RR/2004/1859/P - Rother District Council · Web viewPermission has been granted for the conversion of the building into residential units with new development in the grounds. This

RR/2004/1859/P ASHBURNHAM BRIGDEN HILL FARM - LAND AT23 JUN 2004 REMOVAL OF NUMBER 6 POLE BARNS AND CHANGE OF

USE AND CONVERSION OF GRANARY, BARN, OAST AND COWSHED INTO FOUR PRIVATE DWELLINGS. ERECTION OF ONE GARAGE AND PROVISION OF SEVEN PARKING SPACESMr and Mrs R E Andrew

This application was deferred at your last meeting. It was not accepted that the applicant had demonstrated that the buildings could not be satisfactorily used for either commercial or holiday purposes. I have written again to the applicant’s agent.

SITE Brigden Hill Farm lies off the western end of Farthing Lane. The application relates to four traditional farm buildings forming a group.

HISTORYRR/83/1067 2 bedroom farm worker’s dwelling - Approved Conditional.RR/93/587/PD Two storey addition - Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL It is proposed to demolish a total of 6 pole barns and to convert an oasthouse, barn, granary and cowshed into four private dwelling houses. There would be two two bedroom units, one three bedroomed and one four bedroomed house. External repairs and alterations would be undertaken using the same pallet of materials as existing i.e. plain clay tiles, timber weatherboarding and stock brickwork.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “Whilst having some reservations about the appearance of the cowshed wish to support the proposal.”Highway Authority:- Support a refusal. “The UC6120 and UC6121 approach roads are unsuitable to serve the proposed development by reason of their narrow width, poor alignment and lack of footways.”Environment Agency:- No objection but requests the imposition of conditions for the submission of foul and surface water disposal details.Southern Water:- Does not wish to comment on this application.Director of Services - Environmental Health:- Contaminated land condition required.Director of Services - Chief Building Control Officer:- No adverse comments but would recommend that the applicant provide a structural appraisal.Planning Notice:- 2 letters - CPRE: object as cowshed and granary do not contribute to the rural scene, over development and adverse effect upon the character of the AONB.Little Midge: support proposal in principle but the adequacy of the electricity supply and water pressure should be required as a condition of approval.

SUMMARY I am awaiting the applicant’s response to the issues raised. The structural surveys are for the most part supportive of conversion although I do note some areas of concern, most particularly the recommended complete re-construction of one lean-to on the barn. I am also conscious that the recently published PPS7, replacing PPG7, supports the re-use of appropriately located buildings where this would meet sustainable development objectives; there is a stated preference for re-use for economic development purposes with the acknowledgement that residential conversion may be more appropriate in some locations.

1

I am awaiting the applicant’s response to my latest letter but on the basis of the information currently before me I do not believe that a case has been made for a wholly residential conversion scheme.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The buildings to which this application relates are situated within the High Weald

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where Policy HG11 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) requires that the applicant demonstrates that every attempt has been made to secure a suitable employment or tourism re-use. It has not been demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority that such uses have been explored or that such uses would be inappropriate.

RR/2004/2597/P CATSFIELD THE GREEN - FIELDS TO NORTH WEST OF1 SEPT 2004 CHANGE OF USE OF GRAZING LAND TO THE KEEPING OF

UP TO 8 HORSESMr K P Jeffery

SITE This site lies to the north west of The Green in Catsfield, within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The land measures approximately 7.59 hectares (18.75 acres).

HISTORYRR/97/2415/P Erection of two loose boxes (stables) (Broomham House – Land

opposite – Catsfield) – Approved ConditionalRR/2004/709/P Change of use of grazing land to the keeping of horses – Refused

PROPOSAL It is proposed to change the use of this area of grazing land to the keeping of up to 8 horses. This application is retrospective and 8 horses are presently kept on the land, which is subdivided into paddocks with various fences. There are no other ancillary buildings on the land.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Comments awaited.Director of Services – Environmental Health: Condition: Horse manure must not be stored on the site.Planning Notice: No representations received.

SUMMARY This application follows on from application RR/2004/709/P, which was refused at the July Planning Committee. This application differs from the previous application in that the horse shelters claimed to be ‘mobile’ in the previous application have now been removed from the site. It is stated in this application that the keeping of horses on the land will not require any permanent or temporary buildings on the site. It would be possible to control this and as such the change of use could not give rise to associated buildings on the land; thus safeguarding the character of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Another concern raised in the previous application was the parking of cars on the land, which was taking place, it has been stated that all future parking of cars will take place in the adjacent farmyard. With regard to manure, this is at present being stored in a heap at the northeastern end of the site. Any planning permission granted should ensure that manure is not stored on

2

the site in order to protect the amenities of nearby properties and the AONB. The subdivision of the land with temporary fencing for the purpose of grazing up to 8 horses is considered acceptable and would not have a significant detrimental impact upon the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, therefore I would expect to make the

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. Horse manure must not be stored on the site.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of nearby properties and Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1 and CF5 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

2. No caravan, portable building, building or structure or erection of any kind shall be placed within the site.Reason: In the interests of the amenities of nearby properties and Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1 and CF5 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

3. The use of the land for the keeping of up to 8 horses shall not be used for any purpose other than for private recreational purposes and shall not be used for hire or reward.Reason: To ensure the appropriate use of the site and Policies S1 and SP11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1 and CF5 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RFG: Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1 and CF5 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2004/2394/P BURWASH LOWER BOUGH FARM, HEATHFIELD ROAD24 AUG 2004 ERECTION OF FARRIERS WORKSHOP WITH PROVISION OF

THREE PARKING SPACES AND REVISED ACCESS DRIVEMr and Mrs D Henry

SITE Lower Bough Farm lies on the north side of the A265 to the east of Burwash Weald.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2002/2035/O Lawful use of agricultural building as a dwelling - Refused.RR/2003/2360/O Lawful use of agricultural building as a dwelling - Approved.RR/2004/1616/P Demolition of existing dwelling, forge and store. Construction of

replacement dwelling, double garage, forge for farriers business - Refused.

PROPOSAL This is a full application for the construction of a replacement farriers workshop together with the formation of a revised access drive. A supporting letter from the applicant’s agent is attached to this report as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 7 October 2004.

3

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- Comments awaited.Southern Water:- Does not wish to comment.Environmental Health:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- 4 letters of support received together with a bundle of supporting letters and documents provided by the applicant: i) rural industries deserve support; ii) no disturbance noticed at ‘Medlow’; iii) essential work and advice to growing horse owning people locally; iv) applicant provides training, he currently has two apprentices; v) a rural business that must be in a rural location; vi) a natural rural diversification; vii) there is a shortage of quantified farriers.

SUMMARY Lower Bough Farm is a small landholding upon which an existing agricultural building is currently used as a dwelling, a store and the applicant’s forge. The former is authorised by a Certificate of Lawful Use (RR/2003/2360/O) the latter is unauthorised and is the subject of enforcement action. It has also recently been brought to my attention that a large mobile home has been brought onto the land without the necessary consent together with a timber stable building. I am awaiting the applicant’s response to correspondence in this regard.The current application is for a new build workshop/forge to replace the existing unauthorised use and realigned driveway. The existing forge has been the subject of complaints to Environmental Health and I am currently awaiting their consultation response. The applicant has put in hand a noise consultant to report upon this aspect; I am awaiting this information. I have also written to the applicant’s agent requesting details of hours of use, external lighting and indication of number of persons engaged in the use and details of normal working practices. I suspect that a considerable cause of problems on the site has been as a result of early/late hours, outside working and music/radio.Had the applicant fulfilled his stated intention to make a retrospective application for the existing forge I would have expected to have worked towards a conditional approval perhaps with a temporary consent to ‘test’ the effectiveness of regulatory conditions. The application now before the Council is for a new permanent building for which a temporary permission would be inappropriate. The building would however be sited further from the nearest dwelling and could be constructed with good sound insulation properties. The latter are of course largely ineffective when working with the doors open; I do not believe to require enclosed working to be reasonable given the nature of the work.I believe it is for the applicant to demonstrate that he can work and control operations on the site, within acceptable noise limits and at hours that do not cause disturbance. At the time of preparing this report the applicant is working with a noise consultant and I am awaiting the result upon which I shall request your Environmental Health officer’s comment.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (TO AWAIT NOISE CONSULTANT’S REPORT)

4

RR/2004/2750/P BURWASH SQUARE FARMHOUSE – LAND REAR OF 13 SEPT 2004 SHRUB LANE

ERECTION OF DETACHED HOUSE AND DETACHED SINGLE GARAGE WITH PROVISION OF A NEW VEHICULAR ACCESSMartin MaGrath Construction Ltd.

This application has been included upon the list of pre-committee site inspections.

SITE This application relates to an area of garden land within the curtilage of the Grade II listed Square Farmhouse with frontages to both Shrub Lane and High Street, both of which are well treed/hedged. The plot measures roughly 30m by 33m and slopes to the north.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2004/1818/P Erection of detached house, garage and provision of new

vehicular access – Refused.

PROPOSAL The proposal is for the erection of a detached five-bedroom house with detached single garage. The submitted design reflects the adjacent Square Farmhouse and many other traditional properties throughout the district with facing brickwork, weather boarding, plain clay roofing tiles, hipped dormer windows, timber sash windows and exposed rafter feet a the eaves. A new vehicular access to Shrub Lane is proposed.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- }Highway Authority- }Environment Agency:- } Comments awaited.Southern Water:- }County Archaeologist- }Planning Notice:- No representations received at the time of preparing this report.

SUMMARY A similar application was refused under delegation earlier this year (RR/2004/2750). The current submission follows consideration of the refused reasons and amendment of the scheme as a result. The main revisions are to cut the house into the rising ground and to reduce the height of the roof, the end result has been to lower the roof height by 2.0m. The applicant’s agent has provided a longitudinal section that includes the High Street and Square Farmhouse either side of the proposed house. I believe these amendments satisfactorily address the previous refusal reason that focused upon the height and bulk of the proposal relative to the Conservation Area, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the listed Farmhouse.I believe the submitted design to be acceptable on this site.Consultation responses are awaited from all Consultees at the time of preparing this report, but I do have the benefit of their responses upon the previous (RR/2004/2754) proposal. Hence, I do not expect objections from the County Archaeologist or Highway Authority. The Parish Council expressed local concerns regarding the new access, but whilst every access has the potential to introduce hazards, the proposal does, I believe, have a hidden benefit. The access has been made markedly wider than normal, and thus would be capable of being used by passing traffic, as is the entrance to Square Farmhouse. This is important as the carriageway is effectively reduced to single file by cars parked on the west side of Shrub Lane. Visibility at the new access is up to standard.

5

I shall need to consider consultation responses, but at this stage, I believe that the proposal represents an acceptable development that respects the site, adjacent development and highway issues. I expect to make the

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (CONSULTATION RESPONSES)1. CN7B (External materials – a & c).2. The proposed weather boarding shall be of painted feather edged timber type,

and the window frames shall be of painted timber sash construction only. (Reason: RC2).

3. CN10A (Highway Conditions – as may be recommended).4. CN13I (Hedge retention).5. CN13D (Frontage tree retention).6. The approved dwelling shall be constructed at the finished floor levels specified

upon the approved plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: RC12).

RFG: Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2004/2775/P WHATLINGTON WHATLINGTON GARAGE SITE, 16 SEP 2004 WOODMANS GREEN

OUTLINE: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE AND ERECTION OF A 2 STOREY TERRACE OF 4, 2 BED DWELLINGS WITH ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING ACCESS AND PROVISION OF SIX PARKING SPACESMr N Coombes

SITE The application relates to an existing garage (car repairs and service bay) fronting the western side of the A21 at Whatlington. There is one building (steel framed, brick and blockwork walls with a corrugated fibre cement roof), which occupies almost the total footprint of the rear part of the site. The forecourt provides parking with some limited used car sales. The site (0.63 ha) is some 17.5 metres wide in the rear part, fanning-out on its frontage with the A21 to a width of 30 metres. There are residential properties on either side - both bungalows. The site is outside any town and village Development Boundary as identified in the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). It is also within the designated High Weald AONB.

HISTORYNone relevant.

PROPOSAL The application is in outline only. It proposes the demolition and removal of the existing garage premises and the residential redevelopment of the site. The block plan provided with the application indicates a 2 storey terrace of 4 no. 2 bed dwellings. 6 no car parking spaces are shown within the frontage of the site together with a turning area. Alterations to the existing crossover are also proposed to give a single access with the A21 trunk road.

CONSULTEES:Parish Council:- Comments awaited.Highways Agency:- Comments awaited.

6

Environment Agency:- Comments awaited.Director of Services - Environmental Health:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY Whilst the application site is a previously developed site (‘brownfield’ land), it falls outside any village Development Boundary identified on the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) proposals map and lies within an area where restrictive policies apply in respect of new residential development. No special justification for the proposed development of new dwellings in a countryside location is being put forward in this case. Furthermore, it is also an existing site in employment use and as such the proposal for residential development has to be assessed against policy E5 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and policy EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). No information has been put forward with the application to indicate that the premises has been marketed with a view towards finding another business user, and in the circumstances it has not been demonstrated that the site is genuinely redundant for business/employment purposes.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. The site is within the countryside outside any town or village as defined in the

Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). Policies S1, S10 and S11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and DS3, DS4 and HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) contain a strong presumption against residential development unless it meets one of the exceptions described in the plans. The proposed dwellings are not essential to the needs of agriculture or forestry and are therefore considered to be contrary to these policies.

2. The proposed use of this site for residential development conflicts with Policy EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) in that it has not been demonstrated that there is not a prospect of the continued use of the whole site for business purposes or the continued use of the site would perpetuate serious harm to residential amenity. The proposal also conflicts with Policy E5 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 which sets out a requirement to safeguard the level of the existing stock of industrial and commercial premises.

3. Notwithstanding the policy objections to residential development on the site, it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed development can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site. The development indicated on the proposed layout plan would constitute an over development of the land which, if permitted, would be out of character with the neighbouring bungalows and detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. The development is contrary to Policy S1(b) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(ii) and (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

4. Possible objection from Highways Agency.

7

RR/2004/2005/P BATTLE 64 HIGH STREET06 AUG 2004 REVISIONS TO PREVIOUS APPROVAL RR/2003/263/P FOR

EXTRACTOR FLUE/HOUSING FILTERG and J Bush

This application was deferred at your last meeting so as to permit the applicant to submit a revised design for the flue enclosure and to meet with Environmental health to put in hand the request for further details.

SITE This property is on the north east side of the High Street adjacent to the twitten leading to the Mount Street car park. The building is within the Conservation Area but not listed. The application relates to the ground floor restaurant.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2003/263/P C/U from greengrocers to A3 restaurant including installation of

fume extraction duct - Approved Conditional

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- No comment.Director of Services - Environmental Health:- Further information requested.Planning Notice:- No representations received at the time of preparing this report.

PROPOSAL The application seeks the retention of an extraction system at the rear of the property ‘as built’. It is a white painted timber enclosure housing a fume extraction unit and ductwork.

COMMENT Members will be aware that in granting planning permission for the change of use of the premises to a restaurant (RR/2003/263/P) care was taken to achieve an enclosed extraction system having the appearance of a chimney. Conditions were also imposed requiring the submission of details of the proposed system and the sound proofing thereof.The planning conditions were not complied with and the ‘chimney’ is not in accord with the approved plan.Enforcement action has been authorised and an appeal has been lodged against the Enforcement Notice. When the system was installed and brought into use complaints were received in respect of its appearance and from noise and odours. The applicant’s agent has made contact with Environmental Health and I understand an acoustic engineer has been engaged to address the concerns raised. I have received revised plans that I believe to be broadly satisfactory. I hope to be in receipt of the necessary further information in respect of the equipment installed and its insulation. If so I shall make the

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (CONSIDERATION OF EXTRACTION DETAILS)1. Within three months of the date of this planning permission the flue installation

shall be altered in accord with the plans and details hereby approved.Reason: RC14


8

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The development does not preserve or enhance the character and appearance

of the Battle Conservation Area. The development therefore conflicts with the provisions of Section 72 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. It also conflicts with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2004/2427/P BATTLE BEECHDOWN SAWMILL - LAND AT, NORTH 18 AUG 2004 TRADE ROAD

REVISED PROPOSALS RELATING TO SITING AND CONSTRUCTION OF TIMBER PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING BUILDING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER RR/2001/1356/P B J Harman Timber Haulage

SITE This site is at the eastern end of Beechdown Sawmills but is now in separate ownership there from. The site measures about 65m square.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2000/1356/P Timber products manufacturing building with alteration to existing

access - Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL This full application is an alternative to that approved previously (RR/2000/1356/P). The building remains a steel framed and clad structure measuring 37m by 20.75m but with a slightly steeper roof pitch resulting in an overall building height 1.9m higher. To mitigate the increase in height the building has been set 1.25m below road level. Additionally, the building has been resited about 12m further to the west towards the existing sawmill buildings.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- No objection.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environmental Health:- No basic objection. No additional conditions needed. Some further information requested.Environment Agency:- No objection or comments.Southern Water:- Does not wish to comment.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

PROPOSAL The previous permission (RR/2000/1356/P) proposed a building for the production of timber based products. I am awaiting confirmation that this remains the case together with the additional information requested by Environmental Health.I do not believe that the revised scheme is significantly different from the extant planning permission and therefore I expect, subject to satisfactory confirmation being received from the applicant’s agent and an appropriate response from the Highway Authority, to make the

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN6A (Use limitation).2. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved

by the Local Planning Authority details of the colour and type of the proposed roof

9

and wall cladding and the development shall be carried out using the approved materials. Reason RC2.

3. CN8C (Foul and surface water details).4. CN10B (Car parking/service provision).5. CN12L (Floodlighting control).6. CN13D (Frontage tree retention).7. CN13F (Tree/shrub planting - amend to delete reference to shrubs).8. The building hereby permitted shall not be used for the purposes of retail sales.

Reason RC17.9. CN14J (Alternative permission to RR/2000/1356/P).

RR/2004/2536/P BATTLE CORONATION GARDENS - CAR PARK AT,06 SEP 2004 ERECTION OF FIVE HOUSES, 2 FLATS AND 2 BUNGALOWS

WITH CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ROAD AND ALTERATION TO EXISTING ACCESSRother Homes Ltd

SITE This application relates to part of the concreted car park in Coronation Gardens. The site is about 0.2 hectares situated to the north of the terrace 79-93 Coronation Gardens, adjacent to the recreation ground.

HISTORYRR/2003/2547/P Outline: Erection of 5 houses, 2 bungalows and 2, 1 bed flats,

access road and alterations to access - Delegated to Approve.

PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for the erection of 5 semi-detached houses, two one bedroomed flats and a pair of semi-detached bungalows. One flat and one bungalow would be designed for disabled person occupancy. The use of facing bricks, hanging tiles and plain roof tiles together with PVCu joinery is specified.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- Comments awaited.Southern Water:- Comments awaited.Housing Officer:- Comments awaited.Sussex Police:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- No representations received at the time of preparing this report.

SUMMARY In November 2003 it was resolved to delegate authority to grant outline planning permission subject to a Section 106 Obligation securing local nomination rights and for the resolution of issues raised by Southern Water and the Highway Authority. The drainage issue was resolved but the applicant did not respond to the highway matters and the Section 106 Agreement remains unsigned and hence the outline consent has not been issued.The detailed submission follows the principle of the outline application and I believe the proposal to be acceptable. The sites lies outside, but abutting the development boundary. The applicant is a social landlord; there is local need and thus it would be appropriate to consider the proposal as an exception site.

10

The proposed density satisfies PPG3 and the proposed layout and design are acceptable. Conditions will be necessary for later submission of details of materials, road construction, drainage and landscaping. As an exception site a Section 106 for nomination rights would also be appropriate; a draft has already been prepared in connection with the earlier outline application.Unless consultation responses indicate otherwise I expect to make the

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SECTION 106 AGREEMENT AND CONSULTATION RESPONSES)1. CN7C (External materials - a, b and c).2. CN13C (Tree retention).3. CN13F (Landscaping).4. CN8E (No surface water to foul sewer).5. CN9A (Road construction details - amended delete last sentence).6. CN10G (Estate road construction).7. CN9K (Floor levels).


RR/2004/2463/P BATTLE ST WYSTANS, CALDBEC HILL16 AUG 2004 DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND ERECTION OF

BLOCK OF 10 TWO BEDROOM FLATSMid-Sussex Homes Ltd

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

SITE St Wystans is a detached property on the west side of Caldbec Hill adjacent to the driveway leading to The Mill. The property was last used as a dwelling, with dental surgery attached, it is currently vacant. The site is about 0.24 hectares in area.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/85/2023 Vehicular access and hardstanding – Appeal Allowed.RR/88/0098 Extension to provide dentist surgery and waiting room – Appeal

Allowed.

PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing building and its replacement with a building containing ten two-bedroom apartments served by 15 parking spaces. The building is indicated to be of brick construction under an artificial slate roof; the central part of the building is shown at 3-storey height with two-storey wings to each end.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- Whilst the Council accepts the principle of infill development, subject to it being sustainable in terms of the necessary infrastructure, the Council is concerned about the number of recent applications for such development. On the merits of the application itself the Council regards the proposal as quite unacceptable. Its particular location at a high point on Caldbec Hill will have a significant affect on the skyline, visible as it would be from many points in the surrounding area. Moreover, its scale would result in a number of neighbouring properties being overlooked. The Council also feels that the design of the building is completely out of character with the

11

surrounding properties and the area in general. As submitted, this proposal would be an over-development of the site, which would exacerbate the traffic problems already being experienced in Caldbec Hill.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- No objection or comments.Southern Water:- Does not wish to comment.Sussex Police:- No objection in principle. Recommends secure design criteria and provision of private space adjacent to ground floor bedroom windows.Planning Notice:- 36 letters of objection i) over-development ii) out of character iii) loss of and damage to existing trees iv) over flow parking on Caldbec Hill undesirable v) detrimental to local residents amenities vi) over shadowing dominate 3-storey building vii) serious overlooking viii) additional traffic and consequent hazards on Caldbec Hill ix) detrimental to appearance of locality in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty x) additional congestion xi) density much higher than surrounding area xii) Providence Cottage, being single storey would be completely dominated xiii) the site is of historic importance xiv) there are inadequate footways in Caldec Hill, they are not continuous therefore requiring pedestrians to cross the road xv) inadequate access and sight lines.

SUMMARY This site lies within the Development Boundary identified by the Rother Local Plan; re-development should consequently be considered appropriate. However, I cannot support the submitted proposal for several reasons. The proposed building, at three-storeys also incorporating balconies would result in the overlooking of adjacent properties. Indeed, on this elevated site, I consider the size and mass of the building to be too great. It would dominate its surroundings and over-power the diminutive Providence Cottage that lies on the road-side in front of the proposed building.Many trees are shown to be retained, and conveniently the most important trees are at the perimeter of the site, it is of concern however, that six parking spaces are shown under the canopies of a large oak tree on the north-west boundary. The screening effect of trees on this boundary is important, albeit an incomplete screen, and a deciduous one for the most part.I am awaiting the response of the Highway Authority, but my initial appraisal raises doubt over the width of the access, and more obviously, concern that visibility is regularly obstructed by parked cars; the width of the carriageway is constricted for the same reason. The scheme overall has a density of about 41 units to the hectare. This falls centrally within the requirement set by PPG3, but is substantially higher than the existing surrounding development. I would say that the density proposed is not particularly appropriate for this site, but an increase above existing could not, in my view, be resisted. As to the proposed design, I would wish to see a less monolithic building with greater variation of materials with the mass broken down into smaller components.For all of the reasons mentioned above, I consider this proposal to be unacceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The development would be out of character with, and detrimental to the

amenities of existing dwellings in the vicinity, contrary to Policy GD1 (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

2. Highway reason – as may be recommended by the Highway Authority.

3. The design and external appearance and mass of the building would, if permitted, be out of character and detrimental to the appearance of the locality. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy GD1 (iv) of the

12

Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003), and Policy S1 (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

RR/2004/1330/P BEXHILL GRAND HOTEL - SITE OF, SEA ROAD12 MAY 2004 ERECTION OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE FACILITIES WITH

PHARMACY AND 29 NO. SHELTERED APARTMENTS WITH GUEST SUITE AND COMMUNAL FACILITIES TOGETHER WITH LOWER GROUND FLOOR PARKING INCLUDING FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESSESGeneral Practice Investment Ltd

An appeal against non determination of this application has been lodged. A fresh application is being made which incorporates the design amendments that have been negotiated.

RECOMMENDATION: THAT IT BE NOTED THAT AN APPEAL AGAINST NON DETERMINATION HAS BEEN LODGED

RR/2004/1451/P BEXHILL PINE TREE FARM, FREEZELAND LANE21 APR 2004 USE OF LAND/EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES AS A RIDING

SCHOOL, TACK/FEED ROOM AND KEEPING OF HORSES (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Mr R M Hubble

This site was inspected by the Planning Committee on 10 th August 2004. The application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 12 August 2004 when it was resolved that a decision be deferred to allow for the consideration of the further submitted information.

SITE Pine Tree Farm covers an area of 5.54 hectares, north of Freezeland Lane. It is a countryside location outside of the Bexhill Development boundary.

HISTORYRR/98/1507/P Stable courtyard incorporating ten loose boxes and central

landscaped island - Approved ConditionalRR/98/2626/P First floor extension over garage, extension to boiler room, new

conservatory, porch and bay windows - Approved ConditionalRR/2004/1453/P Laying of hard surface track (retrospective application) - Not Yet

DeterminedRR/2004/1457/P Formation of manège/sand school for exercising horses/ponies

(retrospective application - Not Yet Determined

PROPOSAL This is a retrospective application as the result of an enforcement investigation. The applicant has submitted some supporting details to help clarify and confirm the use of the site; this information is attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 7 October 2004.

13

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: “The Highway Authority recommends that consent be refused for the following reasons:-The approach road Freezeland Lane (UC6209) is unsuitable to serve the proposed development by reason of its narrow width, poor alignment, lack of footways and substandard visibility at the point where it joins Watermill Lane.Note:It should be borne in mind that when this Authority made its consultation response in connection with the development for ten loose boxes under Application RR/98/1507/P, concerns were expressed at that time and a condition was included by the Planning Authority restricting the use to private recreational purposes only. It is considered that a riding school would represent commercial use of the site and is therefore unacceptable from a highway safety point of view.” Director of Services – Environment:- Suggests conditions re manure bay and no manure burning on site.Planning Notice:- 3 letters of objection: Daily enlarging the business and use Caused no end of disturbance New track Horses at livery and riding school tended to, all hours of the day and night Horse competitions Noise of vehicles, people etc along track The equestrian business advertises and stages events on the field bordering

Meadow View. Events are noisy and invade the privacy of neighbours Was agricultural land with small holding Previous owners built stables Freezeland lane is a very restricted and hazardous road, not suitable for the

equestrian uses of the land CPRE Do not wish to see a riding school in this location, too difficult to control the

usage of the site, and would lead to floodlighting and be detrimental to wildlife. No objection to a limited number of horses for livery

Pinetree farm has never been a commercial business, it was a private small holding

This is not an appropriate location for an equestrian business Use of land as livery/equestrian uses causes traffic delay, congestion and

hazards2 letters of support: No increase in traffic due to livery use of land Livery use has taken place on this land for at least the last 15 years As one of the nearest neighbours, I have no objection to the riding school use, to

a few students per week Some riding school use on the land for some years Applicants have made significant improvements to the land, they have tried to

keep good relations with the neighbours

SUMMARY The letters submitted with the application and the letters of objection, together with my own queries, raise a number of issues including the following: New buildings/stable relating to the equestrian uses without permission Possible change of description to include livery use and keeping of horses, and

for show/events!14

Checks on whether the footpath has been redirected? Type of livery uses and number of horses Number of vehicles visiting the site Hours and days of use

The applicant has submitted several letters relating to the use of this site circulated at your meeting on 12 August 2004. The letters seek to address the issues raised by local objectors, and provide further clarification of the use applied for. The following is a summery of the letters: Limited riding school use, 4-5 half hour lessons on Saturdays and a few on

Sundays and weekdays. Only used in daylight hours, no need for floodlighting Use will enhance Sussex countryside Will meet EH requirements re manure Give clarification re Highway Authority recommendation for refusal RR/98/1507/p for 10 loose horse boxes, never implemented This application is to regularise what has taken place here for many years All commercial activities on this site would be kept to a minimum Response to neighbours objections and comments

The applicants had a meeting with Local Planning Authority where the above points were discussed in more detail; I have received a letter from the applicant giving answers to the points raised; this is attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 7th October 2004. Turning first to the objection by the Highway Authority the applicants, and a supporting neighbour, claim that the site has been a livery use for up to 15 years. The principle of some form of kept horses on this land was formally accepted in 1998 when permission was granted for 10 loose boxes’ under RR/98/1507/P; although a condition was imposed on this permission that the loose boxes’ were for private recreational purposes, this was without the knowledge of the long term livery used of the land, claimed above. Nevertheless, it did establish the use of the land for a 10 horses, which is not too far different from the total of 14 horses under this application. Apart from the traffic concerns expressed by the Highway Authority, there is no specific policy reason to restrict the use applied for. Notwithstanding the above objections, I take the view that with appropriate controlling conditions, the use applied for is not so intense so as to be detrimental on neighbouring amenities. I would like to re consult the Highway Authority with the supporting documentation submitted regarding this use. I will await their response, however unless I am otherwise convinced I would make the following:

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (FURTHER CONSULTATION WITH HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, CHANGE OF DESCRIPTION (AS ABOVE), AND ADDITIONAL DETAILED PLAN SHOWING EACH USE OF LAND AND/OR BUILDINGS, LIVERY JUMPING ETC.)1. The use hereby permitted shall be for the keeping of 6 private horses, 4 DIY

livery horses 2 grass livery horses and 2 full livery horses, 14 in total as identified on the attached plan. Reason: RC22 and RC35

2. The ‘clear round jumping’ events shall only take place between the hours of 18.00 and 20.00 on a Friday and only between 1st April and 30th September in any year, and shall be limited to 5 such events per year with a maximum no of 6 riders and 6 horses and only in the area hatched green on the attached plan,

15

and a maximum number of 3 vehicles, including horse boxes and trailers, per event, and no more than 12 spectators at any event. Reason: RC12, RC22 and RC35

3. Excluding the ‘clear round jumping’ the maximum number of vehicles visiting the site in conjunction with any aspect of the approved use shall be limited to 3 per day on weekdays and 5 per day at the weekend and no such vehicles shall enter or leave the site before 08.00 or after 20.00 on any day. Reason: RC12, RC22 and RC35 Reason: In the interests of Highway Safety.

4. Within 1 month from the date of this permission a manure bay shall be provided at least 31m away from any residential building in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved manure bay shall be provided within two months of the date of this permission.

5. There shall be no burning of manure or soiled bedding on the land.Reason: In the interests of the amenities of nearby properties and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2004/1453/P BEXHILL PINE TREE FARM, FREEZELAND LANE21 APR 2004 LAYING OF HARD SURFACED TRACK (RETROSPECTIVE

APPLICATION)Mr R M Hubble

This site was inspected by the Planning Committee on 10 August 2004. The application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 12 August 2004 when it was resolved that a decision be deferred to allow for the consideration of the further submitted information.

SITE The access track being applied for is on the eastern side of the land in the applicant’s ownership; it runs parallel with the boundary of Sunny Bank Farm.

HISTORYNone directly relevant.

PROPOSAL This is a retrospective application for the retention of the track. The applicant gives full details and background information in a letter attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 7 October 2004.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: No objectionsPlanning Notice: 3 letters: Two letters of support: track has been used for liveries for years track has prevented on road congestion decrease in traffic on Freezeland Land lane due to resurfaced track.Two letters of objection track is connected with riding school/livery use Freezeland Lane is not suitable for additional traffic, refuse

16

Noise and dust from track surface, poor surface breaks up and washes down our drive in wet weather

Loss of privacy when people line up along the fence by the track to watch ‘clear round jumping’

Riding school track and activities should be along side their existing entrance; this will enable them to monitor the comings and goings of their clients.

Constant flow of vehicles and noise on track

SUMMARY In principle, I am not averse to a track in this position. I take the view that on balance it does not harm this countryside location, and can be used for vehicles to access the site without congesting Freezeland Lane. Only a small section of ‘Meadow View’ is visible from the track; I have taken note of the other objections raised, but there is nothing to convince me that the track is detrimental to neighbouring amenities. However I consider that controlling conditions should apply.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. The track shall not be used by vehicles or pedestrians outside the hours of 08.00

to 20.00 without the prior consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason. To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents 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: Revised Deposit (November 2003)

2. Within two months of the date of this permission, details of infill planting opposite ‘Meadow View’ along the east side of the track, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning Authority and the approved planting shall be carried out by the next planting season from the date of this permission and in any event no later than 6 months. Reason: RC11 and RC12

3. The track hereby approved shall only be used in conjunction with the approved use under RR/2004/1451/P. Reason: RC35


RR/2004/1457/P BEXHILL PINE TREE FARM, FREEZELAND LANE21 APR 2004 FORMATION OF MANÈGE/SAND SCHOOL FOR EXERCISING

HORSES/PONIES (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Mr R M Hubble

SITE The existing manège is located adjacent to the northwest boundary of Pine Tree Farm. Pine Tree Farm covers an area of 5.54 hectares, north of Freezeland Lane. It is a countryside location outside of the Bexhill Development boundary.

HISTORYRR/98/1507/P Stable courtyard incorporating ten loose boxes and central

landscaped island - Approved ConditionalRR/98/2626/P First floor extension over garage, extension to boiler room, new

conservatory, porch and bay windows - Approved ConditionalRR/2004/1453/P Laying of hard surface track (retrospective application) - Not Yet

Determined

17

RR/2004/1451/P Use of land/equestrian facilities as a riding school (retrospective application) Not Yet Determined

PROPOSAL This is a retrospective application for the completed ménage. Included in the supporting information provided is the following:“.. the Sand School is located on a part of our land (near the western boundary of the property — see area marked in yellow on the enclosed plan) not overlooked by any of our neighbours, and is sufficiently remote that it does not impact anyone other than the people and horses/ponies actually using it. It is constructed of high quality, professional ‘Olympic standard’ materials, and is enclosed by proper post end rail fencing, in keeping with the rest of the propertyWe therefore trust that our retrospective planning application in respect of this key component of our property’s existing equestrian facilities will prove acceptable to Rother District Council..”

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice: CPRE: No objection.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY In principle I consider the manège to be in an acceptable location. It is well screened from neighbouring properties and is in keeping with this countryside setting. However, any permission granted should be restricted to the limited use of this whole equestrian site. I am awaiting a detailed letter from the applicant on the proposed use of the site, including the other applications, RR/2004/1451/P, and RR/2004/1453/P for the equestrian usage and the hard surfaced track. Members have seen the manège upon their inspection of the site on 10th August 2004. Subject to being satisfied with the details for a limited equestrian and livery usage, including hours/days, number of horses etc as applied for in the other applications above, I anticipate making the following:

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (AWAITING DETAILS OF USE, HOURS/DAYS, NUMBER OF HORSES ETC)Conditions: to be advised


RR/2004/1699/P BEXHILL 44 TURKEY ROAD, SIDLEY21 JUN 2004 OUTLINE: ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT SURGERY

Carisbrooke Medical Centres Ltd

This application was deferred at your last meeting to allow discussion on amended plans regarding reducing the land take/basement or undercroft parking.

SITE The site comprises the existing single storey doctors surgery and part of the open space, including children’s playground and basketball pitch at Sidley House.

HISTORY

18

RR/83/2265/P Erection of Doctors Surgery and car parking - Sidley House - Approved.

PROPOSAL An outline application for redevelopment of the existing surgery site to provide a new two storey and single storey building with additional car parking. The proposal will involve land take of the existing children’s playground and basketball pitch. The existing surgery is now undersized for the number of GPs and staff and with the recent development in Turkey Road will not be able to provide a service for additional patients. The applicant’s agent has sought to minimise the land take and have considered the option of underground parking, but this they confirm is impractical and prohibitively expensive. The children’s play area would be re-sited.

CONSULTATIONSDirector of Services - Estates:- No objection.Highway Authority:- No objection subject to agreement of access and provision of parking at detailed stage.Southern Water:- No objection.Environment Agency:- No objection in principle but recommend conditions regarding surface water and use of uncontaminated materials for infill material.Sussex Police:- “The location is in a relatively high crime area and it is important to ensure that crime prevention is carefully considered as part of the design.The new building will be more crime resistant than the existing surgery. The present building is easy to scale onto the roof and has suffered from burglaries.I have taken this opportunity to contact the applicant’s agent to discuss the internal layout and locking systems for the building. I recommend that care is taken to prevent unauthorised access to the upper floor. I also recommend that care is taken to provide adequate protection for receptionists. I understand that there is a not infrequent need to cope with aggressive behaviour. I am very willing to discuss these details further with the applicant or their agent prior to a full application.The premises should be equipped with an intruder alarm system and an internal discreet call system for emergency situations.”Director of Services - Amenities:- “The relocation and redesign of the children’s playground will require further discussion to ensure that it meets the requirements of the parks section and the relevant European Standards for play equipment and safer surfacing. Any relocated pedestrian access to the public open space from Turkey Road should not pass through the playground. This is no longer acceptable practice due to the need to exclude dogs from playgrounds.The basketball ‘court’ is also affected by the proposed development and consideration needs to be given to its relocation.The area between the community centre and the northern boundary of the development site is currently a terraced slope consisting mainly of crazy paving. The current proposal would appear to have this sloping down to a new boundary fence or wall. This would leave the Council with an area of little value, which is difficult to maintain satisfactorily. It may be advantageous to include this area within the boundary of the proposed development.In addition I would request further information on the disposal of surface water and the treatment of the boundary, particularly the boundary with the open space when this is available.”Planning Notice:- A petition signed by 78 local residents has been submitted which states “We, the undersigned, would like to indicate our concerns with regard to the existing children’s play area, the trees therein and the proposed changes. As parents, grandparents and patients of the surgery, we strongly value the use of the play area as

19

it provides great enjoyment for our children after school, during the school holidays and whilst attending the surgery. We also feel strongly about the trees in this area and feel that these trees should be protected. We hope, therefore, that this petition indicates the value held for this play area by existing parents and trust it will be protected/reinstated in close proximity and to the same standards or even improved, so that parents and children now, and in the future, can continue to get enjoyment from it.”

SUMMARY The principle of redevelopment of the existing site is acceptable and the form of the new building shown will fit satisfactorily onto the site. The main issue is the reduction in the open space as a result of the redevelopment, the need to relocate the existing children’s play area and the loss of the basketball pitch.I am awaiting the applicant’s response on these matters and to their reconsideration of basement parking. If these aspects can be resolved I can support the application.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (TO AWAIT AMENDED PLANS)

RR/2004/2022/P BEXHILL 46-52 NINFIELD ROAD - REAR OF16 JUL 2004 ERECTION OF TWO STOREY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Weald Estates

I have added this site to your list for inspection.

SITE This application relates to land at the rear of the shops and flats that comprise 46-52 Ninfield Road. Planning permission RR/2003/3418/P was recently granted to add a second floor to the existing flat roofed frontage building. This has not yet been implemented.

HISTORY (Blue land)RR/2003/3418/P Alterations to first floor to provide 2 self contained flats and extension to second floor to form additional 2 self contained flats - Approved.

PROPOSAL It is proposed to erect a two-storey building on the land containing 4 self contained one-bedroom flats. The application is accompanied by a Supporting Statement, a copy of which is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 7 October 2004. The following comments have been extracted from the statement “…The building has a low ridge height and low pitch roof to ensure compatibility in height with adjoining buildings … The main rooms of the flats have an open, easterly aspect, and care has been taken in the layout of rooms and fenestration to ensure mutual privacy with adjoining dwellings… The design complements the wide mix of designs in the vicinity and is an appropriately high-density solution of the site… The no parking principle is directly supported by PPG3 … This is precisely the type of central, underused, brownfield site where the Government encourages housing development ….”

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: Do not wish to restrict the grant of consent.Environment Agency: Raise no objection subject to conditions being imposed.Southern Water: Raise no objection subject to the applicant submitting drainage details prior to development commencing.

20

Planning Notice:- Four letters of objection have been received raising concern regarding the following issues: over dominant, overlooking, overshadowing, impact on trees and parking issues.

SUMMARY The proposed development would have a density of 200 dwellings per hectare and therefore represents an efficient use of land in accordance with Government Advice contained in PPG3. However, this should only be supported where there are no over-riding environmental considerations. It is my opinion that it represents an over-development of the site and would result in detriment being caused to adjoining properties by virtue of its height, close proximity to the western boundary and overlooking from proposed first floor level windows. Furthermore, if this development is carried out prior to frontage development RR/2003/3418/P, it would be detrimental to the amenities of the existing flats in that building. However, this could be overcome by condition or by an integrated scheme for the two sites. As submitted, this application is not supported.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposal would:-

a) constitute over-development of the land which, if permitted, would be out of character with and detrimental to the amenities of the locality;

b) result in a building the height and close proximity of which to adjoining properties would cause loss of light, have an overbearing and oppressive impact, and be detrimental to the amenities of those dwellings;

c) result in overlooking from proposed first floor level windows and cause loss of privacy and detriment to the amenities of adjoining properties.

For these reasons the proposed development would be contrary to Policy S1(b) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(ii) and HG4(vii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2004/2156/P BEXHILL THE GORSEWAY AND PEAR TREE LANE - LAND 16 JUL 2004 AT REAR OF

ERECTION OF 19 NEW DWELLINGS, 1 EXISTING DWELLING RETAINED WITH ASSOCIATED NEW ROADS, PATHS, PARKING, CYCLE WAY AND GARAGES WITH ROAD ACCESS FROM THE GORSEWAY.Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd

This application was deferred at the 9 September 2004 meeting of the Planning Committee for a site inspection. It has been added to the list of Committee site inspections for 5 October 2004.

SITE This rectangular shaped former orchard site (approximately 0.89 hectares), which has now been cleared, is enclosed by a ribbon of existing residential properties which back onto the land. These properties front Pear Tree Lane to the east, Cowdray Park Road to the north, and The Gorseway to the west. A single storey bungalow backs onto the south side of the site. The existing dwelling (117) sits in the north eastern corner of the application site. A number of trees on the periphery of the site are the subject of Tree Preservation Orders. The site is within the Development Boundary for Bexhill and is allocated for housing by Policy BX8 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

21

It is also, a brownfield site (as defined by PPG3 Annexe C). Policy DS6 of the Local Plan does not seek to impose phasing restrictions on the development of this site.

HISTORYRR/2004/520/P Erection of 19 dwellings, 1 existing dwelling retained with associated new roads, paths, parking, cycle way and garages with road access from The Gorseway - Refused - Appeal pending.

PROPOSAL This is a full planning application. It is a revised submission following the refusal of RR/2004/520/P above. The application proposes the development of the site for two storey housing as follows:-4 x 2 bedroom semi-detached2 x 3 bedroom semi-detached1 x 3 bedroom detached12 x 4 bedroom detachedThe plans show 33 garages provided in the development (in blocks of one, two, three and four) and 30 parking spaces. A new access road (cul-de-sac) would be created between the existing gap in the development on The Gorseway and the existing narrow track to Pear Tree Lane would be adapted to form a cycle track and pedestrian link.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- Does not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to clarification of visibility plays, provision of raised table traffic-calming feature at the junction with The Gorseway as shown on plans, the repositioning of the bus stop on The Gorseway and the improvement of passenger waiting facilities. Comments also include the following:- “In accordance with the County Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘A New Approach to Development Contributions’, the Highway Authority would wish to secure a Local Sustainable Accessibility Improvement Contribution of £26,640. This would be utilised as a means of mitigating the wider impacts of the development proposal on local stress areas within Bexhill. This contribution, together with the bus stop improvements, would need to be secured by means of a Section 106 Agreement with the County Council as Highway Authority.”Environment Agency:- Have no objections, in principle, to the proposed development. However, the application, as submitted, is unclear regarding the means of surface water drainage. Both Planning Policy Guidance 25 (Development and Flood Risk) and Planning Policy Guidance 23 (Planning and Pollution Control) make reference to the need to consider such arrangements. Therefore we recommend that conditions be imposed.Southern Water Services:- If minded to grant planning permission would wish to see a condition imposed dealing with proposed means of foul and surface water disposal.Sussex Police:- “I am pleased to note that the footpath/cycleway route has been reoriented in line with my comments dated 25 March 2004. This design raises much less concern than the earlier route that ran behind the gardens. In this relatively low crime area it is accepted that this compromise is a sensible solution.”English Nature:- “Although your letter mentioned the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, no badger survey confirming the presence or absence of badgers was supplied with this application. I have had cause, after clearance of the site, to request that survey work was undertaken on this site (see my letter attached). Has a further badger survey taken place on this site.Other protected speciesHave other protected surveys been undertaken on this site, e.g. protected reptiles? Protected species are a material consideration when considering planning applications

22

and should be dealt with before any granting of planning permission. English Nature consider that this means developers need to survey at a suitable time of year to establish presence or absence and how harm can be avoided (if it can) before planning permission is granted.”Director of Services - Housing:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice – 8 letters of objection concerned with the following;- Local plan indicates the site is suitable for 12-15 dwellings, 19-20 are now

proposed which is contrary to the Plan.- The fundamental problems of the original proposal have not been addressed in

the application.- Is environmentally inconsistent with the small developments in the immediate

vicinity. E.g. Berwick Close and Loxwood Close, which consist of bungalows and chalet bungalows.

- Proposed development close to boundary trees, which are the subject of Tree Preservation Orders, the excavations for the foundations will damage their roots.

- Over development of the site.- Proposed development is contrary to the established character of the

surrounding area and properties.- A letter supporting the application states that ‘bungalows are not an effective use

of land’. This presumably means that bungalows do not provide a sufficiently large financial return.

- Proposed access would be very restrictive for emergency service vehicles.- The number of dwellings would generate a significant amount of additional traffic

in the area, resulting in the potential for serious and possibly dangerous congestion.

- No objection to residential development on the site in principle but not for this number and form of dwelling.

- Detrimental to existing residential amenities, by virtue of loss of privacy and natural light, and increase in noise.

- Local schools and doctors are already at their limits, and cannot possibly have more intakes from the families, this plan must be aimed at.

- How can the natural open earth drain at the east boundary be piped without damage to the existing trees?

- What are the provisions for surface run-off from hard landscaping?- No measures have been outlined for the protection of wildlife, contrary to

GD1(9).- Inadequate road layout, contrary to GD1(3).- The proposal shows an inappropriate treatment of the natural watercourses on

the eastern margin of the site, contrary to GD1(10) and para 5.33.- Plans do not give a true picture, because No’s 4,5 and 6 Cowdray Court have

been omitted.- No details in respect of boundary fencing are provided.- Garages close to our rear boundary will result in a considerable amount of noise

and pollution from their use.1 letter from owners of the site and house (17 Brockley Road): Are in full support and agreement with the revised plans.

SUMMARY This is a revised application for residential development following the refusal of RR/2004/520/P. That application, which is the subject of an outstanding Appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, was refused for the reasons (briefly)(i) Over development and detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of

neighbouring dwellings23

(ii) Possible impact on Tree Preservation Order boundary trees.(iii) Housing mix - insufficient provision for small dwellings.This site is allocated for residential development by Policy BX8 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). It is identified on Inset Map 1d. Policy BX8 states as follows:-Land off The Gorseway, Bexhill as shown on the proposals map is allocated for housing. Proposals will be permitted where:(i) some 15 dwellings are provided of which 40% are affordable;(ii) proper provision is made to protect boundary trees the subject of a Tree

Preservation Order;(iii) vehicular access is gained between 70 and 72 The Gorseway;(iv) pedestrian and cycle access is provided to Peartree Lane;(v) they otherwise accord with Policies HG4 and GD1Policy BX8 estimates that the site could accommodate some 15 dwellings, with due allowance for boundary trees; in principle, this should not automatically rule out any application for more than 15 dwellings if it can be demonstrated that any such number can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site.With respect to points (i) and (ii) above, although the number of houses proposed in this new application is the same as before, the layout and house types has changed. The position of the dwellings to the boundaries of the site is now considered acceptable in terms of the need to provide a protection zone around the trees covered by the Tree Preservation Order. Regarding the need to safeguard neighbouring residential amenity, an amended layout plan has been received incorporating the following:- Drawing amended to reduce impact on dwellings along north and south

boundaries. Plots 3-6 have moved 2m further away from the boundary, plots 7-11 have been

moved north to allow plots 12-15 and garage to plots 15 and 16 to move 1m away from boundary.

Plot 15 has also been mirrored and moved 3m east.It is considered that the changes would lessen the impact of the development in respect of existing properties and show a more acceptable development than that previously put forward.Regarding (iii), in the previous application I advised that the affordable housing provision referred to in Policy BX8 part (i) could not be applied in this case (chiefly because of the fact that this part of the policy was unlikely to be given sufficient weight whilst the Local Plan was at the pre-inquiry stage). This would also apply to the provisions contained within the general Affordable Housing policy HG1 of the Plan for the present. Consequently, it has to be accepted that for housing schemes within the District, the Circular 6/98 threshold for the provision of affordable housing should be applied as this time. The number of housing units in this development proposal now before you is below the Circular 6/98 threshold and therefore the lack of affordable housing in the scheme would not justify a refusal in this case. The third and final reason for refusing the previous application RR/2004/520/P related not to the failure of the development proposal to provide affordable housing but its failure to provide a satisfactory mix of housing types and sizes - with insufficient provision made for smaller two bedroom units. The revised application now before you contains the same mix of two, three and four bedroom properties and, if minded to accept the development in principle, Members will need to take a view as to whether in this case they would wish to accept the balance of housing units as being in keeping with the established character of existing residential properties in the immediate area. I have put this matter to the agent who has indicated that although the ratio of bedrooms

24

within each property has not changed, the housing types and design has changed and the overall result is smaller units and less building coverage on the site.The requirement for a suitable mix of housing development on a site is set out in policy HG3 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003):“New housing development should provide a mix of housing types and sizes with at least 30% one and two bedroom dwellings in schemes above the thresholds in Policy HG1, unless a local housing needs assessment indicate that this is not appropriate.”In view of the fact that limited weight can be given to the threshold indicated in policy HG1 at present, it may be considered that the mix of housing types proposed should be accepted in this case.A further issue for consideration are the comments from English Nature setting out a requirement for a wildlife survey of the site before any decision is made on the application. The Agent has advised me that a site survey will be carried out and I hope to have the results of this in time for the Planning Committee meeting. With respect to the Highways issues, it is noted that the Highway Authority has no objection to the development subject to conditions. Conditions requested would include a requirement for a raised table feature within the roadway at the junction where The Gorseway adjoins the site access and Berwick Way.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (WILDLIFE SURVEY)1. CN7B (External materials (a) roofing tiles and slates, (b) hanging tiles and (c)

facing bricks). (Amended - “Prior to the commencement of development or at such a time as shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority…”)

2. CN8C (Foul and surface water drainage). (Amended - “Prior to the commencement of development or at any such time as shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority…”)

3. CN5E (Restriction of alterations/additions - amend to 1995 GPDO)(b) extension of the building(c) garage or other structure shall be erected within the curtilage of the buildings.

4. CN9A (Road construction details).5. The dwellings shall not be occupied until the raised table feature in the roadway

at the junction where The Gorseway adjoins the site access and Berwick Way. The details of this development shall be submitted for the consideration and approval of the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Highway Authority and shall be completed wholly in accordance with the approved details.

6. The dwellings shall not be occupied until such a time as a Legal Agreement has been completed with the Developer and the County Council to secure a Sustainable Accessibility Improvement Contribution.Reason: As a means of mitigating the wider impacts of the development proposal on the local stress area within Bexhill.

7. Prior to the commencement of development details of measures for the protection of trees during the course of the development shall be submitted for the consideration and approval of the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

8. CN9H (Walling/fencing - Housing estates.Note: The trees on the boundaries of the site are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. No trees shall be removed or damaged during the course of the development and the trees shall be retained thereafter.N1B (Amended Plans).

25


RR/2004/2340/P BEXHILL NAZARETH HOUSE, HASTINGS ROAD10 AUG 2004 ALTERATIONS TO CONSENT GRANTED UNDER

APPLICATION NO. RR/2003/2002/P COMPRISING ALTERATIONS TO CONVERSION SCHEME FOR MAIN BUILDING COURTYARD AND WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS AND CHAPEL; DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SCHOOL BUILDING AND ERECTION OF NEW BLOCK COMPRISING 27 APARTMENTS; AND CHANGE OF USE OF CHAPEL FOR USE AS PRIVATE MEMBERS FITNESS AND LEISURE FACILITY.Hastings Road Development Ltd

SITE This application relates to the buildings and grounds of Nazareth House which are situated at the junction of Wrestwood Road, Hastings Road and Penland Road. The combined site has an area of approximately 1.8ha. The original part of Nazareth House built by Leonard Stokes in 1893-4 and later extension to provide the chapel and living quarters (1911) is listed. The east wing added in 1937 and formerly used as a Roman Catholic Primary School is not included as part of the listed building.The site was owned by The Sisters of Nazareth and was until recently in use as a residential care home. Works have commenced on site in relation to conversion to residential use.

HISTORY (Relevant)Adjacent site RR/98/1766/P o/a: Erection of new primary school with improved access -

Approved.RR/98/2580/P Erection of new primary school pursuant to RR/98/1766/P –

Approved.Application siteRR/2001/2050/P Conversion of Nazareth House convent and residential care home

and redundant primary school including part demolition and extension to provide 91 flats (including 33 affordable housing units) and associated parking with new access and estate road – Delegated for approval subject to Section 106 covering affordable housing, retention of chapel, open space and highway matters - Withdrawn.

RR/2001/2051/P Outline: 18 dwellings and associated garaging, new access arrangements Nazareth House convent and residential care home and redundant primary school - Delegated for approval subject to Section 106 covering affordable housing, retention of chapel, open space and highway matters - Withdrawn

RR/2001/2052/L Conversion of Nazareth House convent and residential care home and redundant primary school part demolition and extension to provide 91 units (including 33 affordable housing units) - Delegated for approval subject to Section 106 covering affordable housing, retention of chapel, open space and highway matters - Withdrawn.

RR/2003/2002/P Conversion of existing convent school and associated buildings to residential use (52 units), and use of chapel as community facilities for the use of site residents - Approved.

26

RR/2003/2003/L Conversion of convent school and associated buildings to residential use (52 units). Use of chapel as community facilities for the residents. Erection of 42 new apartments and 20 new affordable housing units - Approved.

RR/2003/2009/P Erection of 42 apartments and 20 new affordable housing units with new access and 45 parking arrangements - Approved.

PROPOSAL This application comprises three elements:-

1. Alterations to the conversion scheme for main building and outbuildings.2. Use of the Chapel as a private members’ fitness and leisure facility.3. Demolition of the former school building and erection of new 6 storey building

containing 27 flats. The approved scheme showed conversion of the school to 18 flats.

The applicant’s agents have written in support of the application and their comments are included as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 7 October 2004.

CONSULTATIONSHighways Agency:- No objection.East Sussex County Council - Strategic Planning:- “The County Council's views on the original application were:‘To support the application in principle because the density of the proposal is above the minimum indicated in PPG3 and complies with Structure Plan policy H8, provided: The District Council is satisfied that a detailed design can be achieved that

will respect the setting of the adjacent listed building (Structure Plan policy EN23);

The appropriate contribution towards the additional primary and secondary school places caused by the development is secured to the satisfaction of the

Education Authority (Structure Plan policy S3); The Highway Authority is satisfied that the transport impact, including that on the

adjacent school, can be satisfactorily accommodated (policy TR3) which may require contributions from the development to resolve; and

The District Council can secure the provision of affordable housing.‘The following is the County Council's representation on the alterations to the previous consent:A large amount of excavation and demolition waste is expected as a result of the proposal. This waste must be minimised and reused or recycled on site or removed from site to facilities which can reuse or recycle the materials to comply with policy WLP11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan, Second Deposit Draft and policy S1(o) of the Structure Plan.The use of the chapel as a private members fitness and leisure facility is supported in principle (Structure Plan policy LT2(a)) provided that the integrity of the chapel space is retained and there is no adverse affect on the setting of the listed building (Structure Plan policy EN23).I notice that there is an increase of nine dwellings proposed on the site. This may affect the contribution required to provide for additional school places in the area to the satisfaction of the Education Authority. The specific requirements should be sought directly from The Education Authority.”English Heritage:- “SummaryNazareth House is a Grade II listed complex largely designed by Leonard Stokes with

27

later extensions by Pugin and Pugin. The special interest and significance of the building is confined to the Stokes designs, as indicated in the list description (which is non-statutory). However, the later extensions, whilst not of listable quality in themselves demonstrate the continuing expansion of the institution and in their form and character, are in keeping with the listed building.Permission has been granted for the conversion of the building into residential units with new development in the grounds. This amended application now proposes demolition of the later wing rather than conversion with the only justification effectively being offered that it is "easier" to demolish and build new.English Heritage adviceThe later wing, although of modest architectural interest contributes to the interest of the listed complex, it appears to be in reasonable condition and structurally sound. The justification for demolition should therefore be robust. If your Council is minded to permit its demolition the replacement building sited adjacent to the main range of the listed building should be of good design quality. The current proposal is not of that quality. The use of standard floor to ceiling heights for example, in contrast to the existing building, results in the scale of the new building appearing inappropriate in its context. It also results in an uncomfortable visual relationship with the main building.RecommendationsEnglish Heritage cannot support this proposal and recommends that demolition of the existing wing should only be permitted on the basis of a robust and convincing justification. If such a case can be established to the satisfaction of your authority any replacement structure has to be of much higher design quality than that currently proposed.”Southern Water:- Has no objection provided the drainage design limits the discharge to 45 litres per second available capacity. As the design relies on permeable pavements, adequate procedures should be put in place to ensure their future maintenance.Environment Agency:- Has no objection in principle and recommend conditions.Ancient Monuments Society:- “The retention of the main space of the chapel is clearly welcome as is the maintenance of the proposal to replace the uPVC windows within the Stokes block with appropriate timber ones. The despatch of the hideous sun lounges remains a blessing. However is there not a real risk that the new block on the site of the Pugin and Pugin will be too dominant? The present block may be grim but its gable does acknowledge that on the Stokes 1911 block. Its storey levels also correspond with those on the more immediately adjacent Stokes block of 1893. The emphasis in the new block on windows of mostly "landscape" dimensions also has no counterpart in the proportion of solid to void on the Stokes wings. This is doubly disconcerting because the new fenestration is to be entirely plastic - this will contrast with the more satisfying timber sashes on the Stokes many of which are to be put back. Why heal the damage in one of the development and create again in the new? If extra insulation values are required these can of course be created by secondary glazing within or behind timber windows.”Sussex Police:- “My concern for this development continues to be the lack of an appropriate buffer zone around living and bedroom windows of ground floor flats. I am also concerned that some of the parking is not well supervised and is distant from the dwellings.Support for both these points is now available in the new planning guidance document "Safer Places" published by the ODPM. Page 30-32 discusses the importance of creating a buffer zone. Without a suitable barrier, it will be possible to directly approach ground floor windows. This immediate juxtaposition of fully private and fully public space is likely to create nuisance and privacy problems for future residents. I am not convinced that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient protection.

28

I have discussed this issue with the applicant's agent and am delighted that he has suggested some positive solutions. In particular, the height of windows from ground-level may protect many of the widows. I am hoping to meet the applicant's agent on site in an effort to resolve my reservations.I am also concerned that the parking area for dwellings 11-20 and 55-69 does not enjoy good supervision from the dwellings. Again, the Safer Places document supports my view. "Courtyard parking that is not adequately overlooked by capable guardians should be avoided. Courtyard parking should be small in size and close to the owners' homes".Lighting, perimeter treatment and a cul-de-sac design for this parking area would all have a beneficial influence.”Planning Notice:- 2 letters of objection received which can be summarised as relating to: objection to the use of the Chapel other than as a place of worship aware of fitness club looking for site in Bexhill, a 7/800 membership is necessary

for a club to be viable - parking facilities inadequate traffic hazards - despite traffic signals, the junction will not cope the new block is too high and will dominate the surrounding area of houses and

bungalows object to business use - a residential area.

SUMMARY In principle I have no objection to the use of the Chapel as a fitness and leisure facility which will retain and maintain the open space and structure of the Chapel.The increase in the number of residential units will be 6 and I do not consider this raises significant issues in terms of development of the site.I am however concerned at the form the new development takes and as submitted could not support the proposed changes for the new building on the site. This matter is being discussed with the applicant and I intend to support the view of English Heritage that a more robust and convincing justification is needed for demolition and in that event an improved design is required.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (NEGOTIATIONS ON DEMOLITION/DESIGN)

RR/2004/2396/P BEXHILL BEXHILL CEMETERY, OFF TURKEY ROAD09 AUG 2004 REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING GARAGES AND MESS ROOM

FOR USE BY THE COUNCILS GROUNDS MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR WITH ONE MESS ROOM AND TWO GARAGES AND INSTALLATION OF AN EFFLUENT TANK AND SECURITY FENCING PURSUANT TO OUTLINE PERMISSION RR/2002/2906/3R

John O'Conner

SITE The cemetery is located to the north of Turkey Road. The buildings to be replaced are located on the west side of the cemetery adjacent to the track leading up to the dwellings of 270 – 274 Turkey Road.

HISTORYRR/2002/2906/3R Outline: replacement of existing garages and mess room with one

integrated depot building for use by the council's grounds maintenance contractor - Approved

29

PROPOSAL The submitted details are to provide two green metal storage containers and one metal clad ‘mess room’. Also, it is intended to provide a 1.8m high metal railing security fence, similar to the fencing currently used in Egerton Park. The applicant has provided the following supporting information regarding this information:As the Council’s selected grounds contractor, we feel it is essential to retain a contractor’s base within Bexhill Cemetery, to enable the high standards of grounds maintenance to be maintained.The area selected for the Depot, by Council Officers, is where the existing depot is located. The existing buildings are to be demolished and new bespoke models put in place. It is thought to be an area rarely used by the general public but it is still easily accessed from tile existing roadways.The proposed size of the units has been determined following extensive discussion with the Council’s officers from the Parks Section. It will only serve the Cemetery staff welfare and storage requirements.There is a requirement to install a security fence around the area and it is proposed that this will be a railing fence to match others being installed by Rother District Council.To meet the operational and security requirements it is felt that 3 steel buildings are needed, one for use as a welfare unit and two storage units.Pictures and plans of the proposed style of buildings are included with this application.

CONSULTATIONSHead of Planning – Estates: Any comments will be reported.Director of Services – Amenities: Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice: Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY The description of this application differs from the “one integrated depot building” in the description of the Outline application. The agent will write to request conversion of this application to a full application. Whilst I am prepared to support the proposed steel container units on this site, I would not wish to see them as permanent buildings. I would, therefore, be prepared to recommend approval for a temporary period of three years; on this basis I do not consider the replacement buildings to have a detrimental impact on surrounding amenities. Subject to appropriate controlling conditions, I would make the following:

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (CHANGE OF DESCRIPTION AND CONVERSION TO FULL APPLICATION)1. Within 2 months of the date of this permission full details of a new

hedge/planting to be planted along the western boundary shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the new hedge shall be grown to and retained and maintained at a height of not less than 2m from ground level or as otherwise may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, and in the event of the hedge becoming seriously damaged, diseased, and/or dying, it shall be replaced with a hedge of such size and species as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, within six months of any such damage to the hedge or the first signs of any disease, or the hedge being removed as a result of such, or other such time period as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To maintain as far as possible the appearance of the locality and to accord with the requirements of policies S1, EN2 and of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure plan 1991 – 2011, and policies ST1 and CNE3 of the Initial Deposit Rother District

30

2. The new buildings approved under this application shall be green in colour for the duration of the time-limited approval of this application. Reason: RC13

3. The new railings approved under this application shall be painted black. Reason: RC3

4. CN14A …before 31 October 2004 Reason C.

5. CN12Q “… the purpose described in the heading to this planning permission.


RR/2004/2421/P BEXHILL ST BRIDGETS - PLOTS 20, 21, 22 AND 23 ST 17 AUG 2004 JOHNS ROAD

REVISED PROPOSALS FOR ERECTION OF FOUR DETACHED HOUSES WITH INTEGRAL GARAGESMr H Rafati

SITE This application relates to four of the five plots at the rear of this redevelopment site.

HISTORYRR/2004/94/P Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 24 new dwellings

with construction of new road and alterations to an existing access - Approved.

PROPOSAL The approved plans are for two detached houses on plots 20 and 21 and a pair of semi detached houses on plots 22 and 23. The proposed changes involve slight twisting of houses on their axis, setting further back in the plots and realignment of boundaries. The most significant change is detaching the pair of semi-detached houses on plots 22 and 23 and separating them by approx 1.8m.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- Does not wish to restrict grant of consent.Planning Notice:- 2 letters of objection have been received. These object to the removal of two oak trees and to the nuisance being caused by the contractors currently working at the site.

SUMMARY The proposed changes are relatively minor in nature and would have no adverse impact upon adjoining amenity. The application is therefore supported. The two letters of objection do not specifically relate to this current proposal. The complaint regarding nuisance by the Contractors has been passed to the Director of Services - Environment.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, the

development shall be carried out using the materials already approved under condition 2 of planning permission RR/2004/94/P.Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011

31

and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

2. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include accurate indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development.Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the locality and to accord with Policies S1, S5 and S6 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

3. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the locality and to accord with Policies S1, S5 and S6 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

4. Detailed plans for boundary walls and fences on the site shall be submitted to and be subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The walls and fences shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans at the time of development and before the penultimate dwelling is first occupied and shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure the satisfactory development of the site and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. (CN9H)

5. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water Services. The drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme before the development hereby permitted is occupied.Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal 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: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

6. 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, 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: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

7. Clean, uncontaminated rock, subsoil, brick rubble, crushed concrete and ceramic only shall be permitted as infill material.Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters, 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: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

32

8. No part of the development shall be occupied until the car parking areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and the areas thereafter shall be retained for that use and shall not be used for any other purpose.Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the site and proceeding along the highway, in the interests of highway safety and to accord with Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

N1B (Insert Drawing No. 2075/104E date stamped 3/9/2004).


RR/2004/2479/P BEXHILL 12 RICHMOND ROAD, ERIDGE HOUSE14 JUL 2004 SIX ADDITIONAL BEDROOMS WITHIN AMENDED ROOF OF

FRONT WING (OMITTING 3 BALCONIES SHOWN IN PREVIOUS SCHEME) PLUS GROUND FLOOR EXTENSION TO FORM ADDITIONAL BEDROOMMr G Haddow

SITE Eridge House Rest Home is situated on the west side of Richmond Road between Richmond Close and Richmond Grove. The property, which occupies a large plot, is adjoined on three sides by residential curtilages. The original building on the site was a two storey dwelling converted in 1982 to a rest home following a successful appeal; two single storey extensions, one on the south side and one to the rear RR/89/1707/P and RR/85/1234 were also permitted, the former on appeal. The small extension on the north` side of the building, as allowed on appeal under application reference no. RR/96/1612 has been implemented in a similar form to that allowed. In 1997 RR/97/829/P was allowed on appeal for a ground floor extension and RR/1999/554/P for a ground floor extension was approved, both of which have since been implemented.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/82/0612 C/U from dwelling and consulting rooms to rest home – Refused –

Appeal Allowed.RR/85/1234 Single storey extension – Refused – Appeal against conditions

Allowed.RR/89/1707/P Single storey extension – Refused – Appeal AllowedRR/95/1581/P First floor extension to form 8 bed spaces plus lift installation –

Refused – Appeal Dismissed.RR/96/1612/P Ground floor extensions and alterations to form 2 additional bed

spaces – Refused – Appeal Allowed in part.RR/97/829/P Ground floor extension to form 1 additional bed space – Allowed on

AppealRR/1999/554/P Ground floor extension – Approved.RR/2001/2343/P First floor extension to provide additional bedrooms and improved

facilities – Refused – Appeal dismissed RR/2002/62/P A first floor extension to improve facilities and increase number of

beds by eight. Refused: Appeal dismissed

33

RR/2002/2577/P Erection of ground and first floor extensions to provide net four additional en suite bedroom accommodation and communal area – withdrawn.

RR/2002/3024/P Erection of first floor extension to provide net five additional bedrooms and alteration to ground floor to provide fire escape - Refused

RR/2003/78/P Erection of first floor extension to provide 5 additional beds and first floor and ground floor extension to provide fire exit and en-suite facilities - Refused - Appeal - Dismissed

RR/2003/348/P Erection of first floor extension to provide 4 additional beds - Approved

RR/2003/1O21 First floor extension to provide five additional bedrooms. First floor and ground floor extension to provide fire exit and en-suite facilities – Refused - Appeal Dismissed

RR/2003/2842/P Erection of single storey extension to front wing to eliminate proposed dormer window and provide 1 extra bed - Approved

PROPOSAL This is a revised application for RR/2002/2577/P, which prior to its withdrawal, was delegated for approval subject to “… an amended plan showing the full recess of the first floor dormer window at the southern end of the west elevation .” The Local Planning Authority further wrote that they did not consider that “… the introduction of balconies to be appropriate,”Apart form an additional 2m of single storey extension on the western end, this revised scheme shows a similar size and height extension as RR/2002/2577/P, to provide 6 additional bedrooms to this rest home. The extension would be finished in matching external materials.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice: Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY In consideration of this revised application, I have included the following excerpts from the inspectors report for applications RR/2001/2343/P and RR/2002/62/P, which were considered together as appeals A) & B) respectively:10. Turning to the issue of residential amenity, no. 2A would be most at risk,

particularly in terms of oblique overlooking of its rear garden from first floor windows. Again, Appeal B has sought to overcome that objection by the proposed pitched roof over the fire escape, which would prevent views from the southernmost of those buildings. I consider that this would be a successful amendment given the increasing distance of the remaining bedrooms from the common boundary and the presence of a further tree screen that could be strengthened by a condition.

14. In principle, I do not exclude the possibility of a further extension to the home”.As with RR/2002/2577/P, I remain of the view that this revised scheme has now achieved a subordinate relationship to the main building, for which I am prepared, in principle, to give my support. I take the view that the issue of over looking to 2a Richmond Grove, as raised by the inspector, above, is still an issue from the same first floor window at the southern end of the west elevation of the building; this could be overcome if, as with RR/2002/2577/P, either the window to this bedroom were recessed back, leaving the recessed dormer wall as a screen, or the construction of an appropriate screen on the side of the dormer, and the balcony removed.However, as submitted I cannot support this application and would make the following:

34

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The development would cause overlooking which would result in loss of privacy

for neighbouring residents, in particular the occupiers of 2a Richmond Grove. The development would therefore be contrary to Policy S1 (b) and (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2004/2482/P BEXHILL 58 BARNHORN ROAD - LAND REAR, (OFF KITES 17 AUG 2004 NEST WALK) LITTLE COMMON

ERECTION OF 2 BED BUNGALOW WITH INTEGRAL GARAGE AND FORMATION OF ACCESS.Orchard Estates (Uk) Limited

SITE This plot is sited to the rear of 58 Barnhorn Road and adjoining the west side of plot 3 of RR/2003/1020/P, which is under construction.

HISTORY (relevant)RR/2003/247/P Construction of four detached dwellings and garages, formation of

new vehicular access and new road - Refused.RR/2003/2231/P Erection of one detached dwelling - Refused.

PROPOSAL The proposed development is for the erection of a single 2-bedroom bungalow on this plot located behind plot 3, under construction.

CONSULTATIONSHighways Agency:- “… we have considered the likely traffic effects of the proposed house at the rear of 58 Barnhorn Road, Bexhill. The proposed bungalow is to have access to Kites Nest Walk.In its response to application Rfl/200312949/P, the Highways Agency (HA) stated that it would oppose any more development off this private street (Kites Nest Walk) unless the visibility was improved at the junction with the A259 Trunk Road. The proposal to establish another dwelling at the rear of 58 Barnhorn Road does not appear to include any improvements to the junction with the A259 that will address this issue.Standard TD 4 1/95 sets out the visibility requirements for the junction of Kites Nest Walk and the A259. Paragraph 2.22 states that 70 metres of clear visibility is required along the major road from a point on the side road that is 2.4m behind the edge of the major road.Given that the proposal does not include any improvements to the junction, then the site distance criteria of 70m is not met and therefore we object to this proposal on the grounds that the safety of road users will be compromised. If a plan was to be provided that showed the necessary modifications to the junction, we may be willing to change our position.”Highway Authority:- Any comments will be reported.East Sussex County Council:- Rights of Way Officer: Any comments will be reportedRamblers Association:- Any comments will be reportedPlanning Notice:- 2 letters received -1 letter from the solicitor of an interested land owner stating that the plot of land shown on the originally submitted drawings is not entirely within the applicants ownership, and that the resulting plot would be too small, cramped and over development and detrimental to no. 58.

35

1 letter from 66 Barnhorn Road stating: The right of way has been obliterated, is there no longer a right of way. I understand an earlier application for a similar development was refused

SUMMARY Planning permission for four dwellings was refused, including this plot, for a total of four dwellings under RR/2003/247/P; my reported stated “.. the principle of any redevelopment of this land would only be acceptable if it was on the basis of single storey/chalet style dwellings and on the northern half of the site..” The approved scheme for three dwellings under RR/2003/1020/P is under construction. As with the refusal of RR/2003/2231/P, I remain of the view that the introduction of a fourth dwelling plot on this site should not be permitted due to the adverse effect it would have on neighbouring amenities, and the “..on the grounds that the safety of road users will be compromised”

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The sub-division of this site would introduce an undesirable precedent for further

piecemeal development which would constitute over development and have an adverse affect on the amenities of neighbouring dwellings such development would be contrary to the requirements of Policy S1, of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991–2011, and Policies H10 (iv) and ST1 of the Initial Deposit Rother District Local Plan as well as the advice contained in national planning guidance in PPG 1.

2. The Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highways Agency have identified that the proposed development would lead to an increased traffic hazard at the existing substandard junction with the A259, by reason of the inadequate visibility at this existing access.

RR/2004/2504/P BEXHILL 30 THE HIGHLANDS16 AUG 2004 ERECTION OF GROUND FLOOR EXTENSION TO PROVIDE

NEW BEDROOMS AND DAYROOMS AND ERECTION OF FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION TO FORM NEW BEDROOMSMrs Z Nanji & Dr T Osman

SITE This nursing home is located 80m north of Highlands Close; the surrounding properties are predominantly residential.

HISTORYNone

PROPOSAL Under the New Community Care Standards we are required to meet minimum standards of providing bedrooms to be 12 m2 and lounge spaces of 4.1 m2 per person. Presently there is a shortage of lounge space for 23 residents of 50 m2. Some of the rooms are well below 10 m2 and are required to increase to 12 m2.It is our client’s intention to generally increase the beds and improve the facilities n the Home by extending and refurbishing the existing properly to our proposed drawings. The Plans wore submitted and discussed with the Registration Officer from the National Care Standard Commission and recommended for planning submission.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: Any comments will be reported

36

Commission for Social Care Inspection: No objection in principle, it would improve communal space, and individual space in some of the rooms. Any new builds will need to meet the National Minimum standards.Planning Notice: 11 letters of objection: Will owners of Heatherdene, or Council pay for the upkeep of further road use Will become too larger nursing home for quiet residential area Less parking areas Increase of traffic and road nuisance/ hazards After last rebuild it was suggested by the Council that it would not be enlarged

again Will set precedent for increase in size of other nursing homes Loss of privacy Will exacerbate surface water drainage problems Loss of daylight No objection if fence is replaced No more nursing homes Unsuitable for this location of bungalows Appeal inspector allowed last extension RR/92/0743/P on the proviso that there

would be no further extension Detriment to neighbouring garden amenities Second floor extension shown not on planning notice Would consume a large portion of the garden leaving little amenity space on site Noise and disturbance from contractors Scale and size of proposal is out of keeping

SUMMARY In considering this application, I have taken account of the allowed appeal against the refusal of RR/92/0743/P for “Extensions to increase registration to 23 and formation of enlarged car park and new access” In his report the inspector said: “.. there will come a point at which further or higher enlargement of these commercial premises could become unacceptable in the residential surroundings..” I am firmly of the opinion that the proposed extensions would exceed the point which the inspector refers to above. It would be an intensification of use, overdominant, overdevelopment, adversely affecting neighbouring residential amenities, and it would reduce the amount of suitable amenity area on this site. In addition it would cause overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring residents, in particular the residents of 32 The Highlands to the north.For the reasons given I cannot support this application, and the development should be refused.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed development would result in an intensification of use, and would

be overdominant and overdevelopment, which would adversely affect neighbouring residential amenities. Also, it would reduce the amount of suitable amenity area on this site and it would cause overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring residents, in particular the residents of 32 The Highlands to the north. Such development would be in conflict with policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) and policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011

RR/2004/2525/P BEXHILL 1A BEECHING ROAD

37

25 AUG 2004 ERECTION OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDING FOR USE AS A BUS AND COACH GARAGERenown Coaches Ltd

SITE This application relates to the coach depot operated by Renown Coaches Ltd which is behind Phillimores car sales/repairs premises fronting the south east side of Beeching Road. The depot is also used for the maintenance of coaches and double decker buses. The site has two levels. An existing workshop exists on a higher level adjacent to the terrace housing in Leopold Road. The lower level appears to be used for the storage of double decker buses. Conditional planning permission RR/2003/1900/P was granted last year for a similar building on the site, following an inspection of the site by Members.

HISTORYRR/98/2669/P Change of Use to form coach depot, and commercial vehicle

maintenance services – Approved.RR/2000/1751/P Extension to workshop to accommodate coaches pursuant to

RR/98/2669/P – Approved.RR/2001/415/P Revised proposals for extension to workshop to accommodate

coaches – Approved.RR/2003/1900/P Erection of new vehicle workshop with side lean-to for office and

extra workshop space – Approved.

PROPOSAL As with the previous approved building, the proposed alternative building would be located at the lower level, and would back onto (but not immediately adjoin) the boundaries of the rear gardens belonging to numbers 89, 91 and 93 London Road. However, this alternative building would be lower in height (6.7m instead of 9.5m) and would measure 12.2m x 18.3m instead of 12m x 16.5m. The roof would also be domed instead of shallow pitched. The elevations would be grey coloured profiled steel sheeting similar to the previously approved building. As before, a line of Leyland Cypress trees would be planted on the Applicants side of the rear boundary with numbers 89 to 83 London Road. An accompanying letter states:-“Due to cost my client has opted for an alternative building to that approved under the above consent.Please therefore find enclosed a new application for the revised building.The proposed building is a frameless construction giving cost savings and speedier erection. It is constructed of ribbed (profile) steel panels that are bolted together to form a stressed skin structure that is self-supporting. The standard finish is “Galvalume” which is a galvanised type finish, grey in colour. It is not designed to be painted. I have enclosed a brochure for reference.In order to comply with Building Regulations (fire spread between buildings) it has been necessary to construct a blockwork firewall to the side and rear elevations that are close to the boundary. This wall will be 2.5m high, see plan.I trust that this proposal will be acceptable. This building is actually lower and smaller on plan than that previously approved”.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency- Has no objection, but recommend conditions to control discharge of surface water and the type of any infill material.Director of Services – Environment:- Comments awaited.

38

Planning Notice:- 1 letter of objection – Coach park is extremely noisy from 3 am and throughout the day; fumes that come out of the garage day or night are horrendous; will be an eyesore and decrease the value of our houses.

SUMMARY In terms of physical impact, the proposed alternative building would be 2.8m lower than the previously approved building and would therefore have significantly less impact upon the amenities of the properties that adjoin in London road. In terms of design, the domed roof is not particularly in keeping with its surroundings. However, it would not be visually prominent and is, on balance, preferable to the previously approved building. The previously approved building was intended to provide additional workshop space. However, the description of the proposed alternative building indicates that it would be used for the storage of buses and coaches only. I have therefore requested clarification from the Applicants. The comments of Director of Services – Environment and Highways Agency have not yet been received. However, I would anticipate supporting this proposal.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (NO OBJECTION FROM HIGHWAY AUTHORITY AND DIRECTOR OF SERVICES – ENVIRONMENT/CLARIFICATION OF PROPOSED USE)1. The building shall be used for vehicle storage purposes only and shall not be

used as a workshop for the repair and maintenance of vehicles.Reason: To safeguard the residential amenities of the area 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: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

2. 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. The trees shall be allowed to grow to the same height as the new vehicle workshop and thereafter maintained at that height.Reason: To screen the new vehicle workshop from the view if the adjoining properties and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Revised Deposit Rother District Local Plan.

3. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed.Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled water by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal and to accord with Policy GD1 of the Revised Deposit Rother District Local Plan.

4. The development of the site should be carried out in accordance with the Method Statement approved under condition no. 5 of alternative planning permission RR/2003/1900/P.Reason: To ensure that the development complies with approved details in the interests of protection of controlled waters and human health and to accord with Policy GD1 of the Revised Deposit Rother District Local Plan.

39

5. Clean, uncontaminated rock, subsoil, brick rubble, crushed concrete and ceramic only shall be permitted as infill material.Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters and risks to human health and to accord with Policy GD1 of the Revised Deposit Rother District Local Plan.

6. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water from parking areas and hardstandings susceptible to oil contamination shall be passed through an oil separator designed and constructed to have a capacity compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptor. On going maintenance of the interceptor shall be provided in accordance with the manufacturers instructions.Reason: To prevent pollution of water environment and to accord with Policy S1 (g) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 (x) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

7. As recommended by the Director of Services – Environment.


RR/2004/2539/P BEXHILL HIGHWOODS GOLF CLUB, ELLERSLIE LANE,20 AUG 2004 DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GREEN KEEPING FACILITIES AND

ERECTION OF NEW IMPLEMENT SHEDS, STAFF FACILITIES AND RELOCATION OF WATER TANKHighwoods Golf Club

SITE This part of the Golf Club is located off Ellerslie Lane, immediately behind and adjoining the rear gardens of bungalows in Turkey Road.

HISTORYRR/80/0184/P Demolition of garage and trolley store and erection of implement

shed for storage of implements, tractors and mowers - Approved.RR/2003/0448/P Outline: Demolition of existing green keeping facilities and the

erection of new implement sheds and staff facilities - RefusedRR/2003/2448/P Outline: Demolition of existing grass keeping facilities and the

erection of new implement sheds and staff facilities. Approved

PROPOSAL This is an application for the approval of reserved matters following the approval of Outline planning permission RR/2003/2448/P. The details submitted include a layout plan for the new equipment store, oil and chemical store, workshop, staff room and plant room and a resited water tank. The layout shown is as illustrated on the approved Outline application.

CONSULTATIONSDirector of Services - Environmental Health:-“ I have spoken to the applicant regarding the proposed development andI would recommend the following conditions: -1) The workshop may only be used for maintaining the equipment of Highwoods’ Golf Club.2) Night-time boundary noise level condition (11pm — 5am) on the boundary of the nearest residential property.”

40

Highway Authority:- Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice:- 1 letter re the planning notice (answered by LPA).

SUMMARY I am satisfied that the controlling conditions imposed on the Outline application will ensure a satisfactory development of this site in order to minimise the visual impact on neighbouring amenities. The submitted details reflect the negotiated layout for this development as illustrated on the Outline application. I am satisfied that subject to further conditions, the submitted details are acceptable, and in my opinion have a minimum impact on neighbouring amenities.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE (RESERVED MATTERS) DELEGATED (NOISE LEVELS)1. The workshop shall only be used for maintaining the equipment of Highwoods

Golf Club. Reason: RC35

2. Noise emitted from the site shall not exceed (A) dB expressed as a (B) minute/hour between 23.00 and 05.00 hours on any day and (A) dB expressed as a (B) minute/hour at any other time, as measured on the (D) boundary (boundaries) of the site/at point(s) (E).

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality. (CN12I)3. No development shall commence until details of the colour of the profiled metal

sheets and details of the new brickwork for the new buildings have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: RC2

Note: N2B – ref RR/2003/2448/P.

RR/2004/2544/P BEXHILL 55A BARNHORN ROAD, LITTLE COMMON20 AUG 2004 OUTLINE: RENEWAL OF PERMISSION RR/97/2410/P FOR THE

ERECTION OF A BUNGALOWMr and Mrs Partridge

SITE This is a backland site opposite an existing bungalow 55A Barnhorn Road, and to the rear of dwellings on the south side of Barnhorn Road. The site is accessed via an existing track approximately 60m long, onto Barnhorn Road, of which the access/egress point is approximately 120m west of the Barnhorn Road junction with Howards Crescent; the same access track also serves the existing bungalow No. 55A. The site is mostly outside the development boundary for Bexhill as shown on the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

HISTORYB/54/50 Outline: Application to erect two bungalows - RefusedB/50/424 Outline: Application to erect a bungalow - Deemed ConsentB/61/123 Detached semi-bungalow and garage - ApprovedB/72/1792 Outline: Erect a dwelling house and set in backland off trunk road -

RefusedRR/75/1518 Outline: Formation of building plot for erection of a single dwelling -

RefusedRR/85/2010 Outline: Application for erection of dwelling and garage - Refused -

Appeal Allowed.RR/97/2410/P Outline: formation of a building plot for the erection of a single

bungalow – Refused – Appeal allowed 19 January 1999.41

RR/2001/2769/P Outline: renewal of permission RR/97/2410/P for erection of bungalow - Approved

PROPOSAL This is a renewal of the Outline planning permission for a single bungalow on a building plot of 0.10 hectares (0.247 acres). The new bungalow would be single storey, and provision would be made for a garage and a parking space; the last approved renewal RR/97/2410/P was RR/2001/2769/P.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Agency:- Any comments will be reported.Highway Authority:- Any comments will be reported.English Nature:- “English Nature does not hold records of badger setts. If badgers have been seen on site and there is reason to suspect that there is a sett on or near the site (within 30m of the proposed development) English Nature would advise that your authority direct the applicant to employ a qualified ecologist to determine if and how badgers and other protected species are using the site.Badgers and the lawBadgers are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 under which it is an offence to:Intentionally kill, injure or take from the wild, damage, destroy, dig or obstruct access to a sett; disturb badgers whilst they are occupying their setts.Two issues need to be considered when badgers are present on a development site:• The disturbance of badgers and their setts during the construction work.• The long term disturbance caused to badgers and their setts by the completed

development.”Planning Notice:- Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY There are no material changes to the site since 2001. One of the major issues in determining RR/97/2410/P was the presence of badgers on the site; which was again examined with RR/2001/2769/P. The agent has provided a copy of a letter to the LPA from English Nature dated 05.02.02 in relation to the renewal of RR/97/2410/p, under RR/2001/2679/P, that “Badgers have since been excluded under licence”. I am satisfied with this. Subject to the same controlling conditions to those imposed under RR/2001/2769/P, the renewal of RR/97/2410/P is again, acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING) DELEGATED (NO ADVERSE COMMENTS FROM THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY)1. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences or other means of boundary demarcation shall be erected without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: RC8 and to accord with the requirements of policy S1, of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991–2011, and policy GD1, of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

2. No development shall take place until details of the measures to be taken to protect the oak tree the subject of a Tree Preservation Order during construction work in accordance with BS5837 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be permanently retained during construction work. Reason: To prevent damage to this tree and to accord with the requirements of policy S1, of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991–2011,

42

and policy GD1, of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

NOTE: This planning permission does not authorise any interference with badgers, badger sets etc., in contravention with the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and/or with animals, birds, marine life, Great Crested Newts, plants … in contravention of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and other Wildlife Legislation including any licensing requirements and hours from DEFRA or other relevant bodies. Further advice on the requirements of these Acts/Legislation is available from English Nature, Phoenix House, 32-33 North Street, Lewes, East Sussex, BN7 2PH, telephone (01273) 476595.


RR/2004/2725/P BEXHILL 10 JEVINGTON CLOSE13 SEP 2004 DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOUSE, ERECTION OF 2, 4

BEDROOM HOUSESMr T Graham

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

SITE This is a detached chalet style bungalow located on the south side of Jevington Close. To the west are similar houses to the existing, with two terraces of four houses to the east, all within Jevington Close.

HISTORYRR/64/169/P 23 Houses and Garages – ApprovedRR/2004/1230/P Demolition of existing house construction of 3 four-bed houses with

integral garages and new vehicular access and alteration to existing access - Withdrawn

PROPOSAL This is a revised scheme following the withdrawal of RR/2004/1230/P. This is a revised full application for two detached dwellings. The agent has shown the two houses with ‘catslide’ roofs and a variation in design. The footprint of the houses measure approximately 11.8m x 9.2m.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- Any comments will be reported.Southern Water: does not wish to commentEnvironment Agency:- The Agency has no objections, in principle, to the proposed development but recommends that if planning permission is granted the following planning conditions are imposed:“Planning Condition(s)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.”Network Rail: Give various comments and general advice regarding any the affect the development may have on railway land and infrastructure. Planning Notice:3 letters of objection:

43

The site is overgrown and unattractive There are restrictive covenants on this land Proposed dwellings are not chalet bungalows The new dwellings are out of design and harmony with the distinctive

architecture of dwellings in Jevington Close Inadequate width between the two properties and the neighbouring dwellings Inadequate provision for off street parking Increase in density would undermine the character of Jevington Close The site is close to the railway and the houses would be subject to noise

exposure as given in PPG24 The development will cause parking problems Will set undesirable precedent for similar development

SUMMARY I have noted the above objections including the reference to the ‘Noise Exposure Categories’ for new dwellings as given in PPG 24. I am aware that this is not an undeveloped site, however I consider it necessary to consult the Councils Director of Services – Environmental Health for their views and advise concerning this matter. Subject to a satisfactory outcome regarding the noise exposure issues, I take the view that the two dwellings are generally acceptable. The submitted plans show a capability to park at least 3 cars within the cartilage of each house. Whilst the sizes of the houses are bigger than the other detached house in the close, I consider that the design of the dwellings is in a similar character. Subject to being satisfied the comments of Environmental Health regarding the noise exposure issues, I would make the following:

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (CONSULTATION RESPONSE FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND CORRECTED 1:500 BLOCK PLANS RE: ROOF DESIGN)1. The position of the roof lights in the roofs of the dwellings, are not approved. No

development shall take place until details of the position of the roof lights to avoid overlooking has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the dwellings are used or occupied. Reason; RC11

2. CN5E a) windows and b) extension or alteration3. CN7B a), b) & c)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 water pollution and to accord with policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011

5. CN9I Before any development takes place, detailed plans for boundary walls and fences on the site shall be submitted to and be subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The fences and walls shall be constructed before the dwellings are used or occupied and shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory development of the site and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. (CN9I)

N1B Amended plans – expected.


44

RR/2004/2744/P BEXHILL 3 SUTHERLAND AVENUE10 SEP 2004 OUTLINE: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING PROPERTY AND

ERECTION OF 6 TWO BEDROOM FLATS TOGETHER WITH PARKING FACILITIES AND ALTERATION TO EXISTING ACCESS AND FORMATION OF A NEW PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.Silvero Investments Ltd

SITE A large detached Edwardian property now occupied as 4 flats, located on a corner plot at the junction of Terminus Avenue and Sutherland Avenue. The plot size is approximately 0.07 ha. The surrounding area consists of residential properties.

HISTORYB/56/25 Conversion into 4 self-contained flats – Approved.RR/91/1035/P O/A. Demolition of existing building and erection of 6 flats with 8

parking spaces served by new vehicular access – Refused.RR/2001/2357/P Outline: demolition of existing flats and erection of new block of

eleven flats and underground car parking - Refused

PROPOSAL The proposed development consists of the demolition of the existing two-storey building and its replacement with a new building for 6 two-bedroom flats. Although this is an Outline application the agent has shown an illustrative drawing of a 2½ storey Edwardian style building on an extended footprint. The agent has provided a supporting letter giving further details attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 7 October 2004.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: Any comments will be reportedSouthern Water: Any comments will be reportedEnvironment Agency: No objection in principle but recommends:Planning Condition(s)“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.Clean, uncontaminated rock, subsoil, brick rubble, crushed concrete and ceramic only shall be permitted as infill materialReason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters.” Plus general informativesPlanning Notice: Any comments will be reported. SUMMARY This scheme is an improvement over the refused scheme for a 3½ storey block of eleven flats, on a larger footprint under RR/2001/2357/P. I take the view that subject to being satisfied that the replacement building would not adversely affect the amenities of the closest residential property, no. 24 Terminus Avenue, I consider this scale, design and form of development to be an acceptable of this site. Until this matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, I would make the following:

45

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FURTHER INVESTIGATION INTO IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES INCLUDING ANY LOSS OF DAYLIGHT, OVERSHADOWING, IMPACT ETC)

RR/2004/2779/P BEXHILL 86-90 NINFIELD ROAD15 SEPT 2004 OUTLINE: ERECTION OF TWO SEMI DETACHED DWELLINGS

East Sussex County Council

SITE This site is located adjoining the east side of a derelict semi- detached house, with the redevelopment site for the new retail shop to the west. The site is within the residential area and development boundary as given in the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). It is currently in an overgrown state with advertisement hoardings on the frontage facing Ninfield Road.

HISTORY(None relevant)

PROPOSAL This is an Outline application for the redevelopment of this site with two houses. The agent has illustrated a footprint for the houses, which are shown as being set back from the semi-detached house to the west 92 Ninfield Road.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: Any comments will be reported.Southern Water: Any comments will be reported.Environment Agency: Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice: Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY Originally there was a terrace of three cottages built in 1887, which have been demolished sometime since the mid 1970s. Whilst I consider the principle of the redevelopment of this site for the pair of dwellings proposed, because the red site area is set back away from the road frontage, the new houses are shown to be behind the rear wall of no.92. Having discussed the site with the County Estates Surveyor, I was informed that no. 92 is still in private ownership and it would not be compulsory purchased for the footpath-widening scheme proposed along Ninfield Road. I am of the opinion that because of the original 3 cottages that were on this site for approximately 80 years, the site can accommodate two appropriately sited dwellings, but not as illustrated on the submitted plan. Although there is no on site car parking, with the good public transport and public car parks in the vicinity, the lack of car parking provision would not conflict with the guidance in PPG3.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD AND COMMENTS OF THE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY)1. The illustrative siting of the dwellings as shown on the submitted plans, is not

approved. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site in accordance with policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011

2. 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.46

3. Clean, uncontaminated rock, subsoil, brick rubble, crushed concrete and ceramic only shall be permitted as infill material.

Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters.4. Before any development takes place, detailed plans for boundary walls and

fences on the site shall be submitted to and be subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The fences and walls shall be constructed before the:-(a) dwelling(s) are occupied and shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure the satisfactory development of the site and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. (CN9I)

RR/2004/2364/P BEXHILL 47-59 SACKVILLE ROAD AND 1-3 MARINA02 AUG 2004 REDEVELOPMENT OF SITE WITH 24 FLATS, TWO SHOPS

WITH ALTERATION TO EXISTING ACCESS AND PROVISION OF 24 PARKING SPACES.Mr H Khan

SITE This site covers a 0.08Hectare and is in a corner position situated at the southern end of Sackville Road, to the north of the roundabout. The site currently consists of a single storey row of shops; sandwiched between buildings to Sackville Road and Marina that are three storeys in height; with commercial uses for the ground floor levels. The De La Warr Pavilion and the putting green are situated to the south of this site.

HISTORYB/61/97 Outline Application for erection over existing shops of block of 12 flats and

2 penthouses – ApprovedB/68/55 Outline application for demolition of existing buildings and erection of

block of flats and garages – RefusedRR/80/0622 Outline: Erection of 18 Self Catering Holiday Flats above lock up shops

and provision of car parking accommodation – Approved Conditional

PROPOSAL This is a full planning application which would seek to demolish the existing single storey shops located on this site at the southern end of Sackville Road. Demolition would be followed by the redevelopment of the site to provide a part basement car park (24 cars) to be accessed via an existing shared vehicular access (to be improved and widened) to the north of the site. The scheme would consist of a partially raised ground floor element with an external terrace and units comprising of class A1/ A3 shops/ restaurants. The remaining 7 floors of the development would be of residential use; containing 24 three bedroom flats. It is proposed that each flat would have a balcony and that there would be a roof terrace to the top of the development. The exterior of the development would be rendered in a cream/ natural colour with a significant amount of glazing to the south western elevation of the development.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: Comments awaited.Environment Agency: The Agency has no objections, in principle to the proposed development but recommends that if planning permission is granted that the following planning conditions are imposed:

47

“1. Prior to being discharged into any watercourses, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas, roads and hardstandings shall be passed through trapped gullies to BS5911:1982, with an overall capacity compatible with the site being drained.Clean, uncontaminated rock, subsoil, brick rubble, crushed concrete and ceramic only shall be permitted as infill materials.Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters.

2. If during development, any visibly contaminated or odorous material not previously identified is found to be present at the site, must be investigated. The Planning Authority must be informed immediately of the nature and degree of contamination present. The developer shall submit a Method Statement which must detail how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.Reason: To ensure that the development complies with approved details in the interests of protection of Controlled Waters.”

Southern Water Services: The exact position of the public sewers must be determined on site by the Applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised. Southern Water would request that if consent is granted there be a condition requiring measures for protection of the sewer be agreed, prior to determination of the application. Southern Water would have no objection to the discharge of foul sewerage from the development to the public foul sewer. If the existing development discharges surface water to the existing foul/ combined system, a discharge no greater than the existing would be permitted. The on-site foul and surface water drainage should be kept separate up to the point of connection with the public sewer. The details of the proposed connections to the public sewer will require the formal approval of Southern Water Services Ltd.English Heritage: Recommendations: “Recommends that planning permission for this scheme is refused as it fails to preserve or enhance the special character of the conservation area and detrimentally affects the setting of the De La Warr Pavillion. A more contextual design approach that respects existing building heights, plot widths and articulation, but employing new design, offers an appropriate way forward. We consider that the implications of this application are so significant that we would welcome the opportunity of advising further on the revised proposals.”Sussex Police: No major concerns, recommends full height shutter/ gates control access to basement car park – otherwise building fabric and vehicles at unnecessary risk from criminal attack. I would also like to discuss the detailed design of the external seating area. Ideally I would like to see a method of excluding public access out of restaurant hours. The flats should confirm to the recommendations of the police scheme Secured By Design. It is recommended, therefore, that before making any amendments to the application, the applicant or their agent first discusses these comments with the Local Planning Authority.SEEDA: General Observation – SEEDA will not be commenting on this application. A statutory response is only required for applications in excess of 10 Ha or 10,000 sq metres for office and employment uses. However, if you consider that it complies with any other criteria listed in our letter such as the Bexhill- Hastings Link Road please confirm.Director Of Services – Environmental Health: Comments awaited.Director of Services- Amenities: It is essential that the detailed designs incorporate adequate facility for the collection and short term storage of domestic waste and items for recycling as part of this Council’s proposed integrated kerbside collection. Access to the rear of the property for large service vehicles including waste collection would be advantageous.

48

Planning Notice: 7 letters of objection (47-59 Sackville Road) (30 Linden Road) (32 Linden Road – 2 letters) (66 Cornwall Road – 2 letters) (5 Marina) (28 Linden Road):- Effect on value of property (43-45) which is an end terrace at the moment – will

become mid terrace if application approved – may make a claim against the Authority for compensation.

- Would appear that the proposed development would result in loss of light and thus a reduction in value (loss of amenity in the flats above the shop at 43 & 45) – may make a claim against the Authority for compensation.

- Increase in traffic at already congested corner.- Potential danger of underground car park so near the sea.- The drive through to the rear of the buildings may be of insufficient height to

permit access for refuse vehicles and delivery Lorries.- Opposite the De La Warr – the design does not meet this high standard.- No design statement.- Should be referred to CABE.- Out of scale and character with adjacent buildings.- Will harm appearance of seafront and gateway/ entrance to town.- Over development of the site.- Proposed restaurants above pavement level – creating dead frontage at

pavement level on key corner location – harmful to appearance of area and business linkage between Sackville Road and seafront.

- Exclude disabled from reasonable and dignified access to restaurants and flats.- Only incorporates 24 parking spaces (1 per dwelling) and no visitor parking –

lead to increased competition for on-street parking.- It is in Conservation Area – should be sympathetic to this.- Extra noise created by development – unacceptable, loading at rear and parking

noise.- Loss of privacy to property.- Block sea view – lowering the price of property.- Overshadowing and cramping of our premises.- Development seeks to demolish the existing single storey shops located on the

site, this would infringe our clients’ right of support and protection currently afforded to them and would therefore breach entry 3 of the Charges Register in Relation to the title number ESX1754 being 3 Marina Bexhill.

- Health and safety.- The project is just to make money for the applicant.- Would like to request 3D rendered images indicating likely overshadowing of

adjoining properties at various times of the year – have not been provided.Petition Objecting – It accepts the need for redevelopment, but objects on the following points;- Out of scale/ character.- Not enough parking.- Access will cause traffic hazards.- Gardens overlooked – Human Rights Act.Signed by 33 people.

SUMMARY Negotiations are continuing with English Heritage regarding design and the context for this development and proposals for the garage site opposite.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (NEGOTIATIONS WITH ENGLISH HERITAGE)

49

RR/2004/2365/P BECKLEY HORSESHOE LANE - LAND AT25 AUG 2004 ERECTION OF TWO TEMPORARY RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS TOGETHER WITH ERECTION OF FARM BUILDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH OSTRICH FARMINGRegalmain

SITE The site has an area of roughly 11.8 hectares, and lies to the west of the narrow ‘Horseshoe Lane’. A traditional farm access with 5 bar gate is located on the boundary fronting the lane. The land lies within the High Weald AONB, and is currently used for grazing animals.

HISTORYRR/93/1140/P Proposed overhead lines - No objection.

PROPOSAL The application seeks permission to erect two temporary residential units for agricultural workers, and the erection of farm buildings and associated infrastructure in connection with ostrich farming.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Support a refusal: Size of buildings too great, homes in lane would suffer from the noise and traffic generated. Question of waste disposal. In an AONB.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency: No objection or commentsSouthern Water Services: Does not wish to comment on this application.Planning Notice: 29 letters of objection (The Forge; Hoathley; Hawthorn Cottage; Swifts x 2 - one from owner and one from residents; The Old Museum; Garden House; Kings Bank House; Stockhurst Farm; Birds House Farm; Hoathwood; Milldown Wood; The Hollies; Freshfields; Timber Lodge; Downham; Horseshoe House; 3 Forge Cottage; Southcot; Gate House; Fortune Cottage; Milldown x 2; 4 Buddens Green; Norbee Lodge; 141 College Lane, West Sussex – relation to owner Norbee Lodge; Green Meadows; Taihoa; and Horsepen) relating to:- No statutory notice has been erected on the boundary to the land.- 2 or 3 years ago RDC refused a cottage on the land on the opposite side of

Horseshoe Lane.- Creation of heavy goods traffic in lane of restricted width – destroy lane.- Inadequate access.- Security and noise, odour and light pollution.- High unsightly security fences would be required to contain potentially

aggressive birds - warrant a Dangerous Animal Licence (birds can travel at 56 kmh – create fear amongst locals – especially the elderly).

- Lower value of properties in the lane.- Spoil Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.- Mains water, drainage and electricity facilities would be stretched.- Two others in the area have failed – then left with derelict buildings which would

be blot on landscape. Also open up land for further large scale housing development.

- Site situated in mixed agricultural/residential, not one for intensive farming.- How can they be temporary structures when staff will be required on site 24/7?- Construction of tarmac roadways indicates site will be more of a mini – industrial

estate than farm.- Possible that Abattoir proposed may be used for other animal slaughter as well.- Public Footpath crosses the site – is this to be diverted? (is this feasible).

50

- No evidence to suggest ostrich farming to be necessity to the British food Industry. Indeed all such farms in the UK have been abject failures.

- If farm opened to public in the future it would significantly increase traffic.- Potential risk of Bird Flu to local human population.- Antibiotics and other treatments use don the birds may pose health hazards to

public.- PPS7 states that existing sites should be considered for development first –

other farms are available for purchase within the south east – these would provide ready made housing for staff and accommodation for the animals.

- Geddes Walker in their letter of 30 July 2004 refers to Ostrich Farms UK Limited – this does not exist as a legal entity since it was dissolved on 3 February 2004.

- Possibly 600 tons of feed being delivered by lorry per year in narrow lane.- Policy states that Authorities should not normally give temporary permissions in

locations were they would not give a permanent dwelling.- No provision for the disposal of bird waste or abattoir waste.- Alteration to access – stated not required but there is insufficient turning space

into a normal 5 bar gate for heavy vehicles.- Lack of privacy.- Ostriches are ecologically inappropriate to the proposed area. - Junction with Main Street is already difficult to cross – increase danger.- No reason to farm an African animal normally found on wide-open plains.- The land is precious resource (fields of superior loam).- During winter the fields are often saturated and are a fog and frost pocket – is

this suitable for this African wild animal? Welfare of birds.- None of local farmers have embarked on a feasibility study to raise Ostriches in

the area – nor would they. This begs question as to why unrelated agent run from North London should be so keen to embark on such a high-risk venture on overpriced and sensitive land.

- If approval granted there should be condition attached that land should be returned to original state if business fails.

- The foul waste disposal information on the application form has not been filled in.- Who actually owns the land? Why the discrepancy of ownership?- Usually incomplete application forms are returned – why not this one?- As for hazardous substances not being stored – this should be investigated and

verified. There will be large amounts of bird effluent, which is subject to COSHH regulations.

- The ‘mushroom farm’ in Hobbs Lane has already added a totally unsuitable industrial dimension to Beckley life and that alone is responsible for unwarranted and excessively large vehicle movements in another unsuitable lane.

- The Rother District Local Plan – Re development in rural areas 4.49 states ‘Development is generally restricted to that which needs to be located there’ – this application does not need to be here.

- The development lies outside the growth envelop of the village and previous proposed residential development along the lane has been refused.

1 letter from Veterinary Surgeon at Springfield Surgery: “As a veterinary surgeon I have been involved with several ostrich farms – they have all “gone bust” surprisingly quickly”. Merely attempt to gain planning permission for two bungalows.

SUMMARY The site is within the countryside (AONB) where planning policies and guidance indicate that development and change will be strictly controlled and proposals for new development will be required to demonstrate that a countryside location is necessary. New residential development (including mobile homes) will not normally be

51

allowed unless it is demonstrated that a dwelling is essential to the running of an enterprise which must be in a countryside location. In this case, planning permission is being sought for two mobile homes on the grounds that they are essential for the running of an ostrich farm. The ostrich farm is a proposed venture. The land is undeveloped and presently grazed by sheep. It is used on a low intensity agricultural basis and this is reflected in the present character and appearance of the landscape. No infrastructure, buildings, access road, fences and field shelters exist at present, and in addition to the mobile homes these elements required in connection with the proposed business venture form part of the application now before you. The package of development would introduce an intensive agricultural use to the site and would result in a marked change in the character and appearance of the AONB landscape.With respect to the proposed dwellings, Government planning advice to Local Planning Authorities on temporary agricultural dwellings is contained in PPS7:

“If a new dwelling is essential to support a new farming activity, whether on a newly-created agricultural unit or an established one, it should normally, for the first three years, be provided by a caravan, a wooden structure which can be easily dismantled, or other temporary accommodation. It should satisfy the following criteria:(i) clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise concerned (significant investment in new farm buildings is often a good indication of intentions);(ii) functional need (see paragraph 4 of this Annex);(iii) clear evidence that the proposed enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis;(iv) the functional need could not be fulfilled by another existing dwelling on the unit, or any other existing accommodation in the area which is suitable and available for occupation by the workers concerned; and(v) other normal planning requirements, e.g. on siting and access, are satisfied.”

I am seeking the comments of the Rural Estates Surveyor as to whether the application satisfies the criteria set out in (i)-(iv). With respect to criteria (iii), the supporting letter with the application contains very little information as to whether the proposed enterprise has been planned on a sound financial basis. I have asked the applicant’s agent if a copy of the business plan could be provided. On the basis of the submitted application, I anticipate making the

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (COMMENTS FROM RURAL ESTATES SURVEYOR)1. The site is within the countryside outside any town or village as defined in the

Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). Policies S1, S10 and S11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and DS3, DS4 and HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) contain a strong presumption against residential development (including temporary mobile homes) unless it meets one of the exceptions described in the plans. The application has been assessed against Government planning advice in Annexe A to PPS7 and it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the two mobile homes are essential to the needs of agriculture. The development is contrary to the aforementioned policies.

2. The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, where policies S1(j), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) and Government Advice contained in PPG7 indicate

52

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 rural character of the area.

RR/2004/2154/P NORTHIAM CARTREF – REAR OF, DIXTER LANE19 JUL 2004 PROPOSED DWELLING WITH GARAGE

Mr and Mrs S Page

SITE The backland plot comprises of the rear garden of an existing detached chalet bungalow on the south east side of Dixter Lane. It lies within the development boundary for the village of Northiam, and is within the High Weald AONB.

HISTORYRR/77/1435 Outline: Erection of a private dwelling - RefusedRR/79/1728 Outline: Erection of 4 dwellings - RefusedRR/87/1419 Outline: Erection of dwelling with garage served by a new vehicular

access - RefusedRR/88/0397 Outline: Erection of dwelling and garage with new access -

RefusedRR/2001/2316/P Erection of conservatory – Approved ConditionalRR/2003/1252/P Loft conversion with dormer windows – Approved ConditionalRR/2003/1691/P Erection of dwelling - Refused

PROPOSAL The application seeks permission to erect a new dwelling with garage on land to the rear of ‘Cartref’ CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support refusal, commenting that they are concerned about “The discharge of surface water into the Workhouse Pond, the shared access arrangement/increase vehicular traffic, and generally at the amount of back development”.Highway Authority – Recommends that consent be refused. The approach road Dixter Lane (UC6936) is unsuitable to serve the proposed development by reason of its narrow width, poor alignment, lack of footways and its substandard junction with the A28.Planning Notice – 2 letters of objection from 2 Knelle View concerned with the following: Land adjoins rear garden and as it rises steeply building would be highly visible, creating a total loss of visibility for neighbours. Understand there are numerous springs beneath the site, and concerned village pond will be deprived of its water supply. Any access road would cause rear of property to be lit up by car lights due to slope of land.

SUMMARY The scheme shows the intention to subdivide the cartilage of the property and erect a brick and tile chalet bungalow in a position about 41m to the rear of Cartref and 40m to the rear of 2 Knelle View. The existing double garage at the north west end of the plot would remain, and the existing vehicular access onto Dixter Lane would be made up and utilised. I note the various examples of recent planning approvals highlighted in the supporting statement, however, each application needs to be considered on its individual merits, planning circumstances have not materially changed since the previous planning refusal (RR/2003/1691/P), and in respect to this I make the RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)

53

1. RN8E (Backland)2. RN14A (Precedent)3. Dixter Lane, UC6936, is unsuitable to serve the proposed development by

reason of its narrow width, poor alignment, lack of footways and its substandard junction with the A28

RR/2004/2308/P NORTHIAM SPINDLEWOOD, STATION ROAD06 AUG 2004 RETENTION OF TWO DORMER WINDOWS TO REAR

ELEVATIONMr W Mewett

SITE Spindlewood is a detached bungalow on the south east side of Station Road two plots down from the Ghyllside Road junction.

HISTORYRR/2002/2141/P Alterations and extension to provide 3 bedrooms and bathroom in

roof, larger living room and garage – Approved Conditional.RR/2003/3220/P Addition of dormer to rear elevation and side door to garage –

Refused – Appeal Pending.RR/2004/188/P Erection of conservatory to replace existing (Retrospective

application) – Delegated to Approve.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission for the retention of two rear dormers both have been constructed unlawfully. The northern dormer was granted planning permission under RR/2002/2141/P, however, was not built to plan. The second southern dormer was constructed in breach of condition 2 of planning permission RR/2002/2141/P, planning application RR/2003/3220/P was submitted to rectify this breach, however, it was refused by this committee at the

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support refusal. “The application is wrongly described as ‘Retention of two dormer windows in rear elevation’ when it is in fact a retrospective application for approval of an extension. RDC have correspondence from the Parish Council documenting its reasons for not supporting the development. The Parish Council understood that the dormer windows were the subject of an enforcement order.”A letter from the Parish Council was received, concerned with the following:“The Parish Council discussed the above application at their Planning meeting on 26 August 2004.As you are no doubt aware there has been considerable disquiet in the village over the re-development of this property and although not marked as such on the Planning List this application is in fact retrospective. The Parish Council feels that the description on the application of ‘Retention of two dormer windows to rear elevation’ is to say the least misleading when the plan attached to it is clearly for the extension of the property incorporating two dormer windows.The Parish Council understands that the two dormer windows are in fact the subject of an enforcement order.”Planning Notice – 1 letter of objection concerned with the following; The whole roof area has been enlarged and the dormers are far larger than the

one dormer for which consent was given RR/2004/2141/P.

54

Present structure is completely out of keeping with the surrounding area and its windows now overlook many over properties, which previously had some privacy.

The applicant has continued to carry out unauthorised building work for over 18 months, this has meant continuous noise.

This application appears to duplicate a matter which has already been refused Planning Permission and is still, as far as I know, the subject of an outstanding Planning Appeal.

SUMMARY In February 2003, permission was granted with conditions for RR/2002/2141/P. Condition 2 of this permission stated, no windows except as shown on the approved plans shall be inserted into the building, however, this condition was breached with the construction of the second rear dormer, also the dormer that was granted permission has not been constructed to the plan approved and is therefore unlawful development. Planning permission RR/2003/3220/P was submitted for the construction of the second dormer, this application went before the planning committee at the December meeting. When it was refused, by virtue of the bulk of the additional dormer and its visual impact the proposal is considered out of character with adjoining residential development and detrimental to the amenities of those dwelling, this application is subject to an outstanding appeal. I do not consider that this view has changed and I am minded to

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. By virtue of the bulk of the dormers and its visual impact the proposal is

considered out of character out of keeping with adjoining residential development and detrimental to the amenities of those dwellings. For these reasons the proposal would be contrary to Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2004/2471/P NORTHIAM ALPINES - LAND OFF, EWHURST LANE20 AUG 2004 ERECTION OF FOUR 4 BED DETACHED HOUSES WITH

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ROAD AND ALTERATION TO EXISTING VEHICULAR ACCESSSJW DEVELOPMENTS & CONSTRUCTION LTD

SITE The proposed 0.22 ha site is currently part of the garden belonging to ‘Alpines’ which is a detached bungalow occupying a backland plot off the south east side of Ewhurst Lane. The site falls within the Development Boundary of Northiam village as defined in the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

HISTORYNone.

PROPOSAL It is proposed to erect 4 four-bedroomed detached houses on the site served by a single 5m wide access off Ewhurst Lane. Three of the houses would have single garages and one a double, all with parking in front. The submitted plan indicates existing boundary trees and hedging retained. A small number of existing conifer and fruit trees within the site would be removed.

CONSULTATIONS55

Parish Council:- Support a refusal for the following reasons:-“1. There have been problems with the foul drainage from properties in the vicinity.

Surface water forms floods in heavy rain and the proposed development would only seem to exacerbate these problems. It is felt that the Environment Agency response which appears to be very informal and was supplied within four days may not have taken into full account the drainage limitations affecting the site.

2. The site itself is severely waterlogged in winter and it is felt that the development will increase this problem for surrounding properties.

3. The proposals would result in severe loss of privacy for existing householders whose properties will be overlooked by several windows.

4. Nearby properties would lose large amounts of sunlight from their gardens.5. The proposed houses are too large for the area bearing in mind the size of the

surrounding properties.6. Any development should have height restrictions i.e. bungalows in keeping with

surrounding properties.7. There is great concern at the planned removal of trees from the site a) because

the existing wildlife including owls, bats, badgers, foxes, slow-worms, frogs, toads, butterflies and 25 species of birds will lose their habitat and b) because their removal would will result in a detrimental affect on the stability of the remaining trees.

8. The contours of the site are such that properties of the height proposed will overlook and overpower the surroundings.”

Environment Agency:- Have no objection or comments.Southern Water:- Have no objection to the proposed method of foul sewage disposal (i.e. “to existing foul drainage”). The Council need to be satisfied regarding the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water. A condition is requested that details of measures for protection of the public sewer that crosses the site are submitted for approval prior to commencement of the development.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- 21 letters of objection - detrimental to AONB; will involve felling a number of mature trees; will destroy a wildlife habitat; will disturb residents of nearby old people’s home; addition of traffic near corner in narrow lane; proposed houses will do nothing to satisfy need for affordable housing in area; out of character with surrounding mainly single storey properties; will set a precedent for further large scale development in an overdeveloped village; more suburban style houses inappropriate; reduced water pressure; difficult vehicular access; narrow entrance would be inadequate to cope with two cars passing; addition of pressure on water and sewage; increased traffic will destroy peaceful environment; unacceptable destruction of trees and root damage to remaining large trees; height and design not in keeping dwarfing nearby bungalows and above the skyline; overlooking from windows with loss of privacy; ground frequently water logged in winter during heavy rain; local doctors surgery is at capacity; could affect the local school; ground is both unlevel and unstable; Ewhurst Lane has no pavements or lighting; troublesome foul drain crosses the site; five windows will overlook our private areas, loss of sunlight to garden; pile driving/vibration may affect our old property; close proximity of house plot 1 will dominate my outlook depriving me of light; loss of value; site area edged red goes beyond that owned by “Alpines” and covers access gate to our property.Campaign to Protect Rural England:- (i) AONB; (ii) outside Settlement Policy Area and the Development Boundary in Local Plan; (iii) Backland development.Northiam Conservation Society:- Out of scale with properties on Ewhurst Lane and adjacent bungalows; loss of privacy and visual intimidation; difficulties have occurred with main drainage and surface water drainage; restricted access; site lines frequently

56

obstructed by on-street parking; pedestrian safety is of concern with no pavements in Ewhurst Lane; five garages with five additional spaces appears minimal and may lead to on-street parking.

SUMMARY The site falls within the Development Boundary of Northiam village as defined in the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) and is therefore, in principle, capable of being supported for residential development, subject to their being no overriding environmental considerations. The submitted proposal is not considered acceptable by virtue of its adverse impact on adjoining residential properties. The site is maintained as garden land and there is no evidence that the site has been colonised by any protected species. The comments of the Highway Authority have not yet been received and increased traffic impact may well be an “overriding environmental consideration”. I have also written to Southern Water requesting their reconsideration in light of the Parish Council’s and local residents’ advice that there are problems with foul and surface water drainage in the area. As submitted therefore the application is not supported.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. By virtue of its close proximity to an adjoining property, the dwelling proposed on

Plot 1 will have an overbearing impact upon the residential amenities of “Fairlea”. Adjoining properties will also be overlooked from proposed first floor level windows. For these reasons the development will 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: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

2. Possible Highway Authority reason.

RR/2004/2625/P PEASMARSH TEVIOT – LAND AT02 SEP 2004 ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING WITH INTEGRAL

GARAGE INCLUDING FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESSESMr M Loetz

SITE ‘Malthouse Lane’ is an un-made single track lane that runs north from the ‘Main Street’. The triangular plot of land is about 15 metres deep at its widest point and about 45 metres in length. The site is currently the garden of ‘Teviot’, and lies within the development boundary for the village of Peasmarsh and within the High Weald AONB.

HISTORYRR/88/2434 Outline application, to erect detached dwelling with parking space

and new vehicular access – Refused.

PROPOSAL The application seeks permission to erect a new dwelling with new vehicular access on the land adjacent to ‘Teviot’ CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Any comments will be reported.Highway Authority – Any comments will be reported. Planning Notice – 6 letters of objection concerned with the following: Size of dwelling is far too big. The height would dominate the area and obscure the skyline. Overlooking from dormer windows, resulting in an invasion of our privacy.

57

This narrow private lane is owned and maintained by the residents and is already congested causing breakdowns in the surface in various places.

Another dwelling will only add to the congestion and erosion of the road. Does not the developer need to obtain the permission of the residents before

going ahead with this building? Over development of the area. Safety of ingress and egress onto Rye Road, we would refer you to previous

applications by users of this unmade road for development which have been refused, and refused on appeal, due to the hazardous nature of this junction. In this respect we would refer you Application RR/88/2656. This situation has not improved with the passage of time, but due to the increase in the volume of traffic has, in fact, deteriorated so that there is more, rather than less, reason to refuse this application.

Over shadow our bungalow causing loss of light. The lane is in constant use by our properties must be accessible at all times,

which is not guaranteed. This is due to the building work and the heavy plant machinery taking place for several months.

Access for emergency vehicles could be impeded. Although aware of the in-fill policy for the construction of new dwellings, we

believe it wholly inappropriate in this instance. Question whether the existing drains and sewage services could cope with the

additional loading. Would result in an over-developed urban sprawl.

SUMMARY The site lies within the development boundary for the village of Peasmarsh and within the High Weald AONB. The triangular plot of land is currently the garden to ‘Teviot’ and will be accessed from the un-made single track ‘Malthouse Lane’. By virtue of the height of the proposed dwelling and its proximity to the adjacent dwellings in Malthouse Lane, it will have an over dominant and over bearing impact on them, it will therefore detract from the character and appearance of the locality, which is contrary to Policy GD1(4) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). The dormer windows at first floor level in the north elevation will have direct views into the adjacent neighbouring properties, therefore significantly affecting their privacy, this would be contrary to Policy GD1(2) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). For the above reason I am unable to support this application. RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) 1. Having regard to the height and orientation the proposed dwelling would have an

over dominant impact on the street scene. This would be contrary to Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and Policy GD1(4) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

2. By virtue of its height the proposed dwelling would be likely to cause an unacceptable loss of privacy to adjacent dwellings. For this reason the proposal would be contrary to Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and Policy GD1(2) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2004/2639/P PEASMARSH CORNERFIELD, MILL LANE06 SEP 2004 ERECTION OF EXTENSION TO EXISTING DWELLING AND OF

A THREE BAY REPLACEMENT GARAGE WITH STUDIO AND

58

CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGEMr and Mrs Wells

SITE The site is located to the west of the single track lane ‘Mill Lane’, it lies outside any town or village development boundary as defined within the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003), it does lie within the High Weald AONB. The site has a total area of about 0.865 hectare of which 0.242 hectare of the site is currently residential cartilage.

HISTORYRR/2001/1065/P Construction of new side porch – Approved conditional.

PROPOSAL The application seeks permission to extend the existing dwelling to provide additional habitable space. To change the use of land to enlarge the existing residential cartilage by 5m northwards, and to erect a three bay replacement garage with studio and bedroom above. CONSULTATIONSParish Council – No representations received. Planning Notice – No representations received.

SUMMARY The site lies outside of any town or village development boundary as defined within the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003), it does lie within the High Weald AONB. The site is relatively secluded, with the neighbouring dwelling being significant distance away to prevent any of the proposed developments from adversely affecting their residential amenities. Although the extensions to the existing dwelling are relatively large, they are in keeping with the appearance of the dwelling, and will not be intrusive in this countryside location. Considering the position of the dwelling in relation to the existing residential cartilage boundary and the modest amount of land proposed for change, means on balance it is acceptable and will not harm the rural character of the area. The proposed replacement garage although much larger in size, it does sit on a similar footprint to that of the existing garage and stable block. The design and scale of the garage are in keeping with and not detrimental to the appearance of the locality. There is a concern that the garage and accommodation could in the future be used as a separate dwelling, however, I consider that this matter could be satisfactorily resolved by a Section 106 Planning Obligation, and I am therefore minded to RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SECTION 106 AGREEMENT)1. CN7C (Matching external materials) (Dwelling house only)2. CN7B a) the roofing tiles b) the facing brick c) Weatherboarding (External

materials) (Garage only)3. CN5E a) (Restriction of alterations/additions)


RR/2004/2695/P SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE 1 BLENHEIM COURT,

59

09 SEP 2004 CHESTNUT COTTAGE, GEORGE HILLRETENTION OF REAR EXTENSION FAIR FACED BLOCK WALL FACING NEIGHBOURS WALL IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION 2 IMPOSED UPON PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2003/3499/PMr and Mrs J F Stevens

SITE The application relates to a recently extended, semi-detached dwelling fronting the western side of George Hill and comprising part of the relatively modern Blenheim Court cul-de-sac development.The Committee inspected this site in October 2003 in connection with RR/2003/2489/P.

HISTORYRR/2003/1714/P Erection of single storey extension at front and two storey

extension at rear of dwelling - Approved.RR/2003/2489/P Erection of two storey extension at front of property - Approved.RR/2003/3499/P Revised proposal for single storey extension at front and two storey

extension at rear of dwelling - Approved.

PROPOSAL Two storey extensions have been added to the front and rear of this semi-detached dwelling. The application now before you relates to the two storey rear extension approved under RR/2003/3499/P. At the point where this extension meets the neighbouring property (no.2 Blenheim Court) there is a tall narrow gap - in the form of a recess some 200mm wide, 1500 deep and two stories high, culminating in an area of flat roof. The planning enforcement section received a complaint from the occupiers of the neighbouring property that the outside wall of the extension contained within this recess has been constructed in fair-faced blockwork (breeze block) and as such is in breach of the condition on the planning permission that requires all external materials to match the facing brickwork of the existing dwelling. The application now before you is for the retention of the fair-faced blockwork wall as constructed.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Letters of objection have been received from the occupier of the neighbouring dwelling (Mr and Mrs Johnson), one of which, dated 12 September 2004, has been sent to Members of the Planning Committee as well as the Parish Council. A copy of this letter is contained within the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT to this Committee 7 October 2004. The objection is principally made on the grounds of visual amenity, indicating that the blockwork is unsightly and whilst hidden from the view of the neighbours who had the extension built it is very prominent from their rear garden. The letter continues to list other concerns (outside the scope of this application) with respect to matters such as weathering, surface water run-off, the condition of the pointing on the brick wall, builders’ rubble left in the recess, broken fencing and fumes from the gas flue.

SUMMARY The reason for imposing the matching external materials condition on RR/2003/3499/P was to ensure the appearance of the extension would be acceptable in terms of the general visual amenities of the area. The area of wall in question occupies a recess between the two dwellings. Whilst this is out of the view of the applicants, it is prominent from the rear garden of the neighbouring property. Moreover, its appearance is not acceptable and in this respect it is considered that it impacts upon the residential amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring property. In the event that

60

Members are minded to refuse the application to retain the blockwork it will be necessary to deal with this matter as a subsequent enforcement agenda item with a view towards serving a breach of condition notice. The occupiers of the neighbouring property accept that the complete reconstruction of the wall in question would be a major undertaking and whilst this may be the preferred option, have indicated in their letter the possibility of remedial measures being investigated such as some form of fascia to hide the blockwork. They emphasise, however, that they would wish this to be visually acceptable and also function satisfactorily in terms of providing ventilation within the recess as well as being weather tight. I have put this to the Agent acting for the applicant and if any compromise solution is forthcoming I would hope to report this to your meeting. On the basis of the submitted application, however, I would make the

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The matching external materials condition imposed upon planning permission

RR/2003/3499/P was to ensure that the appearance of the extension would be acceptable in terms of the visual amenities of the area. The fair-faced blockwork wall that has been erected does not match the external brickwork of the dwellings and is in breach of the condition. The resultant impact of the wall is to present the appearance of a rough, unfinished elevation to the occupiers of the neighbouring property which is visually unacceptable and detrimental to their residential amenity. The development is contrary to Policy S1 (b) and (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2004/2747/P SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE ASHRIDGE - LAND 15 SEP 2004 ADJACENT TO, GEORGE HILL, ROBERTSBRIDGE

OUTLINE: ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING HOUSE WITH PROVISION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESSMr G Wells

SITE The proposed plot forms the end of the rear garden of Ashridge – a relatively recently constructed dwelling with an access onto George Hill (RR/96/1412/P and RR/98/2482/P). The plot has a frontage of some 8 metres to Willow Bank, the estate road. This widens to some 16 metres further back from the road frontage. The average depth is about 25 metres. There is a 2 metre high close boarded fence to the Willow Bank frontage and the plot sits between two semi-detached houses (nos 27 and 28 Willow Bank). The ground levels rise from Willow Bank towards the back of the plot.

HISTORY (Relevant)The following applications include the current application site but relate to a larger site area and the erection of the dwelling known as Ashridge:RR/96/1412/P Outline: proposed detached house - ApprovedRR/98/2482/P Erection of detached dwelling pursuant to outline permission

RR/96/1412/P - Approved and Implemented

The following applications relate specifically to the current application site:RR/95/20/P Detached house and garage – ApprovedRR/96/1415/P Outline: proposed detached house – Refused.RR/2004/1334/P Outline: Erection of one dwelling house with provision of new

vehicular access - Refused.

61

PROPOSAL The application is in outline only and is a revised submission following the refusal of RR/2004/1334/P. That application was refused for the reason (briefly) that it had not been demonstrated that the proposed dwelling could be satisfactorily accommodated on the site without resulting in a form of development that would dominate neighbouring dwellings and also have a ‘cramped’ appearance in the street scene. Illustrative plans and drawing submitted with the new outline application indicate a proposed two storey detached dwelling (7.5m x 8.3m) in brick and weatherboarding with a plain tile roof.One on-site parking space is indicated within the frontage. A garden ash tree would be removed.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- No objection.Southern Water Services:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY The site is within the Development Boundary for Robertsbridge as identified on the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) proposals map. The matter for consideration is whether the revised proposals put forward in this fresh application overcome the objections to RR/2004/1334/P and thereby demonstrate that a dwelling can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site whilst meeting the general development considerations in terms of policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). Whilst both applications are in outline, rather more illustrative information has been provided with this revised submission. The design of the dwelling has been changed; whereas before it was 2½ storey it is now shown to be two storey and a street elevation drawing shows the ridge height to accord more or less with that of the neighbouring properties on either side. The external materials and roof design have also been revised to match the existing dwellings. In terms of impact on the street scene, this application shows a more satisfactory form of development than that previously put forward. It is also considered that the residential amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings would not be affected to any material degree that would justify a refusal of planning permission. An outstanding matter is, however, on site parking provision. The area of the frontage is extremely limited and the application indicates that there is available space for one vehicle only. I have raised this with the Agent.Subject to a satisfactory response and consideration of any comments from consultees, I anticipate making the

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING) DELEGATED (FURTHER INFORMATION RE CAR PARKING AND EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. The detailed application shall provide information on site ground levels and shall

demonstrate that the finished floor level of the dwelling and the ridge height would result in a dwelling that is in keeping with the street scene and does not dominate neighbouring dwellings.


RR/2004/2148/P WESTFIELD SEDLESCOMBE GOLF CLUB, KENT STREET62

19 JUL 2004 CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO PAR 3 GOLF COURSE AND RELOCATION AND PROVISION OF SAFETY FENCING TO PRACTICE GROUND.Mr M Whaley

This application was deferred at the last meeting for site inspection and consideration of an amended plan submitted for discussion just before the meeting.

SITE This existing golf course lies to the west of Kent Street and is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The application relates to the existing practice range that adjoins the west side of the clubhouse and to six adjoining fields that have recently been acquired by the Applicants.

HISTORYRR/98/1225/P Reorganisation of existing golf course and change of use of

additional land to golf course to provide 18 holes, extension and alteration of existing clubhouse, conversion of part of driving bays to provide professional shop, new two-storey “dormy” building and provision of new access to A21 and improvements to A21 trunk road - Approved

RR/88/1886/P Golf driving range and range shelter, range service building, new clubhouse with stewards flat and new access road - Approved

RR/87/0911 Golf course (9 holes) with driving range - Approved

PROPOSAL It is proposed to move the practice range north and west partly into four of the immediately adjoining fields. The remainder of those fields, together with two others would be laid out with the proposed 3 par nine hole golf course. The application is supported by a statement, a copy of which is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this meeting 7 October 2004. A copy of the letter dated 3 September 2004 from Tony Duc and proposed amended plan is also contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 7 October 2004.

CONSULTATIONSWestfield Parish Council: Support approval.Battle Parish Council: “Notwithstanding the proposals for the planting of new hedgerow the Council is opposed to the loss of such a large amount of ancient hedgerow. In the absence of any detail of the proposed safety fencing to the existing practice ground the Council is concerned that, if this is poorly designed, it could have an undesirable impact.”Highway Authority: Access to the site is from the A21 Trunk Road and therefore the Highways Agency needs to be consulted.Highways Agency: The A21 Trunk Road is approaching its physical capacity and any increase must be carefully considered. No information relating to existing parking supply and demand or the nature and timing of traffic movements has been provided and the HA have been unable to assess the likely effects of the proposed development upon the A21.Environment Agency: has no objection but advise that their consent would need to be obtained to culvert, divert, dam or obstruct the flow of any watercourse. They would also be pleased to advise on ways of reducing any potential impact (e.g. pollution) upon existing ponds.

63

Southern Water: have supplied a plan showing the approximate position of the Darwell Beauport Trunk Main that crosses the site and refer to an easement preventing excavation, mounding or tree planting within 4m of the pipe without their prior consent. A condition requesting details of protection of the trunk main prior to commencement of the development is also requested.Director of Transport and Environment - Strategic Planning: Considers that proposal raises no strategic planning issues but do consider that the proposals have a significant impact upon key landscape features and the local landscape pattern. Concern is also expressed that the practice area is being moved from its current location with consequent changes in field patterns.Director of Services - Amenities: has no concerns regarding surface water drainage given the nature of the development.Planning Notice: No comments received.

SUMMARY In my report to your last meeting I stated:-The shifting of the practice ground north and west into the adjoining fields would involve complete removal of some existing mature hedgerows. These also contain a significant number of mature trees. The laying out of the nine hole golf course would also involve the removal of existing hedging. In this case however, the removal would be limited to the width of the fairway and to allow a line of sight to play the hole. The following information has been extracted from the supporting statement:-“About some 90 metres of hedgerow would be removed on the Par 3 course but no substantial trees. About 200 metres of hedgerow associated with the existing fencing on the practice ground would be removed, together with about 200 metres within the extended practice ground. About 690 metres of new hedgerow would be planted in association with the new practice ground, including the creation of a new field boundary. In summary there would be an overall gain of about 200 metres of new hedgerow, and extensive other new planting on the Par 3 course.”Notwithstanding the fact that the proposal would result in an overall gain of about 200 metres of new hedgerow, I am concerned about the adverse impact upon the landscape that would result from removal of so much mature hedging and hedgerow trees (approx 400m) in order to relocate the practice ground. It would take many years for any indigenous replanting to reach the same level of maturity and conceal the proposed fencing. Furthermore, the regular shape of the practice ground would appear at odds with the more random irregular shape of the existing field patterns. For this reason therefore, the relocation of the practice ground is not supported.

The applicant wishes it to be made clear that the proposed amendments are open to further discussion. However, whilst retention of the existing hedgerow and trees at the western end of the practice ground is fully supported I still remain concerned about the adverse impact upon the landscape that would result from removing the hedgerow and trees on the north side of the existing practice ground and in the field adjoining to the north. At the time of writing this report, no further comments had been received from the Highways Agency. I therefore maintain my following

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

policies S1(j), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) and Government Advice contained in PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas indicate that development will be carefully

64

controlled to protect the character of the area. It is considered that the removal of so much existing mature hedgerow trees in order to relocate the practice ground and the provision of so much safety fencing would not meet this objective, and would cause harm to the rural character of the area.

2. The proposed development could result in a significant increase in traffic generation. The A21 Trunk Road is approaching its physical capacity and any increase in traffic generated by activities fronting the A21 must be carefully considered so as to avoid any adverse effects to the capacity, efficiency and safety of the road. No information relating to existing parking supply and demand or the nature and timing of traffic movements has been provided and the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Highways Agency have been unable to assess the likely effects of the proposed development upon the A21. As submitted therefore the development could create unacceptable traffic conditions contrary to Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2004/2377/P WESTFIELD 35 BALDSLOW DOWN, TANGLEWOOD12 AUG 2004 ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND REAR EXTENSION

TO EXISTING TWO STOREY HOUSEMr D Betti

I have added this site to your list for inspection.

SITE This detached house is located on the east side of Baldslow Down and towards its lower northern end. Floor and garden levels of adjoining properties follow the natural slope and are therefore higher to the south and lower to the north. The property falls outside the High Weald AONB.

HISTORYNone.

PROPOSAL The proposed single storey extension would wrap around the whole of the north side and rear elevations. On the north side it would be 3.15m wide and be constructed to within 1m of the boundary. At the rear it would be 3.3m deep and extend to the limit of the existing raised patio. The roof would be hipped and tiled to match the existing house.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support the proposal subject to no overlooking of neighbours, matching materials and for the planning authority to be satisfied that the development is not too close to the boundary.Planning Notice:- 6 letters of objection - overlooking of our back garden leading to lack of privacy; new development extends to within a metre of our side boundary and far beyond our building line; object to the dominating corner section of this proposed building; side windows will look directly into our bedrooms and conservatory; loss of privacy; loss of light to lounge, conservatory and patio; garden will be overlooked; are concerned about ground stability from such extensive foundations; precedent for over-extending similar properties in road; would be totally overlooked if a raised patio is built; would object to removal of mature trees and damage to wildlife; too large and out of place.

65

SUMMARY It is my opinion that the proposed extension would have an adverse impact upon the amenities of the property adjoining the north side. This would result form the depth of the extension and its overbearing height close to the boundary. Overlooking would also result from proposed windows. I have therefore invited the applicants to consider the submission of an amended plan. However, as submitted, the application is not supported.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (UNLESS SATISFACTORY AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED)1. By virtue of its height and close proximity to the boundary with the property

adjoining the north side, the proposed extension would have an overbearing/oppressive impact upon the amenities of that property. Loss of privacy would also result from overlooking windows. For these reasons, the proposed extension 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: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2004/2432/P WESTFIELD 25 WESTFIELD LANE18 AUG 2004 FORMATION OF PITCHED ROOF OVER EXISTING GARAGE,

ERECTION OF CONSERVATORY AND EXTENSION TO FORM GARDEN ROOM, KITCHEN AND BEDROOMMr D Weeks

The site has been added to the Committee site inspection list.

SITE The detached dwelling is situated within the ribbon of development on the north side of Westfield Lane with access from the service road which runs parallel to it. The site lies within the development boundary for Westfield Lane as defined within the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

HISTORYRR/2004/1605/P Formation of pitched roof over existing garage, erection of

conservatory and two storey extension - Refused.

PROPOSAL The application seeks permission to construct a pitched roof over the existing garage, the erection of a conservatory, and an extension to the rear of the dwelling to create a garden room, increase the size of the existing dwelling and provide an additional bedroom. CONSULTATIONSParish Council - Support proposal, subject to overlooking neighbours and matching materials.Planning Notice – 5 letters of objection, from 2 addresses, concerned with the following: Depth of rear extension to large, and beyond the general rear building line at this

end of Westfield Lane. The height is too high. Will limit the magnificent all round views of the ancient woodland. Will take light from our lounge window and patio. Additional windows at side overlooking property. Unacceptable intrusion into the existing vista.

66

The general building line, at this end of the Lane should, where possible be maintained.

Wall of extension will be much nearer to the boundary line. Visible from our window at 45. Will be an eyesore. 2 – 3 storey rear extension is un-neighbourly and excessive. Devalue our property. Will dominate our garden. According to the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003)

Ref 6.30 “Ensure extensions do not dominate the existing dwelling, but are visually subservient to it and hence add to, and not detract from, its character and appearance”. In our opinion this is not adhered to in this case.

SUMMARY The objections from the neighbours with regard to loss of light to patio and lounge have been considered, it is felt that the extension will obscure light to their property to an unacceptable degree. The applicant are aware of these objections and are willing to negotiate to reduce the impact the extension will have on the neighbouring dwelling. I am therefore minded to RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (UNLESS SATISFACTORY AMENDED PLANS ARE RECEIVED)1. Having regard to its depth the proposed extension would have an over dominant

impact and would be likely to cause unacceptable loss of daylight and overshadowing which would have a detrimental affect on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties. This would be contrary to the requirements of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and Policy GD1(2) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2004/1987/P CAMBER BROOKSIDE FARM20 JUL 2004 REVISION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT ON

PLOTS 67-81 FOR 12 FLATS TO BE REPLACED WITH A MIXED DEVELOPMENT OF 10 COTTAGES AND 6 FLATS ABOVE CARPORTS, INCLUDING FORMATION OF A NEW VEHICULAR ACCESSBurrows Investments Ltd

SITE Brookside Farm lies to the north of Lydd Road. This application relates to land in the middle of the site granted consent for residential development. No works have started in relation to the approved residential development.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/93/736/P O/a Residential development and access and provision of public

open space - Approved with S106 Planning AgreementRR/2002/2374/P Erection of 170 residential units pursuant to O/a RR/93/736/P -

ApprovedRR/2003/14/P Revised proposals for erection of 2/3 dwelling units pursuant to O/a

RR/93/736/P - Withdrawn.

67

PROPOSAL The application relates to a revised layout and unit types for development in the middle of the approved residential estate. The style of development in design and materials follows the design context of the previous approval.The agent gives the reasons for change as follows:-“The recent planning approval from yourselves in regards to residential development at Camber states as one of the planning conditions number 10 that "All sleeping accommodation shall be provided at or above 5.4 ODN and there shall be no sleeping accommodation at ground floor level within any of the proposed dwellings".As you will understand in our previously approved scheme we are looking at twelve flats, their location on the current application to you, which would mean some sleeping accommodation being provided on the ground floor.We are therefore forced to look at the redesign of this area so as to meet the planning conditions as laid out by yourselves.The intention always was with the application submitted to you to provide the flats in this area to provide a complete mix of units and in particular to provide some smaller units of approximately 600-650 square feet.This would therefore give a complete mix of ownership for the whole of the site with a range of units from this size up to approximately 30 and 50 square feet.Therefore in the redesign we have tried our hardest to retain this principle and provide a complete mix of units on the site.We have therefore come up with two key unit types, one being a 650 square foot two bedroom cottage and the other a flat provided over the garage, which we adapted to now a three storey building with a garage on the ground floor and two storeys of flats.As you see, both these units are simulised as flats and have provided a communal garden to give external space to all of these units.The garden is provided in the courtyard formed by these cottages and will be fenced with picket fencing with seating and other meeting areas provided within.This will be used by not only the cottages but also the flats above the carport.As regards to the scale and design of the buildings themselves we have maintained the overall theme for Camber of effectively a fishing village. The majority of the units are timber clad with small fisherman's cottages forming two storey homes in this development and timber clad three storey elements in the same location as the previously proposed three storey flats.Car parking is related directly to each of these individual units and our plans show how the car parking will be allocated.We have also shown car parking arrangement, bin stores and access to the individual courts as part of this application presented to you.”

The new dwellings will be constructed with plain clay tile roofs, walls part red brick, part horizontal and vertical boarding.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- No objection subject to the “maximum number of car parking spaces the development proposal attracts is 21 in accordance with the East Sussex County Council’s adopted standards. Flats or small residential dwelling houses characterised as having 2 bedrooms or less require 1.3 spaces per unit. The Highway Authority wishes for the car parking provision to be reduced in accordance with this standard.In addition a minimum of 1 secure and covered long-term cycle parking space needs to be provided for each residential dwelling without a garage or shed.The Highway Authority wishes for a private driveway serving 2 or more dwellings to be at least 4.5m wide to allow for two-way traffic for a distance of at least 10m from the

68

edge of the carriageway in accordance with Clause 4.2.7.4 of the East Sussex County Council Manual for Estate Roads (MFER).”Environment Agency:- “Based upon the submitted correspondence it appears the revised layout offers benefits to future habitants in terms of flood risk as there will be no ground floor sleeping accommodation.The Agency therefore raises no objection to the application, although wishes to reiterate previous comments on flood risk over the vulnerability of properties on the marsh.”Southern Water:- “I would refer you to our responses to previous applications for this site.Foul Sewerage:The proposed development would increase the flows to the public sewerage system, which is currently overloaded, and existing properties and land would be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result. Any additional flows would have to be drained to a point or points of connection on the existing sewerage system where spare capacity exists. In such cases it will be possible to requisition the sewers from Southern Water Services Ltd, under the provisions of Section 98 of the Water Industry Act 1991.The development is considered premature, until such time as adequate sewerage infrastructure is in place.Surface Water Sewerage:Your Council’s Building Control officers or your own engineers should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.I should be grateful if any full planning permission granted could be made subject to a planning condition requiring that development shall not commence until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water disposal have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water Services.”Parish Council:- Awaited.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY This application is purely a revision of part of the approved scheme. The design and materials follow the high standard previously approved. The change to the mix of dwellings and small increase in density can be accommodated by this layout.Drainage and highway matters are covered by the existing Section 106 Agreement and existing conditions on the outline consent.I do not consider in this location there is any justification for reduction of car parking spaces. I have taken up the matter of cycle parking with the applicant’s agent.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7G (Schedule of materials).2. CN5E b), c) (Restriction on extensions etc).3. No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until drainage and highway

details have been approved for the overall estate in pursuant of conditions and Section 106 Agreement on RR/93/0736/P and the approved works have been carried out to the extent necessary to serve the development hereby approved.

4. Details of hard and soft landscaping (including the hard surfaced parking area) shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development and shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any dwelling or such later period as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

69


RR/2004/77/P ICKLESHAM SPUN CONCRETE/ARC SITE, HARBOURROAD, RYE HARBOURPROPOSED INDUSTRIAL UNIT FOR THE MANUFACTURE, FINISHING AND STORAGE OF FURNITURE INCLUDING FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS, ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING ACCESS AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ROADCountry Pine Warehouse

SITE This former concrete pipe manufacturing works ceased operations in 1994, has a total site area of 6.7 ha and is located on the south side Harbour Road. The land is mainly derelict with large areas covered in concrete. There are also 9 buildings on the land, many of which are also fairly derelict. The site falls with a tidal flood plain area and is adjoined by the Dungeness to Pett Level Special Protection Area (SPA) and the Rye Harbour Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). It is also close to a Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The site is well outside the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORY Long History the latest of which includes:-RR/87/2684 Demolish iron clad building. Erect new steel framed/corrugated

asbestos clad building for use in manufacturing – Approved.RR/89/0879/P Demolition of existing storm damaged building and erection of

new steel framed and metal clad building – Approved.RR/89/2182/P Replacement of existing stripping shop building and erection of

new steel framed building – Approved.RR/93/0295/P Erection of steel framed building and ancillary plant for the

manufacture of pre-cast concrete units – Approved.

PROPOSAL It is proposed to demolish 6 of the existing 9 buildings on the land and redevelop 2.15 ha of the site by erecting a single large building. This would be 166m long x 45m wide with an eaves height of 6.5m and ridge height of 9.4m. The new building would be made up of 10 linked 16.6m span buildings and cover approximately 7,470m2. The elevations of the building would be clad using “Box Profile Plastisol “cladding coloured dark green. The roof would be clad in the same material, but coloured grey. Approximately 3,344m2 of the building would be used for manufacturing and finishing furniture. The remainder would be associated storage, office and welfare facilities. A new access onto Harbour Road would be formed approximately 60m west of the existing access. This would lead to a new service area/lorry apron adjoining the west side of the new building, and a new car park with 26 spaces in front. A full description of the proposal has been supplied by the Applicants, a copy of which is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating, to this meeting 7th October 2004.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- No comment received other than “Information noted”.Highways Agency:- Objects to the proposal on grounds of highway safety resulting from the increased use of the junction of Harbour Road with the A259, which is considered to be close to the limit of its ability to operate safely.

70

Highway Authority:- The proposed new access onto Rye Harbour Road could only be considered acceptable if the existing access was permanently closed off. On this basis, the Highway Authority considers the application as submitted to attract a recommendation for refusal because of the traffic hazards that would be introduced by the slowing, stopping, turning and reversing traffic that would be created. However, this recommendation would be withdrawn if an amended plan is submitted showing the existing access closed off. The Highway Authority is mindful of the safety concerns expressed by the Highways Agency over traffic increases at the A259/Rye Harbour Road junction, and would therefore be supportive of any requirement for the Applicant to implement or contribute towards improvements. The Highway Authority would express concern over the proposal for only 26 parking spaces to serve the new development. The County Council’s maximum standard would require 150 spaces. The proposal should therefore be upgraded to ensure that parking demand can be adequately met within the site. The proposal for a Travel Plan is welcomed, and would need to be secured as part of any planning consent granted. The document would ultimately need to specify those initiatives that the Applicant intends to implement and enable progress towards a defined set of targets to be monitored over time. The Highway Authority wishes to be re-consulted following the Applicants response.Environment Agency:- The scope of works is accepted, in principle as being in line with relevant guidance for the re-development of a contaminated site, with regard to issues of concern to the Environment Agency. Any planning conditions related to contamination should not be fully discharged until such time as all relevant works are completed, and a closure report detailing all works at the site has been submitted. Further clarification should be sought from the Local Authority Director of Services – Environment with respect to issues related to harm to human health. This should include discussion of asbestos related matters. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present, no further development shall be carried out until an “addendum” has been submitted to, and approved, by the Local Planning Authority. Only clean, uncontaminated rock, subsoil, brick rubble etcetera, shall be permitted as infill material.Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board:- Comment awaited.Southern Water:- There is not adequate capacity in the existing sewerage system to serve the development. Surface water disposal should be achieved by means of an outfall to a local land drainage watercourse. A condition is recommended, requiring details of the proposed means of foul and surface water disposal to be submitted before development is commenced.Director of Services – Environment:- Comments awaited.English Nature:- Ask that the recommendations of the EIA be implemented in full, and that this is made an informative of the planning permission should it be granted. English Nature would further expect there to be no access or encroachment or storage within the boundary of the adjacent nature conservation sites and would advise that, provided all these conditions are met, there is unlikely to be an adverse effect on the Dungeness and SAC and Dungeness to Pett Level SPA and Rye Harbour SSSI.Planning Notice:- No comments received.

SUMMARY The site falls within an “Employment Area” defined in the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) and need to be specifically judged against the following policy for the area:-“Policy RY7 Within the Rye Harbour road Policy Area, as defined on the Proposals Map, proposals for business development (Use classes B1-B8) will be permitted where the following criteria are met:

71

(i) proposals which result in a significant increase in vehicle, especially HGV, movements will only be permitted when an improvement to the junction of Rye Harbour Road and the A259 has been secured, and any consent tied to its construction;

(ii) appropriate financial contributions are made to the provision of a footway and cycleway along Rye Harbour Road;

(iii) it is demonstrated that proper account has been taken of any contamination by a competent person, including in its provisions for surface water drainage;

(iv) there is no adverse impact on the adjacent sites of national and international nature conservation importance, as defined on the Proposals Map;

(v) development shall not commence until measures to alleviate the potential risk from flooding have been put in place”.

In principle, the proposal would comply with the above Policy and would enable an existing business to relocate, expand and increase employment opportunities (up to 30 new permanent jobs) in the area. However, the area has particular constraints upon new development and GOSE directed that, in this case, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) needed to be submitted.This has been received and sent to the relevant Consultees whose comments are set out above. A copy of the NON-TECHNICAL SUMMARY is contained in the separate Appendix Document relating to this meeting 7th October 2004. The EIA addresses three key issues. These are (1) Impact upon the adjacent SSSI, SPA and nearby SAC (2) Traffic Generation and (3) Contaminated Land and Surface Water Drainage.With regard to (1) Impact upon the adjacent SSSI, SPA and nearby SAC, the EIA identifies three possible impacts. These are (a) that the roof of the building would be ideal for roosting gulls who could have an undesirable negative impact on birds within the SAC, SPA and SSSI through predation and disturbance when feeding (b) Lights on the building and within the compound have the potential to intrude on the adjacent protected sites disturbing feeding, resting and breeding birds, and exposing them to risk of predation from foxes (c) Visual and noise disturbance for birds from use of the site. The EIA recommends the following solutions (a) Strip systems with spikes to deter birds from landing on roof ridges and maintaining site cleanliness to avoid attracting gulls (b) The use of suitably designed exterior lighting and the preventing of spill from interior lighting. Details of suitable schemes to be submitted to, and approved by Local Planning Authority in consultation with English Nature (c) Noise attenuation through the provision of bunds and/or vegetation screens and alternative vehicle reverse-warning signals.English Nature have requested the recommendations of the EIA to be implemented in full.With regard to (2) Traffic Generation, the EIA contains an existing traffic assessment, a development traffic assessment, accident analysis, green travel plan assessment and proposal and concludes that “the traffic generated by the proposed development can be readily accommodated on the local highway network”. Notwithstanding this information, the Highways Agency advise that there are outstanding matters and that until such time as these are resolved to their satisfaction, they object to the proposal.With regard to (3) Contaminated Land and Surface Water Drainage, the EIA concluded that, from a desk top study, the risk of the site being significantly contaminated by past activities is likely to be low, but that particular attention will need to be paid to the identification and subsequent handling of any asbestos materials present. Notwithstanding, an intrusive Contamination Assessment Investigation and laboratory tests were carried out. These recorded the presence of localised soil contamination that would require specific remedial action. However, specific remedial action for slightly elevated groundwater contamination is not judged necessary.

72

It is clear from the consultation responses received from English Nature and the Environment Agency, that their concerns can be adequately dealt with by conditions. However, at the time of writing this report, I have no idea whether or not, in light of the information contained in the EIA about traffic generation, the Highways Agency are going to maintain their recommendation for refusal. Furthermore, the Highway Authority recommend refusal unless an amended plan is received showing the existing access permanently closed off, and have expressed concern over the apparent lack of on-site parking. I have therefore drawn this to the Applicant’s attention.Finally, no comments have yet been received from the Director of Services – Environment regarding the issue of land contamination in relation to risk to human health. As this is a major application capable of determination at your November meeting, I make the following:-

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (TO AWAIT COMMENTS FROM OUTSTANDING CONSULTEES).

RR/2004/2291/P ICKLESHAM MILLSIDE NURSERIES, BROAD STREET19 AUG 2004 STATIONING OF PORTABLE POULTRY UNIT

ACCOMMODATING 3000 BIRDSMr B Stunt

SITE This site is part of ‘Millside Nurseries’, which has an area of about 4.05 hectares, and is used for horticulture. The proposed area for the siting of the portable poultry unit is about 2.5 hectares, and is situated to the west of the holding. The area, which is to be used by the poultry is clear and ready to be sown to grass. The site is located outside any town or village development boundary, it does lie within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYRR/96/2176/P Replacement of poly tunnels with permanent glass-houses –

Approved.RR/97/2322/FN Proposed steel framed building used as packing shed, store and

Workshop – Details not required.RR/2000/2419/P Retention of greenhouse for propagation – Approved.RR/2004/86/P Renewal of RR/2000/1884/P for the temporary siting of agricultural

workers caravan – Approved (temporary).RR/2004/1680/FN Siting of portable poultry unit – Planning required.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission for the siting of a portable poultry unit, which will accommodate 3000 birds.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Refuse – this is a commercial proposition and not in keeping with the ‘nursery aspect’.Highways Authority:- Any comments will be reported.Environment Agency:- No objection, but would like to offer the following advice.Water QualityAny effluent from the poultry unit, solid or liquid, must be disposed of in an appropriate manner. No effluent of this nature must be discharged to surface watercourse, this would be unacceptable to the Agency due to its nutrient rich composition, thus likely to

73

impact on the quality of that watercourse, and subsequently the aquatic environment supported by it. If it is proposed that the effluent will be spread on to or into land, the applicant should contact the Groundwater and Contaminated Land Team at this office to discuss the matter prior to making the discharge.Alternatively, this effluent should be directed to a dedicated area to be disposed of off site by a licensed contractor.BiodiversityThe Agency has concerns that the pond in the middle of the site may be impacted by the development. During construction, we would be keen to see the working area kept to a minimum, ensuring that silt or other materials arising from works are not released into the pond on site.Director of Services – Environmental Health:- I am concerned about odour and fly nuisance. Conditions should be imposed which require:1. The poultry sheds to be constructed in such a manner that the manure is kept

dry and protected from rain, and there is sufficient air flow to keep the manure dry.

2. The site to have a minimum vegetation cover of seventy-five percent.3. Wind breaks to be planted on all borders.4. Nipple type drinkers to be used.5. Units must not be located within 100 metres of any residential property.6. To remove all manure from site within 48 hours as soon as the units are moved.

To incorporate any residues into the soil within 24 hours of the removal. To re-seed the area as soon as practical.

7. The site to be adequately drained to prevent any water-logging or pooling of water.

8. Ammonia levels to be monitored, and if necessary, treat with Yucca extract.9. Manure must not be deposited within 10 metres of ditches and watercourses.10. Solid waste beneath the units must be kept dry and protected from all sources of

moisture.11. Before development to provide the Local Planning Authority with a plan showing

how the units will be moved around the site, and how the land will be rotated.Director of Services – Amenities:- Surface water discharges from the roof should be channelled away from any poultry droppings under the unit, and directed to soakaways or any adjacent watercourse provided it is not contaminated.Rural Estates Surveyor:- The proposed free range egg enterprise can be physically accommodated on the property. The area, which is to be used by the poultry, is now cleared and ready to be sown to grass.I note from the Agents letter dated 16th August 2004 that the unit will accommodate 3000 birds. I have spoken to the manufacturers who confirm that the building will be able to accommodate this number.As stated above, the area of the poultry enterprise has been cleared and prepared for grass sowing. I therefore am drawn to the conclusion that the proposed mobile poultry unit is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit.Planning Notice:- 1 letter of general observation, which asks that consideration is given to;1. Possible problems of smell and flies pest.2. Site should be an appropriate distance from any residence.3. Removal of waste should be regular and not allowed to fester.

SUMMARY To the north and south of the site are open fields, with the northern boundary consisting of 5m high trees and a 2m high hedge on the southern boundary.

74

The west boundary of the site consists of mature woodland. Given the adequate boundary coverage and surrounding open fields, I do not consider that the portable poultry unit will be adversely detrimental on the locality, or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Comments have been received from the Director of Services – Environmental Health, which appear to raise no objection on Environmental Health grounds, several of the conditions requested fall outside of planning and cannot lawfully be attached on planning permission, therefore classification is being sought from the Director of Service – Environmental Health to whether, without such conditions, they would object to the proposal. The Rural Estates Surveyor concludes that “The proposed free range egg enterprise can be physically accommodated on the property, and that the area of land has been cleared and prepared for sowing. I therefore am drawn to the conclusion that the proposed mobile poultry unit is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit”. In light of these comments, I am minded to

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO CLARIFICATION OF COMMENTS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH).1. CN8L (Animal waste disposal).


RR/2004/2325/P ICKLESHAM MILL LANE, ROBERTS HILL - LAND 12 AUG 2004 OPPOSITE JUNCTION OF A259, WINCHELSEA

ORANGE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INSTALLATION COMPRISING OF A 10 METRE HIGH IMITATION TELEGRAPH POLE WITH A SINGLE OMNI DIRECTIONAL ANTENNA INTERNAL TO THE STRUCTURE WITH AN ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT CABINET MEASURING 1250MM X 650MM X 1250MM LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE POLEOrange Personal Communications Services Limited

SITE The proposed installation would be sited on highway land comprising part of the grass verge on the west side of the A259 Trunk Road. This would be opposite the junction with Mill Road. The site falls within the Winchelsea Town Conservation Area and is also within the High Weald AONB.

HISTORYNone

PROPOSAL The proposed installation would consist a slimline 10m high telegraph pole with a single antenna integrated into the structure at the top. This would be located at the rear of the grass verge approx. 1.75m north of an existing BT equipment cabinet. The proposed equipment cabinet associated with this installation would measure 1.25m x 0.65m x 1.25m and be similarly located at the back of the verge approx. 2.75m north of the BT equipment cabinet. In their supplementary information, the applicants state:- “The site is located on the grass verge off the main A259 on the edge of the village with good tree cover to provide some screening of the installation from general view. The site has been located in order that, whilst providing the required coverage to the main road and the village centre, it has been designed and sited away from the majority of

75

the residential properties in order not to disturb or be detrimental to the visual amenity within the Conservation Area.”A declaration of conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines has been submitted.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “Refuse. Not looked into sharing existing installations. Situated in a sensitive environment area. Not complied with the guidance set out in PPG8.”Highways Agency:- “The site would appear to be on highway land. The installation would not obstruct sightlines at the junction, and therefore we do not have a highway safety objection regarding this subject to the following ‘The erection and subsequent maintenance of the equipment must not be carried out by vehicles on the trunk road.’ There is some doubt whether this can be achieved due to the local topography. If this condition is not capable of being effective, we strongly recommend refusal of the application on the grounds of likely impact on highway safety on the A259.”Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Director of Services - Environment:- Has no comments.English Heritage:- “Believes that the development will not have a significant detrimental impact on the setting of the Winchelsea Town schedule monument (no.ES355), although it may have a detrimental impact upon important buried archaeological remains. The proposed development inside the boundary of the scheduled monument and will therefore need schedule monument consent (SMC) from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who is advised by English Heritage.PPG16 states that where nationally important archaeological remains, whether scheduled or not, and their settings, are affected by proposed development there should be a presumption in favour of their physical preservation and that the desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration. In this case the impact on archaeological remains will probably be relatively minor and could be entirely mitigated through archaeological recording during the excavation works. The Council may wish to attach a condition to ensure that provision is made for archaeological mitigation. A condition of SMC is likely to be that the developer makes provision for archaeological recording during the excavation works. The Council should advise the applicant that the work will need SMC.”County Archaeologist:- “Site is within the precinct of the Blackfriars Monastery which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. SMC will therefore be needed before these works can be carried out. There is no objection to planning permission being granted provided that the works are subject to an Archaeological Watching Brief. A conditions to this effect upon any planning permission granted is therefore requested.”Planning Notice:- 6 letters of objection - eyesore in Conservation Area, AONB and next to a Scheduled Ancient Monument; contrary to PPG8, Policies CN5, CN10 and CN11; tree cover will not hide equipment boxes; would damage buried remains of Blackfriars Monastery which extends under road; use of existing structures not fully explored (eg New Hall, Church); should share existing T-Mobile installation; contrary to Policy PS15; Orange mast would open floodgates to other phone companies and compound damage to Winchelsea; need for this site not demonstrated; technical justification not proven; dangerous location; consultation process was a sham; an alternative site is owned by Parish Council next to the public toilets in Monks Way; health risks; would adversely affect the beauty of the town which relies upon its tourist trade; possible damage to foundations, fence and may produce landslips; signal strength in Winchelsea is adequate; equipment will benefit passing traffic only.(16 letters of objection voicing concerns similar to those above were received prior to submission of the application).

76

Other representation - HAARG recommend an archaeological presence when the ground is disturbed for these fixtures.

SUMMARY The ‘Technical Justification’ contained in the supplementary information submitted with the application, reveals that the level of coverage provided by other Orange operational sites in the area do not provide a signal strength sufficient to ensure that an Orange customer will be able to make a mobile phone call inside a building, without the call cutting out due to poor coverage. The primary target area in this case is the village and surrounding major and minor roads. PPG8 states that Authorities should not question the need for the telecommunications system, which the proposed development is to support but that operators may be expected to provide evidence. In this case, I am satisfied that the data collected from the drive trials as set out in the submitted Technical Justification demonstrates that need.However, I am less satisfied that in this case, they have exhausted their consideration of alternative sites that would have a lesser impact upon the visual amenities of the area. For instance, in discounting sharing the T-Mobile installation at the junction of Rectory Lane (RR/2002/2122/P) by increasing the simulated telegraph poles height above the trees there is only a possibility that an additional microcell at the northern end of the village may be required. Also, the installation of a flagpole design mast on the high point of the church has been discounted on the grounds that ‘legals’ will be protracted and that there would be a great deal of opposition. More significant is an offer by the Parish Council to consider siting a mast on Parish Council owned land next to the public toilets in Monks Walk which does not appear to have been considered. It is my opinion therefore that it has not been demonstrated that no alternative sites exist for the proposed installation which if granted, would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area and would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and AONB.The application is therefore not supported.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that there are no other sites or

means of provision able to meet the operational and technical requirements where the environmental impact would be less in the Winchelsea Town Conservation Area and in this High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. For this reason, the proposal would be contrary to Policy EN30 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Government Advice contained in PPG8: Telecommunications.

2. The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, where policies S1(j), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, Policy GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) and Government Advice contained in PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas 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 rural character of the area.

3. RN8J insert “Winchelsea Town” adding the following at the end - “The development would also be contrary to Policy S1(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).”

4. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the erection and subsequent maintenance of the equipment could be carried out without vehicles obstructing the A259 Trunk road. Unless this could be

77

achieved, the proposed development could be detrimental to the free flow and safety of persons and vehicles using the Trunk Road. For this reason the proposal could be contrary to Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

Note: The proposed development falls inside the boundary of Winchelsea Town scheduled monument no. ES355. Had planning permission been granted for the above development, the applicant would also need to obtain scheduled monument consent (SMC) from the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport.

RR/2004/2685/P TICEHURST BEWL WATER - LAND BETWEEN FOOTPATH 09 SEP 2004 TOWARDS THE DAM AND EXISTING ACCESS ROAD

PROVISION OF TEACHER/TRAINING ACCOMMODATION TOGETHER WITH SUITABLE CHANGING AREAS AND OFFICE ACCOMMODATION AS WELL AS STORAGE FACILITIES FOR THE OUTDOOR CENTRE. PROVISION OF RESIDENTIAL SPACES FOR THOSE ATTENDING MULTI-DAY COURSES AND ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING ACCESS WITH PROVISION OF 30 PARKING SPACES FOR CARS AND 4 FOR MINI BUSES.Kent County Council Education and Libraries

SITE This proposal relates to a site on the north bank of Bewl Bridge Reservoir, close to the car park and visitor centre. The main part of the application site lies within Wealden District, but approximately one third of the proposed new building lies within Rother District.

HISTORYNone relevant to this proposal.

PROPOSAL The erection of new single storey buildings, with limited accommodation in the roof space, new access arrangement and car parking. The new building will provide residential accommodation, educational facilities and outdoor centre in relation to Bewl Water. A detailed statement in support of the proposals is attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 7 October 2004. The buildings are shown constructed with a sweet chestnut cladding over a timber framed structure with plain tile roofs.

CONSULTATIONSHighways Agency:- Awaited.Highway Authority:- “Access to the site where it joins the public highway lies outside the County of East Sussex and is onto the A21 Trunk Road and therefore this Authority is not the local highway authority in this instance. It is assumed that you will consult with Kent County Council and the Highways Agency on this.”Southern Water:- “Has no objections to the application.”Environment Agency:- “Thank you for your letter dated 10th September 2004. The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposal, but would like to offer the following advice, presented according to Agency function.Water Quality:The discharge of uncontaminated surface water (site drainage) to a watercourse, with appropriate pollution prevention measures included in the discharge design, is usually

78

acceptable to the Agency. However, for this proposal, the applicant is proposing to discharge into controlled waters which are used for potable water supply, therefore the Agency has concerns for such a discharge.In the interests of water quality, it would be preferable that the proposed discharge of site drainage is not made into Bewl Water. Where feasible, it would be more appropriate to discharge this effluent into the ground via soakaways, therefore avoiding a direct discharge into surface watercourse at this location.Where a discharge to watercourse or into land is being considered it is necessary for details of the proposed discharge arrangements to be submitted to the Agency for approval. Pollution prevention measures must be included in the discharge design.Should a discharge to watercourse be pursued, the Agency would advise the use of oil/petrol interceptors at this location. The Agency would also recommend, as a condition of Planning, that prior to any works commencing, Southern Water Services, (the owner of the potable water supply from Bewl Water), must be consulted on, satisfied with and approve the discharge proposals.Groundwater and Contaminated Land:This site lies on the Tunbridge Wells Formation. This is classified as a minor aquifer, in the terms of the Policy and Practice for the Protection of Groundwater.Soakaways from the run off should be no deeper than 3m into the Tunbridge Wells Sandstone, with at least 6m of unsaturated zone between the invert level of the soakaway and the water table. Soakaways for car parking should contain interceptors to protect the groundwater environment, any access roads should contain trapped gullies and silt traps.The applicant should ensure that there is no direct discharge to groundwater, a controlled water.The past and present use of the site should be determined in order to ascertain the likelihood of contamination existing on site. If there is a risk of contamination, further investigation should take place, and appropriate remediation should be determined and carried out, following discussion.No soakaway should be sited in or allowed to discharge into contaminated land.Any facilities, above ground, for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on an impervious base and surrounded by impervious walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipe work should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge into the bund. Such facilities shall be constructed and completed in accordance with plans approved by the Local Planning Authority.No development approved by this permission shall commence until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters has been approved by and implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the LP A.A copy of this letter has been sent to the applicant/agent.”Wealden District Council:- Awaited.Planning Notice:- 1 email from 5 Weald View - “I looked up details as the description in the public notice made identification of the location almost impossible. I thought it was at Rosemary Lane. I now discover that it is located in a boundary nonsense; there is a tiny bit of Rother, unconnected with Ticehurst or any other part, at the main dam end, created when the area was flooded 25 years ago. It is adjoining Wealden, wherein is the visitor centre etc. It is unlikely that anyone is aware this small area is part of Ticehurst. Indeed its greatest impact is on Lamberhurst, in Kent. Before the application is considered, it should be advertised more clearly and its position properly identified,

79

irrespective of its merits, or otherwise. At the very least the application should give a grid reference and footpath number.”

SUMMARY The proposal complements the recreational and educational facilities on site and is well located in relation to the existing main visitor facilities on the site. In terms of the landscape impact I consider the design and use of interlocked modules will fit well on the site and can be assimilated further into the site by some additional planting. I anticipate Wealden District Council will report this application to their Committee meeting on 7 October. It will be necessary to liaise to ensure appropriate conditions are imposed, which are consistent between the two Authorities. The scheme can be supported as an enhancement of visitor and educational facilities based on the reservoir. Further clarification on drainage proposals are required in respect of the Environment Agency comments.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (LIAISON WITH WEALDEN DC REGARDING CONDITIONS/CONSULTEE RESPONSES)1. CN6A (Use as stated - amended)2. CN7B a) roof tiles (External materials)3. CN13A (Landscaping)4. CN13B (Implementation of landscaping)5. Any condition as required by Southern Water/Environment Agency.


RR/2004/1977/P EWHURST WATTLE HILL OAST, STAPLECROSS05 JUL 2004 CHANGE OF USE OF ENCLOSED SWIMMING POOL/ GARAGE

BUILDING WITH LIVING ACCOMMODATION TO SINGLE DWELLING HOUSEMr and Mrs B Speller

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

SITE ‘The Oast’ is located on the east side of Beacon Lane at the junction with Cripps Corner Road. It is adjoined to the north by a large brick and tile detached building containing an enclosed swimming pool, double garage and staff accommodation, all used in connection with the occupation of ‘The Oast’ as a single dwelling house. Planning permission RR/77/1847 for ‘erection of triple garage with housekeeper’s accommodation over’ was granted subject to the following condition:-“3. The living accommodation proposed in the application shall be used and

occupied only by a person or persons employed at The Oast, Staplecross and shall be regarded as part of the existing dwelling house only and shall not be regarded as a separate dwelling unit.”

HISTORYA/74/0279 Covered swimming pool - Approved.RR/77/1847 Erection of triple garage with housekeeper’s accommodation over -

ApprovedRR/83/1678 Erect porch and extra staircase with change of use of flatlet to

orthopaedic surgeon’s consulting room - Approved.RR/89/1848/P Single storey extension to existing clinic - Approved.

80

RR/93/868/P C of U and conversion of part of swimming pool building to form self-contained guest suite - Approved.

RR/2004/289/P C of U of enclosed swimming pool and garage building to dwelling - Refused

PROPOSAL The pool and staff accommodation have apparently not been used for some years and the applicants are seeking an alternative use for the building as a separate dwelling. The proposal includes mainly internal alterations to provide a five bedroom dwelling together with the insertion of seven small pitched roof dormer windows. An existing front entrance porch would be demolished and a new entrance created in the north elevation. Land adjoining the north side of the building would become residential curtilage. This land is currently not part of the residential curtilage of ‘The Oast’.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- The Council endorsed its original view that it opposes the proposal on the basis that, while it is possible to see the reason for the plan, it would be setting a precedent to allow buildings to become dwellings when the original planning was not for this purpose, although it might be considered acceptable if the two dwellings on the site were tied together.Highway Authority:- Does not wish to restrict grant of consent.Planning Notice:- No comments received.

SUMMARY A previous planning application RR/2004/289/P for change of use of this building to a separate dwelling was refused in April this year. That application included a significant enlargement of the roof and was refused for reasons that it did not meet any of the exceptions contained in the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) for new dwellings in the countryside and that the extensions would cause harm to the rural character of the area and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This reapplication seeks to overcome the second reason for refusal and would result in the building being converted without significant extension. The insertion of seven smaller dormer windows is unlikely to cause harm to the rural character of the area and would now be considered acceptable. The first reason for refusal relates to an issue of Policy, which cannot so easily be overcome. In support of his application, the applicant has this time submitted a supporting statement. A copy of this is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 7 October 2004, together with a copy subsequent letter dated 14 July 2004. In support of his application the applicant mentions the financial burden of having to pay two sets of Council Tax for two separate dwellings, that the building has the outward appearance of a separate dwelling, that part of the building is already a dwelling, that it would not set a precedent and would contribute to the housing shortage. Notwithstanding the comments contained in the applicant’s supporting statement and letter, it is my opinion that the main issue remains that the proposal constitutes a new dwelling in the countryside outside any town or village and therefore falls to be judged against policies contained in the Structure and Local Plans. These only support new dwellings in the countryside if they meet one of the exceptions contained in the Plans. In particular, Policy HG 10(v) of the Local Plan supports an exception where the proposed new dwelling “is the conversion or subdivision of an existing larger property where it is the only effective means of reusing it”. As existing, the building provides ancillary accommodation to the main dwelling. The fact that the accommodation is surplus to the requirements of the current owner is not, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, justification for supporting its

81

conversion to a dwelling on grounds that “it is the only effective means of reusing it”. The proposal does not meet any of the other exceptions and the building does, in my opinion, have potential for alternative uses that could be supported (e.g. holiday accommodation). This reapplication is therefore also not supported.

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

District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). Policies S1, S10 and S11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and DS3, DS4 and HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) contain a strong presumption against residential development unless it meets one of the exceptions described in the Plans. The proposed dwelling does not meet any of these exceptions and is therefore considered contrary to these Policies.

RR/2004/1563/P FAIRLIGHT WHITE LODGE - LAND TO REAR OF, SEA 03 JUN 2004 ROAD

DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE AND ERECTION OF THREE BED BUNGALOWMr S J Catt

SITE The existing bungalow ‘White Lodge’ occupies an ‘L’ shaped plot at the junction of the unmade Cliff Way and Sea Road. The ‘L’ shaped curtilage includes land at the rear of ‘Red Lodge’ fronting Cliff Way upon which currently stands a flat roofed single garage. It is proposed to separate this land from White Lodge and erect the proposed bungalow. The irregular shaped plot has a frontage width of 15m and would have a maximum depth of 44m. Four previous applications for similar developments have been refused on this plot and two dismissed on appeal.

HISTORYRR/89/685/P Outline: Erection of bungalow – RefusedRR/90/1385/P Outline: Erection of bungalow served by new vehicular access –

Refused (Appeal dismissed)RR/2002/1858/P Outline: Demolition of garage and erection of chalet bungalow –

Refused (Appeal dismissed)RR/2003/2982/P Demolition of existing garage and erection of new two bedroom

bungalow - Refused

PROPOSAL This application seeks to overcome the reasons for refusing the last application RR/2003/2982/P. This would be achieved by increasing the depth of the plot by 21m, reshaping the proposed bungalow and increasing the distance from side boundaries. For instance, the distance from the northern boundary with ‘Fiddlers Dream’ would be increased from 1.7m and 2.1m to 3m and 3.4m. The ridge height of the proposed bungalow would be increased by approx. 500mm to 6200mm. In addition to these changes, surface water would now be stored on site for use in the house and not discharged to soakaways. This would be achieved by installing a ‘Titan Envireau’ rainwater management system and would comprise a 6000 litre tank installed in the front garden. These tanks are normally of 3000 litre capacity but, due to the restrictions regarding surface water discharge in the area, will be doubled in size to eliminate the need for an overflow into a second tank. A copy letter dated 12 July 2004

82

from Turner & Partners, detailing the proposed system, is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this meeting 7 October 2004.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “Recommend refusal. This is backland development. There is a proposal to remove trees and insert soakaways. The property would be within the area currently affected by land slip/cliff erosion and it would be inadvisable to remove any more trees or allow soakaways in this area. It would also create further loading on the ground.”Highway Authority:- Does not wish to restrict grant of consent. Cliff Way is unadopted and therefore no highway conditions have been issued.Environment Agency:- Have no objection. The Agency has no comments to make on the proposed surface water management system and the Council’s own engineers should be consulted and satisfied under the Coastal Protection Act.Southern Water:- Have no objection to the discharge of foul sewage to the public foul sewer. Southern Water also have no objection to the proposed rainwater harvesting system but advise that the Council’s Building Control Officer should also be consulted.Chief Building Control Officer:- Has no adverse comments in respect of the proposed surface water drainage but is unable to comment upon the effect on local landslip.Director of Services - Environment:- Has no objection to the proposed surface water management system.Planning Notice:- 6 letters of objection - proposed dwelling is within 145m of the cliff edge and must add to cliff trauma and risk to existing properties; soakaways are contributing factor to the erosion of the cliff; will be at risk from cliff erosion within 20 years; sewage system does not have the capacity to accept more foul or surface water; damage to Cliff Way from construction vehicles; congestion in narrow road; six properties against our boundary; over dominant building 1m from our boundary; will overlook directly our front bedroom/lounge windows and impede our privacy and block some light; would be in front of our property and out of character; loss of value; over development and harmful to local character; drain on local electricity supply; extensive water logging of our garden; roof pitch excessively high could lead to rooms in roof space; unhappy that water storage tanks will add trauma to cliff erosion putting our home and others at more risk; removal of trees will devastate local environment; blot on our landscape; 45o roof will dominate skyline - this is not a chalet bungalow area.

SUMMARY In considering this application, I am mindful of comments contained in the appeal decision against the Council’s refusal of outline application RR/2002/1858/P for a chalet bungalow on the site. This was refused planning permission for reasons that included:-- unacceptable impact upon the safe and free movement of traffic in the locality- out of character with and detrimental to the amenities of the locality - restricted depth- precedent- cumulative effect on the safe and free movement of traffic in the area.In his decision letter the Inspector did not uphold the Council’s reason for refusal on traffic impact grounds and took the view that vehicle traffic generated by an additional dwelling would be low; that provision could be made for vehicle parking within the site; that Cliff Way was wide enough to allow pedestrians to stand aside and that inconveniences to local residents would at the most be minor.With regard to local character he took the view that, whilst its depth of 22.5m was significantly less than other plots in the locality that was not a decisive factor. More important would be the size of the dwelling proposed and the implications for space

83

needed to prevent a cramped appearance or an undue sense of enclosure on Cliff Way, to retain and enhance boundary planting and to safeguard neighbours’ amenities. In his opinion, permission for a three-bedroom chalet bungalow would lead to an expectation of a certain scale of development and he was not satisfied that such a development could be accommodated without harm to the character and appearance of the locality.With regard to local amenity and impact upon Fiddlers Dream, he took the view that a dwelling in this forward position need not be detrimental to their outlook; light or privacy provided any detailed proposal took account of the sites constraints. He took a similar view upon its likely impact upon the amenities of “Red Lodge” and “White Lodge”.His dismissal on appeal was therefore based solely on being unsatisfied that a three-bedroom chalet bungalow could be accommodated on the site without being over-development and causing harm to local character and amenity.The last detailed application RR/2003/2982/P was refused on grounds that the proposed two bedroom bungalow would occupy a site that was too restricted in size to satisfactorily accommodate the proposal and would have had a cramped appearance out of keeping with the established character or the area. This latest proposal has a much deeper plot which has enabled a deeper and narrower bungalow to be erected. It is my opinion that this satisfactorily overcomes the cramped appearance that would have resulted from the previous proposal. Notwithstanding objections received from neighbours, it is my opinion that the increased distance from boundaries and existing boundary screening will ensure that no unreasonable overlooking and loss of amenity would occur. With regard to surface water drainage, the relevant statutory bodies have no objection to the proposed surface water management system. The Council’s Director of Services - Environment also confirms that he now has no objection. In these circumstances therefore, the current proposal is supported. However, it would in my opinion be appropriate to impose a condition requiring details of the proposed means of dealing with excess rainwater, should this ever be necessary.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7B a) roofing tiles c) facing bricks (External materials).2. CN13C amended “Other than those trees shown to be removed on the submitted

plan, no trees …” (Tree retention).3. CN9I (Walling/fencing - Non estate development).4. The disposal of surface water to soakaways shown on the submitted plan is not

approved. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, all surface water from the development shall be disposed of to a rainwater management system to a specification as described in the letter dated 12 July 2004 from Turner & Partners. Details of the siting of the proposed rainwater management system, together with details of the means by which excess rainwater will be disposed of, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The proposed rainwater management system and means of disposing of excess rainwater shall be installed in accordance with the approved details before the dwelling is first occupied and shall be retained in accordance with those details thereafter.Reason: To ensure that surface water from the development does not increase the risk of landslip in an area of known instability and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) and government Advice contained in PPG 14: Development of Unstable Land.

5. CN5E (a) windows; (b) extension … (Restriction of alterations/additions).

84


RR/2004/1701/P FAIRLIGHT FAIRLIGHT GARAGE, BATTERY HILL23 JUN 2004 REVISED PROPOSALS RELATING TO AMENDED SITE

LAYOUT AND DESIGN FOR THE ERECTION OF FOUR DETACHED DWELLINGSGem Select Ltd

The application was deferred for further negotiations re: layout levels and house design. Since that Committee decision, the further details have been requested and I am aware these details are being addressed and the details are expected imminently.

Two additional letters of objection have been received to the plans presented to the September Planning Committee, from the occupiers of ‘Mallydams’ and ‘The Old Telephone Exchange’. These letters are included within the APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee dated 7 October 2004. Mallydams is located opposite the site on the eastern side of Waites Lane. A copy of the original objection letter dated 8th July 2004, along with correspondence dated 21st August 2004 and 26th August 2004, and responses from the Head of Planning dated 24th August 2004 and 27th August 2004 are attached in the APPENDIX DOCUMENT to this Committee dated 7 October 2004.

The Highway Authority have commented that they do not consider it could exclusively defend a recommendation for refusal at any planning appeal and request sight lines need to be indicated on the submitted drawings. They wish to be reconsulted following the applicants response.

SITE This site is located at the junction of Battery Hill and Waites Lane and measures some 30m by 74m. A chalet style dwelling is located to the west of the two storey house to the south. The property is served by an ‘in and out’ access to Battery Hill. The site lies within the village development boundary.

HISTORYA/60/79 Additional access – ApprovedA/65/511 Redevelopment – ApprovedA/65/1111 Alterations to garage – ApprovedA/66/46 Showrooms – ApprovedA/69/157 Car showroom etc – ApprovedA/70/840 Antiques – Refused A/72/1986 Canopy – ApprovedRR/75/0901 Renewal of time limited permission for sale of antiques and bric-a-

brac – ApprovedRR/78/0799 Renewal of permission to use lock up garage for sale of small

antiques and bric-a-brac – ApprovedRR/81/1014 Underground petrol storage tank and improvements to existing

surface water drainage of forecourt – ApprovedRR/83/0755 Renewal of permission to use lock up garage for the sale of small

antiques and bric-a-brac – ApprovedRR/2000/1557/P Outline: Demolition of garage and erection of residential units –

Refused on the grounds of the loss of commercial premises.85

RR/2001/1864/P Change of use for 4No. detached dwellings, each including a separate area for office usage with new accesses – Approved

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to revise the proposed siting and design for the erection of four dwellings approved under RR/2001/1864/P to include a vehicular access to Battery Hill.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – ‘Revised proposals relating to amended site layout and design for the erection of 4 detached dwellings. The proposal is considered over development of the site. The two dwellings fronting Battery Hill are well in front of the existing building line. The proposed dwellings are also too large and are out of keeping with the area. The development will cause serious overlooking and loss of light to adjoining houses and numerous residents have voiced their concerns to Councillors. If this size of property is allowed at the entrance to the Cove then it may set a precedent for bigger buildings elsewhere. There is concern with regard to drainage and flooding of lower properties. The water already is excessive in times of heavy rain and gushes down Battery Hill. There is also concern with the levelling of the site and the removal of tanks. There is concern with regard to the overstretched sewage system with the addition of a further 4 dwellings and the use of soakaways is not recommended in this area. The Council requests that the scheme be re-designed to be more in keeping with the general area with smaller and lower dwellings and particular attention to drainage with regard to the special problems in this area.’ Highway Authority – “The Highway Authority does not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to the observations below: It is recognised that the development proposal represents a highway safety improvement with the existing vehicle access immediately adjacent to the junction of Waites Lane and Battery Hill being closed off. However, Battery Hill is subject to an unrestricted speed limit, and Places Streets and Movement recommends visibility splays of 2.0m x 215m for a 60mph traffic speed. The Highway Authority is concerned that visibility at the access onto Battery Hill falls short of the required standard. In addition Annex B of PPG 13 Transport recommends that to improve safety it is preferable for development to share a common access point onto local roads. The Highway Authority therefore wishes for the development proposal to be accessed by a single access road from Waites Lane as previously agreed under planning application number RR/0l/1864/P.East Sussex County Council's Manual for Estate Roads (MFER) recommends that where a private driveway serves two or more properties it should be at least 4.5m wide to allow for two way traffic for a distance of 10m from the edge of the carriageway. In addition the maximum gradient of a private driveway should not exceed 1:9 (11 %). For shared drives a maximum landing gradient of 1:40 (2.5%) should be provided for 5m from the back of the footway.The applicant needs to agree a suitable proposal for the bus lay by on Waites Lane located immediately adjacent to the site. The Highway Authority would wish for the proposal to include new low floor bus waiting facilities, to improve the sites accessibility for those with restricted mobility. The agreed highway improvement work needs to be secured by a Section 106 Legal Agreement between the applicant and the Highway Authority.The Highway Authority wishes to be re consulted on this application following the applicant's response to the above comments.”Environment Agency – Raise no objection subject to conditions. Director of Services - Environmental Health– Any comments will be reported.

86

Southern Water – Raise no objection with regard to the discharge of foul water. However, refusal would be recommended if permission is granted without a prior agreement being sought by the applicant for a satisfactory scheme relating to the public sewer. Sussex Police – No adverse comments. ‘…the proposals do not match our agreed criteria…’ the development is less than the minimum number of new dwellings and referred to the leaflet ‘Is Your Design Secure?’Planning Notice – Letters of objection have been received from the following properties: Mallydams, Pett Level Road, 1, 3, 19, 23 Waites Lane, The Old Telephone Exchange, Pett Level Road, 5 Battery Hill.The following matters are raised: Drainage/ flooding Loss of community facilities Loss of trees De-contamination issues Out of keeping Over looking Loss of light Mass of the houses Vehicle movementsA copy of a letter dated 20th August 2004 sent direct to the Highway Authority has been forwarded from ‘St Catherines’, 3 Waites Lane. I have requested a copy of the Highway Authority response.

SUMMARY This site has been the subject of a previous planning permission (RR/2001/1864/P) for four detached dwellings for live work use. The four dwellings were all accessed from a vehicular access in Waites Lane, and the layout is such that rear gardens faced onto Battery Hill. This permission is extant until April 2007. The current proposal seeks to amend the layout by providing vehicular access to two dwellings from Battery Hill, and to two dwellings from Waites Lane. The new layout will provide larger gardens for the dwellings. The designs respect the topography of the site in order to create split-level properties, though the site levels have been reduced from the initial scheme. The site currently falls some 3m from south-west to north-east. The roof spaces within the buildings are to be used as habitable accommodation. The proposed ridge height of the dwelling design is some 1m above those previously approved. The proposed materials are considered acceptable due to the variety in the choice. The development density was considered acceptable through the approval of the extant permission RR/2001/1864/P. The dwellings have been re-orientated in order to give greater amenity space to each dwelling and reduce by half the number of dwellings using the approved shared access onto Waites Lane. When viewed against the previously approved designs, the alterations now afford a reduced mass within the street scene and offer a more efficient use of the site in terms of the garden area made available to each dwelling. The proposed scheme will present a decrease in traffic movements onto Waites Lane at the shared access point. By re-positioning the dwellings in the proposed configuration, the dwellings opposite the site should benefit, as does the street scene. With regard to additional objections received, further negotiations have taken place to address these issues and as such the following details are expected:

1. An overall plan of the site, which includes the position of properties within the site and to the east of the site in Waites Lane and Battery Hill.

2. A cross section of the site (taken through a central east-west axis).

87

3. Confirmation of existing site levels and proposed levels (lowered 1m). these are to include heights of all existing buildings (including the gutterline of the existing shed building) and proposed buildings. This is to be achieved in a cross sectional drawing of the site (taken through a central east-west axis).

4. Confirmation of the house types.The issue of contamination would be dealt with by way of condition and liaison between the agent/ applicant and the Environment Agency and Rother District Council. With regard to the public sewer, diversion of this would be a matter between the agent/ applicant and Southern Water and Rother District Council. Office accommodation is incorporated within each property and as such is in accordance with the original design (change of use) principles and policies. The applicant is aware of the requirements of the current Planning Obligation on the extant permission with regard to the improved lay-by and the bus shelter.With the resolution of the matters outlined above, I expect to make the following:

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO COMMENTS OF THE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY AND AMENDMENT OF S106 AGREEMENT)1. The development must begin not later than the expiration of five years beginning

with the date of this permission.Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. Before any development commences the existing building(s) on the site shall be demolished and the site cleared of all resultant rubble and spoil, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To ensure the satisfactory development of the site (CN120) 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: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

3. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority details of the guard rails and the colour, type and make of the roofing tiles, facing bricks and of the driveway’s finished surface. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials.Reason: To ensure that the development is in character with its surroundings and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011. (CN7B)

4. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include accurate indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development.Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the locality and to accord with Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

5. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

88

Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the locality and to accord with Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011. - AONB

6. Details of foul and surface water drainage for the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the site commences. The drainage works shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans before the development hereby permitted is brought into use or occupied.Reason: To prevent water pollution, ensure satisfactory drainage of the site and accord with Policy EN11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. (CN8C)

7. Before any development takes place, detailed plans for boundary walls and fences on the site shall be submitted to and be subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The fences and walls shall be constructed before the dwellings are first occupied and shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure the satisfactory development of the site and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. (CN9I)

8. Before any development takes place, details for the protection/diversion of the public foul sewer crossing the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not commence until the approved details have been undertaken.Reason: To safeguard the public foul sewer crossing the site, to ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and to accord with Policy S1 of East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting this order) no windows except as shown on the approved plans shall be inserted into the building. Reason: To ensure appropriate development of the site and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011. (CN5E)

10. The windows shall be glazed with obscure glass and shall thereafter be retrained in that condition in accordance with the following schedule:Plot 1: Within the west elevation at ground floor and first floor levels and the central rooflight. Within south elevation at first floor level serving the en-suite bathroom as per plan no. 2428.1.Plot 2: Within the west elevation at ground floor and first floor levels and the central rooflight. Within south elevation at first floor level serving the en-suite bathroom as per plan no. 2428.1.Plot 3: Within the north elevation at ground floor and first floor levels and the central rooflight. Plot 4: Within the north elevation at ground floor and first floor levels and the central rooflight.To prevent the overlooking of adjacent properties.

11. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The bund capacity shall give 110% of the total volume for single and hydraulically linked tanks. If there is multiple tankage, the bund capacity shall be 110% of the largest tank or 25% of the total capacity of all tanks, whichever is the greatest. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses and overflow pipes shall be located within the bund. There shall be no outlet connecting the bund to any drain, sewer or

89

watercourse or discharging onto the ground. Associated pipework shall be located above ground where possible and protected from accidental damage.Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to accord with Policy S1(g) of East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

12. The office in each dwelling shall be provided at the time of the development and shall only be used by the occupiers of the dwelling or employee of the residential occupiers for home working and shall not be separately occupied.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.

13. At the time of development and before it is occupied, the garages, parking spaces and shared access shall be provided and laid out within the site in accordance with the submitted plans and maintained in that use thereafter.Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

14. Before any development takes place detailed plans for the provision of a lay-by in Waites Lane shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details before the occupation of any dwelling on the site.Reason: In the interest of highway and pedestrian safety and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

15. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting this Order) no caravan, building, structure or erection of any kind (including walls, fences and other means of enclosure) shall be placed within 3 metres of the public foul sewer crossing the site.Reason: To safeguard the public foul sewer crossing the site and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

16. The garage accommodation shall be retained for the parking of a motor vehicle and may also be used in connection with the business operated from the office incorporated within the dwelling. The garage shall not be used as habitable domestic accommodation. To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the land in relation to the amenities of the locality.


RR/2004/2366/NA HASTINGS CONSULTATION04 AUG 2004 ST LEONARDS MARLINE FIELDS - LAND WEST OF,

QUEENSWAYNEW BUILDINGS AND CAR PARKING TO PROVIDE B1 ACCOMMODATION COMPRISING OFFICES & LIGHT MANUFACTURINGSea Space

This proposed two five storey height buildings would be located on land adjoining the north west side of Queensway, directly opposite the junction of Napier Road leading to Castleham. The application is supported by an Environmental Impact Assessment and is due to be considered by the Planning Committee at Hastings Borough Council at its

90

meeting on 13 October 2004. It is my intention to supply Members with a more detailed report at the meeting.

-o0o-

91

Documents

RR/2004/1859/P - Rother District Council · Web viewPermission has been granted for the conversion of the building into residential units with new development in the grounds. This