suburban development; increased urbanisation dangerous stretch of road - traffic often far exceeding 40mph limit does not enhance AONBSubsequent letter from Dig Tree House agreeing to amended plans which creates shared access to Marley Plat and new house, and listing necessary conditions relating to closing existing access, landscaping and drainage.

SUMMARY This full application follows a recent refusal of an outline proposal for a large dwelling set further back into the garden. The refusal was on two grounds:“1. The erection of a new dwelling would result in a cramped form of development

and, with the dwelling set towards the centre of the site, have a poor and overbearing relationship with the existing cottage. Any dwelling here would thus

46

be out of keeping with the generally more spacious character of the village and particularly detrimental to the outlook and amenities of the adjoining residents contrary to the general principles of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and the specific tests of Policy GD1 (ii), (iv) and (vi) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

2. The development of a further dwelling on this site would lead to increased traffic hazards by reason of the inadequate visibility at the proposed and existing accesses. As such the scheme would conflict with Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and the specific test of Policy GD1 (iii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).”

This application proposes a smaller dwelling set further forward on the site and seeks to overcome the first objection. In relation to the previous highway reason for refusal, the new application is accompanied by a highway report and speed survey.

Character of the area and impact on adjoining properties:The main part of the site lies within the defined ‘Development Boundary’ although that boundary does cut through the rear garden rather than following the field edge. The previous proposal showed a larger house (8 metres high) abutting the “development boundary”; this scheme has a smaller lower scale dwelling (now 6.5 metres high) set further forward. Policy GD1 includes criteria relating to the character of the area (iv) and the safeguarding of the amenities of adjoining properties (ii).Overall the size of the plot is comparable to others in the area and being within the Development Boundary there is no objection in principle to a dwelling here. The issue is the size and position of the dwelling in townscape terms and more crucially how it will affect adjoining residents.On the first point a modest dwelling need not be harmful to the character of the immediate area.On the second issue the dwelling will still be prominent from both Marley Plat and Dig Tree House, the gardens of both properties it will adjoin. However, as a chalet dwelling, I am now satisfied that the relative relationships are workable given the precise orientations of each dwelling. There will be no direct overlooking from the new dwelling and the main windows of both existing houses do not directly face the new dwelling.

Traffic Issues:On the basis of the traffic report and speed survey the County Council has removed its previous objection. Amended plans now show Marley Plat and the new house served by one new access and the Dig Tree House retaining its own access. Two parking spaces are now shown each for Marley Plat and the new property. Landscaping can be retained to the road frontage and provided within the site. The driveway and parking layout is admittedly tight but could allow turning off street so that drivers can enter and leave the site in a forward gear.

Boundary treatment:The new building will be by the side of Dig Tree House which currently has a fence and high leylandii hedge on the boundary. This provides a good barrier and measure of privacy at present and needs to be retained. Furthermore the access from the Dig Tree House drive is to be closed and will need to be suitably screened. Landscaping conditions will be necessary.

47

Sewer:The adjoining owners of Dig Tree House draw attention to the fact that their sewer crosses the site for the new dwelling and will have to be diverted. Drainage arrangements would need to be subject to a condition.

Conclusion:Although I opposed a larger development previously, the site appears to offer potential for a modest dwelling, though if supported it needs care in terms of the parking layout, landscaping of the eastern boundary, the safeguarding of the drainage to Dig Tree House and restrictions on further development or extensions without planning permission.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7B (External materials) (a), (b), (c) and (d) the hardsurfacing of the driveway

and parking spaces.2. CN8C (Foul and surface water details). (After first sentence insert - “such details

shall also include the means and timing of the diversion of the sewer serving Dig Tree House which crosses the application site.”)

3. CN5D (Obscure glazed windows) (Insert “to the bathroom at first floor level…”).4. CN5E (Restriction of alterations/additions).

Reason: The site of the house approved is considered the maximum for the site and any other alterations or additions would be looked at critically having regard to the proximity of both Dig Tree House and Marley Plat taking into account Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. CN13A (Landscaping scheme) Add at end “The scheme shall ensure the retention of the existing leylandii hedge facing Dig Tree Cottage and shall include the closure of the existing access to Marley Plat on this boundary by means of new hedging and fencing.”

6. CN13B (Implementation of landscaping scheme).7. The new house shall be served only from the new access to be created for

Marley Plat which shall be constructed (and the existing access closed) prior to the commencement of development of the new house.Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of Dig Tree House having regard to Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

Note: N1B

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposal follows an earlier refusal of planning permission (RR/2005/3244/P) and in the view of the Local Planning Authority has now addressed the original reasons for refusal relating to the scale and position of the development and highway objections. A modest chalet style dwelling in the position approved would not be demonstrably harmful to the character of the area or adjoining residents. As such it would accord with the aims and principles of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan and would not prejudice the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty wherein Cackle Street is situated.

48

RR/2006/1397/P ICKLESHAM ASHES FARM, HOG HILL, WINCHELSEAERECTION OF DETACHED ORANGERY POOL HOUSE.Mr and Mrs Rumsey

Statutory 8 week date: 11 July 2006

This application has been included on the Committee Site Inspection List.

SITE The site lies within a group of building of which Ashes Farmhouse is listed. The site lies down a private track some 140m off Hog Hill, outside any development boundary as defined within the Rother District Local Plan; it does lie within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposed position of the pool house is some 42m to the east of the dwelling house.

HISTORY RR/2005/147/P Erection of oak framed sheep shed/garage – Approved

Conditional.RR/2005/1017/P Conversion and change of use of barn to library and change

roofing from corrugated steel to clay tiles – Approved Conditional.RR/2005/1025/L Convert existing barn to library. Rebuild concrete panel wall in

timber, recover roof with clay tiles – Listed Building Consent Granted.

RR/2005/3144/L Minor alterations to entrance area – Listed Building Consent Granted.

RR/2006/254/P Erection of extension to form orangery and erection of detached pool house – Withdrawn.

RR/2006/255/L Erection of extension to form orangery and erection of detached pool house – Withdrawn.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to erect a detached orangery pool house.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – “Councillor Mrs Rumsey withdrew from the meeting for these matters. High quality and well screened proposal supported.”Planning Notice – No representations received.

SUMMARY Through a strong attempt has been made to ally the design of the pool house with the architectural character and materials of the main house, I consider this to be an inappropriate design strategy since the proposed location for the pool house is some considerable distance from the main house (some 42m), separated by a brick walled garden, and is read very much more in context of outbuildings of a subservient and vernacular character, style and materials. For these reasons, I would consider the proposed pool building would sit as a visually intrusive building within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.Advice has been given to the applicant to reflect this and to encourage amendments of the design to a more vernacular one of brick or weather boarded walls with a clay tiled roof, such as would be fitting for an outbuilding of this situation, but the applicant has indicated a preference for the architectural style submitted.The main issue is whether this design of pool house will be intrusive within this countryside location; Members can assess this for themselves during their site

49

inspection and may share my opinion. Such being the case, I would make the following recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The design and appearance of the proposed pool house is not one of a

traditional vernacular outbuilding, which might be expected in this detached location away from the main dwelling house. As such I consider the proposed pool house is out of keeping in this locality and will be adversely intrusive upon the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and contrary to Policies S1(j), 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/2006/1677/P ICKLESHAM ICKLESHAM JOINERY LTD, MAIN ROADERECTION OF TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO JOINERY WORKS TO PROVIDE EXTRA WORKSHOP SPACEIcklesham Joinery Ltd

Statutory 8 week date: 21 September 2006

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

SITE This established joinery workshop is located on the south side of the A259 Main Road through Icklesham. It adjoins three residential properties to the east and open countryside to the west and south. Access is direct from the A259 road.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/86/1451 O/A erection of new joinery works, small industrial units and one

dwelling - ApprovedRR/87/430 Single storey joinery works with office - ApprovedRR/89/669/P New workshops (4 no) and associated parking - ApprovedRR/94/225/P Extension to joinery works - ApprovedRR/1999/343/P Siting of slimline monopole of 12 metres with 3 antenna and 2

microwave dishes - ApprovedRR/2001/2146/P Erection of extension to joinery to form new store and waste

management system to south elevation and additional car parking - Approved

RR/2002/1682/P Submission of landscaping scheme in connection with RR/2001/2146/P - Withdrawn (landscaping details approved)

PROPOSAL A two storey extension approx 30m x 9m on the western side of the existing joinery building to provide new assembly workshop on ground floor and offices and showroom above. Materials will match the existing building - brick plinth with profiled cladding. A new car parking/lorry turning area is proposed to the south of the existing site and to the west. New tree and hedge planting is shown and the diversion of an existing footpath along the western side of the site.The applicant’s agent has provided the following information:“As you are aware, Icklesham Joinery has the need for additional space to cope with the demands of their very successful business. It is hoped to be able to extend the existing premises to maintain a local presence and remain an important local employer.I have included the planning form PA2, completed where relevant.

50

It is not proposed to increase the machinery, simply re-site to suite the new space.There will not be any additional equipment externally.You will see that at least five extra jobs will be created once the extension is built.The existing parking area will be lost to make room for the extension so it is also proposed to extend the site boundary into the adjacent field in order to create a new parking area and turning space for lorries. The new boundary will be screened by new tree and hedge planting (see landscaping plan). There is also a Public footpath running through this area, which will be diverted as necessary.The existing daily traffic movements are not expected to increase significantly. Deliveries of raw materials will remain the same. There may be a slight increase in employee traffic movements and of the company’s own small delivery vehicles.There are no plans to change the operating hours, these will remain as existing, i.e:Monday - Friday 8.00a.m. - 5.00p.m. Saturdays - 8.00a.m. - 1.30 p.m. (when required).I trust that this proposal will be considered acceptable. I have included photos of the site, which may prove helpful but please contact me if you require any additional information.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support approval.Highways Agency:- Do not wish to make any comment.Southern Water:- Does not wish to comment.Environment Agency:- Has no objection but advises a desktop study to identify any potential contaminants.Director of Services - Environmental Health:- Awaited.Director of Services - Regeneration:- Awaited.Planning Notice:- 8 letters of objection received which can be summarised as relating to the following matters: premises already extended - this is overdevelopment does not improve amenities of village or employment for local people factory in village not required in an AONB which should be protected increase in traffic, noise and disturbance question need - units available for rent is application linked to previous application for an Orange phone mast? car park never full potential application for housing on brownfield site if approved no need to expand, unreasonable in AONB, identical sites in Hastings and Rye no validity in argument that local employment provided housing refused on appeal, illogical to allow industrial expansion on agricultural

land not in keeping with the area - would now be a major industrial area joinery failed to comply with landscaping requirements refer to possible location of further phone mast existing premises are a blot on the landscape part owner of the site is a co-opted member of Icklesham Parish Council most people employed do not come from Icklesham traffic survey submitted regarding road safety matter, operators licence, traffic

hazard from turning movements stems from the unprecedented decision in 1987 to allow use of agricultural land

to erect joinery view over countryside obliterated - environment should be protected

51

complaints made over the years by aggrieved residents which should be treated as relevant to the current application

damage and loss of amenity sustained by those living in the vicinity is already substantial and irremediable

size of extension increase in vehicular traffic - noise and disruption air pollution inadequacy of screening users of footpath would not welcome diversion creeping industrialisation and intrusion into the countryside size and shape of the extension and extended car parking would cause harm to

AONB and dominate the village noise from existing joinery - further noise reading required oppose location of 2nd phase mast MDF waste burnt on site inaccuracies in the application re opening hours, height of extension, adjoining

field shown incorrectly as Little Sherwood Industrial Park(The full details of these letters can be viewed on the Planning website)The Council for the Protection of Rural England:- opposed to extension of development within the AONB description of application does not adequately reflect the scale of the proposals contrary to Local Plan Policy GD1(v) as it is not compatible with AONB, and

EM1(iii) which provides that an extension to employment sites are possible only where this does not detract from the character or appearance of the area

no landscaping or softening proposal

SUMMARY The main issues to be considered are the balance between the need to allow an existing business to expand and the need to protect the countryside and the character of the AONB; whether there are adverse impacts on the amenities of adjoining residential properties and whether the proposals are acceptable in relation to traffic safety on the A259.Policy GD1 in the Rother District Local Plan requires that the development will have an acceptable impact and in particular (ii) does not unreasonably harm the amenities of adjoining properties; (iv) respects and does not detract from the character and appearance of the locality; and (v) it is compatible with the conservation of the natural beauty of the High Weald AONB.Policies in the Rother District Local Plan support the need to foster an appropriate scale of business development in both towns and villages. In particular, “Policy EM1:Large-scale business development will be focused upon established and allocated business areas within development boundaries. Smaller-scale business activities will be accommodated by:i) requiring an appropriate level of business accommodation as part of residential

developments in areas where a need for business space can be identified and where the locational and economic circumstances of the site are suitable; and,

ii) the conversion, redevelopment or extension of sites and premises in development boundaries where general development considerations are met;

iii) the conversion, redevelopment or extension of sites and premises outside development boundaries where this does not detract from the character or appearance of the area as well as meeting general development considerations.

52

In the event of the above qualifications being met, first consideration will be given to a mixed use development in accordance with Policy EM1 and the criteria of Policies DS1 and GD1.”This policy therefore makes provision for the extension of existing sites where general development considerations are met. Specifically EM1(iii) allows for the extension of sites outside development boundaries.The proposed extension of the existing building falls within the existing site and with the use of a shallow pitched roof will not be significantly higher than the existing building. I consider this aspect of the development to be acceptable.The main issue is the extension outward onto agricultural land and the impact on the landscape. No buildings are proposed on this extended area and it will be utilized for parking. It does, however, allow for significant new boundary planting, and I consider there is a balance in allowing the extension provided better boundary screening could be secured. Landscaping was carried out in relation to the previous development but it will be taken out to allow for this development. I will be requesting enhanced tree planting.Reference is made to a possible phone mast; this is not material to the determination of the current application. Any submitted phone mast proposal would have to be considered on its merits.Members will be able to assess the extension of the site and the impact on the landscape and neighbouring properties. The Environmental Health Officer’s views are awaited on the proposals. Subject to no outstanding objections being received I consider the proposal can be supported.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (OUTSTANDING CONSULTEE RESPONSES)1. CN13A (Landscaping scheme)2. CN13B (Implementation of landscaping scheme)3. CN7C (Matching materials).4. CN8B (Surface water drainage)5. Contaminated land - desktop study6. Details of proposed hardsurfaced areas shall be submitted prior to the

commencement of development, and be subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

7. The area’s extended parking area shall be laid out as shown on the submitted plan and be used in accordance with the layout shown on the plan. No lorries shall be parked in the area coloured green on drawing no. 2006.034,3.

8. CN8I (Interceptor)9. CN12A (No external storage - area coloured green - drawing no. 2006.034,3.)10. Any noise condition as may be required by Environmental Health.11. CN12L (Floodlighting control).Note: N6A (Public footpath)

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is an extension of an existing site and with the provision of a tree and hedge planting belt to the west and south will have an acceptable impact on the landscape and character of the High Weald AONB and therefore complies with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1 and EM1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

53

RR/2006/1984/P ICKLESHAM ASHES FARM, HOG HILL, WINCHELSEAERECTION OF RENDERED ORANGERY WITH GLAZED LANTERN ROOF OFF KITCHEN TO SIDE OF HOUSE.Mr and Mrs Rumsey

Statutory 8 week date: 08 September 2006

RR/2006/1989/L ICKLESHAM ASHES FARM, HOG HILL, WINCHELSEAERECTION OF RENDERED ORANGERY WITH GLAZED LANTERN ROOF OFF KITCHEN TO SIDE OF HOUSE.Mr and Mrs Rumsey

Statutory 8 week date: 11 September 2006

These applications have been included on the Committee Site Inspection List.

SITE Ashes Farmhouse is listed building which lays down a private track some 140m off Hog Hill, it falls outside any development boundary as defined within the Rother District Local Plan, it does lie within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORY

RR/2005/147/P Erection of oak framed sheep shed/garage – Approved Conditional.

RR/2005/1017/P Conversion and change of use of barn to library and change roofing from corrugated steel to clay tiles – Approved Conditional.

RR/2005/1025/L Convert existing barn to library. Rebuild concrete panel wall in timber, recover roof with clay tiles – Listed Building Consent Granted.

RR/2005/3144/L Minor alterations to entrance area – Listed Building Consent Granted.

RR/2006/254/P Erection of extension to form orangery and erection of detached pool house – Withdrawn.

RR/2006/255/L Erection of extension to form orangery and erection of detached pool house – Withdrawn.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to demolish an existing lean-to outbuilding and construction a rendered orangery, which will be located off the kitchen on the west elevation of Ashes farm and extend across the courtyard abutting up to the adjoining wall with the recently converted barn. The agent has submitted supporting information, which is attached as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 August 2006.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice – Any comments will be reported.

54

SUMMARY The group of buildings at Ashes Farm are characterised by a statuesque and imposing main house of white-rendered finish, and a subservient though impressive collection of outbuildings in a local vernacular style and materials. Of particular note is the recently restored barn, situated in unusually close proximity to the house, separated by only a small walled courtyard. The relationship between the barn and the house is a particularly strong visual and physical characteristic of the site.The proposed orangery building, whilst being of an appropriate architectural style and character for the main house, would involve the removal of a Victorian brick lean-to outbuilding sited against the existing brick garden wall of the courtyard here. This lean-to structure, though small, is an important part of the architectural and historic character of the site as a whole, representing as it does, the typical and necessary outbuildings of a large historic house.Furthermore, the proposed orangery would entirely fill in the existing gap between the listed barn and the listed main house, significantly reducing the visual relief presently afforded to both buildings by the simple brick wall lean-to, and thereby detrimentally altering their settings, and their relationship to one another, as well as creating a cluttered junction with the listed barn itself.It had been suggested to the applicant and their agent prior to the application being submitted, that a smaller section of the outbuilding could be removed to incorporate the orangery. It was felt that by retaining a portion of the outbuilding the visual and physical characteristics of the recently converted barn and dwelling house would be maintained. However, the applicant felt this would not be appropriate, and indicated a preference for the orangery as submitted.The Local Planning Authority has a statutory duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or it’s setting (Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990).The judgement has to be made as to whether the proposed orangery extension would therefore have an adverse impact on the architectural and historic character of the listed house, by necessitating the loss of an interesting historic structure and by disrupting the setting of the listed buildings. As such would be contrary to Policy EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan, and Government advice in PPG15 paras 3.3, 3.13 and Annex C par C3. Counterbalancing architectural arguments are put forward by the Council’s Conservation Officer and the applicant’s architect. Committee Members can assess this proposal for themselves during their site inspection. On balance my recommendations are as follows.

RECOMMENDATIONS: RR/2006/1984/P: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)

1. The proposed orangery by reason of the demolition of an existing outbuilding and the infilling of the existing gap between the listed house and barn does not preserve the architectural and historic character of the listed building, and as such would be contrary to Policy EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Government advice in PPG paras 3.3, 3.13 and Annex C para C3.

RR/2006/1989/L: REFUSE (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)

1. The proposed orangery by reason of the demolition of an existing outbuilding and the infilling of the existing gap between the listed house and barn does not

55

preserve the architectural and historic character of the listed building, and as such would be contrary to Policy EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Government advice in PPG paras 3.3, 3.13 and Annex C para C3.

RR/2006/1203/P IDEN THE BELL INN, CHURCH LANEERECTION OF TWO STOREY THREE BEDROOM DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE AND FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS.Mr and Mrs S Trendle

Statutory 8 week date: 04 July 2006

At the July Planning Committee meeting this application was delegated to grant subject to the resolution of highway issues and amendment to the layout. Further correspondence from the applicant’s agent, a speed survey from the East Sussex County Council Monitoring Team and copy of the revised HT401 from East Sussex County Council Highways withdrawing the recommendation for refusal are attached as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 August 2006. In addition a further letter questioning the result of the speed survey is contained as an updated Planning Notice section of this report. Members inspected the site in June 2006.

SITE The site lies to the south of the listed Bell Inn Public House and is currently used as part of the pub garden. The site has road frontage of about 31m onto the B2082, with the west boundary abutting the village hall. The site lies within the development boundary for the village of Iden and within the High Weald AONB.

HISTORY 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

GrantedRR/96/1413/P Public house restaurant extension – Approved ConditionalRR/96/1443/L Demolition of chimney and store with new public house restaurant

extension – Listed BC Granted

PROPOSAL Planning permission is sought to divide the southern part of the existing pub garden of ‘The Bell Inn’ to create a separate plot with a new vehicular access onto the B2082, to erect a detached house and garage.Revised plans have been received which propose to simplify the elevational treatment of the dwelling by replacing the vertical tile hanging with weatherboarding and reducing the scale of the porch.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Object to the application for the following reasons;

a) Access to the site is on a virtually blind bend on the B2082 at a point which has been the scene of accidents in the past and is subject to a 40mph limit.

b) It is considered that the proposed house is far too large for the site, and quite out of scale with surrounding properties.

56

c) The Bell Inn stands in a prominent part of the village and is a typical country pub: a new dwelling on the site would completely change this.

d) The garden has two mature trees, one walnut, one oak, felling or damage to which would be highly detrimental to the site.

The Parish Council also request that this application be considered by full Planning Committee.In connection with the above application, the Parish Council would like to apply for Tree Preservation Orders to be applied to both trees mentioned above, i.e. walnut and oak.Highway Authority –Original recommendation - that consent be refused for the following reasons;1. The proposed access at its junction with B2082 has substandard visibility and

existing hazards would be increased by the additional slowing, stopping, turning and reversing traffic which would be created.

Revised recommendation - “The results from the Speed Survey carried out for Graham Middle by the ESCC Transport Monitoring Team from 10/07/06 until 17/07/06 indicate that traffic speeds on this stretch of the B2082 were just below 30 mph in both directions. The average 85th percentile speed of vehicles over a 24 hour period is 29.9 mph eastbound and 29.7 mph westbound.As traffic speeds are significantly less than the 40 mph speed limit I feel confident in allowing a relaxation of our visibility standards on this occasion and therefore withdraw my previous recommendation for refusal on an earlier HT401 dated 13/6/06.The amended plan also shows that turning can now be achieved within the site. I am now confident that vehicles can enter and exit the access in a forward gear which satisfies my concerns previously stated.I recommend that any consent shall include conditions.”Planning Notice – 4 letters of objection concerned with the following;

Change of use of land from that of an amenity garden of a public house to residential use.

The access to Main Street could cause further danger on the bend of a busy road.

Residential property is available for purchase within close proximity of The Bell Inn.

There is a guarantee that the proposed house and the Bell Inn would remain in single ownership.

In future, the way would be clear to seek further development on a second trench of the Bell Inn grounds and could ultimately lead to the closure of the Inn causing major change to the centre and amenity of the village.

Iden is a small village with a well defined centre and the pub lies at the heart of this centre. The pub garden plays an important role in establishing the essentially rural character of this village centre.

This proposal may jeopardise the future development of the pub. A letter from the agent and the applicant in support of and in response to objections, these letters have been attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT to this 17 August 2006 Committee meeting.An objection to the speed survey results dated 3 August 2006 has been received and states as follows:“I am bound to inform you that the results of the speed survey upon which ESCC have based their opinion are seriously misleading. Several local residents have commented that the location of the measuring device, which was across the B2082 in front of the Bell Inn car park, significantly understates a reflection of the actual average speeds that would have been registered had the device been properly sited at the proposed entrance to the planned property.

57

The device was situated at the slowest part of the B2082 in Iden in the middle of an ?S-bend? marked by reflective black and white multiple chevron road signs. Indeed, an average speed of nearly 30mph is still excessive here. Had the device been appropriately sited at the proposed entrance in Main Street, Iden, not at Church Lane, a much higher average speed in both directions would have been recorded.I am concerned that the decision arrived at on behalf of the Highway Authority is seriously flawed because it is based upon misinformation provided.Please reconsider your decisions in the light of this information.”

SUMMARY Whilst the revised house design is considered acceptable questions still remain about the position of the garage. With the latest comments from the Highway Authority the garage could remain as originally submitted. Members requested consideration be given to the garage being located at the southern end of the plot. I have requested further comments from the Highway Authority regarding the submitted views on the speed survey and whether the repositioning of the garage to the south is acceptable. I am awaiting further comments from the Highway Authority. RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (FURTHER COMMENTS FROM HIGHWAY AUTHORITY)

1. CN7B a) the roofing tiles, b) the hanging tiles, c) the facing bricks (External materials)

2. CN8C (Foul and surface water details)3. CN9I a) (Walling/fencing – Non estate development)4. CN13A (Landscaping scheme)5. CN13B (Implementation of landscaping scheme)6. CN10A (Highway conditions)

Note: N1C site location plans date stamped 20 June 2006. Dwellings floor layout and elevations 6 July 2006. Garage floor layout and elevations 9 May 2006.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The site lies within the development boundary for the village of Iden, therefore there is a presumption that development will be acceptable. The proposed dwelling has no immediate neighbours that will be adversely affected by the proposal, and its fragmented form serves to minimise mass and bulk of the building and creates structures of proportion appropriate to the village vernacular. As such the proposal meets the objectives of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and Policies GD1(ii) and (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/1735/P IDEN GROVE FARM, GROVE LANEERECTION OF TWO STOREY FARMHOUSEMr P and Mrs L Matthews

Statutory 8 week date: 16 August 2006

SITE This 25ha grassland holding currently used for the keeping of horses, is located off the north side of Grove Lane about 300m from its junction with Main Street and was acquired by the applicants in 1996.The existing surfaced yard is set back about 150m from the road and contains a range of stables. Just to the east is a pair of linked mobile homes, and to the south is a three bay barn. The site is within the High Weald AONB and outside of a recognised

58

development boundary. Policies S1, S10, S11, EN2 & EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1 & HG10 of the Local Plan, as well as Government advice in PPS7 apply to this application.

HISTORY RR/97/2335/FN Proposed road – Planning Required.RR/97/2348/P Erection of dwelling for agricultural occupation – Refused.RR/98/1286/FN Erection of hay barn, tractor and implements shed and grain

store also existing access made up – Details Not Required.RR/98/1609/P Erection of farrowing house and barn egg unit – Refused.RR/2003/626/P Change of use of land to a mixed use of agriculture and

equestrian for keeping horses and retention of stable building and hardstanding (retrospective application) – Appeal Allowed.

PROPOSAL Approval is sought for the construction of a permanent two-storey farmhouse, which would serve the existing equestrian enterprise by providing accommodation for one full-time worker on the holding. There are currently two mobile homes on the site, which were the subject of enforcement action in 2003. It was resolved that planning permission was not required for the mobile homes provided they were used for “messing purposes” and were incidental to the use of the land. If planning permission is granted for the farmhouse, the mobile homes would be removed from the land. A supporting letter from the agent is attached as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 August 2006.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support an approval. Southern Water – Does not wish to comment.Highway Authority – No objection. Rural Estates Surveyor – Concludes that:“I am of the opinion that the equestrian enterprise demonstrates the need for a permanent dwelling and the circumstances on site concur with advice in paragraph 32 and paragraph 3 of annexe A of PPS7.”A full copy of the Rural Estates Surveyor letter is attached as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 August 2006.Planning Notice – One letter of objection from the owner/occupiers of “Bosney Farm”, Grove Lane with comments to the effect that: boundary is incorrect taking in land attached to Bosney Farm and that the development would be unnecessary within the High Weald AONB. Also, several of the current uses and condition of the site are in contravention of planning law and should be remedied. There are more appropriate locations in the area for the establishment of equestrian facilities using existing redundant agricultural buildings where housing is also available in close proximity.

SUMMARY The 25ha grassland holding is currently used for the keeping of horses. The land closest to the stables is used for grazing purposes, and the land further north and away from the buildings is used to produce an annual hay crop. During the winter month’s sheep are taken in from the marshes to graze off the pastures. The site lies outside any development boundary as defined within the Rother District Local Plan, and as such the proposal should be judged against policy HG10 (iii) of the Local Plan which states that: “Proposals for new dwellings in the countryside will be refused unless it can be demonstrated by the applicant to be essential for the running of

59

an enterprise which must be in a countryside location and is of an appropriate size and directly related to the enterprise.”The Rural Estates Surveyor considers the proposal to erect a two-storey farmhouse appropriate in this case stating that the equestrian enterprise demonstrates the need for a permanent dwelling and that the circumstances on site concur with Government advice contained in PPS7, which wishes to see a positive approach toward planning applications for horse based development which respects the rural environment. Although the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Rural Estates Surveyor that a new dwelling would be appropriate for the equestrian enterprise, from the planning view the concern is whether or not the enterprise would remain viable in the foreseeable future. The business has only been established for three years, and although the accounts show that it is has made profits in these years, Government advice in contained in PPS7 states that, “If a new dwelling is essential to support a new farming activity, whether on a newly-created agricultural unit or an established one, it should normally, for the first three years, be provided by a caravan, a wooden structure which can easily be dismantled, or other temporary accommodation.” In line with this advice and considering the relatively small-scale of this rural enterprise, it would be appropriate for temporary accommodation to be established for at least three years prior to the consideration of permission for a permanent dwelling. This would be in keeping with past decisions made by the Local Planning Authority in favour of temporary accommodation over permanent dwellings in the countryside. For these reasons I recommend a refusal of this application.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) 1. The site lies within the countryside outside any town or village as defined within

the Rother District Local Plan. Policies S1, S10 (c) & S11 (b) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, Policy HG10 (iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Government advice in PPS7 contain a strong presumption against residential development unless it meets one of the exceptions described. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that a permanent dwelling is necessary in this instance.

RR/2006/1959/P IDEN THORNSDALE OAST, WITTERSHAM ROADVARIATION OF CONDITION 2 IMPOSED UPON PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2005/1832/P TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION ANCILLARY TO THE MAIN DWELLINGMiss K A Jewiss

Statutory 8 week date: 06 September 2006

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

SITE Thornsdale Oast House is remotely located on the northern outskirts of Iden and is accessed via an unmade track, which also serves Devonia Caravan Park. The detached garage to which this application relates is sited just to the north west of the Oast within the property’s residential curtilage.The site is within the High Weald AONB and is outside of a recognised development boundary. Policies S1, S10, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove

60

Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1 and HG11 of the Local Plan apply to this application.

HISTORY RR/92/1423/P Conversion of former Oast to single dwelling and realignment of

track – Approved conditionalRR/95/1161/P Variation of condition 9 on RR/92/1423/P to provide amended

residential curtilage and retention of existing track – Approved conditional

RR/96/595/P Restoration and refurbishment of existing Oast and realignment of track – Refused

RR/96/1435/P Restoration and refurbishment of existing Oast, realignment of track and erection of replacement outbuildings – Approved conditional

RR/2000/129/P Revised proposals for conversion of Oast House to dwelling – Refused

RR/2001/1019/P Revised application for conversion of Oast House to new dwelling – Refused

RR/2001/2740/P Temporary siting of mobile home and storage shed for two years during conversion of Oast – Approved temporary

RR/2002/1178/P Revised application for conversion of Oast House to new dwelling – Approved conditional

RR/2002/2516/P Re-siting of hay barn – Approved conditionalRR/2003/571/P Proposed filed shelter – Approved temporaryRR/2003/1775/P Change of use and conversion of barn to holiday home – Appeal

allowedRR/2005/1832/P Erection of detached garage/garden store with hobbies/games

room above served by external staircase – Approved conditionalRR/2005/2702/P Construction of new pitched roof to existing summerhouse –

Approved conditional

PROPOSAL Condition 2 of planning permission RR/2005/1832/P states that, “The building shall be used only for purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the dwelling as such as garage, garden/fuel store and hobbies/games room, and not for any trade or business or for residential purposes.” Approval is sought to vary this condition to enable the garage to be used as residential accommodation ancillary to the main dwelling.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Feels that the Rother District Planners are more qualified to decide on whether or not to remove the condition, bearing in mind that it was attached to the original planning permission. The Parish Council also feels that a site inspection should be carried out as the whole area has become somewhat confused with all the additions.Planning Notice – No representations received.

SUMMARY Approval is sought to vary condition 2 of planning permission RR/2005/1832/P to enable the garage to be used as ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling (Thornsdale Oast House). The garage is sited within the residential curtilage of the Oast House, which is located in a countryside location and is within the High Weald AONB. Policy S10 of the Structure Plan states that, “Additional housing development will not be allowed in the countryside unless it is the conversion of a building in non-residential use

61

which makes a valuable contribution to the rural scene and is the only practicable means of retaining it.” Policy HG11 of the Local Plan states that, “Residential re-use and adaptation of rural buildings will not be permitted unless the building makes a valuable contribution to the rural scene and residential re-use is the only means of retaining it.”The variation of this condition to allow residential use of the garage would result in a fully self-contained unit of accommodation, which would be tantamount to a new dwelling in the countryside rather than accommodation ancillary to the main house. Judged against the above policies and in view of the garages recent approval in August 2005, it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the variation of condition 2 of planning permission RR/2005/1832/P would be the only means of retaining the building. I therefore recommend a refusal of this application for the following reason:

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) 1. The variation of condition 2 of planning permission RR/2005/1832/P to enable

the garage to be used as ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling would result in a fully self-contained unit of accommodation, tantamount to a new dwelling in the countryside rather than accommodation reliant and ancillary to the main house (Thornsdale Oast House). As such the proposal is subject to strict criteria controlling the conversion of a building in non-residential use. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that residential use of the garage is the only means of retaining it. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy S10 (c) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and Policy HG11 (i) of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/1960/P IDEN THORNSDALE OAST, WITTERSHAM ROADREMOVAL OF CONDITION 1 IMPOSED UPON PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2003/571/P SO AS TO RETAIN FIELD SHELTER ON A PERMANENT BASISMiss K A Jewiss

Statutory 8 week date: 06 September 2006

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

SITE Thornsdale Oast House is remotely located on the northern outskirts of Iden and is accessed via an unmade track, which also serves Devonia Caravan Park. The field shelter is located some 26m to the north of the Oast House outside of the dwellings residential curtilage.The site is within the High Weald AONB and is outside of a recognised development boundary. Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Local Plan apply to this application.

HISTORY RR/92/1423/P Conversion of former Oast to single dwelling and realignment of

track – Approved conditionalRR/95/1161/P Variation of condition 9 on RR/92/1423/P to provide amended

residential curtilage and retention of existing track – Approved conditional

62

RR/96/595/P Restoration and refurbishment of existing Oast and realignment of track – Refused

RR/96/1435/P Restoration and refurbishment of existing Oast, realignment of track and erection of replacement outbuildings – Approved conditional

RR/2000/129/P Revised proposals for conversion of Oast House to dwelling – Refused

RR/2001/1019/P Revised application for conversion of Oast House to new dwelling – Refused

RR/2001/2740/P Temporary siting of mobile home and storage shed for two years during conversion of Oast – Approved temporary

RR/2002/1178/P Revised application for conversion of Oast House to new dwelling – Approved conditional

RR/2002/2516/P Re-siting of hay barn – Approved conditionalRR/2003/571/P Proposed filed shelter – Approved temporaryRR/2003/1775/P Change of use and conversion of barn to holiday home – Appeal

allowedRR/2005/1832/P Erection of detached garage/garden store with hobbies/games

room above served by external staircase – Approved conditionalRR/2005/2702/P Construction of new pitched roof to existing summerhouse –

Approved conditional

PROPOSAL Condition 1 of temporary planning permission RR/2003/571/P states that, “The building hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before 31 May 2004 or until the Oast House is occupied, whichever is the sooner.” Approval is sought to remove this condition so as to retain the field shelter on a permanent basis.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Feels that the Rother District Planners are more qualified to decide on whether or not to remove the condition, bearing in mind that it was attached to the original planning permission. The Parish Council also feels that a site inspection should be carried out as the whole area has become somewhat confused with all the additions.Planning Notice – One letter of objection from the residents of Rotherview Farm with the following comments:“We have no objection to a field shelter in the field, the one to which the application refers has already been there for some time, however we feel that its position is too close to our property. We had no objection to the previous application as the conditions where that it should be removed over a period of time, and permission was granted on a temporary basis. Now that it is proposed to be permanent we feel that it would be better located further into the field. At present it is very close to our property and faces our access. It creates smells and flies and we would question if this complies with current environmental regulations.”

SUMMARY The existing field shelter serves 5 horses which live in the field to the north east of the Oast House. Approval is sought to remove condition 1 of temporary planning permission RR/2003/571/P, which states that, “The building hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before 31 May 2004 or until the Oast House is occupied, whichever is the sooner.”In the original planning application RR/2003/571/P it was stated that the stables to the west of the field were being used to store materials and furniture in connection with the conversion of the Oast House. Temporary planning permission was therefore granted

63

for the field shelter with the view that the stables would be used by the horses once the conversion of the Oast House was complete.Written representations have been received from the residents of Rother View Farm suggesting that the field shelter should be located further into the field if planning permission is granted for this new application. From the planning viewpoint the concern is that the development is necessary and also that it would have a minimum impact on the countryside. The stables to the west of the field are still being used to store materials, and the horses could only access these by crossing the shared road leading to Thornsdale Farm and Rother View Farm. The existing field shelter has been established for several years now, and serves the horses by providing accommodation as close as possible to the access road, which allows them to be fed under cover.Turning to design and scale, the field shelter is in keeping with the character and appearance of the locality, and is sited as close as possible to existing buildings to reduce its visual impact in the countryside. Against this background I am minded to remove condition 1 of planning permission RR/2003/571/P to allow the field shelter to remain on a permanent basis.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The field shelter is of an appropriate design and does not have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the locality or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policies S1 (j), EN2 & EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 (ii), (iv), & (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/1676/P TICEHURST THE RECREATION GROUND, HIGH STREETINCREASE IN HEIGHT OF MESH FENCE ROUND MULTI-COURT INCORPORATING GOAL OPENINGS AND BASKETBALL HOOPS AND SITING OF YOUTH SHELTER ON NORTH EAST CORNER AND ERECTION OF WOOD FENCE ON SOUTH WEST BOUNDARYThe Beatrice Drewe Trust

Statutory 8 week date: 11 August 2006

This application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on Thursday, 20 July 2006 when it was resolved that a decision be deferred for consideration of further information that has been received from, in particular, the Council’s Environmental Health Division, and also to allow a full report to be presented to members of the Planning Committee.

Members inspected this site on 18 July 2006. The fence around the all-weather play area has already been erected and this part of the application is now retrospective.Furthermore, in addition to the increase in the height of the fence authorised under the earlier (2001) planning permission, the fence that has been erected incorporated within its structure both football goal openings and basketball hoops at each end of the court. The description of development on the planning application has been amended to take into account the changes to the development and the application has been re-advertised.

64

SITE The application relates to the recreation ground/playing field which extends to the rear of the Ticehurst Institute (listed building). There is an existing vehicular access to the south side of High Street and an existing parking area. The semi-detached dwellings in Marlpit Gardens lie to the west of the site and Orchard House lies to the southwest.

HISTORYRR/2001/516/P Erection of an all-weather playing area (including skateboard

ramps), fenced off with mesh fence with series of activity walls on southern side. Area to be lit with six 8m high lighting towers. Approved - Implemented in part (mesh fence, activity walls and lighting not implemented).

PROPOSAL A ‘chill-out’ centre (a small open-sided and covered meeting shelter for youths) The erection of a section of solid fence along part of the boundary of the

recreation ground with Orchard Cottage To increase the height of a mesh-type fence The Beatrice Drewe Trust intend to

erect around the new recreation facilities, from the 2.7m originally proposed to 3m (see RR/2001/516/P above)

The addition of both football goal openings and basketball hoops within the structure of the fence at each end of the court

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- General observation - “It is felt that it would be inappropriate for the Council to comment as they were trustees at the time of the original application.Comment on correspondence would beMr Butcher is employed to pick up rubbish on a continuous basis by the Council. No evidence of drug taking (needles etc) have been found in the last 12 months and brought to the attention of the Council or Trustees and the previous Youth hut situated to the side of the village hall was pulled down, not burnt as alleged, by about 8 youths who were apprehended at the time.”Director of Services - Environmental Health:- “This department has received complaints regarding noise generated from the use of the multi-court and by youths hanging around the multi-court and skate area.These complaints have not been substantiated, three evening visits have been carried out in July on the 7th, 15th and 17th, on two occasions the multi-court area was being utilised by young children playing football, maximum number observed playing was 7, the noise from the use of the multi-court area was predominantly of the children playing rather than from the equipment itself, noise from children playing would not be considered a statutory nuisance.I am pleased that the proposed location of the shelter is away from residential properties, thus providing a congregation point away from the residential properties.As I have observed the multi-court area is capable of supporting team games, such as five a side football or basketball, this could have the potential to increase noise generated from the site. However, I would recommend that the multi-court be prevented from being used after 20:30 or sunset, whichever occurs first and that management arrangements be submitted by the applicant to ensure this happens in practice.The installation of a 3m high mesh fence around the multi-court and a further fence of 2m high on the south western boarder would not attenuate noise from the multi-court

65

area, but the fence on the south western boundary would act as a visual screen from the multi-court.”Sussex Police:- “I have now examined the plans and spoken to my colleagues at Ticehurst. I reply with a police view.The youth shelter has been the subject of a good level of consultation with the young people of the village. This consultation and involvement is essential if the facility is to be valued by the intended users. I am pleased to learn that this process has been followed.The multi-court has been the subject of complaints from a neighbouring property. The additional fencing is designed to minimise any disturbance to that neighbouring property by visually screening the play facility from the private garden.The proposals represent a sensible attempt to balance the sometimes conflicting priorities of adjacent land uses.I understand that the recreation ground does not suffer from a high level of abuse of vandalism.”Planning Notice:- Letters and emails of objection have been received (from the occupiers of 32 Rosehill, Orchard House, Thyme Cottage, Orchard Cottage and Lower Clayhams). These were circulated around the table at your last meeting. The grounds of objection can be summarised as follows: The occupiers of nearby residential properties experience nuisance from anti-

social behaviour as a result of youths using the existing facilities The new facilities contained in the current application will exacerbate the

situation and result in further loss of residential amenity if approved The old youth shelter was a disaster from the very beginning as it encouraged

drinking, drug taking, loud music, vandalism, noise, foul language, litter (beer cans etc) and graffiti, which caused a great deal of disturbance to neighbouring residences

The Recreation Ground has no byelaws to protect neighbouring residences The multi-court bears little resemblance to the original one granted in 2001 The facility has no gates and consequently after hours use cannot be controlled The National Playing Field Association standard recommends a 30 metre

minimum between a boundary containing a residence and the edge of an activity area; our boundary (Orchard Cottage) is just 5 metres from the activity area

In other respects the activity area fails to comply with NPFA standards The fence has already been erected We have been advised by an acoustics expert that the proposal to erect a 2

metre high fence along a very short part of the boundary with Orchard Cottage will potentially exacerbate the noise problem

Details of a relevant document from Babergh District Council are provided which was issued to all Parish Councils under its jurisdiction following the inappropriate siting of a skate park/play area in Glemsford which necessitated its closure and removal

Older people would like to be able to use the Recreation Ground without feeling intimidated by unsupervised youths

A further letter from the occupier of Orchard Cottage has been received and is reproduced in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 August 2006. The letter reiterates objections made in earlier letters but stresses the point that the National Playing Fields Association (NPFA) ‘Six Acre Standard’, which is acknowledged in the Local Plan, recognises that activity areas such as this do cause noise and disturbance to local residents and sets out recommended distances from neighbouring properties. The letter states that this document sets out a requirement of

66

a minimum of a 30 metre “buffer zone” from the edge of an activity area (such as that in Ticehurst) to a boundary containing a residence - ours is just 5 metres.3 letters of support for the application have been received as well as a petition of support containing 90 names - The village has an expanding population and needs to provide a range of

facilities for all ages Whilst we understand there is an element of bad behaviour from a minority of

older youths, this should not detract from the majority of the youth in Ticehurst who are well behaved and use the area appropriately

The increased height of the fence around the multi-court should stop balls landing in neighbouring properties

The proposed youth centre would be appropriately sited as it overlooks the multi-court and play equipment.

3 other letters of support have been received from persons declaring an interest in the matter (the secretary for the Ticehurst Young Peoples Recreation Project and Members of the Beatrice Drewe Trust). These reiterate the points made above and one includes the following information:“Application for the height change of the multi-court; previously there have been complaints from Mr and Mrs May regarding stray balls on their property. It was felt prudent that the perimeter fence was made 3m high, with ‘Vibrodamp’ integrated in the fencing (Vibration reduction fixings to be used in whole of ball court to reduce impact noise vibration by 90%) at an added cost to this project of £3244.60 + VAT. The project has also been generously supported by the Parish Council, Rother District Council, County Council and The Local Network Fund, as well as local businesses and local individuals. The ball court is not fully enclosed, under police advice. It was advised to make at least two exits (these are at each goal end) as children need to feel safe in an area and know that there is another way out, should any bullying occur they would not be trapped. Rather than the advised two, there are three. The third one being in the fence adjacent to the skate/bike area.”

SUMMARY In 2001 the Planning Committee granted full planning permission for a hard surfaced playing area within a grassed area of the existing recreation ground (the subject of application RR/2001/516/P above). The development has been implemented in part and is presently the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman by the occupiers of Orchard Cottage principally on the grounds that the Council failed to take fully into account the potential for noise disturbance for local residents as a result of the use of the activity area, particularly in the evening. The Ombudsman has yet to make a formal decision as to whether or not the complaint should be upheld. Some elements of the new application now before you are associated with the previously approved scheme. The principal considerations are as follows:-Chill-out shelter: This is not directly associated with the previous application, however Members will wish to take into account the potential for any neighbour nuisance connected to the use of this building. In this respect the Director of Services - Environmental Health has been consulted on the application and has raised no objection, noting that the proposed location of the shelter is away from residential, thus providing a congregation point away from the residential properties.Increase height of fence around the all-weather playing area, the provision of football goal opening incorporated in the structure of the fence and basketball hoops: The previously approved application, RR/2001/516/P, permitted a 2.7 metre high mesh-fence around the approved all-weather play area. This part of the permission has not been implemented. The applicants still wish to erect a fence but seek to increase its height to 3 metres and incorporate goals/basketballs hoops. The hardsurface of the

67

multi-court and a fence has already been approved under the 2001 permission and is not open for reconsideration. Members will have to determine whether the additional facilities put forward in this current application would have such a bearing on the potential use of the court that it would result in increased activity and potential noise/disturbance over and above what would otherwise exist. If it would not, there can be little justification for withholding approval. The neighbours’ complaint (currently with the Ombudsman) is based upon the assertion that the court permitted in the 2001 application should have been a minimum of 30m from the boundary of her property according to NPFA standards and in the already approved position it is 5m away. In commenting upon this, there is the question as to what constitutes the authorised residential curtilage of the property and whether or not the measured distance should be taken from the immediate and formal residential curtilage around the house or, as she states, it should be taken from the edge of the informal woodland in her ownership, which lies between the formal garden and the recreation ground. The Environmental Health Division has been reconsulted and the comments are reported above. The revised comments recommend that the multi-court should be prevented from being used after 20:30 or sunset, whichever occurs first. A restriction upon the hours of use was not put on the 2001 permission. This would be difficult to enforce and it was previously considered that the natural fall of darkness would prohibit any meaningful ballgame activity. At present the multi-court fence is not gated and consequently it cannot be sealed to prevent use. I have, however, put the Environmental Health Division’s recommendation to the applicants and I have received the following response:“Mr Vidal (of the Trust) has purchased a sign to be securely fixed to the multi-court surround which states ball games should end by dusk or 8.30 p.m. We have a padlock for the entrance gate to the recreation ground and have instructed the caretaker to lock the (car park) gates at 10.30 p.m. The multi-court itself is not designed to be locked for safety reasons.”I am also aware that the police do not appear to favour locking the multi-court. A meeting was held at the recreation ground with the police on 31 July 2006 and I am expecting them to comment further on the application. The indication is that the local community police will continue to monitor the recreation ground.Solid fence along the south west boundary of the recreation ground: The proposed short length of timber fence (approx 25m) on the wooded boundary with Orchard Cottage is intended to provide some additional screening from the recreation ground for the occupiers of Orchard Cottage and is proposed as part of the application proposal with the objective of alleviating some of the neighbours’ concerns. It has to be pointed out, however, that the neighbour does not see this as a solution. I have no objections to this part of the proposal, and do not consider it would cause harm.I am awaiting re-consultation comments from the police and the Environmental Health Division on the Trust’s response to the recommendation that an evening time restriction should be set. I have also asked for a view as to whether a condition requiring additional planting between the boundary of the neighbours’ property and the multi-court would go some way towards ameliorating disturbance from youth activity and noise.

Subject to any responses received from outstanding consultations, I anticipate making the

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)

68

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed chill-out shelter relates to the provision of a community facility aimed at local young people. Whilst the facility would be located within an existing recreation ground, the approved siting is away from residential properties. The Local Planning Authority has consulted with the Environmental Health Division and it has been established that there is no reason to withhold the granting of planning permission on the grounds of nuisance arising from the potential use of the facility. The erection of mesh fencing 2.7 metres high has previously been granted planning permission under RR/2001/516/P and the increased height to 3.0 metres would not be significant and would have no material impact on the existing amenities of the area. Furthermore, it is not considered that the additional facilities put forward in the current application would have such a bearing on the potential use of the court that it would result in increased activity and potential disturbance over and above what would otherwise exist. The proposed timber boundary fence would not impact upon the setting of the Ticehurst Institute as a listed building and would have an acceptable impact on the amenities of the area.

RR/2006/1783/P TICEHURST ELLIOTTS, SHRUB LANERETENTION OF USE OF BARN FOR RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS (C1) USESMrs Turner

Statutory 8 week date: 24 August 2006

I have included this application on your list of pre-Committee site inspections.

SITE ‘Elliotts’, formerly known as Shrub Lane Vineyard, lies on the west side of Shrub Lane immediately to the north of the railway crossing.

HISTORYRR/98/934/P Erection of timber framed barn - Approved ConditionalRR/2003/2036/P Retention of windows on south elevation and formation of windows

on east and north elevations (retrospective) - Approved ConditionalRR/2003/2079/P New vehicular access - RefusedRR/2006/11/P Retention of barn for residential and business purposes - Refused

PROPOSAL This retrospective application is a re-submission of an application refused under reference RR/2006/11/P for the retention of use of the barn for residential and business uses. A two bedroomed dwelling house is indicated with part of the first floor set aside as an office.A supporting statement accompanies the application which seeks to demonstrate that the dwelling should be retained as a live/work unit in conjunction with the maintenance of the vineyard on site, the keeping of Alpacas and Mr Turner’s architectural practice. The summary of the statement together with the agricultural appendix is attached as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 August 2006.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Rural Estates Surveyor:- Response awaited.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

69

SUMMARY This is a retrospective application to retain a barn as a dwelling with office. The site lies within the High Weald AONB and outside any development boundary. It is a restricted site of approx 0.84 ha, established as a small vineyard (only 0.26 ha now exists) in the 1990s. In 1998 permission was granted for the erection of a barn for storage purposes only, RR/98/934/P. Following this an enforcement notice was issued in 1999, requiring removal of an unauthorised residential caravan and cessation of the residential use of the land and barn.The current owners acquired the site in 2001 and advise that the vines were in a poor condition. Since that time they have sought to undertake works to improve the condition of the vines and more recently have planted a few trees, erected new fencing and maintained the grassland. The later works are set out within their plans to start breeding Alpaca. During this time the barn has been converted to a two-bedroom dwelling without planning permission. The owners state that they were not aware at the time of purchase of the enforcement notice. An office area is also accommodated at first floor level and is used by the applicant’s husband in connection with his business.The applicant seeks to retain the residential use of the barn in association with the agricultural use of the land.I am awaiting the comments of the Rural Estates Surveyor. However, in respect of the submission earlier this year there was found to be no proven agricultural justification for a dwelling on site. I am also mindful that an enforcement notice against the use is effective following a dismissed appeal; there has also been a prosecution for failure to comply with the enforcement notice.I do not believe that a business case has been made to address the ‘tests’ set out in PPS7 and Local policies. As such there is considered to be no justification for a dwelling on the site. Moreover, the barn is modern and not considered to make a valuable contribution to the rural scene as required by Local Plan policy HG11.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The site is within the countryside (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) outside

any identified development boundary set out within the Rother District Local Plan where new dwellings are not normally allowed unless there is special overriding justification. The agricultural necessity in this instance for a dwelling has not been established in accordance with the criteria set out in PPS7, Annexe A. As such no justification for a dwelling exists and the proposal does not satisfy the criteria for new residential development in the countryside in accordance with the provisions of PPS7, Policy S10 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/2055/P TICEHURST ST MARY’S CHURCH, CHURCH STREETERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO FORM CHILDREN’S CHAPEL/MEETING ROOM AND DISABLED PERSONS WCThe Vicar, Churchwardens & PCC of St Mary’s Church, Ticehurst

Statutory 8 week date: 18 September 2006

SITE St Mary’s Church is a large mediaeval church of mostly 14th century origin restored in 1857, it lies within the village core and occupies an elevated position set

70

within the churchyard. The building is dominant in the street scene and is Listed Grade II*.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2005/2190/P Erection of single storey extension to form children’s

chapel/meeting room and disabled persons WC - Refused.

PROPOSAL This is a revised application of the construction of a single storey meeting room/chapel with a WC off the south aisle. The design is of a low pitched roof behind crenellated parapets using random sand stonework with ashlar quoins. The chapel would be linked to the church through an existing window opening; the window displaced features in the east elevation of the new building.A statement of need/significance and a summary of views expressed by people attending a pre-submission presentation to parishioners accompanied the application and are attached to this August report as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.English Heritage:- Comments awaited.ESCC County Archaeologist:- Comments awaited.Society of the Protection of Ancient Buildings:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Any representations received will be reported to your meeting

SUMMARY This submission follows an earlier refusal of planning permission (RR/2005/2190/P) and considerable negotiations involving English Heritage, The Diocese, the Council as planning authority, and local church members. There has also been a public presentation of the proposals at the Church prior to submission.The revised scheme has I believe resolved the design issues previously of concern. The crenellated parapet reflects the south aisle but being set lower does not impinge upon the continuity of the south aisle’s own crenellations added to the Church in 1901. I am of course awaiting formal consultation responses but I understand English Heritage are not opposed to the scheme.In my assessment the building is of a size that does not compromise the dominance of the Church or the appreciation of its architectural features. It is however sufficiently robust in its design and detailing not to be regarded as insignificant addition. Subject to satisfactory consultation responses being received I expect to make the

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF STATUTORY CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a schedule of

external materials, including details of mortar specification and pointing shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and a sample panel of stonework constructed. All details shall be subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority in writing and the development shall only be built in accordance with the approved details.Reason: RC27.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: It is considered that the proposed chapel is of an appropriate scale and design sited to complement the architecture and setting of the Grade II* St Mary’s Church and would not adversely affect the character or amenities of the locality. The proposal is therefore regarded as in compliance with

71

Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan, Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and in accord with the advice of PPG15.

RR/2006/1770/P EWHURST NORLIVEAN - LAND ADJ, MILL ROAD, STAPLECROSSERECTION OF DETACHED CHALET STYLE HOUSE WITH INTEGRAL GARAGE. ERECTION OF GARAGE AND FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS TO SERVE NORLIVEAN. FORMATION OF NEW ACCESS TO SERVE ANNEXE OF NORLIVEAN.Mr and Mrs K Mathews

Statutory 8 week date: 21 August 2006

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

SITE The site for the new house comprises a part of the side garden of ‘Norlivean’ which stands at the southern end of Mill Close. The application also includes a garage on the north side of ‘Norlivean’. Mill Close is a modern residential development of eight dwellings mostly designed as chalet properties, although ‘Norlivean’ itself appears as a two storey house from the front. The road itself is a private road.

HISTORYRR/1999/159/P Two storey extension and formation of granny annexe in remaining

wing - GrantedRR/2006/171/P Erection of two storey detached house with integral garage

including alteration to existing access and formation of new access - Withdrawn

RR/2006/545/P Erection of two storey detached house with integral garage using existing access. Erection of detached double garage and formation of new vehicular access to serve Norlivean - Refused

PROPOSAL The proposal is for a detached house with integral garage, in a chalet style, to the south of the existing house, together with a new single garage on the north side of the existing house to serve this property.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- No majority vote. Parish Council unable to either support or object to the proposal. Highway Authority:- Mill Road is not adopted and therefore there are no highway conditions. Would recommend however that vegetation around existing boundary fence be removed to improve visibility.Planning Notice:- Objections from six properties: backfill expansion will impair privacy due to overlooking blocking of light ‘Norlivean’ has already expanded to include granny annexe; further dwelling will

be overdevelopment site not included on original estate plan Mill Close is a select close with private road - plan must provide sufficient

parking to prevent on street parking - potential for more cars

72

poor visibility services (drainage) will be inadequate for another house connection to services will disrupt other properties Mill Close is a private road - all residents share maintenance necessary easements form other properties unlikely to be granted disruption from builder’s traffic ill conceived project deterioration in amenity of close, particularly through extra traffic precedent single garage for ‘Norlivean’ will block light and reduce garden

SUMMARY This is the third proposal this year to obtain permission for a single dwelling house on this site. The first scheme was withdrawn due to unresolved parking issues. The second scheme was refused permission on the basis of the design and scale of the dwelling then proposed, which was a conventional house design.This is, then, an attempt to overcome the previous objection by proposing, instead, a chalet bungalow more in keeping with the established character of the close. In addition the previously proposed double garage to serve ‘Norlivean’ has been reduced to a single garage. Although not a specific reason for refusal previously the double garage would have more of a physical presence both from the street and on the rear garden of 7 Mill Close.The proposal should be considered primarily against Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan in terms of the character of the area, the effect on local residents and highway issues.The proposal creates a plot with a frontage of about 11 metres widening to 18 metres at the rear. In depth it is some 30 metres. This is a much smaller plot than ‘Norlivean’ itself but comparable to most of the other plots in the road which, while wider, are not so deep overall. There is no typical plot size and this particular plot is not out of keeping to the character of the area.Likewise the house, now re-designed as a chalet, will be similar to the majority in the close. Therefore in terms of density, character and appearance I consider the scheme now to be acceptable. I would add in passing that while designed as a four bedroom property three of the four bedrooms are relatively small. However this is primarily a matter for the developer. The overall size of the dwelling is determined by the plans and is the external size at issue first.

Turning to the other matters raised by residents I would comment as follows:

Traffic and Parking -Clearly there is a potential for increased traffic and parking in the close; however the arrangements proposed are satisfactory. Some of the area of the new plot is currently used as off street parking for ‘Norlivean’ itself. ‘Norlivean’ will have a new single garage and drive to its north side. The annexe retains a separate hardstanding, while the new house has an integral garage and drive. I am satisfied with these arrangements. The issue of Mill Close being a private road is a private matter for the parties concerned, though not an overriding issue in terms of any planning permission.

Overlooking/Loss of light -The siting of the new house has been considered in relation particularly to Little Forge, next door. The new house will be sit at right angles to that property. The relative positions mean that there are no directly facing windows and any potential overlooking appears limited, except to a small side area of ‘Little Forge’.

73

The new chalet will have some impact on ‘Old Forge’ to the south but there has been no objection from the property which has a high hedge separating the dwellings, on this boundary.

Services -I am not aware of any limitations on drainage capacity but the private issues raised and questions of easements will be private issues for the developer/owner if permission is granted.

Conclusion -I am satisfied that there is space for a new dwelling on this plot provided it is of a chalet style, as proposed, and the parking arrangements are implemented to give adequate off street parking for both dwellings.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7B (a), (b), (c) (External materials) Add (d) the hard surfacing of the new

driveways.2. The new house hereby permitted shall not be occupied until such time as the

new driveways and parking provision for ‘Norlivean’ and the granny annexe of ‘Norlivean’ have been provided to the written satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, such arrangement thereafter being permanently retained.Reason: To ensure satisfactory parking arrangements for the existing property to minimise on street parking having regard 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 garages hereby permitted for both the new house and for ‘Norlivean’ shall be retained at all times for the parking of vehicles and shall at no time be altered or used as living accommodation.Reason: To ensure an adequate level of off street car parking for both properties to minimise on street parking having regard 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.

4. CN8C (Foul and surface water details).5. Details of the proposed new boundary enclosure between the properties and any

other walls or fences shall be submitted to and approved in writing before their installation.Reason: To ensure an appropriate type and standard of development in keeping with the character of the area having regard to Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

Note: The granting of planning permission neither grants nor implies any right to gain access over Mill Close which is a private road or over any other land in relation to the provision of foul or surface water sewerage.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The site lies within an established residential close and is sufficient size in itself to accommodate a chalet dwelling in character with other surrounding properties. The Local Planning Authority has considered the impact of the proposal on nearby dwellings and has concluded that there will be no demonstrable harm to the area from either the new dwelling or the new garage to serve ‘Norlivean’. The Local Planning Authority has noted comments from local residents in relation to access over Mill Close and across private land in relation to drainage but these are not material planning considerations. The development would

74

accord with the aims and principles of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan and would not prejudice the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty wherein Staplecross is situated.

RR/2006/1559/P GUESTLING HOLLYPARK, NORTH LANEREMOVAL OF EXISTING PORCH AND CONSERVATORY. ERECTION OF TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LIVING ACCOMMODATION.L Beaney

Statutory 8 week date: 28 July 2006

This application has been included in your list of pre-Committee site inspections.

SITE The application site comprises a small farm holding located off North Lane, just north of the A259 outside Three Oaks, and within the High Weald AONB. The original bungalow has been extended to provide rooms within the roof and has an agricultural occupancy restriction. The holding is organic and the farmer has a dairy herd of goats. Salad and vegetable crops have also been grown in previous years. The property is screened from the road by a fence, hedges and trees.

HISTORYA/52/192/A Bungalow and access. Approved conditional.

PROPOSAL The application proposes to demolish an existing porch and conservatory on the north west side elevation and to replace them with a two storey extension of a scale and design to match the existing property. The first floor accommodation would be provided within the roofspace. A small sun room is also proposed for the front elevation, of the same scale and design as the existing front bay with a hipped roof to match. The property would retain its appearance as a bungalow from the front with a new gable to the roof of the two-storey side extension, matching those existing on the rear and south east sides.While not generally a material planning consideration, the applicant has supported the application with details of the personal circumstances which have resulted in the proposed extension. The applicant, who is also the farmer, has both her elderly mother and her daughter with fiancé living at the property. The daughter helps to run the farm holding as well as helping to care for the elderly disabled mother. The elderly mother does not wish to rely on social services for care and the daughter and her fiancé are unable to afford their own mortgage. The daughter’s assistance on the farm results in there being no labour costs.Further information from the applicant and from Demeter (organic certification body) are attached as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 August 2006.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: None received.Rural Estates Surveyor: Refers to Government advice contained within Annexe A of PPS7 regarding agricultural, forestry and other occupational dwellings. Paragraph 1 of the Annexe specifically states that personal preferences or circumstances of any

75

individual involved are not to be considered when assessing the accommodation needs of an enterprise. While sympathising with the personal reason for the extension comments must be in respect of the agricultural justification. Based on the agricultural and functional needs required by the enterprise there is no agricultural justification for the proposed extension.Planning Notice: None received.

SUMMARY In normal circumstances the design and appearance of an extension is considered in respect of the criteria of Policy HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan (July 2006). In this instance the proposal is considered to respect the scale, design and character of the existing dwelling and would not be detrimental to the amenities of neighbours or the surrounding area. However, the main factor in this case is the fact that there is an agricultural occupancy restriction on the dwelling and as such the size of agricultural dwellings should be carefully controlled to ensure that they remain commensurate to the size of the holding. There is a need also to ensure that the increase in size and scale of the property does not prejudice its continued accessibility to agricultural workers in the future by inflating its market value.The bungalow has previously been extended and currently has a floor area of 180 square metres. The proposed extension will add some 58 square metres to give a resultant floor area of 238 square metres. The Rural Estates Surveyor does not consider this to be commensurate with the established functional requirement of the particular enterprise and accordingly the proposed extension conflicts with Government guidance contained within PPS7.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed development, if permitted, would result in a dwelling whose size

would exceed that which is justified by the established functional requirement of the agricultural holding and would effect the continued viability of maintaining the property for its intended use by an agricultural worker. As such the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Annexe A of PPS7 and HG10(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/2017/P PETT THE TWO SAWYERS, PETT ROADERECTION OF TWO STOREY DWELLING HOUSE ATTACHED TO THE FORGE (TO BE REBUILT UNDER PLANNING REFERENCE RR/2006/1425/P) WITH GARAGE AND ALTERATION TO EXISTING ACCESSMr C Soper

Statutory 8 week date: 11 September 2006

SITE The Two Sawyers Public House is located on the north side of Pett Road towards the centre of the village. The surrounding land is currently being developed. The application site lies immediately to the rear of, and will be attached to, the former forge building which is to be re-built.

HISTORYRR/2005/1315/P Change of use of forge to form part of a dwelling house - GrantedRR/2005/1318/L Change of use of forge to form part of a dwelling house - Approved

76

RR/2005/1321/L Erection of part of a two storey dwelling which with the conversion of Old Forge will form one dwelling - Approved

RR/2006/1425/P Reconstruction of ‘The Forge’ to match original building following collapse - Granted

RR/2006/1426/L Reconstruction of ‘The Forge’ to match original building following collapse - Approved

PROPOSAL The scheme is for amendments to the previously approved house. The changes result from a reconsideration of the layout originally proposed and an analysis of the actual workability of the original scheme. The house remains the same in form and overall height but there are some changes to window positions and sizes and to a dormer window in the rear elevation. A door in the (hidden) side elevation is removed.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- To be reported.Planning Notice:- To be reported.

SUMMARY Members will recall the recent issue with the demolition of the forge building and subsequent applications approved at the last Planning Committee to rebuild the forge to its former design.These changes to the attached house are not connected with the removal of the forge or its rebuilding. They result from a review of the original scheme. None of the changes, principally to doors and windows, significantly change the original concept and are acceptable in themselves.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. CN7B (External materials) (a), (b) weatherboarding, (c).

Reason: To ensure that any future changes to the house once completed are appropriate given the position of the building in relation to the re-built forge and the adjoining listed building having regard to Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. CN5E (Restriction of alterations/additions).Reason: To ensure that any future changes to the house once completed are appropriate given the position of the building in relation to the re-built forge and the adjoining listed building having regard to Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The changes to the original design are of a minor nature, which do not have an adverse effect on the design of the building or the setting of the adjoining listed building. They therefore accord with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

--oo0oo--

77