rr/2007/1528/a - residents - rother district council · web viewrr/2004/2750/p erection of detached...

Rother District Council Agenda Item: 7Committee - Planning

Date - 13 September 2007

Report of - Director of Services

Subject - Planning Applications

Planning Committee Procedures

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

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

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

applications, conditions, reasons for refusal and notes commensurate with the instructions of the Committee. Any applications which are considered prior to the expiry of the consultation reply period are automatically delegated for a decision.

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

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

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

REFERENCE PAGE PARISH SITE ADDRESS

RR/2007/1528/A 1 ASHBURNHAM MAIN ROAD - AT JUNCTION WITH A271 & OUTSIDE POUND COTTAGE

RR/2007/1740/P 2 BURWASH TANN HOUSESHRUB LANE

RR/2007/2253/P 3 BURWASH BURWASH COMMON CONSERVATIVE CRICKET AND PAVILION, HEATHFIELD ROAD

RR/2007/1896/P 6 BATTLE BLACKFRIARS - LAND AT HASTINGS ROAD

RR/2007/1902/P 6 BATTLE BLACKFRIARS - LAND AT(REAR OF BATTLE STATION)HASTINGS ROAD

RR/2006/2872/A 8 BEXHILL BEXHILL ROWING SOCIAL CLUBCHANNEL VIEW EAST

RR/2007/1149/P 9 BEXHILL 75 PEARTREE LANE

RR/2007/1354/P 14 BEXHILL 3 REGINALD ROAD

2

RR/2007/1397/P 16 BEXHILL 6 KITES NEST WALK – PLOT ADJ TO

RR/2007/1461/P 19 BEXHILL 3 KITES NEST WALK – LAND ADJ

RR/2007/1701/P 23 BEXHILL OLD HARRIER KENNELS – LAND ADJ TOMAPLE WALK

RR/2007/1798/P 29 BEXHILL 51-55 NINFIELD ROAD

RR/2007/1946/P 31 BEXHILL SIDLEY STATION – FORMER GOODS YARD

RR/2007/2003/P 33 BEXHILL 24-28 SEA ROAD

RR/2007/2008/P 36 BEXHILL 24 WESTVILLE ROAD

RR/2007/2087/P 38 BEXHILL 12 MITTEN ROAD

RR/2007/2234/P 39 BEXHILL 30-34 DORSET ROAD

RR/2007/2077/P 42 BECKLEY ABBEY LODGEHORSESHOE LANE

RR/2007/2113/P 45 BECKLEY HERON LEAHOBBS LANE

RR/2007/2236/P 47 BECKLEY KINGS BANK LANE – LAND AT (OS PARCEL NO 4215 AND PART PARCEL NO 3812)

RR/2007/2245/P 49 SALEHURST/ 22 HIGH STREET ROBERTSBRIDGE ROBERTSBRIDGE

RR/2007/1911/P 52 WESTFIELD WOODLANDS WAY – LAND AT

RR/2007/1575/P 57 RYE RYE FISHERIESROCK CHANNEL

RR/2007/2045/P 59 RYE 113 WINCHELSEA ROADWILLOW TREE HOUSE

RR/2007/2046/L 59 RYE 113 WINCHELSEA ROADWILLOW TREE HOUSE

--oo0oo--

3

RR/2007/1528/A ASHBURNHAM MAIN ROAD - AT JUNCTION WITH A271 & OUTSIDE POUND COTTAGE, ASHBURNHAM TWO NON-ILLUMINATED POST MOUNTED DIRECTIONAL SIGN BOARDS.Malcolm Baker

Statutory 8 week date: 16 July 2007

This application went before the July and August 2007 Planning Committee when a decision was deferred to enable discussions with the Highway Authority in respect of “standard” highway signage in place of the directional sign boards proposed in this application.

SITE The Ash Tree Inn is a well established public house located to the west of Brown Bread Street in Ashburnham.

HISTORYNone relevant

PROPOSAL This application proposes two directional signs for the Ash Tree Inn. The proposed sign boards are to be made of plastic (black lettering on white background) attached to wooden posts. Sign A is a double sided sign which would be located on the A271 opposite the “T” junction with the C18 road to Ashburnham. Sign B is single sided sign which would be located further up the C18 on the verge outside Pound Cottage.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “Whilst the Parish Council do not object in principle to these signs, we would make the following observations:Sign A could be a distraction to drivers on this dangerous stretch of road.Sign B if located on the verge outside Pound Cottage is on East Sussex County Council property and we understand would need a licence from them. A sign in this position would also add further clutter and impede a clear view for traffic at this junction. We feel a better sign would be on the other side of the road, adjacent to the entrance to Ashburnham Place (with their permission).”Highway Authority:- “Does not wish to restrict grant of Consent subject to the observations below:-The proposed signs are to be erected in a position that will not interfere or obstruct visibility from the junction between the A271 and the C18. It is evident from the submitted plan that Sign B is to be erected at a height of 0.5m which will sit below the driver’s eyeline. On this basis, I do not wish to restrict the grant of consent.”Highway Authority – Traffic & Safety Manager:- Refers to the adopted County Council policy on tourist signs and encloses an application. He comments:-“The purpose of the tourist direction signs is to direct drivers who are actively seeking that attraction/facility, they are not provided for advertisement purposes. Tourist signs are provided for the safe and efficient movement of vehicles on traffic management grounds only. They will not be permitted when the attraction/facilities location is easily found by the use of existing direction signs, i.e. if they are on the main signposted route within a town/village or on a main road between two identifiable locations.Whilst it is noted that the applicant has not filled in an application form for tourist direction signs on the public highway, and without wishing to pre-empt any decision should an application be made to East Sussex County Council, I am of the initial opinion that the criteria requirements would not be met for this Authority to approve tourist direction signs on the public highway for this establishment, as in the first instance the signs are being requested to attract passing trade.

4

Ashburnham is signed on the A271 with a white finger post which is in keeping with rural nature of the area, and therefore drivers will be following this sign if actively looking for the public house. The use of a conventional traffic sign such as a tourist direction sign at this junction would not be consistent with the existing style of signing and may not be met favourably by the parish council.”Planning Notice:- Councillor Miss Davies has written to express support for the proposals.

SUMMARY In a supporting letter, the Agents state “… we believe these signs will be instrumental in increasing the passing trade to the pub and allowing a key player in the community to remain functioning…”.Notwithstanding this, and also that no highway objection has been raised to the proposed signs, I do consider that the proposal would have an adverse affect upon the amenities of the area and the appearance of the streetscene in this countryside location. The proposal would harm the character of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is, therefore, contrary to Policy S1 (f) & (j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1 (iv) & (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (NEGOTIATIONS)

View application/correspondence_____________________________________________________________________

RR/2007/1740/P BURWASH TANN HOUSE, SHRUB LANE REVISED PROPOSALS FOR DESIGN OF ROOF LANTERN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2004/2750/P. (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION).M Magrath

Statutory 8 week date: 30 August 2007

SITE The application property is a detached house located at the junction of Shrub Lane and the High Street, Burwash. The property lies within the development boundary for Burwash and is also within the High Weald AONB.

HISTORYRR/2004/2750/P Erection of detached house and garage with new access -

Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL This application seeks retrospective permission for the installation of a roof lantern, the construction of which is not wholly in accordance with previously approved plans.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Support refusal. It has broken a beautiful view and the added height of the roof lantern should not be allowed at this stage.Planning Notice: None received.

SUMMARY Planning permission was granted for the detached house and garage in 2004. A subsequent minor amendment was approved in February 2005, incorporating a roof lantern within the flat lead roof. A lantern of this type is not an untypical detail for such a roof and was considered to be of minor size in relation to the mass of the house. The initial roof construction was not however, in accordance with the approved plans

5

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20071528a

and the roof lantern was considered to be highly visible. The roof lantern has been amended in design and variations to the roof detail have also been incorporated to conceal the lantern to a greater degree.The lantern finish has changed from white to dark grey with an increased height to the roof tiling to conceal the lead flashing around the perimeter of the flat roof. The lantern as now presented is considered in general to be unobtrusive within views of the area. While the lantern may still be glimpsed from certain angles, it is not considered to be detrimental to any wider views, the site being screened by trees to its southern side, and it does not present any detriment to the residential amenities of the area.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The retention of the rooflight is not considered to be detrimental to the character or appearance of the property nor to adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2007/2253/P BURWASH BURWASH COMMON CONSERVATIVE CRICKET AND PAVILION, HEATHFIELD ROADDEMOLITION OF EXISTING CLUB HOUSE AND CRICKET PAVILION. ERECTION OF FOUR DETACHED HOUSES WITH FOUR GARAGES AND PARKING SPACES WITH ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING ACCESS ON CLUB SITE AND ERECTION OF NEW PAVILION AND PARKING AREA TO PLAYING FIELD INCLUDING ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING ACCESS.The Burwash Weald and Common Memorial Fund Playing Field

Statutory 8 week date: 28 September 2007

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

SITE The application site comprises two adjoining areas of land, one currently fronting onto the A265 and occupied by the Conservative Club building with the second comprising areas of the playing fields to the rear, fronting onto the B2181, Stonegate road. The playing fields have an existing pavilion with small grassed parking area, cricket pitch and children’s play areas. Both areas lie outside the development boundary for Burwash Common (located on the south side of the A265) and are within the High Weald AONB.

HISTORYESX/250 Proposed site for Burwash CE School - Granted by ESCC. (1954)A/55/493 Outline permission to use land as playing fields - Approved

Conditional.A/55/493A New accesses and levelling - Approved Conditional.A/61/836 Pavilion - Approved Conditional.A/62/431 Extension of billiard room - Approved.A/72/1252 Toilets and store - Approved.

6

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20071740p

RR/75/2243 Use of existing hall as playgroup for 24 children - Approved Conditional.

RR/77/1683 Extension to club - Approved.RR/77/1684 Formation of drive and vehicular access - Approved Conditional.RR/80/1428 Extension to existing clubroom - Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL Both the existing club buildings and the cricket pavilion are in need of replacement and neither currently provides the facilities that are required by the village and surrounding area. It has therefore been decided locally to provide one new building to cover all functions and uses. In order to fund such a project the application proposes the replacement of the clubhouse, a brown field site, with 4 detached houses, which would finance the construction of a replacement pavilion/community facility in the south west corner of the playing fields. A new parking area could also be provided below the hedge along the western boundary of the field accessed from the B2181. The parking area is also to be used by the church (located opposite) and would reduce current problems of parking along the road. The new community facilities are to be constructed by the housing developer, Chalvington Barns.The proposed housing scheme is for 4 detached houses, the number and layout of which have been derived from the finance required to fund the new pavilion and by the challenging site levels and access to the site. At present the dwellings comprise 1x5 bed, 1x4 bed and 2x3 bed units. The gradient of the existing access and visibility are to be improved, with parking and turning for the dwellings and sufficient width at the entrance mouth for emergency vehicles and refuse collectors to stop clear of the highway. The bin enclosure is located adjacent the hedge on the western side of the access drive. The houses are of a traditional arts and crafts style utilising tile hanging, stock bricks and timber weatherboarding. Their orientation is such as to avoid any overlooking. By reason of the changing ground levels, they are set below the road level. Trees and hedges are to be retained to the boundaries, including the beech trees on the road frontage.The replacement pavilion is to be located on the site of the existing, off the rear boundary of the grounds owned by Ashwood Nursing Home. This corner of the site is screened by trees and shrubs. The new building is single storey, curved around the corner with views into the playing field and set into the slope. It is to be constructed with oak clad walls under a slate roof. The new building is to be multi-purpose for use as a cricket pavilion with promenade deck, a billiard room, function room, kitchen and changing rooms. The changing rooms are designed to also comply with the standards required for local club football.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Comments awaited.Highway Authority: Comments awaited.Southern Water Services: Objects as currently presented as have yet to receive an application for diversion of the sewer through the housing site. Consent is also required to connect to the public sewer. (Discussions have already been held and amendments are to be made detailing the proposed re-routing of the sewer where required and a slight variation to the position of the new pavilion building to maintain the required separation from the sewer at the rear of Ashwood’s boundary.)Environment Agency: No objections but recommends conditions regarding potentially contaminated land and drainage details with notes regarding tree felling outside bird nesting season and the use of water conservation techniques.British Gas Transco: Comments awaited.Director of Services - Head of Amenities: Comments awaited.Planning Notice: 6 notes of concern have been received from one person primarily relating to problems with highway safety at the access from the Conservative Club onto

7

the A265. They wish to ensure that the access and parking provisions are suitably improved and provided, along with restrictions during construction to maintain the safe flow of traffic along the A265 and ensure that entrance into Vicarage Road and surrounding properties is not impeded.

SUMMARY The Conservative Club site, while not within the development boundary for Burwash Common is a brown field site and located between existing properties that line the A265 in this location. Residential development is proposed in order to finance the provision of a new and improved community facility in the form of both the pavilion building and off road parking. If approved a Section 106 Obligation would be required seeking commencement of the new pavilion building prior to occupation of the penultimate dwelling, with completion of the pavilion within 12 months of the occupation of the final dwelling. Both parts of the development have been well designed to take account of the ground levels and maintain boundary screening, thereby minimising any visual impact upon the character or appearance of the local landscape. Traditional materials are also to be used. The existing vehicular access is to be improved to both sites, with existing pedestrian routes also maintained. Highway Authority comments are awaited. Neighbouring occupiers are set well away from boundaries and the proposals are unlikely to impinge upon the residential amenities of those properties.As required by Southern Water amended plans would be necessary to clarify and detail the relationship with and re-routing of the public sewer as may be necessary. Whilst the improvement of the facilities including the new pavilion is supported there is a policy objection to the replacement of the existing club buildings with four detached dwellings. In similar cases a single dwelling replacement for an existing community facility has been sought or a commensurate floorspace provision on the site. In policy terms four dwellings on the site is not considered acceptable and further discussions are required as to appropriate development in relation to the overall project. As submitted my recommendation would be one of refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FOR DISCUSSIONS AND CONSULTATION RESPONSES)


8


RR/2007/1896/P BATTLE BLACKFRIARS - LAND AT, HASTINGS ROADOUTLINE: ERECTION OF UP TO 290 DWELLINGS; CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SPINE ROAD FROM THE SPINNEY (HASTINGS ROAD) TO HARRIER LANE; CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESS ROADS, FOOTPATHS, SERVICES, FOUL AND SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING TWO DRAINAGE BASINS; PROVISION OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE/WILDLIFE ECO-PARK; PROVISION OF LAND FOR A PRIMARY SCHOOL; CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA AND ALL ANCILLARY WORKS.Countryside Properties Plc

Statutory 16 week date: 22 October 2007

RR/2007/1902/P BATTLE BLACKFRIARS - LAND AT, (REAR OF BATTLE STATION), HASTINGS ROADCONSTRUCTION OF FOOTPATH LINK.Countryside Properties Plc


These applications have been included on the Committee site inspection list.

The purpose of this report is to inform the Members’ site visit in order to generate feedback for the preparation of a comprehensive report to the October meeting of the Committee. It is not proposed to seek a decision upon the proposals at this stage.

SITE The site the subject of these applications is sloping rough grassland on the east side of Battle between Harrier Lane and Knights Meadow to the north, Starrs Mead/Hastings Road to the south/east and Harold Terrace, Kingsdale Close and the railway to the west. Collectively the area has been known for many years as the Blackfriars area.The land lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is in parts steeply sloping from the high part at Highlands Farm northwards down to Harrier Lane. The field boundaries have become very overgrown and contain many trees of mostly deciduous species, which contribute to the character and environmental value of the site. Two public footpaths cross the land which in total extends to about 15 hectares.

HISTORYThe most relevant past planning application dates from 1999 and was the subject of a ‘call in’ enquiry, viz:RR/1999/71/P O/A Residential Development (Highlands Farm) – called in by the

Secretary of State – Outline Planning Permission Refused 4 October 2000.

The Inspector concluded:i) The proposed development would not conserve the natural beauty of the AONBii) The grant of planning permission would undermine a comprehensive

consideration of all sites according to their merits through the Local Plan processiii) That development of the site would be premature given the then early stage of

the Rother District Local Plan.In the context of the planning history the Local Plan Inspector’s consideration of this site for development and his consideration of objections to the allocation of the site for

9

housing are most relevant. The Inspector’s report (relevant extract) is attached to this 13 September 2007 report as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT.

PROPOSAL The outline planning application (RR/2007/1896/P) is for the erection of up to 290 dwellings, on 6.5 hectares of the site, in a range of house types and sizes giving an average density of 45 dwellings per hectare. The proposal also includes the construction of a spine road connecting Marley Lane/Harrier Lane with The Spinney/Hastings Road. An area of 1.5 hectares is indicated for a single form entry Primary School (210 pupils). A central area for use as public open space/wildlife area of 6 hectares is intended (approx 40% of total site area).The applicant has confirmed that 40% of the new housing will be affordable housing as required by the Local Plan although at this stage the actual mix of housing type and tenure has to be finalised.Application RR/2007/1902/P is a separate submission for a pedestrian footpath link from the development the subject of RR/2007/1896/P to the southbound side of Battle Station. The details of the footpath are not yet provided as its route would be dependent upon a detailed survey. It is however possible to confirm that the design would be disabled access compliant.

CONSULTATIONSAt this stage not all consultation responses have been received and/or considered in full detail. The purpose of this initial report is to generate Members’ feedback to the proposals following a site inspection. I have therefore attached the consultation replies of the Town Council, Highway Authority, East Sussex County Council Education Authority, Head of Housing and Natural England as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 13 September 2007.

East Sussex County Council - Archaeologist:- )East Sussex County Council - Ecologist:- )East Sussex County Council - High Weald Officer:- ) East Sussex County Council - Strategic Planning:- )East Sussex County Council - Footpaths:- ) Comments awaitedEnvironment Agency:- )Highways Agency:- )South East Water:- )Sussex Wildlife Trust:- )Hastings Borough Council:- )English Heritage:- Do not wish to comment.Sussex Police:- No comment at this stage.The Ramblers Association:- If any footpath is to be changed it should be made clear in the application and the proper procedures followed.Southern Water:- No objection to foul water disposal subject to the imposition of an appropriate condition. Further details of surface water proposals needed.Planning Notice:- Numerous letters and emails have been received from local residents and these are currently being considered; a full summary will be included within the comprehensive report to the October meeting (currently letters are available via the website).

SUMMARY This is a development site identified within the Rother District Local Plan for a minimum of 220 dwellings. The application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment, a Master Plan, Planning Statement, Design and Access Statement, Statement of Community Consultation, Sustainability Appraisal and an indicative layout and topographical survey.

10

The site is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where local and national policies indicate development will be strictly controlled to ensure that it is compatible with the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape.The issues to be considered in this application include:-i) the acceptability of a development of 290 dwellings within the AONB on a site

with difficult topographyii) the effect of the proposal upon protected species and appropriateness of the

mitigation measures proposediii) the appropriateness of proposals for surface water drainage, highway works,

development contributions, tree retention and protection, school provision, open space/play space allocations, footpath links etc

iv) matters needing to be secured by Legal Agreement i.e. affordable housing developer contributions, highway works, phasing, access provision for construction traffic etc.

The site has been agreed in principle for development through the recent Local Plan process and this application should not be regarded as an opportunity to re-visit the principle. Rather it is to establish parameters and a framework for later detailed proposals.Members will note that there are both a number of outstanding consultees and many details yet to be addressed in the submitted documentation and the consultee responses attached to this report. The purpose of this report is to introduce the development proposals and allow Members to inspect the site. It is anticipated that a full report will be presented to the October Planning Committee to allow the applications to be properly considered.

RECOMMENDATIONS:RR/2007/1896/P: DEFER (TO ALLOW A FULL REPORT TO BE PRESENTED TO YOUR NEXT PLANNING MEETING)

View application/correspondence

RR/2007/1902/P: DEFER (TO ALLOW A FULL REPORT TO BE PRESENTED TO YOUR NEXT PLANNING MEETING)


RR/2006/2872/A BEXHILL BEXHILL ROWING SOCIAL CLUB, CHANNEL VIEW EASTNON ILLUMINATED NON PROJECTING SIGN ABOVE DOOR, BRASS PLATES TO EACH SIDE OF DOOR AND PLASTIC FILM ON INSIDE OF WINDOWSBexhill Rowing Social Club


SITE This application relates to the Bexhill Rowing and Social Club which is situated on the west side of Channel View East.

HISTORYNone relevant.

11



PROPOSAL This application is for new signage (plastic film) on the inside of the two windows either side of the main entrance, a non projecting sign above the main entrance and small brass plates on both sides of the door (which are replacements).

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY For the most part the signage is a replacement of what was in situ originally. However, the etched plastic film is new. I consider the signs to be appropriate in scale and design and not detrimental to the character or appearance of the area, or the amenities of any neighbouring properties. I therefore make the following recommendation

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT)1. CD2A (Time - 5 years).2. CD2B (Standard advertisement condition).3. CD2C (Standard advertisement condition).4. CD2D (Standard advertisement condition).5. CD2E (Standard advertisement condition).6. CD2F (Standard advertisement condition).

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The signs are of an appropriate design and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore comply with Policy GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2007/1149/P BEXHILL 75 PEARTREE LANE ERECTION OF TWO DETACHED HOUSES AND FOUR PARKING SPACES. Mr K J McGuinness


SITE The residential property is set within an irregularly shaped piece of land on the western side of Peartree Lane, close to its junction with The Byeway. A single detached two storey dwelling (single detached garage now removed) is set close to the front boundary within the centre of the site. Six detached residential properties share a boundary with the site.

HISTORYB/61/719 Erection of dwelling –ApprovedRR/81/2122 Formation of vehicular access – ApprovedRR/2004/2674/P Outline: Erection of single storey detached house with formation of

new vehicular access – Refused RR/2005/766/P Outline: Erection of two storey detached house – RefusedRR/2007/345/P Outline: Demolition of existing house and erection of two pairs of

semi-detached houses and a detached house served by a new vehicular access and parking area for ten vehicles with closure of existing access – Refused.

12

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20062872a

PROPOSAL To erect 2 no. detached two storey dwellings, one set either side of the existing dwelling, which will remain. Off road parking provision with associated turning space is illustrated on the plans.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: “I recommend that any consent shall include the following conditions:- The access shall not be used until parking areas have been provided in

accordance with the approved plan and the areas shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of motor vehicles;

The access shall not be used until a turning space for vehicles has been provided and constructed in accordance with the approved plan 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.Note: The proposed development is to be served from an existing access point located to the southeast of the site and therefore highway conditions have not been issued in this instance.” (18 January 2007)“It is evident from the submitted amended plan that the applicant wishes to replace the existing garage and with a new driveway which will provide two parking spaces and adequate turning facilities.This driveway is to be served from the existing crossover (to the North of the site) that was previously used to serve the garage at 75 Peartree Lane. The amended plan shows that the new driveway will predominantly be used to serve the proposed dwelling to the north of the site only and that 75 Peartree Lane will now be served via the other existing access point, located to the south of the site. It should be noted that I would not wish to see an intensification of use at this substandard existing access point (to the north of the site). However it appears that the use of the existing access will not be intensified as a result of this development and therefore any recommendation of refusal could not be sustained in the event of an appeal. The applicant should be aware that 75 Peartree Lane will need to be closed off internally, with regard to the new driveway, thus eliminating the chance of them using this existing substandard access point. However if it is the intention of the applicant to serve more than one dwelling from the new driveway, then an objection on the grounds of Highway Safety will be raised.With regard to the other existing access point (to the South of the site), it appears that an additional parking space has been proposed and that this access will be used to serve both 75 Peartree Lane and the proposed new dwelling, to the south of the site. This will lead to an intensification of use at this access point. New guidance for highway engineers, ‘Manual for Streets’ (MfS) was published on 29 March 2007 and contains revised and re-evaluated evidence to suggest that visibility sight lines can be reduced. As a result the required visibility splays for a 30 mph road are now 2 x 40 metres in each direction. The existing access can achieve these sight lines and therefore I would not wish to raise an objection on this basis. The proposed 4 spaces satisfy the County Council’s adopted parking standards and on the basis that two of these spaces are for 75 Peatree Lane and the remaining two are provided for the proposed new dwelling to the south, I do not wish to raise an objection.The conditions and comments set out in my previous HT401, dated 18 July 2007, therefore remain pertinent.” (23 August 2007)Environment Agency: Raise no objection.Southern Water: Do not wish to comment on this application.Planning Notice: 13 letters of objection representing seven addresses and two letters from The Byeway Residents Association have been received commenting on both the original plan and the amended plan, raising the following issues:

13

Adverse impact upon the highway Loss of a view of the trees and afternoon sun Increase of and impact from exhaust fumes & noise Allow access to all the properties in The Byeway Loss of privacy Bungalow would be more appropriate Over development Additional road parking Environmental consequences Adjacent to flood area Parking bay too small Close to 77 Peartree Lane Increased vehicle movements Bats believed to be living in trees on site Restrictive Covenant issue Contrary to plan policies (All representations can be read in full and are available on the website)

SUMMARY Apart from an approved application for a single dwelling house to be set between 75 and 77 Peartree Lane in 1961, the site has recently been subject to several refused applications for new dwellings. The latest proposal seeks to erect 2 no two storey, detached dwellings with off road parking provision within the garden area of the existing dwelling, which is itself to remain. The existing dwelling is undergoing extensive refurbishment and improvement. No new vehicular access points are proposed. An amended plan has been submitted increasing the on site parking provision and repositioning a dwelling more centrally within its plot. Objections have been received amongst which there is an opinion the development conflicts with the following policies, Policy S1(b)(e)(s) of the East Sussex and Brighton Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(ii)(iv)(xi), HG4(i)(vii)(xi) and TR3(xi) of the Rother District Local Plan. However, having considered the proposal based on the submission of consultee reports, previous proposals for the site and adopted plan policies I am of the opinion the amended scheme does not conflict with the aforementioned policies. While it is accepted there is concern over development at this location, the site is set within the development boundary. Through the design and imposition of restrictive conditions, the proposed dwellings would not be overbearing or overshadowing to a level which would be unacceptable in an urban environment. To this end the objections put forward have, I consider, been addressed through the amended plan and the imposition of conditions. It is important to clarify the Highway Authority previously considered it was not possible to attain the then required 90m visibility splay from that entrance, however, the requirement has now been reduced to some 40m in the recently published ‘Manual for Streets’, which is attainable and therefore raise no objection. Reference has been made to the development conflicting with Policy GD1(xi), however, I am of the opinion by introducing additional properties this will increase natural surveillance for the immediate vicinity and therefore supports the provisions of that policy. The plans show the removal of the high timber fencing set along the highway boundary in front of the existing dwelling and the introduction of a 1m high fence, which will benefit both highway users and motorists using both site access points. A condition requiring details of the proposed fence is recommended. The Residents Association refer to a restrictive covenant imposed upon the land, any planning permission issued would not override such a covenant, and this is a civil matter. Having considered the above I am of the opinion the scheme can be conditionally supported in this amended form.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)

14

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

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

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

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

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

6. No works shall be carried out until a bat survey including details of habitats and species found on and adjacent to the site with their requirements, has been carried out and its findings submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works thereafter shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The survey shall be undertaken at the appropriate time of year for the species affected and shall include details for the protection of existing habitats and species as well as mitigation against adverse effects and proposals for compensation for any adverse effects. Details of proposed long term management shall also be included.

15

Reason: To enable the local planning authority to properly ensure the protection of rare and protected species identified by EU and UK Wildlife Protection Legislation and the UK Biodiversity Action Plan in accordance with Policy GD1(vii) of the Rother District Local Plan Policy S1(j) and EN2, EN21 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

7. Within one month of the date of this permission, full details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The fencing shall be erected in accordance with the approved details and retained in that condition thereafter. The fencing shall be erected prior to occupation of the detached dwellings hereby approved. Reason: To improve safety to the users of the access points and highway users and accords with Policies GD1(ii)(iii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(d)(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

Notes:1. This decision notice relates only to the amended proposals as shown on the

amended plan Ref: 79519/07/P Rev A, date stamped 15 August 2007.2. The applicant is reminded that it is an offence to damage or destroy species

protected under separate legislation. Planning permission for a development does not provide a defence against prosecution under European and UK wildlife protection legislation. Separate licences and consents may be required to undertake work on the site where protected species are found and these should be sought before development commences.

3. This planning permission does not authorise any interference with animals, birds, marine life, plants, fauna and habitats in contravention of the requirements of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CROW) and other legislation. Further advice on the requirements of these Acts is available from Natural England, Sussex and Surrey Team, Phoenix House, 33 North Street, Lewes, East Sussex BN7 2PH.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed new two storey dwellings with off road parking 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 Policies S1(f)(g)(j)(o)(x) and EN21 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(ii)(iv)(v)(vii)(xi) and TR3(i)(xi) of the Rother District Local Plan.


16


RR/2007/1354/P BEXHILL 3 REGINALD ROADCHANGE OF USE FROM BEDSITS TO RESIDENTIAL HOME FOR 5 ADULTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIESMrs Deeprose


This application was considered by the July 2007 Planning Committee when a decision was deferred for comments from the National Care Standards Commission. The August 2007 meeting of the Planning Committee were advised that the NCSC would not comment on the proposal. At the August meeting the decision was deferred for a site inspection.

SITE The terraced property lies to the west side of Reginald Road, some 50 metres north of its junction with Terminus Road.

HISTORYNo relevant history.

PROPOSAL The application proposes to change the use of the property from bedsits to a residential home for 5 adults with learning disabilities. The applicant submits the following supporting statement about the proposed use, “To supervise and support young adults with a learning disability, to achieve basic or more complex life skills. Promoting independence and quality of life through personal development. No medical care or nursing issues will be catered for and no emergency admissions. The ethos of the home will be to move from their own home into a family environment home, living as families do with communal eating, relaxing and activities. Even to the level of everybody sitting down of an evening to watch the soaps together. Using the bedrooms only as an occasional private space and for sleeping in; not as a room to spend there days. This is to be staffed each day with a staff ratio appropriate to the level of need for the individuals and a staff member night. There will be an On-Call system in case of emergency”.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: Do not wish to restrict grant of consent. I consider the change of use of this property from 5 bedsits to a residential unit for use in multiple occupancy for 5 people to be reduction in use at the site.Social Services: A comment has been received from the Commission for Social Care Inspection stating: “It is not within our remit to comment. It is the responsibility of the provider to ensure that our criteria are met.”Planning Notice: Two letters of objection received concerned with the following: Not against its use in principle. The road is quite narrow. Can conditions be applied to the application, that the occupants are not all young

adults (i.e. 18 – 20) but rather a mix of ages. Back garden is in a poor upkeep. Through adjoining walls we can hear everything; given the proposed use of the

dwelling we believe insulation should be provided on these adjoining walls.

17

SUMMARY The main issues that need to be considered are the principle of the use, the impact on adjoining residents and highway issues. Local Plan Policies apply and in particular Policy GD1(ii)(iii)(iv).I note the concerns raised and most specifically the condition asking that the occupants be a mix of ages. However any such condition would be beyond planning control and could not be attached to any permission.With regard to highway issues the Highway Authority have been consulted and they do not wish to restrict grant of consent.The change of use of the property does not propose any external alterations to the appearance of the property, therefore preserving the appearance of the street scene.Given the number of residents and the type of care offered I am satisfied that there would be no adverse affects on neighbouring properties by undue activity from either the residents or the care staff. A condition for insulation against transmission of noise to adjoining properties can be attached to any permission. In reality the activities of this household need not be significantly different from the current approved use of the premises as six bedsits. It is therefore my opinion that the change of use is acceptable in this locality and will not adversely affect the amenities of this residential area, as such meeting the objectives of Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A (Time limit).2. The premises shall be used for a residential home for up to 5 adults with learning

disabilities and for no other purpose including any other purpose in Class C2 (Residential Institutions) of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order.Reason: To ensure the appropriate use of the property to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. Before the change of use hereby approved is first implemented a scheme for the insulation against noise on all walls which adjoin neighbouring properties shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and the insulation shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme prior to the change of use being implemented.Reason: To preserve the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupants having regard to advice contained in PPG24, Annex 4, and Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy EN15 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed change of use, with the imposition of appropriate conditions to provide soundproofing and to limit the use, would have an acceptable impact on the character of the area. It would not have an adverse impact on the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


18


RR/2007/1397/P BEXHILL 6 KITES NEST WALK - PLOT ADJ TOERECTION OF DETACHED CHALET BUNGALOW TOGETHER WITH VISIBILITY SPLAY ACROSS NO 1 KITES NEST WALK AND 60 BARNHORN ROAD INCLUDING FORMATION OF A NEW AND ALTERATION TO EXISTING VEHICULAR ACCESSES.Orchard Estates (UK) Ltd


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

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

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

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

dwellings with double garages and access road - Approved Conditional.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RR/2006/3398/P Erection of detached chalet bungalow together with visibility splay across no.1 Kites Nest Walk and 60 Barnhorn Road including formation of a new and alterations to existing vehicular accesses - Withdrawn.

PROPOSAL This is a further submission to insert a fourth dwelling on land to the rear of 58 Barnhorn Road with access off Kites Nest Walk. Elements of the design have been amended and further clarification provided with regard to the access. The proposal is for a chalet bungalow incorporating a two storey bay to the front elevation and part two storey to the rear, with dormers to the west side facing Kites Nest Walk. The property remains at a higher ground level than the low level chalet bungalow on the adjacent plot at no.6 Kites Nest Walk. The design has however, been amended to

19

remove the two storey element to the east side and replace it with a fully hipped roof over the garage. The front and rear dormers have subsequently also been deleted. The side garage wall has been extended forward to overlap with the side wall of no.6 Kites Nest. The dwelling is set off the east side boundary with no.6 by 3.5m and a wide landscaped strip is to be retained to the west side with Kites Nest Walk. The application is accompanied by a legal agreement and other correspondence related to the provision and maintenance of a visibility splay to the west side of the junction across the front most part of 1 Kites Nest Walk and 60 Barnhorn Road.

CONSULTATIONSHighways Agency: Previously raised no objection subject to a condition requiring that those portions of the visibility splays within the front gardens of 1 Kites Nest Walk and 60 Barnhorn Road be hardsurfaced. The additional plan has not changed this comment but further advice has clarified that this condition seeks the re-siting of the garden wall behind the visibility splay with the area in front hardsurfaced, i.e. becoming part of the footway. Southern Water Services: Does not wish to comment.Environment Agency: No objection in principle but questions the use of soakaways as there are high ground water levels in the area during winter periods. Care should be exercised to preclude contamination of the ground during construction, the use of water conservation appliances and recycling should be employed within the development and tree felling should not take place during nesting season nor if there are bats present.Planning Notice: Four objections have been received. One was attached as an appendix document relating to the 21 June 2007 Planning Committee; one advising of existing flooding problems in the access to 4/5/6 Kites Nest Walk; the others concerned that: The proposal will accentuate existing highway safety hazards and result in

removal of the lamp post. Any increase to traffic along Barnhorn Road is considered to exacerbate the

existing highway problems in the area. An existing entrance gate protrudes into the visibility splay but the legal

agreement does not require its removal, neither does it require hard surfacing of the splay.

Kites Nest Walk is a private road and agreement is required from the developer to ensure maintenance and repair of any resultant damage.

The proposal should be refused again as on the previous occasions. Represents a form of backland development.

SUMMARY This application was the subject of a site inspection by the Members and subsequently deferred from the Planning Committee meeting on 21 June 2007, for further consultation and clarification of the extent of the visibility splays and the nature of their provision. A full and detailed site survey has been undertaken and plots the position and heights of trees, hedges, other planting, walls, fences, gates and street furniture. The required visibility to the east is available without impinging upon the front garden of 58 Barnhorn Road. Visibility to the west clips a section of the front gardens of 1 Kites Nest Walk and 60 Barnhorn Road. The accompanying legal agreement covenants at paragraph 2.1:“not to erect or cause to be erected on the Owners Land any building or structure or allow any plant or hedge to grow above a maximum height of 50 centimetres.”A highway consultant advises that there is no prerequisite for hard surfacing to visibility splays and thus argues that there is no need to comply with the request of the Highways Agency. They also advise that the street lighting column does not fully obscure a whole vehicle or pedestrian and thus will not have significant impact upon highway safety and does not therefore need relocation. The application advises that the

20

gate, 0.9m high, will be reduced to 0.6m in height. Higher than that specified in the covenant but complying with the 0.6m height required for the visibility splay. The new owners of the property have however, disputed this and do not wish to alter the height of their gate on safety grounds having regard to the safety of their children. (For information the Committee is advised that the current owners of 60 Barnhorn Road were not the original signatories on the legal agreement but were aware of the covenant when purchasing the property). The Highways Agency have advised that should the applicant not wish to comply with their recommended condition, then they would recommend but not direct a refusal.This application is a resubmission of that withdrawn in January 2007, RR/2006/3398/P, which followed previous attempts to erect a fourth dwelling on the land to the rear of 56/58 Barnhorn Road. Such proposals have been consistently refused, as evidenced in the preceding ‘History’. The applicant has sought to resolve the highway objection by securing provision of visibility splays. That to the east side extends over the footway, that to the west side extends across the footway and the front most part of the gardens of 1 Kites Nest Walk and 60 Barnhorn Road. A private legal agreement has been made between the applicant and the owners of 1 Kites Nest Walk and 60 Barnhorn Road. The area required for the visibility splay is included within the application site boundary. The Highway Agency has subsequently withdrawn their previous objection subject to a condition. The Agency, however, requests that the area of visibility splay within the gardens be hard surfaced (in front of the re-located wall), to preclude planting and the need for maintenance to ensure that the splay is clear of obstructions over 600mm high. While the reasoning for this request is understood, the home owners would state that this request is not required as part of their legal agreement. Confirmation of the applicant’s intentions is awaited.Objections relating to the impact upon neighbours have been mitigated by the variation in design. The new dwelling has only one first floor rear window and is sufficiently far away from the rear of 58 Barnhorn Road, which has some planting along its rear boundary not to impinge upon the amenity of the occupiers. Any impact upon the neighbouring property at 6 Kites Nest Walk is also reduced with the deletion of the first floor element to the east side reducing any sense of overbearing. The extension of the side wall also encloses the garage entrance and provides a privacy screen and noise barrier to reduce any disturbance to the neighbouring occupiers.

RECOMMENDATION: A) GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT OF

THE VISIBILITY DETAILS RECOMMENDED BY THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY AND SUBMISSION OF AMENDED PLANS)

1. CD1A – Standard time period.2. No development shall take place until the visibility splay measuring 2.4m x 70m

has been provided in accordance with the approved plan, drawing no. …, date stamped … and the area hatched green on the attached plan shall thereafter be maintained free of obstruction. Reason: as CD3E, “highway, A259, …”

3. CD3K – Parking. “dwelling” “97700.02B” “11 June 2007” “the parking and turning of vehicles”

4. CD6B – “surface water drainage”5. CD9H – Materials. “details” “dwelling”

Reason: delete policy references to AONB.6. CD8P – No PD. “alterations or extensions” “Classes A, B or C”

Reason: a, GD1(ii, iv)7. CD8O – No windows. “east side or south rear elevations”.

Reason: a.

21

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development, having regard to the previous Appeal Inspector’s comments, is considered to be of an appropriate design, siting and highway detailing and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policies S1 and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.


OR:

B) REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (IF NO AGREEMENT OF THE VISIBILITY DETAILS)

1. The proposed development would by reason of the design of the access have inadequate visibility and result in a material increase in traffic joining the A259 (Barnhorn Road) thereby increasing highway safety hazards, contrary to the safety provisions contained within Circular TD41/95, PPG13 and Policy TR3(c) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2007/1461/P BEXHILL 3 KITES NEST WALK - LAND ADJERECTION OF TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH INTEGRAL DOUBLE GARAGE INCLUDING DORMER WINDOWS AND ROOFLIGHTS WITH PROVISION OF PARKING, NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS AND ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING ACCESS INCLUDING VISIBILITY SPLAY ACROSS 1 KITES NEST WALK AND 60 BARNHORN ROAD.Wellson and Partners


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

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

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

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

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

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

RR/2006/3394/P Erection of detached two storey dwelling with integral double garage including dormer windows, balcony, Juliet balconies and rooflights, with provision of new vehicular access and alteration to

22



an existing access including visibility splay across 1 Kites Nest Walk and 60 Barnhorn Road - Withdrawn.

PROPOSAL This application is a resubmission for that withdrawn in January 2007, RR/2006/3394/P. It again proposes to erect a new dwelling within the former rear garden of 62 Barnhorn Road to the side of 3 Kites Nest Walk. The size, design and height have been amended and additional details submitted regarding the highway situation. The proposal is now essentially single storey with rooms within the roof space of the dwelling only. The single storey link to the garage has been reduced in width when compared to that considered by the appeal inspector in 2004, RR/2004/2735/P.Access is still proposed across the front of 2 and 3 Kites Nest Walk with the demolition of the existing garage of 3 Kites Nest Walk and its replacement with 2 parking spaces to serve that property. The front, north elevation contains dormer windows. There are no windows to the west side and only two small ground floor windows to the east side. The rear south elevation facing the gardens of Barnhorn Road contains rooflights serving en-suite bathrooms and the stairwell, comparable to those already existing at 2 and 3 Kites Nest Walk. The application is accompanied by a legal agreement between the applicant and owners of 1 Kites Nest Walk and 60 Barnhorn Road, in respect of maintaining a visibility splay to the west side of the junction of Kites Nest Walk and Barnhorn Road.

CONSULTATIONSHighways Agency: Previously raised no objection subject to a condition requiring that those portions of the visibility splays within the front gardens of 1 Kites Nest Walk and 60 Barnhorn Road be hardsurfaced. The additional plan has not changed this comment but further advice has clarified that this condition seeks the re-siting of the garden wall behind the visibility splay with the area in front hardsurfaced, i.e. becoming part of the footway. Southern Water Services: Does not wish to comment.Environment Agency: No objection in principle but questions the use of soakaways as ground water levels fluctuate in this area. Care should be exercised to preclude contamination of the ground during construction and the use of water conservation appliances and recycling should be employed within the development.Planning Notice: 3 letters of objection on the following grounds: Increased highway hazards at the junction with Barnhorn Road. Overdevelopment of the site. Will be overbearing to neighbours. Loss of privacy by overlooking. Loss of view. Loss of the street light will be detrimental. Visibility will still be sub standard even with the legal agreement. Previous refusal should be maintained. Undesirable precedent.One letter was attached as a separate appendix document relating to the 21 June 2007 Planning Committee.

SUMMARY This application was the subject of a site inspection by the Members and subsequently deferred from the Planning Committee meeting on 21 June 2007, for further consultation and clarification of the extent of the visibility splays and the nature of their provision. A full and detailed site survey has been undertaken and plots the position and heights of trees, hedges, other planting, walls, fences, gates and street furniture. The required visibility to the east is available without impinging upon the front garden of 58 Barnhorn Road. Visibility to the west clips a section of the front gardens of

23

1 Kites Nest Walk and 60 Barnhorn Road. The accompanying legal agreement covenants at paragraph 2.1:“not to erect or cause to be erected on the Owners Land any building or structure or allow any plant or hedge to grow above a maximum height of 50 centimetres.”A highway consultant advises that there is no prerequisite for hard surfacing to visibility splays and thus argues that there is no need to comply with the request of the Highways Agency. They also advise that the street lighting column does not fully obscure a whole vehicle or pedestrian and thus will not have significant impact upon highway safety and does not therefore need relocation. The application advises that the gate, 0.9m high, will be reduced to 0.6m in height. Higher than that specified in the covenant but complying with the 0.6m height required for a visibility splay. The new owners of the property have however, disputed this and do not wish to alter the height of their gate on safety grounds having regard to the safety of their children. (For information the Committee is advised that the current owners of 60 Barnhorn Road were not the original signatories on the legal agreement but were aware of the covenant when purchasing the property). The Highways Agency have advised that should the applicant not wish to comply with their recommended condition, then they would recommend but not direct a refusal.The application is a resubmission and again proposes the erection of an additional dwelling to the rear of 62 Barnhorn Road. Similar proposals have previously been refused with the last application in 2004 also being dismissed at appeal, RR/2004/2735/P. Three reasons for refusal were cited at that time: 1) stating that the proposal represented a piecemeal backland development lacking proper road frontage and giving rise to detriment for neighbours whose frontage it crossed; 2) it was an undesirable sub-division and would result in a loss of amenity and privacy and be out of character with the area; and 3) it would result in increased traffic and highway hazards at the junction of Kites Nest Walk and Barnhorn Road by reason of inadequate visibility at the junction.In respect of the first reason, the Inspector did not agree that a lack of formal road frontage was objectionable in this instance. The extension of an existing private drive was likened to many other comparable situations on modern housing estates. The current application does not change the situation and thus the Inspector’s comments would still apply and the first reason for refusal would not be justified. A copy of the Inspector’s report was originally attached as an appendix document to the 21 June 2007 Planning Committee.The previous proposal as considered by the Planning Inspectorate was in outline only with an indicative block and roof plan. At that time the dwelling was indicated to be a bungalow with accommodation within the roof space over the main dwelling. The garage and front projection making up the ‘L’ shape were single storey only. The footprint was also stepped away from the side boundary with the rear garden of 64 Barnhorn Road. Replacement parking was to be provided to the front of 3 Kites Nest Walk. On this basis and subject to any new dwelling being of a chalet bungalow design to match those already existing, with no windows overlooking the neighbouring gardens, the Inspectorate considered that a dwelling could be accommodated on the site without detriment to the character of the area or the residential amenities of neighbours. The second reason was thus also not agreed. This is a full application with a detailed design, the character and materials of which reflect those of neighbouring properties, and as amended now follows the principle of the outline proposal considered by the Inspector. A refusal on the proposals now submitted would be difficult to justify.The proposed dwelling footprint would cover approximately 42% of the site area but this was not considered to be unreasonable by the Inspector. The footprint has now been reduced slightly by the revised design for the single storey link and the garage,

24

which now creates an area of amenity space between the front of the house and the garage/parking area. It is proposed to retain the boundary hedge with 64 Barnhorn Road, (which appears to enjoy a split ownership) and the proposed dwelling has been set slightly further away from the hedge to try to ensure it health and retention.The previous reason for refusal on highway grounds was upheld by the Planning Inspectorate. The applicant has now sought to resolve this situation to the western side of the junction by way of a private legal agreement with the owners of 1 Kites Nest Walk and 60 Barnhorn Road. The area required for the visibility splay is included within the application site. The Highways Agency has subsequently withdrawn their previous objection subject to a condition. The Agency, however, requests that the area of visibility splay within the gardens be hard surfaced (in front of the re-located wall), to preclude planting and the need for maintenance to ensure that the splay is clear of obstructions over 600mm high. While the reasoning for this request is understood, the home-owners state that this request is not required as part of their legal agreement. Confirmation of the applicant’s intentions is awaited.

RECOMMENDATION: A) GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT OF

THE VISIBILITY DETAILS RECOMMENDED BY THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY AND SUBMISSION OF AMENDED PLANS)

8. CD1A – Standard time period.9. No development shall take place until the visibility splay measuring 2.4m x 70m

has been provided in accordance with the approved plan, drawing no. …, date stamped … and the area hatched green on the attached plan shall thereafter be maintained free of obstruction. Reason: as CD3E, “highway, A259, …”

10. CD3K – parking. “dwelling” “809.01.c” “11 June 2007” “the parking and turning of vehicles”

11. CD6B – “surface water drainage”12. CD9H – Materials. “details” “dwelling”

Reason: delete policy references to AONB.13. CD8P – No PD. “alterations or extensions” “Classes A, B or C” Reason: a,

GD1(ii, iv)14. CD8O – No windows. “west side or south rear elevations”. Reason: a.15. CD4Q – Retention of hedge. “part of the hedge on the west side boundary”.

Reason: a/d. GD1(ii, iv). S1(f)

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development, having regard to the previous Appeal Inspector’s comments, is considered to be of an appropriate design, siting and highway detailing and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policies S1 and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.


OR:

B) REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (IF NO AGREEMENT OF THE VISIBILITY DETAILS)

2. The proposed development would by reason of the design of the access have inadequate visibility and result in a material increase in traffic joining the A259 (Barnhorn Road) thereby increasing highway safety hazards, contrary to the

25


safety provisions contained within Circular TD41/95, PPG13 and Policy TR3(c) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2007/1701/P BEXHILL OLD HARRIER KENNELS – LAND ADJ TO, MAPLE WALKOUTLINE: ERECTION OF FIVE DETACHED DWELLINGS WITH GARAGES, ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING ACCESS AND PROVISION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS AND ROADMrs Ward Jones


This application was deferred at your last meeting for site inspection and further information on wildlife and protection of trees.

SITE The application relates to 0.78 hectares of land to the western side of Maple Walk on the western fringe of Bexhill. The land is described in the application as being part agricultural and part wooded garden. The site is within the Development Boundary for Bexhill as identified in the Rother District Local Plan. A public footpath (FP 10c) crosses the site.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/1999/1643/P O/A Erection of dwellings, formation of roadway and of separate

access to Southern Water land – Refused – Appeal DismissedRR/2001/1656/P Erection of a dwelling house on the north eastern part of the site -

ApprovedRR/2006/2519/P O/A Erection of five detached dwellings with garages, alteration to

an existing access and provision of new vehicle access and road – Withdrawn (to allow further ecological information to be provided).

PROPOSAL The proposed development is in outline only and all matters of detail are reserved. It consists of the construction of five detached houses with garages, together with alterations to an existing access and provision of a new vehicular access and road within the site. An illustrative layout plan has been provided with the application. Supporting information states that the dwellings would be designed in a traditional ‘Sussex’ style incorporating stock bricks, tile hanging and clay tiled roofs. A Planning Statement to accompany the outline application is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 13 September 2007.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- Any consent should include highway conditions. At any detail stage adequate parking should be provided in accordance with the County Council’s adopted Parking Standards.County Archaeologist:- “This application is of archaeological interest since it lies adjacent to a medieval moated manor house, which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SM12733). Early mapping indicates a trackway leading to this site, which crosses the area of the proposed development, slightly north of the current footpath. The possibility therefore exists that ancillary buildings and other contemporary structures were located alongside this trackway.

26


In the light of the potential archaeological significance of this site, it is my opinion that the area affected by the proposals should be subject of a programme of archaeological works. This will enable any archaeological deposits and features, disturbed during the proposed works, to be adequately recorded. These recommendations are in line with the advice given in PPG16.”Southern Water:- (Summarised) - No objection in principle to the proposed outline application. The exact position of the public sewers must be determined on site by the applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised. Environment Agency:- No objection provided that conditions relating to drainage and potential land contamination. Gives advice with regard to flood risk, groundwater protection and water conservation. The Ramblers Association:- “This application, with the exception of the orientation of one house, is the same as the application no RR/2006/2519/P which was withdrawn in November 2006 and as such I wish to object to the latest proposal on the same grounds. The development and its associated works require the diversion of Footpath 10c which currently runs through a paddock and the Southern Water Company’s compound. The proposal is to realign the Right of Way through the development on an estate road. This will not only greatly reduce any user’s enjoyment of the footpath but will also lay them open to increased risk of road traffic accidents.”Natural England:- (summarised) – “Summary and conclusion – In conclusion, due to the absence of sufficient information on protected species, Natural England objects to the above application pending submission of the requested information/survey work on bats, great crested newts and reptiles. When the information becomes available, we will review the survey results and methodology and advise accordingly.” East Sussex County Council – Rights of Way Officer:- “Firstly, the applicant must be made aware of the presence and correct route of public footpath Bexhill 10c which passes through the application site as shown on the plan and extract from the Definitive Map attached.Secondly, it would be preferable if the site layout plans could be amended to accommodate public footpath Bexhill 10c on its existing route. However, if this is not possible and it is necessary to divert the path in order to enable the development to be carried out, then the applicant must first apply to Rother District Council to divert the path for reasons of the development under s.257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.Since public footpath Bexhill 10c is not already enclosed where it passes through the application site and has no existing legally defined width, if it is to be enclosed along its existing route or diverted along the verge between A and B (as suggested by Illustrative Layout Ref CD/WJ/0407/ILP), a minimum width of 2.5 metres must be provided throughout. This is in accordance with standard East Sussex County Council requirements for diverted or previously unenclosed paths.Furthermore, if public footpath Bexhill 10c is diverted along the verge between points A and B, it must be made up from a suitable surface (e.g. stone/tarmac) and comprised of a raised, 2.5 metre wide footway, separate from the proposed new estate road in the interests of path user safety.If the applicant wishes to erect any new furniture along the new line of the footpath, they must only do so if it is absolutely necessary (i.e. for the purposes of livestock control) and the furniture must be comprised of 1.2 metre (minimum) wide pedestrian gates, not stiles as suggested on Illustrative Layout Ref CD/WJ/0407/ILP.If public footpath Bexhill 10c is going to be crossed by vehicles (such as access to the existing Old Harrier Kennels building) we would recommend the following:– Dropped kerbs where the footpath is crossed by the driveway or at the very least

a smooth transition in between the two surfaces

27

– An advisory speed limit of 10 mph, and– Signs warning drivers of the potential presence of walkersFinally if this footpath is going to be affected by construction, site access or any other activity, then the applicant will need to contact this office before starting any work.Provided that the applicant is made aware of and complies with these requests, the Rights of Way department has no objections to this application on the basis of the information supplied.”Planning Notice:- 34 letters of objection from residents of neighbouring properties;- Maple Walk to the north and south of the proposed site access is far too narrow

for the existing traffic let alone the increased traffic that the development will generate

- Increased hazard for pedestrians- The road surface and sub material of Maple Walk will not support the passage of

heavy vehicles to the site- The site line to the south of the proposed access along Maple Walk could not be

to current standards and would be dangerous for traffic leaving the proposed private road. There appears to be very little possibility of improving this sight line

- The 1.05m height restriction of the hedge provides very little in the way of screening

- The outline plan leaves the site open for the extension of the private road to the south at some future date

- Given the levels of the land, how would surface and foul drainage be achieved without any risk of pollution to local water courses

- The development would destroy the rural character of the area - The applicant may have got the green light from ADAS but the area is

countryside and a greenfield site and as such home to much wildlife. Badgers may be ‘off plan’ but the development will still destruct the natural habitat and foraging areas of the badgers

- Great Crested Newts on site will be affected to their detriment- The application states that five protected oaks would remain. However there is

another substantial, healthy oak not shown on the plan to the east of the marked badger sett. This oak would be the main screen between our house and our neighbours and any new development

- Who would be responsible for the repair and upkeep of the fencing between the site and Hazelwood Close?

- The boundary to the rear of 9 Hazelwood Close is not accurately depicted on the site plan

- Maple Walk is maintained at the expense of the residents, anymore increase in traffic will entail more maintenance and upkeep costs.

SUMMARY At the time a previous application for residential development on this site was refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal (reference RR/1999/1643/P) the land was outside the Development Boundary for Bexhill in the Initial Deposit Plan. The whole site was, however, brought within that Development Boundary at the Revised Deposit Stage of the Local Plan. This matter was acknowledged by the Inspector in the December 2005 report into the Local Plan and an extract explaining the Inspector’s Reasons and Conclusions is attached in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 13 September 2007 for information. The Inspector did not, however, allocate the land as a housing site, reasoning that to do so would mean it being designated for development at not less than 30 dwellings to the hectare in accordance with national guidelines. The resultant 20 or more dwellings, he considered, would generate an amount of pedestrian and vehicular traffic northward on Maple Walk such as to necessitate significant improvements to that private road which cannot be achieved without using private land in other multiple ownerships.

28

Whilst the Inspector did not consider that the site should be allocated for residential development, he did recognise that any planning application for its development for housing should be judged, not against countryside policies, but on its merits on the basis of other plan policies. The application should not therefore be refused on countryside grounds. The application proposes a low density development on the site that seeks to reflect the density and pattern of existing development in the area. Moreover, the low density of the proposed development, the supporting information indicates, would allow either side of the access to be planted with trees and shrubs, the roadside edge to be retained as much as possible and additional planting/landscaping to be carried out within the site. Members will therefore need to consider whether the proposed low density scheme would be in keeping with the existing character and appearance of the general locality whilst being mindful of the fact that the site cannot be viewed under countryside policies. A further matter for Members to consider is the likely impact on the residential amenity of existing dwellings in the vicinity of the site. Whilst detailed layout and elevation drawings have not been provided at this outline stage, it is suggested that in principle, a low density development could be accommodated on the site without resulting in material harm to residential amenity by giving rise to overlooking and loss of privacy. A number of local residents have raised concerns on highway grounds and in this respect it is noted that the Highway Authority does not wish to object to the development proposal, subject to highway conditions. With respect to other matters, it is also noted from representations received to date that no objection has been raised in principle from the Environment Agency and Southern Water Services. The County Archaeologist indicates that the site lies adjacent to a Scheduled Ancient Monument and in this respect would seek a condition requiring a programme of archaeological works in the event Members are minded to approve the application. Comments from local residents also point to matters of wildlife interest. Natural England has raised an objection to the application pending submission of further survey information on wildlife. I understand that further work is being carried out on behalf of the applicant and will be submitted in the near future. Although the site is within the Bexhill Development Boundary I shall only make the recommendation of the granting of permission if the objection from Natural England is rescinded.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO NO OBJECTION FROM NATURAL ENGLAND)1, CD1B (Outline permissions) – Insert a, b, c, d, and e.2. CD1C (Outline permissions) – Amend to condition 1 above.3. CD1D (Outline permissions4. CD1E (Outline permissions)5. The access shall not be used until parking areas have been provided in

accordance with a plan to be submitted for consideration and approval under the Reserved Matters. The areas shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of motor vehicles.Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway and to accord with Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

6. The access shall not be used until a turning space for vehicles has been provided and constructed in accordance with a plan to be submitted for consideration and approval under the Reserved Matters. 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 and to accord with Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

29

7. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme submitted under Reserved Matters for the provision and implementation of foul drainage works has been approved by and implemented to the reasonable satisfaction of the local planning authority. No occupation of dwellings should be undertaken prior to the implementation of those agreed foul drainage works.Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment by ensuring the appropriate infrastructure is in place prior to occupation of dwellings. To accord with Policy S1(g) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan. The sewerage undertaker (Southern Water Services) should be consulted regarding the available of capacity in the foul water sewer.

8. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme submitted under Reserved Matters for the provision of surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed.Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal. To accord with Policy S1(g) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan. The sewerage undertaker (Southern Water Services) should be consulted regarding the available of capacity in the foul water sewer.

9. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through trapped gullies with an overall capacity compatible with the site being drained.Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal. To accord with Policy S1(g) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan. The sewerage undertaker (Southern Water Services) should be consulted regarding the available of capacity in the foul water sewer.

10. If during development, any visibly contaminated or odorous material not previously identified is found to be present at the site, it must be investigated. The local planning authority must be informed immediately of the nature and degree of contamination present. The developer shall submit a Method Statement which must detail how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.Reason: To ensure that the development complies with approved details in the interests of protection of Controlled Waters. To accord with Policy S1(g) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan. The sewerage undertaker (Southern Water Services) should be consulted regarding the available of capacity in the foul water sewer.

11. Clean, uncontaminated rock, subsoil, brick rubble, crushed concrete and ceramic only shall be permitted as infill material.Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters. To accord with Policy S1(g) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan. The sewerage undertaker (Southern Water Services) should be consulted regarding the available of capacity in the foul water sewer.

12. No development shall take place within the area indicated until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a

30

programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the local planning authority.Reason: The development is likely to disturb items of archaeological interest and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

13. CD4L (Location of trees).14. CD4S (Roadside hedge retention).Notes:i) Southern Water Services sewer records indicate that public sewers cross the

site. The exact position of the public sewers must be determined on site by the applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised. Please note:No development or new tree planting should be located within 3 metres either side of the centreline of the public sewers andAll existing infrastructure should be protected during the course of construction works.The proposed access to Southern Water retained land is not as previously agreed with the developer’s agent. Further discussions are necessary to agree the access to Southern Water’s retained land.

ii) ND10 (Public footpaths)

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The site is within the Development Boundary for Bexhill as identified in the adopted Rother District Local Plan. As such there is no presumption against the principle of residential development on the site. The application has been assessed against the relevant Development Plan policies. Accordingly, the proposed low-density housing scheme can be accommodated on the site in a manner which would reflect the density and pattern of existing residential development in the locality and without adverse impact on material issues of residential amenity. Moreover, pedestrian and vehicular traffic would not be at a level that would require off-site highway works to Maple Walk. Furthermore, the development proposal would enable provision for new planting and landscaping to mitigate against any impact of development on the character and appearance of the area. The development proposal accords with Policies S1(d)(j) and S5 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(ii)(iii)(iv)(vii)(viii) and DS3 of the Rother District Local Plan. Finally, the local planning authority acknowledges the density requirement contained within PPS3 Housing; however, in view of the fact that the full development potential of the land is limited by site-specific constraints it is considered that an exception is justified in this particular case.


RR/2007/1798/P BEXHILL 51-55 NINFIELD ROADDEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND REDEVELOPMENT OF SITE WITH THE ERECTION OF TWO BUILDINGS COMPRISING A1/A2 USE RETAIL UNITS TOGETHER WITH 7 NO 1 BED FLATS, 6 NO 2 BED FLATS AND 1 NO 3 BED MAISONETTEPasteque Properties Ltd


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

31


SITE This application relates to the site of three vacant retail shop units (formerly trading under the name ‘Micro Power’) located in the centre of Sidley shopping area and adjoining the north west side of the ‘Co-op Welcome’ convenience store. The two units immediately adjoining the Co-op are flat roofed and single storey. The third unit is three storeys and includes residential accommodation above the shop. The site backs onto the public car park.

HISTORYRR/2004/1703/P Demolition of existing buildings. Redevelopment to provide ground

floor unit for Class A1/A2 use with 6 two-bedroom flats and 3 maisonettes above – Approved.

PROPOSAL Planning permission RR/2004/1703/P has previously been granted to demolish these existing buildings and redevelop the site using its full depth at ground floor level to provide a single Class A1 (Shop) or A2 (Financial and Professional Services) unit. The roof area above would be developed with two separate buildings separated by a roof garden. At the front there would be 6 flats on three floors. The flats on the third floor would be incorporated within the pitched roof. At the rear there would be three maisonettes on two floors. The permission has not been implemented.The applicant advises that this modified scheme within the envelope of the approved proposals has been made due to market conditions, consultations with local estate agents, and reflects the requirements of the local market. The size of the original full depth ground floor A1/A2 unit has now been reduced to just over one third in order to provide three additional flats behind, together with a central secure amenity courtyard, accessed via a private entrance adjacent to the shop front. Access to a refuse store would also be obtained via a separate entrance adjacent to the shop front. In other respects the proposal would be similar to that proposed with only a slight increase in the overall height of the two buildings and minor changes to the design. However, the south side passage would now be incorporated into the building, making the whole scheme wider, and the upper floors would be reconfigured internally in order to accommodate a total of 14 flats. In a supporting letter the applicant states: “As the site is situated within a shopping parade, and on a main bus route, with a large public car park to the rear, as before, we understand that it will not be necessary to provide for car parking on site. Secure cycle storage will be provided at ground floor level.”

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- In their original comments, the Highway Authority recommended “Refusal for the reason that the proposal does not provide for parking facilities within the site resulting in additional congestion on the public highway and hazards to highway safety on the A269 and surrounding streets. However, in the event of the Planning Committee being minded to approve this application, the Highway Authority would wish to secure a Local Sustainable Accessibility Improvement Contribution (LSAIC) in the region of £14,350 through a Section 106 Obligation which would go towards improving pedestrian safety, access to public transport and waiting facilities and traffic management in local roads in Sidley village centre.” However, in light of the agent’s subsequent comments they have confirmed that they would accept a lower financial contribution towards enhancing local travel alternatives. A copy of their revised comments is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 13 September 2007.Environment Agency:- Has no objection subject to conditions: 1) contaminated land; 2) details of foul and surface water drainage. Advice is also offered in regard to the storage of fuels, oils and chemicals and water conservation.

32

Southern Water:- Advise that there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal. The public sewer is combined receiving both foul and surface water flows and no flows greater than currently received can be accommodated. However, it is possible that by removing some of the existing surface water, additional foul flows could be accommodated. Should this application receive planning permission a condition is requested that development shall not be commenced until details of proposed means of foul and surface water disposal have been submitted and approved.Sussex Police:- Advise that the location is a medium risk crime area and offers advice to the applicants from a crime prevention viewpoint.Planning Notice:- Comments awaited.

SUMMARY The principle of a scheme of a similar scale has already been accepted. The matters for consideration now are:(i) the effect on the neighbouring property of the increased width of the whole

scheme;(ii) the material impact of the additional number of flats without on site parking

spaces.In my report to the previous meeting I made the following comments:“As with the previous proposal, the principle of a more efficient use of the land with a mixed redevelopment incorporating residential at a higher density in this location is supported. In terms of size, design and visual impact, the frontage building would have a roof design and eaves lines in keeping with similar height buildings in the area. However, the shop front design is poor and I have asked the applicant to reconsider this detail. As before, because the rear building is separated from the frontage building by an open courtyard and is lower in height, the residential amenities of the flats adjoining the north side are unlikely to be significantly affected. This is because the ornamental screen wall on the northern courtyard boundary previously approved is also proposed under this scheme and will preserve privacy on that side. However, the development now proposed would include the south side passage and be built right up to the boundary with an adjoining first floor level flat (above the Co-op) which has a rear roof terrace and rear facing windows. The submitted plans do not contain sufficient detail for the impact of this to be assessed upon the amenities of that flat and I have therefore requested further plans. The Highway Authority object on grounds that no on-site parking is provided. Also, Southern Water advise that there is no capacity to provide additional foul sewage disposal. These matters need to be resolved and I have therefore written to the applicant requesting their agreement to the financial contribution required by the Highway Authority towards enhancing local travel alternatives together with details of how they would intend to dispose of foul and surface water from the site. Provided a satisfactory reply is received, together with additional amended plans showing an improved shop front design, and no adverse impact upon the flat adjoining the south side, I would expect to support the proposal.”With regard to the shop front, an amended plan has been received which will assist in lifting the street scene and is considered acceptable. It is now my understanding that the submitted plans were deliberately left blank in order to allow the future occupants to design their own shop front. If permission is granted an appropriately worded condition would facilitate a change of design should the proposal not meet their requirements.With regard to the impact of the proposed southern boundary wall upon the amenities of the adjoining first floor level flat with rear roof terrace (no.49), the additional sketch plans received show a wall with piers and ornamental metal grillage that would be 6m (approx) above the height of the adjoining rear roof terrace. This would have an overbearing impact upon the amenities of that property and would also result in loss of light. Details of the lift shaft and surrounding open stairs have still not been submitted and I am concerned that these also may have an adverse impact upon the amenities of

33

the adjoining property. The applicant has been asked to reconsider these details. Therefore, notwithstanding the similarities with the previously approved development, I am of the opinion that, as submitted, it has not been demonstrated that there would be no adverse impact upon the amenities of the adjoining property by reason of the increased width of the whole scheme. I am continuing discussions in relation to this aspect of the scheme.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (NEGOTIATIONS ON AMENDED PLANS)


RR/2007/1946/P BEXHILL SIDLEY STATION – FORMER GOODS YARDCONTINUED USE OF LAND FOR TWO WHEEL AND ROADCRAFT TRAINING (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Mr N M Brennan-Wright


SITE This application relates to part of the former goods yard immediately to the south west of the Holliers Hill railway bridge. Three previous temporary planning permissions have been granted for this use.

HISTORYRR/2000/2094/P Use of land for two wheel and roadcraft training – Approved

(temporary).RR/2001/1215/P Use of land for two wheel and roadcraft training – Approved

(temporary).RR/2005/885/P Change of use of land for two wheel and roadcraft training –

Approved (temporary).

PROPOSAL The applicant seeks a further renewal of a temporary permission to use the northern end of the former goods yard for motor vehicle training.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: – No objection subject to planning permission being granted on a temporary basis because of the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road.Director of Services – Environmental Health: – No objection to the renewal of the ‘training’ use provided the hours of use remain the same.Planning Notice: – One objection with the following comments (summarised): The noise generated from motor vehicles using the site restricts enjoying

evenings outside..SUMMARY This retrospective application relates to part of the former goods yard immediately to the south west of Holliers Hill railway bridge. The applicant seeks a further renewal of a temporary permission to use the northern end of the former goods yard for motor vehicle training. Three previous temporary planning permissions have been granted for this use, the last expiring in May of this year. Policies GD1 and TR1 of the Local Plan and Policy TR21 of the Structure Plan apply to this application.The motor vehicle training use has been in operation since 2000 and utilises a tarmac area in the northern part of the former goods yard site. The site is flat and is marked out for road training purposes. There is a small timber shed at the southern end of the site which provides a small office, storage and teaching area. The site is fenced, and gated

34


when not in use. It is relatively enclosed from public view, with the nearest houses in London Road being elevated above the site and separated by a good tree screen.A neighbour has objected to the application because of the noise generated from motor vehicles using the site. Whilst I am conscious of this potential for disturbance, the Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer has no objection to the proposal provided a restriction limiting the time of usage of the site is imposed on the planning permission. The previous permissions have also been subject to a restriction limiting the levels of usage of the site, which I consider prudent to re-impose this time. I note the applicants wish to extend opening hours to 2000 on Tuesdays, however, this is not considered to be acceptable having regard to the residential properties in London Road.While the Bexhill-Hastings Link Road is now a distinct possibility a temporary use is once again appropriate. I suggest a further one year taking account of the likely timing of the construction programme.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) 1. CD1G (Temporary permission) – INSERT b) the use hereby permitted shall be

discontinued & INSERT 30 September 2008.Reason: d) In order that future road proposals for the area are not prejudiced having regard to Policy TR1 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy TR21 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. The land shall not be used or occupied for the approved use before 0800 or after 1900 on weekdays; before 0800 or after 1600 on Saturdays, or at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.Reason: To preserve the residential amenities of the locality having regard to Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. No floodlighting or external lighting to the site shall take place without the prior written approval of the local planning authority and such details for approval should include methods of shielding the light source from outside of the site, and the lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality having regard to Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. Not more than 3 individual or combined motorcycle, car, trailer or disabled carriage tutorials or more than 25 cyclists under instruction shall take place or be on the site at any one time.Reason: To preserve the residential amenities of the locality having regard to Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: Use of the site for motor vehicle training for a temporary period complies with Policies GD1(i)(ii) and TR1 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy TR21 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2007/2003/P BEXHILL 24-28 SEA ROADCONVERSION OF EXISTING OFFICE AND STORAGE AREAS TO FORM 2 NO SELF CONTAINED FLATS. CHANGE OF USE OF EXISTING LIGHTING SHOP TO FORM RESTAURANT AND OFFICE AND PROPOSED NEW SHOP FRONT.Fancy Fins


35


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

SITE 24-28 Sea Road comprises a pair of semi-detached properties located on the west side of the road almost opposite the former Grand Hotel. The ground floor of the premises was formerly the ‘Bexhill Lighting and Gift Centre’. The property is located within the Bexhill Town Centre Shopping Area as defined in the Rother District Local Plan and within the conservation area.

HISTORYB/60/721 Conversion of upper floors into two self-contained flats.

Approved. (28A Sea Rd.)B/65/537 Extension to shop. Approved. (24/26 Sea Rd.)B/68/21 New shopfront. Approved. (24 Sea Rd.)B/73/0856 Proposed external staircase from ground to first floor level

between two shops. Approved. (22/24 Sea Rd.)RR/78/1788 Change of use from estate agents office to retail shop.

Approved conditional. (28 Sea Rd.)RR/78/0868 Enlargement of shop with office over and change of use of

second floor and first floor residential to offices. Approved conditional. (24 Sea Rd.)

RR/79/2337 Enlargement of shop on ground floor and provision of office and staff room on first floor. Approved. (24/26 Sea Rd.)

RR/89/1306 New replacement shopfront. Approved. (24/28 Sea Rd.)

PROPOSAL This application proposes a new replacement shopfront to both ground floor premises with the separation and change of use of the units into an A2 office at no.28 and a restaurant at no.24/26 Sea Road. The restaurant also wraps around the rear of the unit at 28 Sea Road. The existing flats above no.28 are retained with proposals to revert the upper floors of 24/26 Sea Road back into a two bedroom flat on the first floor with a one bedroom flat on the second floor. The first floor unit is accessed via the existing external staircase located within the side alley. The second floor flat within the roof space would be accessed via a new internal staircase to the rear. New rooflights are also proposed within the roof of the existing ground floor extension at the back of the property. These would provide illumination to the rear part of the proposed restaurant and the kitchen area. At present opening hours are not definitive but reference is made to possible opening 7 days a week between 11.30am and 11.30pm with extensions to 12.30 at night for functions.Further details regarding hours of opening and proposals for extraction/ventilation equipment (to go to the rear of the buildings) have been requested. Refuse storage is to be located in the courtyard to the rear of 28 Sea Road.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: Raises objections on the grounds of inadequate parking facilities. The conversion of the offices to flats is not considered objectionable as the two uses are considered to have similar demands for on-street parking. However, the existing lighting shop requires only 4 parking spaces to satisfy the County Council’s adopted parking standards, while the proposed restaurant (excluding the proposed office) has a requirement for 25 spaces. This requirement could be reduced to between 7 and 13 spaces taking into account the town centre location but in view of its location on the busy B2182 a lack of parking for the proposal would result in additional congestion on the public highway causing further interference with the free flow of traffic on the B2182 and surrounding roads.

36

Director of Services – Environmental Health: Raises concerns and requests additional information regarding the feasibility to provide a satisfactory mechanical extract ventilation system and considers the proposed opening hours 7 days a week to be excessive in this location. Advice contained within PPG24: Planning and Noise states:“Commercial developments such as fast food restaurants, discos, night clubs and public houses pose particular difficulties, not least because associated activities are often at their peak in the evening and late at night. Local planning authorities will wish to bear in mind not only the noise that is generated within the premises but also the attendant problems of noise that may be made by customers in the vicinity. The disturbance that can be caused by traffic and associated car parking should not be underestimated.”Planning Notice: 2 objections have been received on the following grounds: Too many eateries already in Sea Road. Opening hours could result in detriment to neighbours. The side access with 22 Sea Road is shared and concerns raised regarding use

of it for refuse storage. The proposed take away at No.18 has had problems regarding its extraction

equipment and any further smells or noise would be detrimental to other businesses and residential neighbours.

SUMMARY The application property is located within the Bexhill Town Centre Shopping Area and as such the proposals for business uses on the ground floor with residential above are considered to be acceptable in principle and to accord with general policies for the area. Other detailed aspects fall to be considered in relation to the criteria of other conditions, namely GD1, in respect of the impact upon the highway, residential occupiers and the conservation area. While acknowledging the concerns of the Highway Authority, the applicant is mindful that the site is nonetheless located within the town centre where on street parking is permitted and where no other comparable business provides on-site parking. He further advises that the previous business was thriving and only closing due to retirement. He considers that the traffic impact will not necessarily increase as customers are also likely to arrive by taxi. As well as a town centre location the site is on a bus route and close to the train station.Concerns raised with regard to the provision of an extract/ventilation system are also acknowledged particularly given the relationships with surrounding residential properties and the possible visual impact upon the character and appearance of the conservation area. However, it should be possible to provide a suitable system to the rear of the buildings where its visual impact and detriment to neighbours would be minimised, subject to its suitable design and insulation. In considering this concern, regard has also been given to the recent appeal against the refusal of permission for an extraction/ventilation system to serve the take-away at 18 Sea Road. This appeal has been allowed.Proposed hours of use could result in detriment for neighbours as referred in the advice contained within PPG24 (referred to above). Suitable conditions restricting opening times in the evenings should thus be imposed on any planning approval as well as any Licence application. Generally the Council has sought to close premises by 11.30pm on Thursday/Friday/Saturday where there are adjoining residential properties, with an earlier closing time particularly on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays.The proposed replacement shopfronts are of a traditional design in timber, with recessed entrance doors, stall rises, fanlight and pilaster/cornice details. The design reflects the works already undertaken within the conservation area under the HERS scheme and accords with the guidance set out in the ‘Bexhill-on-Sea Town Centre Conservation Area: Shopfronts and Signage Guidance’.The other concern raised by neighbours regarding the number of eating establishments in the area is not considered to be a planning issue in this instance. The majority of

37

other premises in the street are in A1 retail use and competition between like premises is not a reason for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO THE AGREEMENT OF DETAILS REGARDING HOURS OF OPERATION AND INSTALLATION OF A MECHANICAL EXTRACT VENTILATION SYSTEM)1. CD1A – (Standard time period).2. CD7R – (Mechanical ventilation) - Insert “… local planning authority and it shall

be installed and thereafter…” Reason: a and b. GD1(ii)(iv)(viii). S1(b)(f).

3. CD7S – (Sound insulation). Reason: as 2 above.

4. CD7M – (Restaurant hours of use) - Amend to “The premises shall not be open to customers or any other persons and no employee including a proprietor shall carry out any food preparation, cooking, and/or sales or serving to customers or any persons on the premises outside the hours of 08.00 to 23.00 on any day, and all clearing, cleaning, and any other work associated with the approved use shall not continue and no employee including a proprietor or other persons shall be in the premises to carry out such work outside the hours of 08.00 to 23.30 on any day.” Reason: a. GD1(ii)(iv)(viii). S1(b)(f)

5. CD7N – (No amplified or other music) - “ … in the premises outside the following times; 11.00 to 23.00 on any day.”

6. CD9Q – (Shopfront details) - GD1(iv)(viii).

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed change of use is considered to be appropriate in this town centre location and the new shopfront is considered to be of an appropriate design and neither will adversely affect the character or appearance of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore comply with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1 and BX5 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2007/2008/P BEXHILL 24 WESTVILLE ROADERECTION OF TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AND SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION TO FORM ADDITIONAL LIVING ACCOMMODATION INCLUDING ROOFLIGHTSMr and Mrs J O’Hara



SITE This application relates to a detached property on the east side of Westville Road. The site has a width of 19m and a depth of 38.5m.


PROPOSAL The applicant seeks permission to erect a two-storey side extension and a single-storey rear extension with rooflights, to form additional living accommodation.

38


The floor area of the existing building is some 96m². The combined floor area of the proposed extensions would increase this by 112m².

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice: – No representations received.

SUMMARY This application relates to a detached property in the Bexhill development boundary. The applicant seeks permission to erect a two-storey side extension and a single-storey rear extension with rooflights, to form additional living accommodation. These extensions would double the footprint of the existing building. Policies GD1 & HG8 of the Local Plan apply to this application.There are two issues to consider in respect of this application: design and the impact of the development on the amenities of the adjoining properties, ‘22 Westville Road’ and ‘26 Westville Road’. In terms of size, style, design and materials I am satisfied that the proposed extensions to the existing building would not detract from the character and appearance of the locality. The properties in this area are predominantly detached dwellings on large plots of land, which are characterised by a mixture of different designs. Turning to the issue of impact on amenities, Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan states that, ‘All development should be in keeping with and not unreasonably harm the amenities of adjoining properties’.The two-storey aspect of the proposal relates to ‘22 Westville Road’. Although visibly large, this extension would not have a dominant and overbearing impact on this neighbouring property by virtue of the 3.5m – 5m gap between the buildings, and the hipped roof design. In addition, the two en-suite windows at first floor level in the side elevation of this extension would be obscure glazed to ensure privacy. The single-storey extension to the rear of the property, which would be visible from ‘26 Westville Road’ would not harm the amenities of this property as it is visually small in scale and has no windows in the side elevation. Provided the insertion of additional windows into the extensions is restricted I recommend that the application is approved.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A (Time limit).2. CD8O (Restrictions on permitted development) – (INSERT south west or north

east) elevations.Reason: To preclude overlooking and thereby protect the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy GD1 (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. CD9G (Materials).Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the existing building in accordance with Policy GD1 (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. CD9N (obscure glazing) – (INSERT A extension), (INSERT B en-suite), (INSERT C first floor), (INSERT D south west), (drawing no. 07/04/03 date stamped 16 July 2007).Reason: To preserve the residential amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1 (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed extensions are of an appropriate design and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore comply with polices GD1(i)(ii)(iv) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.


39


_____________________________________________________________________

40

RR/2007/2087/P BEXHILL 12 MITTEN ROADERECTION OF TWO-STOREY EXTENSION TO PROVIDE 4 BEDROOMS WITH EN-SUITES AND LAUNDRY ROOM.Mr Ravichandran.

Statutory 8 week date: 11 September 2007.

This application was deferred at the last Planning Committee for a site inspection.

SITE The property is located on the east side of Mitten Road.

HISTORYRR/2005/1959/P Extensions to form staff room, laundry room, sensory lounge and

conservatory (amended scheme to RR/2001/2548/P – with staff room in lieu of garage) - Approved Conditional.

RR/2001/2548/P Extensions to form garage, laundry room, sensory lounge and conservatory - Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL The application proposes to erect a two-storey side extension at this small care home for mentally handicapped persons to provide four bedrooms with en-suites and a laundry room.

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice – Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY The property is located within the Bexhill development boundary. Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan applies to this application.Planning permission has previously been approved conditionally for two storey extensions on the side of the property but have not been implemented. The proposed extension is approximately 1.6 metres greater in length than the previous approval in 2005. The roof tiles, facing brick and render finish will match the existing and with the previous approvals in mind I am of the opinion that the scale and design of the extension is acceptable as it is in keeping with the existing property and should have no detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the locality.The two-storey extension will be located close to the southern boundary adjoining Cookham Dene although garages belonging to occupants of the flats in Cookham Dene are located immediately south of the boundary with 12 Mitten Road. Due to the sufficient distance between the proposed extension and neighbouring properties I am of the opinion that there is unlikely to be an adverse impact on the residential amenities of adjoining residential properties.For the above-mentioned reasons I am minded to support this application.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A.2. 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.

41

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is of an appropriate design and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2007/2234/P BEXHILL 30-34 DORSET ROADOUTLINE: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING PAIR OF SEMI-DETACHED HOUSES, BUILDERS WORKSHOP AND STORES. ERECTION OF 3 STOREY BLOCK OF 12 FLATS INCLUDING ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING ACCESS AND PROVISION OF 14 PARKING SPACESMr H W Allen



SITE The site comprises the premises of a building company together with a pair of semi-detached houses, on the east side of Dorset Road immediately north of the railway line. To the north and east the site is faced by properties in Ashdown Road. The company has occupied the site for over 100 years; there being an original workshop abutting the older houses fronting Ashdown Road and a more modern ‘industrial’ style unit adjoining the railway.

HISTORY (since 1994)RR/94/1766/P Demolition of existing workshop/store and removal of portakabin -

erection of new workshop/store – GrantedRR/2007/90/P Outline: demolition of existing pair of semi detached houses,

builders workshop and stores, erection of 3 storey block of 12 flats and alteration to existing vehicular access.

PROPOSAL This is an outline proposal to provide a block of 12 flats on three storeys. The scheme is in outline with indicative plans submitted. The bulk of the building fronts Dorset Road with a further wing projecting to the rear. The layout provides 14 car parking spaces at the rear of the site.The scheme involves the demolition of the two semi-detached houses and the removal of the commercial use.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- To be reported.Environment Agency:- To be reported.Southern Water:- To be reported.National Grid:- Proximity and sensitivity of network to proposal is negligible.Network Rail:- To be reported.Sussex Police:- To be reported.Director of Services – Environmental Health:- Recommend contaminated land condition.Planning Notice: Three objections (summarised) – Effect on sunlight Block view of sea Overlooking

42


Worsening of traffic situation for residents and school children Insufficient parking Noise has not been a problem from commercial use previously but flats would be

troublesome Area for refuse bins is worrying and potentially unpleasant Loss of security and protection of current high wall and building to rear of

existing houses Outlook would not be improved as applicants maintain Contemporary flats would not be an improvement.

SUMMARY An earlier outline application (RR/2007/90/P) for 12 flats was refused under the ‘Notified D’ procedure for the following reasons:“1. The development of the site for 12 flats would result in a building of a size and

form and in a position such as to have an adverse impact on the amenities of facing residents at 1-5 Ashdown Road. As proposed, the scheme would involve a loss of privacy to adjoining residents by potential overlooking and a building close to the northern boundary having an overbearing impact on private garden areas. As such the scheme is contrary to Policy GD1(ii) and (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. The development of the site for 12 flats with the requisite space for car parking represents an over development of the site in terms of the amount of land given over to building and to hard landscaping in the form of rear parking. The development allows insufficient private amenity space to serve the site or a landscaped interface between the parking areas and adjoining residents. The resulting development would adversely affect the existing residents whose gardens directly face the site by reason of noise and disturbance. As such the scheme is contrary to Policy GD1(i) and (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.”

The previous proposal drew objections from six adjoining properties facing the site. This proposal is again in outline for 12 flats with some amendments to the original plans aimed at reducing the direct effect on the nearest residents.The scheme involves a three storey building with a low pitched roof in a, broadly, L-shape, fronting Dorset Road and extending rear-ward nearest to the railway.The demolition of the existing building abutting the Ashdown Road properties opens-up the site and the rear block will be set further into the site than the building being demolished. On this occasion there are no main windows shown on either the east or north elevations and the building has been moved south. I am more comfortable with this arrangement, however I believe there is still scope to increase the separation between existing residents and the new building. In addition, I am not wholly satisfied with the design of the flats proposed. While this is an outline scheme the plans should indicate an appropriate scale and design of development. On the basis of these comments I have requested revised plans from the applicant which I will present to Committee. Policy EM2 was also considered at the time of the previous proposal in terms of the desirability of retaining the commercial use. The applicant’s Design and Access Statement includes the following: “It is becoming increasingly difficult for the builders yard to operate satisfactorily. Access to the site for commercial vehicles has become a daily frustration. The existing access being at the end of effectively what is a cul-de-sac means that a clear road is necessary to allow lorries to turn into the site.Unfortunately, the road is never clear due to the activities of the garage site opposite, which in recent years has been split so that there are now four separate businesses operating from what once was one. This has increased the activity considerably, resulting in many cars parked in the road restricting access.

43

It is now impossible for lorries to deliver to the application site and my client has serious Health & Safety concerns with the continued use of his own commercial vehicles.All of this is limiting the business potential and prohibits any possibility of expansion. As a result my client needs to find a more suitable site elsewhere but in order to fund this move (which also requires finding a new residence for himself) he needs to maximise the site’s value, hence this proposal.The site is already in mixed use, being part residential and the continued commercial use is not readily compatible with the other adjoining residential properties. The proposal will provide definite benefits to the adjoining residents.The site is also on an important approach to the Town, which at present looks rather shabby and run down, this proposal gives the opportunity to greatly enhance the first impression given to visitors to Bexhill.Employment will not be lost as my client wishes to continue his business within the locality and even expand if the right opportunities arise.”The applicants will look to relocate their business before any development takes place and not cease trading. This is a circumstance, therefore, where a residential use would be more appropriate for this site, which is closely bordered by other residential properties.On the assumption that the amended plans can address my earlier concerns I will recommend acceptance of the scheme.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING) DELEGATED SATISFACTORY AMENDED PLANS AND EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. CD1B (Outline permission) – (b)(c)(d)(e).2. CD1C (Outline permission)3. CD1D (Outline permission)4. CD1E (Outline permission)5. CD4D (Landscape works implementation).

Reason: Insert - (a); Policy GD1(iv) – Delete - Structure Plan references.6. CD3O (Parking). Delete – “as indicated … date stamped […]” and Insert - “as

agreed in the subsequent reserved matters.”7. CD4G (Boundary treatment). Insert - (b)

Reason: GD1(ii)(iv) and S1.8. CD6B (Drainage). Include foul and surface water.9. CD12G (Contaminated land).10. CD7T (Bin/recycling enclosures). Insert - (a) the use

Reason: Insert - (c).11. Before commencement of any demolition works a scheme for removing the

materials from the site - which shall also include retaining suitable materials on the site for re-use - shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the removal and/or storage of materials shall take place only in accordance the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory management of materials arising from demolition on the site in accordance with Policy GD1(…) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(o) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: Following the earlier refusal of outline planning permission for the same number of flats the current application with amended plans has now justified that the site is capable of accommodating a development of 12 flats with parking and amenity space in a manner appropriate for the site, respecting the general character of the area and the outlook and amenities of adjoining properties. The development accords with the criteria of Policy DS1 and GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan and the broad requirements of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton &

44

Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. In respect of Policy EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan it is accepted that perpetuation of the business use is not in the long term interests of the amenities of the area.


RR/2007/2077/P BECKLEY ABBEY LODGE, HORSESHOE LANEALTERATIONS AND CONVERSION OF EXISTING OUTBUILDING AND CHANGE OF USE TO FORM HOLIDAY LET. (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION).Mrs H Everest


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

SITE This application relates to a former garage/outbuilding located within the curtilage of Abbey Lodge, which is a detached dwelling occupying a countryside location within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYRR/2005/1670/P Repair and re-roof existing outbuilding for use as personal/family

gymnasium – ApprovedRR/2005/1872/P Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of new 2-storey

dwelling with erection of triple garage – ApprovedRR/2007/458/P Variation of condition 2 imposed upon planning permission

RR/2005/1670/P so as to allow gymnasium to be used as short term holiday let – Withdrawn

PROPOSAL Planning permission RR/2005/1670/P was granted to convert this building to a personal gymnasium in 2005 subject to a condition that it shall only be used for purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the dwelling as such and not for any trade or business. The approved plans included replacing the existing damaged mono pitched felted flat roof with a shallow pitched hipped and plain tiled roof. However, the works carried out were not in accordance with the approved plans (e.g. different roof design/windows and doors inserted into blank elevations/internal layout changed and first floor created in roof space) and the use was changed to a three-bedroom residential annexe. These changes were in breach of planning control, and following investigation from the enforcement section the applicant was advised to regularise the breach through the submission of a new application. This application therefore seeks retrospective planning permission of the works carried out and for use as a holiday let. In an accompanying letter, the agent states:“Our client, Mrs Hazel Everest will be willing and agreeable to a S106 Planning Obligation to cover(i) The holiday let unit shall be occupied for holiday purposes only and shall not be

occupied as a person’s sole, or main place of residence(ii) The owners shall maintain an up-to-date register of dates and the names of all

occupiers of the holiday let unit and of their main home address and shall make this available at reasonable times to the local planning authority (Rother District Council)

(iii) The holiday let shall not be occupied by the same person(s) for more than 56 days consecutively. Return visits by holiday persons within a twelve months period shall be notified to Rother District Council by Mrs Hazel Everest (or other

45


owner if appropriate). We add this slight change because Mrs Everest has already had an American family wishing to stay with her whilst using the accommodation to explore Sussex, Hampshire and Kent – move to Scotland for 5 weeks – and wish to return to stay at Abbey Lodge holiday accommodation for a further month before returning to the USA.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support a refusal as it would conflict with Policies HG10 and HG11 (Residential re-use and adaptation of buildings in the countryside). A letter from the acting chairman also states:“Councillors felt the application was misleading. A tumbledown outbuilding had been totally rebuilt to provide a domestic dwelling (see enclosed photo) in direct conflict with Policy DS4 and in particularly with Policy HG10 (Dwellings in the Countryside) and Policy HG11 (Residential re-use and adaptation of buildings). (Planning permission had already been granted under a previous application for a private gymnasium on the site – RR/2005/1670 but the applicant failed to mention this).”Highway Authority:- Recommend a condition requiring the on-site parking area to be provided and retained in accordance will the approved plan.Environment Agency:- Has no objection subject to a condition to control any land contamination. Advice is also given regarding the possible need to obtain their consent to discharge sewage effluent; that the local planning authority should be satisfied that soakaways will work effectively in this locality during winter periods; tree felling; storage of fuels, oils and chemicals and water conservation.Planning Notice:- 2 letters of objection – increased traffic resulting from Abbey Lodge Health and Beauty Clinic and the holiday let is more than lane was ever meant to cope with; if approved you will be receiving a flood of applications to turn garages into personal gyms; it has never been a gym and they built a 2/3 bedroom house instead; why should they be trusted; planning permission was refused to run a business from the house but they have gone ahead anyway and even advertise the fact; water treatment plant to serve gym never had permission and was dug into the area where the sewage from the septic tank serving Copplestone and Lismoyle discharge and because of this, have had to install our own plant in our garden; current building should be knocked down or re-converted for use as a shed; blatant attempt to get round planning laws.

SUMMARY Notwithstanding the Parish Council’s objection on grounds that the proposal would conflict with Policies HG10 and HG11 of the Rother District Local Plan, those Policies relate to new dwellings in the countryside. However, this application is for use as a holiday let and falls to be judged against Policy EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan. This states:“Re-use and adaptation of buildings in the countryside for employment purposes, including tourism, or as community facilities that accord with Policy CF1, will be permitted provided:-(i) they are of permanent and substantial construction (including modern buildings);(ii) they are capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction(iii) their form, bulk and general design are in keeping with their surroundings;(iv) the proposal would not detract from the character of the building or its setting;(v) the proposed use either has an acceptable impact on its surroundings, including

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

(vi) re-use and adaptation complies with other relevant policies in the Plan.”

In this case, it needs to be borne in mind that although the building’s current use is in breach of planning control, the planning permission granted, but not implemented, for

46

use as a gymnasium, would have resulted in a building of improved construction and appearance and would have been capable of conversion to a holiday let without major or complete reconstruction. Its form, bulk and general design is in keeping with its surroundings and the Highway Authority have not objected to the proposal. It is my opinion therefore that the use complies with the above policy and that a refusal of planning permission would not be justified, especially as the applicant has agreed to enter into a Section 106 Obligation securing its use as a holiday let and not a person’s sole or main place of residence.With regard to local concern about drainage, it would be appropriate to impose a condition upon any grant of planning permission requesting details of surface water drainage and to add a note drawing the applicant’s attention to the comments of the Environment Agency and possible need to obtain their consent to discharge sewage effluent. The allegation that Abbey Lodge is being used to operate a Beauty Clinic is being separately investigated.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO COMPLETION OF S106 OBLIGATION)1. The holiday let unit shall be occupied for holiday purposes only and shall not be

occupied as a person’s sole or main place of residence.Reason: To ensure that approved holiday accommodation is not used for unauthorized permanent residential occupation in accordance with Policies GD1(ii)(iii)(iv)(v) and EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(b)(d), S11(b), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. The owners shall maintain an up-to-date register of the names of all occupiers of the individual holiday let units and of their main home addresses, and shall make this information available at all reasonable times to the local planning authority.Reason: To ensure that approved holiday accommodation is not used for unauthorised permanent residential occupation in accordance with Policies GD1(ii)(iii)(iv)(v) and EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(b)(d), S11(b), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. The holiday let unit shall not be occupied for more than 56 days in total in any calendar year by any one person.Reason: To ensure that approved holiday accommodation is not used for unauthorised permanent residential occupation in accordance with Policies GD1(ii)(iii)(iv)(v) and EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(b)(d), S11(b), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. Within three months from the date of this permission, details of surface water drainage works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drainage works shall be provided in accordance with the approved details within six months from the date of this permission, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.Reason: [As in CD6B]

5. CD3O amended “The existing hardstanding provisions within the site and shown on the submitted plans, …”. (Parking/turning provision).

Notes:1. N12A Section 106 Obligation to reinforce conditions 1, 2 and 3 above.2. The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of the Environment Agency

and contained in their letter dated 27 July 2007.

47

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The alterations/conversion and change of use already carried out to an existing building in the countryside does not adversely affect the character of the area or amenities of the locality and does not adversely affect highway safety. It therefore complies with Policies GD1(ii)(iii)(iv)(v) and EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(b)(d), S11(b), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2007/2113/P BECKLEY HERON LEA, HOBBS LANEREPLACEMENT AND RESITING OF KENNEL BLOCK.Mr K G Curley


SITE The site lies to the east side of Hobbs Lane within 4.8 hectares of land in a predominantly rural area set within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposed kennel block is to be sited adjacent to established outbuildings on existing agricultural land, it is proposed to be accessed from the northern access to the site. The kennel block is immediately surrounded by land in the applicant’s ownership with the nearest neighbour being some 150m to the north.

HISTORY (Relevant) A/61/593 Boarding kennels for dogs – division of shed and additional of lean

to – Approved.RR/89/0710/PD Demolition of outbuildings and construction of double garage and

implement shed – Approved Conditional.RR/92/1245/P Provision of dormer windows to garage to provide games room –

Approved Conditional. RR/2001/974/O Lawful occupation of dwelling without compliance with the

agricultural occupancy condition – Lawful DC Refused.

PROPOSAL This application seeks planning permission to replace existing kennels with a new kennel block sited in a different position on existing agricultural land. The unit comprises 20 kennels set in parallel ranges comprising sleeping areas and exercise runs with a central walkway. The unit will be some 25.6m by 11.5m with a height of 3.2m; it will be finished with a tiled roof and clad in dark brown timber to match Heron Lea and the detached garage.Two supporting letters have been received from the applicant; these are attached as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee dated 13 September 2007.

CONSULTATIONS Parish Council – Support refusal. “Councillors were unanimous in their objection to this proposal. The existing kennels at Heron Lea have, we believe been sited there for approx two years and are used solely by the owners dogs. Councillors thus regard the new kennel block, as a commercial venture, for which change of use would be required. Concern was expressed about noise from the 20 kennel block, and the effect this would have on neighbours.”Highway Authority – Do not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to the observations below:“This application proposes to replace and to re-site an existing kennel block which will not result in an overall increase of use at this site. It is evident that as part of the

48


proposal 6 parking spaces are to be provided which satisfies the County Council’s adopted parking standards and on that basis I do not wish to raise an objection.”Environment Agency – Has no objection to the proposal subject to a foul and surface water condition being attached to any permission.Director of Services – Environmental Health – Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice – 9 letters of objection concerned with the following: Hobbs Lane is a single track lane with very few passing points, a commercial

dog kennels would create extra traffic to the detrimental and safety of the lane. Unacceptable noise. The disposal of excrement and other waste and the smell. Local wildlife may cause a further increase in barking. Delivery and collection of animals. Delivery of supplies necessary for the running of commercial boarding kennels. Detrimental affect on AONB. This area is farming land with various loose animals. It would be catastrophic if

a domestic animal escapes from the kennels. Decrease value of my house. Run off water from more concrete and tarmac. In my view this has nothing to do with the existing “kennels”, which currently

house the family’s dogs, which were originally built to house a collection of birds of prey and have only latterly been used to house the family’s dogs.

The land on which the new block is proposed to be ’re-sited’ is agricultural within a designated High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and not presently used, which would contribute a complete change of use.

Poor access.1 letter of general observation raising the following points: Without proper maintenance of the hedgerow visibility in/out of the site would be

restricted, which could result in an accident. The field is known to flood and drain into the gardens of Burnt House Cottages,

our concerns would be added pollution if the soakaways were to overflow or not be of substantial size to retain the foul water from the kennels.

2 letters in support of the proposal from the applicant. These have been attached as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 13 September 2007.

SUMMARY Heron Lea occupies a predominantly rural location set within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to the east side of Hobbs Lane. Consent is sought to replace an existing kennel block, which comprises 12 outside and 1 inside unit, with a new kennel block comprising 20 indoor units proposed to be located on existing agricultural land to the east of existing outbuildings.Prior to this application being submitted written advice was given to the applicant which did not discourage an application. Since undertaking a site inspection of the site and assessing the full impact of the proposed kennel block on this rural location, I have come to the view that whilst a replacement kennel block may be acceptable in principle, the proposed location on which it is to be sited is not an ideal position. Although sited adjacent to existing outbuildings, the kennel block is on agricultural land within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This will tend to result in an extension of buildings in an area where Local Plan and Structure Plan Policies indicate a strong assumption that agricultural land will remain the main land use and development and change in the countryside will be strictly controlled. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies DS1(vi)(ix) and GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Government Advice contained in PPS7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’.A large amount of the correspondence received raises concerns with regard to noise. Comments from the Environmental Health Officer have yet to be received, and any comments will be reported. I therefore make the following recommendation.

49

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

Policies S1(j), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, Policies DS1(vi) and GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Government Advice in PPS7 indicate that development will be carefully controlled to protect the character of the area. It is considered that this proposal by reason of its siting does not meet this objective and it would cause harm to the rural character of the area.

2. It is not considered necessary or desirable for the development to be sited on agricultural land where Policies S10, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy DS1(ix) of the Rother District Local Plan seek to conserve existing agricultural and woodland land uses. The proposal does not meet this objective and it would cause harm to the rural character of the area.


RR/2007/2236/P BECKLEY KINGS BANK LANE – LAND AT (OS PARCEL NO 4215 AND PART PARCEL NO 3812)OUTLINE: ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY DWELLINGMr J Larkin



SITE This application relates to a 0.06 hectare plot of land, which is situated on the east side of Kings Bank Lane some 756m away from the nearest development boundary. The site is also within High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYRR/2007/1023/P Outline: Erection of single-storey dwelling including formation of

new vehicular access – Refused for the following reason:“The site lies within the High Weald AONB outside any town or village as defined in the Rother District Local Plan. Policies GD1 (iv), (v) & HG10 (iii) & (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and policies S1 (f), (j), S10 (a), (c), EN2 & EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 aim to protect the countryside in general and the High Weald AONB in particular and contain a strong presumption against residential development outside the built up areas unless it meets one of the exceptions described in the plans. The site lies in an open rural location and fulfils none of the exceptional criteria for new development. The erection of a further dwelling would be detrimental to the character and amenity of the rural area.”

PROPOSAL The applicant has submitted this outline planning application on behalf of his son Mr G Larkin, for the erection of a single-storey dwelling on this plot of land. Outline planning permission was refused in respect of the same development in June of this year. This is a repeat application but is accompanied by supporting information from the applicant and his son dealing with:

50


The personal circumstances and the inappropriateness of Mr G Larkin’s current accommodation.

Two medical letters in support of the application.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: – Comments awaited.Highway Authority: – No objection to the proposal provided highway conditions are attached to any planning permission granted.Planning Notice: – No representations received.

SUMMARY This is an outline application for the erection of a single-storey dwelling on a parcel of land, which is situated outside of a recognised development boundary and is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Outline planning permission was refused in respect of the same development in June of this year because it would have introduced new residential development in the countryside. Policies GD1 & HG10 of the Local Plan and Policies S1, S10, EN2 & EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 apply to this new application.Policy HG10 of the Local Plan and Policy S10 of the Structure Plan require that any proposal for a new dwelling in the countryside must be demonstrated by the applicant to be essential for the running of an enterprise, which must be in a countryside location, or is needed for local people who are unable to compete in the local housing market.The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed development would meet either of these criteria. Supporting information cites personal circumstances and the inappropriateness of Mr G Larkin’s current accommodation as the reasons why the proposed dwelling is required. However, the personal circumstances do not add weight in a situation of this nature where the building would continue to exist long after the occupier with the personal circumstances had ceased to reside there. This application does not accord with planning policy criteria for a new dwelling in the countryside and is recommended for refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. The site lies within the High Weald AONB outside any town or village as defined

in the Rother District Local Plan. Policies GD1 (iv), (v) & HG10 (iii) & (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1 (f), (j), S10 (a), (c), EN2 & EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 aim to protect the countryside in general and the High Weald AONB in particular and contain a strong presumption against residential development outside the built up areas unless it meets one of the exceptions described in the plans. The site lies in a rural location and fulfils none of the exceptional criteria for new development. The erection of a further dwelling would be detrimental to the character and amenity of the rural area.


RR/2007/2245/P SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE 22 HIGH STREET, ROBERTSBRIDGECHANGE OF USE OF POST OFFICE TO RESIDENTIALMr D J Claydon


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

51


SITE The post office is a C17 timber framed, listed building, which fronts the eastern side of High Street.


PROPOSAL The proposal contained in this planning application is the change of use of the premises from a post office with ancillary sales to a dwelling. A supporting statement is included in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 13 September 2007. This indicates that the applicant wishes to retain a post office in Robertsbridge, however Royal Mail is closing the sorting office facility at the premises, which will significantly reduce income. The statement explains that this is a loss that the applicant is unable to sustain as he is already using income from the sorting office to subsidise the post office. Consequently, the applicant concludes that, whilst he must accept closure of the existing post office premises, his intention would be to relocate the post office facility across the road to another property he leases (15 High Street) and operate this in conjunction with a travel agency currently at the premises.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Any comments will be reported to your meeting.Planning Notice:- 179 letters of support have been received. (The vast majority of these are signed and addressed copies of a standard open letter) – “Having been made aware of the changes taking place at our local Post Office I

fully support the action of Mr Claydon is trying to take in order to keep a Post Office in Robertsbridge.His reasons are very sound and I can see that he is doing all he can to keep this vital local facility. Should the Post Office close then this will have such a devastating effect on the Village and I could see other business also having to close. The important thing is that we retain a Post Office.Will you please register my support for this application.”

“I am writing to confirm my support for the above application. My prime concern is that we keep a Post Office in Robertsbridge and having heard the reasons for the change of use to the premises at 22 High Street, Robertsbridge it seems to be a very logical and reasonable request.Will you please register my support for this application.”

I am aware that the general policy of the local authority is to retain shops in High Street, which would normally have my full support. However, the current owner needs to get the maximum return from the sale of the current premises to fund the move

The likelihood of attracting an alterative shop use to the existing post of premises is remote

The mixture of house and shop use of the premises in High Street is already well established

The proposal is the only realistic option available to keep a post office in the village

Residential use is likely to enhance the chances of the historic building being maintained

There is precedent for this change of use the most recent being when the motor cycle shop on the northern side of Station Road became residential

One comprehensive letter of support received with regard to Local Plan Policy from Mr Maltman –

52

Nowhere in the Rother District Local Plan is it indicated that there is a ban on change of use of a post office or shop (both Class A1), to a private dwelling. In Robertsbridge itself there have been many such changes of use

Local needs for economic prosperity, social cohesion and environmental protection are core considerations in shaping the Local Plan. The application will permit the continuing presence of a post office in the village and provide economic prosperity, social cohesion and quality of life

Closure of the post office would detract in considerable measure from the vibrant and inclusive community sought by the Rother Plan and change of use should be granted to preserve the quality of life

The proposed change of use meets sustainable development criteria outlined in Policy DS1(i)(ii)(iv)(vi)

Community Facilities – ‘The Council aims through this plan to foster the provision of a broad range of facilities that contribute to the viability of communities’. The achievement of these objectives would not be assisted by the closure of the post office. Policy CF1 states that ‘Proposals for new or improved community facilities will be permitted within development boundaries where they accord with criteria in Policies GD1 and DS1.’ It would be perverse not to permit the retention of the post office

Shopping - ‘Access to shops and services particularly those that meet day to day needs is a vital aspect of sustainable development’ (page 72)

Policy EM15 paragraph 2 - ‘The loss of shop premises providing a vital service to a local community (such as a general store) to another use will only be permitted if it is demonstrated that the existing business is no longer viable.’

A number of important considerations emerge form the above policies. The vital importance of access to shops and services for day to day needs; the focus they provide for local communities; and the government enunciated need to sustain, enhance and retain the vitality and viability of town/village centres. The presence of a post office is as very important part of achieving these aims

A significant part of the services formerly provided by small post offices have, by government edict, been withdrawn. Royal Mail has decided to close the sorting office behind the post office in Robertsbridge which provided 45% of the income of the post office, and enabled it to remain viable. The post office is no longer viable and therefore under Policy EM15 a change of use should be granted

The Rother District Council Planning Handbook lists ‘material planning considerations’. The proposal does not impinge adversely in respect of any of the outlined material considerations

The writer refers to the granting of change of use of no.12 High Street, Flimwell from post office to domestic use

One letter of general comment has been received – The present building is of historical value (the longest continuous post office in

the country), and far more spacious and convenient for its purpose Is it not possible for the Council to provide some help in encouraging him to

move his Global Travel over to the post office and not the other way round? Concern about the lease; should the leaseholder decide not to renew the lease

we should be left without a post officeTwo letters of objection have been received – There has been no decision made by Royal Mail as to whether the sorting office

will close and/or the post office The letter that has been circulated by the planning applicant contains several

points of misinformation The change of use has no benefit to Robertsbridge or its residents, only the

applicant Set precedent for further similar change of use

53

22 High Street should be tested for any commercial viability before its use is changed

The building is one of, if not the oldest post office in the country, and therefore of some considerable historic interest which should remain

The proposal would not be in keeping with the High Street which is slowly losing its community of shops

SUMMARY This application is for the change of use of a property presently used as a post office with ancillary retail sales to a private dwelling. Under the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 a post office falls into the same use class as a shop (Class A1). The proposal should be determined against Policy EM15 of the Local Plan which seeks to retain retail business in the interest of safeguarding the vitality of village communities. Policy EM15 includes the following:“The loss of shop premises providing a vital service to a local community (such as a general store) to another use will only be permitted if it is demonstrated that the existing business is no longer viable.”No evidence has been provided with the application to demonstrate that there is no demand from other potential occupiers to retain the property in Class A1 retail use (such as any evidence of a marketing exercise having been carried out). Whilst each application falls to be determined on its individual merits, Members will recall the relatively recent refusal of application RR/2006/2723/P for the change of use of 12-14 Station Road from ground floor shop to residential on the grounds that the loss of a shop premises would be harmful to the economic wellbeing of the village. An appeal against this refusal has recently been dismissed and a copy of the appeal decision letter is attached as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 13 September 2007. On the basis of the evidence provided I would consider that the subject property before you is suitable for continued retail use – particularly in view of its High Street location and lack of evidence of marketing.In the supporting information the applicant states that it is his intention to move the post office facility into a premises he leases on the other side of High Street and operate this in conjunction with his travel agency business. Clearly, the retention of the post office is commendable and there are no objections to this – moreover, it could also be done without the need for planning permission. The supporting information does not, however, provide any overriding justification as to why the change of use of the existing post office premises to residential use is a necessary component of this scheme. Furthermore, whilst the applicant’s intentions are not called into question, it has to be said that, if planning permission is granted for this change of use, there can be no guarantee under planning that the post office use will continue in the leased travel agency premises as that part of the proposal falls outside the scope of this application.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. Notwithstanding that the site is within the Development Boundary for

Robertsbridge as identified in the Local Plan, the proposal would result in the loss of a shop premises that provides a vital service to the local community and contributes to the vitality of the village and the rural economy in general. Furthermore, the premises is located close to the centre of the village, which allows it to be readily accessed on foot from residential areas and reduces the potential need to make journeys by car, in accordance with the Government sustainable development policies. The supporting information put forward with the application has been noted, however the Planning Committee considers that it has not been demonstrated that the existing use of the premises cannot be sustained as being economically viable. The development conflicts with Policy S1(c) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy EM15 of the Rother District Local Plan.

54


RR/2007/1911/P WESTFIELD WOODLANDS WAY - LAND ATPROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING ERECTION OF 49 DWELLINGS INCLUDING 20 AFFORDABLE UNITS WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS, CAR PARKING AND OPEN SPACE.Millwood Designer Homes Ltd


This site has been added to the list of site inspections.

SITE The application site lies on the northern edge of Hastings and comprises about 1.56 hectares of land associated with the Michael Tyler furniture factory to the west. The site is largely open and undeveloped but there are also currently two bungalows within the site. To the south are properties on The Ridge and to the east detached properties in Parkwood Road. To the north is open countryside within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which slopes away from the high point of The Ridge and includes an area of preserved ancient woodland. On the northwest side are some established bungalows with a new dwelling being constructed abutting the application site.While generally of an open nature, the site does contain numerous trees on its borders and until recently (before being felled) there were some fine mature trees – notably larch and oak – within the site. Following the felling of these trees a Tree Preservation Order was imposed on the remaining trees.

HISTORYThe site has no specific history in terms of applications but the allocation of the land for housing was proposed in the draft Local Plan and objections were considered at the Local Plan Public Inquiry. Extracts from the Inspector’s Report are included in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 13 September 2007.

PROPOSAL This is a full planning application for 49 dwellings. Of these 20 are affordable units. In detail the scheme provides 28 private houses (of varying sizes and types), one private flat, 12 affordable houses (all terraced) and 8 affordable flats.Access into the site as from the unadopted Woodlands Way which currently serves the existing factory, the associated bungalows on the application site and five other dwellings. Leaving Woodlands Way, entrance to the site follows the line of an unmade track serving the two bungalows, but its upgrading involves the removal of a significant line of trees bordering the boundary of 420 The Ridge.Inside the site there is a single main cul-de-sac running east and then north, with two secondary culs-de-sac served from it.The southern part of the site contains mainly terraced units, while to the north the density reduces to the countryside boundary. The scheme is mainly two storey but with some three storey elements.As well as those trees previously felled within the site, and those to be removed to provide the access, a considerable number of other trees are to be removed to facilitate the proposed layout. The accompanying Arboricultural Report suggests the removal of no Category A trees, 6 Category B trees and 39 individual or groups of Category C trees. Works will be necessary to many others.

55


The application is also accompanied by an Ecological Report which raises no significant issues (passed to Natural England) and a Transport Statement (forwarded to the County Highway Authority).

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- No objection.Highway Authority:- To be reported.East Sussex County Council:- To be reported.Environment Agency:- No objection in principle on drainage grounds but suggest the need for a flood risk assessment in terms of surface water and the existing watercourses.Southern Water:- Currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal. Additional off-site sewers or improvements to existing sewers will be required to provide sufficient capacity.Sussex Police:- “a) The location is a low/medium risk crime area.b) I have examined the detail within this application from a crime prevention

viewpoint and as a result I offer the following comments.Firstly, the proposed layout being a cul-de-sac, creates excellent ‘defensible space’, which will enable residents to exercise control over their own environment and self-police it. I have a slight concern regarding the courtyard car parking, with access under Unit 39, which is a FOG. I am of the opinion that the local youth will find this irresistible and will gather under the entrance, causing a public nuisance. I would therefore prefer this access to have gated controlled access.Secondly, the affordable housing will have to achieve approval under the police initiative ‘Secured by Design’.”Natural England:- To be reported.Director of Services – Head of Housing:- To be reported.Director of Services – Head of Amenities:- To be reported.Planning Notice:- Objections from eight adjoining properties (summarised) – Residents not consulted in person Insufficient publicity Overdevelopment Increase of traffic on The Ridge Object to tower block of flats Object to any felling (or implied felling) of trees on adjacent property Future danger to trees if buildings too close to trees Three storey houses too high opposite Parkwood Road properties Overlooking from high properties 49 properties too many Covenant on part of land prevents additional buildings in Woodlands Way Ecological report does not take into account loss of trees previously and

reduction of habitat as a result Loss of further natural habitat Badger sett must be considered Will there be a permanent physical barrier between properties and eastern ditch? Development does not integrate or complement with neighbouring properties (in

line with PPS3) Loss of too many more trees Bats affected by loss of previous trees Underplays badger activity No assessment of cumulative impact of developments on The Ridge Distances to new house adjoining over estimated. House on Plot 22 too high in

relation to new house

56

No proposals to strengthen tree belt around site

SUMMARY The site is an identified housing site, subject to Policy HF2 of the adopted Local Plan which states:“Land off Woodlands Way, Hastings, as shown on the Proposals Map, is allocated for housing purposes. Proposals will be permitted where:(i) at least 30 dwellings are provided, of which 40% are affordable;(ii) appropriate improvements are made to Woodland Way and its junction with The

Ridge;(iii) development does not intrude into views from the Area of Outstanding Natural

Beauty to the north;(iv) the tree belt on the south side of the site is strengthened.”The latest scheme has followed some pre-application discussions (that had reduced the developer’s original aspirations for more dwellings on the site). The purpose of this report is to set out the state of current negotiations on the scheme: Members also having had an opportunity to visit the site to understand the proposal and its context. At this stage I am not in a position to make a formal recommendation. Development for residential purposes has been accepted, in principle, through the Local Plan process. The issue is one of achieving a satisfactory layout which respects the amenities of adjoining properties, does not significantly prejudice views from the AONB to the north, respects the preserved and other trees to remain within and around the site, and is a well designed and good quality development in all other respects (having regard to Policies GD1 and HF2 of the adopted Local Plan in particular). In addition the site is to deliver affordable housing.The Local Plan has a requirement for at least 30 houses and while the number proposed is significantly more, I am broadly satisfied that the site can accommodate an increase over the minimum level. The layout proposed is a logical way of developing the site, which broadly slopes down, south to north. It is also relatively secluded assisted by the comparatively large gardens of many of the surrounding properties and with trees around much of its borders.The layout gives a good mix of houses and includes a few low rise flats. The design and proposed materials are appropriate and, in this context, being a relatively self-contained site the design is not constrained by any particular style or design. The affordable housing element is acceptable and agreement has been reached with the Orbit Housing Association.There are, however, still matters to be resolved and I detail these below. Some matters refer to particular houses or groups of houses, other issues are of a generic nature. These are matters discussed already with the applicants and their response is anticipated prior to the Committee meeting.

Access point:The access to the site follows the route of the existing track serving the land and is in the position shown indicatively in the Local Plan. However the necessary upgrading to give an estate road of an adoptable standard will – by reason of the narrowness of the existing route before levels change next to the factory car park – involve felling a fine row of trees on the entrance to the site (including two specifically preserved oak and beech trees). I have asked the developers to look at the precise alignment of the road again as retaining these trees will create a very pleasant entrance to the site as well as retaining an existing screen to the garden of 420 The Ridge.

Building groups. Plots 7-10 and 11-14:In the south east corner of the site there are two terraces proposed. These are relatively tightly positioned close to both preserved and unpreserved trees including a

57

strong line of ash trees on the southern boundary and to facing residents. I have concerns about the following:– The heights of Plots 11-14 (which include a full three storey unit)– The areas of frontage parking– Proximity to the retained trees– No provision of additional landscaping on the southern boundary– Closeness to facing properties

Plots 14, 15, 27 and 28:These four plots (one of which has already been referred to) are all full three storey houses. I understand the townscape/design reasons for this but, in my view on Plots 14 and 15 full three storey houses close to the rear gardens of the Parkwood Road properties would be overly intrusive. I have less concern about the other two higher houses in the context of the site, though I do not doubt they will make the small estate more prominent from the adjoining properties.

Plot 22:On the land adjoining the application site in the north west corner a detached chalet bungalow is being built. Although angled slightly away from its rear boundary it is at a lower level and its garden will directly face the full two storey side of the house on Plot 22. Although there are no living windows in this direction I am concerned that Plot 22 is very close to a boundary which the Local Plan shows to be strengthened. There appears to be no provision for planting and at present the higher house would be quite intrusive to the neighbour.

Parking:I have four issues with the parking arrangements shown at present:(i) All of the private houses have at least two spaces per dwelling although two mid-

terraced houses have spaces slightly separate from their curtilages. This arrangement is acceptable. However not all of the affordable units have sufficient parking and some have parking spaces which are unreasonably remote from the dwellings served. The applicants are considering this matter.

(ii) Even if car parking is sufficient, there are areas (plots 7-10 and 11-14 already referred to) where the extent of frontage parking should be reconsidered in conjunction with the overall reassessment of this area.

(iii) There is one area of remote communal parking which could be acceptable subject to the enclosed area having gate-controlled access to prevent vandalism and safeguard the security of adjoining dwellings.

As a general point, curtilage parking is always difficult for terraced houses but more imagination is required to create a pleasant streetscape not dominated with frontage parking.

Amenity area:An informal amenity area is proposed backing onto gardens in Parkwood Road. This will be subject to a private management agreement together with the road which is not being put up for adoption. Security is important here for adjoining residents. Appropriate fencing and landscaping can be secured by conditions.

Surface water issues:Residents have queried the destination of surface water. There are drainage ditches around the south and east boundaries of the site which ultimately drain northwards and are likely to be used. However, attenuation will be necessary on site before discharge.

58

For visual and wildlife reasons I would not wish these ditches altered in any significant manner. The Environment Agency suggest the need for a flood risk assessment in relation to the watercourse.

Trees and buffer zones:The scheme provides some limited undeveloped ‘buffer zones’ on the south and east boundaries and takes into account the trees to remain inside and outside the site in terms of root protection areas. However, the trees around the boundary are large or have the potential to grow into large trees. The relationship of many of the proposed dwellings on the boundaries of the development and trees is very tight and will inevitably lead to pressure to prune or even fell the trees. This is particularly the case on the southern boundary where there is a line of ash trees which are over 25m in height, and to some extent on the eastern and northern boundaries where some gardens are shorter in length and will be dominated by the trees and will suffer loss of light. In addition, so that development does not intrude into the views from the High Weald AONB to the north the Local Plan states that the tree belt on the southern boundary should be strengthened. At present there is no evidence of any significant allowance for new planting on the southern boundary to ensure the requirements of the Local Plan are met, or on the rest of the site to screen the development. In fact several major trees are shown to be removed on the southern boundary. The areas where planting is to take place should be shown on the plan and protected to prevent compaction of the soil. I await the applicants’ amended plans to see how any revisions address these matters. Finally on this point it would be fair to say the plans do not acknowledge the mature trees in the centre of the site which were felled before the application was submitted and which, if retained, might have led to a different layout.

Refuse and recycling:The applicants assure me that there is sufficient space to meet the Council’s operational requirements but I have requested enlarged plans to be satisfied that this does work for each plot.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (RECEIPT OF AMENDED PLAN TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES RAISED IN THIS REPORT)


RR/2007/1575/P RYE RYE FISHERIES, ROCK CHANNELINTERNAL ALTERATIONS AND CHANGE OF USE OF FISH PROCESSING UNIT TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WORKSHOPS. FORMATION OF NEW HARDSTANDING AND PARKING AREA.Rye Partnership


This application was considered by the August 2007 Planning Committee when a decision was deferred for further information.

SITE The proposal relates to the substantial modern two storey fish processing building, which is located off the east side of Fishmarket Road and Rock Channel. The site is within the development boundary but just outside the boundary of the Rye Conservation Area.

59


HISTORY (Relevant) RR/94/0355/P Extend use-sorting/weighing/packing/wholesaling/retailing of sea

food products, vivier tanks, construct boat moorings – Approved conditional.

RR/96/1034/P Extension for box washing and storage/workshop. Addition of two canopies and first floor windows – Approved conditional.

RR/2003/3239/P Reclad building and form new opening – Approved conditional.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to change the use of the fish processing unit to light industrial workshops. The whole unit is currently used for fish processing, this application proposes to divide the unit to create six light industrial workshops for use by local small business. Amended plans indicate that the existing fish Market, processing area and retail area will remain in the south western corner of the building. Amended plans also show that a 4 metre buffer zone will remain adjacent to the listed ‘Ferry Cottage’, which abuts the site to the south.

CONSULTATIONS Town Council – Support approval. Subject to retention/installation of a minimum 6m grassed/planted buffer zone – including appropriate trees/hedgerow between the site and the rear of Ferry Cottage.Highway Authority – Do not wish to restrict grant of consent.Director of Services – Environmental Health – Have no objection to the proposal provided that conditions are attached to any permission.Planning Notice – 2 letters of objection concerned with the following; Should be no alteration to the protection Ferry Cottage has under the existing

consent (RR/94/0355/P), where a six metre buffer zone was established. Does not preserve or enhance the attractiveness of the listed Ferry Cottage. Rock Channel Brief has been published and I note para’s 58, 130 and 131 would

apply to this proposal. If a six metre buffer area was regarded as necessary in 1994, when no car park

was envisaged, then it is doubly necessary when a car park and factory outlets are to be established

1 letter of objection from Rye Fishermen’s Association concerned with the following:“The Rye Fishermen’s Association would like to object most strongly about the change of use of the Fish market building at Simmons Quay, it has always been understood by us that this building would provide facilities for 3 fish salesman not 1 as your plan shows. The fishing industry in Rye is one of few fishing ports in the country that is increasing, we are now one of the most modern ports in the country thank to large financial input from central government and the environment agency.The 6 workshops that are propose could be completely alien to the fishing industry who normally operate 24Hrs a day, there would be complaints about noise at unsocial hours and naturally smell in the end we believe it would mean the closure of this facility and without the means to sell our product the end of fishing in Rye.”Rye Conservation Society initially had no objection; however further comments were received on the 3 July stating:“It has been brought to our attention that this application includes the loss of a landscape buffer zone established between the factory building and adjacent housing. We wish to confirm that this society objects to this part of the application as the loss of this strip would be seriously detrimental to the neighbour’s amenities and the area as a whole.”

60

A letter from Mr D Grant in objection to the proposal has been received. As this letter raises a number of detailed issues I have attached it as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 13 September 2007.

SUMMARY Policy RY3 of the Rother District Local Plan identifies some 7ha of land in the vicinity of Rock Channel (of which the site forms part) for selective redevelopment for housing, open space and commercial uses that complement the town’s tourism and marine functions as well as suitable office uses.This Policy requires that detailed proposals for the area should be formulated through the means of a development brief. The draft development brief went on public exhibition on 3 August 2007.The draft development brief states that the desire to rearrange the accommodation at the fish processing plant has been identified, either by way of a new building or by remodelling the existing structure. The brief also states the potential of this site with its neighbouring uses, to establish an area with a district character and a concentrated hub of maritime-related activity is significant. The fishing industry has an important role within Rye and this is shown by the correspondence received by the Rye Fisherman’s Association. It is therefore important to establish that the loss of a significant part of the fish processing capabilities of the unit will not have an adverse impact on the fishing industry in Rye. Further information has been requested from the applicant on 3 August 2007 with regard to this issue.At the time of writing this report no such correspondence has been received from the applicant. It has therefore not been demonstrated to my satisfaction that the proposed change of use to light industrial workshops will not have an adverse impact upon the fishing industry and is the most effective use of the land in this locality. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy RY3(i) of the Rother District Local Plan and I am unable to support this proposal. RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the local planning authority

that the proposed change of use to light industrial workshops will not have an adverse impact upon the established and future fishing industry in Rye, and is the most effective use of land in this locality. As such the proposal does not meet the objectives of Policy RY3(i) of the Rother District Local Plan.

ND2 (Ref 06.339/03A) date stamped 30 July 2007 (Ref 06.339/02A) date stamped 21 June 2007


RR/2007/2045/P RYE 113 WINCHELSEA ROAD, WILLOW TREE HOUSEREBUILDING OF SINGLE STOREY OUTBUILDING (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Mr S Crumpler and Ms W Mullins


RR/2007/2046/L RYE 113 WINCHELSEA ROAD, WILLOW TREE HOUSEREBUILDING OF SINGLE STOREY OUTBUILDING Mr S Crumpler and Ms W Mullins


61


SITE This 18th century two storey listed building fronts the west side of the A259 trunk road and is within the development boundary for Rye Town as defined in the Rother District Local Plan. It is outside the boundary of the Conservation Area.

HISTORYRR/2003/2173/P Erection of new conservatory (glass and timber) to rear elevation.

Alterations to interior and external repairs – ApprovedRR/2003/2178/L Erection of new conservatory (glass and timber) to rear elevation.

Alterations to interior and external repairs – Listed Building Consent Granted

PROPOSAL To obtain retrospective planning permission for the single storey flat roofed outbuilding that has recently been attached to the southern end of the dwelling. This measures approximately 4.3m x 2.4m and has been constructed using red bricks with white fascia and felt roof covering. The structure replaced an existing outbuilding of similar size and flat roof design. In a supporting letter, the applicants state:-“We purchased Willow Tree House (formerly Western House) in May 2003 and the outbuilding (as per the photograph previously sent in) was already built.During our refurbishment of the property we applied for all the required planning permissions as your records will show. As we neared completion of our project, we realised that the outhouse had become structurally unsafe (roof and floor had collapsed). We asked our architects (Ratcliffe Stott) who were supervising the refurbishment if we required planning permission to re-build the outhouse to make it safe. We were told by Ratcliffe Stott that as it was an existing building we did not need planning permission as it was like for like. We subsequently re-built and made safe the structure using the exact same footprint, brick type and roofing materials.We were obviously surprised to receive notification that we had breached planning regulations. We have restored this house, at great expense, within what we believed the regulations required.We are now applying, as requested, for retrospective planning for the outhouse.”A copy letter dated 6 August 2007 from Michael Stott rebutting the applicants’ claim contained in the above supporting letter can be viewed on the website. A copy email sent on 13 August 2007 from the applicants refuting Mr Stott’s rebuttal can also be viewed on the website.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- Support approval.Planning Notice:- Rye Conservation Society – Object as extension is crude in appearance and not worthy of listed building.

SUMMARY Notwithstanding the applicants’ claim that the replacement outbuilding is of “the exact same footprint, brick type and roofing materials”, the previous building had painted brickwork and did not have a deep fascia. The main issue is whether or not the new structure preserves the character of the listed building or its setting. It is my opinion that the flat roofed outbuilding constitutes a poorly designed and detailed incongruous extension to the listed building, which is detrimental to the architectural and historic character of the listed building and its setting. This retrospective application to retain it is therefore not supported.

RECOMMENDATIONS: RR/2007/2045/P: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. By virtue of its materials, detail and flat roofed design, the outbuilding is out of

character with the listed building to which it relates and constitutes an incongruous feature that is out of harmony with the existing building, and its

62

setting, which it is desired to preserve in accordance with Section 66 of the Town & Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policy GD1(iv)(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(m) and EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2007/2046/L: REFUSE (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)1. By virtue of its materials, detail and flat roofed design, the outbuilding is out of

character with the listed building to which it relates and constitutes an incongruous feature that is out of harmony with the existing building, and its setting, which it is desired to preserve in accordance with Section 66 of the Town & Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policy GD1(iv)(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(m) and EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


--oo0oo—

63

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20072046l


rr/2007/1528/a - residents - rother district council · web viewrr/2004/2750/p erection of detached...

Documents