rr/2006/3132/p - rother€¦ · web viewcn6e (no separate dwelling – annexe extension) (please...

Rother District Council Agenda Item 6 Committee - Planning

Date - 18 January 2007

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 applications, conditions, reasons for refusal and notes commensurate with the

1

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

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/2006/3132/P 1 ASHBURNHAM ASHBURNHAM PLACEWALLED GARDENKITCHENHAM ROAD

RR/2006/3269/O 3 CATSFIELD 1 FORESTRY COTTAGESSTEVENS CROUCH

RR/2006/2991/P 5 BURWASH WOODMANS FARM

RR/2006/2843/P 7 BEXHILL TERMINUS ROAD - LAND SOUTH OF

RR/2006/2849/P 9 BEXHILL 18 SEA ROAD

RR/2006/3058/P 12 BEXHILL 3 EGERTON ROAD EGERTON HOUSE

RR/2006/3183/P 14 BEXHILL 207 COODEN DRIVE - LAND ADJ TO

RR/2006/3195/P 18 BEXHILL 8 THE GROVE - LAND ADJ

RR/2006/3207/P 20 BEXHILL 44 TURKEY ROAD SIDLEY SURGERY

2

RR/2006/3258/P 22 BEXHILL 61-65 DE LA WARR ROAD

RR/2006/3265/P 24 BEXHILL GEORGIAN CLOSE - BLOCKS A AND B HASTINGS ROAD

RR/2006/3284/P 27 BEXHILL SIDLEY HOUSE - LAND ADJ TURKEY ROAD

RR/2006/3323/P 28 BEXHILL 9 WEALDEN WAY

RR/2006/3353/P 30 BEXHILL 30 SHIPLEY LANE

RR/2006/3359/P 32 BEXHILL 9 SOUTH CLIFF

RR/2006/3369/P 34 BEXHILL 6 THE COVERT

RR/2006/3394/P 36 BEXHILL 3 KITES NEST WALK

RR/2006/3398/P 39 BEXHILL 6 KITES NEST WALK - PLOT ADJ TO

RR/2006/3401/CM 41 BEXHILL REPROTECH - FORMER SITE OF FRESHFIELDS BEXHILL ROAD

RR/2006/3421/P 44 BEXHILL 13 BARNHORN ROAD

RR/2006/3452/TN 46 BEXHILL PEARTREE LANE - ON HIGHWAYS LAND NEAR JUNCTION WITH LITTLE COMMON ROAD

RR/2006/2914/P 48 NORTHIAM THE SHEALING EWHURST LANE

RR/2006/3148/P 50 NORTHIAM NINE ACRE FARM QUICKBOURNE LANE

RR/2006/3438/P 52 PEASMARSH WOODLANDS FARM

RR/2006/3056/P 53 PEASMARSH BERRYNARBOR SCHOOL LANE

RR/2006/3261/P 55 BODIAM BURGESS TRANSPORT LTD - LAND AT MAIN STREET

RR/2006/2723/P 58 SALEHURST/ 12-14 STATION ROAD ROBERTSBRIDGE ROBERTSBRIDGE

3

RR/2006/2773/P 60 SALEHURST/ BUGSELL PARK ROBERTSBRIDGE BUGSELL LANE

ROBERTSBRIDGE

RR/2006/2783/P 63 BREDE LILAC DRIVE - LAND ADJ NORTHIAM ROAD

RR/2006/3181/P 67 ICKLESHAM CHURCHFIELDS - EXISTING BUILDING AT HARBOUR ROAD RYE

RR/2006/3324/P 68 ICKLESHAM DABCHICK COTTAGE MORLAIS RIDGE WINCHELSEA BEACH

RR/2006/3015/P 69 IDEN THORNSDALE OAST WITTERSHAM ROAD

RR/2006/3274/P 72 ETCHINGHAM OAKS CLOSE - LAND AT

RR/2006/2755/P 73 EWHURST VINEHALL AND WHITE PRECISIONBODIAM STATION YARD BODIAM ROAD

RR/2006/3167/P 76 SEDLESCOMBE GREAT SANDERS FRUIT FARMBEECH FARM ROAD

RR/2006/3234/P 78 SEDLESCOMBE SWIFT LITE CHARCOAL WORKSMARLEY LANE

RR/2006/3363/P 80 FAIRLIGHT KEYHOLE CAR PARK LOWER COASTGUARD LANEHASTINGS COUNTRY PARK

RR/2006/3366/P 82 FAIRLIGHT KEYHOLE CAR PARK LOWER COASTGUARD LANEHASTINGS COUNTRY PARK

RR/2006/3296/P 83 PETT THE POTTING SHED PETT ROAD

RR/2006/3338/P 86 PETT 6 COASTGUARD COTTAGES PETT LEVEL

--oo0oo--

4

RR/2006/3132/P ASHBURNHAM ASHBURNHAM PLACE, WALLED GARDEN, KITCHENHAM ROADERECTION OF 15 LOG CABINS IN WALLED GARDEN INCLUDING ASSOCIATED PARKINGAshburnham Christian Trust

Statutory 13 week date: 20 February 2007

SITE This application relates to the largest of the listed walled gardens within the grounds of Ashburnham Place.

HISTORY (Relevant)Whilst Ashburnham Place has an extensive planning history there is none that is specifically relevant to this submission or the walled garden itself.

PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for the siting of 15 log cabins around the perimeter of the south western half of the walled garden, served from a new access road within the centre of the layout from an existing access gateway. Each cabin would comprise 3 bedrooms, each with access to en-suite facilities, lounge/diner, kitchen area and entrance hall.Externally each unit would be timber clad under a charcoal grey, granulated finished steel profiled roof covering.A Design and Access Statement accompanying the submission sets out the proposal in more detail and is attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 18 January 2007.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “… has no strong views for or against this proposal.”Highway Authority:- Recommends consent be refused for the reasons:“The proposal would lead to increased traffic hazards on the A271 by reason of the inadequate visibility at the proposed access.The existing access at its junction with the A271 has substandard visibility and existing hazards would be increased by the additional slowing, stopping, turning and reversing traffic which would be created.Note:It was evident from a site visit that the recommended visibility splays could not be achieved particularly to the west where the dip in the road restricts visibility when egressing the access.If the applicant can demonstrate that there will be no increase in traffic movements as a result or this proposed development then the Highway Authority will reconsider this application.”Southern Water:- Do not wish to comment on this application.Environment Agency:- Recommends a drainage condition.English Heritage:- (See website for full text) -“Summary -Ashburnham is a grade II* registered park and garden with a highly significant C18 landscape which is considered ‘among Lancelot (Capability) Brown’s more substantial commissions’. Although the present landscape also retains features from pre C18 periods and planting and drives developed in the late C18/early C19 Picturesque style, it is the surviving design and features from Brown’s mid C18 work that lends the primary character to Ashburnham’s landscape and provides the setting for the complex of listed mansion, stables and church and the walled garden. The whole park lies in an

1

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which provides its setting. The applicants (A.C.T.) commissioned an ‘Historic Landscape Study’ and a ‘Landscape Issues of Future Development’ report which recommended (conclusion p7) the re-development of Tent Hill House as ‘the logical and practical way of solving the ACT’s accommodation problems’, with the walled garden presenting a fall-back location only to be pursued ‘if there is no alternative’. English Heritage is of the view that no significant additional justification beyond a short-term financial one has been made for this proposal, which we advised your Council to resist at pre-application stage.”Garden History Society:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY In considering this proposal particular consideration needs to be had for the development’s location within the AONB and the listed walled garden. Moreover, the whole pleasure grounds of Ashburnham Place are a grade II* registered park and garden principally laid out by ‘Capability’ Brown.In terms of policy and advice PPG15 is relevant with Local Plan Policies DS1, GD1, EM7, EM10 and EM11 the most significant.The accompanying Design and Access Statement sets out why the accommodation is proposed for visitors and how the site has been selected, together with an assessment of the visibility of the site within the landscape.Members will be aware that to the north east of the mansion lies the 1960’s building ‘Tent Hill House’. This provides basic accommodation that the Trust would like to replace; indeed an application was made to replace the building in 2005 (RR/2005/1262/P). Following design concerns the application was withdrawn prior to determination. The replacement of Tent Hill House remains a desirable objective; in fact the Design and Access Statement confirms this and specifically does not rule this out in the future. The current proposal is driven by the desire to provide accommodation of a standard now demanded in an economically viable manner. I am not unsympathetic to the Trust’s objectives and economic argument, but in this case I believe significant weight must be given to the importance of the historic garden. Indeed, it is a statutory requirement to preserve or enhance the setting of Listed Buildings. Moreover, Policy GD1(viii) demands that development does not prejudice the character, appearance or setting of heritage features, including historic parks and gardens. In my assessment the primary character of the listed walled garden, which is part of Brown’s scheme, is an enclosure of an essentially open space for horticulture. Half of the walled garden is still used to produce fruit/vegetables for the kitchen within Ashburnham Place. Policy EM7 supports extended tourist/visitor facilities where in accord with Policies DS1 and GD1. However, within the countryside Policy EM10 states that chalet accommodation will not be permitted normally.The appearance of the development in the landscape is not easy to assess. The walled garden is not a prominent feature from many public viewpoints, but it can be glimpsed and there are views, particularly in winter, from private land. The walls of the garden are 3.6m high; the height of the proposed cabins is given as 2.6m in the Design and Access Statement but 4m on the application form and 3.9m scaled from the submitted plan. I take the plan to be the most reliable.The County Archaeologist has not been formally consulted but it is considered that given the deep cultivation of the site in the past and the fact that deep foundations are not required, there is unlikely to be an archaeological issue. Nevertheless, it is considered desirable that in the event of planning permission being granted a suitable watching brief condition should be imposed.PPG15 contains the advice (paras 2.24 and 2.16):

2

“Local Planning Authorities should protect registered parks and gardens in preparing development plans and in determining planning applications. The effect of proposed development on a registered park or garden or its setting is a material consideration in the determination of a planning application……The setting is often an essential part of the building’s character, especially if a garden or grounds have been laid out to complement its design or function…”Finally, I note the Highway Authority’s recommendation of refusal but I do not believe that the additional traffic generation is likely to be significant as a proportion of the traffic movements as a whole. Indeed I note that the Highway Authority did not wish to restrict the grant of consent when considering the replacement Tent Hill House (RR/2005/1262/P). I would not wish to pursue a highway reason for refusal.To summarise, I believe that the introduction of timber cabins will erode the character of the walled garden; they would be an alien feature within the historic gardens and are generally undesirable within the landscape of the AONB, albeit that views of them are for the most part glimpses primarily from private land. For these reasons I cannot support the application.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed development would, if permitted, be detrimental to the character

and setting of the listed walled garden which should be preserved in accordance with Section 66 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and PPG15 (para 2.16).

2. The proposed development would, if permitted, be detrimental to the character and appearance of the registered historic park and garden by the introduction of inappropriately designed and sited buildings. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy S1(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, Policies DS1(viii) and GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and PPG15 (para 2.24).

3. The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, where Policies S1(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. It is considered that the proposal does not meet this objective, and it would cause harm to the character of the area.

RR/2006/3269/O CATSFIELD 1 FORESTRY COTTAGES, STEVENS CROUCHLAWFUL USE OF LAND SHADED RED AS RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGE AND LAND SHADED BLUE AS FORMAL GARDEN NOT PART OF RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGE. Mr and Mrs Talbot

Statutory 8 week date: 23 January 2007

This application has been included on the site inspection list.

SITE The semi detached dwelling lies outside any development boundary as defined within Policy DS3 of the Rother District Local Plan and within the High Weald Area of

3

Outstanding Natural Beauty. The property encompasses land near the junction of and between North Trade Road and the lane serving the property to the south.

HISTORYRR/2004/2626/P Erection of double garage and store block - Approved.RR/2006/719/O Lawful use of land as formal garden - Withdrawn

PROPOSAL The application seeks to regularise the use of land to the north of the dwelling for domestic purposes (part residential curtilage, part private parkland).

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Paris Council feels unable to comment as this is a legal matter but would be interested to hear the outcome. Director of Services - Legal Services Manager: “… I would have been very concerned about issuing a certificate, which acknowledged that an area larger than the red shaded area was residential curtilage. The description to the area shaded blue as formal garden, not part of residential curtilage appears to be appropriate in the case of land which is not agricultural but would not benefit from permitted development rights for residential curtilage either…”Planning Notice: No comments received to date.

SUMMARY The application relates to the use of an area of former agricultural land, as indicated on the submitted plan. The applicant is applying to establish an area of land set immediately to the north of the dwelling as residential curtilage (hatched red on the submitted plan). The remainder of the land (hatched blue on the submitted plan) would fall outside the residential curtilage being described as ‘private parkland’. This would allow land to be used for ancillary domestic purposes for the dwelling but not benefiting from permitted development rights. The recently converted barn will also be considered to fall within Use Class C3 (dwelling house) and this land will benefit from the permitted development rights. The area hatched in blue has a raised child’s timber garden playroom and I have sought clarification on the length of time it has existed in that position. Based on the amended description and the evidence presented I am of the opinion the application can be supported as described below.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (CERTIFICATE OF LAWFULNESS) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO WRITTEN CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE TIMBER GARDEN PLAYROOM)1. The land hatched red on the plan lies within the residential curtilage and the land

hatched blue on the plan is private parkland outside the residential curtilage including the raised child’s timber garden playroom.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The evidence submitted demonstrates that the land has on the balance of probability been used as per the above description for more than 10 years.

4

RR/2006/2991/P BURWASH WOODMANS FARMDEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOUSE AND ERECTION OF TWO STOREY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING HOUSEK Joyce and E Schalburg

Statutory 8 week date: 22 December 2006

This application was considered at the December 2006 meeting of the Committee when it was resolved to inspect the site.

SITE Woodmans Farm lies off the north side of Perrymans Lane nearly opposite Brickyard Lane. The existing house was destroyed by fire within the past year.

HISTORY (Relevant)A/68/458 Agricultural Dwelling - Approved ConditionalRR/93/0414/P Extension and alterations - Approved ConditionalRR/93/1019/O Lawful occupation of dwelling without compliance with Agricultural

Occupancy Condition - Approved Conditional

PROPOSAL Full planning permission is requested for the replacement of the existing, uninhabitable, fire damaged house with a contemporary chalet-style three bedroomed dwelling. The new property would be sited over part of the footprint of the existing house and whilst the ridge height would be 3/4m higher the mass would be considerably reduced.The replacement dwelling is a purpose designed ‘Huf House’ constructed with glass and infill panels under a roof of interlocking tiles with large overhanging eaves.

CONSULTATIONSBurwash Parish Council:- Objection. “The design is out of keeping in an area of outstanding beauty. The building would be seen from many aspects including Perrymans Lane, School Hill and the Churchfields.”Brightling Parish Council:- Strongly object. Will be visible and out of character with the AONB.Highway Authority:- No objection subject to imposition of a condition requiring the provision of parking space prior to occupation.Environment Agency:- No objection. Advice regarding drainage matters and water conservation sent to application.Southern Water:- Do not wish to comment upon the application.Planning Notice:- 1 letter of objection -i) out of keeping with AONBii) design unrelated to local vernacular1 letter of support -i) proposal is for a smaller house well screened from the lane.

SUMMARY The replacement of a dwelling in the countryside on a one for one basis, within the same curtilage, is acceptable in terms of Local Plan Policy HG10(i). This policy also requires that the replacement dwelling be of a comparable size; Policy GD1 sets out general development criteria.The proposed new dwelling is smaller in terms of both footprint and volume than the fire damaged property. The ridge of the new house is slightly higher (about 3/4m) but it has been turned at right angles to the road and is therefore much less visible.

5

The proposed new dwelling is a custom designed ‘Huf House’, based upon a contemporary, chalet-style design with emphasis upon heat/energy efficiency. The Parish Council are of the opinion that the proposed design is out of character with the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Similar ‘Huf House’ designs have been accepted within the AONB. In this case the house would not be prominent in views from Perrymans Lane as it is set at a lower level and there are extensive screen hedges. There are open views to the north and therefore the property would be viewed distantly from across the valley; the Parish Council refer to School Hill and Churchfields; I do not believe that a refusal on design/landscape grounds could be substantiated. The building would not be seen in the context of vernacular buildings and the north facing aspect with large roof overhangs combine to ensure that the extensive areas of glass would not ‘glint’ in the landscape. I am also conscious that similar designs from this company have earned both design and sustainability awards from many Local Authorities, the building industry, The Royal Institute of British Architects and others over the past seven years.The existing vehicular accesses would be used and the present garaging retained. A dark grey interlocking tile is specified for the roof of the dwelling whilst the external walls are timber posts and beams unfilled with white rendered panels and double glazing. I am satisfied that his contemporary design is appropriate in this case location. I would however wish to review the landscaping of the site following commencement of development.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (S106 - EXTINGUISH RIGHTS TO REBUILD)1. Before the dwelling hereby permitted is brought into use, detailed plans for the

planting of trees and/or shrubs on the site shall be submitted to and be subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority, the planting shall be carried out at the time of development or at such later date as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and in any event within 6 months from the completion of the development. Any trees and/or shrubs removed, becoming severely damaged or diseased, or which die within 5 years of planting shall be replaced by trees and/or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.Reason: RC20.

2. CN10C (Car parking provision).

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is considered to comply with Policy HG10(i) of the Rother District Local Plan and the submitted details are regarded as appropriate in terms of siting, scale and design that would not adversely affect the character or amenities of the locality. The proposal is therefore considered to be in compliance with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

6

RR/2006/2843/P BEXHILL TERMINUS ROAD - LAND SOUTH OFOUTLINE: RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE 14 APARTMENTS WITH 7 PARKING SPACES INCLUDING FORMATION OF NEW AND ALTERATION TO EXISTING VEHICULAR ACCESSMr C J Wallace


This application has been added to the site inspection list.

SITE The application site is part of a narrow, roughly triangular piece of land on the south side of Terminus Road. Occupied currently by open car sales and office building it is bounded by the railway to the south and some modern homes to the west. In the apex of the triangle at the eastern end, but not part of the site, is a single storey office building which would remain.

HISTORYThe history relates to the commercial use of the site over many years. An earlier application for 14 apartments with 7 car parking spaces (RR/2006/980/P) was withdrawn before a decision.

PROPOSAL The scheme is in outline but supported by indicative layout plans and elevations and a Design Statement.The plans indicate a single block of flats rising from two to three storeys in the centre of the site. Fourteen flats are proposed with an open area at the western end for 14 cars and refuse storage.The Design Statement includes the following:“3.0 Design Concept3.1 It is considered that the site is too constrained to accommodate housing. Thus,

the submitted application is for a development of apartments.3.2 The site is not constrained by any form of architectural feature or local

vernacular and thus any form of external appearance/design feature is able to be adopted (within reason).

3.3 The mass of the development is not constrained by any local development, save a single storey building to the east of the site and two storey properties to the west.Thus, an informal approach to the development of the site has been adopted creating two and three storey elements.

4.0 Access4.1 The location of the development car park is restrained by the no-building zone.

14 parking spaces will be formed providing a ‘one to one’ ratio of apartments to park spaces.

4.2 The property will have a floor level of some 900mm above road level. Access to the properties will be in accordance with Part M (disabled ramped approach).

4.3 The development is within 1.0Km of the main railway station, 500 metres from the town centre and bus routes.”

The application is also supported by technical information including levels in relation to drainage/flooding issues.

CONSULTATIONS

7

Highway Authority:- No objection subject to conditions relating to parking provision and new access arrangements.Environment Agency:- In respect of Flood Risk the Agency comments: “This application should have been supported by a Flood Risk Assessment (due to historical flooding in this locality). However, the applicant has been in contact with us regarding this matter and has included flood risk management measures within the submitted details. I confirm that such measures are considered by the Environment Agency to meet the requirements of Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG25: Development and Flood Risk and that the proposed development is in accordance with the guidance contained therein.”Conditions are recommended in respect of the proximity of the watercourse, pollution prevention, potential contamination and water conservation.Southern Water:- No objection in principle.Network Rail:- Advise on requirements to protect the adjoining railway line. Comment that they are not aware whether any PPG24 Noise and Vibration has been carried out and that amenity will need to be addressed.Sussex Police:- Advise on some detailed security measures but no fundamental issues.Director of Services - Head of Environmental Health:- No objection subject to noise and contaminated land conditions.Planning Notice:- No objections.

SUMMARY There are two principal issues in respect of this application:(i) the loss of employment premises; and(ii) the impact and overall acceptability of the development proposed in relation to

the street, the capacity of the site and the proximity of the railway.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.”No evidence of previous marketing attempts has been submitted by the applicants. The application is made as the current owners of the site are shortly to retire. An additional statement considering alternative commercial uses is submitted and attached in the APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 18 January 2007. The applicant’s case is that retail or office uses would require a great amount of parking and that the former use is detached from the main retail area. Of car sales itself the applicants suggest that while 20 years ago this sort of site may have been acceptable, today such uses are better sited within industrial areas.The applicant’s statements do not, in themselves, suggest that there is no prospect of continued business use and I do not see how a commercial use of the site would be necessarily harmful to the nearest residents. I do not see this as a site where there is any imperative to promote a residential alternative.

8

The impact and acceptability of a scheme for flatsIf however the loss of the employment use can be conceded, then the issue is whether the site has a realistic capacity for 14 flats in the form proposed. Although I have no objection to the form and bulk of the building, in itself, the narrowness of the site - particularly at the eastern end - would result in the building squeezed to the rear of the site allowing little or no private amenity space and placing some living room or bedroom windows in very close proximity to the main railway line. The requirement for at least 14 parking spaces (if the Council is minded to accept one-for-one provision) would result in an expanse of car parking close to the nearest houses and with limited space for landscaping.All in all I consider the scheme to represent an overdevelopment of what is a limited site particularly constrained by its narrow nature with the railway to the rear.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING)1. The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that there would be no demand for

the continued use of the site for commercial purposes or for a mixed use, or that the existing use creates any serious harm to nearby residents. As such the proposal as it stands would be contrary to Policy EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. The development of the site for 14 apartments with parking would represent an overdevelopment of the site, which is significantly constrained by the railway. A building of this scale, and the parking, would leave little private amenity spaces or areas for landscaping which would provide a positive and attractive setting for the new building. As such the development would not contribute positively to the character of the area and be contrary to Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. A development of this scale would necessitate a number of living, bedroom or other windows facing the railway to the south and no information has been submitted such that the Local Planning Authority is able to conclude that residents of the apartments would not experience adverse noise conditions in view of the proximity of the railway. The proposal therefore fails to meet the requirements of PPG24: Planning and Noise and would be contrary to Policy GD1(i) of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/2849/P BEXHILL 18 SEA ROAD CHANGE OF USE FROM A1 TO A5 HOT FOOD TAKEAWAY PLUS INSTALLATION OF VENTILATION SYSTEM AND EXTERNAL COMPRESSORS.ID Estates


This application has been included in the site inspection list.

SITE The site is located in close proximity to Bexhill town centre, to the west of Sea Road. The application concerns the change of use of the ground floor of this three storey building. The ground floor comprises A1 retail use and is currently occupied by Daltons furniture and carpet shop. The two storeys above comprise a residential maisonette. The premises are situated within a parade of shops on Sea Road. The site is located within the Bexhill Town Centre conservation area.

9

HISTORYB/70/721 New shopfront and minor alterations – Approved ConditionalBV/71/14 Internally illuminated fascia sign and internally illuminated hanging

sign - Approved Conditional B/72/141 Change of use from 2 rooms in maisonette over shop to storage

and staff use plus remodel lounge to kitchen & new access - Approved Conditional

RR/79/2153 Single storey rear extension – Approved RR/80/1087 WC extension at rear – Approved ConditionalRR/93/1946/PD Proposed renewal of existing dilapidated staircase – Approved

ConditionalRR/95/1383/H Demolition of existing workshops and outbuildings – Approved

ConditionalRR/95/1401/P Demolition of existing workshops and outbuildings and erection of

two storey extension to existing shop – Approved ConditionalRR/1999/1270/P Proposed alterations to shop front – Approved Conditional RR/2006/780/P Change of use of and conversion of part of existing ground floor

store into a self contained two bedroom flat and of first floor storage area into a self contained one bedroom flat – Refused

PROPOSAL This application proposes the change of use of the ground floor of the premises from A1 retail use to A5 hot food takeaway. It is proposed to subdivide the unit, with the rear section of the premises to remain in separate occupation. The proposal includes the installation of a ventilation system and external compressors, all located to the northern side of the building.

CONSULTATIONSDirector of Services - Environmental Health:- Original comments: As is stands the application should be refused. There is insufficient detail retailing to the mechanical extract ventilation system and the flue position is unacceptable (too low).Comments regarding the amended plans: The outlet position of the duct is still too low. There is a window forming part of the rear top floor room of the maisonette. This is not shown on the plan. Exact details (rather than general paragraphs) also need to be provided relating to this specific proposed mechanical extract ventilation system. An accurate drawing also needs to be submitted. Again, in its present form, the application should be refused.Planning Notice:- 9 letters of objection from 8 local residents/businesses;- In the short parade of shops between the station and St Leonards Road there

are currently two restaurants, a chip ship and a kebab shop. If other restaurants/take away opens all our trade suffers.

- This type of development will do nothing to enhance the attraction of Bexhill as a place to visit.

- Lack of disposal opportunity for rubbish.- Smell and noise created.- Increase in hours of opening until 11pm will be a nuisance.- The 56m of current shop frontages has restricted parking due to the pedestrian

crossing restriction zones, which are currently violated, and an additional food outlet will increase these violations.

- Smells from the flue/extractor will come into out property (maisonette above) and ruin our day to day life.

10

SUMMARY The principle of the proposed change of use is acceptable given the town centre location of the premises. The site is situated in an existing parade of mixed use buildings. A hot food takeaway would not be out of keeping in this vicinity. The hours of use of the premises would be extended to 11pm. Again, given the location, it is not considered that this would adversely impact upon the amenities of the locality. The proposed flue and external compressors are to be fixed to the northern elevation of the building, at the side and to the rear of the structure. As originally proposed the position of the flue was unacceptable. The scheme has been amended, altering its position, however the Environmental Health Officer has still found the outlet position of the duct to be too low. A residential maisonette is located above the application unit and there are numerous windows in the rear elevation that service the maisonette (two velux windows in the first floor roof slope and one dormer window at second floor level). These windows have not been indicated on the submitted plans. As the application stands, it is considered that the proposal would cause an unacceptable level of harm to the occupiers of the maisonette due to the positioning of the flue in close proximity to the window openings. The position of the flue needs to be amended to ensure that it does not harm the amenities of the neighbouring properties, and also so that it will not adversely impact upon the appearance of the Bexhill Town Centre conservation area.As well as this, the details of the mechanical extract ventilation system are not acceptable. The Environmental Health Officer has required that exact details (rather than general paragraphs) relating to the specific ventilation system are submitted. Subject to such details being submitted, and the position of the flue altered to the satisfaction of the Environmental Health Officer, I expect to make the following;

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO RECEIPT OF DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED MECHANICAL EXTRACT VENTILATION SYTEM AND AMENDED POSITION OF FLUE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ENVIRONMNETAL HEALTH OFFICER) 1. A scheme for the fitting of odour control equipment to the building shall be

submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development on site. The use of the premises shall not commence until all odour control equipment works have been carried out to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. The odour control equipment shall be maintained in accordance with the approved scheme.Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. A scheme for the sound insulation of odour control equipment referred to in Condition 1 above shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The use hereby permitted shall not commence until all sound insulation works have been carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. The sound insulation works shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved scheme.Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. A scheme for the soundproofing of the building shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The use hereby permitted shall not commence until all soundproofing works have been carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. The soundproofing works shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved scheme.

11

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. The level of noise emitted from the odour control equipment and the compressors when measured separately shall not exceed X dB LA90 (15 minute) nor shall noise emitted from the system comprise any audible tonal content. The noise level and/or tonal content shall be determined at [insert exact measurement location].Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. The use hereby permitted shall not be open to customers or any persons and no employee including a proprietor shall carry out any food preparation, cooking, and/or sales or serving to customers or any persons on the premises outside the hours of 08.00 to 23.00 on any day, and all clearing, cleaning, and any other work associated with the approved use shall not continue and no employee including a proprietor or other persons shall be in the premises to carry out such work outside the hours of 08.00 to 23.30 on any day.Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties and the locality in accordance with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

6. The external flue shall be finished in matt black and shall be retained in that condition.Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

Note: N1A (amended plans)Site location plan – Drawing No. 777306/03 (date stamped 25 October 2006)

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed change of use from A1 to A5 is appropriate in this location 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/2006/3058/P BEXHILL 3 EGERTON ROAD, EGERTON HOUSECHANGE OF USE TO SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION FOR PEOPLE WITH MENTAL HEALTH/LEARNING DIFFICULTIES.Mr D Callaghan


The application has been included in the site inspection list.

SITE This application relates to a substantial terraced residential property located to the south of Egerton Road, situated in close proximity to Bexhill town centre and the seafront. The site is located within the Bexhill town centre conservation area.

HISTORY

12

None relevant.

PROPOSAL This application proposes a change of use from private residential use to supported accommodation for people with mental health/learning difficulties. No structural alterations inside or outside the building are proposed. The supporting information with the application states that “There is a need for supported accommodation for people in Bexhill for people in this category who need to recover and learn life skills to allow them to live independently in the community. Egerton Road will be that stepping stone to allow them the time, space and support that they need to accomplish this hurdle. The building consists of eight good sized reception rooms. The bedrooms will remain bedrooms and not be converted in any way. The three reception rooms plus a good size kitchen will be for communal use. The people who will use Egerton Road are supported and supervised by trained and experienced staff, one of which will be on call for emergencies 24 hours a day every day. … In relation to parking etc we cannot see any particular problem as it is out experience that people included in the category that we support do not run cars etc but use public transport of which Egerton Road is well placed. In respect of visitor parking there are many side roads including Egerton Road to find parking spaces or the large De La Warr car park is just across the road.”

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: “I do not wish to restrict grant of consent. …From the submitted plans it is evident that no parking provision has been made. I wish to express concern that there is a lack of parking associated with this site but when taking into account the proposed use of the site, I don’t feel that this is a sufficient reason to recommend refusal alone.”Director of Services – Head of Housing: “This is a development of a supported lodgings resource in the Bexhill area. There is a severe lack of accommodation of such resources in the Bexhill area and demand exceeds supply. Mental Health teams are encouraging resource development. The carers are an existing resource and are looking to expand due to identified need.“East Sussex County Council Social Services – Adult Social Care: “Mr and Mrs D Callaghan of 25 Gillham Wood Road, Cooden, were approved as Service Providers for the Supported Accommodation Team (SAT) in May 2006. They both have considerable experience of working with people with mental health problems. They are planning to offer the above property to service users referred to and assessed by SAT as needing a level of supported accommodation in the community…As stated in the application, very few of our service users own cars and mostly use public transport. Egerton Road is conveniently located for pedestrian access to local services.”Planning Notice: 4 letters of objection from neighbouring residents;- Out of keeping with the area and not conducive to the ongoing regeneration of

the town centre.- Consideration must be given that Bexhill attracts visitors – a very important

economic aspect to the well-being of the resort. To have a building in use as per the planning application in a tourist and visitor vicinity particularly which encourages the young and elderly is questionable.

- No parking provision for staff or visitors.- Concern of possible noise.- What degree of mental health difficulties will the occupants have?

13

SUMMARY I am mindful that the site is located in close proximity to the seafront and the town centre, where tourist uses are desirable. It is however noted that the majority of properties near to the site are used residentially. There is concern that no parking provision has been made, although it is noted that the applicant has stated that the majority of people the facility is intended to support do not run private vehicles but use public transport, of which Egerton Road is well placed. In terms of visitor parking, any such visitors can share facilities with any other visitor to the town centre, whereby there is roadside and public car parking facilities available. There have been several objections by the local residents over the potential types of persons intended to be accommodated, due to the vagueness of the information provided in the application. I have therefore written to the applicant requesting any additional information, and details of any special provision that may be necessary for supervision, that may aid in the determination of this application. These additional comments are awaited.It is evident that there is little amenity space at the rear of the building for the use of the inhabitants. However, the ground floor of the building comprises three good sized reception rooms and kitchen facilities for communal usage. All eight bedrooms are ample in size.No structural changes are proposed. The outward appearance of the building would not be affected and therefore proposal would have no adverse impact upon the appearance of the locality or the character of the Bexhill town centre conservation area.The current use of the building is as a dwellinghouse (Class C3 of the Use Class order 2005). Class C3 allows ‘not more than six people living together, … which includes small group homes for disabled or handicapped people living together in the community’. Therefore this application only requires planning permission because, as it is believed, the facility is to accommodate only two more people than would otherwise be deemed as permitted development within Class C3 use. Members will be able to assess these issues on site. I consider it necessary to await further information.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FURTHER INFORMATION)

RR/2006/3183/P BEXHILL 207 COODEN DRIVE - LAND ADJ TO ERECTION OF EIGHT RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH DORMER WINDOW AND ROOF LIGHTS TOGETHER WITH GARAGING, PROVISION OF FOUR PARKING SPACES AND REVISED ACCESS.Miracles By Design Ltd


SITE This grassed site is located on the southern side of Cooden Drive, between the house at 207 and the former ‘Three Chimney’s’ nursing home at 203 Cooden Drive. There is a substantial hedge to the road frontage and a high wall to no.207, which is set at a higher ground level. The area is for the most part level, with a steep slope down to the beach at the rear. A block of garages straddles the boundary with 203 Cooden Drive, towards the front of the site.

HISTORY (Relevant to this particular site)

14

RR/80/2196 Outline: Two dwellings with garages and/or parking spaces. Approved conditional.

RR/84/0617 Block of five garages. Approved conditional.RR/88/2708 Outline: Erection of 2 storey block of 16 warden care flats with 31

parking spaces. Refused. Appeal dismissed.RR/90/0701/P Outline: Erection of 2 storey block of 12 warden care flats linked to

existing nursing home. Withdrawn.RR/91/1951/P Outline: 2 storey extension providing 16 additional bed spaces,

new day rooms and lift. Approved conditional.RR/92/1865/P 2 storey extension providing new bedrooms, day room, lift and new

bathrooms pursuant to outline RR/91/1951/P. Approved conditional.

RR/97/519/P Renewal of outline permission RR/91/1951/P. Approved conditional.



RR/2003/966/P Outline: Erection of two storey block of eight flats with parking spaces and new vehicular access. Approved conditional.

RR/2006/1566/P Demolition of existing structure. Erection of 8 living units, together with eight garages and three parking spaces. Refused.


PROPOSAL This is a full application detailing proposals for 8 apartments with garages and parking spaces. The design and general appearance follow that already approved for the redevelopment of the adjacent former ‘Three Chimneys’ nursing home, RR/2006/2362/P. The application indicates proposals for continuation of the public footway from the east, across the highway land at the frontage of the site. This is a requirement of the Highway Authority.The proposal comprises three storey elements as a continuation of the Three Chimneys site, reducing to two storey closer to the boundary with the castellated house at 207 Cooden Drive. The proposed ridge height is slightly lower than the roof of no.207. As with the adjacent development, the proposal includes an element of excavation to reduce the ground level for construction of the building. The proposal comprises 3 x two bedroom flats on each of the ground and first floors with 2 x two bedroom flats on the second floor. The roof space of the two storey element comprises an open communal area with views out to sea. The apartment block has a varied front elevation with gable details, set backs and roof valleys and ridges. The rear elevation is also staggered to respect the layout of the adjacent property at 207 Cooden Drive. The front has a more traditional appearance with render and soldier course detailing while the rear has a more modern glazed finish maximising views for the occupants and providing a focal point to views from the beach side. The existing front boundary hedge is to be retained with the insertion of a new central access to comply with highway standards. The old access will be stopped up and new hedging planted to infill the gap. The garage blocks are in part to have green roofs, utilising ‘Sedum’ or a similar finish.

CONSULTATIONSHighways Authority: No objection subject to conditions and provision of footway across site frontage with visibility splays.

15

English Nature: Advised that the application does not appear to have implications for a statutory nature conservation designation or any protected species.Southern Water: Initial investigations show that there is inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. Increased flows to the public sewerage system would result in a greater flood risk to existing land and buildings. Alternative options for disposal may be considered but further details would be required to satisfy Southern Water. (Full comments are available on the website).South East Water: Comments awaited.Environment Agency: Has no objections in principle but recommends conditions to resolve surface water drainage issues, pollution problems in respect of drainage and also in respect of possible contamination of the adjacent site of nature conservation interest. The Agency warmly welcomes the inclusion of grey water collection systems, solar panels, ground source heat pumps and energy efficient fittings. (Full comments available on the website).Health & Safety Executive: Does not advise, on safety grounds, against the granting of planning permission in this case. However, in view of the proximity of a major hazard pipeline the pipeline operator should be contacted direct.Planning Notice: No representations received.

SUMMARY There is an extant outline permission on this site for the erection of eight flats with garages and parking, RR/2006/1975/P. This is, however, a full application and not a reserved matters application. The application is a revised development proposal, following a refusal of the previous details considered under application RR/2006/1566/P. The previous scheme comprised a continuous block of development extending across the full width of both this site and the adjacent ‘Three Chimneys’ site. The mass and bulk of the development has now been reduced considerably. The overall height has been reduced with the deletion of a floor level and the mass has been broken into smaller blocks resulting in a more domestic scale reflecting some of the proportions and details of the existing original nursing home and surrounding developments. The proposal reflects the same design principles and use of ecological construction methods as those to be employed on the adjacent site. While the development of this grassed area will have some impact upon the neighbouring property at 207 Cooden Drive, the height and siting has been designed to reduce any impact and maintain space and light for the neighbouring property. The proposed development as now presented is considered to maintain the scale and rhythm of the surrounding street scene and is not considered to be detrimental to the general character or appearance of the area. As such there are considered to be no policy objections.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7B – samples of materials: bricks, tiles, render colour and finish, slates and

details for the ‘green’ garage roofs.2. The finished ground floor levels of the building(s) hereby approved in relation to

existing and proposed site levels, the adjacent highway and adjacent properties, together with details of levels of all accesses, to include pathways, driveways, steps and ramps, shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings no. 61050/18, 16A and r426 date stamped 24 November 2006.Reason: To provide for the proper development of the site and to accord with Policy GD1(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(b), (e), (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

16

3. Prior to the construction of any of the buildings hereby permitted, details of foul and surface water drainage for the site, to include surface water from parking areas and hardstandings which shall be passed through trapped gullies to BS 5911:1982, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The drainage works shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved. Reason: To prevent water pollution and ensure satisfactory drainage of the site in accordance with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy EN11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. Prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted detailed plans shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, for approval in consultation with the East Sussex Highway Authority, indicating the continuation of the footway along the site frontage, to include kerbing, the provision of visibility splays at the entrance and provision of covered cycle parking. These access and parking arrangements shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings. Reason: To ensure satisfactory development of the site and to accord with Policy S1of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. Before commencement of any building works in respect of the dwellings hereby approved, full details of all window and door openings, to include materials, reveals, lintels, arches and cills, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and the works shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form and appearance to the development in the interests of the character and visual amenities of the area, in accordance with Policy GD1(ii), (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

6. Solar panels shall not be fitted to the dwellings hereby approved until full details for their size, position and method of fixing have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and the works shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To maintain the visual appearance and amenities of the properties and surrounding area in accordance with Policy GD1(ii), (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

7. Prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby permitted details of the surfacing materials for the access, turning and parking areas and the footways shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and these hard surfaced areas shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance to the development 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.

8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (as amended), (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification), no windows or openings (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be inserted into the east or west side elevations or roof slopes of any of the buildings hereby permitted, without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To prevent overlooking of adjacent properties and to accord with Policy S1of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

17

9. CN13A – landscaping details required10. CN13B – landscape implementation11. Before occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved, the car parking and

vehicular turning space as set out on the approved drawing no.61050/10B date stamped 24 November 2006, 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 and to accord with 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.

12. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (as amended), (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification), no additional boundary enclosures shall be erected, without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To maintain the visual appearance of the site and to ensure protection of the Site of Nature Conservation Importance on the beach, having regard to Policy EN17 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

13. The communal room in the roof space of the building adjacent the boundary with 207 Cooden Drive, as indicated on drawing no.61050/13A, date stamped 24 November 2006, shall be retained for communal amenity use only and shall not be used to provide additional residential accommodation.Reason: To maintain the existing level of development to ensure that development of the site is not intensified, which would result in the loss of amenity space, a lack of parking provisions and an intensification of general noise and activity detrimental to the residential amenities and character of the locality, having regard to Policy GD1(ii), (iii), (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

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

RR/2006/3195/P BEXHILL 8 THE GROVE - LAND ADJ ERECTION OF DETACHED SINGLE STOREY DWELLING WITH ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING ACCESS AND PROVISION OF TWO PARKING SPACES. Cromwell Country Homes


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

18

some 44m. Vehicular access to the existing dwelling is gained via The Grove and an unmade lane runs across the sites’ frontage, which in part only allows pedestrian traffic through.

HISTORYB/58/371 WC in existing bathroom – Permitted DevelopmentRR/2006/1921/P Erection of dwelling including alteration to an existing access –

Refused – Appeal Lodged – As Yet Undetermined.RR/2006/2479/P Erection of detached single storey dwelling with formation of a new

vehicular access, alteration to an existing access and provision of four parking spaces – Refused – Appeal lodged – As Yet Undetermined.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to erect a detached two bedroom single storey dwelling and the subdivision of the curtilage of the existing dwelling (No.8 The Grove). Parking provision for two vehicles to the front of the property is proposed. Also, the introduction of a close boarded fence on the northern boundary forms part of this application. The application includes the construction of off road parking areas to the front of the properties.

CONSULTATIONSSouthern Water:- Do not wish to comment on this application.Environment Agency:- Raise no objection. Highways Agency:- The Highways Agency wishes to object to the proposed application because some of the garden land falls within its ownership. Please find attached details of the land which is owned by the Highways Agency, which is hatched. Highway Authority:- Raise no objection. Planning Notice:- Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY This site has been subject to two previously refused applications for a two storey detached dwelling (RR/2006/1921/P) and a single storey dwelling (RR/2006/2479/P). At the time of the site inspection for this application, works have been carried out at the property resulting in the vehicle parking areas being laid, removal of some of the established boundary hedge fronting the unadopted highway and a substantial section of the hedge along the northern boundary fronting the A259. Close boarded fencing has been erected subdividing the existing rear garden to create two garden areas and also fronting the A259. This latest scheme attempts to address the concerns and reason for refusal for the two previous applications (currently subject to appeals) by further reducing the proposed footprint of the property and therefore its mass, bulk and scale and introducing planting along the northern boundary. The immediate vicinity (along this part of the A259) benefits from mature trees and hedge screening both sides of the highway providing occupiers some relief from road noise and offers users of the highway relief from the built form while passing through the town. It is considered the loss of an important mature tree and bush screen along the northern boundary has exposed the previously secluded site. As a result of exposing this elevated site and erecting the fence, the visual amenity of the streetscene has been adversely affected. To address the issue of the prominent fence the plans illustrate the inclusion of a replacement hedge along the northern boundary. However, concern remains that any planting needed to adequately screen the fence and site from the highway, would need to be carried out on Highways Agency land. In order to resolve this situation and achieve adequate screening the fence may need to be set back from the boundary line an appropriate distance to allow for sufficient planting to take place.

19

The Highways Agency confirm that part of the indicated land under the applicants’ control is owned by them. To this end a revised location plan illustrating accurately the correct boundary line will be required and will mean that some of the fencing will have to be removed as it has been erected on Highways Agency land. The application is accompanied by an extensive 22 page document of justification/explanation supporting the proposal. However, the plans illustrate the proposed modest bungalow, which appears in terms of layout, position, footprint and elevation details, more sympathetic to its surroundings than the two previous applications. Subject to resolution of the matters regarding ownership, boundary fencing, planting scheme and being satisfied that the proposed bungalow could be accommodated on the site I would, on balance, support the application.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED PLAN SHOWING CORRECTED BOUNDARY DETAILS)1. CN5E (a)(b)(c) – Restrictions of alterations/additions2. CN7B (a)(c) – External materials3. CN13(f) – Landscaping4. Prior to occupation of the single storey detached dwelling hereby approved, the

fence erected along the northern boundary (fronting the A259) of the site shall re-sited to a new position 500mm behind the boundary line agreed by the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Highways Agency to allow the former hedge line to be reinstated. The fence shall be erected in accordance with the approved details and retained in that position thereafter. Reason: RC13.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed single storey detached dwelling with off road parking is of an appropriate design and position 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(ii)(iii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/3207/P BEXHILL 44 TURKEY ROAD, SIDLEY SURGERYDEMOLITION OF EXISTING SURGERY AND ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT SURGERY PURSUANT TO OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2004/1699/P.Carisbrooke Medical Centres Ltd


This application has been included on your site inspection list.

SITE The site comprises the existing single storey doctors’ surgery and car park, part of the adjacent open space and a small section of the children’s play area.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/83/2265/P Erection of doctors’ surgery and car parking - Approved.RR/2004/1699/P O/A Erection of a replacement surgery - Approved.RR/2005/453/P Siting of doctors’ surgery for a temporary 2 year period - Approved.

20

PROPOSAL This application is for approval of all reserved matters pursuant to the outline planning permission RR/2004/1699/P. The details show a part 2 storey and part single storey building with extension of the car parking area to give 31 spaces as shown on the outline consent. The ground floor of the building is brick with first floor in render with applied timber cladding. The cladding on the south and east elevations will be installed at an angle to provide privacy and shading whilst creating visual interest. The single storey part of the building will have rendered walls; the roof of both parts of the building will be clad in a single ply membrane to give the effect of a metal roof. The height of the building has been kept to a minimum by using an inverted low pitch roof.

CONSULTATIONSDirector of Services - Estates & Valuation Officer:- No comments to make.Director of Services - Technical Services Officer:- “1. We have concern regarding the height and construction of the proposed car

park’s eastern boundary. If the car park is to be free from vandalism and used as a short cut this boundary construction needs to be substantial and of sufficient height to deter climbing. Consideration should also be given to the use of barrier planting on the boundary line, car park side e.g. Pyracantha.

2. There appears to be a narrow strip of land to the north of the extension remaining in Rother District Council ownership, (south elevation of Sidley House) great care needs to be taken in designing out of hidden spaces.

3. Waste ManagementThe location of the waste and medical waste area is served by doors/gates which appear too restrictive to accommodate any form of wheeled container; although this will be for commercial waste there is a need for adequate movements.

4. This development is dramatically reducing the area of open space available to the public, it is therefore essential that the site management is comprehensive and the amenity of Rother District Council land and the safety of children in the adjoining playground is managed at the highest level.

5. The increase in hard surfacing for car parking on the western part of the site will greatly affect the surface water run off. It is essential that adequate surface water catchment and drainage is provided to prevent flooding of the children’s play area.”

Southern Water:- No comment.Environment Agency:- No objection subject to imposition of condition relating to surface water disposal and infill material, and welcomes the proposed rainwater recycling system.Planning Notice:- Hastings and Rother Primary Care Trust - Fully support the proposal as a priority

within Rother. There has been significant growth in the Sidley area and the current premises will not be able to provide services for the additional patients.

Sidley Community Association - Letter received which states the proposals and plan were made available for public comment and an open meeting was held. As a result a petition signed by 17 Sidley residents supporting the proposal is submitted. No objection was made to the proposals.

Dr Lawton and Partners - Letter received registering the collective support of the Partners for the proposed plans. They say that a refusal or delay to this development will result in demonstrable harm and have an adverse effect to extend the provision of medical services to meet the needs and expectations of the community.

21

SUMMARY The details now submitted follow the general line of the outline consent, and matters in respect of the land take/site area and car parking were dealt with at outline stage. The proposed building is of a contemporary design and will provide an excellent modern facility in Sidley. Detailed matters which have been raised regarding surface water, boundary treatment and landscaping will be dealt with under the conditions that were imposed on the outline planning permission.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE (RESERVED MATTERS)

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The submitted details show a building of appropriate siting and design, and will not have any adverse impact on adjoining property or the streetscene, which accords with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/3258/P BEXHILL 61-65 DE LA WARR ROADERECTION OF 10 BED SPECIALIST CARE UNITGlen Care Group


SITE The site lies on the north side of De La Warr Road and is part of the specialist care home facility now occupying 49-65 De La Warr Road. On the site of 61-65 a new 45 bedroom care facility is currently under construction: the site for the proposed building lies to the rear of this new build although the defined application site includes the new facility and the communal car park which also serves The Langford Clinic and Langford Lodge.

HISTORY55-57 De La Warr RoadRR/2000/2688/P Three storey residential care home - Approved

61-65 De La Warr RoadRR/2005/832/P 42 bedroom care home - RefusedRR/2005/2990/P 42 bedroom care home - ApprovedRR/2006/1041/P Erection of 3 metre fence - ApprovedRR/2006/1211/P Erection of 10 bedroom specialist care unit (including 67 De La

Warr Road) - Refused

PROPOSAL The proposal is for a single storey t-shaped building providing 10 bedrooms and ancillary facilities. It is shown to be connected to the new care home fronting De La Warr Road, which is currently under construction and will provide specialist care. The building occupies the “rear garden” of the new building taking it close to the rear of properties in Dorset Road. The layout retains some communal garden areas to serve the building proposed and that under construction. No additional parking is proposed. 34 spaces are identified to serve all the buildings on the three sites.

22

CONSULTATIONSHighways Agency:- No objections in principle subject to conditions relating to improvements to the existing access.Environment Agency:- No objection in principle subject to tests to prove soakaways and other drainage matters being covered by conditions.Southern Water:- No objections.Social Services:- No objections. Applicants have responsibility to meet requirements of the Care Standards Act 2000.Sussex Police:- No objections.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY This application is a variation on a similar proposal refused permission in May last year. It differs in that, while of a comparable size, it is now rotated on the site, attached to the new care home and will no longer encroach into the rear garden of 67 De La Warr Road (which while in the applicant’s ownership remains in private residential use). The previous refusal stated:“The scheme, which involves development to the rear of the site and extending the overall care home use further east represents an undesirable departure from the established pattern of frontage development in the area. In particular the loss of the mature garden areas which provide a potential amenity both for the existing care home facility and for 67 De la Warr Road, and the close relationship of the new building to the rear gardens of 67 and 69 De La Warr Road, amount to an over development of the site contrary to the principles of Policy S1(b) and (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and to Policy GD1(ii) and (iv) of the Modified Revised Deposit Rother District Local Plan (March 2006).”The modified plan eliminates any potential adverse effect on 69 De La Warr Road, but even though 67 De La Warr Road is in the same ownership the impact of the building in this rear position should still be assessed in relation to the adjoining residents and the amenities of the private rear garden. The issue of developing within the backland area remains, in terms of the impact of the building, not only from 67 De La Warr Road but also from properties behind. Since the last application, the site has been cleared of all vegetation to facilitate the development on the frontage. The impact of the current proposal can be more easily assessed. While a reasonable area of land exists, in my view this should remain undeveloped both to provide a landscaped context for the new development and to prevent encroachment into the backland area looked onto by residents of Dorset Road behind. The Council has adopted a positive approach to development proposals on this and the related, adjoining sites, but this further proposal does not meet criteria (ii) and (iv) of Policy GD1.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The scheme, which involves development to the open rear of the site, represents

an undesirable departure from the established pattern of frontage development in the area. In particular, the loss of the rear garden area which provides a potential amenity for the existing care home facility and also contributes to the wider character of the area, and visible from properties in Dorset Road, and the close and intrusive relationship of the new building to the rear garden of 67 De La Warr Road, amount to an over development of the site contrary to the principles of Policy S1(b) and (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and to Policy GD1(ii) and (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

23

RR/2006/3265/P BEXHILL GEORGIAN CLOSE - BLOCKS A AND B, HASTINGS ROADCREATION OF ONE 3-BEDROOM PENTHOUSE FLAT TO EACH BLOCKUK Property Investment Corporation Ltd


This site has been added to the site inspection list.

SITE This application relates to the two 3-storey Georgian style blocks of six flats situated one behind the other and located on the north side of Hastings Road. The blocks are part of a larger development of 20 flats served by a cul-de-sac. The frontage block is adjoined both sides by flats of similar building height.

HISTORYRR/2006/2313/P Creation of one 3-bed Penthouse flat to each block with new

pedestrian access lift - Refused.

PROPOSAL The penthouse element of this proposal is similar to that proposed under previous application RR/2006/2313/P, which was refused for reasons that the lift shaft and parking provision proposed would have had an adverse impact upon the visual character and appearance of the area and upon surrounding amenity. This resubmission no longer includes a lift shaft and comprises the following two elements:-1) construction of two penthouse flats, one on the roof of each block (as previously

proposed);2) provision of 2 lay-by parking spaces in the amenity space between the two

blocks (4 x 90 degree spaces previously proposed).

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- Do not wish to restrict grant of Consent.Director of Services - Building Control Manager:- Building Regulations will require the existing structures to be proved to be structurally adequate to accept the additional storeys proposed.Planning Notice:- A letter of objection from the Residents of Georgian Close contains many comments, some of which are not relevant to the planning issues. A full copy of the letter can be viewed on the website. The following relevant comments have been extracted in brief: even revised plans would deprive us of a large part of an amenity enjoyed by all

20 residents there are no parking spaces to rear of site garages and roadway in front are not owned by freeholder or any leaseholder parking in front is not allowed all parking is done along left-hand side of Georgian Close this makes road a single lane there is not ample parking space and extra parking bays would aggravate

matters there would be an overall loss of at least one parking space as space must be

allowed for manoeuvring is only space for 11 cars for 20 flats if permitted there would only be 8 spaces for 20 flats

24

blind spots at junction of Georgian Close with Hastings Road is made worse by visitors to Abbey Prep School using Close

number of cars from College spreads daily existing hazards would be exacerbated by reduction of parking space resiting refuse bins would be detrimental elegant proportions of Georgian flats would be totally ruined potential to overlook still exists cannot imagine wheelchair users dragging themselves up to the third floorThree additional letters from residents endorse the above comments and add that development would be in breach of covenants in their leases. These can also be viewed on the website.A letter of objection from Boscobel Residents Association includes the following: loss of privacy as Block B Penthouse will look directly into my bathroom and

toilet loss of privacy to roof balcony noise and upheaval from building work lack of parking is major concern and will promote extra cars parking on already

dangerous corners

SUMMARY The main issues for consideration are:a) Impact upon the character of the areab) Impact upon the amenities of the areac) Impact upon parking provision. Relevant Policies are S1(b)(d)(f) of the East

Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(ii)(iii)(iv) and TR3(i) of the Rother District Local Plan.

Taking each proposed element in turn:-

1) Construction of two penthouse flats:-a) Character and street scene -

The existing pitched roofs of these two 3-storey blocks of flats are set behind a parapet and are not a prominent feature of the building or in the street scene.In order to provide the proposed 2/3 bedroom penthouse flats, each roof would be completely removed and replaced by a mansard style roof similarly set behind the parapet. Windows would be mainly inserted in the front and rear roof slopes and with a central roof terrace cut into the front slope. The sloping sides of the mansard would be clad with plain tiles and the shallow pitched roof clad in metal. Although the mansard roofs would have a larger volume than the existing and be of a different shape to other roofs in the locality, they would not exceed the height of the existing roofs and would not in my opinion be significantly out of keeping with the character of the area or detrimental to the appearance of the street scene.

b) Impact upon surrounding amenity -In physical terms, the flats are unlikely to have any adverse impact upon adjoining or surrounding amenity. Additional windows at this third floor level are also unlikely to cause any significant additional overlooking to that which already occurs from existing windows in the blocks.

2) Provision of 2 lay-by parking spaces:-a) Character -

25

The land between the two blocks is currently pleasantly laid out and maintained as a grassed communal amenity space, the existence of which contributes positively to the buildings’ setting. The 4 parking spaces previously proposed, together with the cars parked thereon, would have been unattractive and detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. However, the land take for the 2 lay-by parking spaces now proposed would be less visually intrusive and it is my opinion that a refusal on similar grounds is unlikely to be sustained on appeal.

b) Impact upon adjoining amenity -The close proximity of the 2 lay-by parking spaces to the windows of existing ground floor flats in the adjoining blocks is likely to result in detriment being caused to the occupants from noise, pollution and headlights. In addition, re-routing the footpath would bring pedestrians even closer resulting in loss of privacy. These adverse impacts would in my opinion, be sufficient to justify a reason for refusal.

c) Impact upon parking provision -It is clear that, because none of the existing garages and forecourt parking spaces at the rear of the development are in the ownership of the freeholder or lessees, the development is significantly short of parking provision. The Residents Association advise that there is realistically only space for 11 vehicles in Georgian Close to serve 20 flats, resulting in a ratio of 0.55 spaces per flat. The 2 lay-by parking spaces proposed would not result in any gain but probably the loss of one space. This is likely to compound existing parking congestion and would be contrary to Policy TR3(i) of the Rother District Local Plan.

Whilst this re-submitted application overcomes one of the reasons for the previous refusal, I still find the 2 lay-by parking spaces proposed unacceptable for the reasons explained in 2(b) and 3) above. The application is therefore not supported.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. By virtue of their close proximity to flats in the two blocks, the proposed two lay-

by parking spaces are likely to cause detriment to the amenities of those flats from noise, pollution and headlights resulting from people and vehicle movements associated with their use. Furthermore, re-routing the footpath adjoining the lay-by would bring pedestrians even closer to the windows of those flats resulting in loss of privacy. For these reasons the development would be contrary to Policy S1(b) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. There is currently no on-site parking provision to serve the existing flats at this development. The capacity for on-street parking in Georgian Close is insufficient to serve the existing number of flats. The two on-site lay-by parking spaces proposed would not result in any gain in total parking space as it would result in the loss of at least two on-street parking spaces and perhaps a third space for manoeuvring purposes. This failure to increase total parking space is, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, likely to compound existing on-street parking congestion to a degree that would be contrary to Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(iii) and TR3(i) of the Rother District Local Plan.

26

RR/2006/3284/P BEXHILL SIDLEY HOUSE - LAND ADJ, TURKEY ROADRENEWAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2005/453/P FOR THE SITING OF A DOCTORS SURGERY FOR A TEMPORARY TWO YEAR PERIODCarisbrooke Medical Centres Ltd


SITE Sidley House and the open space at the junction of Ninfield Road with Turkey Road.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2004/1699/P O/A replacement surgery, 44 Turkey Road - ApprovedRR/2005/453/P Erection of doctors surgery for a temporary 2 year period including

alterations to an existing access - ApprovedRR/2006/3207/P Erection of replacement surgery pursuant to RR/2004/1699/P - To

Be Determined

PROPOSAL Renewal of the planning permission for erection of a temporary doctors surgery whilst the new surgery approved under RR/2004/1699/P is built. The temporary facilities will be provided in a single storey mobile unit which will provide an office/reception/waiting room, 5 consulting rooms and 3 treatment rooms. Improvements to the existing access to Sidley House are proposed to improve visibility together with additional parking.

CONSULTATIONSDirector of Services - Estates:- No objection.Highway Authority:- Recommends conditions for widening the access and provision of car parking.Southern Water:- No comments.Environment Agency:- No objection subject to conditions regarding surface water and clean infill material.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY The existing temporary planning permission expires on 31 July 2007 and in view of the fact that the reserved matters application has only now been submitted it would be appropriate to grant consent for a further 2 years. The proposed siting of the temporary building was previously negotiated to maintain important trees, minimise land take and to provide additional parking.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. The building hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its

former condition on or before 31 July 2009 or until the new doctors surgery approved under RR/2004/1699/P is brought into use, whichever is the sooner.Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the land 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.

2. The proposed widening of the access and provision of car parking as shown on drawing no.2595.PL.02f shall be carried out prior to the doctors surgery being brought into use.

27

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. The attached highway conditions shall be complied with.Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with the requirements of the Director of Transport and Environment of East Sussex and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 (CN10A).(To give effect to this condition you should contact the Transport and Environment Department of East Sussex County Council at Sidley Depot, Ninfield Road, Bexhill TN39 5AA (Telephone 01424 220022) prior to the commencement of work and enter a Private Works agreement between yourself and the County Council).

4. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through trapped gullies to BS 5911:1982 with an overall capacity compatible with the site being drained.Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. Clean, uncontaminated rock, subsoil, brick rubble, crushed concrete and ceramic only shall be permitted as infill materials.Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed location for the surgery is satisfactory on a temporary basis and provision has been made for the improvement to the existing access and additional car parking. The proposal is in accordance with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/3323/P BEXHILL 9 WEALDEN WAY DEMOLITION OF DETACHED GARAGE. ERECTION OF TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO FORM LOUNGE, GARAGE AND UTILITY ROOM WITH NEW EN-SUITE BEDROOM OVER.J Vane



SITE This application relates to a detached two storey dwelling located to the south of Wealden Way. The property has a detached single garage located on its western boundary. Wealden Way comprises an array of dwelling types, including bungalows and two storey buildings.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2006/2577/P Demolish detached garage. Erect two storey extension to house

forming lounge, garage, utility room with one bedroom over – Withdrawn

28

PROPOSAL It is proposed to demolish the existing detached garage to the western boundary of the site and erect a two storey extension to the house to form a lounge, garage and utility room with an en-suite bedroom above. The proposed materials are to match those of the existing dwelling.

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice: 1 letter of objection from 11 Wealden Way:- The application will cause a loss of light to 11 Wealden Way due to the height of

the extension.

SUMMARY This application follows previously withdrawn application RR/2006/2577/P which proposed a similar extension but on a larger footprint. The application would have been refused as it was considered that it would have had a significant adverse impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring residential property.The proposal has therefore been altered. The footprint of the extension has been reduced at the rear in order to increase its distance from the boundary with the neighbouring property (No.11). The rear of the extension is now approximately 2.8m from the boundary. The proposed garage replaces the existing detached garage. The existing garage is located right on the boundary of the site. The proposed garage is further from the boundary line and although in close proximity to the boundary, it is not considered that this part of the proposal will have any adverse impact upon the neighbouring property.The rear part of the extension has been set back from the boundary in order to reduce its impact upon No.11. This has enabled the existing hedging to remain to provide boundary screening between the two properties.The owner of No.11 has objected to the application on the grounds that the height of the extension will block sunlight to her property. Whilst I believe the proposal has gone some way to reduce this potential impact, I believe the proposal could be altered further to reduce any impact upon the neighbour. I have therefore requested amended plans that would set the extension back further from the boundary.The proposal is acceptable in terms of its design and I do not consider that it would be out of keeping with the appearance of the street scene in this location.Subject to the submission of amended plans, I expect to make the following;

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELGATED (SUBJECT TO THE RECEIPT OF AMENDED PLANS)1. CN7C (matching external materials).2. At the time of construction and prior to the first occupation or use of the

extension hereby approved, the windows within the western elevation, as indicated on the approved drawing no. 2006,063,1A, date stamped 6 December 2006, shall be glazed with obscured glass of obscurity level equivalent to scale 5 on the Pilkington Glass Scale and shall thereafter be retained in that condition. Reason: To preserve the residential amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. CN5E a) windows (Restriction of alterations/additions).4. The hedging along the western boundary of the site shall be retained at a

minimum height of 1.8m, unless dead or dying and shall not be removed without the prior consent of the local planning authority. Any hedging removed without such consent or dying or being severely damaged or becoming severely diseased shall be replaced with hedging of such size and species as may be agreed with the local planning authority.

29

Reason: To protect the amenities of neighbouring residential properties 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.

5. The garage hereby approved shall be used for the garaging of private vehicles and domestic and garden storage only, and for no habitable accommodation or other purpose including any other purpose in Class C3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order.Reason: To provide adequate on site parking facilities that do not prejudice the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety along the highway and to protect the amenities of the local area, in accordance with Policies GD1(i)(iii) and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed extension 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/2006/3353/P BEXHILL 30 SHIPLEY LANE REVISED PROPOSALS FOR THE ERECTION OF A SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO FORM GRANNY ANNEXE AND REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING CONSERVATORY PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2006/1581/P (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION).Mr and Mrs G Monteith


This application has been included in the site inspection list.

SITE This application relates to a detached dwelling located to the east of Shipley Lane.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2006/1581/P Erection of single storey extension to form granny annexe and

replacement of existing conservatory on similar footprint – Approved Conditional

PROPOSAL This retrospective application is a revised proposal for the erection of a single storey extension to form a granny annexe which was previously approved under planning permission RR/2006/1581/P. The side wall of the extension that has been erected is approximately three brick courses higher than that previously approved.

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice: 5 letters of objection from 22, 24, 26 & 28 Shipley Lane;- The extension is too high and too long.

30

- Out of keeping with the appearance of the local area, more in keeping with a commercial/industrial area.

- Encroaches upon Number 28 Shipley Lane.- Sets precedence for further granny annexes in the area.A copy of the most comprehensive objection (No. 28) is attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 18 January 2007.

SUMMARY There are two main issues that need to be considered in the determination of this application. Firstly, the impact of the increase in size of the extension upon the amenities of neighbouring residential properties in comparison to the application approved in July 2006 (RR/2006/1581/P) and secondly, the dispute regarding the southern boundary of the site.The side wall of the extension has been constructed approximately three brick courses higher than previously approved. The extension is positioned on the boundary with No. 28 Shipley Lane, however, given the orientation of, and the relationship between the properties, I believe the affect of the extension on the neighbouring property is not significantly different than that originally granted planning permission. It has to be acknowledged that the neighbour considers both schemes to be unacceptable. Being situated to the south of the application site, and to the north of No.28 Shipley Lane, the extension does not cause any loss of sunlight to the neighbouring property. Because the extension has a blank flank wall, there is not an issue regarding loss of privacy.The extension replaces a detached garage that comprised a flat roof. I consider that the design of the extension, with its pitched roof and materials that match those of the existing building, are in keeping with the surroundings, and does not cause any significant harm to the appearance of the locality. The second main point of consideration in the determination of this application is the dispute regarding the southern boundary of the site between Nos. 28 and 30 Shipley Lane. There is a current debate as to whether any part of the extension encroaches upon the neighbouring property. The owners of No. 28 have obtained a Surveyors report which states that the extension encroaches upon No. 28 in respect of its foundations, a surface water drain and in part by the oversailing of the roof eaves and gutter. In response to this report I have received a letter from the agent which states that; ‘I am led to understand that a fence post on the boundary was broken at ground level at some time in the past and a new post positioned on the 30 Shipley Lane side. This has had the effect of throwing the boundary out of alignment for several metres along its length thus causing the new guttering to marginally overhang by some two metres. However, you will note that the new application shows that the soffit/overhang has been removed and so ensuring that this anomaly no longer exists. I understand that Mr and Mrs Monteith are currently endeavouring to get a court order to allow their contractors on to the adjoining property to carry out this work’. In this initial response, there was no mention of the foundations or surface water drain. Following further correspondence the agent has confirmed that whilst she did not witness the foundations being constructed, they do stop inside the boundary. The matter of the drain has not been fully addressed and I have therefore written to the agent again in this respect and I await a response. Subject to the resolution of this matter, and if necessary, the service of notice upon the owners of No.28 Shipley Lane, I expect to make the following recommendation;

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)

31

1. CN6E (No separate dwelling – annexe extension) (please add the word ‘annexe’ before extension).

Note: N8B (Does not grant or imply rights to enter adjacent land)

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed extension 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/2006/3359/P BEXHILL 9 SOUTH CLIFF ERECTION OF CONSERVATORY AND DETACHED POOL HOUSE (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION).Mr and Mrs Chave


SITE This detached property was built in the 1920s and is situated on the south side of South Cliff and adjoins the beach at the rear.

HISTORY B/48/10043 Alterations and coal store and porch – ApprovedB/51/278 Extension to garage – Permitted DevelopmentB/60/624 Extension to bay window – Permitted Development

PROPOSAL There are two parts to this application. Firstly, a conservatory on the rear elevation of the house and secondly, a detached pool house towards the end of the rear garden. The application is retrospective and follows on from an enforcement investigation.

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice: One objection (7 South Cliff) summarised as follows: have had several extensions and pool houses etc built without consulting

neighbours or having planning permission the pool house extends over boundary and has been directly built onto my

boundary wall existing boundary wall is not strong enough to support pool house and is being

damaged structure of poor quality, not built to any Building Regulations and likely to

subside on to my property. if pool house collapses could injure persons on my sun deck, on public right of

way or within the application site itself clearly visible to the public and very unattractive views from neighbouring properties adversely affected an eye sore no need for pool house.

32

SUMMARY ConservatoryIt is understood that the conservatory was added to the property some 15 years ago. The roof was replaced within the last year or so. It has been determined that planning permission should have been obtained for this addition because the “permitted development” allowance of 70m³ applicable to the property has been exceeded by the combined volume of it together with other existing extensions and alterations. This retrospective application has been submitted, therefore, with the aim of regularising the planning position in respect of the conservatory.In my opinion, the size, style and design of the conservatory is acceptable and in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing house. There is no detriment to neighbouring amenities.

Pool HouseThe main area of rear garden comprises a lawned area, beyond which there is an open-air swimming pool and steps leading down to two lower terraced areas of garden and the beach below. The applicants have constructed a pool house on the upper of the two terraces. The walls of it are white painted, concrete blocks and it has a flat felted roof. Although, the structure is more than 5 metres away from the house, it has been determined that planning permission is necessary for it because the height of it exceeds 3 metres above ground level.An objection has been received from the immediate neighbours to the east (7 South Cliff). In respect of the suggestion that the pool house has been built on top of the neighbour’s wall, a site inspection has shown that the pool house has not been built on top of the boundary wall but actually abutting it. Therefore, assuming the boundary between the two properties follows the conventional route of being in the middle of the wall, I am satisfied that the application relates solely to land within the applicant’s ownership and that no Notice needs to be served on the owners of the neighbouring property. It has also been claimed that the pool house is damaging the existing boundary wall. However, it appears that the pool house is substantially constructed. Building Regulations approval is not required.The objection also refers to there being a public right of way to the rear of the properties in South Cliff. Indeed, there is a pathway between the rear boundary of the property and the beach but for a point of record I can confirm that under the Highways Act 1980 it is not dedicated as a Public Right of Way and there are signs posted along the route pointing this out.A site inspection has shown that other properties in South Cliff have detached outbuildings in similar locations, i.e. on the terraced areas towards the end of rear gardens and there is a block of concrete beach huts on the beach behind the neighbouring property to the west (11 South Cliff) as well. Taking this into account, I do not consider that the pool house erected at this property has a detrimental impact upon the visual amenities of the surrounding area or the amenities of neighbouring properties.

Taking all matters into consideration, I support the application for retention of the conservatory and pool house at 9 South Cliff. RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. The pool house building shall be used only for purposes incidental to the

occupation and enjoyment of the dwelling, and not for any trade or business.33

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the land in relation to the amenities of the locality and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The conservatory and pool house 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 Policies HG8 and GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/3369/P BEXHILL 6 THE COVERT CREATION OF SWIMMING POOL, PUMP HOUSE AND ANCILLARY WORKS (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION).Mr S Roller


SITE 6 The Covert is a detached house located at the western end of the turning head. It lies within the development boundary for Bexhill and is located in a residential area.

HISTORYRR/86/1995 Outline: Demolition of Portsdown Lodge and erection of 9

bungalows and 11 houses with garages, accesses and road. Approved Conditional.

RR/87/0905 Construction of access road pursuant to RR/86/1995. Approved Conditional.

RR/2004/2374/P Erection of single storey study extension. Approved Conditional.RR/2004/3265/P Retrospective: Erection of small outbuilding located adjacent to

swimming pool to house boiler and meter system. Refused.RR/2005/2775/P Erection of outbuilding constructed from brick with a tile hung roof

and uPVC doors. Approved Conditional.RR/2006/1868/P Variation of Condition 2 imposed upon planning permission

RR/2005/2775/P so as to allow outbuilding to be used for the purpose of the swimming pool pump and filtration system. (Retrospective). Not Yet Determined.

PROPOSAL This is a retrospective application seeking to retain the swimming pool, pump house and ancillary works. The ancillary works include the external location of the boiler with its dwarf wall enclosure. The application is submitted following correspondence from the Council.

CONSULTATIONS Head of Services – Environmental Health: Comments awaited.Planning Notice: None received.

SUMMARY Application RR/2006/1868/P remains outstanding following the receipt of objections that noise nuisance remains a problem at the site. The noise is said to result from the external location of the boiler and the use of the outbuilding to house the pump and filtration system for the swimming pool, in breach of a condition imposed on

34

application RR/2005/2775/P. In assessing the noise nuisance allegation, it has been noted that the swimming pool and other ancillary works also require planning permission. The property does not benefit from any permitted development rights, which were removed on the original permission for the development back in 1986.While objections have been received from the adjacent neighbour at 7 The Covert in respect of RR/2006/1868/P, at the time of writing no correspondence has been received in respect of this application which seeks to retain the swimming pool, the associated outbuilding containing the pump system and the boiler and its enclosure. The boiler is located externally adjacent the outbuilding behind a dwarf brick wall and no longer has an external flue. The boiler was not in operation at the time of the planning officer’s site visit but is believed to be very noisy when it is in operation. This matter has been forwarded to the Environmental Health Section and their comments are awaited. If there is any degree of noise from the boiler when it is in use, it is considered that the boiler should be insulated.At the time of the planning officer’s site visit, a very low hum was audible from the equipment within the outbuilding, along the boundary with no.7 in the vicinity of the outbuilding and the pool. Such a low hum is not considered to currently constitute a noise nuisance, although a restriction regarding noise levels would appear to be appropriate in this quiet residential area. The swimming pool and outbuilding are not visible outside the application site and while their use may result in occasional noise generated by the users, they are not considered to result in such adverse detriment as to justify a refusal of this application.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (COMMENTS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH)1. Boiler insulation as may be required.2. The level of noise emitted from the equipment within the outbuilding shall not

exceed [A] dB at any, as measured on the [specified boundary/boundaries] of the site at [location(s) of monitoring points].Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality in accordance with Policies GD1(ii) & (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(s) & EN15 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and having regard to PPG24, Annex 4.

3. Swimming pool filter backwash should be passed to a soakaway or the foul drainage system, or by any other means of disposal as may be agreed in writing with the local planning authority in association with the Environment Agency.Reason: To prevent water pollution and to ensure satisfactory drainage of the site in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(g) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. The swimming pool contents must be allowed to dechlorinate by standing for at least 2 days prior to a consented discharge taking place to a surface water sewer, a watercourse or controlled waters.Reason: To prevent water pollution and to ensure satisfactory drainage of the site in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(g) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The swimming pool and ancillary works are considered to be an appropriate development within a residential area and subject to conditions neither its design or use is considered to result in detriment to the residential or other amenities of the area such as would justify a refusal of the application, and therefore the development is considered to comply with Policy S1 of

35

the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/3394/P BEXHILL 3 KITES NEST WALK ERECTION OF DETACHED TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH INTEGRAL DOUBLE GARAGE INCLUDING DORMER WINDOWS, BALCONY, JULIET BALCONIES AND ROOFLIGHTS, AT 3 KITES NEST WALK WITH PROVISION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS AND ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING ACCESS INCLUDING VISIBILITY SPLAY ACROSS 1 KITES NEST WALK AND 60 BARNHORN ROAD.Wellson & Partners


SITE The application site comprises the side garden of 3 Kites Nest Walk, formerly part of the rear garden of 62 Barnhorn Road. The site lies just within the development boundary for Bexhill. It comprises lawn with some trees/shrubs to the boundaries. Access is via the private road of Kites Nest Walk and across the frontage of 2 and 3 Kites Nest Walk.

HISTORY (Relevant to application site only)RR/2002/2124/P Outline: Erection of detached dwelling and alteration to existing

access - Refused.RR/2003/302/P Outline: Erection of detached dwelling and garage, demolish

existing garage and construction of extended access road to provide a new access - Refused.

RR/2004/215/P Outline: Erection of new dwelling and alteration to existing access - Refused - Appeal Not Considered.

RR/2004/2735/P Outline: Erection of dwelling and alteration to existing access. Refused - Appeal Dismissed.

PROPOSAL This application yet again proposes to erect a new dwelling within the former rear garden of 62 Barnhorn Road. It is proposed to demolish the existing garage of 3 Kites Nest Walk to gain access to the new dwelling. No replacement parking is indicated on the plans for the existing dwelling at 3 Kites Nest Walk. The proposed dwelling is an ‘L’ shape and 1 and ½ storeys in height for the most part, with full height opening doors at first floor level with balconies and balconettes to the front north and east elevations. The rear south elevation facing Barnhorn Road contains rooflights serving en-suite bathrooms and the stairwell, while the rear west elevation contains a first floor window to the landing/corridor and a rooflight. None of the windows are indicated to be obscured glazed. The application is accompanied by a legal agreement between the applicant and owners of 1 Kites Nest Walk and 60 Barnhorn Road, in respect of maintaining a visibility splay to the west side of the junction of Kites Nest Walk and Barnhorn Road.

CONSULTATIONSHighways Agency: Comments awaited.Southern Water Services: Does not wish to comment.

36

Environment Agency: No objection in principle but offers advice on the need for permeability tests for soakaways, care to preclude contamination of the ground during construction and the use of water conservation appliances and recycling within the development.Planning Notice: 3 letters of objection on the following grounds: Increased highway hazards at the junction with Barnhorn Road. Overdevelopment of the site. Will be overbearing to neighbours. Loss of privacy by overlooking. Loss of view. Loss of the streetlight will be detrimental. Visibility will still be sub standard even with the legal agreement. Previous refusal should be maintained. Undesirable precedent. Too close to boundaries resulting in loss of light to garden and damage to

boundary planting. Proposal is larger than previously applied for. Agreement is not enforceable.

SUMMARY This application is a resubmission and again proposes the erection of an additional dwelling to the rear of 62 Barnhorn Road. Similar proposals have previously been refused with the last application in 2004 also being dismissed at appeal, RR/2004/2735/P. Three reasons for refusal were cited: 1) stating that the proposal represented a piecemeal backland development lacking proper road frontage and giving rise to detriment for neighbours whose frontage it crossed; 2) it was an undesirable sub-division and would result in a loss of amenity and privacy and be out of character with the area; and 3) it would result in increased traffic and highway hazards at the junction of Kites Nest Walk and Barnhorn Road by reason of inadequate visibility at the junction.In respect of the first reason, the Inspector did not agree that a lack of formal road frontage was objectionable in this instance. The extension of an existing private drive was likened to many other comparable situations on modern housing estates. However, as proposed there is no replacement parking for the occupiers of 3 Kites Nest Walk and this would be contrary to Policy requirements to provide car parking facilities.The previous proposal as considered by the Planning Inspectorate, was in outline only with an indicative block and roof plan. At that time the dwelling was indicated to be a bungalow with accommodation within the roof space over the main dwelling. The garage and front projection making up the ‘L’ shape were single storey only. The footprint was also stepped away from the side boundary with the rear garden of 64 Barnhorn Road. Replacement parking was to be provided to the front of 3 Kites Nest Walk. On this basis and subject to any new dwelling being of a chalet bungalow design to match those already existing, with no windows overlooking the neighbouring gardens, the Inspectorate considered that a dwelling could be accommodated on the site without detriment to the character of the area or the residential amenities of neighbours. The second reason was thus also not agreed. However, this is a full application with a detailed design and it is not considered to comply with the considerations of the Inspector.The proposed dwelling is not a pure chalet bungalow matching its neighbour at 3 Kites Nest Walk. It comprises a larger ‘L’ shape design, 1 and ½ storeys in height with rooms in all the roofspace and windows in all elevations. As currently proposed loss of privacy by overlooking would occur. The height and mass of the proposed dwelling is also considered to be an issue and the design features such as the full height first floor

37

doors/windows with balconies is alien to the development in Kites Nest Walk. As such the proposed dwelling is not considered to reflect the character and appearance of the existing development in Kites Nest Walk and this detailed design would thus be detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality.The proposed dwelling footprint would cover approximately 42% of the site area but this was not considered to be unreasonable by the Inspector in respect of the previous smaller dwelling. The dwelling as now proposed has three bedrooms all with en-suites and two with dressing rooms. There would be no amenity space as such to the front of the dwelling as it would be occupied by the drive to the double garage. The rear garden area would be only 8m deep by roughly 12m wide. The ratio of footprint to amenity space would be out of character with the surrounding area.It is proposed to retain the boundary hedge with 64 Barnhorn Road, (which appears to enjoy a split ownership). However, the proposal appears to be built within 2m of the centre of the hedge line and includes within this area a periphery footway to serve the utility door on this west side elevation. This siting is closer than indicated on the previous application considered at appeal. As such the proposed building works would impact upon the health of the hedge line. The loss of any boundary trees and shrubs would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area as well as to the privacy and enjoyment of the neighbouring garden by the existing occupiers.The previous reason for refusal on highway grounds was upheld by the Planning Inspectorate. The applicant has now sought to resolve this situation to the western side of the junction by way of a private legal agreement with the owners of 1 Kites Nest Walk and 60 Barnhorn Road. The area required for the visibility splay is included within the application site and notice has been served upon the owners. Legal advice is being sought regarding enforceability of this private legal agreement. There are no proposals to improve visibility to the eastern side, which will remain sub-standard. The comments of the Highway Agency are awaited.In conclusion, although the Inspectorate felt that a dwelling may be accommodated on the site, it is considered that the dwelling as currently proposed is excessively large and of a size and design that does not compliment the character and appearance of the area. It is considered to be one which would result in detriment to the residential amenities and privacy of surrounding properties. As detailed the proposal also lacks parking provisions for the existing dwelling at 3 Kites Nest Walk and concerns remain with regard to the sub-standard visibility and enforceability of any private legal agreement to improve aspects of the visibility splay.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed dwelling by reason of its size, layout and design is considered to

be out of character with its neighbours, and is overly large in relation to the plot size and as such would be out of character with and detrimental to the appearance of the locality, contrary to the provisions of Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. The proposed dwelling by reason of its size, layout, position and type of windows and proximity to boundaries would result in detriment to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties including a loss of privacy and impact upon the enjoyment of their amenity space, contrary to the provisions of Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. The application has not demonstrated the provision of replacement parking for the existing dwelling at 3 Kites Nest Walk which would give rise to parking on the access road, detrimental to the free flow and safety of other vehicles and

38

pedestrians in the area and contrary to the provisions of Policy GD1(iii) and Policy TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. Highway reason if recommended.

RR/2006/3398/P BEXHILL 6 KITES NEST WALK - PLOT ADJ TOERECTION OF DETACHED CHALET BUNGALOW TOGETHER WITH VISIBILITY SPLAY ACROSS NO 1 KITES NEST WALK AND 60 BARNHORN ROAD INCLUDING FORMATION OF A NEW AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING VEHICULAR ACCESSES.Orchard Estates Ltd


SITE The application site comprises an area of land formerly within the rear garden of 58 Barnhorn Road. 6 Kites Nest Walk adjoins the east side. Access is via the private road of Kites Nest Walk and the gated entrance that serves 4, 5 and 6 Kites Nest Walk. The site lies just within the development boundary for Bexhill.

HISTORYRR/89/2681/P Outline: 3 large 4 bedroom bungalows with double garages and

accesses. Approved conditional.RR/91/1260/P Erection of 4 x three bedroom bungalows with double garage,

parking and access. Refused.RR/92/0636/P Erection of 1 x three bedroom bungalow and 2 x four bedroom

dwellings with double garages and access road. approved conditional.

RR/98/1549/P Outline: erection of two detached houses with garages. Approved conditional.

RR/1999/2367/P Erection of detached house and garage with access via 58 Barnhorn Road. Refused.

RR/2003/247/P Construction of four detached dwellings and garages, formation of new vehicular access and new road. Refused.

RR/2003/1020/P Erection of three detached dwellings and access road. Approved conditional.

RR/2003/2231/P Erection of one detached dwelling. Refused.RR/2003/2949/P Erection of three detached dwellings including formation of new

vehicular access and construction of road. Approved conditional.RR/2004/2482/P Erection of 2 bedroom bungalow with integral garage and formation

of access. Refused.RR/2004/2844/P erection of close boarded fence to north and west site boundaries

and the addition of access gates with brick pillars at the existing access. Approved.

RR/2006/902/P Erection of detached chalet bungalow including roof dormers with integral garage and ancillary kerb alignment to create junction improvement. Withdrawn.

PROPOSAL This is a further submission to insert a fourth dwelling on land to the rear of 58 Barnhorn Road with access off Kites Nest Walk. The proposal is described as a

39

chalet bungalow but it has a two storey element to the front elevation, with dormers to the front, rear and west elevations. The property is to be set at a higher ground level than the low level chalet bungalow on the adjacent plot at no.6 Kites Nest Walk. While set off the side boundary, it will extend down the full depth and past the rear boundary of the small rear garden of no.6 with the garage and driveway being to this side. A wide landscaped strip is to be retained to the side with Kites Nest Walk. The application is accompanied by a legal agreement between the applicant and owners of 1 Kites Nest Walk and 60 Barnhorn Road, in respect of maintaining a visibility splay to the west side of the junction of Kites Nest Walk and Barnhorn Road.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Agency: Comments awaited.Southern Water Services: Does not wish to comment.Environment Agency: No objection in principle but offers advice on the need for permeability tests for soakaways, care to preclude contamination of the ground during construction and the use of water conservation appliances and recycling within the development.Planning Notice: One objection concerned that the proposal will result in the narrowing of the road to create the visibility, which will accentuate existing highway safety hazards. Any increase to traffic along Barnhorn Road is considered to exacerbate the existing highway problems in the area.

SUMMARY This application is a resubmission of that withdrawn in May 2006. It is also a repeat of numerous previous attempts to erect a fourth dwelling on the land to the rear of 56/58 Barnhorn Road. Such proposals have been consistently refused, as evidenced in the preceding ‘History’.Two reasons for refusal have been given, one relating to highway objections and the other to a loss of amenity and privacy for neighbouring properties. The Highways Agency have maintained that there is sub-standard visibility at the junction of Kites Nest Walk and Barnhorn Road (A259). A situation which has been outside the control of the applicants as the land required in both directions for visibility is outside the applicant’s ownership. The applicant has now sought to resolve this situation to the western side of the junction by way of a private legal agreement with the owners of 1 Kites Nest Walk and 60 Barnhorn Road. The area required for the visibility splay is included within the application site and notice has been served upon the owners. Legal advice is being sought regarding enforceability of this private legal agreement. There are no proposals to improve visibility to the eastern side, which will remain sub-standard.Objections remain with regard to the impact of the proposed dwelling upon neighbouring properties and in particular the impact upon the property at 6 Kites Nest Walk. No.6 is a low level chalet bungalow with a low eaves height, 3 dormers to the front elevation and only rooflights within the rear roof slope. It is set at a lower ground level and has a small rear garden of only 7.5m in depth, which is already enclosed to the east and south sides by the higher garden levels and fences of adjacent properties fronting Barnhorn Road.The proposed dwelling is actually 1 and ½ storeys in height for the most part, with a two storey element to the front and gables to the sides with a half hip to the roof. The gable element to the eastern side with No.6 is 9m deep at ground floor level parallel with the rear garden of No.6. The proposed dwelling by virtue of its design, height, ground level and siting will appear as dominant and overbearing and would also result in a poor outlook and loss of light. Additional noise and general disturbance would also occur from the use of the garage and drive which are located to the side/rear garden

40

boundaries of No.6. As such the loss of residential amenities for the occupiers of 6 Kites Nest Walk is considered to be considerable and to justify a refusal. RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed new dwelling, by reason of its design, height, ground levels and

siting, particularly in relation to the existing property at 6 Kites Nest Walk, would result in an overbearing and dominant form of development enclosing the rear garden of 6 Kites Nest Walk, with a poor outlook, loss of light and increased noise and disturbance from use of the proposed garage/drive. The detrimental impact upon the residential amenities of neighbouring occupiers is in direct conflict with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. Highways reason if recommended.

RR/2006/3401/CM BEXHILL REPROTECH - FORMER SITE OF, FRESHFIELDS, BEXHILL ROADCHANGE OF USE TO A WASTE AND RECYCLABLES TRANSFER STATION, DEPOT AND ANCILLARY USESVeolia E S South Downs Ltd

Last date for decision: 19 January 2007

SITE The former Reprotech Waste Treatment Plant lies on the west side of Freshfields north of Bexhill Road. It is an imposing building, including a tall prominent chimney, surrounded by playing fields and other open land. To the north is the Pebsham tip. Further to the south and west are residential areas.

HISTORY (main permissions)RR/84/2375 Waste Treatment Plant (outline) - Granted by ESCCRR/88/0991 Waste Fuel Plant - Granted by ESCCRR/93/2125/CM 40 metre chimney - Granted by ESCC

PROPOSAL The proposal is to change the use of the existing premises from a waste treatment plant (previously operated as a Waste Derived Fuel Plant) to a waste and recyclables transfer station, depot and ancillary uses. The Council are a consultee on the application which is submitted to the County Council as a ‘County Matter’. I have reproduced in the attached APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 18 January 2007, extracts from the statement supporting the application. Section 3 of the statement outlines the scheme, which involves no material change to the site layout and physical form of the buildings (para 3.2), except that the 40m circular steel chimney will no longer be required and if permission is granted, will be removed (para 3.13). Within the site the present waste reception and processing areas will become the main waste and recyclables transfer area with the present covered storage area on the south side of the main building becoming the depot and container storage area. This ‘depot’ will include the parking of 40 refuse vehicles at the site overnight. Externally the workshop, offices, shower/messroom buildings and the weighbridges will remain unchanged.The scheme is proposed in the context of government and local aims (PPS10 and the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan) to increase recycling within the

41

associated requirements to divert waste from landfill, managing waste within regional/county boundaries and provide for a sufficient range and number of waste management facilities.The applicants, Veolia, have been chosen by East Sussex County Council and Brighton and Hove City Council to provide an integrated municipal management service. Chapter 5 of the supporting statement, included in the attached APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 18 January 2007, sets out the applicant’s own assessment of the operation in terms of meeting local needs as part of the long term strategic integrated municipal waste management service to the county. This site is seen to be well located to provide urgently needed facilities and capacity for waste and recyclables transfer (para 5.14).The hours of operation proposed are 06.00 - 22.30 seven days a week.

CONSULTATIONSDirector of Services - Environmental Health:- To be reported.

SUMMARY The County Council are the determining authority, but both this authority and Hastings Borough Council have both strategic and local interests in the scheme. The site is wholly within Rother District but traffic movements are to and from the south, on Bexhill Road in Hastings Borough where the nearest residential properties are also located. However there are residential properties in Bexhill to the west within 500 metres of the facility. The building is also a prominent feature in the open landscape in the vicinity of the proposed Pebsham Countryside Park.The County Council’s Waste Local Plan includes the following:

Policy WLP 6: Expansions Or Alterations To Existing Facilities Proposals for expansion or alterations to existing waste management facilities will be permitted, subject to other policies of the plan where relevant, where it is demonstrated that: a) the development is required to meet current environmental standards; or b) the development is required to improve the operational efficiency of the facility;

or c) the development would contribute towards achieving net self-sufficiency of the

Plan area in waste management facilities;

…6.27 There is a need for additional waste management capacity to be identified in the eastern part of the Plan area (Hastings, Bexhill, Battle and the rural hinterland). The existing WDF facility at Pebsham has planning permission to continue until beyond the Plan period, and any proposals for modernisation or expansion would be supported by Policy WLP 6 subject to the criteria set out there. To reflect its continuing strategic role, it has been identified under Policy WLP 8. However any increase in vehicle movements along the A259 would be unacceptable until the strategic road network in the area has been improved. The future of this area will need to be co-ordinated with plans for the Pebsham Countryside Park, and any redevelopment proposals for the site will be expected to assist in reducing its visual impact.

…Policy WLP 8: Site-specific Allocations for Material Recovery Facilities/Waste Transfer Facilities Proposals for materials recovery facilities/waste transfer facilities will be supported on the following sites as shown on the proposals map and accompanying inset plans in Appendix 4.

42

a) Hangleton Bottom, Hove (Inset Plan 1) b) Hollingdean Depot Abattoir, Brighton (Inset Plan 3) c) Bellbrook Industrial Estate, Uckfield (Inset Plan 7) d) Land at Tutts Barn, Eastbourne (Inset Plan 8) e) Pebsham WDF plant and adjoining land (Inset Plan 9)

…Policy WLP 35: General Amenity Considerations All proposals shall satisfy the following criteria: a) the development is of a scale, form and character appropriate to its location;

and b) there is no unacceptable adverse effect on the standard of amenity

appropriate to the established, permitted or allocated land uses likely to be affected by the development; and

c) adequate means of controlling noise, dust, litter, odours and other emissions are secured; and

d) there is no unacceptable adverse effect on the recreational or tourist use of an area, or the use of existing public access or rights of way; and

e) there is no unacceptable adverse effect on areas or features of demonstrable landscape, archaeological, architectural, geological, ecological, or historical importance.

…Policy WLP 36: Transport Considerations Proposals will not be permitted where: a) access arrangements are inadequate for the volume and nature of traffic

generated by the proposal; b) unacceptable safety hazards for other road users, cyclists or pedestrians

would be generated; c) the level of traffic generated would exceed the capacity of the local road

network; d) an unacceptable adverse impact upon existing highway conditions in terms of

traffic congestion and parking would arise; e) there are inadequate arrangements for on site vehicle manoeuvring, parking

and loading/unloading areas; and f) adverse traffic impacts that would arise from the proposal cannot be

satisfactorily mitigated by routeing controls or other highway improvements.

The Plan identifies the issues at Pebsham as:“Local plan policy objective is a countryside park covering the restored adjoining landfill site.Existing traffic impacts and generation of additional traffic would require careful consideration. Any net increase in traffic would be unacceptable at least until measures have been implemented to relieve congestion on the A259.Perpetuation of waste management uses gives rise to local amenity issues and concerns. Impact on adjoining residential areas (e.g. Pebsham, Bulverhythe) requires careful examination. Any development which would cause nuisance such as odour, noise or litter at these areas would be unacceptable.Landscape impact of any further development would require careful consideration especially having regard to the proposed countryside park. Additional screening and planting will be necessary, and sympathetic design

43

treatment for future development proposals. A conventional incinerator would be unacceptable because of the bulk of building and size of chimney that would be required.Part of site (mainly access road) is within an indicative floodplain area.”

If the County Council are satisfied that the use is acceptable in principle in relation to PPS10 and the Waste Local Plan then the local issues of traffic, noise and air quality, as they affect local residents, are the principal considerations. The A259, Bexhill Road, is already at capacity. On commencement a proportion of the HGVs currently delivering waste to the landfill site will divert to the new facility. The use will also include overnight parking for 40 HGVs currently housed at the Bulverhythe Depot just to the east off Bexhill Road; this will reduce trips on Bexhill Road from the tip to the current depot. The traffic assessment of the new operations suggests an overall reduction in waste related traffic of 106 movements a week. The Highway Authority’s view is awaited in view of the Waste Local Plan’s own acknowledgement of traffic issues on Bexhill Road.Noise assessments have been undertaken in relation to both vehicle movements and on-site activity of all types. The comments of the Environmental Health Officer are awaited. I would wish to seek assurances that the increase in operating hours (currently power-driven site operations are limited to between 6am and 10pm Monday-Saturday; but the intention is for 6am -10.30pm operations every day of the week) would not unreasonably affect the amenities of nearby properties. Seven day operating however is a concern.Air quality is an issue in the Bexhill Road area which is an Air Quality Management Area. The supporting information does not suggest any significant issues arising. However the Environmental Health Officer’s views are awaited.Finally I do not envisage any adverse effect on the proposed Countryside Park and the removal of the chimney from the plant will be considered a positive move given the position of the building in the strategic gap.

RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE COUNTY COUNCIL BE ADVISED THAT THE DISTRICT COUNCIL RAISES NO OBJECTIONS IN PRINCIPLE TO THE PROPOSED USE, SUBJECT TO THE COUNTY PLANNING AUTHORITY BEING SATISFIED THAT THERE WILL BE NO NET INCREASE OF TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS ON BEXHILL ROAD AND NO ADVERSE AFFECTS ON LOCAL RESIDENTS BY REASON OF TRAFFIC DISTURBANCE OR OTHER NOISE OR AIR QUALITY. HOWEVER THE DISTRICT COUNCIL HAS SERIOUS CONCERNS IN RELATION TO 7 DAY WORKING ON THE SITE - DELEGATED (COMMENTS FROM HEAD OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH)

RR/2006/3421/P BEXHILL 13 BARNHORN ROAD ERECTION OF TWO STOREY BLOCK CONTAINING 4 NO 2 BED FLATS AND 2 NO 1 BED FLATS PURSUANT TO OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2003/1334/P. Mrs J Emmott


44

SITE The site comprises a detached bungalow located on the south side of Barnhorn Road, set between Barnhorn Close and Holland Avenue the site has an existing vehicular access from the A259.

HISTORYD/51/164 Detached garage – ApprovedD/52/187 New bedroom and bathroom & WC – ApprovedD/56/438 Detached garage – Approved RR/79/1345 Dining Room, garage and verandah – ApprovedRR/89/1615/P O/A Demolition of 2 existing dwellings and erection of 22 sheltered

units with warden’s accommodation new access road (13 and 15 Barnhorn Road) – Refused

RR/90/1326/P O/A Demolition of 2 existing dwellings and erection of 22 sheltered units and wardens accommodation new access road – Refused

RR/2002/1292/P Outline: erection of four bedroom detached house and two detached garages with alteration to existing access – Refused

RR/2003/1334/P Outline: erection of two storey block containing four 2-bed flats and two 1-bed flats – Refused - Allowed

RR/2006/2995/P Outline: erection of two storey block containing 4 no 2 bed flats and 2 no 1 bed flats – Withdrawn

PROPOSAL This application is the submission of the outstanding Reserved Matters for scale, external appearance and landscaping pursuant to the Outline Application, RR/2003/1334/P.

CONSULTATIONSHighways Agency: Any comments will be reported.Environment Agency: Any comments will be reported.Southern Water Services: Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice:- Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY The application seeks to test the reserved matters outstanding from the outline application, RR/2003/1334/P, which though refused was subsequently allowed on appeal. The proposed design of the building was previously submitted as indicative supporting information and therefore the Planning Inspector considered the buildings’ siting and its relationship to surrounding properties and the street scene. Also the Inspector considered the development in terms of access onto Barnhorn Road. He found both of these matters to be acceptable and allowed the scheme. The submitted details have not changed from those presented to the Inspector and having considered the proposed scheme with reference the Inspectors report I am of the opinion the proposed scale, appearance and landscaping are considered acceptable and can be supported.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE (RESERVED MATTERS – SCALE, APPEARANCE AND LANDSCAPING)1. CN7B(a)(b)(c) – External materials2. No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained

tree be topped or lopped without written approval of the local planning authority within 5 years of planting. Reason: RC12.

3. Should any trees or shrubs illustrated on drawing number LC/06/001 (either to be retained or planted) be cut down, uprooted, removed, destroyed or die, or in

45

the opinion of the Local Authority become seriously damaged or defective, within 5 years of planting, the Local Authority shall be informed as soon as possible and another tree or shrub of the same species shall be planted at the same location, at a time agreed in writing by the Council. Reason: RC12.

4. The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans before any equipment, machinery, or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of development and shall be maintained until all equipment; machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced and the ground areas within these areas shall not be altered, nor shall excavation be made, without the prior written consent of the Local Authority. Reason: RC12.

Notes:(i) Any lopping or topping of trees shall be carried out in accordance with the

BS3998 ‘Recommendations for Tree work’.(ii) The design of protective fencing for trees should be in accordance with Fig. 2 of

BS5837 2005.

REASONS 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(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/3452/TN BEXHILL PEARTREE LANE - ON HIGHWAYS LAND NEAR JUNCTION WITH LITTLE COMMON ROAD ERECTION OF LAMP POST WITH THREE ANTENNAE AND TWO ASSOCIATED CABINETS.Orange

Last date for decision: 12 February 2007

SITE The proposed site comprises two pieces of highway land adjacent the junction of Peartree Lane and The Twitten, just north of Little Common roundabout on the A259. The surrounding area is mixed residential and commercial.

HISTORYNone specific to the application sites.

PROPOSAL The application is submitted on behalf of Orange to locate a 10m high lamppost with antennae on the grass verge at the junction of Peartree Lane and The Twitten, and to site the associated equipment cabinet and electrical feeder on the pavement adjacent the offices of “Mainstay”, which occupy the former bank premises. Both the lamppost and equipment will be coloured goosewing grey to match other street furniture in the vicinity.The following information is included with the application:

46

“1.1 … The proposed site will provide 3G coverage to an area which at present does not have coverage for in-door urban use, shown in figure 2.… This design is chosen to house antennas as it was thought it would blend with the existing street furniture and still allow the site to provide a good level of 3G coverage … The structure is lower than that of the existing T-Mobile monopole (12m) on the next junction to the roundabout …Due to the height of the structure mimicking the existing street furniture, the location and the stealth design it is thought the proposal is a good solution from a technical and town planning point of view.”The following alternative sites have been considered: Existing Vodafone installation (RBL Club, Meads Avenue) – insufficient space

within car park to locate another equipment cabinet and height of mast insufficient to accommodate an additional user.

Kites Nest Walk – Orange were granted planning permission for a 17.5m lattice tower (RR/2004/2635/P) but terms unable to be agreed with site provider.

Site share of existing mast in Kites Nest Walk – planning application was not supported and subsequently withdrawn (RR/2002/2575/P) for an extended structure and thus a mast share cannot be achieved.

Street furniture (SF) option along Cooden Sea Road – access points are changing and therefore an option is not viable.

SF option in Cooden Sea Road opposite church – location was not approved by the Highway Authority.

T-Mobile installation – the existing structure cannot be shared, so opted for co-location.

A Certificate of Compliance with ICNIRP guidelines has been submitted as well as a separate Health & Safety statement. This statement also includes diagrams, which illustrate that the greatest power level would fall at a distance of 60m from the lamppost but its wattage per metre square (W/m2) would still only be 0.13% of the INCIRP guidelines.

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice: No representations received.

SUMMARY 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 12 February 2007) unless the Local Planning Authority refuses to give such approval.In terms of the siting and design this proposal is considered to be 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, yet sufficiently far from dwellings to reduce both its visual prominence and any concerns regarding health issues. The design, which replicates a lamppost, is considered to have little impact on the visual amenities of the area. There is a technical requirement by the operator to provide a further telecommunications facility and it is considered in this instance that an appropriate balance has been struck regarding the justification for the facility and the siting and appearance of the proposed installation.

RECOMMENDATION: DETAILS NOT REQUIRED

47

RR/2006/2914/P NORTHIAM THE SHEALING, EWHURST LANE.OUTLINE: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF 7 DWELLINGS INCLUDING ASSOCIATED PARKING SPACES.Mr D Gould


This application has been included on the site inspection list.

SITE The existing detached bungalow lies within the development boundary for Northiam as defined within the Rother District Local Plan. It is set within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and adjoins the village Conservation Area. The site is accessed from a private driveway off the south east side of Ewhurst Lane, the driveway currently serves four dwellings of which the site is one.

HISTORY No relevant history.

PROPOSAL The application seeks outline permission to demolition the existing bungalow and erect seven new three bedroom dwellings with associated parking and turning, the agent has indicated that the applicant is willing to provide two affordable dwellings on the site. An indicative layout shows two terraces of houses. Access will be taken from the existing private driveway.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Supports refusal for the following reasons: “The proposal includes one parking space per property and given that the

properties are three bedroom it is felt that the parking provision would be inadequate with the result that occupiers would by necessity use Ewhurst Lane for parking to the detriment of all residents.

Ewhurst Lane and its verges has suffered greatly from the construction traffic involved in the recent development at Alpines and it is felt that this development would cause further unacceptable environmental deterioration.

The number of houses proposed constitutes over development of this site which is currently occupied by a perfectly serviceable single dwelling.

The effect on adjacent occupiers would be unacceptably detrimental to their existing environment.

Whilst the Parish Council accepts that the type of dwelling proposed is more akin to that needed by the village than several recent developments it feels that this site is not the appropriate place for them.

The design of the proposed properties, in particular their height, is inappropriate for the site.”

Highway Authority – Any comments will be reported.Environment Agency – Any comments will be reported.Southern Water Services – Does not wish to comment on this application.Planning Notice – 3 emails of support received containing the following comments:

There should be more affordable housing for young people in rural locations like this.

21 emails and letters of objection received containing the following comments: Increased use of the track.

48

Affect privacy and enjoyment of neighbouring properties. Lack of parking spaces. The height and scale of the proposed development is entirely out of proportion. Over development of a relatively small site. The track leading to The Shealing is very narrow meaning construction traffic

would have difficulty using it. Increased traffic use in Ewhurst Lane resulting in damage to the verges and

causing danger to people walking up and down the lane. Concern over increased water demand and the adequacy of the drainage. Badgers and other wildlife are present in the area. The approach road is private and not unadopted as stated in the design and

access statement. If permission was granted all boundary trees should be retained and boundary

fencing of maximum height is installed. The development falls within an area of outstanding natural beauty to which it

would be detrimental. Will create a backfill-pocket of urban density on the edge of the conservation

area in a rural village

SUMMARY The principle issues with this application are the ability of the site to accommodate new housing having regard to the established character of the area, the position of adjoining properties and matters of access. This application needs to be tested against Local Plan Policies and in particular GD1(ii), (iii) and (iv).Whilst the Council acknowledges the need to the get the best development on site in line with Government advice in PPS3: Housing, the established character and appearance of the locality must be considered and respected. As existing this is an area of lower density detached dwellings set in larger more mature gardens. The proposed development of seven dwellings on this site, would constitute a significant overdevelopment of the site and would be wholly out of character with this part of the village. As such the scheme would be to the detriment of the amenity and outlook of nearby residents. Although outside the Conservation Area it will be viewed from it and as such would alter the existing context of the Conservation Area.It is my opinion that the site cannot physically accommodate the proposed number of houses. Furthermore, the position, scale and potential for overlooking from the proposed dwellings will have an unsatisfactorily relationship with the sites immediate adjoining the site to the detriment of their outlook and residential amenities.Although comments from the Highway Authority are still awaited it is my opinion that the access via the private driveway is off an insufficient standard to serve a development of this scale. The increase in the traffic movement created by this development would by virtue of the increase in noise and disturbance be detrimental to the amenities of those properties already served by this access drive. The owner of part of this driveway has indicated an unwillingness to allow an increase in traffic on the driveway.For the above reasons the development is contrary to the objectives of Local Plan Policy GD1 and I therefore cannot support this proposal. RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING) 1. The development of the site for seven dwellings would constitute a gross

overdevelopment of the site. In an area of lower density development with dwellings in larger more mature gardens and adjoining the Conservation Area, a development of this nature would be wholly out of character with this part of the village to the detriment of the amenity and outlook of nearby residents. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy S1 (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton

49

& Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 (ii) and (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. Notwithstanding reason 1 above, a development of this number of houses would, by reason of their position, scale and the potential for overlooking, have an unsatisfactory relationship with the sites immediately adjoining the site to the detriment of the amenities of these adjoining residents. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy GD1 (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. Access to the site is via a private driveway which is of insufficient standard to serve a development of this scale. In addition the increase in traffic movements on this private drive would by reason of the increased noise and disturbance be detrimental to the amenities of those properties already serve by this access. For these reasons the scheme would conflict with Policy S1 (d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/3148/P NORTHIAM NINE ACRE FARM, QUICKBOURNE LANEREVISED PROPOSALS FOR THE RENOVATION OF STABLES PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2002/1206/P TO INCLUDE RE - CONFIGURATION TO DOOR AND WINDOWS TO REAR TACK ROOM AND RE-SITING ONE WALL TO RELOCATE EXISTING PYLON OUTSIDE OF BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TRACK (PART RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION).Mr and Mrs J Seabourne


This site has been added to the site inspection list.

SITE Nine Acre Farm comprises mainly grazing land with two timber clad buildings on the north west side of Quickbourne Lane. The site falls within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYRR/1999/1843/P Installation of septic tank and soakaway - ApprovedRR/2001/62/P Demolition of shed and erection of replacement shed - ApprovedRR/2002/1206/P Renovation of stables - ApprovedRR/2006/2153/P Renovation and improvement of stable building and construction of

track (retrospective application) - Refused

PROPOSAL This application relates to the larger of the two buildings that occupy the land. Planning permission was granted under RR/2002/1206/P to renovate the building. However, the works carried out were not in accordance with the approved plans and a subsequent retrospective application RR/2006/2153/P to retain the works was refused for the following reason:-“Although the Local Planning Authority were prepared to allow renovation of the building used for stable purposes under previous planning permission RR/2002/1206/P that permission indicated limited works that would have retained the buildings original character as a rural building. However, the renovation and improvements carried out deviate from the approved plans and include substantial enclosed areas and insertion

50

of windows which have created a building with a more domestic appearance. This is considered to be out of keeping with the rural landscape and detrimental to the character and appearance of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and therefore contrary to Policies S1(b), (j), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex & Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011 and Policy GD1 (iv) and (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.”

This amended proposal seeks to overcome the previous reason for refusal by proposing less significant alterations. An accompanying letter states: “The height and footprint remain unchanged from the earlier permission and the application is for a minor reconfiguration to the tack room door and windows. Also, the short front wall to the south east elevation has been set back sufficiently to clear the existing pole to facilitate ease of maintenance. …the small track surrounding the stable block… has almost reverted to grass.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Supports refusal - proposals are not wholly appropriate for a stable building and is concerned that the approved usage is adhered to.Planning Notice:- 1 letter of objection - works have been rejected by Parish Council as a result of their own investigations and letters from neighbours; rejection notice has been damming and I hope Council will refuse current application; oppose it in strongest possible terms as does Mr Mooney; any further development must be stopped and building restored to its agreed purpose i.e. a stable block not a bungalow; wording of current application and statement is untrue and is false.

SUMMARY Prior to renovation, the building that previously existed was clad with asbestos and corrugated sheets. Its appearance was very shabby. Although the building has been used as stables, it had not been purpose built for that use but adapted by constructing stalls etc internally. Whilst the renovations approved under RR/2002/1206/P would have resulted in a significant improvement to the visual appearance of the building and its impact upon the AONB, the building would not have had the obvious appearance of stables but that of a basic timber clad rural building. However, the alterations carried out were a deviation from the approved plans and has created a building with a more domestic appearance. This was considered to be out of character with its rural location and detrimental to the character and appearance of the AONB. However, the works now proposed would restore the appearance of the building to one that is less domestic in character. The building would still not have the obvious appearance of stables. However, this needs to be weighed against the fact that the building before renovation also did not have the appearance of stables. The relevant judgement here is whether or not it causes harm to the character and appearance of the AONB. It is my opinion that it would not and that a refusal of planning permission on this ground would not be sustainable on appeal. The track would similarly not cause significant harm to the AONB.I currently have no evidence of any change of use of the land or buildings that would constitute a material change requiring planning permission.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7C (Matching external materials).

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development will not adversely affect the character of the area or the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and therefore complies with Policy S1(b)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex

51

and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/3438/P PEASMARSH WOODLANDS FARMRETENTION OF PAVILION WITH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING.Mr G Sargent


SITE Woodlands Farm is located off the west side of Tanhouse Lane about 1.5 km south-west of Peasmarsh. The estate extends to approx 377 ha including farmsteads at Woodlands Farm and Blossom Farm. The application relates to the retention of the Pavilion, which is on the western side of the pond.

HISTORYRR/81/0918 Blossom Farm - Demolition of existing pair of cottages and erection

of new farmhouse - Approved.RR/83/1302 Blossom Farm - O/A erection of farm workers cottage near new

farm buildings to replace existing farmhouse - Approved.RR/97/1464/P Formation of pond for nature conservation - Approved.RR/2005/3149/P Retention of Pavilion - Refused.RR/2005/3150/P Retention of Estate Lodge - Refused.Enforcement action in respect of demolition of the Estate Lodge and Pavilion was authorised at the August Planning Committee.RR/2006/2262/P Retention of existing estate lodge and pavilion (with associated

demolition of existing buildings, enhanced landscaping and habitat management plan and farm management plan) - Withdrawn.

A Section 106 Planning Obligation has been completed which requires the demolition of the Lodge by 30 June 2007.

PROPOSAL Retention of the Pavilion which is a timber structure with oak framed doors and windows set on stone piers above the level of the water’s edge. The building has a floor area of 72 sq.m. and is to be used for recreation and the quiet and private enjoyment of the conservation pond and woodlands. It is not proposed as residential accommodation. A landscaping proposal accompanies this application and proposes new native planting to the dam face and replacement of existing lighting with new lower level light fittings.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comment awaited.Environment Agency:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY This application follows the withdrawal of the previous proposal and is solely for retention of the Pavilion adjacent to the conservation pond. Members have previously inspected the site. In my view the design of the Pavilion building and its location is acceptable within the AONB, together with the landscaping and alteration to lighting proposed. It will be necessary to control the use of the building by legal agreement.

52

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (S106 RE RECREATIONAL USE ONLY AND LANDSCAPING PROPOSALS/EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The Pavilion is of an approved size and design and with the landscaping measures proposed will have an acceptable impact on the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and accords with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/3056/P PEASMARSH BERRYNARBOR, SCHOOL LANEERECTION OF REPLACEMENT DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE.Mr Mike Wells


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

SITE The site lies to the south side of School Lane with the majority of it set within the development boundary for Peasmarsh this includes the siting of the replacement dwelling. The site is set within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORY (Relevant) RR/2006/1999/P Erection of replacement dwelling and detached garage – Refused.RR/2006/2819/P Outline: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of two

dwellings including alterations to an existing access and construction of new driveway – Refused.

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 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 western boundary of the site in front of the proposed dwelling.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – “Support refusal. Apart from reducing the amount of first floor overlooking this application ignores two out of the three reasons given for the refusal to application No. RR/2006/1999 in the Decision Notice of the 17.08.06. There is no reduction in the height and the proposed dwelling is still sited behind the line of the neighbouring properties in much the same position as before. The obstruction of the view from the backs of the adjacent properties would be no more acceptable as it is effectively unchanged. In all other respects the objections raised by the Parish Council to application RR/2006/1999 still apply.”

53

Highway Authority – Recommend that any consent shall include conditions.Environment Agency – Has no objection to the proposal, but would like to offer advice on pollution prevention and water conservation.Planning Notice – 3 letters of objection concerned with the following; Essentially the same as application RR/2006/1999/P Height Encroachment behind Raymaur Lodge ‘L’ shaped building long face to both the east and north, the elevations which

face the neighbouring properties Higher eaves and ridge would be quite out of scale with the surrounding houses

and be starkly conspicuous in the landscape Larger than any other house nearby Most satisfactory position for a new house on this site is in line with the other

properties on School Lane Out of character with area Precedent of single storey dwelling in this part of School Lane Would set an undesirable precedent Land slopes and is not flat, therefore higher level than Eureka Loss of view Loss of light Overlooked Need for increase in height to connect to main drains2 letters from the residents of Eureka asking for additional information regarding the exact siting and height. A further letter of objection has been received from these residents which is attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 18 January 2007.1 letter from the agent in response to comments received. This is attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 18 January 2007.

SUMMARY This application was deferred at your last meeting for a site inspection, in order that the revised scheme can be assessed with regard to its impact upon neighbouring properties fronting School Lane.The position of the proposed building will be pegged out and the height at eaves level and ridge height will be indicated on site for Members to assess. As I reported previously, this revised scheme seeks to address these previous reasons for refusal by; reducing the height and width of the garage and moving it across the site adjacent to the woodland area; first floor accommodation has been reconfigured so that only obscured bathroom windows will be on the north and east elevations; a porch has been added; the building has been moved by approximately 2m closer to the western boundary away from ‘Raymaur Lodge’ (formerly Carrea).Although of the same orientation and height as that previously refused (RR/2006/1999/P) behind the line of dwellings fronting School Lane, the amended siting, closer to the western boundary, and the repositioned garage, reduces the impact upon neighbouring properties ‘Raymaur Lodge’ and ‘Eureka’, although, as Members will see on site, the proposed building will be larger than the small existing dwelling in terms of both height and footprint. This is the objection of adjoining residents. I would concede that there will be a greater impact on adjoining residents who look over the site (and appreciate - as the occupier of ‘Eureka’ notes - that a replacement dwelling could be brought forward in line with the frontage properties - see APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 18 January 2007), but on balance I consider that this proposal meets the objectives of Local Plan Policy GD1 and is acceptable.If Members share this opinion after inspecting the site I recommend

54

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN5A (Exclude G.D.O. specified structures)2. CN5D (Obscure glaze windows) (Insert ‘at first floor level on the north elevation,

and velux window on the east elevation)3. CN5E a), b) and c) (Restriction of alterations/additions)4. CN7B a) the roofing tiles, b) the hanging tiles and c) the facing bricks (External

materials)5. CN8C (Foul and surface water details)6. CN13A (Landscaping scheme)7. CN13B (Implementation of landscaping scheme)8. The access shall not be used until parking areas have been provided in

accordance with the approved plan and the areas shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of motor vehicles.Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The position of the replacement dwelling lies within the development boundary for Peasmarsh as defined within the Rother District Local Plan. Although set to the rear of dwellings fronting School Lane and is a replacement of a bungalow with a chalet bungalow, the insertion of obscure glazing into windows at first floor level on the north and east elevations will preserve the privacy of neighbouring properties. Its amended siting (following the earlier refusal) closer to the western boundary of the site and the relocation of the garage, while having some greater impact than the existing smaller dwelling, maintain the wider outlook of the residents of ‘Raymaur Lodge’ and ‘Eureka’. As such the proposal meets the objectives of 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/2006/3261/P BODIAM BURGESS TRANSPORT LTD - LAND AT, MAIN STREETERECTION OF 22.5M MONOPOLE & ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT CABINETS.T Mobile (UK) Ltd



SITE Burgess Transport is located within an enclosed yard on the northern side of Main Street. The site lies outside any development boundary defined within the Rother District Local Plan and is within the High Weald AONB. The site frontage comprises a substantial hedge while the side and rear boundaries adjoin woodland of Ashes Wood and planting within the grounds of The Old Mutton House.The application site itself is located within the rear north corner of the yard.Residential properties are located in Levetts Lane to the east of the mast compound, the closest one being over 80m away.

HISTORY (Recent)

55

RR/99/1959/P Outline: Demolition of existing buildings of hauliers yard and erection of 11 detached dwellings with garages, served by new access road - Refused.

RR/2000/2015/O Lawful retention of floodlighting - Lawful DC Approved.

PROPOSAL This application details the siting of a monopole 22.5m in height with associated equipment cabinets within a fenced compound 9 x 6.6m. The compound is enclosed on three sides by trees with the fourth side facing the yard and protected by additional concrete bollards.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Comments awaited.Planning Notice: 2 letters of objection from local residents on the following grounds: Lack of consultation with the residents association. Health implications. Detrimental to the character and appearance of the AONB. Interference with television reception.

SUMMARY This application is submitted on behalf of T-Mobile who have poor coverage within the Bodiam area, as illustrated by the coverage plans provided. Operational requirements now include the need to provide higher levels of coverage to include use within homes and workplaces, as well as open areas and while in vehicles. The complexity of the mobile phones now available requires an increased number of base stations, which themselves cover a smaller cell area. The existing sites shared at Climpsetts Farm and Silverden Lane cannot provide the levels of coverage now required. An additional mast facility is therefore required within the Bodiam area.The applicants have considered other sites, details of which are included in the application. These in brief are as follows: No other existing mast sites in the required area to share. Rooftop options considered at Bodiam Schools. These buildings were too low to

meet the technical requirements and were considered likely to generate far more adverse community reaction.

Rooftop of Bodiam Castle. The National Trust have indicated that they were anti-telecommunications.

Rooftop of the Castle Inn Public House but it is unsuitable. Rooftop of St Giles Church but concerns regarding its historic importance and it

was not suitable for a telecommunications installation. Base station within Bodiam Castle grounds but the National Trust have indicated

that they were anti-telecommunications. Base station at the Castle Inn but its low location would require a mast of

significant height which would be more open to view and not within the context of a commercial location as now proposed.

Base station at Court Lodge Farm but proposal not supported by landowner. Base station on grass verge in Levetts Lane but would have greater impact upon

residential character and appearance of the area and proximity with houses would be likely to have adverse impact on residential amenity. Would also be likely to have a greater degree of adverse community reaction.

The site at John Burgess Depot is considered by the applicants to be more suitable both from an environmental and technical point of view.Government guidance set out in PPG8, telecommunications, requires applications to be determined in accordance with local development plans. The Rother District Local Plan

56

contains no specific policies relating to telecommunications development although considerations outlined within Policies DS1, GD1, EM1 and EM2 would apply in this instance in respect of maintaining the rural character and landscape quality of the AONB and the employment opportunities of the wider application site. Policy EN30 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 applies and states:“Proposals for telecommunications facilities will be supported provided it is demonstrated that they are part of a comprehensive plan for developing a telecommunications network and, for above ground facilities, they meet the following criteria:

(a) the use of existing buildings or structures will be favoured, provided the environmental impact is acceptable;

(b) new purpose built structures will only be acceptable where:(i) there is a lack of suitable existing buildings or structures that would meet

operational and technical requirements and could be used in an environmentally acceptable manner; and

(ii) there is no other site able to meet operational and technical requirements where the environmental impact would be less; and

(c) approval of proposals will be subject to arrangements being secured for the removal of the structure should it no longer be required for its original purpose.”

In this instance the proposal is considered to be the best available option. In order to operate, a clear line of sight is required which necessitates the antennae being located clear of the treetops. The existing tree line is 17m high, and will increase in the following years. The antennae, both 2G and 3G are to be located around the top of the mast at 21.5 and 21.85m above ground level with other associated equipment below this, as indicated on the plan. The masthead and antennae are therefore likely to be visible from limited viewpoints around the surrounding area although such views will be restricted by the existence of surrounding woodland and the undulating nature of the countryside. The visual impact is thus considered to be acceptable in this instance.In respect of the other objections raised, pre-application consultations were forwarded to the local Members and the Parish Council. There are no known cases of television interference in our area and the requisite ICNIRP certificate confirming that the emissions fall within the required guidelines is submitted. While health risks can be a consideration they are not generally a sufficient reason to withhold planning permission, and while it is an issue that has been widely debated, no direct links have been established between telecommunications masts and health problems. In this instance the site is isolated by the surrounding woodland and is not directly adjacent residential properties. The proposal is not considered at this time to represent any significant health risks.While noting the concerns raised, this proposal is considered to comply with both local policy and Government guidelines and will not have a detrimental impact upon the surrounding area such as to justify a refusal of planning permission.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. The antennae and all equipment hereby permitted on the site shall be

removed from the land on which it is situated within 6 months of the cessation of its use for telecommunication purposes.Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the land in accordance with Government Advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 and Policy EN30 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

57

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed mast and associated development is considered to be of an appropriate design and reasonably necessary and will have a limited adverse affect on the character of the area or the amenities of local properties and therefore complies with Policy EN30 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/2723/P SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE 12-14 STATION ROAD, ROBERTSBRIDGECHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION FROM GROUND FLOOR SHOP TO RESIDENTIALMr and Mrs N Brabon

Statutory 8 week date: 24 November 2006

SITE The site lies within the village of Robertsbridge and fronts the southern side of Station Road, next to the small bridge over the Darwell Stream. The premises comprises a shop on the ground floor with residential accommodation above. There is garden to the side and rear of the building. The shop has been vacant for over a year.

HISTORYNone relevant.

PROPOSAL The application seeks permission for the change of use and conversion of the ground floor shop to residential use in conjunction with the existing upper floor residential use. The structural alterations would include the removal of the shop front and the installation of a front door and some ground floor window alterations.A supporting statement has been provided with the application. This is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 18 January 2007.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Object to the proposal: “The Parish Council would not wish to see the loss of the commercial premises from the parish. The applicant’s desire to cover business losses and not further undermine his financial circumstances does not in itself make the premises unviable as a shop. The council feels that the asking price reflects the residential rather than the commercial market. 31/10/06.”Environment Agency:- (main points) - “The property benefits from flood protection by the Robertsbridge Flood Scheme and although a remote risk of flooding to the property remains, as this is a change of use and does not include ground floor sleeping we raise no objection to the application.”Director of Services - Head of Regeneration:- (main points) -“I note that the value placed on the property itself was £250,000 and the asking price sought for the business including was £340,000. The bulk of this value is attached to the residential accommodation, however I would query whether the figure suggested by the agent is high given the property’s location and its internal layout. The presence of the lock-up shop would have a detrimental effect on the value of the residential accommodation; and the fact that the accommodation is largely on the first floor but with a ground floor kitchen would also be a deterrent. There is no doubt therefore that the proposed alterations would enhance the value of the property. The agent’s report makes the comment that high property prices make it difficult for applicants from

58

elsewhere in the UK to acquire businesses in the South East; however it is a matter of choice for a vendor whether or not to accept an offer in each case, and indeed I note that the vendor has turned down one offer for the business.I note the agents’ comments regarding the viability of the business, and the issues that have hindered the sale of the business as a going concern. However, I do not accept that there is sufficient case to justify a change of use as many of these issues are particular to the applicant and do not preclude an alternative business being successful in that location.”Planning Notice:- 5 letters/emails of support (The Seven Stars, George Hill Cottage (two emails of support), Bell Lodge and 44 Beachy Head View (St Leonards)): The days of successful new ventures in the retail trade where small villages are

concerned are long gone Robertsbridge has become a dormitory town with the vast majority of its

residents giving no support to local businesses The current owners have tried to make a successful business for the good of the

village; unfortunately this did not work The village has not suffered as a consequence of this shop shutting as ‘One-

Stop’ (the general store in High Street) stocks everything we need. The shop was unable to compete

SUMMARY A principal issue for consideration is the principle of losing a commercial premises within the village settlement. Policy EM15 of the Local Plan is relevant and includes the following:“The loss of shop premises providing a vital service to a local community (such as a general store) to another use will only be permitted if it is demonstrated that the existing business is no longer viable.”The supporting statement seeks to address this point, indicating that the village is already served by a general store in High Street (the ‘One-Stop’ shop) and evidence of lack of viability is demonstrated by the fact that the business has failed and secondly, it has been marketed with the result that only limited interest has been shown from prospective purchasers and tenants. The statement concludes that the premises is not therefore considered to be a ‘vital’ service and granting planning permission would not undermine the objectives of the policy. The agent has provided further comments on the objection raised by the Head of Regeneration as follows:“Your regeneration officer says that the value placed on the property was £250,000. This is not true. This was an offer made by an interested party. This offer was clearly well short of the valuation placed on the property by an expert. It was also the only offer, which is a point not acknowledged by the regeneration officer.I also have to refer to the point that the marketing exercise offered the shop unit separately, this seems to have been ignored by your regeneration officer. In rejecting the offer, it must be understood that the owner cannot be expected to accept a price which is so low as to be detrimental to his own financial position.The short shrift given to the viability issue is also of concern. This viability issue is a completely separate issue from the marketing exercise and should be treated as such. The last sentence of the regeneration report also seems a little odd. The whole point of the marketing exercise was to see if an alternate business was interested. There was limited interest shown.”This has been sent to the Regeneration Division, however no further comments have been raised to-date. Whilst the loss of a commercial premises within the village is regrettable, the application contains evidence to suggest a lack of viability. In the absence of any information to counter this, on balance it is considered that the application should succeed. Should Members accept this view, I would, however, wish

59

to secure an amended plan showing a more sympathetic design treatment to the proposed windows on the principal front elevation.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (AMENDED PLAN SHOWING DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS)1. CN7C (Matching external materials).N1B. Originally submitted plan and amended plan

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: Evidence provided with the application reasonably indicates that the existing business is no longer viable. Furthermore, it indicates that the use of the premises as a general store is not a vital service because the local community is served by another general store in the village. In the circumstances it is not considered that the loss of a shop premises undermines the provisions contained in Policy EM15 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/2773/P SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE BUGSELL PARK, BUGSELL LANE, ROBERTSBRIDGEERECTION OF STONE BARN TO REPLACE DILAPIDATED BUILDINGS (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Roy Allan


This application has been included on the list of site inspections for 16 January 2007.

SITE The dwelling (Bugsell Park) is part of a cluster of residential properties located at the end of Bugsell Lane. The stone barn also forms part of this group and lies between two residential properties - Hillside Bungalow and Beech Farm. The Bugsell Park holding extends to some 28.5 hectares of agricultural land.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2004/245/FN Erection of barn and cart shed for storage of farm machinery and

hay to replace dilapidated buildings - Approval of details not required.

PROPOSAL The barn was erected as agricultural permitted development following the determination of the above mentioned agricultural buildings and operations - prior notification application. In determining this application the Local Planning Authority accepted that the proposed buildings were reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit and also that the proposals for their siting, design and external appearance would be acceptable. The barn has not, however, been erected in the position identified within the farm notification application and the planning application now before you seeks retrospective permission for retention of the building.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Objection to the proposal. “The Parish Council objects to the application. This new building, being some 10 metres from the footprint of the original one, is in a far more prominent position and has a substantial impact on the landscape, being clearly visible from several miles away. If the reason for re-siting was to avoid

60

damaging the oak trees, perhaps a more conventional style of farm building requiring less substantial footings may be more appropriate. This seems to be a very large building for the size of property. The position and design appear more appropriate to a dwelling than an agricultural store. There is no doubt that an application to build a dwelling in this position would be in contravention of policy and would be refused. Whilst it is clear that the building is currently being used for agricultural purposes, the Council is concerned that it could be very difficult to prevent a change of use in the future.”Planning Notice:- A letter of comment has been received from the occupier of Beech House. This indicates that the barn itself is not an issue but expresses concern at the apparent manipulation of planning regulations. The letter goes on to raise questions of what farming activities are carried out to justify the construction of this barn. It also refers to the justification for relocating the proposed barn put forward in the application, commenting that as an alternative to a stone barn, a traditional timber framed barn could have been constructed in the original position without the need for substantial foundations that would cause harm to the trees.An email of objection has been received from the occupier of 2 Beech Farm Cottages (summarised) The original pole barn the building replaces was smaller in volume and more

concealed in the landscape The barn that has been built is much more prominent in the landscape Planning policies (particularly EN2(f)) requires the impact of any new

development on the landscape to be minimised Why was the barn not resited to the other side of the tree line where it would

have had less impact on the landscape? The building is in contravention of Local Plan policies HG10 and HG11 The design is more appropriate to future use as a dwelling than an agricultural

store (cavity walls, windows, a first floor (with staircase)), has limited openings for machinery storage and a Klargester sewage treatment system. It has also been sited to maximise rural views

Concerned it may be the subject of future applications to convert it into a dwelling

SUMMARY The principle of constructing an agricultural barn was accepted in February 2004 under Farm Notification RR/2004/245/FN. The Rural Estates Surveyor was consulted on that application and concluded that the proposed barn was reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit. The barn is presently used to store up to five tractors which are owned by the applicant as well as containing a workbench, storage areas, and WC/washing facilities.With respect to the new planning application, an initial issue for consideration is whether the relocation of the barn from its original position agreed under the farm notification application has resulted in harm to the appearance and character of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The position of the building has been moved about 10 metres to the south east. The applicant has indicated that this was done to prevent the foundations of the new building damaging a row of mature oak trees. It is not considered that relocation of the building has increased its prominence in the landscape to such a significant degree that it would now justify a refusal of planning permission on the grounds of impact on the countryside (AONB). A second point, which is raised by the Parish Council, concerns the fact that the design of the building appears to be more appropriate to a dwelling than an agricultural store. In this respect the building is of substantial construction and built to a very high standard with external walls of stone and a slate roof. It incorporates cavity walls, a mezzanine floor with

61

access staircase, a wood burning stove, WC/washing facilities, and services (electricity, water and sewerage). Consequently, the possibility of future proposals to utilize the building as a dwelling cannot be discounted. In the event that Members are minded to approve the development it is considered that conditions would be necessary to restrict the building to agricultural use only and restrict structural alterations. Furthermore, an additional plan would be required showing the present internal layout of the building. This has been requested without prejudice to your consideration of the application.Finally, a small open-fronted building has also been constructed between the barn and the lane. This is not contained in the application now before you nor was it authorised under the previous Farm Notification application. I have also requested information from the applicant as to how it is intended to resolve this breach of planning control.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (ADDITIONAL PLAN)1. The building shall be used for agricultural purposes only.

Reason: The building is located in an area of countryside where development plan policies indicate that agriculture and woodland will remain the main land uses and development and change will be strictly controlled to protect the character and appearance of the rural area. To accord with Policies S1(j), S10 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies DS1(vi), DS3, DS4 and GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. CN5E (Restriction of alterations/additions) (a) and (b) - amend to 1995 GPDO and within (b), incorporate: “No extension or alteration to the inside or outside of the building … etc.”

3. Within one month of planning permission being granted or at such a time as shall otherwise have been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, the exterior surface of flue pipe, which protrudes beyond the roof of the building shall be treated in a matt-black colour and retained as such thereafter.Reason: To maintain the agricultural appearance and character of the building and to accord with Policies S1(j), S10 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

N1B. Originally submitted plans and additional plans

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The principle of constructing an agricultural barn on the land holding was previously accepted in February 2004 under Farm Notification application RR/2004/245/FN (as amended). The Rural Estates Surveyor was consulted on that application and concluded that the proposed barn was reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit. The size and external appearance of the building is not materially different from the previously agreed development. Moreover, it is not considered that the relocation of the building has increased its prominence in the landscape to such a significant degree that it would justify a refusal of planning permission on the grounds of impact on the countryside (AONB). The development is in accordance with the provisions contained in Policy S10 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy DS4 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/2783/P BREDE LILAC DRIVE - LAND ADJ, NORTHIAM ROADERECTION OF FOUR NEW DWELLINGS AND GARAGING PLUS ANCILLARY WORKS INCLUDING ALTERATION TO AN

62

EXISTING VEHICULAR ACCESS AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ROADM Viney (Kitewood)


This item was considered at the Planning Committee on 7 December 2006. A decision was deferred for further negotiations concerning the position and types of houses and surface water issues. I have since met with the applicant and amended plans and a report on surface water are expected before the Committee meeting.My original report follows, although by way of correction I did advise Members that the man-made pond was not drained in the summer as stated but dried-up.

SITE The site lies within the village of Broad Oak on the east side of Northiam Road (A28) about 210 metres north of the crossroads with the B2089. The site comprises a bungalow in a large plot of land. The bungalow is within the general building line of the ribbon of development along this side of the road, but its grounds extend much further east than the other properties. The site extends to about 0.63 ha and contains two significant ponds, one of which is now mostly dry, and a number of trees, four of which are preserved. To the rear is the Broad Oak recreation ground.

HISTORYRR/2003/1431/P Outline: Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of new

access road and layout for eight detached dwellings and garages - Withdrawn

RR/2003/1845/P Outline: Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of access road and four detached bungalows, two detached houses and four terraced houses - Refused - Appeal Dismissed

RR/2005/2159/P Erection of 11 dwellings with garaging and landscaping and alterations to access – Refused

RR/2006/1092/P Erection of 4 dwellings with detached garages - Refused - Appeal Lodged

PROPOSAL This is a further planning application following a number of previous schemes including three refusals and one appeal dismissed. The refusal earlier this year following a Members’ site visit which was very similar in layout, is now at appeal.The application plan shows a new access way taken from the slip road which currently serves houses to the south. The new access runs in front of the property ‘The Herons’ and the (former) Police House.This scheme retains the existing bungalow and confines all the new dwellings to the rear garden area. The large pond remains although, as in previous schemes, the smaller, largely man-made, pond is shown to be infilled and is currently largely dry.The submitted plans show four detached houses all conventional two storey designs with four bedrooms and detached garages. A garage for the existing bungalow is provided in its existing front garden.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Recommend Refusal. Object to filling-in of pond; problems of access; removal of bus shelter.

63

Highway Authority:- Does not wish to restrict grant of consent but make detailed observations on:- the new access into the site and alterations to the existing lay-by parking provision stopping up of existing access points to A28 improvement to visibility splays relocation of bus shelter(These matters are addressed in the Summary, below).Environment Agency:- No objection but Agency notes that “… there is a large waterbody in the application site and the Agency would not wish to see any activities at the site impacting on the waterbody. This may be in the form of polluting run-off or disturbance of species using the waterbody, such as amphibians. Should permission be granted for development, the Agency would be pleased to advise on ways of reducing any potential impact.” Agency suggest consultation with Natural England and Sussex Wildlife Trust.Southern Water:- No objection in principle. Foul sewerage exists in the area. Surface water details to be agreed.Planning Notice:- Three objections - where will surface water go when pond is removed? Pond Close properties suffering subsidence following emptying of pond (photos

provided) full effect of subsidence will take considerable time to assess large pond to be gifted in Council but no provision for maintenance small pond has been emptied but is now re-filling vehicle access still unviable and dangerous recent accidents in area precedent for a larger development devaluation of adjoining property development is of no benefit to Broad Oak loss of trees loss of fir tree screening on boundary and consequent loss of privacy future of oak tree near small pond uncertain tall houses will overlook bungalows new houses too close to oak tree first phases of larger development relocation of bus stop high roof of house will allow increased accommodation in roof no provision to maintain natural pond developer has approached adjoining properties for further development

SUMMARY This site has been subject to a series of proposals for residential development: the last scheme refused in June is now the subject of an appeal. The previous reasons for refusal were as follows:“1. The height and form of the two houses on the southern side of the site would be

unduly large and bulky both in relation to the adjoining gardens and when viewed from the public open space to the east. As such the scheme would be contrary to Policy S1 of the East Sussex & Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011 and Policy GD1(ii) and (iv) of the Modified Revised Deposit Rother District Local Plan (March 2006).

2. The development would result in the loss of one of the ponds on the site. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the infilling of the pond will not have a detrimental affect on the preserved oak tree,

64

on the ecology of the immediate area and on the drainage regime of the area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy S1(b) and (f) of the East Sussex & Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011 and Policy GD1 (iv), (vi) and (vii) of the Modified Revised Deposit Rother District Local Plan (March 2006).”

The current application differs in three respects; firstly that the small pond was drained in the summer, although following recent rains it has inevitably started to fill, secondly the two southernmost houses have been marginally relocated - 2 metres towards the remaining pond and another metre from the adjoining garden boundary, and thirdly the houses on the north side have been moved marginally further from the Pond Close boundary and from the oak tree. The house types remain the same.As I have reported previously in terms of the principle of any development/ redevelopment of this site, neither the Council’s previous refusals, nor the appeal decision appear to rule out some form of development of the site. Thus the issues are: how the proposed development fits the site, how the dwellings affect the adjoining residents, how the scheme impacts on trees and the ponds, and finally highway matters.

The layout in respect of adjoining residents -As an irregular shaped site the land is bounded by properties from a number of angles. Two of the proposed detached houses face Pond Close. The Pond Close dwellings are bungalows and there is a fairly strong hedge/tree screen on the boundary. The proposed houses facing this way (Plots 1 and 2) are now over 22 metres from the bungalows and, with the leylandii hedge line retained, this relationship is not objectionable. The other two dwellings face south. In this direction they face the long rear gardens of the existing properties fronting Main Road. The applicants have chosen to retain full height two storey houses here, but the latest plans, still show them angled towards the open space beyond so that any direct overlooking of the ends of the adjoining gardens is limited.

Issues relating to the ponds -The larger of the two ponds is to remain. The smaller largely man-made pond drained in the summer is to be infilled. The house on Plot 2 will be built partly on the resulting infilled area although the latest plans show the house moved further southwards so that it only just impinges on the edge of the area and is further from the oak tree in the pond area. Both ponds are in a private garden and while their value should not be dismissed, some works to affect their viability could be undertaken now without any reference to the Council - and indeed one pond has been partially drained since Members visited the site in June. At the earlier appeal the Inspector did not address the loss of the small pond in drainage terms, although he did consider the removal of trees around the large pond in more detail. There are issues relating to drainage on the site and the need for permeability tests to determine the use of soakaways, but I do not see the loss of one of the ponds to be overriding if the remaining larger pond can be retained and enhanced (see below).

Trees and ecology –A major consideration with the 2003 application and subsequent appeal was the effect on the preserved trees within the site and on the two ponds.The current scheme retains the trees and while the houses will undoubtedly be seen in part, the retention of the trees and large pond provides more of a foil to the

65

development, as I reported to Committee in June. The large pond will remain in private ownership.There is some uncertainty about infilling the small pond and the effect on the one oak tree in terms of the water table. It is not possible to give a definitive opinion on this. The applicants claim the oak tree will benefit but local residents refer to subsidence.English Nature and the Sussex Wildlife Trust were advised of the previous proposal at the suggestion of the Environment Agency, but did not respond. I recommend a condition to safeguard the large pond and its surroundings and a condition on drainage matters including an analysis of the small pond.

Highway issues -The access into the site from the A28 has been redesigned to close the existing access and instead create a new slip road turning southwards to the shared access with other adjoining dwellings. The Highway Authority raise no objections subject to detailed plans improving footways, safeguarding visibility and relocating the bus stop/shelter.

Conclusion -A site of this size would appear to offer some possibility of development. The earlier appeal decision did not rule out the principle although, in the context of discussing housing densities the Inspector concluded:“I have taken account of the location of the site well within the development area of the village. The suggested density of development at 15 dwellings per hectare would be greater than that of the immediately surrounding area. However, I do not disagree with the appellant that the proposed density and mix of dwelling types would normally be appropriate on a site of this size and would comply with policies H7, H8 and H15 of the LP in respect of the principle of housing development. Having said that, in this particular case the other considerations outlined above constitute a serious objection to this proposal that in my view outweigh the need to develop the land for housing to the density proposed. The existence of the pond also significantly reduces the area of land available for building. As such I consider the impact on the area would not be minimised. It would seriously diminish the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the village in the AONB, contrary to the relevant parts of SP policies S1, EN2 and EN3, LP policies CNE5 and H10, replacement LP policies GD1 and DS1 and national guidance.” With the second scheme, while the direct impact on the larger pond was addressed, I was not satisfied that the amended layout was an appropriate way forward. The last proposal in June, and this current scheme for only four houses, is a more workable solution. However, the changes of house positions have varied only marginally and the house types - particularly those to the south - remain unchanged (having regard to the first reason for refusal quoted above). Additionally surface water drainage matters and the implications of draining the pond are still unclear. In the circumstances Members may wish to seek a deferral of the application in respect of these matters.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING POSITION/TYPES OF HOUSES/SURFACE WATER ISSUES)

RR/2006/3181/P ICKLESHAM CHURCHFIELDS - EXISTING BUILDING AT, HARBOUR ROAD, RYECHANGE OF USE OF BUILDING TO USE AS MOT TESTING CENTRE FOR NON HGV’S

66

Romney Holdings Ltd


SITE This site is part of the former concrete pipe manufacturing works located on the south side of Harbour Road. The site has recently been redeveloped (RR/2004/776/P) with new industrial units. However, some of the existing buildings were modern, in good condition and capable of re-use. This application relates to a unit within one of those such buildings.

HISTORYRR/2004/77/P Proposed industrial unit for the manufacture, finishing and storage

of furniture including formation of new vehicular access and construction of new road - Approved

PROPOSAL The proposed MOT testing centre would occupy the middle of three original units adjoining the east side of the new long industrial building. In an accompanying letter, the applicant states:-“The building used to be used for the maintenance of plant and machinery when the site was occupied by Spun Concrete and has been more recently used for the storage of furniture by Countrypine Warehouse.We are unconvinced ourselves that planning permission will be required for the proposed change of use, however we understand that to obtain a Licence for MOT testing a valid planning permission is required.It is not proposed to carry out any alterations to the exterior of the building.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- Comments awaited.South East Water:- Does not wish to comment on this application.Romney Marsh Drainage Board:- Comments awaited.English Nature:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Rye Conservation Society have no objection subject to any neighbours’ amenities; some restriction on operating hours may be appropriate.

SUMMARY Although the proposed use may be similar to the previous use of the building, that use was probably ancillary to the concrete works. The proposed use would be a separate planning unit and I therefore take the view that planning permission should be obtained. The previous use would be material when considering the likely impact upon its surroundings, which is in my opinion the main issue. However, there are no residential properties close by, and whilst comments from consultees have not yet been received I would not expect to receive any objection. Subject to no objections being received therefore, I would expect to make the following

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (NO OBJECTIONS FROM OUTSTANDING CONSULTEES)1. CN12S (Parking provision) - add following to reason “… and to accord with

Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(iii) and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan.

67

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development will not adversely affect the amenities of the surrounding area and therefore complies with Policy S1(b)(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(ii)(iii) and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/3324/P ICKLESHAM DABCHICK COTTAGE, MORLAIS RIDGE, WINCHELSEA BEACHCONVERSION OF LOFT SPACE TO FORM EN-SUITE BEDROOM AND DORMER WITH GLASS BALUSTRADE.Mrs J Stanford


SITE Dabchick Cottage is a detached dwelling located on the east side of Morlais Place, which is an unmade road within the Winchelsea Beach development boundary. The property has a neighbour to the north (Amershon) and a neighbour to the south (Iden). While “Iden” is in line with the applicant’s property, “Amershon” is set further back into its site behind the rear of Dabchick Cottage. This juxtaposition is a crucial issue in this case.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2002/1661/P Erection of single storey extension – Approved.RR/2006/1125/P Conversion of loft space to form ensuite bedroom. Formation of

double doors and addition of guardrail – Refused.

PROPOSAL The applicant seeks permission to convert the loft space of the dwelling to form an ensuite bedroom, including the addition of a dormer window with a glass balustrade.One letter of objection has been received from the neighbour commenting on the application. A letter has been received in response to these comments from the applicant’s agent. Both letters have been attached as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 18 January 2007.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: – No representation received.Planning Notice: – One letter of objection from the neighbouring property, Amershon, with the following comments: The large dormer with glazed French doors and balustrade would allow

unrestricted views of Amershon’s western and southern aspects. Any person looking through the glazing, or standing at the open French doors in front of the balustrade, would have panoramic views of Amershon’s bedrooms, living room and kitchen.

The solution to the problem would be to build the dormer at the front of Dabchick Cottage, instead of at the rear.

SUMMARY This application seeks permission to convert the loft space of the dwelling to form an ensuite bedroom, including the addition of a dormer window with a glass balustrade. A similar proposal was reported to the Planning Committee on 20 July 2006. Planning permission was refused because the double doors of the central dormer feature, and the dormer window on the north elevation, then proposed, would have had

68

direct views over the front and side of the neighbouring property ‘Amershon’, resulting in an unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy. This new application has been modified to address these reasons for refusal; only one dormer window has been proposed, and whilst it includes double doors with a balustrade, these have been recessed one metre inside the dormer construction with the aim of restricting views towards the habitable rooms of the adjoining property. Four rooflights have also been included as an integral part of the proposal, (however, it is recognised that separately they could be installed under the “permitted development” rights of the property). This application should be judged against the specific relevant criteria of policies GD1 & HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.The occupants of the neighbouring dwelling to the north (Amershon) have objected to the proposal on the grounds that it would still allow unrestricted views of their bedrooms, living room and kitchen constituting an invasion of their privacy.Policy HG8 of the Local Plan states that, “Proposals to extend or alter an existing dwelling will be permitted where they are in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling and its surroundings in terms of its size, style, design and materials, as well as protect the amenities of adjoining properties and meet other criteria in Policy GD1.”At the time of writing a site visit has been scheduled for the 11 January 2007 to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenities of the adjoining property Amershon. Whilst the conversion of the loft into living accommodation is considered acceptable in principle, at this stage I still remain to be satisfied that the proposed double doors of the central dormer feature would not result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy to the adjoining property to the north, Amershon. Members will be updated on the results of my site inspection at the Committee meeting. I therefore recommend the following:

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO SITE ASSESSMENT IN RELATION TO OVERLOOKING) 1. The proposed double doors of the central dormer feature, by reason of their

position would have direct views over the front and side of the neighbouring property Amershon, and would result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy, contrary to Policies GD1 (ii) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/3015/P IDEN THORNSDALE OAST, WITTERSHAM ROADERECTION OF STABLES INCORPORATING HAY BARN AND TACK ROOMMiss K A Jewiss



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 site is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is outside of a recognised development boundary. Policies S1, S10, EN2 and EN3 of the Structure Plan and Policy GD1 of the Local Plan apply to this application.

HISTORY

69

RR/92/1423/P Conversion of former Oast to single dwelling and realignment of track – Approved Conditional.

RR/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 Conditional.RR/2003/571P Proposed field shelter – Approved Temporary.RR/2003/1775/P Change of use and conversion of barn to holiday home – Appeal

Allowed.RR/2005/1832/P Erection of detached garage/garden store with hobbies/games

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

Approved Conditional.RR/2006/1959/P Variation of condition 2 imposed upon planning permission

RR/2005/1832/P to allow residential accommodation ancillary to the main dwelling – Refused.

RR/2006/1960/P Removal of condition 1 imposed upon planning permission RR/2003/571/P so as to retain filed shelter on a permanent basis – Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL The applicant seeks permission to erect a block of stables measuring 19.3m x 10.8m x 5.1m some 85m to the south east of the Oast House outside of the dwelling’s residential curtilage.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:– Objects to the application because the site is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and although the building would be in a dip, its height appears to be excessive and would probably be visible. There is also a public footpath nearby, which should not be obstructed by the development.Environment Agency:– No objection.Highway Authority:– Does not wish to restrict grant of consent.Planning Notice:– Campaign to Protect Rural England objects to the proposal because it is for a building of considerable size located well away from any other buildings. As such its visual impact is maximised; this is not in keeping with the preservation of the principles of the AONB in which the proposal is located. Priority must also be given to the preservation of use and access to the public footpath

70

SUMMARY Approval is sought to erect a block of stables measuring 19.3m x 10.8m x 5.1m some 85m to the south east of the Oast House outside of the dwellings residential curtilage.The site is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is outside of a recognised development boundary. Policies S1, S10, EN2 and EN3 of the Structure Plan and Policy GD1 of the Local Plan apply to this application.These policies aim to maintain agriculture and woodland land uses outside of development boundaries by strictly controlling development and change in the countryside. They also aim to preserve the character of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty by minimising the impact of any development within the area. An existing field shelter located in the same field as the proposed stables was approved on a permanent basis in August 2006; however, it is sited as close as possible to existing buildings, which helps to reduce its visual impact in the countryside. The proposed stables would be sited on their own some 120m away from the existing group of buildings including the field shelter. As such the main issue to be considered is the extent of the additional harm the proposed stable block will have upon the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.Policy EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 specifically states that, “Conserving and enhancing the landscape quality and character will be the primary objective in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This will be sought through measures including: - minimising the impact of any development within AONB’s by measures to carefully integrate the development into the AONB landscape”. Although the design of the stable block is acceptable, the combination of its large size and isolated location in an open field away from the main group of buildings would result in a development that would be unduly intrusive in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.Whilst it could be argued that the stable block’s low position in the landscape would render it relatively discreet it is nonetheless in an open field where it would not be hidden from view and would be fully visible from the public footpath passing close by to the south. In addition, the trees to the east and south of the site would in my opinion not afford adequate screening. If permission were to be granted for all development of this type this would eventually lead to an unacceptable change to the quality and character of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. I therefore recommend a refusal of this application for the following reason:

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. By reason of its large size and isolated location in an open field, the stable block

would be unduly intrusive in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies S1 (j), S10, EN2 (a), (f) and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 (iv) and (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

71

RR/2006/3274/P ETCHINGHAM OAKS CLOSE - LAND ATERECTION OF VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN GATES TO PRIVATE ACCESS ROADOaks Close (Etchingham) Management Co Ltd


This application has been included on the list of site inspections for 16 January 2007.

SITE Oaks Close is a private cul-de-sac serving five dwellings, which is located off the north side of High Street within the village of Etchingham.

HISTORYNone relevant.

PROPOSAL The Oaks Close (Etchingham) Management Company wish to restrict access to non-residents by constructing a wall and gates across the unadopted highway. These would be set back approximately 20 metres from the junction with High Street. The development incorporates timber gates for residential vehicular access across the roadway and a single pedestrian gate across the adjacent eastern footway.Associated brick walls and piers are also shown on the plans (maximum height: approximately 1.8 metres).A supporting statement has been provided with the application and is reproduced in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 18 January 2007. This includes a justification for the development as follows:“Access gates are specifically to provide a restriction to non-residents, to prevent further damage to private drives, the highway construction and to increase levels of safety for residents (recently 2 private drives have had to be resurfaced due to damage from 3rd parties). The gate will not enhance security levels, and are not intended to do so.”The method of operation is described as follows:“The entry system will be operated remotely via senders to whisper quiet motors attached on the internal face of the gates, an entry switch operating the main vehicular gates will be positioned internally adjacent to the pedestrian gate to allow access to the postman, refuse collectors and all other authorised visitors. This switch will be timed to allow access between 6 am and 11 pm. At all other times, the gates will be required to be opened by a resident, using a remote control device.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Summarised - “Cllrs agreed that it would be an unnecessary, controlled access in a country area. It was felt that the proposal amounted to suburbanising the rural nature of the area - an area of outstanding natural beauty; it would also be out of character with the open plan housing of the Close.Cllrs also expressed concern for access for emergency vehicles during closed hours.The Council would support a proposal for Oaks Close to be adopted.”Highway Authority:- Any comments will be reported.Sussex Police:- Any comments will be reported.East Sussex Fire Brigade:- Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice:- 4 letters/email of objection has been received from the occupiers of Tollgate Cottage, 2 The Orchard, Tors End and Two Hoots on the grounds (summarised):

72

Etchingham is a small rural village and any such action would divide the community spirit in Etchingham and doing anything to split this would be to no one’s advantage

Not aware that there has been any wider consultation or discussion with anyone in the village

Danger of vehicles backing up onto the main road The gates will hinder access to my property (Two Hoots) Additional noise/pollution caused by queuing vehicles Devalue my propertyLetters of support have been received from the occupiers of 1 and 2 Oaks Close.

SUMMARY It is considered that there are two principal planning issues in the consideration of the application: (i) the highway implications (including those concerning access provision for emergency vehicles and general service vehicles); and (ii) the impact of the development on the appearance and character of the street scene. On the first issue, comments from the Highway Authority and the emergency services are presently outstanding and it is hoped that these will be available in time for your meeting. With respect to the second issue, the gates and wall would be set back a distance of some 20 metres from High Street and as such would not be particularly prominent in the street scene. Moreover, it is noted that the design of the development seeks to mirror domestic boundary treatments in the locality. Accordingly, it is not considered that the development would have such a marked impact so as to justify a refusal of planning permission on this particular issue.Whilst concerns raised under the Planning Notice about the principle of creating a gated enclave that separates the residential properties from the village community are noted, this would not, on planning grounds, be sufficient reason to justify a refusal of planning permission. A principal outstanding issue is the technical highway considerations. Until such a time as consideration can be given to any relevant representations from the Highway Authority and emergency services, I must make the

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FULL PLANNING) (OUTSTANDING COMMENTS FROM THE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY AND EMERGENCY SERVICES)

RR/2006/2755/P EWHURST VINEHALL AND WHITE PRECISION, BODIAM STATION YARD, BODIAM ROADPROPOSED CHANGE OF USE OF EXISTING BUILDING FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO COMMUNITY HALLBodiam Village Hall Committee


SITE The site stands immediately to the north of the railway line and Bodiam Station, some 95m to the west of the highway running between Staplecross and Bodiam, and some 660m to the south west of Bodiam Castle. Bodiam does not have a designated development boundary as defined within the Rother District Local Plan. The site is set within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, an Archaeological Sensitive Area and part within an Ancient Monument (No. 411) known as the Roman Settlement Bodiam.

HISTORY (Relevant)

73

RR/84/0667 Change of use from disused good depot to light industrial use and provision of car parking – Appeal Allowed

PROPOSAL The application seeks permission to change the use of the light industrial unit to community village hall. Its proposed use would be for gatherings up to 100 or so in number, and include infant nursery group, children’s play group, parish and other local community meetings and functions commonly associated with village life. The external appearance of the building will remain largely unchanged, however, would require internal upgrading.The need for a new community hall is stated by the Agent as the following: “Three years ago the village hall public building, a small timber construction adjacent the Castle Inn Bodiam, became unsafe for use through dis-repair and was demolished. Local concerns emerged in respect of the non-availability of a venue available for village community meetings and events, other than by renting accommodation from the National Trust on its site at Bodiam Castle.”

CONSULTATIONSBodiam Parish Council – The Council supports the change of use in principle but has serious concerns regarding car parking, lighting, landscaping and tree planting and questions whether a decision can be made without more details on all these aspects.Ewhurst Parish Council – The Council supports the application for change of use to a community hall, but would be concerned about the increased traffic; the suitability of the existing access; any nuisance caused by traffic and parking; and any nuisance/blight caused by additional lighting.Given the setting of this property, Ewhurst Parish Council would not wish this development to detract from what is currently a particularly tranquil and beautiful part of the AONB. Highway Authority – Any comments will be reported.Environment Agency – Has no objection to the proposal in principle, provided that the conditions are attached to any planning permission.Southern Water Services – Does not wish to comment on this application.English Heritage – Any comments will be reported.Director of Transport & Environment – Country Archaeologist – The application site is located to the south of a Romano-British riverside settlement. The site was partially excavated during the 1960’s when evidence for buildings, floors and artefacts was revealed. It is quite possible that buried archaeological deposits and features of similar dates to those revealed just to the north may exist at the site and would be disturbed by any intrusive groundwork. For these reasons I would recommend that a watching brief takes place on the site and that a planning condition is attached to any planning permission.Director of Services – Environmental Health – Any comments will be reported. Planning Notice – 1 letter on behalf of the National Trust: I would like to register reservations with the planning application, which relate to

the issue of additional parking in the valley. I am aware that this has been an issue for planning since the railway re-opened in 2000. I wonder if the plans require any screening of the additional 30 parking bays that will be facing into the centre of the valley.

Campaign to Protect Rural England: Request further information regarding car parking, landscaping and illumination.

74

SUMMARY This application has been made to establish the principle to change the use of this premise to a community hall. If planning is granted development issues such as parking, landscaping and those raised by other representations would require a further application or applications. The main issues that need to be considered are the loss of an employment site and the suitability of the site to be used as a community hall, as such the proposal needs to be tested against Local Plan Policies and in particular EM2 and CF1.Policy 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”.Although there is no clear justification for the loss of the employment use, consideration of the benefit for the whole community of utilising this building must be considered and the proposal tested against Policy CF1, which states:

“Policy CF1 Proposals for new or improved community facilities will be permitted within development boundaries where they accord with the criteria at Policies GD1 and DS1. Such facilities will be permitted outside development boundaries where, in addition:

(i) there is a demonstrable local need, having regard to the characteristics of the population, the results of any public surveys and recognised standards of provision;

(ii) there is no scope for the need being met within the development boundary;(iii) the proposal is demonstrated to provide significant community benefits;(iv) the proposal is readily accessible by the community it serves by means other

than the car;(v) there is no significant harm to the countryside setting.”

Bodiam does not have a designated development boundary as defined within the Rother District Local Plan, and although it is detached from the centre of the village, I consider the site is within adequate walking distance from the village on public footpaths adjacent to the highway.The site sits slightly higher than the valley, which allows clear views from Bodiam village towards the site. However, the building is of a simple general form and the proposed change of use does not alter this, therefore I do not consider it is of significant harm to the countryside setting. Future car parking provision will be an issue but I am satisfied that this can be screened with appropriate landscaping.Although the provision and layout of car parking is not part of this application, it is important to establish that adequate parking can be achieved on the site, therefore an indicative plan showing this has been provided by the Agent, the provision of car parking would require a further application.In the same manner archaeological issues will need to be considered if additional car parking or other works are intended, although the County Archaeologist advises at this stage that this is something to be addressed with a watching brief. There appear to be no overriding factors to prevent the principle of the change of use.On balance it is my opinion in this instance that the potential loss of an employment site within the village is compensated by the benefit the community hall will provide to the whole community. If Members share my opinion and no adverse comments are received from outstanding consultees, I make the following recommendation.

75

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (COMMENTS FROM OUTSTANDING CONSULTEES/CONDITIONS RELATING TO CAR PARKING AND ACCESS BEING PROVIDED PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION OF THE USE)

Note: This permission relates only to the change of use. Works to create the necessary car parking provision and any other development will require the submission of a further planning application or applications.

REASON FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: Although this proposal will result in the loss of an employment site, which is contrary to Policy EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan, in this instance its loss has to be weighed against the benefits this change of use to a community hall will provide to the whole community. The building is of a simple general form and the proposed change of use does not alter this; therefore it will not significantly harm the countryside setting or the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Bodiam does not have a designated development boundary as defined within the Rother District Local Plan, and although it is detached from the centre of the village, I consider it is within adequate walking distance from the village on public footpaths adjacent to the highway. Further applications will be necessary for external works including car parking but there are no overriding reasons to oppose the change of use in principle. As such the proposal meets the objectives of Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and Policies GD1 and CF1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/3167/P SEDLESCOMBE GREAT SANDERS FRUIT FARM, BEECH FARM ROADREMOVAL OF PART OF REDUNDANT AGRICULTURAL UNIT AND ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY TIMBER AGRICULTURAL DWELLING.Mr and Mrs E Rowlands



SITE Located to the east of, and accessed via Beech Farm Road (B2244), Great Sanders Fruit Farm is an organic apple orchard which extends some 40 acres. The holding has been in organic production for 15 years. The only building on the site is a dilapidated ‘L’ shaped agricultural building of approximately 264.5m² in size, part of which is redundant due to its poor state of repair. The site is located in the countryside within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORY None.

PROPOSAL This application proposes the removal of part of the redundant agricultural unit and the erection of a single storey timber agricultural dwelling on a similar footprint. The dwelling is proposed to be a timber framed and clad structure on a brick plinth, with a shallow pitched roof covered with Metro aluminium tiles. No alterations are proposed to the existing access.

76

A statement of support accompanied the application explaining the circumstances of the applicants and the need of this agricultural dwelling. To summarise the main points of the statement; There is an existing need be to permanently on site to manage the orchard. Organic farming requires a significant number of man-hours in order to run profitably due to its labour intensive nature. The owners of the farm currently reside too greater distance from the holding to be able to manage the farm affectively. Residence on site is also necessary to deter theft and vandalism of the site, which has been evident over the years. As well as this, residence would enable deer management for crop protection which would increase the productivity of the holding.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: “Support refusal of this application as the area of land is insufficient to support a full-time livelihood and local homes are for sale nearby.”Highway Authority: “I do not wish to restrict grant of consent... any consent will restrict the owner of the Great Sanders Fruit Farm and the proposed agricultural dwelling from being able to subdivide the properties in the future.”Southern Water: Does not wish to comment on this application.Environment Agency: No objection but offers advice on foul drainage, surface water drainage, potential contamination, waste, species protection and the storage of fuel, oil and chemicals. Rural Estates Surveyor: “Conclusion -i. I acknowledge that the applicants are managing a successful top fruit orchard

and that it would suit them better to be able to live on site. ii. Whilst appreciating the personal benefits of on site accommodation, the personal

preferences and circumstances of the applicants involved have to be eliminated when it is the enterprise needs which have to be considered.

iii. I am of the opinion that by reference to advice in Annexe A of PPS7, there is insufficient agricultural justification for the proposed dwelling.”

(For full text please see the website).Planning Notice: 1 letter of support - The existing buildings have been subjected to numerous robberies over the

years. There is an obvious need to be resident at the site.- The application is part of a very long standing organic fruit farm which has to be

admired and much of the crop being available in our local supermarkets.- The proposed building is not oversize and its height considering the site gradient

is probably below road level and would be unobtrusive.

SUMMARY This application proposes the erection of a new dwelling in the countryside and therefore needs to be tested against Policy HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan, which states that such proposals will be refused unless they meet with the set criteria. The dwelling proposed in this application is for agricultural use and it therefore needs to be demonstrated that it is essential for the running of the enterprise.The siting of the proposed dwelling and its design and scale are not considered to have any significant detrimental impact upon the appearance of the locality. Notwithstanding the above, advice from the Rural Estates Surveyor claims that there is insufficient agricultural justification for the proposed dwelling. Government advice contained in PPS7 Annexe A sets the criteria on which to judge the necessity of agricultural dwellings in the countryside. Paragraph 3(i) requires there to be a clearly established functional need, i.e. whether it is essential for the proper functioning of the enterprise for one or more workers to be readily available at most

77

times (Paragraph 4 of Annexe A). Such requirements might arise, for example, if workers are needed to be on hand day and nighti) in case animals or agricultural processes require essential care at short noticeii) to deal quickly with emergencies that could otherwise cause serious loss of

crops or products, for example, by frost damage or the failure of automatic systems.

In relation to these requirements, the Rural Estates Surveyor states that;“The agents submission does make the point that as the orchards are managed organically the labour requirement is much more intensive than would have been the case if the orchard was managed on conventional lines. Conventional management would mean access to a full range of sprays etc for disease, pests and fungal attacks.However, whilst this may be the case I do not think that the enterprise satisfies the two examples quoted in Paragraph 4. There are no automatic systems to fail. Frost damage was discussed at the time of my site visit but no preventive measures are undertaken.The question of theft of crops and machinery is highlighted in the submission as is damage caused by deer. The only reference to theft in the Annexe is contained in Paragraph 6 and is in the context of protection of livestock from theft or injury. This is clearly not the case on site and cannot be used as justification for a dwelling. The question of deer could be controlled by better fencing and the possibility of culling by properly authorised personnel.” The Rural Estates Surveyors’ report states that the proposal fulfils the other criteria set out in Annexe A of PPS7.The personal benefits of on site accommodation for the applicant are appreciated, however this application needs to be determined upon the enterprise needs of the holding. It has not been demonstrated that the dwelling is essential for the running of the enterprise, which is located in the countryside within the High Weald AONB and therefore the proposal is contrary to local plan policies and government advice.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. It has not been demonstrated that there is any need for an additional dwelling for

the running of the enterprise which is located in the countryside within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policies GD1(v) and HG10(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan, Policies EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Government advice contained in PPS7 (Annexe A Paragraph 3).

RR/2006/3234/P SEDLESCOMBE SWIFT LITE CHARCOAL WORKS, MARLEY LANEERECTION OF DETACHED OFFICE BUILDINGDAMA Properties Ltd


SITE An area of approximately 2.1 ha fronting Marley Lane and just to the west of the junction with the A21 trunk road. Following a fire at the premises the majority of buildings used in connection with the charcoal production processing have now been replaced.

HISTORY (Relevant)

78

RR/90/0742/P O/A Rationalisation of BPL site, erection of new industrial/warehouse buildings – Called-In – Dismissed.

RR/90/1992/P Erection of building for storage and processing of charcoal – Approved.

RR/91/1838/P New industrial floorspace for charcoal processing – Approved – Not Implemented.

RR/1999/1130/P O/A B1 units including access and car parking – WithdrawnRR/2000/105/P O/A erection of B1/B8 units including access road, car parking and

alteration to existing access – Application Called-In by Secretary of State – Outline planning permission granted subject to conditions.

RR/2001/2391/P Erection of extension to provide storage unit – Approved.RR/2002/2335/P O/A Erection of new storage and office building to replace lapsed

consent and existing offices - Approved.RR/2002/2827/P Variation of Condition on RR/2000/105/P - Approved.RR/2003/2492/P Erection of extension to existing factory - ApprovedRR/2004/2054/P On site disposal of soil - Approved.RR/2004/3163/P Variation of condition 3 on RR/2000/105/P to allow further 2 years

to submit Reserved Matters - Approved.RR/2005/1422/P Removal of condition xx on RR/2000/105/P - Not yet determinedRR/2005/2457/P Erection of extension to process building - ApprovedRR/2005/2847/P New industrial buildings including for reprovision of building areas

lost to fire and incorporation of existing outbuilding floor areas and associated external works - Approved

PROPOSAL Erection of a small single storey office building on the site frontage but behind the agreed tree screen belt along the Marley Lane frontage. The building measures approx 9.1m x 7.8m with added kitchen/WC areas. It will be constructed in matching materials to other buildings on the site - silver microrib and dark green cladding and dark green profiled sheet roofing.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Supports the proposal. “However, it would like to see the tree screening, that was a condition of RR/2005/2847/P planning permission, planted as soon as possible. It also notes the comment of the Highways Agency regarding the need for highway works at the junction of the A21 and Marley Lane.”Southern Water:- No comments.Highways Agency:- No objection subject to a condition that “The development hereby permitted shall not commence unless and until details of the highway works to the junction of A21/Marley Lane to provide ghost island markings have been designed and constructed in accordance with Table 2/2 and Layout 5 of TD41/95 of Design Manual for Roads and Bridges to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Secretary of State for Transport.”Director of Services - Environmental Health:- Recommend contaminated land condition.Environment Agency:- No objection subject to a condition regarding foul and surface water drainage.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY The site of the building was previously allocated for parking but this has been rearranged. Additional planting will be carried out on the frontage pursuant to the landscaping condition on RR/2005/2847/P. The applicant’s agent states the floorspace to be created is offset by the part of permission RR/2005/2847/P not being

79

implemented and therefore the proposal will not exceed the 2706m2 floorspace previously agreed. I am clarifying with the Highways Agency whether the condition proposed for offsite works is required on the basis that the total floorspace will not exceed that previously agreed.The siting and design of the building is acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN8C (Drainage).2. CN12C (External lighting).3. The building shall be used for the purposes of B1 office use only.4. The building hereby permitted shall not be occupied until landscaping and tree

planting required under Condition 3 of planning permission RR/2005/2847/P has been carried out.

5. Contaminated land condition.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed building is an appropriate design and will be screened by existing and additional planting on Marley Lane and will have an acceptable impact on the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan. The proposed cumulative floorspace on the site will not exceed that already approved under RR/2005/2847/P.

RR/2006/3363/P FAIRLIGHT KEYHOLE CAR PARK, LOWER COASTGUARD LANE, HASTINGS COUNTRY PARKCHANGE OF USE OF LAND FOR STORAGE OF MATERIALS AND CLEAN WASTE AWAITING COLLECTION (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION).Hastings Borough Council


SITE The Keyhole Car Park lies south east of Church Farm and is accessed via a track leading off from Lower Coastguard Lane. The site falls within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORY RR/2002/2970/P Installation of temporary metal container to store off-road vehicle –

approved for temporary period (3 years).RR/2006/3366/P Retention of temporary metal container to store off-road vehicle

previously approved under RR/2002/2970/P – (not yet determined).

PROPOSAL The proposed storage area comprises the site of a former concrete water cistern which is accessed via the Keyhole Car Park. Part of the area is occupied by the shipping container that is the subject of a following report in this agenda (RR/2006/3366/P). An accompanying letter states:“The storage area is to be used to store materials used in the maintenance of Hastings Country Park and clean waste awaiting collection. The clean waste is litter that is emptied from the litter bins (Eurocarts) in the storage area. These bins have lids and are vermin proof. The bins are emptied once a week by an approved contractor, using

80

a refuse collection lorry. The Rangers use a Land Rover and a trailer to deliver litter to the storage area once a day. The waste that is stored on site is in approved containers and does not include dog faeces. The dog bins in the Park are emptied by a separate contractor, who takes the dog waste off site immediately. From time to time some larger items of inert, non hazardous material, from waste fly tipped at the Country Park will be stored in the storage area whilst they await collection. The Environment Agency has confirmed that the Council does not need a waste transfer license to undertake this activity and that it is exempt as it meets the terms of Schedule 3, Paragraph 41 of the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. I enclose a copy of the letter from the Environment Agency confirming this position. The storage area will be used to store other items for use in the maintenance of the Country Park. The type of things that will need to be stored will be construction materials such as wood, timber, road stone, crushed sandstone and items of site furniture such as gates, seats, bins, signs etc. These are delivered periodically as needs arise, but not on a frequent basis. The storage area is located as far away as possible from the nearest adjacent property, which is Church Farm. It is well screened and self-contained. Vehicle movements are minimal and waste is collected frequently to prevent nuisance from odours. The majority of waste is inert and not putrescent. The storage area will not be used in the future for burning vegetation. The noise and smells produced by the proposed use will be minimal.”A copy of the letter from the Environment Agency (dated 15/11/2006) is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 18 January 2007.

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

SUMMARY The main issues here are impact upon local amenity and visual impact upon the landscape and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. With regard to local amenity, the potential for noise, smells etc. generated by the use described is, in my opinion, low. Surrounding residential properties are approximately 200m from the site and I would therefore not expect any noise/smells generated from activities on the site and associated vehicles to have an adverse impact upon their amenities. It seems clear that this is a localised activity which does not need licence from the Environment Agency. Nonetheless, it is my opinion that any planning permission granted should be subject to conditions limiting the site’s use to that connected with maintenance of the Country Park only, hours of occupation and to prevent the burning of any waste. With regard to visual impact, the site is in a discreet location and is well screened from public view by existing boundary trees. There is therefore unlikely to be any adverse impact upon the visual appearance of the landscape and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In the above circumstances, the proposal is supported.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. The site shall only be used for the storage of materials and clean waste,

connected with the maintenance of Hastings Country Park. Reason: In order to ensure that the amenities of the area are not adversely affected by a more intensive use of the site and to accord with Policy S1(b) and EN3 of the Structure Plan and Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. The site shall not be occupied for the approved use before 8.00am or after 6.00pm any day of the week unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

81

Reason: In order to preserve the residential amenities of the area and to accord with Policy S1(b) and EN3 of the Structure Plan and Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. There shall be no burning of waste on the land.Reason: In order to preserve the residential amenities of the area and to accord with Policy S1(b) and EN3 of the Structure Plan and Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development will not, subject to conditions, adversely affect the amenities of the area or the character and appearance of the landscape and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and therefore complies with Policies S1(b)(j), EN2 and EN3 of the Structure Plan and Policy GD1(ii)(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/3366/P FAIRLIGHT KEYHOLE CAR PARK, LOWER COASTGUARD LANE, HASTINGS COUNTRY PARKRETENTION OF TEMPORARY METAL CONTAINER TO STORE OFF-ROAD VEHICLE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2002/2970/PHastings Borough Council


SITE The Keyhole Car Park lies south east of Church Farm and is accessed via a track leading off from Lower Coastguard Lane. The site falls within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYRR/2002/2970/P Installation of temporary metal container to store off-road vehicle -

Approved for temporary period (3 years).RR/2006/3363/P Change of use of land for storage of materials and clean waste

awaiting collection (retrospective application) - Not Yet Determined.

PROPOSAL The storage shipping container occupies part of a storage area adjacent to the Keyhole Car Park and is used to store an off-road vehicle belonging to Hastings Borough Council. Temporary planning permission RR/2002/2970/P was granted for the container subject to a condition that it be removed on or before 30 September 2006. This application seeks to retain the container for a further 3 years. An accompanying letter states:- “It is hoped that in the long term the container will be relocated elsewhere within the Country Park.”

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

SUMMARY The main issue here is visual impact in the landscape and upon the AONB. The container occupies a discreet location and is well screened from public view by existing boundary trees. I would have no objection to a further temporary consent for 3 years.

82

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN14A - 3 years.

Reason: The structure is not considered suitable for retention on a permanent basis and would cause harm to the rural character and appearance of the landscape and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and be contrary to Policies S1(b)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: Subject to a temporary condition, the proposed development would not have a permanent adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and therefore complies with Policies S1(b)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/3296/P PETT THE POTTING SHED, PETT ROADAMENDMENT TO PLOTS 3 AND 4 OF DWELLINGS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2005/2567/P FOR THE REMOVAL OF CONSERVATORIES TO SOUTH EAST ELEVATION OF PROPERTIES AND ERECTION OF TIMBER BALCONIESMr D Gould


SITE The total site lies on the south eastern side of Pett Road the principal road through the village. It was formerly used for the sale of garden goods and related items, for offices and as a builders’ yard but is now semi derelict and overgrown. The main part of the site has a frontage of about 40 metres to the road. Although a larger area is identified by the red line reflecting the greater development Plots 3 and 4 are those plots furthest from the road at the rear of the site.

HISTORYRR/90/454/P Three detached houses - GrantedRR/2003/1901/P Erection of two 4 bedrooms work/live units and two 4/5 bedroom

houses - Refused - Appeal DismissedRR/2005/2567/P Erection of four detached houses with associated garages -

Granted

PROPOSAL Planning permission was granted in 2005 for four houses on this site following a previous appeal decision dismissing an alternative scheme for four houses.This application relates to the two rearmost plots and involves some amendments to the rear elevations of each of the detached houses. In each case a small enclosed conservatory is to be removed to be replaced by a balcony area served from the main bedroom, and open beneath. The purpose of the change is for a Means of Escape under the Buildings Regulations.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support the application.Planning Notice:- One letter of support in the interest of safety.

83

SUMMARY The application relates to only fairly minor changes to two of the four houses on this new development. (The site has recently been cleared but no development has yet taken place.) The provision of balconies needs to be judged against Policy GD1(ii) and (iv) of the Local Plan in terms of the character and amenity of the area and any effect on adjoining residents.These two houses are set to the rear of the site; Plot 4 being beyond the rear of the adjoining house to the west, ‘Springdale’, and Plot 3 being some distance behind the adjoining house to the east, ‘Oakleigh’, in line with its rear garden. However the new balconies are in recessed areas which prevents significant direct views towards the adjoining properties. No issue of direct overlooking or loss of privacy arises. In terms of design the balconies are appropriate to the house types.As the houses are yet to be built this planning permission will need to be subject to the same conditions imposed on planning permission RR/2005/2567/P which remains the extant permission for the remainder of the development.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7B (External materials) Add - (d) All external roadways and parking areas.

Reason: To ensure a standard of development appropriate to the area in accordance with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. CN13A (Landscaping scheme) Amended “No works on the individual houses shall take place…..”. “…such scheme shall specifically include planting to the boundaries with ‘Oakleigh’ and ‘Springdale’”Reason: To both provide a landscaped setting for the site itself and to enhance the development when viewed from adjoining properties in accordance with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. CN13B (Implementation of landscaping scheme)Reason: To both provide a landscaped setting for the site itself and to enhance the development when viewed from adjoining properties in accordance with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. CN8C (Foul and surface water details).Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development of the site in accordance with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning General Development Order 1988 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting this Order) no:a) windows except as shown on the approved plans shall be inserted into

any of the houses hereby permittedb) extension or alteration of any of the houses hereby permitted shall be

carried outc) garage, car port, vehicle hardstanding or other structure shall be erected

within the curtilage of any of the houses hereby permitted.Reason: The constraints of site are such that the houses though now positioned so as to minimise their impact on adjoining ownership should not be further extended or altered without careful consideration as to the effect of such changes on the amenities of adjoining residents having regard to Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

6. The land hatched mauve on the approved plan 2006271/01 Rev B shall be used only for residential purposes ancillary to plot 4. However notwithstanding the provisions of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1988 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this Order) no building, structure, works, means of enclosure or any other development

84

described by Classes E and F of Part 1 or Class A of Part 2, shall be constructed, erected or otherwise undertaken without a further planning permission.Reason: The area concerned was historically a separate parcel of land and unlike much of the remainder of the site extends well beyond the village Development Boundary. Any development or other physical works in this area should be carefully controlled in the interests of the amenity of the rural area having regard to Policies S1, EN2, EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies DS1 and GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

7. The buildings on Plots 3 and 4 shall not exceed in height the slab levels indicated on drawing 2006271/01 Rev B and prior to the final finishes of all gardens, parking areas, drives and other external surfaces the final levels of such areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter no dwelling shall be occupied until all works to the agreed levels have been completed and thereafter no variation to such agreed levels shall be made without a further planning permission.Reason: The development is considered acceptable in relation to adjoining properties having regard to the reduction in ground levels proposed which should be undertaken prior to occupation of the houses in the interests of adjoining residents and in accordance with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

8. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to a contaminated land assessment and associated remedial strategy, together with a timetable of works, being submitted to the local planning authority for approval.

a. The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk study to be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The desk study shall include the history of the site’s uses and a walk-over survey. It shall, if necessary, propose a site investigation strategy based on the relevant information discovered by the desk study. The strategy shall be approved by the local planning authority prior to investigations commencing on site.

b. The site investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and ground water sampling, in accordance with a quality assured sampling and analysis methodology.

c. A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of analysis, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remediation strategy shall be submitted to the local planning authority. The local planning authority shall approve such remedial works as required prior to any remediation commencing on site. The works shall be of such a nature so as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment (including any controlled waters).

d. Approved remediation works shall be carried out in full on site under a quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance. If during any works contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified then the additional contamination should be fully assessed and an appropriation remediation scheme submitted to the local planning authority for approval.

e. Upon completion of the works, this condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The closure report shall include details of the proposed remediation works and the quality assurance certificates to

85

show that the works have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any post remediation sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site.

Reason: To remove or treat any contaminated material that may be present on the site in accordance with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies DS1 and GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The site benefits from an extant planning permission, RR/2005/2567/P. The amendments to the rear elevations of Plots 3 and 4 to provide a balcony for each property will not adversely affect the amenities of adjoining residents or affect the character or appearance of the locality. The scheme therefore complies with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(ii) and (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2006/3338/P PETT 6 COASTGUARD COTTAGES, PETT LEVELDEMOLITION OF EXISTING CONSERVATORY AND ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO FORM LOUNGE INCLUDING ADDITION OF ROOFLIGHTS. RAISING OF ROOF TO PROVIDE BEDROOM INCLUDING ADDITION OF DORMERS.Mr and Mrs Street


SITE 6 Coastguard Cottages is an end of terrace property lying to the south east of Pett Level Road and immediately to the north west of the beach. The dwelling is located within the Pett Level development boundary.

HISTORYNone. PROPOSAL The applicant seeks permission to demolish the existing conservatory to the rear elevation of this end of terrace property and erect a single storey extension with rooflights in its place. The applicant also seeks permission to raise the roof of the dwelling, which would include the addition of two new dormer windows to the front elevation.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: – No comment.Environment Agency: – No objection.Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board: – No comment.Planning Notice: – No representations received.

SUMMARY This end of terrace property is located within the Pett Level development boundary. The property is smaller than the other five cottages in the terrace with a lower ridgeline than the remaining cottages. It also currently has a large unattractive

86

box dormer in the rear roof slope. The applicant seeks permission to demolish the existing conservatory to the rear elevation of the property and erect a single storey extension with rooflights in its place. The applicant also seeks permission to raise the roof of the dwelling, which would include the addition of two new dormer windows to the front elevation and a more appropriate and smaller dormer in the new rear roof slope. The application should be judged against the specific relevant criteria of Policies GD1 and HG8 of the Local Plan.There are two principle issues to consider in respect of this application: design and the impact of the development on the amenities of the adjoining properties, 5 Coastguard Cottages and Grace Dieu.Policy HG8 of the Local Plan states that, “Proposals to extend or alter an existing dwelling will be permitted where they are in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling and its surroundings in terms of its size, style, design and materials, as well as protect the amenities of adjoining properties and meet other criteria in Policy GD1.” Judged against the above policy I consider that the proposed single storey extension and the raising of the roof with the addition of the new dormer windows would be acceptable, as both aspects of the development would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the other properties in this terrace. Turning to the issue of impact on amenities I consider that the development would not result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking, or have a dominant and overbearing impact upon the residential amenities of the adjoining dwellings, 5 Coastguard Cottages and Grace Dieu.For the above-mentioned reasons I recommend an approval of this application.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) 1. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved

in writing by the Local Planning Authority samples of the roofing tiles and the development shall be carried out using the approved materials.Reason: To ensure that the development is in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area having regard to Policies GD1(iv) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. No development shall take place until details of the proposed colour to be used for the render and weatherboard cladding have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To ensure that the development is in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area having regard to Policies GD1(iv) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan, and the development shall thereafter be constructed only in accordance with the approved details.

REASONS 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 the adjoining properties, 5 Coastguard Cottages and Grace Dieu, and therefore complies with Policies GD1 (i), (ii), (iv) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.

--oo0oo--

87

rr/2006/3132/p - rother€¦ · web viewcn6e (no separate dwelling – annexe extension) (please...

Documents