RR/2008/381/P - Residents - Rother District Council · Web viewCHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION FROM SINGLE DWELLING TO 4 NO. 1 BED & 1 NO 2 BED FLATS INCLUDING ENLARGED SINGLE STOREY

RR/2008/381/P BEXHILL 5 AND 7 MARINADEMOLITION OF NO 5 MARINA. ERECTION OF FIVE STOREY BUILDING WITH BASEMENT COMPRISING CAFE/ RESTAURANT TO BASEMENT AND GROUND FLOOR, 1 FLAT TO REAR OF GROUND FLOOR AND 5 FLATS TO UPPER STORIES. CENTRAL CIRCULATION CORE TO SERVE 5 AND 7 MARINA. ERECTION OF REAR EXTENSION TO 7 MARINA, REPLACEMENT WINDOWS AND REFURBISHMENT.Mr J Di Paolo

Statutory 8 week date: 28 May 2008

RR/2008/393/H BEXHILL 5 AND 7 MARINADEMOLITION OF 5 MARINA AND REAR EXTENSIONS OF 7 MARINAMr J Di Paolo


These applications were deferred at the April meeting of the Committee for the following:

a) Further consideration as to whether additional car parking can be achieved.b) Investigation as to the need for a secondary means of escape from the

basement.c) Investigation of the need for ventilation/air conditioning for the basement. In the

case of the latter where could the unit be positioned?d) Whether the provision for waste/recycling containers, both domestic and

commercial, can be improved. In particular both the level of provision and position of containers.

e) The Highway Authority require suitable covered storage for bicycles. f) As No.5 is being replaced why cannot the extraction ductwork be

accommodated internally?

SITE The properties the subject of these applications adjoin the new development of De La Warr Heights on the north side of Marina opposite the eastern end of the Metropole Putting Green. The site is within the Town Centre Conservation Area.

HISTORYWhilst these properties have an extensive planning history it is not considered to be particularly relevant to this proposal.

PROPOSAL It is proposed to demolish No 5 Marina, together with single storey elements at the rear of No 7 and to redevelop the site.The plan is to excavate a larger basement to No 5 to provide additional floor space for the new ground floor café. Two flats would be formed at the rear of the site, four flats (on four floors, over the café (No 5)) and four flats within the existing structure of No 7. A small single storey addition is indicated at the rear of No 7. The eight flats on the site frontage would be served by a new communal staircase and a lift. The front of the building would be smooth render (colour to be agreed) with the rear in brickwork;

1

reconstituted slates and stone cappings, corbels, cornices, cills and string courses are specified. The scheme includes a new shop front in the style of those produced under the HERS scheme. First floor balcony railings at No 7 would be removed and new decorative railings provided across both properties.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- Recommends that any consent should include a condition requiring the provision of cycle parking.Southern Water;- No objection. Requests any consent includes the note “Detailed design of the proposed drainage system should take into account the possibility of surcharging within the public sewerage system in order to protect the development from potential flooding.”Environment Agency:- No objection.Director of Services – Environmental Health:- Recommends the imposition of conditions and advisory notes upon the grant of any planning permission.English Heritage:- Do not wish to comment in detail but offer the following observations:“Clearly the issue of demolition rests with the LPA and the tests under PPG15 – notably 3.16 – 3.19. 4.27. However, we consider if the building No 5 is restored and possibly added to, with an imaginative approach to its design, it would appear to be capable of retention. The shop front too could be reinstated.A more cogent approach to any case for demolition needs to be made by the applicant, and any replacement will need to contribute more positively to the character of the Conservation Area than the existing.If the case for demolition is proven, we agree with the applicant that the location perhaps requires a new building which is a transition between the unfortunate block to the west and No 7 but, we would argue that it is not necessarily best served by copying the style of No 7 and using modern materials and detail – particularly so, given the proximity of the restored De La Warr Pavilion opposite. The approach by any architect, in our view, needs to mediate between the block and the existing villas. Respecting context, this could easily be a modern approach – the challenge here is to skilfully undertake a contemporary modern building that imaginatively adds to the qualities of the Conservation Area in this location, rather than diluting it.”Planning Notice:- 1 letter – object on grounds of lack of disabled persons’ accessible toilet. So many flats in Bexhill are not adapted for disabled use.

SUMMARY These applications need to be considered in the context of PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment) and Rother District Local Plan Policies GD1, EM13, BX1(iv) and BX5.PPG15 requires that in considering the demolition of a building within a Conservation Area there should be a presumption in favour of retaining buildings that make a positive contribution to the area. In this case No 7 Marina is being retained; in my view this is the right approach as elevationally it is, with No 9, important in the frontage and it retains much of its original elevational detailing. The building to be demolished (no 5) however is a smaller scale building of considerably less merit that has had its ground floor ‘modernised’. Its shop front is inappropriately detailed and the signage is poor. I note English Heritage’s comment that the shop front could be rectified and the building extended upward but I cannot agree that this approach is warranted simply to retain the 1st and 2nd floor façade. In my view the comprehensive approach proposed has worthwhile benefits that can be supported. I believe the case for demolition of No 5 should be accepted. However, I would wish to impose a condition that demolition

2

should not occur until a contract for the redevelopment has been let so as to ensure that an ‘open’ frontage is not created in the Conservation Area.Turning to the detail of the planning application, 5 Marina lies within an identified shopping frontage; I welcome therefore the retention of a ground floor (and basement) commercial use. The residential use of the upper floors of No 5 and the whole of No 7 reflect the existing use and accord with policy.Clearly, English Heritage would prefer a design for No 5 that provided a transition from De La Warr Heights to No 7 in terms of both scale and design concept rather than simply ‘copying’ the architectural detailing of No 7. I accept that that is one ‘academic’ design approach but I do not object to the proposed alternative of carrying through the detail of No 7 in the new elevation to No 5. The proposed increase in height does result in a greatly improved relationship with its neighbour. The new shop front is well detailed and I consider the proposal to be a positive enhancement of the Conservation Area. The specified palette of materials is acceptable to me and the use of UPVC sliding sash windows follows the advice generally given.The submitted plan indicates the retention of the two parking spaces at the rear and refuse storage both at the rear and at cellar level within the front of No 7.I note the receipt of a representation commenting upon disabled access/WC facilities but I do not identify a specific problem. The application proposes a level access to both the café and the flats, the latter being accessed from a communal staircase and a lift. The café would have male and female WCs at ground floor level; the whole scheme will need to comply with Part M of the Building Regulations.The applicant’s agent has responded to the request for additional information and I have attached a copy as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 22 May 2008. In summary it is explained that:i) Basement level car park is not feasible on this siteii) The means of escape from the basement complies with Building Regulationsiii) The basement ventilation system has been designed in consultation with

Environmental Health and all necessary noise/vibration insulation requirements will be incorporated

iv) The refuse provision is detailed and represents the least obtrusive/most convenient options available and appropriate for the Conservation Area. The Council’s Waste/Recycling Officer has advised that these properties remain on a weekly bag collection service.

v) The extraction system from the kitchen cannot be accommodated to roof level within the building because of the implications for sound insulation and fine separation

vi) Cycle storage provision is confirmedThe development is short of car parking judged against your standard but it is not possible to make greater provision. The Highway Authority raise no objection but do request a condition requiring secure cycle parking. I would also wish to condition the details of the extraction system necessary for the café kitchen.Overall and subject to conditions, I support the proposals.

RECOMMENDATIONS:RR/2008/381/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) 1. CD1A (Standard time limit).]2. CD9G (External materials including metal railing detail). Insert b.

Reason: Insert a.3. The development shall not be occupied until cycle parking areas have been

provided in accordance with details which are to be submitted to and approved in

3

writing by the local planning authority and the areas shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of cycles.Reason: As for condition CD3L).

4. CD7M (Hours of Café use – 8.00am – 7.00pm daily) 5. CD7R (Mechanical Ventilation - Café kitchen/servery).

Reason: Insert a.6. CD7S (Sound insulation of odour control equipment).

Reason: insert a.7. Before any ventilation/air conditioning/refrigeration plant, machinery or

equipment is used on the café premises, it shall be enclosed with sound insulating material in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the local planning authority and shall thereafter be retained in that condition unless otherwise agreed in writing.Reason: As condition CD7S.

8. A scheme for the soundproofing of the commercial use of the building from the residential use shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The soundproofing shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained.Reason: As condition CD7S.

9. The ground floor and basement level ‘café’ hereby permitted shall be used for that purpose only and for no use falling within Use Class A4 or A5 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended).Reason: To protect the residential amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy GD21(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

10. CD9J (External rendering and colour washing of front elevation).11. CD9Q (Shop front details). Amend to include fascia detail.12. CD9R (Colour of shop front).13. CD10O (Details to be submitted). Bay window and stone detailing.Notes:1. Food Safety, Health & Safety – the applicant is strongly advised to contact the

Environmental Health Division before services, fixtures and fittings etc are installed to the kitchen and other food rooms/areas, for advice on satisfying the requirements of food and Health & Safety law.

2. As demolition is involved the agent/applicant should be made aware of the Council’s requirements regarding hours of work, noise, bonfires, dust etc. Details can be found at www.rother.gov.uk/media/pdf/d/a/contractors.pdf.

3. Detailed design of the proposed drainage system should take into account the possibility of surcharging within the public sewerage system in order to protect the development from potential flooding.

4. ND44 (Demolition).5. ND45 (Submission of Details).6. ND54 (Bins/Recycling).

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: It is considered that the proposed development would enhance the Conservation Area, maintain an appropriate commercial frontage within the designated shopping area and would relate satisfactorily with adjacent properties respecting the residential amenities of the occupiers thereof. The proposal is therefore considered to comply with the advice contained within PPG15 and Policies GD1, BX1(iv), BX5 and EM13 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1, S25 and EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4

http://www.rother.gov.uk/media/pdf/d/a/contractors.pdf

View application/correspondence

RR/2008/393/H: GRANT (CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF STATUTORY CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. CD12N (Demolition).2. CN12O (Demolition).

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The building to be demolished is not considered to be of great merit to the Conservation Area, its removal is considered to be acceptable to facilitate the development proposed under reference RR/2008/381/P in accord with the advice contained within PPG15 and Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

View application/correspondence_____________________________________________________________________

RR/2008/536/P BEXHILL 8 ALBERT ROADCHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION FROM SINGLE DWELLING TO 4 NO. 1 BED & 1 NO 2 BED FLATS INCLUDING ENLARGED SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSIONMrs M Sweker


SITE This application relates to a semi-detached property on the west side of Albert Road at its northern end. The property is within the Conservation Area and is used currently as a single dwelling; it is a three storey property.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/90/1858/P Change of use from dwelling to an hotel – Approved ConditionalRR/98/1816/P Reversion of property to single dwelling – Approved ConditionalRR/2007/3265/P Extensions and change of use (Nos.6 & 8) to care home – Refused

PROPOSAL The proposal is to form the ground and first floors into a total of 4 one-bedroom flats and the attic level adapted into a two-bedroom unit. A small single storey rear addition would be reconstructed slightly larger (approx plus 3 square metres). There would be no other external alterations to the building. Refuse/recycling storage is indicated within the rear garden to which there is a side access path.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- “I recommend that consent be refused for the following reason:1. The proposal does not provide for parking facilities within the site which would

result in additional congestion on the public highway causing interference with the free flow and safety of traffic along Albert Road (UC6558) and would therefore be contrary to policy TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

Notes:The proposed change of use from a private dwelling into 5 flats will result in a significant increase of demand for on-street parking. The proposed development should provide 7 parking spaces to meet the County Council’s adopted parking standards, although this can be reduced to 4 taking into account the location of the site. It is

5

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr2008393h

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr2008381p

evident from the submitted plans that no parking has been provided and on that basis I feel I must raise an objection on the basis of a parking shortfall of at least 4 spaces.Cycle parking should also be provided at the rate of one long term space per unit where no garage or shed is accessible.”Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY This application needs to be considered under Local Plan policy GD1(i)(ii)(iii)(iv).Many substantial single dwelling houses within the Town Centre have been converted into flats and those within Albert Road are no exception. The submitted scheme proposes no alterations to the front elevation thereby maintaining the character of the street and Conservation Area.In common with most of the Town Centre properties it is not possible to provide good collection day provision for bins, nor can on-site car parking be provided. Indeed the Highway Authority recommend refusal because of the absence of car parking. The property continues to have weekly refuse (bagged) collections.The proposed units are compact but appropriate within the Town Centre, I note the Highway Authority’s recommendation of refusal but I do not believe that this could be justified in this case given the near-by properties that have recently been granted planning permission for flat conversion. It is my intention however to condition the provision of cycle storage and refuse storage at the rear. In coming to my conclusion I have been mindful of the past use of the building as an hotel and the considerable number of previous approvals for flat conversions nearby.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A (Standard time limit).2. No alterations shall be undertaken to the front elevation. All original windows,

doors, architectural detailing and chimneys shall be retained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To preserve the original detailing that makes a valuable contribution to the visual character and appearance of the conservation area, in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan, Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and guidance set out within PPS15, Planning and the Historic Environment.

3. CD7T (Refuse/Recycling) - Insert a (use). Reason: b & c add “… locality within the conservation area in …” add GD1(viii) and S1(m).

4. CD3L – (Cycle storage) (Insert A – Flat. Insert B (b))

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


6


RR/2008/695/P BEXHILL 43 SACKVILLE ROAD CHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION OF SINGLE DWELLING UNIT INTO THREE SELF CONTAINED FLATS INCLUDING REAR EXTENSION WITH ROOF LIGHT.Mr M Batkin


SITE 43 Sackville Road is the second to last property within the terrace on the east side of the road adjacent the newly constructed De La Warr Heights. The property lies within the town centre for Bexhill and within the Conservation Area. Properties within the street comprise business (retail) units to the ground floor often with residential above. The application site excludes the ground floor shop premises, which are in a separate ownership, the shop forming a double fronted unit with 45 Sackville Road.

HISTORY (relevant)B/61/414 Internal alterations to bathroom - Permitted Development.

PROPOSAL This application proposes an extension and alterations with the sub-division of the existing residential unit that occupies the rear projection, first and second floors to provide three flats. The existing ground floor access, which is below the rear road/garden level, would be utilised to access the split level flat proposed for the ground and basement. The mono-pitch roof to the rear projection is to be removed to provide an external staircase and balcony for access to the first and second floor flats. Three sub-standard parking spaces are indicated to the rear accessed via the mews. The proposed extension is required at the ground floor level infilling between the existing rear projection and the boundary wall with 41 Sackville Road.

CONSULTATIONSDirector of Services - Housing: Raises two concerns, the first being the use of the basement area for anything other than storage with regard to fire safety. There is no means of escape from the basement in the event of a fire on the ground floor; occupants could become trapped. The second is in relation to the proposed layout of the first floor flat. The bedroom is an inner room and as illustrated on the plan the only means of escape is through the kitchen, a high risk room.Planning Notice: No comments received.

SUMMARY This application is submitted following pre-application discussions when objections were raised to both use of the basement area and to the proposed external staircase. Neither of these concerns has been addressed. The proposal to sub-divide the existing single unit is not objectionable in principle but the current proposals are considered to be contrived and to result in sub-standard accommodation representing an overdevelopment of the site.There are no other external staircases in the vicinity which lies within the Town Centre Conservation Area and which is open to more general public view not only from other occupiers of Sackville Road but also from occupiers of the business units within the Mews to the rear and the rear entrance to De La Warr Heights. The existing traditional mono-pitch roof has to be removed to enable construction of the staircase. The staircase would appear as an incongruous and prominent feature within the street scene detrimental to the character and appearance of the conservation area. As such it fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area as

7

required by Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended). Additionally the staircase and balcony area would give rise to direct overlooking and loss of privacy for the small garden of the adjoining residential unit at 45 Sackville Road.The existing basement area is unused. It is entirely below ground level with no natural light or ventilation and accessed only via a narrow staircase from the ground floor. As such it offers no outlook and is considered unsuitable for use as living accommodation. In order to try to overcome concerns raised by the Director of Services - Housing, the proposal indicates use of the basement for a kitchen, store and bathroom/WC, which can be artificially ventilated and illuminated. The combined lounge/bedroom, a habitable room, has been created by extending the single storey projection. This room has a small window overlooking the rear retaining wall with a large roof light in the flat roof to provide natural light and ventilation. The basement is not considered to comply with fire safety requirements and limiting its use to non-habitable rooms only would be extremely difficult to enforce and thus a condition would be inappropriate. This unit is considered to provide sub-standard accommodation with extremely poor amenities, its only outlook is over the parking area to the rear from the combined lounge/bedroom, the basement area itself having no outlook.As highlighted by the Director of Services - Housing the fire requirements are also not met with regard to the first floor flat, which has inner rooms. The poor arrangement of the proposed flats and non-compliance with fire escape requirements is indicative of an overdevelopment of the building.The plans indicate three parking spaces across the rear measuring 2m x 4.4m deep, broadly as existing. As indicated this arrangement would remove both the existing garden border to the boundary with 45 Sackville Road and the bin storage area. The spaces are considered too narrow and as a result occupants would have difficulty in opening car doors. The existing hardstanding is of insufficient depth to accommodate modern vehicles with an existing car currently parking at an angle to the rear access road and thus taking up the whole of the hardstanding. Additionally the central space as set out on the plans is overlapped by the proposed external staircase. Access to the staircase would thus preclude use of the parking space. While the site is located in the town centre where some relaxation of parking requirements may occur, the provision of sub-standard parking and loss of any amenity or bin storage areas is considered to result in detriment to the amenities of both existing and proposed residential occupiers. RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed development is considered to result in a contrived layout, with

sub-standard amenity for the future occupiers, in particular those within the basement/ground floor, which lacks both natural light/ventilation and outlook. This lack of amenity is perpetuated by non-compliance with fire escape requirements. As such the proposal represents an over-development of the site detrimental to the amenities and safety of existing and future occupiers, contrary to the provisions of Policy GD1(i)(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. The proposed external staircase and entrance balcony by reason of its design and siting would create an incongruous and prominent structure within the street scene, failing to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Town Centre Conservation Area. It would also result in direct overlooking and loss of privacy to the adjoining garden of 45 Sackville Road with an increase in associated noise and general disturbance from the movements of prospective occupiers and users of the staircase. As such the proposed staircase would be contrary to the provisions of Policy GD1(ii)(iv)(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan, Policy S1(f)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan

8

1991-2011 and Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended).

3. It has not been demonstrated that parking and bin storage areas can be provided to comply with the parking standards and local authority requirements and as such the proposal would result in a sub-standard and cramped form of development detrimental to the visual appearance of the conservation area and amenities of existing and proposed occupiers, contrary to the provisions of Policy GD1(i)(ii)(iii)(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan, Policy S1(f)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended).


RR/2008/769/P BEXHILL SACKVILLE APARTMENTS, DE LA WARR PARADEPROPOSED CHANGE OF USE TO CONVERT A REDUNDANT HOTEL WING INTO 9 NO. SELF CONTAINED FLATSSackville Estates


SITE This application relates to the west wing of the former Sackville Hotel fronting Middlesex Road.

HISTORYRR/85/0105 (Ground floor of west wing). C of U and conversion of disused

parts of former hotel to 13 hotel guest rooms – Approved.RR/87/2525 (Ground floor of west wing). C of U of ground floor to 13 self-

catering residential units - Withdrawn

PROPOSAL Apart from this west wing fronting Middlesex Road, the main former Sackville Hotel building fronting the promenade was converted to flats some years ago. The wing currently has 11 no. redundant hotel rooms. It is proposed to convert these into 9 no. self-contained one-bedroom flats. External alterations would be limited to adding a further row of windows to three ground floor windows with stone surrounds on the east, west and north elevations. The following information has been extracted from the Design and Access statement: “The bedrooms concerned have been redundant for more than five years. There are no facilities in the building for reception or catering. ... This is the last remaining area of the hotel, with all other rooms converted to apartments. ... the conversion of the remaining part of the property will make better use of the building and provide additional stock in Bexhill.”

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- “The proposed conversion and change of use from a redundant hotel wing to 9 flats will result in a similar demand for parking as indicated in the County Council’s adopted parking standards. The existing hotel wing requires one space per hotel room which results in 12 spaces being provided which is the same amount of parking required for 9 flats plus visitor parking. On this basis I feel that any recommendation for refusal could not be sustained, in the event of any appeal.”Director of Services - Regeneration (Tourism):- “I do not support the application, as this is contrary to Local Plan Policy EM9. The property occupies a good seafront location (albeit not directly facing the sea), and close to the town centre. The location and

9


quality of this accommodation suggests that it has potential to continue as visitor accommodation, either serviced or self-catering. However, the application has not demonstrated that there is no prospect of the premises continuing as visitor accommodation.The 1066 Country Hotel Futures study from 2007 suggests that Bexhill has potential to support a high-quality boutique hotel; alternatively the potential for providing self-catering accommodation could also be explored.”Director of Services – Housing:- No comments received.Planning Notice:- No comments received.

SUMMARY The main issue in this case is the potential loss of good quality visitor accommodation and the impact this would have upon the local economy. Relevant Policy is EM9 of the Rother District Local Plan. Also, the preceding paragraph 9.28 in the Rother District Local Plan states: “Visitors staying in the area bring important benefits for the local economy. Therefore the loss of existing tourist accommodation to other uses will be resisted unless it is of unacceptably poor quality or where a genuine lack of demand for the accommodation is demonstrated.”In his comments, the Director of Services - Regeneration draws attention to the recent ‘Hotel and Guest Accommodation Futures’ report prepared for ‘Sea Space’ in April 2007. This suggests that Bexhill has potential to support a high quality boutique hotel. The Director of Services - Regeneration comments that the alternative potential for providing self-catering accommodation could also be explored. In light of these comments it is my opinion that this application should not be supported unless it is clearly demonstrated that there is no longer a demand for any tourist accommodation, either fully serviced or self-contained, in this prime location close to the seafront. However, the applicant has been invited to supply further information. Any information received will be reported to the meeting.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (UNLESS SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE IS RECEIVED DEMONSTRATING NO DEMAND FOR ANY TOURIST ACCOMMODATION IN THIS LOCATION)1. Whilst the local planning authority notes that the hotel wing has been redundant

for more than five years the application is not supported by any evidence that there is no demand for either fully serviced or self-catering tourist accommodation in this prime, close to the sea front location. Therefore, as submitted, the proposed development would result in the potential loss of good quality visitor accommodation which would be contrary to Policy EM9 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/895/P BEXHILL 73 BIRKDALE - LAND REAR OF ERECTION OF THREE BEDROOM CHALET BUNGALOW WITH DETACHED GARAGE AND FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS.Mr and Mrs Graham


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

10


SITE The application site comprises 2/3 of the rear garden of 73 Birkdale, which is a corner plot with Firle Road. The site is fairly level but set below the footway to Firle Road and the neighbouring bungalow at 2 Firle Road. The site lies within the development boundary for Bexhill and in a residential area.

HISTORYRR/97/550/P Erection of detached bungalow with integral garage and formation

of new vehicular access - Refused - Appeal Dismissed.RR/2007/3356/P Erection of detached 3 bedroom chalet bungalow with integral

garage and formation of new vehicular access - Withdrawn.

PROPOSAL This is a full application for the erection of a new dwelling to the rear of 73 Birkdale but fronting onto and accessed from Firle Road. It is a revised submission following the withdrawal of RR/2007/3356/P. The size, design and layout have been amended, with reduction in the length and roof mass, detachment of the garage, retention of sections of the front boundary hedge and increase in size of the rear garden.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: Recommends conditions to ensure provision of the new access in the position illustrated and the parking areas prior to occupation.Southern Water: Advise that their consent is required to connect to the public sewer.Environment Agency: Have no comments.Planning Notice: 3 letters of support have been received which consider the proposal to be a quality dwelling with no detriment to the area or neighbours. A further letter states that they do not object per se to the proposal but consider that there are traffic problems and parking restrictions should be imposed in the vicinity of Birkdale and Firle Road.22 letters of objection from 21 properties on the following grounds: Parking problems in the area, primarily related to the school, will be exacerbated Previous refusal should be upheld A chalet bungalow can result in loss of privacy Out of character with the street scene and overcrowded Garden will be too small for the proposed and existing house New access will further restrict the availability of on street parking, much used in

this area especially during term times Too close to neighbours casting shadow and generating noise from garage Local properties have suffered from subsidence and are concerns that new

building works could create this problem again Noise and general disturbance during construction works Infilling will set a precedent in an already densely populated area

SUMMARY This is a full application proposing a chalet bungalow to the rear of 73 Birkdale, fronting onto Firle Road. Planning permission was refused for a smaller bungalow in 1997 (located along the northern part of the site) and also dismissed at appeal. The appeal Inspector noted that the site could constitute a form of infilling but in that instance concluded that the proposal would be likely to cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of the occupiers of 73 and 75 Birkdale. It was considered to be too close to those properties, would create overlooking and a loss of privacy. Would result in overshadowing and would be overbearing, particularly to no.75 Birkdale, a bungalow located at a lower ground level. He also commented on the difficulty of preventing overlooking from the first floor windows of 73 Birkdale.

11

This application seeks to overcome the comments of the Inspector as well as those made with regard to the application withdrawn in January this year, RR/2007/3356/P. With reference to the Inspector’s comments, the property has been re-orientated to align with those in Firle Road and moving it away from the boundary with both 73 and 75 Birkdale. Other than one obscure bathroom rooflight, tucked on a north side facing hip, there are no first floor roof windows within the rear or side elevations and the ground floor windows will face the boundary fences/planting, so there should be no overlooking or loss of privacy. Any shadow from the new dwelling should also fall within its own garden for the most part. A detached garage is now proposed in the rear north west corner which will screen the proposed garden area thus precluding overlooking from the first floor rear windows of 73 Birkdale.The Design and Access Statement submitted with the application details the reasoning behind the proposal and also seeks to addresses the previous objections. A detailed analysis has been undertaken of plot sizes within Firle Road and the ratio of the footprint to plot size. The average ratio of footprint to plot size for neighbouring dwellings has been calculated at 30%, while the proposed dwelling will occupy only 26% of its plot. The statement argues that the overall size has been reduced and advises of a number of other bungalows in Firle Road that have accommodation within the roof area, served by rooflights and dormers. The design is to be high quality and considered to be in keeping with other properties in the neighbourhood. While sections of the hedge to the front are indicated to be retained, the statement does point out that other properties in Firle Road are open plan to the front and thus the hedge could be removed to reflect this existing character. The proposed parking complies with the parking standards and provides both a garage as well as room to accommodate two cars on the driveway. The agent also refers to changes in Government guidance since the appeal in 1997 and to the encouragement now given to new housing development within existing town areas. Other issues raised by objectors relate to the use of a ‘Scandia Hus’ and to existing parking problems in the area due to the proximity with the school. The chalet bungalow will be finished in brick under a tile roof and as such does reflect the use of materials in neighbouring properties and is thus in keeping. It is noted that the surrounding area experiences parking problems related to the school times but this is not a reason for refusing this application for a single dwelling, which complies with parking requirements.In conclusion, although the appeal was dismissed in 1997, the appeal Inspector did consider the site to be an infill plot. It is now considered that the design and layout have been altered sufficiently in response to previous objections and this leads me to a different recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A – (Standard time period). 2. CD3K – (Parking). “dwelling” “X01/D” “7 April 2008” “parking” 3. CD9H – (Materials). “details” “dwelling”

Reason: delete policy references to AONB. 4. CD8P – (No PD). “alterations or extensions” “Classes A, B or C”

Reason: a, GD1(ii, iv) 5. CD8O – (No additional windows). “north or south sides or west rear elevations”.

Reason: a.Note: A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St

12

James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (tel. 01962 858688) or email www.southernwater.co.uk .

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development as revised, having regard to the appeal Inspector’s comments and Government guidance, is considered to be of an appropriate size, design and siting and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/907/P BEXHILL 13 GLENLEIGH PARK ROADERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO REAR OF KITCHENMrs S Kennedy


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

SITE No.13 Glenleigh Park Road is a semi-detached house situated on the south side of the road approximately 80 metres from its junction with Gunters Lane.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2008/290/P Erection of single storey rear extension to kitchen to form dining

room including Velux rooflight – WithdrawnRR/2004/1213/P Erection of extension at rear of house to provide larger

kitchen/bedroom including modifications for en-suite bathroom – Approved

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice:- 2 letters of objection have been received from the immediate neighbours, the most comprehensive of which from the occupiers of no.11 Glenleigh Park Road is attached as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 22 May 2008. The letter from the occupiers of no.15 Glenleigh Park Road states (summarised) – Two storey extension, which was erected in 2004, does extend significantly into

the garden of our neighbour’s house. The further extension which is proposed would cause a considerable difference to the amount of sunlight which would reach our property

The proposed extension will encroach onto the lawn by a further 5 metres The proposed construction is a sizeable building of some 30 square metres and

has a pitched roof which will reach almost to second storey level It represents over development of the site to the detriment of neighbouring

properties It is evident that the intention behind the extension is to enable the applicant to

provide a counselling service There are already times when it can be extremely difficult to park in the road Since it is evident that most clients would arrive by car for their appointments, a

difficult situation would only be made worse.13

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr2008895l1

http://www.southernwater.co.uk/

Surely it is inappropriate to locate business premises in a residential area.(Comments in full can be read on the website).

SUMMARY This property has been the subject of a previously withdrawn planning application RR/2008/290/P. This application was withdrawn following concerns from the neighbours and the planning officer regarding the use of the proposed extension and the separate entrance, in addition to the windows on the western elevation possibly causing loss of amenity by overlooking to no.15.This current application has been submitted with the separate entrance and lobby area deleted and the windows on the western elevation shown with obscure glazing. However it has still attracted two letters of objection, as summarised above and in the separate appendix document. The essence of these objections is the overshadowing that will be created by the extension, and the use of the extension. The applicant’s agent has responded to the letters as follows:“Further to our telephone conversation today and following discussions with my clients I should like to comment on the two letters of objection from the owners of 11 and 15 Glenleigh Park Road. I shall try to keep this letter as brief as possible since I intend to only address concerns which I consider to be relevant to planning policies.11 Glenleigh Park Road –1. Planning Principles

It is considered that in terms of design the proposed extension meets the requirements of local planning policies. The walls are to be built in clay stock bricks, the roof is to be covered with clay plain tiles and the windows/doors to be in white upvc. This is in common with the majority of the buildings in the immediate locality and surrounding area.Whilst a flat roof to the proposed extension would reduce the overall height, a flat roofed extension would look bulky and would not be in keeping with the existing parent dwelling. This is clearly demonstrated by the large and bulky appearance of the flat roofed garage at number 11 Glenleigh Park Road. The pitch of the proposed extension roof has been set at an angle to allow the use of plain clay tiles as well as complimenting the pitch on the roof to the parent dwelling.As regards open space, from the site and block plans it can be seen that 11, 13 and 15 Glenleigh Park Road all have above average size gardens and an extension of the size proposed will not infringe on the feel of open space.

2. Proposed business useOn further consideration my client, Mrs Kennedy, has decided that out of respect for the neighbours’ concerns she will not be using any part of the proposed extension to operate a counselling service.In these circumstances I would ask that the planning application be determined solely in terms of its design and use as additional habitable accommodation.

3. Scale of new buildingMention is made of the overall footprint of 13 Glenleigh Park Road should the extension be approved and built. From the site and block plans I would suggest that the overall footprint will be similar to those of 11 and 15 Glenleigh Park Road, both of which have had considerable extensions.

4. Residential amenityIt is my opinion that the proposed extension would not be detrimental to the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and the area in general. In terms of loss of light and ‘overbearing and cramped conditions’, the proposed extension will be 3.5 metres from the nearest window. With the pitched roof and single storey design any impact, if any will be negligible.

14

5. Environmental qualityThe points in this paragraph of the letter of objection are repeated elsewhere in said letter and do not merit further comment.

6. Traffic and parkingSince the concerns regarding the counselling service have been addressed I would suggest that this is no longer a material consideration.

15 Glenleigh Park Road -The main points of this letter of objection have been addressed in my reply to the points raised by the owner/occupiers of number 11 Glenleigh Park Road.Mention is made of a restrictive covenant. In my opinion and experience such covenants do not have any bearing in determination of planning applications. However should planning approval be granted my clients would need to seek the further approval from whoever holds the covenant. Again in my experience, holders of such covenants normally grant consent for a nominal fee.

In summary I feel that the proposed extension and its intended use meets the criteria of local planning policies.”

In regard to the proposed business use I have forwarded a copy of the neighbours’ letters to the Enforcement Section for separate investigation and therefore this aspect forms no part of this application for consideration.The proposed extension will extend outwards at the rear and off the kitchen by 5.1 metres, will be 5.6 metres in width and will be set in from the boundary with no.11 Glenleigh Park Road by just over 2 metres. The roof will be pitched at 35 o and the extension will have a small window to the front elevation, two windows with obscure glazing to the west elevation and doors giving access into the garden. In 2004 planning permission was given under RR/2004/1213/P for a two storey extension at the rear. The extension projected 4.3 metres at full two storey height. At the time there was some concern over the effect that the extension would have upon the neighbouring amenity of Nos. 13 and 11 Glenleigh Park Road; however it was considered that the overshadowing would not reach such a detrimental level as to warrant a refusal and the application was approved.I have noted the concerns of the neighbours and in this regard I have inspected the site from both properties. An internal inspection at no.11 Glenleigh Park Road has revealed a dark room already affected by the existing two storey extension. At present a little daylight is enjoyed through the only window in the dining room, which faces west. If the proposal is given consent the daylight that comes between the existing extension and garage on the neighbour’s property would be blocked by the height and bulk of this proposal. These properties were designed in a staggered and off-set configuration so as to make the most of the natural light, in particular for north and west facing windows. The cumulative effect of the existing extension and this proposal (if given permission) would be to nullify any original design that would have allowed for natural daylight to enter this room. Although the kitchen would be affected by this proposal it does have other windows and therefore the effect is marginal. The neighbouring property (no.15) is similarly affected but because the proposal is set in approx 3.7 metres from the boundary the effect is also marginal.My conclusion therefore is based on the impact the proposal will have on no.11 Glenleigh Park Road and I consider that the extension, if permitted will, because of its height, bulk and proximity to the neighbouring property, be detrimental to that property. The Members will visit the site and be able to assess this aspect.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)

15

1. The proposed extension, by virtue of its height, bulk and proximity to the boundary would result in an oppressive and dominant building detrimental to the residential amenities of the neighbouring property (no.11 Glenleigh Park Road) contrary to Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/1004/P BEXHILL 15 WITHYHAM ROAD ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO PROVIDE THERAPY POOL. Mr and Mrs Sadighi

Statutory 8 week date: 05 June 2008


SITE This detached two storey dwelling is set on the northern side of Withyham Road with detached houses either side. The property benefits from an area to the west of the dwelling which is garden area. A drainage ditch running north/south between the dwelling and the western boundary falls within the site curtilage.

HISTORYRR/2000/1713/P Front extension to lounge plus new porch – Approved.

PROPOSAL The applicants seek to erect a single storey side extension extending some 4.5m from the western elevation and measuring some 11.9m deep, almost the depth for the dwelling. A low pitched roof is proposed above the front elevation for aesthetic reasons, while a flat roof with a small lantern light will form the remainder of the roof. No side windows are proposed and an existing side elevation window is to be reduced in height to accommodate the development. The development is to be used as a therapy pool (measuring some 10m³) and shower room for a current occupier of the dwelling.

CONSULTATIONSSouthern Water: Raise no objection.Director of Services – Environmental Health Officer: “Due to the location and orientation of this development, there is no need to request conditions as far as the environmental health service is concerned.”Environment Agency: Consider this development to be of low environmental risk and have no comments to make.Planning Notice: No representations received.

SUMMARY Having considered the proposed development on site, I am of the opinion the proposed single storey side extension has been designed to accommodate the needs of the occupier, whilst having a neutral visual impact upon the street scene and amenity of the neighbouring property. The scheme also illustrates how the ditch will be upgraded at this point to accommodate the foundations of the extension. The applicant is unsure at present on the precise specification of the pool, though having discussed with Southern Water the matter of chlorinated water they have confirmed that due to the size of the pool any normal chlorine level would be negligible by the time the indicated amount of water arrived at the treatment works. Therefore no condition requiring

16


dechlorination is required. I consider the scheme does not conflict with adopted plan policy and can be conditionally supported.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration

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

2. CD6I (Amended). Should a backwash filter for the therapy pool be required as part of its drainage system (as per manufacturers specification) it should be passed to the foul drainage system and not to a surface water sewer or watercourse, unless other means of disposal have first been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in association with the Environment Agency.Reason: To prevent water pollution and to ensure satisfactory drainage of the site in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(g) and EN11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan.

3. CD9G. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match in materials, colour and texture those used in the existing building. Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the existing building in accordance with Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

Notes: 1. If the pool produces filter backwash water, this needs to be discharged to the

public foul sewer. The rate and times of discharge of this water to the sewer and discharge of the contents of the pool (if these need to be drained to the sewer), would have to be agreed with Southern Water. The applicant is advised to discuss the matter further with Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (tel. 01962 858688), or www.southernwater.co.uk

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed single storey side extension is of an appropriate design and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policies S1(g)(f) and EN11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(ii)(iv)(x) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/1262/CM BEXHILL HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING SITE, FRESHFIELDS, BEXHILL ROAD, PEBSHAMPROPOSAL TO VARY CONDITION 1 (TIME LIMIT) OF PLANNING PERMISSION RR/454/CM TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED PROVISION OF HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING SITE TO 1 SEPTEMBER 2011East Sussex County Council

Last date for decision: 6 June 2008

17


http://www.southernwater.co.uk/

SITE The application site is the established household recycling site on the east side of Freshfields north of the Pebsham playing fields.It is surrounded by earth bunding and not readily visible from outside the site.

HISTORYThe site has been in existence since the mid-1980s and a number of temporary renewals have been granted since.

PROPOSAL The proposal is to vary the existing planning permission to allow continued use of the site up to 2011.The supporting information includes the following:“Consent PeriodWe would favour planning consent being renewed to 1 September 2011 when we have provision in our 30 year integrated waste management services contract (IWMSC) working with our contractors, Veolia ES South Downs Ltd, to build a new site in the Pebsham area to serve local residents.To provide continuity and an overlap of service until a new facility is built, we have submitted a planning application for the continued use of the existing Hastings household waste recycling site.Site LayoutThe general layout plan enclosed with our application shows the current layout of the containers and floor tipping areas.We ask that any planning permission granted will not restrict the location of these containers and tipping areas to allow flexibility of waste operations on-site.”

CONSULTATIONSDirector of Services – Environmental Health:- To be reported.Director of Services - Amenities: To be reported.

SUMMARY This is a consultation from the County Planning Authority. The site has been the subject of a series of temporary permissions the last of which the District Council were consulted upon in 2005. At that time permission was sought until 2012 and the District Council raised no objection. In the event the County Council granted permission until 2008 in line with the temporary permission for the tip as a whole (at the time). Consideration is currently being given to an alternative facility on a different site and I understand that an Environmental Impact Assessment is currently being prepared in advance of a planning application being submitted. In the meantime a further temporary period is sought until a new facility is agreed and in operation.

RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BE ADVISED THAT NO OBJECTIONS ARE RAISED TO THE VARIATION OF CONDITION 1 TO ALLOW THE INCREASED OPERATION OF THE HOUSEHOLD RECYCLING FACILITY SUBJECT TO SIMILAR CONDITIONS REGARDING RESTORATION/LANDSCAPING AND HOURS OF USE AS IMPOSED UPON THE PREVIOUS TEMPORARY PERMISSION


18

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20081262cm

RR/2008/368/P BATTLE THE WHITE HART INN, NETHERFIELDCHANGE OF USE AND VARIATION OF CONDITION 4 IMPOSED UPON PLANNING PERMISSION RR/97/891/P TO ALLOW OUTBUILDING TO BE USED AS A HOLIDAY LET OR AS STAFF ACCOMMODATIONMr S Spillett

Statutory 8 week date: 07 April 2008

9/13/506/B BATTLE THE WHITE HART INN, NETHERFIELDMODIFICATION OF EXISTING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT TO ALLOW OUTBUILDING TO BE USED AS A HOLIDAY LET OR AS STAFF ACCOMMODATIONMr S Spillett


SITE These applications relate to the bungalow located to the rear of The White Hart Public House on the south side of the B2096 at Netherfield. The building was extended and converted under planning permission RR/97/891/P to provide manager’s/staff accommodation incidental to the public house.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/97/891/P Extension to and conversion of existing outbuilding to provide

manager’s/staff accommodation – Approved Conditional9/13/506 Discharge of Section 106 Agreement – Refused9/13/506/A Discharge of Section 106 Agreement to allow occupation of outbuilding by

persons not wholly or mainly employed at the public house – Refused – Appeal Dismissed.

PROPOSAL The new owner of the public house seeks to vary the restriction on the occupancy of the accommodation so as to permit the bungalow to be used either as staff accommodation to the Public House or as a holiday let.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- No objection.Highway Authority:- Comments on RR/2008/368/P – “I recommend that any consent shall include the following conditions:1. The development shall not be occupied until a turning space for vehicles has

been provided and constructed in accordance with the approved plans and the turning space shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used for any other purposes.Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway.

2. The development shall not be occupied until parking areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and the areas shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of motor vehicles.Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway.

Notes: The proposed change of use to a holiday let will result in an increase in traffic generation from the existing site. As part of any consent I would wish to see the rear

19

access stopped up and the proposed access for the holiday let to be separated to provide exclusive use by the occupants.”Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY The previous owners of the Public House sought the Council’s consent to sever the staff bungalow from the licensed premises as a separate dwelling. This was refused and a subsequent appeal was dismissed. The appeal inspector considered that the domestic paraphernalia associated with a full residential occupation of a dwelling with a restricted curtilage would be unacceptable. Additionally, it was a concern that sale separate from the Public House would divide the pub ownership leaving land that may become neglected in time bringing pressure for alternative uses to the detriment of the open character of the area.The current proposal has several benefits in that it would retain the bungalow and the Public House in the same ownership, the accommodation could still be used for staff purposes if necessary and otherwise holiday occupation brings economic benefits generally. A holiday use does not tend to bring the same quantity of domestic paraphernalia and a small curtilage is not a particular concern. I have noted the comments of the Highway Authority but I have queried the response. The submitted plans do not indicate proposed parking and turning areas; there is ample car parking available at the public house and there is not a problem in turning and leaving in forward gear. I can see no need to treat the holiday let as a separate entity to the public house for access/parking purposes. Moreover, the reference to closing the rear access is not understood as there is no rear vehicular access; the reference to an access closure on the plan is a pedestrian link between the rear of the public house and the holiday let site. Any amended response will be reported to your meeting.I am content to support the proposals which I judge to comply with Local Plan policies GD1 and EM7. The premises are well provided for car parking and the proposal would not impact upon the amenities of any other property.At present the use of the bungalow is restricted to staff accommodation and tied to the Public House by a Section 106 Agreement. There continues a need to constrain the use and to maintain the single ownership of both bungalow and Public House as a whole.

RECOMMENDATIONS: RR/2008/368/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (S106 OBLIGATION)1. CD1A (Standard time limit).2. CD8P (Restrict Permitted Development). Insert a. & b. Classes A, D and E.

Reason: b. Policies GD1(iv) and (v), S1(j).3. The occupation of the dwelling the subject of this permission shall be limited to

holiday accommodation, subject to the limitation set out in condition 3 of the permission, or limited to a person solely or mainly employed at The White Hart Public House and not otherwise.Reason: As CD8B – Policies GD1(iv)(v), HG11 and S1(j).

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed use as staff/holiday accommodation is considered to be an appropriate one having regard to its countryside location in close proximity to The White Hart Public House. The development would not adversely affect the character of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is therefore considered to be in compliance with Rother District Local Plan Policies GD1(iv)(v), EM11 and HG11 and East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 Policy S1(j).

20


9/13/506/B: APPROVE (MODIFICATION OF S106 OBLIGATION)


RR/2008/828/P RYE FERRY ROAD AND CYPRUS PLACE – LAND ADJACENTERECTION OF 8 NO. APARTMENTS, 29 NO. LOCK-UP GARAGES AND CAR PARK EXTENSION OF 58 NO. SPACESReliant Building Contractors Ltd

Statutory 8 week date:

SITE This application relates to two narrow parcels of land either side of the railway line. The first site fronts the access road that serves the Rye Fire Station, telephone exchange and Windmill House. It has a frontage to the access road of about 135 metres and an average depth of about 16 metres.The second site is to the rear of the existing private car park, properties in Forge Mews and Cyprus Place and has a frontage to the railway of nearly 165 metres. It is about 16 metres in depth for most of its length. Both areas of land are at a level lower than the railway land and the land either side of the sites and both areas are currently unused and overgrown with some trees on both sides of the railway.

HISTORYNone relevant. The land was until recently owned by the railway authorities.

PROPOSAL The scheme is in two parts:1. To the south east of the railway line it is intended to raise the existing ground

levels and to tarmac the majority of the area to provide 58 car parking spaces. The plans show 54 of the spaces at right angles along the back of the site closest to the railway. Access would be from the existing private car park (in separate ownership). A 1.8 metre high diagonal boarded fence is proposed along the railway boundary.New fencing is shown along the boundary to the railway.

2. On the north west side of the railway the site is divided into two distinct areas. Close to Ferry Road two small two storey blocks of eight apartments in total are proposed together with car parking between the blocks. (The application has been amended from a single building first submitted). The greater part of the site (running south-westwards alongside the access road to the Fire Station and other users) is to be used for 29 lock up garages.

The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement, Ecology Report, Flood Risk Assessment and Noise Assessment.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- Support refusal. Loss of open space contributing to character of area; restricted access; inadequate ecology report; loss of green corridor; affects archaeological site; support Fire Brigade objection.

21

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=913506b


Highway Authority:- Recommend refusal. Excessive off street parking contrary to national guidance and local parking standards for sustainable development.Environment Agency:- To be reported.Southern Water:- To be reported.East Sussex Fire & Rescue Service:- Objection to initial plans (copy of objection attached as separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 22 May 2008).Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board:- No objection in principle – refer drainage matters to other bodies.Sussex Police:- No objections in principle.Network Rail:- Main issues raised:“Excavations of footings - Network Rail will need to be consulted on any alterations to ground levels. This site has a history of instability and Network Rail is concerned about excavations within 10m of the boundary with the operational railway and will need to be assured that the construction of foundations and footings will not impact on the stability of the railway. A full method statement must be supplied and agreed with Network Rail’s Outside Party Engineer before consent can be granted.Drainage – Additional or increased flows of surface water must not be discharged onto Network Rail land nor into Network Rail’s culverts or drains. In the interests of long term stability of the railway, soakaways should not be constructed within 10m of the boundary with the operational railway.Fencing – Given the proposed use of the site a 1.8m high fence should be constructed to avoid trespass and vandalism and provide acoustic insulation for the residential units.Site Layout – In order to ensure the new development unit can be constructed and maintained without encroachment onto the operational railway line all buildings and structures should be set back at least 2m from the boundary with the operational railway or at least 5m for overhead power lines.”Director of Services – Environmental Health:- To be reported.Planning Notice:- Rye Conservation Society: Object – (north-west of railway) loss of green corridor, attractive approach to the town – wildlife habitat, detrimental to setting of The Windmill; (south-east of railway) excessive tarmac surfaces unsightly and create water run-off hazard.Hastings & Rother Disability Forum: Object. Why are steps on the outside of building? Plans designed without disabled adaptations.Marsh Link Action Group: Plans would have a detrimental effect on the reinstatement of the double track railway line to increase capacity and flexibility of Brighton-Ashford line. “At this stage, I do not know whether the proposed development would have any detrimental effect on any reinstatement of the dual track or even what needs to be considered: my concern is wider than whether the proposed development physically impinges on any track but would also be to wonder, for example, whether the construction may have a detrimental effect on drainage (which could destabilize the current or any new rail line) or whether new residents would have any objection to the reinstatement.I would therefore be grateful if you would take note of this caution and ensure any planning approval does not impinge on any enhancement of the line the DfT may be contemplating.”Letters of objection from 14 properties (summary of main points) – Loss of natural drainage/localised flooding/flood zone Ecological survey inadequate Loss of habitat/ecological issues

22

Fencing to proposed car park totally inadequate exposing private gardens in Cyprus Place to public view

Development on west side risk to Fire Service Car park could generate undesirable access from Cyprus Place Disruption from building works Lock-up garages would be an eyesore Loss of pleasant approach to Rye by train Disruption on lane caused by major works including impact on B&B trade at The

Windmill Disturbance to The Mill (having shallow footings) Loss of natural noise and ‘green’ screen from railway Noise from cars/garage activity Potential for vandalism Congestion to Ferry Road Increase in traffic on A259T May prejudice widening of railway track Piecemeal development 24 hour usage of car park – increased crime risk/burglary risk to adjoining

properties Light disturbance from car park

SUMMARY The application covers two distinct parcels of former railway land lying either side of the existing railway line. They are areas of land similar in character but the uses proposed should be considered separately. Area 1 is to the north-west of the railway, Area 2 to the south-east. (In some of the accompanying documentation the sites are referred to in the alternative as A and B).In planning policy terms neither site has any specific designation in the adopted Local Plan. Development should be judged primarily in relation to Policies DS1, GD1 and TR3 of the Local Plan and having regard to PPS25 in relation to flood risk.

Area 1The development proposes a wholesale clearance of this area, infilling of the land to increase levels and development with both new flats and separate lock-up garages.As first submitted the flats were in a single block but the scheme has been amended to provide two small bocks. The effect of this is to relocate access to the parking for the flats further away from the access to the fire station. In addition the revised plans show a widening of the existing access road to 5.5 metres to a point beyond the fire station.Thereafter the road narrows and from here the lock-up garages are served.

Design and townscape issuesThe Design and Access Statement gives limited information as to how the design has evolved and has no clear assessment of the character of the area and how the new development is to be integrated into the townscape. My concern is that the flats do not have any clear relationship to the surroundings and do not in themselves accord with government advice in PPS3. In relation to new housing para. 16 states, inter alia:“Matters to consider when assessing design quality include the extent to which the proposed development: …..– Is well integrated with, and complements, the neighbouring buildings and the

local area more generally in terms of scale, density, layout and access. …..– Takes a design-led approach to the provision of car-parking space, that is well-

integrated with a high quality public realm and streets that are pedestrian, cycle and vehicle friendly.

23

– Creates, or enhances, a distinctive character that relates well to the surroundings and supports a sense of local pride and civic identity.”

Likewise the long rank of lock-up garages will contribute nothing to the area in townscape terms and present an unattractive frontage to a well used thoroughfare.

Green space and ecologyPPS3 also states that new development should “- provide(s) for the retention or reestablishment of the biodiversity within environments.”There is local concern about the wholesale loss of the trees, shrubs and undergrowth on this land and the land form will be greatly changed by raising land levels. The accompanying ecological report gives a cursory assessment of the site. It states that, “the loss of the flora will have a significant effect on the ecology of the site, but in the context of its ecological value, this is not felt to be a significant impact in broader ecological terms.” The report adds “... the site offers a Green Corridor, allowing the movement of animals and birds along the railway track, and into Rye. With SNCI’s nearby along the same stretch of Railtrack, this has the potential for forming a significant linkage between important wildlife sites. However, as Rye is a small town, with the SNCI’s being on the edge of the urban area or even in the open countryside, it is not considered that this linkage effect is significant in this case. It is also worth noting in this context that Rye Station lies between the survey site and the more urban of the SNCI’s, which may effectively break any linkage that may otherwise have existed.”I believe that the site does have merit as a ‘green corridor’ but it is neither the subject of any formal designation nor adopted policy, and the trees on the site are not worthy of protection. Nevertheless if any development is accepted here it should at the least (as the ecological report acknowledges) result in mitigation measures and compensatory landscape. However the intensive nature of the proposal allows no scope for such measures and, if only for this reason, should be rejected.

AccessThe Fire Brigade expressed serious concerns about the initial plans in terms of their operational use of the access road. The Brigade have been advised of the amendments and any further comments will be reported at Committee.The Highway Authority have raised no initial objections to the use of the access road, as such, querying only the justification for further off-street parking in the area. An amended plan shows the access width increased to 5.5 metres, which according to the Highway Authority would normally be a sufficient width for this situation. The Fire Brigade’s response to the increased width is awaited, but at present I believe the safeguarding of emergency access is a material consideration.

Drainage issuesThe major ground level changes may have some impact on the existing surface water drainage regime. The Environment Agency’s comments are awaited in respect of the Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application. I note, however, that the applicant’s own consultants recommend that further research be carried out into the volume of additional (surface) water generated post development of the site.

Railway landThe development raises two issues in relation to railway land. Network Rail have commented on their restrictions and these comments raise issues of land stability, drainage and encroachment towards the railway. These comments have been conveyed to the applicants for a response, but on the face of it there must be some question over the feasibility of the layout as it stands.

24

A second matter raised by residents and the Marsh Link Action Group is whether the scheme might prejudice the possible reinstatement of the dual track here. This land has been sold off by the railway authorities but I have sought information as to whether there may be any effect on possible works in the future, within the existing permanent way area.

Area 2This part of the scheme involves the use of virtually all of this land for car parking. Since the application was first submitted the applicants have clarified that access will be through the existing privately owned car park to the rear of the ‘Kettle o’ Fish’ restaurant. This results in the loss of three spaces in the existing car park and a gain of 58 spaces on the new land.

Residential amenitiesWhile there may be some scope to extend the car park in some form I consider that the protection of the amenities of the nearest residents in Forge Mews and Cyprus Place to be a major consideration. I consider that any development beyond the Pumping Station (next to 3 Forge Mews) would be intrusive to the local residents here and would give rise to noise and disturbance and result in intrusive lighting. The applicants have expressed a willingness, in discussions, to provide acoustic fencing to the residents, but this does not address the issue of the intrusive nature of car parking so close to local residents.

Green space and ecologyThese issues are similar to Area 1 and as with that other area, the intensity of the development, with virtually all of the land given over to hard surfacing, allows no opportunity for either mitigation or good landscaping.

Drainage issuesAs with Area 1 the Environment Agency’s comments are awaited.

ConclusionsThere is no doubt that this former railway land represents a green corridor in an otherwise highly developed part of Rye. While it is not specifically protected as such it clearly contributes to the character of the local area at present. The planning application does not start from appreciating this context and is driven without reference in the first place to its immediate surroundings. With some thought for its context and retaining some of the character of the area, there might be some scope for a very limited development fronting Ferry Road and for a small extension of the existing car park away from the nearest residential properties. As it stands I consider the whole scheme, on both sides of the railway, to be an over intensive use of the land having no regard to the character of the area nor allowing landscaping or areas for mitigating the loss of green space.The car parking area would be detrimental to the outlook and amenities of adjoining residents.Highway and drainage matters and any adverse impact on the railway are yet to be finally resolved.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The development of the site to the north west of the railway line – involving the

removal of existing vegetation and extensive alteration to ground levels – would result in an over development of the site and an undesirable change to the

25

character of the area. In particular, the proposed form of development - the size, position and design of the flats and the extent and design of the lock-up garages – takes no account of its context, is not integrated with neighbouring properties and includes no landscaping or mitigation measures for the loss of the green corridor beside the railway line. The scheme fails to take opportunities for improving the character and quality of the area and would be contrary to Policy GD1(ii), (iv) and(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and the provisions of PPS3: Housing, paragraphs 12-14 and 16.

2. The development of the site to the north west of the railway line for flats and garages would give rise to additional traffic on a narrow access road which would conflict with the operational requirements of the fire station contrary to Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the layout as proposed on the site to the north west of the railway line and the information provided takes full account of the operational requirements of the railway operation in respect of the stability of the embankment, the proximity of building and surface water issues. As such the scheme may prejudice the safe operation of the railway.

4. The development of the site to the south east of the railway for car parking would represent a substantial loss of a green corridor to the detriment of the amenities of local residents and the character of the area without positive proposals to landscape the area and provide adequate mitigation for the areas lost. As such the proposal would conflict with Policy GD1(ii) and (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. The development of a car park to the rear of properties in Forge Mews and Cyprus Place would give rise to undue noise and disturbance and adverse effects from lighting, particularly to the residents of 3-5 Forge Mews which have very small gardens and are in immediate proximity to this area. As such the development would conflict with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/950/P RYE 4 UDIMORE ROAD, BELLE VIEW NURSERYOUTLINE: REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING NURSERY SITE TO INCLUDE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING HOUSE. ERECTION OF FOUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS INCLUDING ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING ACCESS.Mrs A Carter


SITE The site lies on the south east side of Ferry Road adjoining the River Tillingham to the north east. The former nursery site, now vacant and semi-derelict, comprises about 0.08 hectares and includes a separate vacant house, 4 Udimore Road.The site is flat but the adjoining river defences rise just outside the site. To the south west of the site is a row of two storey terraced houses.

HISTORYRR/2006/2531/P Outline: Redevelopment of existing nursery site to provide three

residential units including alteration to an existing vehicular access and construction of new road – Withdrawn

26


RR/2007/2385/P Outline: Redevelopment of existing nursery site to provide three residential units including alterations to an existing vehicular access and construction of new road – Refused.

PROPOSAL The proposal is in outline but accompanied by a detailed indicative scheme. All matters except access are reserved at this stage.The indicative plans show a terrace on the road frontage of four three storey houses. Access is shown below the end unit (nearest the river) to a rear courtyard access. Parking is shown for eight vehicles. Each house has a small amenity area.The application is covered by a Design and Access Statement (copy attached in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 22 May 2008).

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- Support approval.Highway Authority:- Recommend refusal: “1. The existing access at its junction with the B2089 has substandard width and

existing hazards would be increased by the additional slowing, stopping, turning and reversing traffic which would be created and would therefore be contrary to policy TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. The proposal would introduce hazards at this point of the B2089 by the slowing, stopping, turning and reversing traffic which would be created and would therefore be contrary to policy TR1 and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.”

Environment Agency:- “... obliged to object to the application as the site lies within a Flood Zone 3 and a Flood Risk Assessment has not been submitted which demonstrates that the development has passed the sequential test and would be ‘safe’ in compliance with PPS25.The site being immediately adjacent to the River Tillingham is at risk to flooding during prolonged periods of intense rainfall particularly when the river is tide locked at the gravity outfall to Strand Quay. We have previously recommended that consideration is given to the construction of a flood wall adjacent to the River Tillingham to offer an additional level of protection to the site but there is no evidence of this shown on the accompanying drawings.In addition to the fluvial risk the site may also be considered at risk to tidal flooding and although the site benefits from the recently completed Rye tidal walls scheme the risk of flooding remains should the scheme design standards be exceeded. Climate change and increased sea levels is also likely to increase long term flood risk to this site.Whilst we acknowledge that the principle of development on this site was agreed with the Environment Agency some time ago and we note that the proposed layout of the dwellings meets with out specifications at that time, since then the policies and guidance surrounding development in flood risk areas has changed and we must work to the current policy when a new application is submitted.We would be pleased to review our comments on receipt of an FRA which can show that all the relevant tests have been passed and the development would be ‘safe’.”Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board:- No objections in principle. Drainage matters to be considered by Environment Agency and Southern Water.Director of Services – Environmental Health:- Contaminated land condition required.Planning Notice:- Rye Conservation Society - object. Over development. Building’s too high in relation to surroundings.

27

SUMMARY This application follows two earlier schemes to develop part of the site (one withdrawn, a second refused). This proposal is on a larger site incorporating not only the former nursery site as before but also the adjoining and related house.The application is on previously developed land and should be judged against policies DS1, DS2, HG4 and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan. Policy GD1 is also relevant in terms of design and character and effect on adjoining residents, as is PPS25 in relation to Flood Risk. Policy EM2 relates to the re-use of sites in commercial use. In view of the previous use as a nursery I would not see this site as lending itself to any obvious alternative commercial use and given its close proximity to housing around I consider that residential use can be supported.In terms of design the illustrative plans give a clear idea of what is intended. As on the Rye Pottery site three storey dwellings are proposed allowing the main living rooms to be sited above ground floor thus minimising risk in the event of flooding.Raising the heights, while acceptable in itself, requires a critical assessment in this case as the adjoining terrace of properties is only two storeys.I am still awaiting further drawn information on this matter to supplement the Design and Access Statement but I would comment that variations in roof and building heights in close juxtaposition are not uncommon locally: this is particularly evident in the street scene to the east, including the new build at Rye Pottery.Frontage development, per se, is the most appropriate form to respect the street scene and to prevent intrusion or overlooking to the nearest residents. It also allows adequate off-street parking and provides rear gardens for the four units.At present however the development cannot be supported given both highway and flood risk objections. In relation to the highway comments the County Council have revised their position on the number of units that may be possible and would not now object to four units. The access however remains sub-standard.I will update Members on any further design issues at the Committee.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING)1. The proposed access at its junction with the B2089 is of inadequate and

substandard width which would result in hazards by the additional slowing, stopping, turning and reversing traffic which would be created. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. The application is not accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment and being within Flood Zone 3 it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the development of the site would be safe having regard to the requirements of PPS25: Development and Flood Risk and Policies DS1(xi) and GD1(xv) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/691/P BECKLEY SPRINGFIELD HOUSE, BIXLEY LANEVARIATION OF CONDITION 3 IMPOSED UPON PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2005/3038/P TO ALLOW CONVERSION OF LOFT SPACE ABOVE GARAGE TO FORM ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION FOR APPLICANTS’ DAUGHTER.Mr and Mrs C Suggitt


28



SITE The site lies to the west side of Bixley Lane, some 177 metres from its junction with the A268. It is set outside any town or village development boundary as defined within the Rother District Local Plan. It is an area of sporadic development within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The detached garage recently constructed under RR/2005/3038/P is set some 10 metres to the north east of the dwelling, adjacent to Bixley Lane.

HISTORY (Relevant) RR/2005/714/P Demolition of 2 flat roof extensions. Erection of 2 porches, single

storey extension to kitchen and a two storey extension comprising lounge with bedroom and en-suite facilities above – Approved Conditional.

RR/2005/2040/P Proposed first floor extension to form en-suite bathroom – Approved Conditional.

RR/2005/3038/P Erection of two storey 3 bay garage with tack and store room above – Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission for variation of condition 3 imposed upon planning permission RR/2005/3038/P, which states, “The garage accommodation shall be used for private domestic purposes only, and no permanent habitable residential use or storage or workshop use in connection with any trade or business shall take place therein”, to allow the conversation of loft space above the garage to form ancillary accommodation for applicants daughter.The agent states the following in justification of the application, “Our clients’ daughter is 22 and lives in Bexhill but wishes to return to the family home. However, our clients’ other children currently occupy the available bedroom accommodation in Springfield House therefore further living space is required. It is therefore proposed to convert the loft area above the garage to provide ancillary living accommodation for the applicants’ daughter”.

CONSULTATIONS Parish Council – Support refusal. “Unanimous support for refusal, please see letter with details.” This letter has been attached as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 22 May 2008.Planning Notice – No representations received.

SUMMARY In February 2006 a two storey 3 bay garage with tack and store room above was approved with conditions under planning RR/2005/3038/P. Condition no. 3 imposed on this approval stated, “The garage accommodation shall be used for private domestic purposes only, and no permanent habitable residential use or storage or workshop use in connection with any trade or business shall take place therein”. The applicant now wishes to convert the loft space from store/tack room to ancillary accommodation comprising of living area, bedroom and en-suite to provide accommodation for his daughter, Local Plan Policies apply and in particular GD1.There are no neighbouring properties in the immediate vicinity of the site; therefore any impact upon neighbouring amenities is not an issue. No alterations to the garage are proposed, consequently its impact upon the rural setting remains as per the garage approved under RR/2005/3038/P. The main issue in this application is whether the accommodation proposed is acceptable in the garage or whether it is tantamount to a new dwelling rather than an annexe to the main dwelling (Springfield House). While the

29

garage is somewhat self-contained it only provides modest accommodation. It is my opinion that the garage, which is within 10 metres of the house, is close enough to and maintains a good relationship with the main dwelling to be used as an annexe. I therefore consider in this instance that the accommodation is justified as an annexe and can be adequately controlled by condition, with the applicant willing to enter a Section 106 if this is felt to be necessary. I therefore make the following recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) 1. CD1A (Time limit).2. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of foul water

drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the ancillary accommodation shall not be occupied until the drainage works to serve the development have been provided in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the development and to prevent water pollution in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(g) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. The ground floor garage accommodation as shown on drawing no. 2005/1052 date stamped 25 March 2008 shall be used for garaging of private vehicles only and for no habitable accommodation or other purpose including any other purpose in Class C3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order.Reason: To provide adequate on site parking facilities, to prevent the need for further garage accommodation on site and prevent the increase of ancillary annexe accommodation within the existing garage building, in accordance with Policies GD1(iii), (iv) and (v) and HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f) and (j) and S10 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or other opening other than those shown on drawing no. 2005/1052 date stamped 25 March 2008 shall be inserted into the north and south elevation or roof slope.Reason: To ensure that the visual appearance of the development and locality is maintained and to preserve the natural landscape quality and character of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in accordance with Policy GD1(iv) and (v) of the Rother District Local Plan, and Policies S1(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

5. CD8C (Annexe) [Springfield House]Countryside Reason: [Insert a.] Policies GD1(iv) and HG10, Policies S1(f) and S10(c).

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: No alterations to the garage are proposed, consequently its impact upon the rural setting remains as per the garage approved under RR/2005/3038/P. The loft space of the garage provides modest accommodation and it is close enough to and maintains a good relationship with the main dwelling to be used as an annexe and it will be subject to a restrictive condition in respect of occupation of the annexe in association with the main house. As such the proposal accords with the objectives of Policy GD1(iv) and (v) of the Rother District Local Plan,

30

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


RR/2008/981/P BECKLEY RAYNEHURST, WHITBREAD LANE, FOUR OAKSDEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING. ERECTION OF FOUR TWO STOREY DWELLINGS WITH INTEGRAL GARAGES AND ALTERATION TO EXISTING VEHICULAR ACCESS TO FORM SHARED ACCESSF G P Developments


SITE This 0.18 hectare site has a 41m frontage to the north east side of Whitbread Lane and a depth of between 41m – 53m. Part of the site is currently occupied by a small single storey bungalow. The site also includes an adjoining vacant plot (north side). The site falls within the development boundary of Four Oaks as defined in the Rother District Local Plan and is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYNone

PROPOSAL To demolish the existing bungalow and erect four 2-storey dwellings with integral garages. These would be set back from the road frontage and in line with existing adjoining development and comprise a pair of semi-detached three bedroom houses in the centre of the plot and a detached four bedroom dwelling on both sides. The existing single access would be widened and a shared driveway with turning space provided across the front of the site. The dwelling would be constructed using traditional brick and tile materials and the shared driveway surfaced with bonded gravel. A communal refuse point would be sited adjacent to the access. A comprehensive Design and Access Statement has been submitted with the application and can be viewed on the website.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- Comments awaited.Director of Services – Amenities:- Comments awaited.Southern Water:- “Southern Water can provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. The Council’s Building Control officers or technical staff should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the development. A condition requiring details of surface water disposal to be submitted for approval in consultation with Southern Water is requested. A plan showing the approximate position of the public sewer in the vicinity of the site is enclosed. The exact position must be determined on site by the applicant before the layout is finalised. No development or new tree planting should be located within 3m either side of the centre line of the public sewer.”

31


Planning Notice:- Comments received from adjoining property (Manor House) include: Will change character of neighbourhood Traffic hazard Access to and from existing properties already problematical on busy road and

four dwellings will add significantly to this Density too high Footprint of existing dwelling should guide development Much too close to my boundary thereby impinging on my right to quiet enjoyment Removal of mature trees and ancient hedge with disastrous results to the

environment and quality of life Has already been significant new housing built in Four Oaks including former

allotments This development would finally destroy the rural nature of the neighbourhood

SUMMARY The main issues in this case relate to density, design, impact upon the character of existing development in the area and street scene, impact upon adjoining amenity and highway safety. Relevant Policies include GD1(ii)(iii)(iv)(v), DS1, DS2, DS3 and HG4 of the Rother District Local Plan, together with similar policies contained in the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 relating to general development principles and development within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.In terms of density, redevelopment of this comparatively large site and adjoining plot, in some form could, in principle, be supported and might make more efficient use of the land, all other things being equal. However, although the site is within the development boundary for Four Oaks, the village has a typical semi-rural character. In particular this site is, for a large part, open and undeveloped and contributes significantly to the lower density semi-rural character of this part of the village. According to information contained in the Design and Access Statement the existing density of the site is less than 6 dwellings per hectare. The proposed density would be 22 dwellings per hectare. Whilst this falls short of the minimum 30 dwellings per hectare recommend in PPS3, it is my opinion that the erection of 4 dwellings on the site is too many and would result in a cramped appearance. In any case the appropriateness of a site for redevelopment is not simply confined to crude calculations of density ignoring other matters. In this case the scheme would create a cramped appearance which would be compounded by the design of the proposed dwellings which, unlike the two adjoining properties (bungalow and chalet bungalow), would have first floor elevations which are close together and minimal separation between the houses. The development has no regard for the setting of the site and its context and would be out of keeping with the existing properties fronting this part of the highway and would erode their existing spacious relationships. Furthermore construction of a shared driveway in front of the dwellings would also change the more informal and typical rural appearance of the existing frontage. It is my opinion that the proposed development would result in a much more urban form of development that would be detrimental to and out of keeping with the semi-rural character of the existing site and the street scene.With regard to the impact upon adjoining amenity, the dwellings have been designed so that there would be no direct overlooking from windows. Whilst the adjoining owner on the south side, ‘Manor House’, considers the house on plot 4 to be much too close to their boundary and will impinge upon their right to quiet enjoyment, the rear garden is considered to be of sufficient size to ensure that any loss of amenity would be limited. This alone may not be a reason for refusal but undoubtedly a more sympathetic

32

development of the site with fewer dwellings could take more account of the neighbours’ amenity. With regard to highway safety, the submitted plans show the existing frontage hedge to be ‘trimmed and retained’ together with visibility splays in both directions. At the time of writing this report, the comments of the Highway Authority have not been received and I am unable to advise whether or not there is likely to be any adverse impact upon highway safety resulting from the proposal. Any comments received will be reported at the meeting.In conclusion, the form of the proposed development is inappropriate for this site. Development in this area is mixed and Hobbs Close to the rear of the site does have housing at a higher density. However this scheme takes no account of its immediate context or respect the fact that this part of Whitbread Lane, on the edge of the village, has a strong rural and more spacious character.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. By virtue of its density, the close relationship of the proposed four dwellings, both

within the site and to the adjoining properties, their two storey height and the provision of a shared driveway across the front of the site, the development would result in an urban form of development with a spatial relationship that is out of keeping with the character of existing development in this part of the street scene and detrimental to the character of this part of the village in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. For these reasons the development would be contrary to Policies GD1(iv)(v) and HG4(vi) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. The 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 indicate that development will be carefully controlled to protect the character of the area. It is considered that the proposal, by reason of the design of the dwellings, the density and layout, does not meet this objective and it would cause harm to the rural character of the area.


RR/2008/940/P NORTHIAM HOLMLEA, MILL CORNER ERECTION OF EXTENSION AND ROOF CONVERSION OF EXISTING BUNGALOWMr J Fielding



SITE The application site is within a row of residential properties outside of the Northiam development boundary and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYNone.

33


PROPOSAL Approval is sought to convert the existing bungalow into a chalet bungalow, facilitated by increasing the height of the existing roof and extending the building towards the boundary with the neighbouring property to the east, Orchard End. The proposal includes the addition of two dormer windows, French doors and a balcony to the front elevation and two dormer windows and three rooflights to the rear elevation. A half hipped gable wall would be created on the boundary with Orchard End.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: – Parish Council supports a refusal for the following reasons (summarised): Overdevelopment of the site. Difficult to maintain without access into neighbouring properties. The information on the application is inaccurate and misleading. Will have an overbearing impact on the adjoining properties. Contrary to Policy GD1 of the Local Plan.Planning Notice: – 10 letters of objection with the following comments (summarised): Overlooking. Out of character with the area. Dominant and overbearing impact. Loss of light. Will set a precedent for similar development. Overdevelopment of the site. Will harm the residential amenities of adjoining properties. Inadequate parking provision and harmful impact on road safety. Loss of views. Will create maintenance issues. The description of the development is inaccurate. The existing floor plans are inaccurate. It is important to ensure that the plans are accurate at this stage to avoid any

minor amendments. Contrary to Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan. Contrary to the Rother Planning handbook. Detrimental effect on local area during construction.

SUMMARY Approval is sought to convert the existing modest two bedroom bungalow into a chalet bungalow, facilitated by increasing the height of the existing roof and extending the building towards the boundary with the neighbouring property, Orchard End. The proposal includes the addition of two dormer windows, French doors and a balcony to the front elevation and two dormer windows and three rooflights to the rear elevation. A half hipped gable wall would be created on the boundary with Orchard End. The extension will create a new kitchen dining area to the ground floor and two bedrooms, both with ensuite facilities, in the roof area.

Policies GD1 and HG8 of the local plan apply to this application.

I consider that there are two main issues to consider in determining this application.The first is the effect it would have upon the character and appearance of the locality and the second its effect upon the amenity of nearby residential properties.The general character of this row of residential properties is of detached bungalows and chalet bungalows. All other things being equal converting the existing bungalow into a chalet bungalow may not be unacceptable in this location. However, a serious consequence of the development would be the effect it would have upon the

34

neighbouring property to the east. That property, Orchard End, would be faced with a 5m high gable wall stretching some 6m back from the line of Orchard End’s rear wall, and close to the boundary between the properties. The application site is at a higher level than Orchard End and the wall would have a dominating and oppressive effect upon anyone using the latter’s rear garden, or conservatory. For this reason the proposal conflicts with adopted plan policy and cannot be supported.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. By reason of its height, depth and close location to the boundary of the site the

extension to the roof and side would have a dominating and oppressive effect upon the residential amenities of Orchard End, contrary to Policies GD1 (ii) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2007/909/O BODIAM PARK FARM, JUNCTION ROADLAWFUL USE OF THE THREE FIELDS AND ACCESS ROAD FOR THE PURPOSES OF OPERATING THE BUSINESS OF A CAMPING AND TOURING CARAVAN SITEMr R Bailey


SITE This existing seasonal tent and touring caravan site is located to the western side of Junction Road.

HISTORYRR/77/1204 Touring caravan site – Approved.RR/2003/920/P Placement of a mobile home for site manager during season only

(1 March – 31 October) – Refused.RR/2003/2594/P To site a mobile home for site manager during the summer season

(1 March – 31 October) – Approved – (Time limited permission – 3 years)

RR/2007/2318/P Discharge of condition 3 imposed upon planning permission RR/2003/2594/P for siting of a mobile home for a site warden during the summer season – (refers to temporary permission) – Approved

Other planning permissions on this site relate to the winter storage of caravans in farm buildings.

PROPOSAL This is not a planning application but an application for a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC). The Certificate is sought on the grounds that the area edged in red on the submitted plan has been used for more than 10 years from the date of the application and is therefore lawful. The 10 years refers to the requisite time period under the LDC applications procedure. Evidence in support of the proposal comprises statutory declarations from the owner (and applicant), caravan owners that have used the site, and a hot air balloonist that has been taking private and commercial flights over the area since 1989. Additional documents include photographs, letters, financial information and a site usage summary. The application site covers three fields described in the application as the Right Field (hatched green on the plan), the Left Field (hatched in purple), and the Middle Field (un-hatched).

35


The original planning permission for Park Farm (RR/77/1204) included the Right Field and Middle Field. Conditions on the application included the following:(i) The total number of caravans and tents to be accommodated on the site at any

one time shall not exceed 50(ii) No caravans or tents shall be accommodated within the area hatched green on

the site plan (the Right Field)(iii) No individual caravan or tent shall remain on the site for more than 21

consecutive nightsThe application seeks a Certificate for the use of these areas of land as a camping and caravan site in breach of these conditions.The current (LDC) application site includes a third area – described as the Left Field. This field falls outside the site area covered by planning permission RR/77/1204 and the application seeks a Certificate for the whole of the field as a camping and caravan site.The application as originally submitted, also sought a Certificate for what was described as “ancillary or incidental uses”. This has now been deleted from the proposal and the description has been amended accordingly.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- (Dated 1 May 2007) - “The Parish Council has no information that would contradict the statements made by Mr Bailey. However, of late there have been annual 2 day concerts with very loudly amplified music playing up to approximately 4.00a.m. These have caused disturbance and nuisance to residents as far away as Robertsbridge and Newenden.The Council requests that they be stopped. If this is not possible, it is requested that they be restricted to reasonable hours and noise volume. It has been brought to the Council’s attention that there are under-aged and un-supervised people riding quad-bikes and mini motor bikes on site, and bringing them onto public land.The Council would be content for continuation of use, providing it allows quiet enjoyment to other residents and occupants of the Rother Valley and surrounding villages.”Environment Agency:- Objects to the proposal on flood risk grounds (see website for full text of letter).Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board:- No objection.Planning Notice:- Letters from the occupier of Park Farm House, Bodiam (summarised) indicate that there is no objection to the issue of a Certificate for a camp and caravan site, however there is concern about the reference to ‘ancillary uses’. For a number of years concerts and other activities have been held on the land which has resulted in noise disturbance for local residents.A letter from Kent County Council (summarised) states that Duke of Edinburgh’s Award Bronze Expedition events have been organised at the campsite since 1998. These have numbered about seven events a year and it is estimated that between 80 and 100 young people benefit from using this campsite annually.

SUMMARY This application has been held in abeyance for some considerable time whilst negotiations have been taking place between the Planning Division and the respective legal advisors on the legal issues. No agreement has been reached on the legal issues and in the circumstances it has been decided to bring the application to Members on the basis of the information available.It is considered that with respect to the unauthorised developments that are claimed to have taken place a Certificate can be issued. However, it is not considered that the Certificate should be issued to the extent being claimed in the application. Section

36

191(4) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 specifically authorises a local planning authority to grant a Certificate to such an extent as it is satisfied regardless of whether an applicant agrees. A substantial amount of information has been provided with this application and legal advice has been sought from the Legal Services Manager. A copy of a memorandum from the Legal Services Manager is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 22 May 2008. Also contained in the APPENDIX DOCUMENT is a legal opinion provided by the applicant’s Counsel.

Lawful Development Certificate applications fall to be considered on the basis of the ‘balance of probability test’ and should be determined on the evidence available. In this respect I would comment on the key issues as follows:

The site area: The red edge around the application site plan embraces three fields. This is a large area and the application seeks a blanket permission for the lawful siting of tents of caravans anywhere in this area. The existing planning permission (RR/77/1204) allows tents and touring caravans to be sited anywhere in the Middle Field. With respect to the other two fields, if a Certificate is to be issued the Legal Services Manager considers that the geographical extent to which they have been used as pitches for tents and caravans is a factor in determining this application. The aerial photographs suggest that unauthorised use in the past has involved the siting of tents and touring caravans on the margins of these fields. Consequently the area of any Certificate should be restricted to the margins of the fields. The issue of a Certificate in relation to the whole fields cannot be justified. Members will note, however, that the applicant’s Counsel does not concur with this legal view. Contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 22 May 2008 is a site plan with an amended red line that has been produced by the Planning Division. Based upon the geographical extent of the past indicated by the evidence available, it is recommended that Members may wish to consider issuing a Certificate for this reduced site area (subject to the other factors outlined below).

Number of tents and touring caravans: This also needs to be specified in any Certificate that may be issued. The applicant’s supporting information includes a table summary of the average number of individual pitches in use during 1991, 1996, 2001 and 2006. There is other information, including aerial photographs and witness statements. The applicant’s view (supported by Counsel’s opinion) is that any limit of the number of pitches specified in a Certificate should be based upon the average number. This is not a view held by the Legal Services Manager. Clearly, the number of occupied pitches will not have been constant over time. Your legal advice is that, in view of the fact that the LDC application procedure requires that continuous use is demonstrated over the requisite period this would then point to a figure towards the minimum number of occupied pitches rather than the average or peak number. I also note that the applicant’s figures include peak summer events where a large number of pitches are occupied over a short space of time; the inclusion of such peak events would serve only to distort the mean average figure. The Legal Services Manager suggests that a figure around the 100 mark would be a realistic figure. Having examined the evidence available, I would agree that this would seem to be a reasonable figure for the probable number of pitches that have been used regularly throughout the season during the past 10 years.

Duration of stay: A condition of RR/77/1204 restricts the maximum number of consecutive nights that any individual tent/caravan may remain on the site to 21. The applicant states that this has been breached, principally as a result of ‘regular’ users

37

leaving their tent/caravan in place throughout the season. Providing objective evidence to substantiate or refute such a claim is not a particularly straight forward matter. The applicant has provided some bank receipts, although it is not clear whether these relate to the winter storage of caravans rather than block payment for a pitch throughout the summer season. Whilst I am not aware of any information to refute this claim, I would wish to receive confirmation from the Legal Services Manager that evidence supplied with the application has satisfied this point.

On a final matter, I have written to the applicant’s agent (without prejudice) on the matters contained in this report and invited comments on the intended approach. Any comments received will be reported to your meeting.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE) DELEGATED ((i) ON THE BASIS OF THE AREA DEFINED BY THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY AND INDICATED ON THE SITE PLAN CONTAINED IN THE APPENDIX; (ii) AMENDED DESCRIPTION “LAWFUL USE OF AREAS OF FIELDS SERVED BY ACCESS ROAD FOR THE PURPOSES OF OPERATING THE BUSINESS OF A CAMPING SITE FOR A MAXIMUM OF 100 TENTS OR TOURING CARAVANS BETWEEN 1 MARCH AND 31 OCTOBER EACH YEAR”; AND (iii) CONFIRMATION FROM THE LEGAL SERVICES MANAGER THAT A CERTIFICATE CAN BE ISSUED)


RR/2008/1060/P BODIAM 3 THE GREENERECTION OF EXTENSIONS, PORCH ALTERATIONS, PARKING SPACE, GARDEN STORE AND SUMMERHOUSEMr and Mrs Pim



SITE This semi-detached two storey dwelling is located in a slightly elevated position facing The Green in Bodiam, outside any development boundary and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYRR/2007/3508/P Proposed extension, porch, alterations, parking space, garden

store and summerhouse – Withdrawn

PROPOSAL This application is a resubmission of application no. RR/2007/3508/P, which was withdrawn.The proposal consists of the following additions: A two storey extension on the southern side measuring 3.1m wide x 5.8m deep.

This will be set in at its narrowest point some 1.6m from the neighbouring boundary. A pitched roof dormer will be built in the rear roof slope

A rear extension measuring 5.8m wide x 3.6m deep A garden store, to be located 9m approximately from the house, set in 1m from

the southern boundary and measuring 3.9m wide x 5.6m deep

38

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr2007909o

A summerhouse at the top of the rear garden which will have a floor area of 3m wide x 3m deep

A porch over the front door with matching tiled roof A parking space within the front garden achieved by the removal of a section of

wall at the front of the property

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “The Parish Council could see no difference between the drawings submitted with this application and those of application RR/2007/3508/P. The Council continues to oppose the application because the excessive size of the garden store and the proposed alterations to the main dwelling, would change a smaller housing unit into a considerably larger one.”Planning Notice:- No comments received to-date.

SUMMARY This property has been subject to a previously withdrawn application RR/2007/3508/P. Advice has been sought by the applicant’s agent prior to the resubmission. At that meeting it was suggested that the agent should reduce the height of the two storey extension, if at all possible, and provide an illustration of the proposal in relation to the neighbouring property. No illustration has been received; however the agent has given an explanation as to why he has not reduced the height:“1. The reduction of height of the side extension has been looked at but this could

only be achieved by creating a small area of flat roof, as the access to the loft conversion would otherwise be hindered. It is considered that a small area of flat roof would not be in keeping with pitched roofs at the property and would not befit the location. The roof has therefore not been altered. Please note however, the ridge height of the extension roof is well below the existing ridge height.

2. We would ask you to note that other properties around The Green have previously been extended to the side with extensions considerably larger than that proposed in this scheme. It is considered that the side extension proposed at no.3 is subservient to the existing house in height and width, as well as being set back from the front of the property. In addition, the proposed extension is set away and at an angle to the boundary of the property. Photographs are enclosed showing the extensions on neighbouring properties.”

There is no parking available at the property. It is proposed to form a parking space within the front garden area. This aspect of the application would probably be ‘permitted development’ provided the excavation is kept to a minimum. It is also proposed to extend the property to the side and rear. The side extension would incorporate an existing ground floor bathroom. A larger kitchen, utility room and cloakroom would then be formed on the ground floor. A bathroom would be built on the first floor as one does not exist on this floor. A new staircase would be constructed on the first floor to give access to the loft conversion. A bedroom and en-suite would be constructed within the loft conversion. Conservation rooflights would be positioned to the front and side of the property in order to provide daylight and ventilation to the bedroom and staircase. A pitched roof dormer would be built in the rear roof slope in order to achieve adequate ceiling heights within the en-suite. This window would be obscure glazed to prevent any overlooking. The single storey rear extension would provide a dining area. The roof would be pitched with valleys in order to keep the height to a minimum and would be set in from the boundary.A garden store is proposed. This building would be used to house garden equipment and general storage. The proposed summerhouse would be positioned at the top of the garden. This would be of brick and tile construction and have a stepped decking

39

area to the front. A porch over the front door would be an open type and have a matching tiled roof. Timber framing would be used in its construction.In my view the summerhouse, garden store, rear dormer, porch and parking space are acceptable and would not be detrimental to the amenities of any neighbouring properties. The two storey side extension is more debatable because of the difference in levels. It should be noted however that nos 5 and 1 The Green have been the subject of two storey extensions and in the case of no.5 The Green the levels are the equivalent of No.3 (the current application). It should also be noted that no objections have been received from No.2 the Green (immediate neighbour). This aspect of the proposal is finely balanced`. However, taking all the above into consideration I believe the proposal can be supported. The Members will be able to assess the impact of the development on the site visit.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. Standard time limited condition.2. CD9G (Matching materials - Summerhouse, dormer and retaining walls of

parking space). Insert: a, b, d.Reason: a.

3. CD8O (Window restriction - South elevation).Reason: a.

4. CD8G (Restrict Use). Amend to read ‘building’. Insert: b.Reason: In the interests of protecting the character of the area.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposal is of an appropriate scale and design and in my opinion will not adversely affect the character of the area, its AONB setting or the amenities of the neighbouring property, No.2 The Green, and therefore complies with Policy GD1(ii)(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.


9/13/1/P SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE SALEHURST PARK FARM, FAIR LANE, ROBERTSBRIDGEMODIFICATION OF SECTION 106 OBLIGATION SO AS TO REMOVE THE AGRICULTURAL OCCUPANCY CONDITION SET OUT UNDER CLAUSE 3 BUT TO IMPOSE A NON-SEVERANCE CLAUSE TO PREVENT SEPARATE SALE OR LEASE OF HOUSE FROM LAND NOW HELD UNDER LAND REGISTRY TITLE NUMBER ESX308675W V Wellesley & J K Wooding


SITE The application relates to a large period dwelling, which is the subject of an agricultural planning restriction. The area of land with the dwelling presently extends to about 48 hectares.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/83/2111 Retain oasthouse as dwelling without agricultural occupancy

condition: transfer same to Park Farm – Approved

40


9/13/1/H Discharge a planning obligation imposed on planning permission RR/83/2111 restricting occupation of dwelling (agricultural occupancy restriction) – Refused

PROPOSAL This is a revised proposal following the refusal of 9/13/1/H above. The proposal still seeks the removal of the agricultural occupancy restriction, however in mitigation the current application offers a modified agreement whereby the remaining land, 48 hectares, would be ‘tied’ to the dwelling.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “Support approval - the Parish Council has no objections to the application subject to a satisfactory non-severance clause to replace the Agricultural Occupancy Condition.”Rural Estates Surveyor:- Concludes – “This type of action was suggested by your Authority in a letter to the applicant’s agent which is dated 10 th July last year. Concern at that time was expressed regarding the 60 hectares being sold which could have resulted in a further planning application for a dwelling unless the land was purchased by a local farmer who would not require a new dwelling. Fortunately this has been the case with the 60 hectares being purchased by Mr Booth.The situation is now as required by your Authority and as you suggested I would concur with the proposed modification of the section 106 Agreement and the removal of the AOC.”

SUMMARY The previous application (refused) sought the discharge of the planning obligation imposed on planning permission RR/83/2111 restricting occupancy of the dwelling (agricultural occupancy restriction). My principal concern at the time the application was under consideration was that, if the restriction was lifted, the substantial land holding would be ‘orphaned’ (i.e. left without a dwelling) and this could then result in demands for an additional new agricultural dwelling in the countryside. In the report to Committee an alternative way forward was suggested whereby the occupation of Salehurst Park Farmhouse could be released from the agricultural occupancy restriction subject to the land being ‘tied’ to the house under a modified agreement. This was not acceptable to the applicants at that time (different from the current application) and the application was subsequently refused. It is considered that the fresh application to amend the Agreement on these lines can still be supported.At the time the aforementioned application was under consideration approximately 108 hectares of land was in the ownership of Salehurst Park Farmhouse. I understand that 60 hectares has since been sold to a local farmer (Mayfield Farm) and as such have been absorbed into an enterprise which already had a dwelling. Under the current proposal the remaining 48 hectares would be ‘tied’ to Salehurst Park Farmhouse. Salehurst Farm Farmhouse is a substantial period property and in the circumstances it may be difficult to substantiate continued agricultural occupation. It is considered that the proposal is an acceptable alternative solution.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (MODIFICATION TO LEGAL AGREEMENT) DELEGATED (AMENDED S106 AGREEMENT TYING THE FARMHOUSE TO THE LAND)


41

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=9131p

RR/2007/2167/O SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE BUGSELL PARK, BUGSELL LANE, ROBERTSBRIDGELAWFUL USE OF LAND AS GARDEN TO BUGSELL PARKMr R Allan

Statutory 8 week date: 25 October 2007

The above application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 17 April 2008 when it was resolved to defer a decision on the matter pending an inspection of the site being made. The site has been included on the list of Committee site inspections for 20 May 2008.

SITE The application relates to a converted former Oasthouse, which is now in residential use. The premises is located within a scattered group of buildings towards the end of Bugsell Lane – an unmade track. The site is within an area of countryside (AONB) outside the Development Boundary for Robertsbridge as identified in the Local Plan. The property was formerly known as “Trespassers W”.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2003/2146/P Conversion of outbuilding to form family annexe – Approved

PROPOSAL This is not a planning application but an application for a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC). The certificate is sought on the grounds that the area edged in red on the submitted plan (4.1 acres) has been used for more than 10 years from the date of the application and is therefore lawful. The 10 years refers to the requisite time period under the LDC applications procedure. Evidence in support of the application comprises two letters (one from the applicant and one from the agent), sales particulars of the property (circa 1976), and an Ordinance Survey plan.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support proposal.Environment Agency:- No objection to the proposed lawful use.Planning Notice:- No comments received.

SUMMARY An application for a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) cannot be considered on its planning merits. LDC applications have to be considered on the basis of the evidence available and in accordance with the balance of probability test. Land is not necessarily part of a residential curtilage just because it has been in the same ownership as the dwelling. The 1976 sales particulars refer to a walled courtyard and garden, which may be expected to form part of a residential curtilage and a wooded area, which would not. Whilst it is considered clear from the evidence available that this woodland is not part of the residential curtilage, it is also the case that it is not in use for commercial agriculture or forestry. Having taken legal advice on the application, the legal view is that the greater part of the area edged in red (including the woodland) is private parkland outside a residential curtilage and the residential curtilage itself. Section 191(4) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 specifically authorises a local planning authority to grant a Certificate to such an extent as it is satisfied regardless of whether an applicant agrees. On the basis of the information available, it is considered that a small part of the application site in the south east corner, lying to the south east of the access track, does constitute residential curtilage. This area has been drawn on a plan for the information of Members and a copy of this is included in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 22 May 2008. It is considered that

42

a Certificate should be issued for this area only. The remainder of the application site is parkland. In relation to that area, maintenance of non-agricultural scenic tree planting would be lawful. I have written to the applicant’s agent on this matter and invited comments on the intended approach. A response has been received and this has been reproduced in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 22 May 2008. Whilst the comments are noted, the information does not support the case for the issue of a Certificate on land outside the area defined on the appendix plan.Finally, this site is presently the subject of on-going enforcement investigations in respect of a tennis court, a swimming pool and an enlarged lake that has been created without planning permission. Regardless of the outcome of this LDC application, it is considered that planning permission is necessary for the aforementioned developments. It is intended that the matter would be referred back to the planning enforcement section to pursue the breaches of planning control.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE – FOR THE AREA DEFINED BY THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY AND INDICATED ON THE SITE PLAN CONTAINED IN THE APPENDIX)


RR/2008/262/L SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE 10 FAIR LANE, ROBERTSBRIDGEERECTION OF TIMBER FRAMED CONSERVATORY AND RELOCATION OF SOIL AND VENT PIPEMr J and Mrs G Churchill


SITE The two storey brick and tile hung end of terrace listed dwelling lies within the Roberstbridge development boundary as defined within Policy DS3 of the Rother District Local Plan and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The dwelling also lies within Robertsbridge Conservation Area. The building is set in an elevated position some 2.5m back from the highway. Immediately to the east of the dwelling is a communal access path (between no’s. 10 and 11 Fair Lane) providing unfettered pedestrian access to the rear of 8, 9, 10 and 11 Fair Lane.

HISTORYRR/2001/1880/P Erect two storey extension at rear and remove part of chimney

above eaves level Refuse – Allowed in part. RR/2001/1883/L Erect two storey extension at rear and remove part of chimney

above eaves level. Listed BC Refused – Allowed in part RR/2005/222/L Remove chimney stack from rear of building - Listed BC Granted

PROPOSAL The application seeks to erect a timber framed conservatory to be set on the rear elevation of the dwelling measuring some 1.7m deep by some 3.7m wide by some 2.4m high.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: The Parish Council has no objection to this, subject to the approval of the Conservation Officer.Environment Agency: Raise no objection.

43

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20072167o

County Archaeologist: Raise no objection.Planning Notice: Two letters have been received supporting the application.

SUMMARY The proposed conservatory is to be set on the rear elevation of the building not visible from the highway or countryside and is considered to be small and unobtrusive. In implementing the extant permission to remove the more modern chimney stack, the applicant also seeks to remove a redundant soil and vent pipe and relocate an existing soil and vent pipe; all on the rear elevation. I consider the proposed alterations to the pipework on the rear elevation to be a positive move and will enhance the aesthetics of the elevation. The introduction of the new pipework is required to be coloured black by way of condition to further enhance the listed building. Given the proposed use of timber for the frame and glass in the roof, the design is considered light and transparent and therefore not an unsympathetic addition. The structure would be affixed to the rear elevation by way of fixings sealed with silicone and therefore limiting the impact upon the fabric of the building. Tile hanging removed as part of the works need to be made good with reclaimed tiles due to the listed status of the building. It has been confirmed the proposed conservatory, though to be set on an apparent shared path to nos. 8 and 9 Fair Lane, will not form an obstruction to the right of passage for the neighbouring properties. The access path can be moved to accommodate this and indeed this has been shown on the submitted plans. All parties are aware of this and no objection has been received. In view of the planning history, and that in my view the proposed timber framed structure will not adversely affect the character of the Listed Building, I consider the development will not conflict with adopted plan polices or the provisions of PPS 15 – Planning and the Historic Environment and can therefore be conditionally supported.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)1. CD1F (Time limit). The work to which this consent relates shall be begun before

the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this consent is granted. Reason: In accordance with section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. The soil and vent pipe to be set on the rear elevation of the building is to be made from either cast and painted black material or extruded black material only and retained in that condition thereafter. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the architectural and historic character of the Listed Building in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. Development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings (Dwg.nos. 3208/JP and 3208/1/A, date stamped 31 March 2008). Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the architectural and historic character of the Listed Building in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. Following the removal of the chimney stack and the soil and vent pipes, all areas of wall exposed on the first floor rear elevation shall have reclaimed hanging tiles, to match the existing tiles, affixed to battens and breathable felt to make

44

good the rear elevation and retained in that condition thereafter. These works shall be carried out prior to the conservatory hereby approved being brought into use. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the architectural and historic character of the Listed Building in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed conservatory and soil and vent pipe are of an appropriate design and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(ii)(iv)(v)(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/809/P BREDE BREDE YOUTH CLUB, UDIMORE ROAD, BROAD OAKVARIATION OF CONDITION 6 IMPOSED UPON PLANNING PERMISSION RR/86/0108/PBrede Parish Council

Statutory 8 week date: 09 June 2008

This application has been included in the list of site inspections.

SITE The existing building is located in the south west corner of the Broad Oak Recreation Ground close to the road frontage. It is a timber mobile classroom type building sitting in its own fenced compound with pedestrian access from Udimore Road close to a bus stop.

HISTORYRR/86/0108/P Erection of portable building for the use of youth club – Granted

(subject to conditions).

PROPOSAL The application is to vary condition 6 of the original planning permission which states:“6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)

Order 1972, the premises shall be used for the purposes stated in the application only and not otherwise and, in the event of the use ceasing, the building shall be removed from the site and the site reinstated to its former condition before the development took place, such reinstatement to result in the site being left in a clean and tidy condition to the satisfaction of the District Planning Authority.”

The applicants state:“Brede Parish Council would like condition 6 of Planning Permission RR/86/0108/P removed in order for the building to be used for more purposes by other organisations in the village, for example the Cricket Club, as headquarters for a Football Club or Bonfire Society, the local school when holding sports days and football tournaments.The Parish Council like it to be used more in the daytime – as a ‘surgery’ for parishioners to meet local councillors or the clerk; the Police have expressed an interest in using it as a contact point in the village.”

45

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr2008262l

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- No objections in principle but wish to see plans to show how additional demand for parking would be resolved.Planning Notice:- Objections from four local properties (summarised) - No off street parking; already significant car parking problems (especially from

school opposite Original use restricted to youth club was to prevent competition with other local

halls If no longer needed by youth club, building should be removed History of vandalism, under age drinking and other antisocial behaviour in local

area – removal of building would remove source of disturbance for local residents

Activities listed by Parish Council can take place at other venues in the village Noise and disruption would continue with new uses proposed Recreation ground was donated to village and should not have been built on In respect of proposed uses, bonfire has always been run by scouts who have

their own hall; cricket club has own pavilion No planning notice in place Premises used by cricket team on 4/5/08 with full knowledge of Parish Council

who show no regard for conditions in place.

SUMMARY This building was granted permission in March 1986 for use by the local youth club. At the time the Planning Committee balanced the need for the building with concerns of local residents including those relating to noise and disturbance.Until recently the youth club use had operated for many years and there appears from local information to be a record of noise, disturbance and other antisocial behaviour partly related, at least, to the use. I understand that the youth club has ceased to operate for a couple of months. On the basis of the existing permision if the youth club no longer require the premises then the building should be removed.

Although a temporary building it appears in a reasonable state of repair and the application to vary the condition to retain and extend the usage of the building must be considered on its merits.The principal issues to be considered are: The appropriateness of the alternative uses proposed The appropriateness of the use of the building itself on this site particularly

having regard to the car parking and traffic situation and local residential amenities.

Policy CF1 of the Local Plan states:“Proposals for new or improved community facilities will be permitted within development boundaries where they accord with the criteria at Policies GD1 and DS1. Such facilities will be permitted outside development boundaries where, in addition:(i) there is a demonstrable local need, having regard to the characteristics of the

population, the results of any public surveys and recognised standards of provision;

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

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

46

Uses proposed:As a youth club facility the building has provided a beneficial local facility for some years. The applicants are making the application to extend the scope of the permission on the basis that the building could now service other local needs. They cite several examples none of which would be inappropriate in principle for this village location. Several objections relate in this respect to competition with other local halls, or maintain that other halls would be more appropriate in terms of facilities e.g. car parking. I do not see this to be reason in itself to resist a broadening of the use of this hall if it is suitable in itself for the uses. It is not for the local planning authority to restrict local organisations in their choice of facilities.

The appropriateness of the building and site for the uses proposed:The building is centrally located in Broad Oak, convenient to the majority of residents, on a bus route and closely related to many other local facilities. These are positive aspects.The main limitation of the site is the absence of on-site car parking. While this is an issue, out of school opening and closing times (when traffic congestion does arise), on-street parking is available and there is a lay-by capable of accommodating five cars about 60 metres east. On occasions when the building might be used with activities on the field e.g. by the cricket club, or for football, then the use itself would generate no new parking demand. Also in such circumstances, and weather permitting, some off street parking can be provided on the recreation ground itself. Similarly uses connected with the parish e.g. by the local police, would be limited in scale, or uses not necessarily generating significant car borne journeys. In response to the Highway Authority’s comments the Parish Council state, “With regard to parking, any daytime use should not increase parking outside the building as use by the school or Cricket club, for example, would add facilities to events already taking place. Use as a Parish Council ‘surgery’ or Police contact point should involve access by foot as these are aimed at local people. Any evening use should not present a problem as the parking engendered by the school should be over.”

I am very aware of objections raised by local residents about crime, nuisance, underage drinking and other antisocial activity. While I understand this concern and acknowledge this planning authority’s duty under the Crime and Disorder Act, I believe the issues raised are not intrinsic to either the existing use as a youth club or to the extension of uses now proposed.

Conclusion:Given the existing use of the site, the condition of the building and the scope of activities suggested to serve the local community I consider the application to be worthy of support.The Parish Council do recognise the limitations of the site. They have suggested restrictions on the number of days the premises might be used and an evening cut-off time of 10.00 pm.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. This extension of the use of the premises is granted for a limited period of three

years from the date of this permission and thereafter the premises shall be used only as a Youth Club under the terms of the original planning permission RR/86/0108/P unless any alternative permission is granted.

47

Reason: It will be necessary for the local planning authority to review the extended use of the premises having regard to the amenities of local residents and the local traffic situation in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. The building shall be used for no more than five days in any calendar week.Reason: To limit the frequency of use in the interests of local residents in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. The building shall not be used after 10.00 pm on any day.Reason: To safeguard the amenities of local residents in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The site is an established local facility which, while restricted to one use at present, has the potential to offer a wider use to the local community. In principle the development would fall within Policy CF1 of the Rother District Local Plan, but in view of concerns of local residents related to nuisance and traffic issues it would be prudent to grant a temporary permission to be reviewed on the basis of the actual extended operation of the premises.


RR/2007/3602/P ICKLESHAM ST THOMAS C OF E PRIMARY SCHOOL, FRIARS ROAD, WINCHELSEACHANGE OF USE OF LAND AND HARDSURFACING OF GRASS/MUDDY AREA TO FORM PARKING AREA.Mrs Westhead


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

SITE Winchelsea Primary School is located to the east side of Friars Road, towards the southern end, adjoining the north side of the Greyfriars site.

HISTORYRR/2003/232/P Replacement of ‘portakabin’ classrooms with three new classrooms

and provide eleven off road parking spaces – Approved Conditionally.

PROPOSAL The application seeks permission to lay gravel and a stone edging on a strip of land in between Friars Road and the primary school and change its use from a grass verge to enable vehicles to park in this area.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: “Due to the fact that the application raises conservation issues, the Committee would refer the matter to RDC’s Conservation Officer. In any event, they would prefer any new surface to be “grasscrete”, or similar, and not gravel. The original grass verge has not been reinstated since works were carried out in 2004.”Highway Authority: “I do not wish to restrict the grant of consent subject to the observations below: This HT401 is issued in response to the submitted plan which now includes the provision of 12 off road parking spaces. I can confirm that the area of Friars Road where the off road parking is proposed does not form part of the adopted

48


highway (see attached information showing the extent of public highway in “PINK”), and therefore this Authority has no further comments to make in respect of this amended application.”Director of Transport & Environment – County Archaeologist: Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice: 6 letters and 1 e-mail received containing the following comments: Replication of surfaces in Friars Road inappropriate for this site. More suitable solution would be the use of a plastic version of “Grasscrete” or

similar. Other schools use this sort of surface for parking where a less visually intrusive surface is desirable.

Grass will have the opportunity to flourish through the surface when the school is closed.

The school is only open for 36 weeks of the year. The surface will be there permanently.

The fact that the area already contains a partial gravel surface is not a significant material planning consideration.

Contractors should have been made to remove the surface at the end of their contract and restore the site. That we believe is a condition of their ‘Permitted Development’ right under Part 4 Class A Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning Order 1995 as amended.

Application site contains two trees that form part of the special character of this part of the conservation area.

The application does not contain any proposals for the protection of the trees or their roots during the construction period.

The parking area should be kept clear of the Root Protection Area and the appropriate British Standard observed.

This retrospective application refers to the “grass/muddy area” in front of the school, implying that the proposed gravel car park would be an improvement. This is not the case. The area was a neat grass verge until it was destroyed by construction vehicles working at the school in 2003/04.

The verge was never reinstated by the school (which, I am told, would have been a planning condition).

The state of the verge has subsequently been made worse by its intensified use for staff car parking due to the closure of parking spaces inside the school, and the illegal dumping of spoil from work to resurface the playground.

The “temporary” hard surface is not temporary at all and was not “put down to prevent machinery that was involved in resurfacing the playground becoming stuck in the mud”.

The machines in question did not use the verge and when not in use were parked on the opposite side of the road.

It would seem that the school took the opportunity of a surfacing contractor being on site to permanently tarmac over the verge and were only halted by the intervention of the District Council.

In starting to place a hard surface over the verge the school breached a condition on planning permission RR/2003/232/P which required full details of the surfacing and drainage of the parking spaces to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before development of them commenced.

Full scale parking on the verge commenced only after the closure of the parking spaces within the school grounds following building work in 2003/04.

Unclear why a permanent disabled space is required. The vehicle involved could park in the entrance gates or through the entrance gates if necessary. In any

49

event, one disabled parking space does not require or justify the creation of several others and the loss of an entire verge.

Staff numbers are virtually the same as in 2003. This parking area is only required due to the loss of on site parking due to the building works in 2003/04.

There are other places within Winchelsea to park. The southern section of Friars Road in which the school is located is visually and

historically distinct from the northern section. Southern section is rural in character although the rural impression has been

compromised due to the unauthorized destruction of the grass verge and erection of the fence which is totally out of keeping with the area.

The southern section is separated from the rest of Friars Road by low stone walls which pinch the road and the presence of a lodge on one side. This visual gateway is completed by the mature trees standing at either side of the passage between the two sections of road.

The section to the north of the visual gateway is residential and essentially urban, with houses close to the road.

Southern section is a more open, wooded and green space. There is a historical unity between the school, playground and Greyfriars

parkland. When the school was built the architect was careful not to disrupt the rural feel of

the southern end of Friars Road The difference in the character and appearance of the two separate sections of

Friars Road was recognized in the recently-approved Winchelsea Conservation Appraisal. The importance of wide grass verges and the open rural vistas to which they give way to are mentioned.

Planning application conflicts with policies in the local plan, structure plan and government advice contained within PPG7, which require that development must be carefully controlled to protect the character of the area.

The proposed car park would create a much bigger expanse of gravel than is seen in front of houses to the north.

Oppose the loss of any grass verge within Winchelsea. The loss of the verge would be detrimental to the character and appearance of

the locality and set a dangerous precedence for the rest of the town. The verges are remnants of the wide medieval roads that are a major historical

feature of Winchelsea. Importance of the area was established by an archaeological excavation that

preceded the construction of an extension to the school in 2003/04. Regrettably, the school was able to renege on its responsibility to publish the

results of that excavation by exploiting a loophole in the wording of their planning permission.

The results of any further archaeological investigation must be published. It is vital that no further archaeology in this area is lost to the public domain. The creation of parking spaces in front of the school will create more traffic in

Friars Road. The Planning Authority should compel the school to re-instate the parking

spaces that existed within the school grounds. The grass verge should be reinstated. Previous applications required the school to provide parking within the property. Proposed parking area is opposite a children’s playground which is in our view a

dangerous location to encourage parking which will be misused during and out of school hours and pose potential security problems outside school hours.

The provision of further parking will increase the risk of accidents.50

The site is located within an area of archaeological interest and the school needs to commission an archaeological investigation of the verge (at the very least, a geophysical survey) before work recommences in order to determine what archaeology may be present.

The site has been judged by Archaeology South East to be of regional importance.

Archaeological remains have been uncovered in previous excavations of the site.

School states that it consulted three neighbouring households but it did not consult with the community.

1 e-mail of support received containing the following comments: In keeping with the remainder of the surfacing on the east side of Friars Road. Agree this would be the most helpful way of clearing up the confusion resulting from

the earlier extension of the school building and the recent extensions to the playground.

Should present a tidy and useful method of improving staff parking which will help to reduce “car clutter” in Friars Road – which has to be a safe access path for the children walking to and from the school and by keeping a ready access for emergency vehicles. Not always easy when staff park on the west side of the road.

Opponents of the application recommend parking is provided within the school grounds – this cannot be safer as children use the playground at break and lunch time.

Plastic “grasscrete” mesh may look attractive when the grass is short but it may need mowing when long and when wet it easily promoted mud.

PROPOSAL The primary school is located within the Winchelsea development boundary, within the Winchelsea Conservation Area, within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and within an area of archaeological sensitivity. Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 apply to this application.Planning permission RR/2003/232/P was granted conditionally in 2003 for an extension to the school and the provision of 11 off road parking spaces on the grass verge area fronting Friars Road. The approved plans indicated that a Grasscrete surface was to be used for the parking area. Grasscrete is essentially a cast-on-site cellular reinforced concrete system with voids, created by plastic formers, that allow grass to grow through. A condition was attached to the permission stating that no development of the parking spaces to the front of the site shall commence until full details of surfacing and drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Details to comply with this condition have never been submitted to the local planning authority.During the construction of the approved extension the grass verge fronting the site appears to have been used by contractors. Schedule 2, Part 4, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 permits the provision on land of buildings, moveable structures, works, plant or machinery required temporarily in connection with and for the duration of operations being or to be carried out on, in, under or over that land or on land adjoining that land. A condition of this is that when operations have been carried out any building, structure, works, plant or machinery shall be removed and any adjoining land on which development is permitted shall, as soon as reasonably practicable, be reinstated to its condition before that development was carried out. Within the Design and Access Statement accompanying this application it is stated that a temporary hard surface was put down to prevent

51

machinery that was involved in the more recent resurfacing of the playground becoming stuck in the mud. A small area of ground towards the northern end frontage of the site has been surfaced with tarmac, gravel has been laid to the south and the remainder is the eroded grass verge which is muddy in appearance. No operations appear to be taking place at the primary school site at present and therefore the tarmac and gravel should have been removed and the land reinstated to its former condition. Vehicles are currently unlawfully using the area at the front of the school, which was previously a grass verge, for parking. Before the extension was built it appears there was some provision for parking vehicles within the school grounds, other wise vehicles parked on the road.Due to the site being located within an area of archaeological sensitivity the County Archaeologist has been consulted about this application. However, he has been unable to comment to date as details regarding the depth of excavation or amount of topsoil to be removed as part of the proposed development have not been included within the application. Further information has been requested from the applicant to address these points and once received the details will be forwarded to the County Archaeologist for his consideration.Two trees are located within the proposed parking area. Considering the prolonged use of the verge in conjunction with development on the site and the more recent unlawful use as a car parking area, damage is already likely to have been caused to the root systems of the trees. It is noted that excavation or removal of topsoil could further damage the root systems and therefore the local planning authority’s Tree Officer will be consulted on receipt of the same details required by the County Archaeologist.Friars Road narrows and is effectively split into a north south divide by two large, mature trees either side of the road. The northern half of Friars Road has residential properties located either side. To the frontage of dwellings on the west is an elevated grass verge and to the east are open gravel forecourts that measure up to approximately 3 metres in width. At its southern end, the more vegetated character of the immediate locality is apparent. The school is set back approximately 16 metres from the road with trees and vegetation in front, a playground area is located to the west and the parkland approach to the Greyfriars site is to the south. The area fronting the school currently used unlawfully as a parking area was a grass verge prior to the commencement of work on the school’s extension approved conditionally in 2003.The proposed gravel car parking area will measure approximately 34 metres in length and 5.5 metre in width. It has been confirmed by the applicant that the gravel and stone edging proposed would match exactly that used in the northern section of Friars Road and not what is currently laid on the area in front of the school. The 2003 planning permission agreed in principle the provision of a parking area on the strip of land fronting Friars Road, however, it was indicated that Grasscrete would be used as surfacing. The proposed parking area would create a gravelled area almost twice the width of that in the northern section of Friars Road. I am of the opinion that surfacing the former grass verge area in a material such as gravel would be unsuitable in this instance and would be out of character with the immediate open and more vegetated area of this part of Winchelsea and would detract from the character and appearance of the Winchelsea Conservation Area and the High weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. For the above-mentioned reasons I am unable to support this application.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed parking area, by reason of its hard gravel and stone edged finish,

would be out of character with the open and more natural soft landscaped area of the southern section of Friars Road in which the primary school is located and

52

would detract from the character and appearance of the Winchelsea Conservation Area and that of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy GD1(iv), (v) & (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f) & (j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the condition of the trees within the proposed car parking area which contribute to the character and appearance of the Winchelsea Conservation Area and the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty would not be adversely affected by the proposed development and is therefore contrary to Policy GD1(iv), (v), (vi) & (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f) & (j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that important archaeological remains will not be adversely affected by the proposed development, contrary to Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2008/866/P ICKLESHAM ST THOMAS C E PRIMARY SCHOOL, FRIARS ROAD, WINCHELSEAREPLACEMENT OF SCHOOL BOUNDARY FENCE AND GATES ADJACENT TO FRIARS ROAD (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Mrs Westhead



SITE Winchelsea Primary School is located to the east side of Friars Road, adjoining the north side of the Greyfriars site.

HISTORYNo relevant history.

PROPOSAL The application seeks to retain a boundary fence and gate that have been erected on the Friars Road frontage without planning permission.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: “Approved.”Highway Authority: “I do not wish to restrict grant of consent: The proposed replacement gate and fence are to be located along Friars Road which is not public highway. The proposal will not have a detrimental effect on highway safety and therefore the Highway Authority has little concern regarding this application.”Planning Notice: Five letters and two e-mails received containing the following comments: Out of keeping with the essential rural character and appearance of the area

formed by the enclosed southern end of Friars Road

53


Neither the colour nor design of the new gates and fence match any other fence or gate, or any other feature, in the neighbourhood

Previous gates were white and made of wood If the Planning Committee is inclined to grant retrospective planning permission,

I would ask for the school to be required to repaint the fence and gates in a dark green colour to reduce the oppressive impact of the current colour and fit into the rural surroundings

The “heaviness” of the fence and gates is oppressive, and gives the impression that the school is a penal institution, completely changing the character and appearance of the previously pleasant area

The previous fence was non-descript chain link, but open enough not to obscure the view and neutral enough not to dominate the front of the site like the new fence

Planning application conflicts with policies in the local plan, structure plan and government advice contained within PPG7, which require that development must be carefully controlled to protect the character of the area

Contrary to the claim that the fence and gates are of an “open design” which forms “less of a barrier to the surrounding area”, the thickness and closeness of the mesh in fact obscures the view into the school and reduces the visual impact of the grassed area behind the fence in helping to preserve the rural feel of this end of Friars Road

The school tries to imply in the Design and Access statement that the new fence and gates are needed to ensure the safety and security of children during the day

There are many other designs that would do the job but be in keeping with the area

Children are always supervised when in the playground and access into the building is restricted by locked external doors

There was never any suggestion that the previous fence and gate were inadequate

Fence and gates would be more fitting for a school in an inner city problem area The suggestion in the Design and Access Statement that the curved tops to the

gates and fencing justify the overall design is hardly credible There are trees on the verge in front of the fence that make an important

contribution to what is essentially rural character and appearance of this enclosed end of Friars Road

Realise that the school has gone to some expense in erecting the new fence and gates, but their ill judged expenditure is not a material reason for acquiescing in an inappropriate construction in a Conservation Area and AONB

School states that it consulted three neighbouring households but it did not consult with the community

I would urge the Planning Committee to reject this planning application and require the school to replace the new fence and gates with a design that is truly in keeping with the area, but still performs the required security functions. The school should be urged to consult with the local community in reaching a decision

When the school was extended in 2003/04, heavy black gates and fencing were erected. They have the feel and appearance of a barrier for the protection of a unit on an industrial estate. They are highly inappropriate for a school anywhere, let alone for one in this privileged and sensitive position

54

The school needs to commission an archaeological investigation of the verge (at the very least, a geophysical survey) before work recommences in order to determine what archaeology may be present

It is very unfortunate that no archaeological investigation was undertaken before the fence was replaced. It is hoped that the planning authority will take a more robust stance in the future in response to similar violations of planning law and regulation in such a sensitive area

If it is correct that the planning department advised the school that they did not need planning permission to replace the gate and fence, this would represent a serious failure of the authority in the exercise of its conservation duties

Officers should have been aware that permitted development rights in respect of gates and fences in the Conservation Area were removed under the long-standing Article IV Direction

This application should be turned down and an order given for the gates and railings to be removed to be replaced with something more in keeping with this extremely attractive rural corner of the town

RDC Planning needs to be seen to exercise its authority over this and set an example or else anyone can put up ugly constructions without planning permission and expect to have them approved retrospectively, thus destroying piece by piece the character of Winchelsea

Contradicts your own excellent Winchelsea Conservation Appraisal Document

PROPOSAL The primary school is located within the Winchelsea development boundary, within the Winchelsea Conservation Area, within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and within an area of archaeological sensitivity. Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 apply to this application.It appears that the applicant had previously been advised that planning permission would not be required to erect a replacement fence if it was less than 2 metres in height. The fence and gates were subsequently erected. After completion of the work an application was requested by the local planning authority from the school because an Article 4 Direction covers the land. This removes the normal permitted development right to erect a fence or gate exceeding 4 feet in height abutting a highway used by vehicular traffic. The Highway Authority has stated that Friars Road is not public highway. However, it is a road used by vehicular traffic and therefore planning permission is required for gates and fences exceeding 4 feet in height which abut it.The fence is set back approximately 5.5 metres from Friars Road and runs parallel to it. In between the fence and road is an area of land currently being used to park vehicles which has not been granted planning permission and is subject to a separate planning application. The plastic coated metal fence measures approximately 2 metres in height and consists of posts with narrow gapped mesh between, which has a curved top to each section, all of which are black in colour. The gate is located to the northern end of the Friars Road frontage and has a similar appearance to the fence, having black framing with narrow mesh sections. This replaces a fence approximately 2 metres in height that was constructed with concrete posts with metal chain link sections between and three 1 metre high wooden five bar gates that were painted white.The site is within an area of archaeological sensitivity. However, the posts have already been inserted into the ground, although they appear to be where the previous posts were positioned, and therefore any archaeological deposits are likely to have been already disturbed. The County Archaeologist has been consulted about the application for the parking area.

55

Within the Design and Access Statement the applicant has stated that the wooden gates and chain link fence that have been replaced were easy to climb. The replacement gates and fence have narrow gapped mesh which make climbing over extremely difficult as there is little space to insert a hand or foot between the individual sections. The vehicular gates remain locked unless access to the school grounds is required and the pedestrian gate has a self closing mechanism so the gate is not left open. This improves the safety and security of children during the school day as well as the site during weekends and holidays when it is mainly unoccupied. I am of the opinion that the narrow black meshed fence has a similar visual impact on the locality in comparison to the concrete post and chain link fence that have been removed. Black is considered to be a suitable colour for the fence and gates in this particular instance and it is relatively subdued in the general street scene being set back from the road frontage. To repaint the fence and gates a green colour, as suggested in a letter of objection, can often be difficult to find a satisfactory shade in comparison to that of natural vegetation and may end up appearing more noticeable and intrusive. The posts are visible but not unduly dominant in the street scene and the thin mesh sections are easily seen through, not obscuring views, as was the metal chain link fence. The gates are set back two metres further than the fence. Although taller in height when compared to the wooden gates they have replaced, the gates are designed to be in keeping with the new fence and when combined with the increased level of security the school now benefits from they can be considered to be an acceptable addition. In my opinion the fence and gates do not prejudice the character, appearance or setting of the Winchelsea Conservation Area or cause damage to the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.For the above-mentioned reasons I am minded to support this application.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The fence and gates are of an appropriate design and do not prejudice the character, appearance or setting of the Winchelsea Conservation Area or cause damage to the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and therefore complies with Policy GD1(iv), (v) and (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f) and (j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2008/812/P ICKLESHAM BROAD STREET – LAND OFFUSE OF LAND FOR KEEPING HORSES AND ERECTION OF BUILDING FOR HORSES AND SHEEPMr and Mrs D Wootton



SITE This application relates to 2.34 hectares of grazing land behind houses fronting the north side of Main Road (A259), one of which (Woodcroft) belongs to the applicants. Access to the land is obtained from Broad Street. The site falls within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. At the time of inspection there were

56


23 sheep grazing on the land. A timber clad goat shed is located in the field immediately behind the garden of ‘Woodcroft’.

HISTORYRR/94/0462/P Goat house – Approved.RR/2004/2388/P O/A: Erection of three bed chalet bungalow and double garage

utilising existing access to Broad Street – Refused – Appeal Dismissed

RR/2007/2833/P Change of use of land for keeping horses and erection of building for horses and sheep – Refused

PROPOSAL To erect a 13.2m long x 7.7m wide x 5m high building at the midpoint of, and approx 13m from, the northern boundary. The building would contain two stables, two sheep enclosures (same as stables), store and tack room. The elevations would be clad with timber shiplap boarding and the shallow pitched roof with ‘Cambrian Slates’. A change of use of the land for the keeping of the applicant’s horses is also being sought. The following additional information has been extracted from the Design and Access Statement submitted with the application: “The application proposes the construction of a building for the stabling of two horses and for housing the applicant’s sheep (mainly during the lambing season). The applicant normally keeps between 20 and 30 sheep on the land. The horses kept on the land will be for private recreational purposes only and will be owned by Mrs Wootton and her son. The building includes a tack room and store for winter feed. ... 42m2 of the building’s floorspace will be used for agriculture and 59m2 for keeping horses.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Committee unable to make a decision as site is outside village envelope; request site visit by full committee; any permission granted should be subject to agricultural use only and a S106; materials specified on application and design statement differ from letter from Chart Stables.Highway Authority:- Do not wish to restrict grant of consent commenting that change of use is unlikely to generate a material increase in traffic movements to and from the site.Environment Agency:- Have no objection commenting that the application has a low environmental risk.Rural Estates Surveyor:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- 5 letters of objection – Does not comply with policies of the Rother District Local Plan and East Sussex

and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 Will harm the landscape character and appearance of the area Precedent Same as previously refused RR/2007/2833/P except moved further up the field

away from Broad Street Could be turned into a dwelling or holiday accommodation Access to site on blind corner Highway Department is oblivious to the potential danger this access may cause Traffic using Broad Street is increasing Large bungalow size building in centre of field spoiling view of open fields

towards the valley There are already vacant buildings on the property Where are the animals concerned?Campaign to Protect Rural England –

57

Object to application which is little different from RR/2007/2833/P apart from slight shift in location

Out of keeping in its setting in AONB Need for size of building not demonstrated Would be an exception to policy which sets out to preserve the AONB

SUMMARY The main issue in this case is visual impact upon the character and appearance of the landscape and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The building would be of sufficient distance from nearby housing to have no adverse impact upon residential amenity. Relevant Policies are GD1(iv)(v) and CF5(i)(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(j), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.With regard to visual impact, Members are reminded of two previous applications for development in the north west corner of this field, adjacent to the access from Broad Street. The first application (RR/2004/2388/P) was for the erection of a new dwelling. This was refused and dismissed on appeal on grounds that included adverse impact upon the AONB with the Inspector commenting that “A house on the site would change its appearance from (part of) an open field to a site having a more urban character, with the erection of a dwelling and the associated garage, domestic curtilage and maybe hard surfacing. All this would be visible to passers-by travelling along Broad Street, through the site entrance and access way.” A subsequent application RR/2007/2833/P to erect the building currently proposed on that site was refused planning permission in December 2007 following Members inspecting the site and viewing it from neighbouring properties. The reasons for refusal included the following “With reference to the decision made by the Planning Inspectorate in dismissing RR/2004/2388/P and notwithstanding the difference in the proposals, the proposed stable block is in a similar location and of a similar size and would therefore harm the character and appearance of the area...” The merits of that site were that the building would have been in the lowest part of the field, in a relatively discreet corner close to the access, whereas the proposed site would be a more open location upon higher ground and where it may also be necessary to scar the landscape with a 100m long (approx) properly engineered access track. Notwithstanding the applicant’s offer in the Design and Access Statement to lower the height of the roof and include additional landscaping if considered necessary, it is my opinion that, by virtue of its relatively open location and minimal existing topographic screening, the proposed siting would cause even more harm to the character and appearance of the landscape and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty than the previous proposal and is therefore not supported.Any comments received from the Rural Estates Surveyor will be reported at the meeting.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The application has been assessed against Policy CF5 (i) and (iii), Equestrian

Development, of the Rother District Local Plan, which indicates new buildings must be located and designed and of materials in keeping with its rural setting, with particular attention paid to new proposals in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that there should be no significant adverse effect on the landscape character of the area nor on the residential amenities of dwellings in the locality. By virtue of the size and siting of the proposed stable building it does not accord with the Policy and would have an adverse impact on the landscape character of the area and in particular on the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

58

2. The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where Policies S1(j), S10, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and Policy GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan indicate that development will be carefully controlled to protect the character of the area. By virtue of its relatively open location and minimal existing natural topographic screening, the proposed building would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and would be contrary to the above Policies.


RR/2008/512/P IDEN BARON’S GRANGE, READERS LANECHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION OF REDUNDANT GRAIN STORE TO FORM WORKERS DWELLINGMr E Ramus



SITE ‘Baron’s Grange’ is a Grade II listed building on the west side of Readers Lane. The redundant grain store lies to the east of ‘Baron’s Grange’ and is a curtilage listed building. The site falls within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYNone.

PROPOSAL The Victorian 2 storey grain store is mainly unaltered and has single skin brick elevations at ground floor level with timber framing clad with weatherboard at first floor level. The timber framed roof is covered with slates. Attached to the eastern end is a single storey brick and slate covered former farm implement store dating from the same period. The north east side of the building is currently abutted by a modern steel framed barn/storage building which it is proposed to remove and relocate elsewhere on the holding. The 2 storey grain store would then be converted into a 2-bedroomed agricultural worker’s dwelling. This would be achieved by mainly using existing external openings. However, it is proposed to set back the first floor level elevation at the western end by approx 1m in order to provide a part glazed screen with double doors opening onto a balcony. Three new rooflights would be inserted in the roof slopes, an additional window inserted in the north east elevation and a raised deck constructed outside the two entrance doors also proposed in the north east elevation. A bat loft would be constructed in part of the roof of the existing single storey building attached to the east end of the grain store.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- No objections.Director of Services – Building Control:- Has the following comments with regard to structural stability: The report confirms it is limited in its inspection The report assumes the foundations are adequate The report writer’s ‘credentials’ may also be considered as to whether they are

‘suitable and sufficient’.59


Rural Estates Surveyor:- Concludes his report with the following comments:-“i. The applicant has lived and worked on the farm all his life and intends to remain

there as this satisfies the functional need of the enterprise.ii. The granary is now totally redundant to the agricultural needs of the farm and

has not been used for its original purpose for many many years.iii. I am therefore able to confirm that the building is redundant and that I am of the

opinion that it would be appropriate to convert the building to residential use for the benefit of the enterprise.”

Planning Notice:- No comments received.

SUMMARY The main issues in this case are whether or not the proposal satisfies the several tests for agricultural dwellings contained in Annex A of PPS7 and meets any of the exceptions criteria for new dwellings in the countryside contained in Policy HG10(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and S10(c)(ii) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. The details of conversion and whether or not these would preserve the character and appearance of this curtilage listed building also need to be judged against Policies GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. The impact of the development upon protected wildlife species (i.e. bats) also needs to be judged against Policies GD1(vii) of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.With regard to the tests contained in PPS7 and exceptions criteria contained in the Local Plans, the most relevant test to this proposal is that of ‘functional’ need. In this regard, PPS7 contains the following advice in Annex A:“3. New permanent dwellings should only be allowed to support existing agricultural

activities on well established agricultural units, providing:(i) there is a clearly established existing functional need .....(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 ...”

In the supporting documentation, the applicant states, “I am 38 years old but still have to live with my parents as there is no other accommodation. The only cottage owned by the farm is occupied by a long term farm employee” (i.e. no.3 Baron’s Grange Cottages, Readers Lane which is 50m from the main Farmstead). Other information supplied is that the applicant is employed full time on the holding as a partner, that the holding has 5 full time employees, 4 of whom live in Iden and 1 in Beckley. There is also 1 part time employee who lives in Brede. In his comments the Rural Estates Surveyor advises that “... the applicant has lived and worked on the farm all his life and intends to remain there as this satisfies the functional need of the enterprise. ...I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate to convert the building to residential use for the benefit of the enterprise.” It is my understanding that the applicant currently lives at Baron’s Grange, which is the adjoining listed building but is not shown as part of the holding. Notwithstanding, the application contains no substantial evidence that this existing accommodation is unsuitable or about to become unavailable. Furthermore, the Rural Estates Surveyor advises that he intends to remain on the farm as this satisfies the functional need of the enterprise. I therefore take the view that the ‘functional need’ for an agricultural worker is currently fulfilled by the applicant’s existing accommodation arrangements and that another dwelling on the holding would be contrary to Government Advice contained in para 3(iv) of Annex A of PPS7, and the exceptions criteria of the Local Plans. Finally, whilst the applicant states that the only existing dwelling on the holding is 3 Baron’s Grange Cottages, the submitted plans appear to indicate that nos 1 and 2 are

60

also still in the holding together with a barn previously converted on the holding for Mr C Ramus under RR/97/1355/P. No details of their availability for occupation have been supplied. I have therefore invited the applicant to supply further information.With regard to the details of conversion, whilst the Building Control Manager has drawn attention to the limited and visual nature of the structural survey submitted with the application, I have no reason to suspect that the building is unsound and incapable of conversion without major rebuilding or complete reconstruction. The maximum use of existing openings to provide light into the building is commended. However, removal of the western end at first floor level in order to insert a part glazed screen with double doors opening out onto a balcony is not a feature that would typically be found in a Victorian grain store. This would be out of keeping with the building’s historic agricultural character and is not supported. The insertion of three new rooflights and a new first floor level window in the north east elevation are also not supported.With regard to protected species (i.e. bats) the application is supported by a detailed ecological survey prepared by a reputable ecologist and I have no reason to believe that the mitigation measures (e.g. bat loft) proposed in consultation with Natural England would not result in these species being adequately protected, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions upon any planning permission granted.In conclusion, it is my opinion that, as submitted, the functional need for an additional dwelling for an agricultural worker on the holding has not been satisfactorily demonstrated and that the details of conversion would not sufficiently preserve the agricultural character and appearance of the curtilage listed building. The application is therefore not supported.In addition the applicant has not demonstrated that every attempt has been made to secure suitable employment or tourism re-use and that residential re-use is the only means of retaining this building which, following removal of the adjoining modern farm building, would make a valuable contribution to the rural scene.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (UNLESS SATISFACTORY FURTHER INFORMATION AND AMENDED PLANS ARE RECEIVED)1. The functional need of the enterprise is currently provided by the applicant living

close by in an adjoining dwelling. No evidence has been submitted that this existing accommodation is now unsuitable or unavailable or that there is no other accommodation in the area suitable and available for his occupation. Therefore, as submitted, it has not been demonstrated that there is a functional need for another dwelling on the holding. The proposed farm worker’s dwelling is therefore contrary to Government Advice contain in PPS7, Annex A, para 3(iv) and Policy HG10(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S10(c)(ii) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. By virtue of the part glazed screen, double doors and balcony proposed on the north west elevation, insertion of three new rooflights and additional window opening in the north east elevation, the proposed details of conversion would not sufficiently preserve the agricultural character and appearance of this Victorian curtilage listed grain store and would not preserve the setting of the listed building known as ‘Baron’s Grange’. The proposals would also not conserve and enhance the landscape quality and character of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. For these reasons the proposals would be contrary to Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

View application/correspondence61


___________________________________________________________________

RR/2007/3596/P TICEHURST CROSS LANE HOUSE RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME, CROSS LANECONVERT COACH HOUSE TO FORM LAUNDRY/DRYING ROOM RETAINING PART AS GARDENERS/MAINTENANCE STORE. NEW COVERED LINK FROM COACH HOUSE TO PROPOSED 35 BEDROOM EXTENSION TO NURSING/ RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME.Mr and Mrs V Newport


SITE Cross Lane House is a detached private residential rest home (16 bedrooms) set within grounds (mature garden) extending to some 0.45 hectares. There is an access directly onto the land and parking areas to the front and side of the building. A mature tree belt along the frontage of the site screens views of the existing building from the lane. An outbuilding – described as the Coach House – is attached to a neighbouring dwelling. Neighbouring residential properties are adjacent to the application site on three sides – including the small individual retirement bungalows at Cross Lane Gardens, to the rear of the site. The site is within the development boundary for Ticehurst as identified in the Rother District Local Plan. Ticehurst is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYRR/86/1675 Use of Cross Lane House as a rest home and erection of 20 new

units with warden care and community facilities. Approved subject to a S52 Agreement which was later varied and completed as a S106 Planning Obligation.

9/13/203 Release of part of land from planning obligation – Refused – Appeal Allowed.

RR/2000/879/P O/A erection of a detached dwelling with access – Refused – Appeal Allowed.

PROPOSAL The proposal is:(i) A two storey extension with further accommodation within the roof space. This

would provide 35 additional bedrooms with associated facilities. The extension is ‘U’ shaped and has a footprint of about 700 sq.metres. The additional accommodation would allow nursing care to be provided.

(ii) The conversion of the Coach House (outbuilding) into a laundry room and services.

(iii) The provision of a covered link between (i) and (ii).(iv) Rearrangement of the front car park to provide 16 parking spaces.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Object to the proposal. “Cllrs unanimously voted against the proposal.1. Felt it would generate too much traffic in a narrow lane2. Access to the site is inadequate3. Parking provisions are inadequate for the number of staff/visitors/deliveries4. Construction noise and intrusion would be over bearing for neighbours5. The height of the building would dominate all surrounding buildings, especially

Cross Lane bungalows62

6. Light intrusion to other homes would be a nuisance7. The soakaway system and sewerage systems are inadequate for such a large

proposal8. The size of the building is out of keeping with this rural site9. Party wall to proposed ‘laundry’ is only some 4 inches thick – noise nuisance to

neighbours10. At one point the new building is only 12m from 20 Cross Lane Bungalows and

would prohibit the natural light getting to all these houses11. It is understood that there is a 106 agreement on the site, stating that no further

development should go on there12. Proposal is a vast overdevelopment of the site13. The land levels from the road to the bungalows drop, making the new

development complete dwarf the bungalows to the rear.”Highway Authority:- Recommends that any consent shall include highway conditions (re. parking and turning areas).Environment Agency:- No objections.Southern Water Services:- No objection in principle.Planning Notice:- 39 letters/emails of objection (summarised): Access is via a narrow country lane Limited on-site parking. Insufficient for increased number of staff, deliveries,

visitors etc Loss of amenity for the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings Potential flooding of adjacent properties Sewerage system may not be designed for four-fold increase in usage Alternative sites on classified roads would be more suitable to this type of large

development We hold the freehold to a narrow strip of land at the eastern edge of the site (20

Cross Lane Gardens). Acknowledge the existing use of the site as a Residential Home but the

application appears to be for a nursing home with approx 225% increase in floor area

Over-development of the site The height of the extension is greater than the existing house and is excessive

and overbearing Loss of the mature screen on the frontage of the site From the plan of the second floor there would appear to be the potential for even

further additional accommodation within the roof space Conversion of the Coach House to a laundry will result in disturbance from noise,

odour and steam Proposed building will be very close to neighbouring properties Loss of amenity for neighbouring residents from overlooking, light pollution,

noise disturbance Harmful to the AONB Out of scale with the site The owner of Cross Lane House has not discussed the proposal with

neighbouring residents Represents urbanisation of the site Extension is out of keeping with the architectural style of the existing house Disturbance for local residents during construction work Residents of CLH or their relatives had not been advised of the proposed plans

63

Contrary to an existing S106 Agreement controlling future development on the site

Site notice was not well displayed Size of the extension should be reduced to 10 rooms – not 46 Development would overshadow neighbouring buildings

A number of letters have been copied to Mr Gregory Barker MP and forwarded to the Planning Division. Furthermore, a number of local residents have submitted more than one letter. All of the letters can be viewed in full on the application website.

An email of objection has also been received from Councillor Robert Elliston on the grounds – large development on a small piece of land; will tower over bungalows in Cross Lane Gardens; impact on AONB; proposed boiler room is very close to no.20.

SUMMARY The application site is an edge of village location characterised by low density residential properties set within mature gardens.A principal concern is the substantial size of the proposed extension in terms of its footprint and its scale. The proposed extension would overwhelm the existing building and dominate existing properties in the locality. It is out of character with this village setting and the proposal would harm the landscape of the AONB.A further concern is the impact on neighbouring residential amenity. By virtue of the close proximity of the proposed extension to the site boundaries (northern and eastern) it would result in loss of amenity for the occupiers of Cross Lane Cottage and 20-22 Cross Lane Gardens in particular, as a result of overlooking and the creation of an overbearing and oppressive outlook. Also regarding residential amenity; there is concern that the proposed use of the Coach House as a laundry and associated facilities would impact upon the amenities of Cross Lane Cottage which is attached to this building. It has not been demonstrated in the application what mitigation measures could be put in place to safeguard this neighbouring occupier from noise and nuisance resulting from this use.A further issue is the proposed depletion of the existing mature planting along the frontage of site associated with the works to extend the area available for parking. The removal of the tree screen would open up views into the site and increase the prominence of built development from Cross Lane to the further detriment of the character of the area.Whilst it is noted that the Highway Authority has raised no objection to the development in principle, I have reservations that the proposed 16 no. on-site parking spaces are adequate to serve the proposed development. I have requested further clarification on this point.The comments made by the applicant’s agent in support of the proposal have been noted, including demand for residential care provision, transition between rest home care and nursing care, and local employment (see Design and Access Statement on website); however, none of these factors would outweigh the far greater harm that would result should the development be approved.In the event that Members are minded to grant planning permission a further application will be needed to vary the existing Section 106 Planning Obligation which restricts the use of the site as gardens or open space incidental to Cross Lane House itself.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. By virtue of its bulk and site coverage the proposed extension would overwhelm

the existing Cross Lane House and dominate existing domestic-scale neighbouring properties. As such the proposed development would be out of

64

character with the locality and inappropriate in this particular village setting. The proposal would fail to conserve and enhance the landscape of the AONB and cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal conflicts with Policies S1(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. By virtue of its bulk and close proximity to the northern and eastern site boundaries the proposed extension would have a harmful effect on the amenities of neighbouring residential properties. Specifically, the development would result in overlooking and loss of privacy, particularly in respect of the garden of Cross Lane Cottage and the bungalows in Cross Lane Gardens. The development would also appear visually overbearing for the occupiers of these neighbouring properties and result in loss of outlook. Furthermore, the local planning authority is concerned that use of the existing Coach House (outbuilding) as a laundry has the potential to impact upon the amenities of the attached residential property – Cross Lane Cottage. The application does not satisfactorily demonstrate what measure are proposed to mitigate against the potential impacts of noise, vibration, steam and other activity associated with this use. The proposal conflicts with Policy S1(b)(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. The proposed works to the car park would result in the significant depletion of the existing tree screen along the frontage of the site. The subsequent loss of vegetation and the increased prominence of built development on the site would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the rural area. The proposal conflicts with Policies S1(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2007/3600/P TICEHURST THE RECREATION GROUNDBASKETBALL POST AND SKATE AREA EQUIPMENT INCLUDING RAMPS (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Ticehurst Parish Council

Statutory 8 week date: 11 March 2008

This application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 17 April 2008 when it was resolved that a decision be deferred for consideration of the latest information received from the occupier of Orchard Cottage, which raised objections to the development. The application was included on the Committee site inspection list of 11 March 2008.

SITE The application site is located within the Recreation Ground to the rear of the Ticehurst village Institute (listed building).

HISTORYRR/2001/516/P Erection of an all-weather playing area fenced-off with mesh fence

with series of activity walls on southern side. Area to be lit with six 8m high lighting towers – Approved (lighting not installed)

RR/2006/1676/P Increase in height of mesh fence round multi-court (MUGA), incorporating goal openings and basketball hoops and siting of

65


youth shelter on north east corner and erection of wood fence on south west boundary – Approved.

RR/2006/3059/P Erection of wooden reflective acoustic fence along boundary with recreation ground – Approved

RR/2007/1878/P Removal of condition 2 imposed upon planning RR/2006/1676/P which requires the MUGA court to be in use only between the hours of 0900 and sunset or 2030 whichever is earlier – Refused – Appeal outstanding

PROPOSAL This application is retrospective and follows a planning enforcement complaint. The application relates to the structures that have been erected within part of the all weather playing area that was granted planning permission in July 2001 under reference RR/2001/516/P. This area was identified on the approved plan as ‘a new skateboard activity area’. The structures comprise a single (practice) basketball post, a single and double skateboard ramp and a grind box and grind rail (also skateboarding facilities) and a tubular seat.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- General observation - “Cllrs all declared a personal conflict of interest.1 member of the public present spoke in favour of the application and pointed that it was unreasonable to expect the skate area which has planning permission not to have any skate equipment on it. He also pointed out that the basketball hoops on the multi-court have planning permission and could not see why the free-standing one should not have permission as well. He also pointed out that the skate park is further away from the neighbouring boundary to rear, than the multi-court is.”Director of Services – Environmental Health: “This department has received complaints regarding noise generated from the use of the skate and multi-court areas at the recreation ground.These complaints have not been substantiated.The proposal does have the potential to increase noise generated from the site.To minimise any potential impacts I would recommend that the multi-court be prevented from being used after 20:30 or sunset, whichever occurs first and that management arrangements be submitted by the applicant to ensure this happens in practise.”Planning Notice:- 5 letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of Orchard Cottage, on their behalf by solicitors – Cripps Harries Hall; and from the occupiers of Orchard House and 32 Rosehill, Ticehurst. The grounds of objection are as follows:- The location and management of the equipment is in contravention of your

‘Children and Young People’s Play Policy for Rother’, which came into force in August 2007 (the fact that the equipment was erected in 2005 is irrelevant as this application must be judged against your current legislation).

This application forms part of a Multi Use Games Area which includes a basketball/5-a-side football court and is located only 5 metres away from our boundary

This includes reference to NPFA guidelines in relation to buffer zones, which specifies a buffer zone of 30 metres minimum depth between the activity zone and the boundary of the nearest property

The facility is too close to neighbouring residential properties and its associated use results in noise and disturbance for the occupiers of those properties

The positioning of the MUGA/Skatepark close to leaf-drop trees is against Sport England advice as the surface becomes slippery and dangerous

66

Since the MUGA was installed the adjacent car park has become a meeting place for youths using it as a car/bike racetrack.

Due to a lack of management and supervision the MUGA/skateboard ramps have become a magnet for youths carrying out regular late night drinking

The above has resulted in disturbance for residents Empty beer cans and broken glass frequently litter the area A condition restricting hours of use was placed on the planning permission for

the MUGA. This has not been enforced The condition should be enforced If this application is approved the same hours of use restriction should be placed

on the skateboard area.The letter from Cripps Harries Hall reiterates the objection regarding loss of amenity experienced by their client in relation to the MUGA/skateboard facility as a consequence of its location in proximity to the client’s property and lack of management control.A further objection has been received from Mr and Mrs May of Orchard Cottage. This was circulated around the table at your last meeting. In summary the objection states:Having read the Planning Committee notes for the 13 March committee meeting for the above application, we are flabbergasted at the recommendation to approve the above application without Conditions. This is in total contradiction of your own Environmental Health Department’s strong recommendation.This recommendation must not be ignored simply as a result of a lack of care and attention on the part of the applicants.It is completely illogical not to have the curfew applied to the whole MUGA/Skate area.Taking the six tests for conditions:1. Necessary: The fact that the multi-court area is clearly illuminated by the

adjacent street light in the Recreation Ground car park means the equipment can be used 24/7 throughout the whole year. We have on occasions heard the equipment being used late into the night. These users are adults often fuelled by alcohol and make a considerable amount of noise and nuisance.

ii. Relevant to planning: The condition is totally relevant to this application as this application is for noise generating activities too close to residential properties.

iii. Relevant to the development to be permitted: The multi-court is just 6 metres from our boundary – in total contravention of your own policy and national guidelines.(It should be noted that this application does not relate to the multi-court).

iv. Enforceable: It is perfectly feasible, practical and sensible to erect a lockable fence around the equipment.

v. Precise: 8.30 or sunset is very precise.vi. Reasonable in all other respects: Multi-use games areas particularly those

including skate ramps often have time limits applied to them to protect amenities of neighbouring properties.

On a further matter – The Parish Council has NEVER been responsible for the Recreation Ground. The fact that the members of Parish Council were the Trustees of the Beatrice Drewe is a complete irrelevance – under Charity Law they are and must be separate entities at all times. Therefore at no time would it have been classified as ‘permitted development’.The condition recommended by your Environmental Health Department MUST be applied if this application is to be granted.A subsequent e-mail from Mr and Mrs May (12 March 2008) was also circulated around the table at your last meeting.

67

The objector has also submitted a letter, which sets out the reasons why the basketball hoop and skateboard ramps would never have been permitted development under the Town & Country Planning (General Development Order) 1995.

(The above mentioned letters can be viewed in full on the application website).

SUMMARY The location of the facility has already been established by the granting of planning permission RR/2001/516/P. The Environmental Health Division was consulted on the original application and raised no objection. Subsequent complaints into the facility (and the adjacent MUGA, which is not part of this application) have been investigated and it has been determined that there is no statutory noise nuisance.Also, now noted are the comments from the Environmental Health Division on the current application and the recommendation that the facilities be prevented from being used after 2030 hours or sunset, whichever occurs first. I am concerned that any such condition, in this particular case, would not satisfy government policy on ‘The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions’ contained in Circular 11/95. This sets out the six tests for conditions and, in brief, it explains that they should be: (i) necessary(ii) relevant to planning(iii) relevant to the development to be permitted(iv) enforceable(v) precise; and(vi) reasonable in all other respects.In the event that Members are minded to grant planning permission you will wish to consider whether such a condition is necessary. If it is considered necessary, it should only be applied if it meets the other tests. I have written to the Head of Environmental Health to request further comments on how the condition would meet the tests and have received the following response:“Our recommendation to restrict the hours of operation was made as this is the only means of reducing the potential impact of noise on residential premises. The question of whether this recommendation can be a planning condition is a matter for your judgement. However, I would expect all landowners to exercise reasonable control and management over the land they own. This does not necessarily mean the erection of fences but could mean the occasional visit to check the land was not being used.”In considering this application, I feel that it is important to be mindful of the fact that the area already has an authorised use as a skateboarding area following the granting of planning permission RR/2001/516/P in July 2001. The application now before the Council seeks retrospective planning permission for the structures that have been erected within the authorised skateboarding area. It is noted that the Environmental Health Division raised no objections to the aforementioned 2001 application, pointing out that the area was already a recreation ground. Consequently, there is no hours of use condition on the existing skateboarding area. Advice from the Legal Services Manager indicates that whether or not such a condition should have been imposed on the skateboard area when planning permission was granted in 2001 is not relevant to the current planning application. An important issue, which needs to be addressed, is whether the proposed condition fairly and reasonably relates to the development for which planning permission is actually required; i.e. the additional equipment comprising the basketball post/hoop and the five items of skateboard equipment. That in turn requires an examination of whether the provision of the equipment creates or intensifies any disturbance. Indeed, applying case law, even if it was considered that there was noise disturbance, but it had not got any worse since the equipment was installed, imposing such a condition on the current application would

68

be opportunistic and wrong. On the other hand, if the additional equipment has intensified noise disturbance, or could do so, then it might be appropriate to deal with that issue by condition. Such a condition should still satisfy the tests set out in government circular 11/95. In this respect, conditions should only be imposed if it would be necessary to refuse the application otherwise. If it is the case that permission can only be granted by imposing disproportionate, unreasonable or unenforceable conditions, refusal may be the correct option. In this regard it should not make any difference that the application is retrospective.In view of the above, the applicant and the occupiers of Orchard Cottage have been invited to provide information on specifically as to whether the disturbance is related to the unauthorised development (i.e. the equipment) as opposed to being intrinsic to the authorised development (the skateboarding area). Replies have now been received and the contents are presently under consideration. As part of this, I have offered the applicant and the objectors the opportunity to comment on the other party’s representations. Copies of both representations are contained within the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 22 May 2008.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FULL PLANNING) (CONSIDERATION OF LATEST INFORMATION RECEIVED)


RR/2008/210/P TICEHURST HOLBEAM WOOD OASTS, WALLCROUCHREVISED PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION OF SQUARE OASTS AND BARN WITH LEAN-TO TO DWELLING ORIGINALLY APPROVED UNDER RR/96/1241/P (AND SUBSEQUENTLY RENEWED) TO INCLUDE REPOSITIONED AND NEW OPENINGS AND INTERNAL ALTERATIONSMr and Mrs Mulleneux


RR/2008/211/L TICEHURST HOLBEAM WOOD OASTS, WALLCROUCHREVISED PROPOSALS FOR CONVERSION OF SQUARE OASTS AND BARN WITH LEAN-TO TO DWELLING ORIGINALLY APPROVED UNDER LISTED BUILDING CONSENT RR/96/1141/L (AND SUBSEQUENTLY RENEWED) TO INCLUDE REPOSITIONED AND NEW OPENINGS AND INTERNAL ALTERATIONSMr and Mrs Mulleneux

Statutory 8 week date: 25 March 2008

These applications were deferred at the 17 April 2008 meeting of the Planning Committee for negotiations on amended plans. The applications were included in the Committee site inspection list of 15 April 2008.

SITE The application property comprises a grade II listed building with two square oasts and a granary. The detached property is located outside any development boundary within the open countryside of the High Weald AONB.

69


HISTORYRR/91/0105/P Conversion of square oasts and barn with lean-to and stable toRR/91/0106/L dwelling and erection of double garage inset in bank – Approved

Conditional.RR/96/1241/P Change of use and conversion of square oasts and barn with RR/96/1242/L lean-to and stable to dwelling and erection of double garage inset

in bank - Approved Conditional.RR/2001/141/P Renewal of permission RR/96/1241/P, (RR/96/1242/L), for RR/2001/1141/L Change of use and conversion of square oasts and barn with

lean-to and stable to dwelling and erection of double garage inset in bank - Approved Conditional.

RR/2006/767/P Renewal of permission RR/2001/141/P, (RR/2001/1141/L), for RR/2006/895/L change of use and conversion of square oasts and barn with

lean-to and stable to dwelling and erection of double garage inset in bank - Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL Planning permission and listed building consent has previously been granted for the change of use and conversion of this square kiln former Oasthouse to a dwelling (RR/2006/767/P and RR/2006/895/L). Both permissions are still extant. The applications now before you are for revisions to the approved scheme. The revisions relate principally to the repositioning of the proposed windows, doors and shutters, the form and location of flue pipes, and the proposed raising of ground levels around the kilns in lieu of the decking/gantry previously approved. The revisions are said to be required in the interests of energy efficiency and to allow the internal arrangement to be altered. This is explained in more detail in the Design and Access Statement, which can be viewed in full on the application website. A recent email has been received from the applicants, which puts forward the following information in support of the application:

“(1) When looking at the architect’s drawing of the western elevation of the two kilns the windows do look unattractively adjacent. The kilns are of course off-set, as can be seen from the plan, and in fact from any angle would not look displeasing.

(2) When looking at the oast house from Wards Lane, 400 yards away, the overall impression would be very much the same as it has always been, the windows being barely visible. The silhouette of course would be unaltered.

(3) We have conscientiously maintained the original look of the southern eastern and northern elevations.

(4) Windows in the north wall get no sun, little or no view and will make the rooms cold, thus needing more heating.

(5) The Parish Council were unanimous in their approval, bearing in mind the Rother’s guidelines on the subject.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support the proposal. “The application is to move the permitted northern facing windows to the western wall, to enjoy the view and benefit from the warmer facing wall – this was felt to be an improvement of the original plan – the drawings were slightly misleading not actually showing the difference in elevations, which could initially make it look as though there were four windows in the wall – the square oasts are substantially different in their positioning. Site visit recommended.”Planning Notice:- 6 letters/emails of support have been received from the occupiers of dwellings within the locality –

70

In the course of my duties for Ticehurst Parish Council, I went to see Holbeam Wood Oast (Landscapes Farm)

Since the oasts (kilns) were staggered the repositioning of the upper window to the west side would not detract from the conversion

Photographs are provided to show more clearly the position and type of windows Ticehurst Planning Committee were unanimously for the application It is preferable to have windows facing towards the west to see the wonderful

sunsets which we have in this area Due to the bitterness of the north winds it is better to have as few windows as

possible on that side of an exposed dwelling Would improve the energy efficiency of the building

SUMMARY Negotiations on an amended plan have now taken place. It is intended that an amended plan will be submitted showing the following revisions to the originally submitted scheme: All shutters and balconies to the windows on the western elevations of the north

and south kilns will be deleted The old opening in the upper part of the northern elevation of the south kiln will

be bricked-up using matching materials The external ground levels will not now be heightened so as to obscure the

sandstone footings of the kilns The French window in the southern elevation of the south kiln is deleted.I understand that the applicants are having some difficulty in contacting their architects and an amended plan based on the above may not be available in time for your meeting. In the event that the proposed amendments outlined above satisfies the requirements of the Planning Committee, I would make the following recommendations

RECOMMENDATIONS: RR/2008/210/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (AMENDED PLAN)1. CD12U (Alternative permission to RR/2006/767/P granted on 4 May 2006).2. CD8P (Removal of permitted development). Insert – c. alterations and

extensions.3. CD8O (Restrict new window openings). Amend to - ...”shall be inserted into the

building.”4. The details of the boundary treatment of the site shall be in accordance with the

details submitted and subsequently approved under the previous permission RR/2006/767/P (post and rail fencing and/or mixed rural hedges) unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The boundary treatment shall be retained in accordance with the approved details thereafter. Reason: As CD4G – Insert b. safeguard characteristics. GD1(iv)(v) and S1(j).

5. The details of the window and door details to be installed in the building shall be in accordance with the details submitted and subsequently approved under the previous permission RR/2006/767/P unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The windows and doors shall be retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: As CD10L – delete EN23.

6. The new external brickwork shall match the appearance of the bond of the existing facing brickwork and shall incorporate a matching mortar.

7. The new external brickwork shall match in colour and texture those used in the existing building.

ND1 (Amended plan)

71

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: Following an inspection of the site by the Planning Committee, Members considered that permission could be granted subject to negotiations on an amended plan. The amendments put forward by the applicants contain satisfactory mitigation measures and the scheme will safeguard the character and appearance of the Oasthouse as a listed building. The development accords with Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/211/L: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT) DELEGATED (AMENDED PLAN)1. CD12U (Alternative permission to RR/2006/895/L granted on 4 May 2006).2. CD8O (Restrict new window openings). Amend to - ...”shall be inserted into the

building.”3. The details of the boundary treatment of the site shall be in accordance with the

details submitted and subsequently approved under the previous permission RR/2006/895/L (post and rail fencing and/or mixed rural hedges) unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The boundary treatment shall be retained in accordance with the approved details thereafter. Reason: As CD4G – Insert b. safeguard characteristics. GD1(iv)(v) and S1(j).

4. The details of the window and door details to be installed in the building shall be in accordance with the details submitted and subsequently approved under the previous permission RR/2006/895/L unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The windows and doors shall be retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: As CD10L – delete EN23.

5. The new external brickwork shall match the appearance of the bond of the existing facing brickwork and shall incorporate a matching mortar.

6. The new external brickwork shall match in colour and texture those used in the existing building.

ND1 (Amended Plan)

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: Following an inspection of the site by the Planning Committee, Members considered that permission could be granted subject to negotiations on an amended plan. The amendments put forward by the applicants contain satisfactory mitigation measures and the scheme will safeguard the character and appearance of the Oasthouse as a listed building. The development accords with Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/848/P TICEHURST WARRENS COACHES LTD, HIGH STREETDEMOLITION OF COACHWORKS, OFFICE AND 4 BUNGALOWS AND CONSTRUCTION OF 25 EXTRA CARE APARTMENTS, ON-SITE CARE FACILITY A1 RETAIL, AND ASSOCIATED ACCESS AND PROVISION OF 35 PARKING SPACES.Mr G Reeve-Wing

72

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr2008211l


Statutory 13 week date: 2 July 2008

This site has been included on the list of Committee site inspections for 20 May 2008.

SITE The application site (approximately 0.45 hectares) fronts High Street within the village of Ticehurst. The greater part of the site was last in use as a coachworks and depot with ancillary offices; there are four small residential units on the remainder of the site. The site is now vacant. There are residential properties with gardens on either side of the site (Hillbury Gardens and Hazelwood Cottages). With the exception of the small electricity substation, the rear of the site abuts open countryside. The application site is within the village Development Boundary apart from a very small rectangle of land which abuts the substation. Ticehurst village is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYThe site has an extensive planning history, however no previous applications are particularly relevant to this proposal.

PROPOSAL This is a full planning application. The plans show the erection of a ‘U’ shaped building on three floors, with part of the third floor contained within the roof space. The building would comprise 25 two bedroom flats (9 ground floor, 12 first floor and 4 second floor). Part of the ground floor is shown to contain ancillary offices and services, and a Class A1 retail unit (pharmacy) of some 100 sq.metres. External materials are described as facing red bricks, tile hanging and render for the walls and clay, slate or concrete tiling for the pitched roofs. A service roadway to High Street would be provided by the side of the building and extending along the rear. This would maintain an existing right of way to the sub-station. 25 no. car parking spaces would be provided for residents and visitors, with an additional 9 spaces for retail/care administration.

CONSULTATIONS Parish Council:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- Comments awaited.Southern Water Services:- No objection in principle.Director of Services – Housing:- Comments awaited.Director of Services – Regeneration:- Comments awaited.Director of Services – Environmental Health:- No objection subject to contaminated land condition.EDF Energy:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- 4 letters/email of support (summarised): Much needed facility to enable older people living in the village to remain in the

community should they become frail and need support Residential mixed use is more suitable for the centre of the village than a

continuance of the former inappropriate commercial use which would bring problems of noise, mess and an influx of car bound workers from outside the village

A commercial use may also allow a large supermarket chain to come in and ruin other businesses in the village

Mixed (residential) uses have been allowed on other business sites in the locality – such as Clark’s Yard, Berners Hill

73

Applicant’s proposals more than satisfy the requirements for some commercial activity on the site.

An email of general comment expresses support for the scheme in principle but considers that the proposed building would be far too imposing and two storeys would be more appropriate.Other representations: An email from the ‘Hastings and Rother Disability Forum’ questions whether the toilets in the apartments have been designed to provide wheelchair access. Also, questions the number of blue badge parking bays that would be provided.

SUMMARY The proposed development site is ‘brownfield’ land and with the exception of one small area (presently occupied by no.4 Warrens Bungalows) lies within the Development Boundary of the village as identified within the Local Plan (Policy DS3). The redevelopment of the site is acceptable in principle. Part of the site presently contains four small residential bungalows (now vacant) and in planning policy terms there would be no objection in principle to their replacement. The far greater part of the site area, however, would be classed as employment land and an initial issue for consideration is an assessment of the proposed development against Policy EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan.“Proposals to change the use of existing buildings or redevelop sites currently or last in employment creating use will be resisted unless it is demonstrated that there is no prospect of its continued use for business purposes or that it would perpetuate serious harm to residential amenities.In the event of the above qualifications being met, first consideration will be given to a mixed-use development in accordance with Policy EM1 and the criteria of Policies DS1 and GD1.”The requirement to protect the level of the existing stock of industrial and commercial premises is reiterated in Policy EM5 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.Supporting information with the application indicates that a B Class employment use on the site would not be viable and that no interest has been indicated to the owner or agents who reviewed demand for such a use in the village. Secondly, the supporting information indicates that the proposed mixed-use development on the site would be an employment generator - providing up to eight jobs. With respect to this, it is considered that the proposed development does not satisfy the employment policies contained in the Development Plan and the development proposal falls far short of providing satisfactory employment opportunities. There would be no objection in principle to the existing residential bungalows on the site being replaced and in this respect a mixed-use development would be appropriate. The far greater part of the application site, however, is a commercial/business site and in accordance with EM2 it should be expected that, pro-rata, any new mixed-use redevelopment proposal is predominantly for business/employment purposes. It is significant that Policy EM2 requires the continuation of the site for “business purposes”. The proposed development is not in my view a business use. The Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 specifically identifies Class B1 as being the Business Class. Consequently, it would be expected that any alternative development on this site to fall within a Class B1 Business Use or alternatively, consideration should be given to any equally appropriate business enterprise that falls outside the Order. It is not considered that the proposed use, which is claimed in the application to fall within a C2 Use Class (specifically identified within the Order as constituting “Residential Institutions”) would meet the requirements of Policy EM2. Comments on the employment implications of the application from the Director of Services – Regeneration are presently awaited.

74

Notwithstanding the employment policy objections to the application, a second issue that Members need to address is whether they agree that the use being applied for falls within Class C2 of the Use Classes Order as claimed in the application. This has important implications with respect to the need to provide an element of affordable housing. Class C2 is defined as ‘Residential Institutions’ and includes such uses as rest homes and nursing homes. The C2 Use Class has no affordable housing requirement. Class C3 Uses – ‘residential’ – do however have an affordable housing requirement (subject to the usual policy considerations on numbers, site area etc). Sheltered Housing, for example, would be a C3 Use and accordingly there is an affordable housing requirement. Supporting information with the application argues that the high level of care and assistance available to future occupiers of this scheme lifts it beyond that normally expected under a sheltered housing scheme and into the C2 Use Class. Information with the application justifies this assertion with an Inspector’s Decision Letter relating to a new residential (assisted living) development at Tiddington, Stratford on Avon, where the Inspector accepted that a C2 Use applied (this can be viewed on the website). The Legal Services Manager has been consulted on this question and a legal opinion is awaited.A third issue for consideration is the effect of the proposed new development in terms of its design, scale, external appearance and layout on the character and appearance of the area. Whilst the site lies just outside the Ticehurst Conservation Area, any development on this site will have some impact on its character and appearance. It is important that any development on the site respects the established character of the area. To the east of the site, the properties fronting High Street comprise of small individual cottages, many of which are listed buildings. Together they are unified by their size, scale, flat frontages and generally their historic vernacular style and the common use of materials (ground floor brick, tile hanging above and plain clay roof tiles). With the exception of the nearest cottage, they also share a common roof pattern. The properties to the west of the site, although more contemporary Council and ex-Council dwellings, in terms of their frontage to High Street, they continue the rhythm of the street scene. It is considered important that any new infill development respects the existing pattern of built development.The submitted plans and elevational drawings of the proposed development do not demonstrate that this would be the case. Despite the inclusion of local external materials (bricks and hanging tiles) and an attempt to break-up the mass of the building by staggering the building line the development would still appear exactly what it is – a large mass of apartment block. The mass of the proposed building does not conform with any other building in High Street. The height of the proposed building (3 storeys in part on the High Street elevation) would be greater than other buildings in the vicinity, which on the whole are two storey. The large mass of roof is particularly dominant and furthermore, does not respect the domestic scale, simple form, and steep pitches of the roofs of many of the established properties in High Street. Moreover, the large windows with their linear proportions, the large dormers, and the inclusion of balconies and patio terraces are untypical and have little regard to the character and appearance of the existing vernacular buildings.

A fourth matter for consideration is the effect of the development on neighbouring residential amenity. In this respect I am concerned that the building would have an adverse impact on the occupiers of 1 and 4 Hillbury Gardens by overlooking both the houses and gardens of these properties and resulting in loss of privacy for the occupiers. Furthermore, it is also considered that the use of the proposed parking bays immediately adjacent to the fence boundary with Northlands Villa would result in disturbance and loss of amenity for the occupiers of that dwelling.

75

Finally, whilst it is noted that the Planning Statement (5.3) makes reference to the sustainability issues, no evidence has been presented to support a case that the amount of assisted living accommodation proposed in the application reflects any effective demand locally (either within the Parish of Ticehurst or adjoining parishes). This raises concerns as to whether the proposed form of development on this site would meet the Government’s sustainable development objectives.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FULL PLANNING) (TO AWAIT OUTSTANDING CONSULTATION RESPONSES)


RR/2008/529/P PETT 1 ROSE COTTAGE – LAND ADJ, PETT ROADOUTLINE: ERECTION OF A PAIR OF SEMI-DETACHED CHALET BUNGALOWS WITH ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING ACCESS AND PROVISION OF FOUR PARKING SPACES.Mrs H Glenn



SITE The site lies within the Development Boundary of Pett, towards the edge of the main part of the village. It comprises part of the large side garden of 1 Rose Cottage, one of a pair of older semi detached cottages. To the west is a more modern detached bungalow.

HISTORY (Relevant) RR/2007/1975/P Outline: Erection of a pair of semi-detached chalet bungalows and

formation of new vehicular access – Refused

PROPOSAL This application seeks outline consent for the erection of a pair of semi-detached properties in the side garden of 1 Rose Cottage, and the creation of a new shared access point some 4.5m wide to serve the proposed new properties and 1 Rose Cottage. CONSULTATIONS Parish Council – Object to proposal. “The Parish Council does not consider that any significant improvement has been achieved in respect of safety and therefore re-iterates its objection to this proposed development.”Highway Authority – Recommend that any consent shall include conditions.Planning Notice – 2 letters of objection concerned with the following: The previous highway concerns (RR/2007/1975/P) must surely apply equally to

this application A wider access might encourage turning and reversing, increasing hazards Serving three dwellings from one access point will increase traffic hazards How can visibility splays be met when the applicant does not in fact have control

over, for example, the hedge in front of my house and gardens

76


The whereabouts of the septic tanks; the drawings do not make it clear enough to convince us that waste will not have any impact on our land to the rear of Rose Cottages.

SUMMARY A previous outline application, RR/2007/1975/P, for the ‘Erection of a pair of semi-detached chalet bungalows and formation of new vehicular access’ was refused in September 2007 by virtue, “The creation of a new access to serve this site would have inadequate visibility and the scheme is incapable of providing such visibility without involving land outside the application site. The development would therefore lead to increased traffic hazards on the C23 [Pett Road] by reason of the inadequate visibility at the proposed access and would introduce hazards at this point of the C23 [Pett Road] by the slowing, stopping, turning and reversing traffic which would be created. As such this proposal would be contrary to the objectives of Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan, and Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011”.

Since the previous refusal the agent has sought the advice of the Highway Authority and as such, this resubmitted outline proposal indicates the creation of a new shared access point some 4.5m wide to serve the proposed new properties and 1 Rose Cottage. The indicative size and layout of the proposed dwellings and plots remains as per RR/2007/1975/P, and all matters are reserved for subsequent approval.

I do not consider that planning circumstances on the site have changed since the previous refusal. It remains my opinion that the plot is adequate in size to accommodate a pair of modest semi-detached properties and provide sufficient amenity space, while being sited a reasonable distance from neighbouring properties to preserve their residential amenities. With a sympathetic design to reflect the constraints of the site, I do not consider the dwellings would appear unduly obtrusive in the street scene or upon the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. With regard to drainage issues, a condition has been attached asking for details prior to work on site commencing.

The Highway Authority has been consulted and now recommends that conditions be attached to any permission. It is therefore evident that access can be provided which meets the required visibility splays in accordance with highway standards.I therefore consider this proposal meets the general objectives of Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan, and I support this outline permission.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING) 1. CD1B (Outline). INSERT a-e.2. CD1C (Outline)3. CD1D (Outline)4. CD1E (Outline)5. The development shall proceed only on the basis of a new shared access with

the existing dwelling which shall be in the position shown on the submitted plan [number 8190.1B] and laid out and constructed in accordance with the attached HT407 diagram. All works undertaken shall be executed and completed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority prior to the occupation of the new houses.Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of

77

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

6. The buildings shall not be occupied until the existing access shown on the submitted plan [number 8190.1B] has been stopped up and the kerb and/or the verge reinstated in accordance with details first submitted to and approved by the local planning authority as reserved matters and thereafter no alternative access or accesses shall be constructed at any time.Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan, and Policies S1(d) and TR3.

7. The development shall not be occupied until parking areas have been provided as agreed in accordance with the reserved matters and the areas shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used than for the parking of motor vehicles.Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan, and Policies S1(d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

8. The development shall not be occupied until turning space for vehicles has been provided as agreed in accordance with the reserved matters and the turning space shall thereafter 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 access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan, and Policies S1(d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

9. The access shall not be used until the areas shown hatched green on the attached plan are cleared of all obstructions exceeding 800mm in height and kept clear thereafter.Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan, and Policy S1(d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

10. CD6B (Drainage details)11. CD8M (Restriction on Permitted Development). Countryside Reason.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed site lies within the development boundary for Pett Village and is of an appropriate size to accommodate a pair of semi-detached dwellings without adversely affecting the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties. The shared access arrangements to serve 1 Rose Cottage and the proposed dwellings provides visibility splays in accordance with highway requirements. The outline proposal therefore complies with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.


--oo0oo--

78


Documents

RR/2008/381/P - Residents - Rother District Council · Web viewCHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION FROM SINGLE DWELLING TO 4 NO. 1 BED & 1 NO 2 BED FLATS INCLUDING ENLARGED SINGLE STOREY