rr/2007/3515/p · web viewcommittee - planning date - 19 february 2009 report of - director of...

Rother District Council Agenda Item: 6

Committee - Planning

Date - 19 February 2009

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

1

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

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

objections, difficulties, or negotiations are not satisfactorily concluded, then the application will have to be reported back to the Planning Committee or reported via the internal only electronic Notified D system as a means of providing further information for elected Members. This delegation also allows the Head of Planning to negotiate and amend applications, conditions, reasons for refusal and notes commensurate with the 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:-

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

REFERENCE PAGE PARISH SITE ADDRESS

RR/2009/109/CM 1 BEXHILL PEBSHAM WASTE ANDRECYCLABLES TRANSFER STATIONFRESHFIELDS ROAD

RR/2009/110/CM 4 BEXHILL PEBSHAM WASTE ANDRECYCLABLESTRANSFER STATIONFRESHFIELDS ROAD

RR/2009/14/P 7 BATTLE PEPPERING EYE FARMPEPPERING EYE LANE

RR/2008/3451/P 8 CROWHURST HILL CROFT FARMROYAL OAK LANE

RR/2008/3460/P 11 BURWASH NEWLANDSHEATHFIELD ROADBURWASH WEALD

2

RR/2008/2471/P 15 MOUNTFIELD BALDWINS FARMMOUNTFIELD

RR/2008/3461/P 20 BECKLEY WOODGATE FARMCHURCH LANE

RR/2008/3479/P 22 BECKLEY GLASSEYE FARMFURNACE LANE

RR/2008/3095/P 25 PEASMARSH LYNDHURSTMAIN STREET

RR/2009/25/P 29 HURST GREEN HAWKRIDGEBURGH HILL

RR/2008/1343/P 31 ICKLESHAM THE SHELL HOUSE –GARDEN OPPOSITEMORLAIS RIDGEWINCHELSEA BEACH

RR/2008/2462/L 36 ICKLESHAM 11-12 HIGH STREETWINCHELSEA

RR/2008/2463/P 36 CKLESHAM 11-12 HIGH STREET

WINCHELSEA RR/2008/3027/P 49 ICKLESHAM RYE HARBOUR GARAGE

RYE HARBOUR ROADRYE HARBOUR

RR/2008/3572/L 55 ICKLESHAM 9 HIGH STREETWINCHELSEA

RR/2008/3574/A 55 ICKLESHAM 9 HIGH STREETWINCHELSEA

RR/2009/106/P 58 ICKLESHAM CHURCH FARM HOUSEPARSONAGE LANE

RR/2009/17/P 61 SEDLESCOMBE SPILSTEAD FARM – LAND ATSTREAM LANE

RR/2009/229/NA 65 ST LEONARDS QUEENSWAY – ON SEA LAND WEST OF (KNOWN AS

MARLINE FIELDS)

3

RR/2009/109/CM BEXHILL PEBSHAM WASTE AND RECYCLABLES TRANSFER STATION, FRESHFIELDS ROADMINOR MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING WASTE AND RECYCLABLES TRANSFER STATION TO INCLUDE NEW INTERNAL ACCESS, SMALL EXTENSION TO EXISTING BUILDING AND ACCESS TO PROPOSED HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING SITE. RELOCATION OF EXISTING HASTINGS HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING SITE TO LAND SOUTH OF EXISTING WASTE AND RECYCLABLES STATION.Veolia ES South Downs Ltd

Last date for decision: 06 March 2009

This is a consultation from East Sussex County Council.

SITE The application relates to the existing Waste and Recyclables Transfer Station (WRTS) situated on the west side of Freshfields. The site and building was previously used as a waste treatment facility. The site comprises the main building - now without its original high chimney stack – and a number of portacabins. The application site incorporates an area of the WRTS that is relevant to the proposed new development as well as the area of land located immediately to the south. This part of the site comprises scrubland with some trees and experiences significant changes in level, rising several metres above the level of the WRTS. The site area covers some 1.1ha. The nearest residential properties are Pebsham Farm Cottages 200m to the south west and Pebsham Farm 350m to the north west. A row of houses is located on the northern side of the A259 Bexhill Road approximately 300m to the south at the junction with Freshfields Road. The urban edge of Pebsham is 500m to the west.

HISTORY (Recent)RR/2006/3401/CM Change of use to a Waste and Recyclables Transfer Station

Depot and ancillary uses – ObjectRR/2009/110/CM Variation of eight conditions relating to WRTS – Not Yet

Determined

(Related – on existing HWRS site)RR/2008/110/CM Variation of condition to allow continued provision of Household

Waste Recycling Centre to September 2011 – No Objection

PROPOSAL This is one of two planning applications made to the County Council in relation to this site, and reported on this agenda.

The scheme is to provide a new Household Waste Recycling Site (HWRS) on land immediately to the south of the WRTS, relocating the existing Hastings HWRS facility currently present to the east of Freshfields Road. This is deemed necessary as the existing facility operates under a temporary permission granted on 25 July 2008, expiring on 1 September 2011. The consent (RR/555/CM) requires that all plant, equipment, buildings and other structures shall be removed and all hard surfaces broken up and removed by 30 November 2011.

1

The site is to the south of the existing WRTS. The layout involves a one-way operation with cars entering the drop-off area via a ramp to a higher level before exiting to Freshfields. To create this area part of the existing embanked area will be remodelled but the new arrangement retains landscaped enclosing embankments which will shield operations from longer views.

The proposals would provide an enhanced facility to replace the existing Hastings HWRS. In line with the requirements of the Integrated Waste Management Contract with East Sussex County Council and Brighton & Hove City Council, the HWRS would be constructed to a standard compatible with the recently provided facility at Crowborough. This would comprise a split level facility with provision for 12 bins at low level (same level as the existing WRTS) and a further 6 at the upper public parking area (some 1.6m higher). Areas would be available at the upper level for additional recycling material including WEEE (waste electrical and electronic equipment) and fridges.

The lower bins would be serviced directly from the WRTS without the need to close the HWRS to public access. This would improve operational efficiency and also prevent the need for large vehicles to access Freshfields Road (currently service vehicles have to cross Freshfields Road to get between the HWRS and WRTS). Importantly therefore the operational conditions of the WRTS consent need to reflect this beneficial feature of the co-joiner facilities. When the six upper bins need to be serviced it would be necessary to temporarily restrict public access to this area; however, such restrictions would be much less than with the existing, single level site.

The enhanced facility is intended to improve local recycling rates and assist the local authorities in meeting recycling and recovery targets. Should the existing HWRS not be replaced, the ability of the County to meet these targets could be somewhat reduced.

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

SUMMARY This is an application for a new Household Waste Recycling Site. The existing facility is of an unsophisticated type with basic open storage areas and storage containers. In broad terms the facility is to be welcomed and has the added advantage of being closer to Bexhill Road than the landfill site and the Waste Recyclables Transfer Station, thus now separating at an earlier stage on Freshfields the domestic traffic from the heavy goods traffic.

The proposal also accords with the following Waste Local Plan policies:

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

facility; or

2

c) the development would contribute towards achieving net self-sufficiency of the Plan area in waste management facilities;

Policy WLP 16: New Household Waste SitesProposals for new household waste sites will be permitted, subject to other policies of the Plan where relevant, where it is demonstrated that:a) they are within close proximity to or in urban areas; and b) they are on land that is located within permitted or allocated industrial or

waste management sites; orc) on other suitable previously developed land; ord) they are part of a major development scheme.

In addition to the new household waste facility there are consequential modifications to the Waste and Recyclables Transfer Station Layout - New internal access and the western side of WRTS, including a small

extension to the existing building to provide an enclosed weighbridge/materials load-out bay; and

- Access through to the new HWRS to allow bins to be serviced directly from the WRTS

While the principle of closing the existing HWRS in anticipation of the future establishment of the Pebsham Countryside Park and the use of the new site can be accepted, the new site is closer to residential properties both on Bexhill Road and Abbey Drive in Hastings and in Singleton Walk and Mistley Close in Rother District. Accordingly the existing hours of operation controls on the existing HWRS should be applied on this site. Currently these are:

07:00 – 19:00 Mondays to Saturdays (October – March)07:00 – 21:00 Mondays to Saturdays (April – September)07:30 – 19:00 Sundays (October – March)07:30 – 19:00 Sundays (April – September)

Comments from the Environmental Health Officer will be reported at Committee.

RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE COUNTY COUNCIL BE ADVISED THAT THE DISTRICT COUNCIL RAISES NO OBJECTIONS IN PRINCIPLE TO THE SCHEME SUBJECT TO MAINTENANCE OF THE EXISTING OPENING HOURS ON THE HOUSEHOLD WASTE RECYCLING CENTRE, SATISFACTORY LANDSCAPING OF THE SITE AND THE COUNTY COUNCIL SECURING RELEVANT CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PEBSHAM COUNTRYSIDE PARK HAVING REGARD TO POLICY BX4 OF THE ROTHER DISTRICT LOCAL PLAN - DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COMMENTS)

View application/correspondence___________________________________________________________________

3

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr2009109cm

RR/2009/110/CM BEXHILL PEBSHAM WASTE AND RECYCLABLES TRANSFER STATION, FRESHFIELDS ROADVARIATION OF EIGHT CONDITIONS OF PLANNING PERMISSION RR/498/CM RELATING TO THE CHANGE OF USE TO A WASTE AND RECYCLABLES TRANSFER STATION, DEPOT AND ANCILLARY USESVeolia ES South Downs Ltd

Last date for decision: 06 March 2009

This is a consultation from East Sussex County Council.

SITE The application site is the existing Waste and Recyclables Transfer Station (previously the waste treatment facilities) situated on the west side of Freshfields. The site comprises the main building (now without its original high chimney stack) and a number of portacabins. The site is screened by high embankments and vegetation on three sides.

HISTORY (Recent)RR/2006/3401/CM Change of use to a Waste and Recyclables Transfer Station,

Depot and ancillary uses (RR/498/CM) – ObjectRR/2009/109/CM Modification to WRTS and new Household Waste Recycling site

– Not Yet Determined

PROPOSAL This is the second of two planning applications made to the County Council in relation to this site, and reported on this agenda.

The proposal seeks a variation of the following conditions on the original permission granted by East Sussex County Council and for the reasons given below:

Condition 2Change: Increase in waste capacity from 85,000 tonnes per annum to 150,000

tonnes per annum.Reason: To provide additional transfer capacity for municipal contract waste up

to 110,000 tonnes and additional capacity for commercial and industrial waste up to 40,000 tonnes. The additional capacity is only to be used in the event of the temporary or permanent closure of the adjacent landfill site for the receipt of non-inert waste except in the case of recycling of commercial and industrial waste where landfill would not be sustainable. The increase in capacity for commercial and industrial waste would provide a necessary facility to handle waste displaced from the landfill and would minimise impacts that would otherwise occur locally from onward transportation of waste by vehicle. It would also assist in increasing recycling waste.

Condition 3Change: Reference to approved drawing number.Reason: Update reflecting revised layout plan.

4

Condition 7Change: Expand scope of allowable vehicle maintenance on site to not just

emergenciesReason: The existing condition restricting vehicle maintenance causes

operational difficulties and gives rise to unnecessary traffic movements of vehicles based on site moving elsewhere for routine maintenance. Condition unnecessary as such activities are undertaken within an enclosed building.

Conditions 9, 14 and 15Change: Variation in operating hours to commence at 06:00 rather than 06:30

on Mondays to Saturdays, closing at 20:00 rather than 19:00 Mondays to Fridays and closing at 16:00 rather than 12:00 on Sundays.(No change to noise control limits in relation to the changes of hours).

Reason: To enhance the operational efficiency of the site and its potential contribution to sustainable waste management including the servicing needs of the proposed HWRS.The proposed exemptions to normal operating hours would facilitate the use of the site by vehicles of the Hastings Municipal Waste fleet which require access outside these hours. The proposed exception to normal hours for street and beach cleansing vehicles, bulk bin vehicles and trade waste vehicles reflects the limited times at which these operations can be carried out. The number of vehicles involved in these activities would be small and would normally be limited to no more than two return trips in any one hour outside the existing permitted hours. Further information is contained in the Environment Statement.

Condition 18Change: Increase in numbers of waste collection vehicles allowed to be

stationed on site from 40 to 50.Reason: To reflect the requirements of the proposed increased tonnage

throughput. Increase can be accommodated in parking areas on existing site.

DETAILS OF CONSULTATIONDirector of Services – Environmental Health:- To be reported.

SUMMARY Planning permission for the current operation was granted by the County Council in March 2007. Prior to this decision this Council had forwarded the following comments:

“That the County Council be advised that the District Council strongly objects to the proposed use on the basis that all the information so far received gives insufficient assurances that there will be no adverse effect on the area and no worsening of the situation in terms of noise, air quality and traffic generation particularly having regard to the amenities of local residents and the proximity of the facility to the proposed Pebsham Countryside Park. Notwithstanding the above the District Council also strongly object to seven day working on the site from early morning to late evening

5

and requires clarification of waste vehicle movements generated from adjoining local authorities.”

The County Council’s Waste Local Plan policies WLP6, WLP8, WLP35 and WLP36 apply to the application. On the basis of the original concerns I believe the District Council should approach the variations to the conditions imposed by the County Council very cautiously.

In respect of the tonnage capacity increase (Condition 2) this may be at best premature if the intention is to receive waste currently sent to landfill. In respect of traffic generation as a result, the Council’s Recycling Officer observes that replacing a deposition facility with waste transfer has the potential of increasing traffic movements.

The Council originally objected to 7-day a week use of this facility and the hours proposed are a concern (Conditions 9, 14 and 15). While consideration might be given to accommodating the operational requirements of street and beach cleansing vehicles it is difficult to understand the need for increasing the hours for trade vehicles other than for simply commercial reasons.

In respect of the repair and maintenance condition (Condition 7), I understand the need to accommodate routine maintenance but this should remain wholly ancillary to the principal use of the site for the vehicles based there and should not be open ended.

Finally, in respect of the increase sought in relation to vehicles stationed on site (Condition 18), this need is linked to the proposed increase in the capacity of the site.

Having regard to these issues I do not consider that the changes should be approved without further clarification of the applicants’ intentions. At this stage I recommend that an objection be lodged.

RECOMMENDATION: That the County Council be advised that the District Council OBJECTS to the proposed changes to the conditions on the basis of the information currently available. In particular the Council objects:- To any increase in operational capacity in advance of the permanent closure

of the landfill site- To any increase in traffic movements, or increased vehicle storage on site- To any increase in operating hours unless justified for operational reasons

related to municipal activities- To any maintenance activities other than wholly ancillary to the main use and

in relation to vehicles based at the site.


6

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr2009110cm

RR/2009/14/P BATTLE PEPPERING EYE FARM, PEPPERING EYE LANEDELETION OF CONDITION 3 AND RESOLUTION OF CONDITION 4 OF PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2004/3107/P IN REGARD TO THE ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO PROVIDE KITCHEN AND ASSOCIATED ACCOMMODATION, THE REBUILDING OF OAST TO FORMER HEIGHT, SOME ALTERATIONS TO EXTERNAL WINDOWS AND DOORS AND INTERNAL ALTERATIONS.Mr and Mrs Keyte

Statutory 8 week date: 17 February 2009

SITE Peppering Eye Farm is a converted Oasthouse that was converted in 1981; it is situated on the west side of Peppering Eye Lane about 300m from its junction with Telham Lane.

HISTORYRR/81/0107/P Conversion of oast and store to agricultural worker’s dwelling –

Approved ConditionalRR/1999/2375/P Retention of dwelling without compliance with agricultural

occupancy condition – ApprovedRR/2004/3107/P Single storey extension and re-building of the oast roundel roof

with external alterations – Approved Conditional

PROPOSAL This application seeks the removal of condition no. 3 and compliance with condition no. 4 imposed upon planning permission RR/2004/3107/P. The original conditions read:

“3. The extension hereby permitted shall not be brought into use and occupied until the oast kiln roof has also been rebuilt in accordance with the detailed plans hereby approved.

4. The bathroom to be formed within the kiln roof above bedroom 4 shall be artificially ventilated and lit; the dormer windows indicated upon the submitted plans are specifically not hereby approved.”

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- “The Council assumes that the outcome of the request to delete condition 3 will be resolved on a legal basis. However, the Council wishes to record its preference to see the Oast rebuilt to its former height as originally proposed. The Council has no objection to the proposed revised window arrangements.”County Archaeologist:- No objection.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY The 2004 planning permission was for an extension at the north end of the stowage barn of the oast and to reinstate the full kiln roof which is presently truncated. Clearly it was seen as an opportunity to improve the appearance of the property but that the exact detail of the kiln roof was not acceptable because it contained three small dormer windows.

7

The applicants have built the extension at the north end and brought it into use without compliance with condition 3. As a result they have been served with a Breach of Conditions Notice and subsequently served with a summons to appear at Hastings Magistrates Court. However, the hearing has been adjourned to allow this application to be submitted and considered.

It is argued that condition no. 3 was flawed in that it did not reasonably relate to the construction of the extension at the opposite end of the property. I do have some sympathy for this point of view. The applicant does still wish to undertake works to improve the appearance of the oast by reinstating the roundel roof but is not currently able to proceed with this at the present time. I do not believe that it serves any reasonable planning purpose to prevent the applicant from occupying and using the new extension until he is able to complete the roundel works.

The details required to satisfy condition no. 4 are now provided with this submission and are wholly acceptable if undertaken in their entirety.

I believe the submission to be acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)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).

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed alterations to the Oasthouse are considered to be of an appropriate design improving the character and appearance of the property within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and therefore complies with Policies S1 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan. It is accepted that in the circumstances condition no. 3 imposed upon planning permission reference RR/2004/3107/P is unnecessary.


RR/2008/3451/P CROWHURST HILLCROFT FARM, ROYAL OAK LANEEXTENSION AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING LIVING ACCOMMODATION AND TO INCLUDE DEMOLITION OF PITCHED ROOF OUTSHOT AND DOUBLE GARAGE Mr S West


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

SITE Hillcroft Farm is an arable and livestock (100 cattle) farm of around 160 acres on site with a further 260 acres owned elsewhere in the area. In addition, the farm rents and undertakes various farming contracts to a further 400 acres in the area.

8

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr200914p

The farm is run and occupied by Mr West (senior), Mr R West and Mr S West & his young family.

The farm building that is the subject of this application is located some 740m from the junction with the C307 (Catsfield Road) and comprises a pair of semi-detached cottages that are knocked into one at ground floor level. The cottages were granted planning permission (ref: A/49/25) in January 1949 subject to an agricultural occupancy condition. The building is located outside of the Crowhurst development boundary.

HISTORYA/49/25 Pair of farm workers cottages and cowhouse and dairy and

piggery – Approved conditional.A/72/1170 Outline: Agricultural bungalow – Approved conditional.A/74/0285 Erection of bungalow and garage – Approved conditional.

PROPOSAL The applicant seeks permission to: Demolish the existing detached double garage to the front south west corner

of the semi-detached cottages. Demolish the existing pitched roof outshot on the south elevation of the right

hand cottage. Erect a large extension on the south elevation of the right hand cottage to

provide a new garage, office, freezer store, wet room/boot room and additional living accommodation.

Further comments from the applicant’s agent are attached as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 February 2009.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:– Supports an approval.Rural Estates Surveyor:– Concludes that:“i) If the proposed extension does go ahead the resulting gross floor area of the

dwelling will be in the region of 433 square metres and this does not in my opinion concur with advice in Paragraph 9 of the Annexe.

ii) I acknowledge and accept that the reason for the proposed extension will be to provide better accommodation for the Wests. However, these are personal reasons and as advised in Paragraph 1 have to be disregarded when assessing the needs of the enterprise.

iii) I am therefore drawn to the conclusion that by reference to advice in Annexe A there is insufficient agricultural justification for the proposed extension.”

Planning Notice:– One letter of support from the National Farmers’ Union Group Secretary for the South East, with the following comments (summarised): The extension will prevent an additional separate dwelling being built within

the countryside. There is an agricultural need for the extension. Health and safety legislation requires the business to provide clean and

hygienic washing facilities for any person involved with the use of pesticides and where a business has employees. These facilities have been incorporated into the proposed extension.

9

The farm is involved in the livestock sector and rears batches of beef cattle throughout the year. The ability to accommodate the whole family on site is essential for the continued good husbandry of these animals, thus ensuring their general welfare.

The office is needed to keep the ever-increasing burden of paperwork in order and safely retained so as not to be in breach of EU cross-compliance regulations. The office has been incorporated into the extension so as not to create a separate structure within the farm yard.

SUMMARY The existing farm building was granted planning permission as a pair of semi-detached cottages in January 1949, subject to an agricultural occupancy condition. Three families who are fully occupied in the running of the farm currently occupy the cottages, which have been knocked into one at ground floor level.

Supporting information indicates that the proposed extension is required because the existing semi-detached cottages do not provide suitable accommodation for the three generations of occupants that run the farm. However, in my opinion the proposed extension, by virtue of its large size, design and external appearance, displays the outward characteristics of a separate dwellinghouse. Moreover, the internal layout of the building lends itself to subdivision from the adjoining cottage. In addition, I concur with the Rural Estates Surveyor who does not consider the size of the proposed development to be commensurate with the established functional requirement of this particular enterprise. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy HG10 of the Local Plan, Policy S10 of the Structure Plan and government advice contained in PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

Notwithstanding the above, judged purely as an extension the proposal would be unacceptable, as its large size would represent a disproportionate increase to the modest right hand cottage. The extension would not be subservient to the original cottage and the resulting development would detract from the character of the existing dwelling and the wider character of the locality, contrary to Policies GD1 and HG8 of the Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed extension, by virtue of its large size, design, external

appearance and internal layout which lends itself to subdivision from the adjoining cottage, is considered as a new dwellinghouse in the countryside of a size that is not commensurate with the established functional requirement of the agricultural holding. As such, the proposal is contrary to the criteria of Policy HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan, Policy S10 (c) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and government advice contained in Annex A of PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

2. The proposed extension, if permitted, would result in a dwellinghouse whose size would exceed that which is justified by the established functional requirement of the agricultural holding and would affect the continued viability of maintaining the property for its intended use by an agricultural worker. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy S10 (c)(ii) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and government advice contained in Annex A of PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

10

3. Notwithstanding the other reasons for refusal, judged purely as an extension as contended by the applicant, the proposal, by reason of its large size and bulk, would represent a disproportionate increase to the modest right hand cottage, which is situated outside of a defined development boundary. The extension would not be subservient to the original cottage and the resulting development would detract from the character of the existing dwellinghouse and the wider character of the locality, contrary to Policies GD1 (iv) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/3460/P BURWASH NEWLANDS, HEATHFIELD ROAD, BURWASH WEALDERECTION OF 2 NEW DETACHED CHALET BUNGALOWS AND ALTERATIONS OF VEHICULAR ACCESSMr G Tanner


SITE This application relates to an area of land at the rear of properties known as ‘Stromlo’, ‘Mockbeggar’, ‘Timberlea’, ‘Lynwood’, ‘Briar Cottage’ and ‘Newlands’ on the north side of Heathfield Road between Burwash Weald and Burwash Common. The land, apparently used as nursery gardens in the past, measures about 0.3 hectares and generally falls from north to south. Access is via a track between Briar Cottage and Newlands; it is the vehicular access used by Newlands.

HISTORYRR/2008/1963/P Erection of 4 detached dwellings. Creation of new vehicular

access – Refused 14/8/2008

PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for the erection of two, four bedroomed detached chalet style dwellings with attached double garages. Stock brick, plain tiles and vertical cedar cladding are the specified external materials.

The present access between Briar Cottage and Newlands would be opened out to 8m wide for the first 10m narrowing to 4m thereafter, extended to provide driveways, turning area and visitor parking.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “Object to proposal: i) overbearing and overlooking backland development; ii) concern of size and design; iii) access to A265 causes concern.”Highway Authority:- Recommends the imposition of conditions regarding access layout and construction together with the provision of parking, turning areas and visibility splays.Environment Agency:- No comments.Southern Water:- No objection subject to an informative regarding sewer connection and the imposition of a surface water drainage condition.

11


Planning Notice:- 8 letters of objection the most comprehensive of which is attached to this report as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 February 2009 – Increased use of access will introduce more noise to previously quiet rear

gardens and create unacceptable conflict with pedestrians at the access with the A265

Heathfield Road carries a large volume of high speed traffic, the development will introduce additional danger

Increased hard surfaces will exacerbate existing concerns regarding flooding from the surface water ditch on the south side of the site

Detrimental to the village, which lacks any services other than a public house, the AONB and local wildlife including protected species

Loss of privacy and saleability of frontage properties as a result of overlooking from two storey dwellings situated on higher land

Proposal should have been accompanied by an environmental assessment Surface water run-off will add to pollution concerns Light pollution Noise, dust and pollution during construction period Local village services may not cope with additional burden, i.e. schools,

doctor etc Dwellings are too large and should be bungalows Design is alien to other properties nearby Development will add to existing foul drainage problems

SUMMARY The whole of the application site lies within the Development Boundary as identified by the Rother District Local Plan, consequently there is not an ‘in principle’ policy objection to the proposal.

Members will recall inspecting this site in August 2008 prior to refusing an application for 4 detached dwellings (RR/2008/1963/P) for the reasons:

“1. The proposed development represents an undesirable form of development. The use of the proposed access by vehicles, the residential activity within the development and the physical scale and positioning of the proposed dwellings would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the neighbouring dwellings. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the requirements of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(i), (ii), (iv) & (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. The existing access at its junction with the A265 has substandard visibility and existing hazards would be increased by the additional slowing, stopping, turning and reversing traffic which would be created and would therefore be contrary to Policy TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.”

The highway reason is not now being supported by the Highway Authority as they are satisfied that the necessary visibility splay can be achieved within highway land (footway) by cutting back frontage growth that currently impedes line of sight. I note the encroaching hedge is coniferous and is unlikely to regenerate from the ‘dead wood’ that would be exposed by cutting back. The resultant hedge would be

12

unsightly but I am conscious that the Highway Authority may, in any event, require this to be undertaken to prevent obstruction of the footway.

The main issues in this instance are:i) The impacts of the proposal upon the amenities of the occupiers of property to

the south and upon Newlands itselfii) The effects of the development upon the character and appearance of the

locality including the wider appearance of the AONBiii) Whether there are any technical/environmental effects that cannot be properly

mitigated by the use of appropriate conditions or other safeguards.

In this context regard must be given to the following relevant policies: GD1, EM2 and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan and S1, S8 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

The site is described as a former nursery and whilst I do not doubt that the applicant and his family before have operated a nursery for many years and there is reference in historic planning applications, there is no planning permission for such a use. I therefore assume that it was the type of business that grew and sold their own products rather than importing for re-sale; this would not have been a change of use from agriculture requiring consent. Moreover, the site is not now so used. I therefore conclude that the site neither generated large volumes of traffic nor should the proposal be regarded as contrary to Policy EM2 as the loss of an employment site. On this basis a modest residential redevelopment with two dwellings could be appropriate in terms of traffic generation. This is one reason why I consider it inappropriate to seek to achieve a density in line with advice contained within PPS3.

The access would be widened to 8m for the first 10m so as to permit two vehicles to pass, thereby ensuring a vehicle would not need to stand on the highway waiting for another to exit. A narrower ‘private drive’ access would then pass close to the west side of Newlands and then turn west parallel to the rear boundary of the frontage properties. The access would be about 7.5m from the neighbour’s boundary with a visitors ‘lay by’, block paved some 5m therefrom. This separating strip of land contains evergreen trees and hedging of mixed species. It seems to me that the access drive, turning area and parking could have been arranged so as to have had far less effect upon the rear gardens of existing dwellings. Residents are concerned about many issues (see above) including surface water run off from the access and hard surfacing generally to a small ditch adjacent to their properties which are located at a lower level. I recognise this concern but believe that a positive disposal system could be developed to handle surface water; indeed I would anticipate a reduction of discharge to the ditch. It would also be essential to ensure that water is not discharged down the access to the A265.

A level survey of the site has been provided. This indicates a difference in level from the A265 to the north boundary of the site of between 6m and 8m. What is not clear is the proposed floor levels of the two dwellings in relation to the existing frontage properties; I judge the difference in level to be in the region of three metres: a full storey height. Not surprisingly the architect has sought to maximise the benefit of a southerly aspect and to take advantage of the views to the south. The privacy of the existing houses, which all have very small rear gardens, is therefore dependent upon

13

the adequacy of the separation distance and the effectiveness of boundary screening. The distance between opposing elevations varies between 23m and 28m; this would normally be an acceptable minimum when assessing a conventional estate layout. However, in this case the difference in levels leads me to the conclusion that, particularly when first floor accommodation is proposed, the separation should be greater. I recognise that there is boundary screening and about 50% of this is evergreen leylandii, but I do not believe that the relationship between proposed and existing dwellings is made acceptable by the screening. If the trees are in the ownership of the new properties they could be removed as they are not suitable for preservation and it is clear that existing householders are concerned already about loss of light and potential root damage.

The proposed dwellings are quite large but I do not consider this to be a particular objection. However I am concerned that the first floor (attic) master bedrooms are conceived to exploit the views over and towards the rear of existing dwellings. Given the south facing slope of the site I can see no reason why two bungalows could not be sited further to the north leaving their primary garden areas south facing.

Members will have considered the concerns and issues raised by respondents to the planning notice and I have had regard to these. I would however wish to specifically refer to the suggestion that an environmental assessment is required. It is not. The site falls below the threshold set out in the Environmental Assessment Regulations. Moreover, the same person refers to the removal of a large oak tree and the presence of badgers and bats. There is no proposal to remove any large trees, nor have any been removed. It may be that badgers forage but I have seen no evidence of a sett. Similarly, I do not doubt that bats may be seen flying at dusk in the summer. I do not believe that any roosting sites are likely to be affected. I would nevertheless suggest an advisory note be included with any planning permission.

This is the applicant’s second submission and given the concerns, issues and suggestions set out above, I would normally seek to negotiate amended plans indicating the siting of two bungalows sited further to the north, served by an access drive that re-aligned in a more north/south alignment with the turning/garage access point further north of existing rear gardens. If Members share my assessment of the potential for this site to accommodate two bungalows I would make the

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (AMENDED PLANS)


14


RR/2008/2471/P MOUNTFIELD BALDWINS FARM, MOUNTFIELDREDEVELOPMENT INCLUDING NEW MACHINERY STORE AND FARM OFFICE. NEW STABLES AND HAYFEED STORE (BARN AND STABLES). GROOMS ACCOMMODATION AND GARAGING. LANDSCAPING AND LAND MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS INCLUDING EQUINE USE. Mr Duggleby

Statutory 13 week date: 13 December 2008

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

SITE Baldwins Farm was until recently in the ownership of Southern Water as land around the south side of Darwell Reservoir. The site lies within the High Weald AONB and comprises open countryside and woodland. The grade II listed farmhouse still exists (although in need of repair) but many of the old farm buildings have been demolished with some ground works still evident.

HISTORYRR/78/649/L Demolition of farmhouse and clearance of site and return of land

to agricultural use. Refused.RR/79/1325 Demolition of farmhouse and clearance of site and return of land

to agriculture. Refused. Appeal withdrawn.

PROPOSAL This is a full application detailing proposals for the re-establishment of a working farm on the site, which was let only for grazing for many years while in the ownership of Southern Water. The land management of the area has already begun since the purchase of the farm two years ago. Tree and hedge planting and new fencing is already in abundant evidence across the land. Pigs are located within an area of woodland, as well as wild boars in another area and pedigree Sussex Red cattle have been purchased. Sheep are also to be included. The farm is to be organic, the status of which has already been gained, as the land had been unfarmed and a heavy horse is already on site.

In order to supplement the income of the traditional livestock, it is proposed to breed Hanoverian horses from Germany for dressage and show jumping, two of which have already been purchased.

In order to operate, two new buildings are currently proposed, one a large traditional Sussex barn on the site of the previous Sussex barn, (as seen in old photographs), located to the east of the farmhouse. The barn would accommodate animal feed and bedding as well as feed and tack for the horses. Two wings to the front creating a 'U' shape would accommodate stables for the horses on one side and for lambing/pigs on the other. The second building is to the north, on the historic site of an oast. It comprises a large barn with a full height open fronted bay to one side for large machinery and a workshop and equipment store to the other side with stairs up to the farm office and a viewing gallery over. A manège is proposed to the east of this barn not only for exercising horses but also to show horses to potential customers who would be located on the viewing gallery.

15

At this stage, it is not intended to have cattle housing, following recent study advice on the benefits of open air husbandry.

A four bay garage is also proposed adjacent the Sussex barn for future use as domestic garaging but seeking permission at this stage for a temporary use as groom/farmers accommodation for management of the farm and stables.

Amended plans have been submitted reducing the size of the machinery barn and deleting purpose built grooms accommodation. Additional statements are provided including the farm management plan, archaeological and historical survey, ecology survey and equine proposals.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: No objection subject to obtaining European Wildlife Licence for bats etc.Highway Authority: Has no objection. The site is to be served by an existing access, has on-site parking and turning and is not considered to represent an increase in traffic given the permitted use of the land.Rural Estates Surveyor: Comments that there is an agricultural need for farm buildings to serve the agricultural needs of the site. Initially it was considered that the machinery barn was too big, that the traditional barn may not be suitable for modern needs and that while accommodation may be required for a farm worker, a ‘permanent’ dwelling was not justified for a new business as guidance in PPS7 advises that a ‘temporary’ dwelling should first be considered while the business is being established. As now amended, he advises that the dual equine/agricultural uses can be accommodated on the land and that the buildings as amended would serve the proposed uses. A temporary unit of accommodation would be justified. He also considers that accommodation for the overwintering of cattle may be required, even though not intended at this stage. County Planning Officer: The site falls within the boundary of the Mountfield Mineral Consultation Area but the proposals are not considered to raise any strategic issues. The applicant is advised to contact British Gypsum who have certain rights to the underlying land. County Archaeologist: Baldwin’s Farm was a large medieval complex first mentioned in 1404. The holding includes the small medieval/post-medieval hamlet of Birchford, cleared in the 1930’s. Details submitted in the historic building survey and archaeological survey are acceptable. The proposals are considered to represent a great opportunity to revitalise an important historic farm complex. No objections are raised but any approval should be subject to a programme of archaeological works.Natural England: Has no objection. The bat survey and mitigation proposals are acceptable and they are pleased to note the proposals to encourage wildlife back to the farm.Planning Notice: One letter of concern regarding scale of development in the AONB.

SUMMARY This application seeks permission for new farm buildings to serve an existing historic farm holding. The site lies within the High Weald AONB and contains a listed building. The listed building is not part of the current submissions but needs considerable work before it is fit for habitation again. This will be the subject of a separate application.

16

The proposals in general are to be welcomed and work has already commenced on site to maintain the land and reintroduce livestock. It is, however, an unusual proposal, as the applicant has a vision to recreate a traditional organic farm estate utilising traditional farming methods and buildings of a traditional Sussex design, appearance and materials. Unusually the applicant appears to be able to fund his vision and has spent time and resources researching the site and drawing up his management plans for the farm, wildlife and archaeology of the site. In supporting documents it is clear that he is very aware of the location in the AONB and proximity to the listed building and hence his desire for traditional buildings and materials to complement the rural location and setting of the listed building. The proposals are long term and the applicant has expressed his willingness/desire to complete a legal agreement that would tie the land and buildings together.

The two barn buildings are fairly large but are considered to meet the needs of the farm. The traditional Sussex barn by virtue of its design is likely to contain unusable voids but its appearance is arguably more desirable than that of a modern sheet metal structure. Both buildings are located against a backdrop of trees on sites that previously housed farm buildings, to the each of the fields. They may be viewed across the valley to the south east or glimpsed from the public footpath but are not on prominent ridges or within a wide open space.

The issue of accommodation for a farm worker has been carefully considered. The usual course of action for a new enterprise is to seek permission for a temporary unit, often in the form of a static caravan. The applicant is concerned that such a structure would be an eyesore and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the proposed traditional buildings and to the AONB. The proposed accommodation is located adjacent the Sussex barn facing the listed building. The agent has subsequently suggested that the proposed garage building, to be of timber weatherboard with clay tile roof to match the Sussex barn, be adapted to provide a small dwelling unit for the farm worker/groom, who is already employed. The garage building itself is not considered to be objectionable but as a permanent structure concern is raised at the proposal to seek a temporary use for it. The agent however, details the use of simple boarding to the bay openings at the front, with internal stud walls and insulation to provide the living area. This arrangement is a cheaper option that purchasing a static caravan. The applicant is happy to accept a temporary three year use with reversion to garaging, as in three years time he would anticipate the existing dwelling being fit for habitation.

The scheme is somewhat unusual in its detail and quality but the applicant has already exhibited his firm intention to realise the proposals by the amount and level of work that has already been implemented on the site. The buildings are considered to be reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture and equestrian use at the site and their design, appearance and location would not be detrimental to the visual, rural or residential amenities of the surrounding area. The works already undertaken and as proposed are considered to be an enhancement of the wildlife and ecology of the area.

As such it is concluded that the proposed development is considered to be acceptable, subject to the imposition of conditions and the prior completion of a Section 106 Obligation to tie the land and buildings together.

17

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO A LEGAL AGREEMENT TYING THE LAND AND BUILDINGS TOGETHER)1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of


2. No development shall take place until samples/details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings and surfacing of the hardstanding and manège 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 locally existing buildings and to preserve the visual amenities of the High Weald AONB in accordance with Policies GD1 (iv) & (v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1 (f) & (j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. The two barn buildings hereby permitted shall only be used for the purposes of agriculture and/or forestry as defined in Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or equestrian use as specified in the approved details, and for no other purpose.Reason: To ensure that only buildings essential to the running of an agricultural/equestrian unit are provided in the countryside in accordance with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S10(a) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

4. The garage building hereby approved shall be used only as a temporary dwelling unit in accordance with drawing no. 08002-P-02D, date stamped 4 February 2009, and then the building shall be restored to its use and appearance as garages as detailed on drawing no. 08002-P-02D, date stamped 4 February 2009, on or before 28 February 2012. Reason: The creation of a dwelling unit on a temporary basis is only allowed as an exception to the normally restrictive policies within the countryside, to allow the applicant to demonstrate that the agricultural/equestrian enterprise will be economically viable and sustainable in the long term. The permanent siting of a new dwelling unit would be contrary to the normal countryside policies to restrict development and protect the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty including Policies S1 and S10 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1 and HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, including a timetable for the investigation, which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.Reason: The development is likely to disturb features of archaeological interest, which need to be examined and recorded in accordance with Policy

18

GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(j) and EN22 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

6. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with all application details including: the approved plans, the ecological survey and mitigation detailed by 'Roger L Jones', and the Environment Appraisal and Business Plan by 'CLM, Complete Land

Management'. Works shall be completed and thereby retained in accordance with the approved plans and details only, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To enable the local planning authority to properly ensure the protection of rare and protected species identified by EU & UK Wildlife Protection Legislation and the UK Biodiversity Action Plan in accordance with Policy GD1(vii) of the Rother District Local Plan Policies S1(j) & EN17 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Government guidance within PPS9, 'Biodiversity and Geological Conservation'.

Notes:i) This permission is the subject of an obligation under Section 106 of the Town

and Country Planning Act 1990.ii) This decision notice relates to the proposals as shown on the originally

submitted plans and subsequently amended plan(s) drawing no’s, 08002-P-01B, 02D and 03A, date stamped 4 February 2009.

iii) 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.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The development as a complete package of proposals is considered to represent an enhancement of the landscape character and quality within the High Weald AONB. The buildings are considered to be of an acceptable scale, design and appearance and situated in an appropriate location. As such it will not therefore adversely affect the amenities of the local area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policies S1, S10, EN2, EN17 and EN18 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1 and HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan.


19


RR/2008/3461/P BECKLEY WOODGATE FARM, CHURCH LANE FORMATION OF DORMER WINDOW, SIDE PORCH AND LIVING ROOM EXTENSION, ENCLOSURE OF TERRACE/HOT TUB AND ALTERATIONS TO ENCLOSE THE VERANDA OF THE ANNEXE (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Mr and Mrs R Setter


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

SITE The application relates to a detached bungalow and adjoining detached annexe that are located in an isolated site at the northern most end of Church Lane. The site is situated outside of the Beckley development boundary and is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYRR/97/767/P Conservatory, loft conversion & alterations – Approved.RR/80/0212 Use of land and existing outbuildings for riding school and livery

– Refused.RR/1999/479/P Proposed erection of detached annexe to replace existing –

Approved conditional.RR/2001/2258/P Retention of detached annexe without complying with condition

2 imposed upon RR/1999/497/P so as to allow use for tourist/holiday accommodation – Approved conditional.

PROPOSAL The applicants seek retrospective permission to retain the following unauthorised alterations: Pitched roof dormer with Juliet balcony to the rear (north west) elevation of

the dwelling. Flat roof single-storey extension to the rear (north west) elevation of the

dwelling. Flat roof single-storey extension to the side (south west) elevation of the

dwelling. Enclosed veranda to the rear (north west) elevation and enclosed porch to the

side (north east) elevation of the annexe.

The unauthorised alterations do not affect the residential amenities of neighbouring properties. As such, the main issue to consider is the impact the alterations have had upon the character and appearance of the annexe & bungalow, and the subsequent impact this has had upon the landscape quality and character of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Policies GD1 and HG8 of the Local Plan, Policies S1 and EN2 of the Structure Plan, and government advice contained in PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development apply in the determination of this proposal.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:– Supports a refusal because the development is inappropriate in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

20

Planning Notice:– No representations received.

SUMMARY The site is an isolated property within the open countryside of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where there are strict controls on new development. This application deals with two separate elements. These are alterations to the annexe and alterations to the dwelling.

Alterations to the AnnexeEnclosure of the annexes veranda and porch is considered to be acceptable, as these alterations do not harm the character and appearance of the building.

Alterations to the DwellingPrior to the unauthorised alterations the bungalow was a simple pitched roof building with a conservatory to the rear.

Policy HG8 of the Local Plan states that “Proposals to extend or alter an existing dwelling will be permitted where they are in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling and its surroundings in terms of its size, style, design and materials, as well as protecting the amenities of adjoining properties and meet other criteria in Policy GD1.In countryside locations, particular care will be given to ensure that the extension or alteration is not intrusive in the landscape, particularly in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”

Policy EN2 of the Structure Plan states that “Conserving and enhancing landscape quality and character will be the primary objective in the Sussex Downs and High Weald Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This will be sought through measures including:- (a) careful control of development and (f) minimising the impact of any development within AONBs, or close to them and affecting their setting, by measures to carefully integrate the development into the AONB landscape and, where appropriate, providing compensating environmental resource for any necessary loss that is accepted.”

Further, government advice contained in PPS1: Delivering Sustainable development, paragraph 34, states that “Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted.”

In my opinion the alterations are of a poor design, significantly detract from the character and appearance of the original bungalow, are visually intrusive in the surrounding landscape, and as a result fail to conserve and enhance the landscape quality and character of the High Weald AONB.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The single-storey rear extension, by virtue of its large size, the use of external

materials that are unsympathetic to the original dwelling, and flat roof design, detracts from the character and appearance of the original dwelling, is visually intrusive in the surrounding landscape, and as a result fails to conserve and enhance the landscape quality and character of the High Weald AONB. The extension is therefore contrary to Policies GD1 (iv), (v) and HG8 of the Rother

21

District Local Plan, Policies S1 (f), (j) and EN2 (a) & (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and government advice contained in PPS1: Delivering Sustainable development, paragraph 34.

2. The single-storey side extension, by virtue of its flat roof design, detracts from the character and appearance of the original dwelling, is visually intrusive in the surrounding landscape, and as a result fails to conserve and enhance the landscape quality and character of the High Weald AONB. The extension is therefore contrary to Policies GD1 (iv), (v) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan, Policies S1 (f), (j) and EN2 (a) & (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and government advice contained in PPS1: Delivering Sustainable development, paragraph 34.

3. The pitched roof dormer to the rear of the dwelling, by virtue of its size, dominant position on the roof slope, and the use of external materials that are unsympathetic to the original dwelling, detracts from the character and appearance of the original dwelling, is visually intrusive in the surrounding landscape, and as a result fails to conserve and enhance the landscape quality and character of the High Weald AONB. The dormer is therefore contrary to Policies GD1 (iv), (v) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan, Policies S1 (f), (j) and EN2 (a) & (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and government advice contained in PPS1: Delivering Sustainable development, paragraph 34.


RR/2008/3479/P BECKLEY GLASSEYE FARM, FURNACE LANERETENTION OF TEMPORARY MOBILE HOME FOR USE IN CONNECTION WITH AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGMr R Seymour


SITE This 36.48 hectare holding is located on the southern outskirts of Beckley parish with frontage to both Furnace Lane and Moores Lane. The farmyard and adjacent mobile home are on the west side of Furnace Lane and just to the north of the existing farmhouse occupied by the current owners of Glasseye Farm. All of the holding is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYRR/77/0354 O/A Demolition of existing farmhouse and erection of new

dwelling on adjacent site - Approved.RR/77/0696 Erection of new bungalow with garage to replace existing house

- Approved.RR/92/0297 Erection of agricultural store - Approved.RR/97/384/P Extension of residential curtilage and erection of detached

double garage - Approved.RR/2001/1798/P O/A Erection of detached farmhouse tied to farm - Refused.RR/2002/271/P O/A Erection of dwelling to house key agricultural worker -

Refused.

22


RR/2004/1548/P Stationing of agricultural mobile home – Approved (Temporary) – Expired on 31/8/07

RR/2007/1138/P Erection of two storey farmhouse – Withdrawn.RR/2007/2527/P Proposed extension and loft conversion with dormers –

Approved

PROPOSAL The existing agricultural worker’s mobile home was granted temporary planning permission RR/2004/1548/P for three years, which expired on 31 August 2007. The temporary period was permitted to allow time for the applicant to demonstrate that the agricultural enterprise at Glasseye Farm was economically sustainable. This application seeks to retain the temporary mobile home for a further three years for the same reason. Details of the enterprise are contained in a supporting letter dated 1 December 2008 from the agent David Hall & Co, a copy of which is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 February 2009.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Recommend refusal: the statement that “The farm is currently owned by and operated between Mr Seymour and his parents Mr and Mrs Scott” is incorrect; applicant has been unable to demonstrate in the years since 2004 that the enterprise needs an extra residence for a second worker; functional need for one experienced person permanently on site is satisfied by Robert Scott who lives in farmhouse; labour requirement is one and a half persons employed full time but Mr Seymour is not available as a half employee and Beckley PC does not believe a few hours in evenings or at weekends is what is intended in the provision of residences for key workers; Mr Seymour works full time as a farm manager in Peasmarsh and could not be within “sight and sound of the livestock at Glasseye Farm”; if 24 hour supervision of livestock is essential and Mr Scott wishes to retire Beckley PC believe that Mr Seymour would need to retire as full time manager at Peasmarsh, or the post filled by another; criteria of PPS7 has not been met as Mr Seymour is not in full time employment at Glasseye Farm.Rural Estates Surveyor:- A full copy of his comments are contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 February 2009. His report concludes with his opinion that there is sufficient agricultural justification for the retention of the mobile home.Planning Notice:- No comments received.

SUMMARY The main issue in this case relates to whether or not the proposal satisfies the several tests for a temporary agricultural worker’s dwelling contained in Annex 4 of PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, together with corresponding Policy HG10(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(c)(ii) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. In particular, PPS7, Annex A, states:“12. If a new dwelling is essential to support a new farming activity, whether on a

newly-created agricultural unit or on an established one, it should normally for the first three years, be provided by a caravan, a wooden structure which can easily be dismantled, or other temporary accommodation. It should satisfy the following criteria:-(i) clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop the enterprise

concerned ...;

23

(ii) functional need (see paragraph 4 of this Annex);(iii) clear evidence that the proposed enterprise has been planned on a

sound financial basis;(iv) the functional need could not be fulfilled by another existing dwelling on

the unit, or any other existing accommodation in the area which is suitable and available for occupation by the workers concerned;

(v) other normal planning requirements e.g. on siting and access, are satisfied.

13. ... The planning authority should make clear the period for which the temporary permission is granted, the fact that the temporary dwelling will have to be removed ... Authorities should not normally grant successive extensions to a temporary permission over a period of more than three years ...”

In his appraisal, the Council’s Rural Estates Surveyor considers that criteria (i), (ii) and (iii) above have been satisfied, commenting that: The applicants have satisfactorily demonstrated a firm intention and ability to

develop the enterprise With the amount of livestock of different types on the farm, the functional test

is satisfied At this stage, the financial details submitted show that the enterprise has been

planned on a sound financial basis

With regard to criterion (iv) he refers to the adjoining untied replacement farmhouse that was granted Outline planning permission under RR/77/0354 and states:

“The existing dwelling is occupied by the applicant’s mother and stepfather. The latter worked the farm when he was able to prior to the applicant’s involvement and who is now solely in control of the farming enterprise. The stepfather is suffering from ill health and cannot undertake manual work. The dwelling which is situated on the farm does not have any Agricultural Occupancy Condition imposed upon it nor is there a planning agreement tying the dwelling to the land. The dwelling could therefore be sold away at any time and thus there is no guarantee that it could be available for farm labour. I consider that this demonstrates that the existing dwelling does not fulfil the functional need created on the farm. No evidence of the latter category of accommodation has been put forward and in any case I regard this as being inappropriate as the applicant requires to live on the farm.”

Based upon the information supplied to him by the applicant, the Rural Estates Surveyor concludes his appraisal with the opinion that “there is sufficient agricultural justification for the retention of the mobile home.” However, I am concerned that the applicant may not have apprised the Rural Estates Surveyor of all the relevant facts. For instance, in the Design and Access Statement accompanying the application (copy in Appendix document relating to this Committee 19 February 2009), the applicant’s agent states:

“Mr Scott is aged 62 years and will be of retiring age in 2011. The proposed retention of the temporary mobile home for a further three year period would allow time for the agricultural business to expand until Mr Seymour takes over the farm completely.”

24

However, the Rural Estates Surveyor appears to have been advised that the applicant (Mr Seymour) is now solely in control of the farming enterprise, yet the Parish Council allege he is employed full time as a farm manager elsewhere. Furthermore, when temporary planning permission RR/2004/1548/P was originally granted for the mobile home, it was based on the premise that the occupants of the adjoining farmhouse had retired and that the day to day management of the farm and livestock was being carried out by the applicant and his wife who lived in Northiam. The applicant has therefore been invited to clarify this contradictory information. If the applicant (Mr Seymour) is in control of the farming enterprise and is unable to occupy the adjoining farmhouse because it is not available, it would be appropriate to consider supporting the proposed retention of the mobile home. However, as submitted, it would appear that the functional needs of the holding are provided by the current occupier (Mr Scott) of the adjoining farmhouse. Such being the case, there would be insufficient justification for retention of the mobile home. The application is therefore not supported.

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

Rother District Local Plan. Policies HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S10 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 contain a strong presumption against residential development unless it meets one of the exceptions contained in the plans. Government Advice contained in Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (PPS7) also states that special justification is required for new dwellings in the countryside. In this case, the local planning authority considers that the criteria contained in Paragraph 12(iv) of Annex A to PPS7 are not satisfied and that there is insufficient agricultural justification for a temporary agricultural dwelling on the enterprise. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the above policies and Government Advice.


RR/2008/3095/P PEASMARSH LYNDHURST, MAIN STREET VARIATION OF CONDITION 3 IMPOSED ON PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2004/1201/P TO ALLOW THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE GARAGE BUILDING TO BE USED AS GUEST ACCOMMODATION IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE MAIN DWELLINGMr T Denman

Statutory 8 week date: 21 January 2009


SITE The application property comprises a detached dwellinghouse that is located in the Peasmarsh development boundary and is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The detached garage, which is the subject of this

25


application, lies nearly 50m to the south west of the dwelling outside the Peasmarsh development boundary. It is, however, within the property’s residential curtilage.

HISTORYRR/97/1218/P Change of use of shop premises from commercial to use as

garage for ‘Lyndhurst’ – Approved Conditional.RR/98/667/P Extension to form porch. Alteration to shed to form pitched roof

and erection of greenhouse – Approved Conditional.RR/2002/2628/P Raising roof line and conversion of roof space to provide

additional accommodation – Approved Conditional.RR/2004/1201/P Erection of replacement garage and workshop with storage area

above – Approved Conditional.RR/2006/1727/P Installation of new windows and roof lights to garage – Approved

Conditional.RR/2006/2243/P Alteration and addition of first floor extension to provide cottage

– Refused and Appeal Dismissed.RR/2006/3220/P Erection of extension to provide additional accommodation –

Approved Conditional and Appeal Allowed.RR/2007/292/P Conversion of loft space in garage to form bedroom and

bathroom including the addition of velux roof windows – Refused and Appeal Dismissed.

RR/2007/2523/P Erection of two storey extension to provide granny flat/holiday let – Refused and Appeal Allowed.

RR/2007/2525/P Change of use of garage and studio/games room to provide self contained unit of tourist accommodation – Refused.

RR/2008/196/P Proposed extension to provide granny flat/annexe – Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL Planning permission was granted in 2004 (ref: RR/2004/1201/P) for a replacement garage and workshop with storage area above, subject to a restrictive condition to preclude its use as residential accommodation or for commercial purposes. The applicant seeks to vary the condition of the original 2004 permission to allow the garage to be used for non-paying accommodation for visiting relatives and guests to the existing dwelling.

The drawings submitted with the application show the addition of three rooflights in the front (south east) roof slope and three rooflights in the rear (north west) roof slope of the garage. Planning permission was granted for these alterations in August 2006 (ref: RR/2006/1727/P), and included replacement of the garage door with a 6 pane window, although this aspect has been omitted from the current proposal. At the time of my site inspection the 2006 permission had not been implemented.

In addition to the above, a new gable end window is proposed at first floor level in the side (south west) elevation of the garage. In the drawings the ground floor of the building is allocated for garaging and a study & the first floor is allocated for a studio/bedroom and bathroom.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: – “The Parish Council supports a refusal for reasons, many of which have been exhaustively set out in the Inspector’s report of the 15.01.08 disallowing

26

the appeal by Mr Denman against Rother’s decision to refuse consent to application RR/2007/2525.The current application appears to be yet another attempt to establish a separate dwelling unit on land outside the village development boundary in the back garden of Lyndhurst. While the applicant states his intention to maintain the garage use on the ground floor the fact is he has planning permission to substitute windows in place of the garage doors and for use of the space as a games room. If consent is given to this application Mr Denman has only to implement his consent to turn the garage into a games room, convert the workshop into a kitchen and he has created a fully functioning independent dwelling unit. On no account should this be allowed to happen. In any case the applicant already has planning consent to add more convenient guest accommodation along side the main house (Lyndhurst) thus making this appeal for more guest accommodation superfluous.”Highway Authority:- No objection. Planning Notice:- 7 letters of objection with the following comments (summarised): Previous applications have been refused Compromise highway safety A condition of the original permission states that there should be no

residential use of the garage Outside of the Peasmarsh development boundary Inadequate parking provision Noise pollution from additional traffic Drainage problems Permission has already been granted for an extension to the main house

SUMMARY Following the original permission in 2004 the applicant has sought to expand the terms of use of the building. Planning permission was refused for accommodation in the loft space of the garage in April 2007 (ref: RR/2007/292/P) because the building was considered to be unreasonably isolated from the main house, such that it was considered as a separate unit of accommodation. A subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate. The appeal decision was based on the Inspector’s view that the refused proposal was for use of the first floor of the building for paying guest accommodation, i.e. tourism.

Before the appeal decision was issued a separate planning application for change of use of the garage to provide a self-contained unit of tourist accommodation was refused (ref: RR/2007/2525/P). The reasons for refusal included adverse impact on highway safety, harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties and inadequate parking and turning space.

The main issue to consider in the context of this new proposal is the introduction of additional non-paying guest accommodation in a detached building some distance from the main house, and which is situated outside of a recognised development boundary and served by its own separate access.

The separate access to the site is an unmade and unlit narrow track that is considered a dangerous access point. Any proposed separate dwelling unit or commercial use, i.e. holiday let would result in additional traffic using this substandard access track, which would compromise highway safety. Further,

27

additional traffic would be detrimental to the amenities of the properties fronting the main Peasmarsh highway and adjoining the track.

The use as ancillary guest accommodation is not, however, considered to result in any significant increase in traffic. As such, highway hazards would not be increased and vehicle movements would not be detrimental to neighbouring properties.

Any proposal to change the use of the guest accommodation to a separate dwelling unit or commercial use, i.e. holiday let/paying guest accommodation would require full planning permission for change of use.

Subject to use of the building as guest accommodation only the proposal is acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)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. The guest accommodation hereby approved shall only be used for residential accommodation in association with the existing dwelling and not for any trade or business purpose.Reason: To enable the local planning authority to regulate and control the development of land in the interests of protecting the character of the area and amenities of adjoining properties in accordance with Policies S1(f), (j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(ii), (iv), (v) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. The area allocated for garaging on the ground floor of the guest accommodation hereby approved shall only be used for the garaging of private vehicles in accordance with the approved plan (ref: proposed ground floor) date stamped 26 November 2008.Reason: To provide appropriate parking provision for relatives and guests visiting the existing dwelling in accordance with S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. The rooflights in the north west roof slope of the building shall be fixed shut and glazed with obscure glass of obscurity level equivalent to scale 5 on the Pilkington Glass Scale and shall thereafter be retained in that condition.Reason: To preserve the residential amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1 (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

Note:1. The applicant is advised that any proposal to change the use of the guest

accommodation to a separate dwelling unit or commercial use, i.e. holiday let/paying guest accommodation would require full planning permission for change of use.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The existing garage can already be used for purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the dwelling. It is therefore considered that use of the garage for ancillary guest accommodation,

28

together with the associated external alterations, will not adversely affect the character of the area, the amenities of adjoining properties, or cause a hazard to highway safety. The development therefore complies with Policies S1(d), (f), (j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2009/25/P HURST GREEN HAWKRIDGE, BURGH HILLPROPOSED REAR EXTENSION WITH BEDROOM AND EN-SUITE BATHROOM IN ROOF SPACE Mr P Baldock

Statutory 8 week date: 09 March 2009


SITE Hawkridge is a detached bungalow with a loft conversion located on the south side of the ribbon development in Burgh Hill. It is set within a long narrow plot within the development boundary for Hurst Green and also within the High Weald AONB.

HISTORYA/72/9 Bungalow and garage, adjacent St Etienne. Approved.RR/2006/1247/P Erection of detached double garage. Approved conditional.

PROPOSAL This application proposes the construction of a rear extension to provide a dining room on the ground floor with a bedroom and en-suite above within the roof space. In order to improve head height within the roof area it is proposed to raise the ridge of the extension by 0.5m above the ridge of the existing bungalow. While eaves to the west side follow the line of the existing with roof lights set in the roof slope, the eaves to the east side are set 1m higher than existing. The extension is long and thin, 7m x 4m with a veranda to the west side, reflecting the shape of the rear garden. A chimney detail is included to the east side with an enclosed balcony on the rear. Materials are to match with side hedges retained.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Express concern over the size of the development in such a small site and the impact on neighbouring properties. Confusing drawings. A site visit is needed.Planning Notice: Three objections have been received from the neighbouring properties objecting on the following grounds: the size and character do not relate to the existing dwelling it is too large the roof and pitch are not the same it does not respect the privacy and amenities of neighbours the garage was converted to a living area and this additional extension is

considered to be an overdevelopment of the property further noise and disturbance during building works loss of light

29


deeper than own property by 2.5m balcony represents a loss of privacy along with the patio area

The applicant has responded to the objections. He advises that even with the extension the dwelling only covers 16.7% of the plot and is not thus an overdevelopment. He would be happy to explain the drawings to the Parish if requested. With regard to the neighbours the size and position of windows and design of the balcony have been done to respect and maintain privacy. The site is surrounded by trees and hedges, which would screen most of the extension and again maintain the privacy of neighbours. The existence of neighbouring trees and hedges is considered to result in a greater loss of light than the proposed extension. The patio has been in existence for some time. The roof pitch is the same with only a slight increase in ridge height that will not easily be discernible. The position and size of the extension do not impinge upon the accepted angle of 45o for light entering the neighbour’s side window.

The proposal was amended prior to submission to minimise impacts upon the neighbours but the applicant is willing to compromise further should the Planning Committee consider that further changes are necessary.

SUMMARY Concerns have been expressed with regard to size, design and impact by the Parish Council and neighbours. The application site is located within the development boundary for Hurst Green and an extension could be considered subject to its size, design and impact upon neighbours.

The existing bungalow, which has a loft conversion with roof lights to the front and rear, is located in between the bungalow of St Etienne and the two-storey Shelton House. The plot is however, wedge shaped being wider to the front and tapering to a point at the rear. In order to maintain access and keep the extension off the side boundaries the extension is thus long and narrow. While 7m may be considered to be excessive in depth, it is only 2.5m deeper than the rear wall of St Etienne, which is set at a slightly higher ground level and has a substantial boundary hedge. There is a side window to St Etienne with an additional window to the rear. The rear elevation faces a southerly direction. The balcony element is recessed within the roof and wall overhangs, thus providing privacy for the occupiers and neighbours. Additionally it is only 1m deep and as such is not therefore considered to represent any significant loss of amenity for neighbours. As such the proposed extension is not considered to be overly large in footprint, nor detrimental to the light and privacy of neighbours.

However, the ridge and east side eaves are higher than existing and the design thus does not reflect in full the single storey appearance of the existing bungalow. The higher wall level, with eaves set above the hedge may be considered imposing to the neighbours as well as not strictly reflecting the character and appearance of the existing property. Given the location within the High Weald AONB such a design concern could also be considered detrimental to countryside protection policies for the AONB.

It is considered that an extension could be accommodated on the current siting but that the design could be improved with a reconsideration of the ridge and eaves

30

details to more closely reflect the existing property. The applicant has offered to amend the proposal should the Committee consider this necessary. However, as currently presented the proposal is considered to conflict with the requirements of Policy HG8 of the local plan, with regard to its design and appearance.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed extension by reason of its increased ridge height and eaves

detailing to the east side, is considered to be a discordant addition, out of character with the design and appearance of the existing bungalow located within the High Weald AONB. As such the proposal is considered to conflict with the requirements of Policy HG8 and GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2008/1343/P ICKLESHAM THE SHELL HOUSE – GARDEN OPPOSITE, MORLAIS RIDGE, WINCHELSEA BEACH MEETING POINT FOR OUTDOOR PARENT AND TODDLER GROUPMr S Sullivan

Statutory 8 week date: 19 August 2008

SITE The application site lies to the east side of the unmade Morlais Ridge at its northern end. It is set outside any town or village development boundary as defined within the Rother District Local Plan. The site adjoins the Dungeness, Romney Marshes & Rye Bay SSSI.

HISTORYNone.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission for land at Morlais Ridge to be used as a meeting point for an outdoor parents and toddlers group.

The applicant states, “The group has been running since September 2007. It runs in school term time only on a Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Times for the groups are:Monday 9.30am to 11.00am 11.30am to 1.00pmTuesday 9.30am to 11.00am 11.30am to 1.00pmWednesday 11.20am to 1.00pm 1.30pm to 3.00pm

Groups consist of no more than 8 parents and their toddlers. The group is picked up from a local car park and brought to the site by a minibus (LDV 400) running on bio-diesel, unless they choose to walk or cycle. Driving to the site by car is strongly discouraged and from experience, parents will only do this in an emergency or if very

31


late, and this has proven rare. The bus makes no more than 2 journeys to and from The Shell House garden each day the groups are running.

Once the group is underway the parents and toddlers engage in some activities in the garden such as tending the vegetable plot, feeding birds, spotting bugs and learning about nature and the environment. A lot of time is spent away from the garden on nature walks in local woodland, the nature reserve and on the beach. The local farmer has kindly allowed us onto his land to look at lambs and other neighbours have been welcoming in displaying their own crafts and knowledge”.

A travel plan was submitted by the applicant and forwarded to the Highway Authority for their information.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:– Supports an approval.Highway Authority:– Initial comments of 2 July 2008:“I do not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to the observations below:The proposed meeting point is located off of a Private Street known as Morlais Ridge. Although Morlais Ridge is un-adopted highway it is still subject to highway rights. I do not foresee the proposed parent and toddlers group to generate a material increase of use along this Street and therefore I would not wish to raise any objection.”

Further comments of 3 October 2008:“This HT401 has been issued in response to the additional information submitted regarding the proposed traffic movements with this proposal:I do not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to the observations below:The proposed meeting point is located off a Private Street knows as Morlais Ridge. While I appreciate the local residents’ concerns regarding the increased levels of traffic using Morlais Ridge, it is classed as a Private Street (an un-adopted highway with full highway rights) and therefore there is a public right of way through it.Although the ‘travel plan’ indicates that there is a minimal increase in traffic generation as a direct result of this application I would be happy to condition a maximum limit of 6 a day (for example), to ensure that the disruption to the existing residents is minimal.”Environment Agency: – No comment.Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board: – No comment.Planning Notice: – 25 letters of objection concerned with the following: As a trustee for the Morlais Trust we own and are responsible for the

maintenance of approx 2/3rd of this private road – the increase in heavy vehicular traffic and usage will accelerate the need for on going repairs.

Could mean 8 – 10 movements on the lane twice a day. Parking issues and access problems for walkers, ramblers and the general

public wishing to enjoy Winchelsea bird sanctuary and Camber Castle. Are the correct health and safety regulations in place? Set a precedent. Future expansion of business may generate an even bigger problem for the

local people and the countryside. Detrimental impact on the area.

32

The road causes damage to cars and injury to pedestrians by thoughtless drivers.

Business in this locality must be considered detrimental to the peace and tranquillity of this small group of residents.

Morlais Ridge is a single track in poor condition. This business in totally the wrong location for access. Possible fire risk. Not all customers use the mini-bus. Business already in operation. Extra traffic makes it difficult to use the road. Business could run in a different location. We would like to live in a peaceful and healthy place – without businesses. Alters character of area. Morlais Ridge is a designated public footpath. No parking at the site. The site is actually the venue for the playground. Privacy of other dwellings. Impact on road, access, car parking and traffic generation. A possible solution to the concerns surrounding transport to the site would be

by approaching the site from the opposite end of Morlais Ridge by vehicle – through the entrance to Castle Farm and or by foot along the same route.

Temporary structure on site. SSSI field adjacent. Devalue properties.

Copies of notices circulated to residents of Morlais Ridge relating to use of track have been sent in.

Correspondence has been received from ‘The Morlais Trust’, which includes copies of correspondence they have sent to the Highway Authority. The full content of these letters can be viewed on the website; however, below follows a brief summary of their concerns: “The above application was discussed at a recent meeting of the Trust’s

Management Committee and it is the Trust’s decision to object to the development which it considers would impact adversely on the environmental qualities of the area, the amenity and privacy of dwellings, and create issues in relation to road safety and access, car parking and traffic generation.”

23 letters of support raising the following points: Sort of enterprise that the Council should be encouraging – educating children

about the natural world, out in the open air, in such beautiful surroundings. Contributes so much to the local community. Benefits outweigh the very small disturbance to one or two local residents. Disturbance to local residents is kept to an absolute minimum – a minibus

conveys us to and from the site – meeting in a local car park. Its work is unique. Creative Natives minibus travels along the road only six times each week, on

three days – this does seem a relatively small number of journeys. Sessions are inspirational and educational. Teaches children to care and respect the environment.

33

There is nothing like this in the surrounding areas. Assume that the upkeep of Morlais Ridge is a private matter and not

something the Council should take into consideration. Proposed implication from traffic seems to be exaggerated and ridiculous. If traffic movements are a problem cannot the number of movements be

controlled by a condition? Location is perfectly suited to this group. It is carefully and thoughtfully run with respect and awareness to the residents

of Morlais Ridge. I am a trustee of ‘The Morlais Trust’ and have not been approached to discuss

the application by other Morlais Trust trustees. Maintenance of the road was discussed at a meeting earlier this year and

arrangements were made for the road upkeep, with the knowledge of the Creative Natives group.

SUMMARY The main issues to consider are the acceptability of this enterprise within a residential area, impact upon neighbours residential amenities and traffic implications. Local Plan Policies apply and in particular GD1 and EM6.

Policy EM6 states, “Proposals for business uses operating from residential properties, including for extensions or alterations for such a purpose, will be permitted where they do not have an adverse impact on the amenities of adjacent properties or the character of the area including as a consequence of traffic generation.”

Amenity issues:While Morlais Ridge is a linear development of residential properties it has open land to both the front and rear. To the east of the site the land is included in a Site of Special Scientific Interest. As such the proposed enterprise of introducing toddlers to their natural environment seems to be in keeping with this locality, and given the scale of the enterprise the activities of the group on site are unlikely to cause demonstrable harm to the residential amenities of neighbouring dwellings.

Highway IssuesI have noted the condition of Morlais Ridge and the strong objections raised with regard to increased vehicle movements and highway safety along the road.

However the applicant, at the request of the Highway Authority, has submitted a travel plan, this information has been considered by the Highway Authority and they conclude that they do not wish to restrict grant of consent.

ConclusionGiven the traffic assessment and lack of objection raised by the Highway Authority, I consider that, on balance, a temporary permission, to enable a full assessment of the enterprise’s scale and impact upon neighbours’ amenities especially with regard to traffic, would be an acceptable approach in this instance.

The proposal meets the objectives of Policies GD1(ii)(iii)(iv) and EM6 of the Rother District Local Plan, I therefore support this proposal.

34

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

former condition on or before 1 year of the date of this permission in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Reason: The use is potentially detrimental to the amenities of the adjacent properties/surrounding area and this permission is granted temporarily to enable the local planning authority to monitor and assess the effects of the proposal, having regard to the criteria set out in Policy GD1 (ii)(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 (d)(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. There shall be no more than 6 minibus movements per day associated with ‘Creative Natives’ along Morlais Ridge.Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. The meeting point for outdoor parent and toddlers group hereby approved shall only operate at Monday 9.30am to 11.00am and 11.30 to 1.00pm, Tuesday 9.30am to 11.00am and 11.30am to 1.00pm, Wednesday 11.20am to 1.00pm and 1.30pm to 3.00pm and shall be for no more than eight parents and their toddlers at any one time.Reason: To enable the local planning authority to regulate and control the development of the land and safeguard the amenities of neighbouring dwellings in accordance with Policy GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: While Morlais Ridge is a linear development of residential properties it has open land to both the front and rear, which is designated for its special interest. As such the proposed enterprise of introducing toddlers to their natural environment is in keeping with this locality, and given the scale of the enterprise the activities of the group on site will not cause demonstrable harm to the residential amenities of neighbouring dwellings. No objection is raised by the Highway Authority. However, given the unique nature of the proposal, its location and the poor state of access to the site, a temporary permission to enable a full assessment of the enterprise’s scale and impact upon neighbours’ amenities especially with regard to traffic would be appropriate in this instance. As such the proposal meets the objectives of Policies GD1(ii)(iii)(iv) and EM6 of the Rother District Local Plan, and Policy S1(d)(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


35


RR/2008/2462/L ICKLESHAM 11-12 HIGH STREET, WINCHELSEA ALTERATIONS TO INTERNAL LAYOUT, INCLUDING

DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF MODERN EXTENSION TO REAR, AND RE-USE OF EXISTING OUT-BUILDINGS TO REAR TO FACILITATE USE OF PREMISES AS A RESTAURANT WITH ANCILLARY RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION AND DELICATESSEN

Wetland Trust Statutory 8 week date: 19 September 2008 RR/2008/2463/P ICKLESHAM 11-12 HIGH STREET, WINCHELSEA ALTERATIONS TO INTERNAL LAYOUT, INCLUDING

DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF MODERN EXTENSION TO REAR, AND RE-USE OF EXISTING OUT-BUILDINGS TO REAR TO FACILITATE USE OF PREMISES AS A RESTAURANT WITH ANCILLARY RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION AND DELICATESSEN

Wetland Trust Statutory 8 week date: 19 September 2008

INTRODUCTION This matter was first reported to Committee on 16 October last year, Members having previously visited the site. At that meeting it was resolved to grant listed building consent and planning permission, with the decisions delegated to the Head of Planning subject to satisfactory information relating to noise control and extraction equipment. Revised plans and other information before Members at that meeting also had to be the subject of further public consultation.

Additional information on the acoustic and extraction matters was then received from the applicants first in November, and subsequently other interested parties became involved in the technical information in relation to these issues.

The matter was reported back to the Planning Committee on 22 January. Members had a report and other information by way of updates explaining the progress on establishing existing and proposed noise levels and the related matters. Members were advised of the replies received to consultations since October and were apprised of the issues arising, relevant planning policies and government advice. (The Committee report of 22 January 2009 and the update paper is included in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 February 2009).

The initial recommendation in January was for approval of the application, but delegated to seek revised plans for a reduced patio area and consideration of openings from the bar onto the courtyard area and for the final detail of the acoustic walls and sealing of the fine dining room. After discussion at Committee, and having regard to the amount of last minute information on the acoustic matters from both the applicants and objectors, decisions on the applications were deferred, although on the basis of seeking revised plans and information related to the matters stated in the original published recommendation.

36

Current Position:The applicants responded to the January Committee decision by agreeing to a joint acoustic test with consultants acting for the adjoining owners of ‘Nesbit’. An on site test planned to take place on 3 February, in the presence of the Council’s Senior Environmental Health Officer, had to be postponed due to the weather. A site test is being rearranged. Matters resulting from this meeting will be reported to the Committee.

The Proposal:Since the original submission in August 2008 the scheme has been modified, but the essential elements of the proposal remain the same. In summary the proposal comprises: A public restaurant and bar at ground floor with a new main entrance to the

premises in the carriageway to the side of the property A private dining room and WC facilities for the restaurant as well as a flat for

staff use at first floor A small office in the roof space A rear courtyard to be used for outside dining; and A delicatessen (A1 use) served via the side carriageway and rear courtyard

Policies:Members will be aware that in making their decision under the Planning Acts the determination shall be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The following policies of the adopted Local Plan are relevant:DS1 - Development principlesGD1 - General development considerationsHG7 - Retention of housing stockEM6 - Businesses in residential areas

In addition PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment, and PPG24: Planning and Noise apply.

HISTORY11 High Street:RR/2000/1202/P Change of use of post office/shop to residential – RefusedRR/2001/736/P Change of use from business to residential – ApprovedRR/2006/1327/P Renewal of RR/2001/736/P – Approved

12 High Street:A/72/1442 Use of room as tearoom – ApprovedA/72/1442 Two dormer windows – ApprovedRR/2000/2364/P Construction of dormers in connection with conversion of loft

space – ApprovedRR/2000/2415/L Conversion of loft space in rear single storey extension -

Approved

37

ISSUESThe two properties have a history of commercial uses on the ground floor with residential usage above. The ground floor of 12 High Street was previously used as a licensed tearoom; the ground floor of 11 High Street was formerly the village post office. Having regard to the former uses and the town location, the principle of the restaurant use and the small delicatessen is in my view acceptable having regard to the above quoted policies and guidance. In terms of Policy HG7, I acknowledge the loss of the residential accommodation above 11 High Street, but the amalgamation of two former commercial uses on the ground floor into one still retains a residential unit above the new use which can be accepted in terms of Policy HG7(iii).

The issues that remained unresolved before the last Committee were the precise arrangements necessary to safeguard the residents of adjoining properties. Policy GD1(ii) is specifically relevant to this in terms of development not unreasonably harming the amenities of adjoining properties. Reference has also been made to Policy EM6 which refers to development not having an adverse impact on the amenities of adjacent properties. Strictly this policy relates to businesses operating from residential properties, e.g. home working. In this case the application relates to existing commercial premises with residential accommodation above but it reinforces the general approach, also set out in PPG24 – Noise, on protecting residential amenity. The protection is particularly focused on ‘Nesbit’ to the east, whose flank wall abuts the side access to the restaurant and delicatessen at ground floor, has a party wall to the proposed dining room and toilet facilities at first floor, and whose rear garden is open to the courtyard/patio of the proposed restaurant.

At the January Planning Committee I outlined the issues as: Overall noise and other disturbance: relating to the (historic) structure of the

building, the position of adjacent gardens and the general proximity of neighbours.

Internal activities at first floor: the position of the private dining area and of the male and female toilets in relation to the common boundary wall of ‘Nesbit’ and the bedroom and bathroom of ‘Nesbit’.

Use of courtyard for outside eating: in which respect the submitted plans show 2 tables with four covers + 2 tables with two covers in the original tea room courtyard at 12 High Street and a further 4 tables each with four covers to the rear of 11 High Street in an area not previously used for external eating.

Delicatessen: a new use of an existing outbuilding as a retail unit served by the coach entrance adjacent to ‘Nesbit’, and the comings and goings of customers down this route.

Refuse: the means of its disposal, storage and transfer to the road for collection and times.

Bottles: the means of the storage of empty bottles and transfer to the road for collection and times.

Late night activity on street: the comings and goings of clientele by foot or car and their routes into the premises.

Extraction: equipment required to service the kitchen and delicatessen/ external plant and machinery; its appearance and any effects on adjoining residents.

Any other equipment: the need for other equipment and its location and noise. Music: its likelihood and desirability; noise outbreak and impact on residents.

38

Smoking: provision externally.

Related to all these issues are the times of operation of the different elements of the scheme: the restaurant; the use of the outside areas of eating and drinking and serving, and the delicatessen.

These issues are focussed on a number of specific physical areas of the premises and particular operations.

Party wall to ‘Nesbit’In order to safeguard the amenities of ‘Nesbit’ - and essentially to prevent noise transmission from the proposed upstairs private dining room and male WC - the application involves the construction of an internal acoustic wall to the first floor flank to ’Nesbit’ and below. The WC abuts a bedroom in ‘Nesbit’ while the proposed dining room a section of Nesbit’s bathroom. (Acoustic measures are also proposed on the other flank to ‘Wren Cottage’.)

For the Council’s part, the local planning authority must be satisfied that there is sufficient information to accept the scheme proposed or that the issue is capable of final resolution by an appropriate condition to deal with any outstanding questions on the matter. In this case we have a medieval building where the exact construction is unclear and it has become evident that there is a complicated relationship on the common boundary. Although there is a concrete wall on this boundary its full extent and integrity is not known. In deferring the application on the last occasion Members accepted that validation of the proposed acoustic solution, from on-site testing, was necessary before final agreement and this will be one of the matters addressed on site.

Private Dining RoomThe upstairs private dining room might accommodate up to 20 covers. The issue of soundproofing this room to the adjoining house has been considered above. A second issue is any potential noise break-out via the rear windows towards the garden of the adjacent property. This room was previously a lounge to the flat above the former post office but will now be in commercial use.

A balcony leading from this room included in the initial application was deleted prior to the October Committee. The proposal remains that the existing double doors are now to be sealed.

I advised Members at the January Committee that it is difficult to perceive that an active dining room of this size with the windows open, will not on occasion give rise to noise in excess of the normal previous residential use. In these circumstances - as the applicants seek to introduce commercial activity to a residential part of the building - I do not consider it unreasonable for this room to be sealed with air handling introduced: such equipment being capable of being sited unobtrusively to the valley area of the roof. I do not consider that this would affect the ambience of the dining room but it would safeguard the amenities of adjoining residents.

In recent correspondence the applicants object to this proposal.

39

Use of Courtyard/patioAt the October Committee, Members discussed the creation and use of the rear patio area for outside dining. Initially the possibility of a temporary (trial period) was debated at Committee having regard to the extension of the original small area at the rear of the former tea rooms and the demolition of a dividing wall. Subsequently the applicants indicated their agreement to this possibility.

Members considered this matter further in January as to how the extended outside eating area would affect the living environment of the garden area of ’Nesbit’ by reason of increased noise and disturbance over and above the previous situation. Related to this matter is the issue of external smoking and direct access onto the patio from the rear bar area.

It is clear that noise from the use of this area for external dining will undoubtedly be audible in the quiet rear garden of ‘Nesbit’. Next to ‘Nesbit’ this will be new noise from a new commercial use and will be impractical to effectively control. My recommendation remains that the patio area be reduced and that any doors/windows to this area must be sealed apart from any necessary fire precautions, and alternative ventilation provided. On this basis I believe the amenities of the adjoining properties can be reasonably protected in terms of Policy GD1. In a recent letter on behalf of the applicants (also sent to the adjoining neighbours) a revised plan of the rear patio area has been tabled. This maintains the use of the rear of 12 High Street for external eating but with a reduced number of tables (3 rather than 4) and enclosed from the ‘Nesbit’ side by a vertical planting wall. Access for the delicatessen and to the bin storage area is shown separated from the external tables, albeit along the ‘Nesbit’ boundary.

DelicatessenMembers discussed this aspect in January. The new delicatessen use is a potentially independent A1 retail unit and is not integral to the main operation of the restaurant.

The delicatessen is opposed by the adjoining residents as it has the effect of turning the side access way into what they describe as a ‘public street’ with new activity which will adversely affect the quiet rear gardens adjoining.

In dealing with the impact of such a use I consider that there are three main issues: The size of the shop and its likely trading pattern; The hours of operation; The extent of the A1 retail use, having regard to the fact that though described

as a delicatessen once established other A1 uses could be implemented.

The shop has a main floor area of about 22.8 sq.metres which is a small facility. While it is difficult to estimate the likely trade this limited size and its village location does not suggest heavy usage. It is possible that customers accessing the rear passage would be discerned but, in order to prevent an adverse impact on the adjoining residents, control of the hours of use and limiting the A1 use to prevent the sale of food for consumption on the premises - which would encourage outside use - would be an acceptable way forward in terms of the Local Plan policies

40

acknowledging that in the context of Policy EM6 (at paragraph 9.19) the Local Plan acknowledges some flexibility in land uses.

Noise from this use would not be on the scale of the use of the patio/courtyard and would mainly be inside the delicatessen. Plant issuesThe main external plant issue relates to the ventilation from the kitchen which is within the upper level of the two storey outshot adjacent to ‘Wren Cottage’ but facing ‘Nesbit’. I am satisfied that the arrangements are acceptable and that on the evidence submitted that a satisfactory solution can be achieved to safeguard the amenities of adjoining residents having regard to the Local Plan policies. These are matters for conditions, as with any other plant that may be required capable of being audible outside the site. Impact on the street A number of objectors refer to people-related noise outside the premises that will cause disturbance to nearby residents.

Reference has been made, above, to PPG 24 – Planning and Noise, and in this respect the obvious noise components are raised voices especially with groups of people, car doors being closed and car engine noise. (Activity on the street will also include deliveries and bottle and refuse disposal which matters are considered separately.)

It is acknowledged that there will be some noise from patrons leaving the premises in what is a generally quiet environment, particularly in the evening periods. Site inspections before the January Committee confirmed that the sound of car doors and voices are audible within the closest bedroom of ‘Nesbit’, with the window closed. In normal daytime and evening use street activity - even if it exceeds the likely activity associated with the previous uses, which is almost certain - could not be considered unreasonable. However, beyond 11pm - on the basis of the hours proposed by the applicants - such activity would have an adverse on the amenities of local residents at times when it would be reasonable to expect a quiet environment.

Bottles, refuse disposal and deliveriesThe main storage area is to the rear of 12 High Street but rubbish etc will have to be conveyed via the rear courtyard and alongside ‘Nesbit’. Information on empty bottle and refuse storage and removal was submitted before the January Committee. This included suggested internal practices and stated that disposal from the site will be by a private contractor collected between the hours of 9am and 5pm. This is a matter that can be enforced by condition and I do not believe that the servicing of what were previously two commercial properties, at these times, would be inappropriate in terms of the amenities of local residents.

There is no indication of other delivery arrangements and, in respect of all servicing, the adjoining residents strongly wish this to be carried out directly from the High Street and not via the side passageway adjacent to the garden of ‘Nesbit’. The proposal does retain a door to the High Street but I envisage that most deliveries will now occur to the side via the yard or via the new main entrance at the side. This is

41

not constant activity and I do not believe that such activities would – subject to limitations on times – have an unreasonably harmful effect on local residents at the times the garden is likely to be most used.

Hours of operationI commented at the January Committee that it was unfortunate that the hours of operation have changed through the application process and that what might have been said in public has varied to what has been stated through the application.

Taking into account the policy criteria in relation to protecting local residents, and the previous uses of the site which are material in the decision, I maintain that the hours of opening suggested by the applicants are excessive particularly in relation to the late night use.

The actual hours when the restaurant is open to the public is one aspect but before and after these times are periods of preparation and clearing-up. While these might be low-key this cannot be guaranteed and to have the possibility of customers discharging at 11.30pm and staff at half past midnight in such a quiet environment is not reasonable.

In response to the position set out in January the applicant’s solicitor has commented: “In relation to the restaurant, the Council is recommending a reduction in the time for closing on Tuesday to Saturday of 1½ hours and on Sundays the opening time by an hour and closing time by ½ hour. Whilst our clients would be content to accept the revised hours for Sunday, the reduction in hours for closing is unrealistic. It should at all times be remembered that the prime purpose of the applications was to provide a fine dining establishment. Diners in such a restaurant will expect to spend time at tables enjoying both the food and the ambience. It is simply unrealistic and indeed unreasonable to expect them all to leave the premises by 10.00 pm which would be necessary if closing time is set at 11.00 pm. Our clients would be prepared to accept a midnight close which will in practical terms mean diners leaving the restaurant by 11.00 pm. We have considered whether the restaurant could be simply closed by 11.00 pm leaving clearing up until the following day but we consider this could not only prolong the time required for setting up the following day but also would not meet health and safety requirements.”

In terms of the courtyard/patio area I am aware that the original Licence for alcohol allowed use of the tea rooms and patio to midnight on normal days and that there was no condition on the 1972 planning permission. However as part of the larger restaurant and taking into account increased activity in 11 High Street, I suggest the applicant’s suggested times (albeit on a reduced area than that sought by the applicants) to sundown (but limited to 8.30pm Tuesday - Saturday and 5.30 pm Sunday) be accepted.

In terms of the delicatessen the opening hours of 9am – 5.30pm Monday – Saturday (with one hour ether side for staff working) are not unreasonable. ConclusionI consider that, as a whole, the proposed scheme makes good use of the site and provides a positive way forward to secure an acceptable use of the listed building.

42

Since the Planning Committee’s initial resolution in October 2008 further assessments of the acoustic and extraction matters have been made, having particular regard to the position of the site, surrounded by residential properties.

The Local Plan policies and primarily Policy GD1(ii) and (v) are framed to safeguard the character of the area and the amenities of adjoining properties. Guidance in relation to imposing conditions in PPG24 – Noise includes: “The planning system should not place unjustifiable obstacles in the way of such development. Nevertheless, local planning authorities must ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance. They should also bear in mind that a subsequent intensification or change of use may result in greater intrusion and they may wish to consider the use of appropriate conditions.”

At the time of writing this report there is still further work to be undertaken and information to be provided, including tests on site between the application property and ‘Nesbit’. Depending on work progressing, on which Members will be updated, it may be possible to make the following recommendation to Committee

RECOMMENDATIONS:RR/2008/2463/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (REVISED PLANS FOR REDUCED PATIO AREA AND CONSIDERATION OF OPENINGS FROM BAR ONTO COURTYARD AREA; FINAL DETAIL OF ACOUSTIC WALLS; SEALING OF FINE DINING ROOM) 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 works shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, including a timetable for the investigation, which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: The works are likely to disturb remains of archaeological interest which must be investigated in order to protect and record archaeological remains and to comply with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. Before commencement of the development hereby approved, samples of all external materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such materials must include all new brickwork or other wall construction, any new tiling/slates, all external hard surfacing materials and materials for the construction of the rear balcony, the pergola and the reflection pool. The development shall be completed utilising the approved materials only.

Reason: In the interests of character of the conservation area and to ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the architectural and historic character of the Listed Building in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of

43

the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(m) and EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. A scheme for the fitting of odour control equipment to the building shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and no development shall commence until a scheme is approved by the Local Planning Authority. The use of the premises shall not commence until all odour control equipment works have been carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The odour control equipment shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.Reason: In order to safeguard the residential amenities of adjoining properties having regard to Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. A scheme for the sound insulation of odour control equipment referred to in Condition 4 shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and no development shall commence until all sound insulation works have been carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The sound insulation works shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.Reason: In order to safeguard the residential amenities of adjoining properties having regard to Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and having regard to PPG24: Planning and Noise.

6. The odour and noise control systems shall be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and records of cleaning/replacement of filters/fans etc. shall be kept available by the local planning authority for inspection on the premises.Reason: In order to safeguard the residential amenities of adjoining properties having regard to Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and having regard to PPG24: Planning and Noise.

7. The rating level of the noise emitted by mechanical plant associated with the proposed use (when operating simultaneously at typical maximum duty) shall not exceed the existing background noise level by more than 2dB at any time. The noise levels shall be determined at any and all points along the boundary with any adjoining residential premises. The measurements and assessment shall be made according to BS 4142 : 1990.Reason: In order to safeguard the residential amenities of adjoining properties having regard to Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and having regard to PPG24: Planning and Noise.

8. A scheme for the soundproofing of the building shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and no development shall commence until a scheme is approved by the Local Planning Authority. The use of the premises shall not commence until all soundproofing works have been carried out in accordance with the approved scheme to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The soundproofing works shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include:

Noise generated by use of the function room and customer toilets, howsoever generated, shall be inaudible inside any part of Nesbit at all times.

Proving tests shall be arranged by the applicants and for the avoidance of doubt, this shall have been deemed to be achieved when:-

44

a. In the case of the function room, the local planning authority is satisfied that a constant reverberant noise level of 90 dBA (generated by loudspeakers) with the approximate linear frequency spectrum as set out below:

Frequency (Hz) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000Noise Level (dB)

84 80 90 87 84 83 79 80

can be pulsed on and off inside the function room without being audible inside any part of Nesbit at all times.

b. In the case of the customer toilets, the local planning authority is satisfied that normal use of the toilets (e.g. toilet flushes, running water, cubicle doors closing, footfalls etc) is inaudible inside any part of Nesbit at all times.

Reason: In order to safeguard the residential amenities of adjoining properties having regard to Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and having regard to PPG24: Planning and Noise.

9. The use of the premises as a restaurant and ancillary bar including the private dining room shall not take place other than between the following hours, such hours shall include public opening times and time for set-up and preparation and close down activities:Tuesday – Saturday: 8 am – 11 pmSunday: 9am – 6 pmMonday : ClosedReason: The site adjoins residential properties and the principal use of the building and the associated activities should be constrained to these times to protect the reasonable amenities of the nearby residents having regard to Policies GD1 and EM6 of the Rother District Local Plan and advice in PPG 24 – Planning and Noise.

10. The use of the external areas for dining purposes shall be limited to the area shown …………….on the approved plan and shall be used only between the following times: Tuesday – Saturday: 10am – sundown (limited to 8.30pm in the summer months)Sunday: 10am – sundown (limited to 5.30pm in the summer months)Monday: ClosedReason: The site adjoins residential properties and the use of the external areas should be constrained to these times to protect the reasonable amenities of the nearby residents having regard to Policies GD1 and EM6 of the Rother District Local Plan and advice in PPG 24 – Planning and Noise.

11. Details of any floodlighting or external illumination shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the use hereby permitted commences and the building(s) is/are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and no other lighting shall be installed.

45

Reason: To safeguard the residential amenities of the locality and to control overspill and light pollution in accordance with Policy GD1 (ii) & (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

12. The bar facility is to remain at all times wholly ancillary to the principal use of the premises as a restaurant and for diners using the restaurant and shall not at any time be used for any separate purpose. Reason: The use of a part of the premises is considered acceptable only in association with the principal use of the building as a restaurant having regard to the need to safeguard the amenities of adjoining residents in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) and (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

13. Neither the restaurant use or the delicatessen use hereby permitted shall commence until such time as a Method Statement (or Statements) relating to the storage and disposal of empty bottles and all other rubbish has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and no storage or removal shall be undertaken other than in accordance with the approved Statement(s).Reason: The site adjoins residential properties and storage and disposal activities within and around the building should be constrained to protect the reasonable amenities of the nearby residents having regard to Policies GD1 and EM6 of the Rother District Local Plan and advice in PPG 24 – Planning and Noise.

14. No deliveries shall take place to the site other than between the hours of: Monday to Saturday – 8.00am – 5.30pm.Reason: The site adjoins residential properties and deliveries within and around the building should be constrained to protect the reasonable amenities of the nearby residents having regard to Policies GD1 and EM6 of the Rother District Local Plan and advice in PPG 24 – Planning and Noise.

15. The Delicatessen shall not be open to the public other than between the hours of:Monday – Saturday: 9am – 5.30pmSunday: ClosedAnd no activity shall take place at any other time save one hour before and one hour after the public opening times. Reason: The site adjoins residential properties and the principal use of the shop building and the associated activities should be constrained to these times to protect the reasonable amenities of the nearby residents having regard to Policies GD1 and EM6 of the Rother District Local Plan and advice in PPG 24 – Planning and Noise.

16. Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes Order) 2005 as amended, the Delicatessen shall not be used for the sale of food or drink for consumption on the premises, where the premises are defined as both the building and the shared courtyard access with the restaurant. Reason: To prevent the use of the adjoining courtyard area for external food and drink consumption in the interest of safeguarding the amenity of adjoining residents in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

46

Notes/Informatives:(i) Licensing:

The applicant is advised to contact the Environmental Health Service regarding requirements of the Licensing Act 2003.

(ii) Food Safety:The applicant is advised to contact the Environmental Health Division before services, fixtures and fittings etc. are installed to the kitchen and other food rooms/areas, for advice on satisfying the requirements of food safety law.

(iii) Health and Safety: The applicant is advised to contact the Environmental Health Division before

services, fixtures and fittings etc. are installed for advice on satisfying the requirements of Health and Safety Law.

(iv) Noise in relation to Conditions 7 and 8:Residents adjoining the site should be made aware of the test date by the Applicants at least 7 days in advance to enable them to arrange the tests to be witnessed by their own representative if they so desire.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed use of the buildings will safeguard their integrity as listed buildings. Having regard to the previous uses of the site and the specific nature of the proposal and subject to conditions to control the opening hours and minimise other impacts on adjoining residents the development is an acceptable use within the centre of Winchelsea having regard to Policies DS1, GD1, EM6 and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and having regard to PPG24 – Planning and Noise.. View application/correspondence RR/2008/2462/L: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT) DELEGATED (REVISED PLANS FOR REDUCED PATIO AREA AND CONSIDERATION OF OPENINGS FROM BAR ONTO COURTYARD AREA; FINAL DETAIL OF ACOUSTIC WALLS; SEALING OF FINE DINING ROOM) 1. The work to which this consent relates shall be begun before the expiration of

three years beginning with the date on which this consent is granted. Reason: In accordance with section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and

Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. No works shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, including a timetable for the investigation, which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: The works are likely to disturb remains of archaeological interest which must be investigated in order to protect and record archaeological remains and to comply with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan

47


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

3. Before commencement of any building works/alterations or repairs as hereby approved, samples of all external materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such materials must include all new brickwork or other wall construction, any new tiling/slates, all external hard surfacing materials and materials for the construction of the rear balcony, the pergola and the reflection pool. The works shall be completed utilising the approved materials only.

Reason: To ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the architectural and historic character of the Listed Building in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(m) and EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. Before commencement of the works hereby approved, details of all new joinery, including doors and door frames and architraves, windows (and all glazing thereto) and all new partitions/studwork, skirting boards - at a scale of 1:10 elevations with full size sections through cills, frames and opening lights, including glazing bars and mullions and showing the relationship to the existing structure where appropriate - shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and only those approved details shall be employed within the development and thereafter retained.

Reason: To safeguard the historic fabric and architectural character of the listed building in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(m) and EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

5. Full details of any necessary structural repairs or any repairs to brickwork or repairs to historic timbers including any painting or cleaning shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and thereafter no works shall be undertaken other than in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard the historic fabric and architectural character of the listed building in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(m) and EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

6. No works shall be undertaken to the front dormer windows unless a scheme of works has been first submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and thereafter no works shall be undertaken other than in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To safeguard the historic fabric and architectural character of the listed building in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(m) and EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011

REASONS FOR GRANTING CONSENT: The works including extensions and alterations safeguard the integrity of the buildings and therefore accord with the advice of PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment and with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(m) and EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. View application/correspondence ___________________________________________________________________

48

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20082462l

RR/2008/3027/P ICKLESHAM RYE HARBOUR GARAGE, RYE HARBOUR ROAD, RYE HARBOURDEMOLITION OF EXISTING CAR WORKSHOP/GARAGE AND OUTBUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF THREE STOREY BUILDING HOUSING 6 X 2 BEDROOMED APARTMENTS AND 1 X 1 BEDROOMED APARTMENT TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND VEHICLE CROSS OVER ALTERATIONSGemselect Ltd

Statutory 8 week date: 22 December 2008


SITE This site occupies a village centre location on the south side of Harbour Road and is within the development boundary for Rye Harbour as defined in the Rother District Local Plan. The site falls within Flood Zone 3. The existing single storey height buildings are currently unoccupied and comprise a car workshop, garage and small showroom. The business ceased trading in 2006. Apart from the meeting hall adjoining the east side, the surrounding properties are predominantly residential.

HISTORYRR/2004/2719/P O/A: Demolition of existing garage and erection of three houses

with separate garages – ApprovedRR/2007/150/P Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 4 dwellings

including formation of new vehicular access – Withdrawn

PROPOSAL It is proposed to demolish the existing single storey height buildings on the site and erect a three storey block of flats containing 7 affordable (mainly two bedroom) residential units. Since originally being submitted and following informal discussion and consideration of comments received from consultees, the proposal has been amended and the amended plans re-advertised. Whilst the number and type of affordable residential units remains the same, the siting, scale and design of the proposed three storey building has been significantly changed. For instance, the footprint of the building would now be almost full depth and the front would be close to the pavement, in common with other properties fronting Harbour Road. The ridge height would also now be similar to that of the adjoining hall and the eaves dropped to 2½ storey height instead of three. The elevations and roof have also been broken into several elements thereby reducing its physical and visual mass and would reduce from three floors at the front of the site to two floors at the rear. All living accommodation would be above the ground floor, where 9 car parking spaces, bicycle and bin stores, together with any floodwater, would be accommodated. Materials would include a mix of red Sussex stock bricks, white weatherboarding and manmade slates to the roof. The amended plans can be viewed on the website. The application is accompanied by a full Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Geotechnical Report addressing the issues of flood risk and likely land contamination resulting

49

from the past garage use. These, together with a revised FRA (Issue B) can also be viewed on the website.

CONSULTATIONS (Upon original plans)Parish Council:- Refuse due to loss of light and privacy to adjoining property.Highway Authority:- Recommend conditions re access; parking; wheel washing; turning; cycle storage and require a financial contribution towards Harbour Road cycle/footway.Environment Agency:- Object – risk of pollution to ground water; flood risk – Sequential Test not applied and evacuation routes affected by flood water.Director of Services – Head of Housing:- Fully support this scheme.Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board:- No objection.Planning Notice:- Objections received from adjoining property (1 Riverview) and 6 other properties. Main concerns include – loss of light; inaccurate plans; over-development; height; density; materials; domination; loss of privacy; design; scale; overshadowing; contamination; loss of employment site.Rye Conservation Society: Excessive height, bulk, out of scale.

CONSULTATIONS (upon amended plans)Parish Council:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- Comments awaited.Director of Services – Head of Housing:- Comments awaited.Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Comments awaited.

SUMMARY The main issues in this case relate to:

1. Size, design and materials and visual impact upon its surroundings. Relevant Policies include GD1(iv) and HG4 of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. Impact upon adjoining amenity. Relevant Policies include GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. Flood risk. Relevant Policies include DS1(xi) and GD1(xv) of the Rother District Local Plan, S1(h) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Government Advice contained in PPS25: Development and Flood Risk.

4. Land contamination. Relevant Policies include GD1(xiii) of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(g) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

5. Affordable Housing. Relevant Policies include HG1 and HG3 of the Rother District Local Plan.

6. Highway safety. Relevant Policies include GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

50

7. Loss of employment site. Relevant Policies include EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan and E5 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

With regard to:

1. Size, design and materialsWhen compared to the original submitted plans, the amended scheme represents a significant improvement. The more architectural and elemental design would result in a more attractive building that sits more comfortably in the street scene and with a more satisfactory relationship with adjoining buildings. Although still a large building, it would not have the dominating impact of the original scheme but still maximises the development potential of the site. The size and design is the result of several schemes submitted for informal discussion and would now, in my opinion, be an acceptable physical form of development and would not be contrary to Policies GD1(iv) and HG4 of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. Impact upon adjoining amenityThe amenities with the greatest potential to be adversely affected are those of the residential property adjoining the west side (1 Riverview) and the 4 dwellings at the rear (5-8 Oyster Creek). Objections to the original proposal have been considered and the scheme amended specifically to address those concerns. For instance, the height of the building where it adjoins 1 Riverview has been reduced and hipped, thereby allowing more light to windows in the side of that property. (See amended Drawing No.836/7 showing angles of light). There would be no overlooking windows. Also, whilst the building would now include two rear wings built to within 3.5m of the boundary with 5-8 Oyster Creek, their height has been dropped to two storeys with no overlooking windows. The original adverse impact upon these properties has therefore, in my opinion, been satisfactorily addressed and the amended scheme would not now be contrary to Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. Flood riskThe site falls within Flood Zone 3 where Government Advice contained in PPS25: Development and Flood Risk requires the Sequential and Exception Tests to be applied. Whilst the site does not meet the Sequential Test, it is previously developed land. There are no reasonable alternative sites on developable previously-developed land in this sustainable Rye Harbour village location. In principle, therefore, residential redevelopment of this site is supported. In order to pass the Exception Test, the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) must fully demonstrate that the proposed development would be safe, and in particular provide a safe access and egress route for the purpose of evacuation. In their original comments, the Environment Agency raised concern about evacuation routes in the event of predicted 2115 flood levels. In response to this concern, the applicants have revised their FRA (Issue B).

51

At the time of writing this report, the further comments upon this and the amended plans from the Environment Agency had not been received. Any comments received will be reported at the meeting.

4. Land contaminationThe Geotechnical Report on land contamination has been sent to the Environment Agency and this Council’s Environmental Health Officer. At the time of writing this report their comments had not been received. The proposed development would only be supported if it can be demonstrated that there is either no risk of contamination to controlled ground waters and public health or that any contamination found can be satisfactorily dealt with through the imposition of appropriate conditions. Any comments received will therefore be reported at the meeting.

5. Affordable housingThe site falls within the development boundary of Rye Harbour where, on housing developments of 5 or more dwellings, Policy HG1 of the Rother District Local Plan requires 40% of the total number of dwellings provided to be affordable housing for local people. Policy HG3 also requires 30% of the whole housing development to be of one and two bedrooms. In this case, all the dwellings (100%) are proposed to be affordable and these would all have 1 or 2 bedrooms. The proposed scheme would not therefore be contrary to Policies HG1 and HG3.

6. Highway safetyComments from the Highway Authority upon the amended scheme have not yet been received. The intention to provide 9 parking spaces (1 per flat and 2 for visitors) together with bicycle storage at ground floor level remains the same. However, the layout has changed and entrance gates are now shown across the vehicle entrance to the ground floor of the building from Harbour Road. Subject to them being satisfied with these changes, I would expect them to continue to support the proposal subject to similar conditions and a financial contribution towards the Harbour Road cycle/footway provision as previously proposed. Such being the case, the proposal would not be contrary to Policies GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

7. Loss of employment sitePolicies EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan and E5 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 resist the loss of existing suitably located industrial and commercial sites unless it is demonstrated that there is no prospect of its continued use for business purposes or that it would perpetuate serious harm to residential amenities. The principle of losing this employment site was established when previous application RR/2004/2719/P was granted. At that time it was considered that, in view of the significant amount of employment uses in Harbour Road, that the loss of this small site in the village, which is surrounded by residential development would not be prejudicial to the local economy. At this current time, I am not aware of any significant change to this situation and do not consider that the proposed residential development would be contrary to these Policies.

52

In conclusion, it is my opinion that, on balance, the amended scheme, albeit large, is now of a scale and design that maximises the development potential of the site and has an acceptable impact upon the character of the area, street scene and amenities of adjoining dwellings. However, there remain important issues upon which comments from the Environment Agency are awaited. These relate to safe means of escape in the event of flooding and contaminated land. Comments from the Highway Authority are also awaited. Any comments received from neighbours as a result of re-advertising the amended plans will also need to be considered. However, provided no significant objections are received, I would expect to support the proposal, subject to the applicants entering into the usual Section 106 Obligation regarding the provision of affordable housing.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD ON AMENDED PLANS/S106 OBLIGATION)1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of


2. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building 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 appearance of the locality in accordance with Policies GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. 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 rear/south and side/west elevations or roof slope.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 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

4. The new access shall be in the position shown on the submitted plan drawing no.836/2 date stamped 29/1/2009, and shall be completed in accordance with the construction details, form HT401, attached to this permission.Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with the requirements of the Director of Transport and Environment of East Sussex in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(d) & TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011. Note: To give effect to this condition you should contact the Transport and Environment Department of East Sussex County Council at Sidley Depot, Ninfield Road, Bexhill TN39 5AA (Telephone 01424 220022) prior to the commencement of work and enter a Private Works agreement between yourself and the County Council.

53

5. No apartment shall be occupied until parking and turning space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plan drawing no.836/2 date stamped 29/1/2009 for 9 number of cars to be parked and it shall thereafter be retained for those purposes only.Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

6. No apartment shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with drawing no.836/2 date stamped 29/1/2009 for bicycles to be parked and it shall thereafter be retained for that purpose only.Reason: To encourage environmentally friendly and sustainable means of transport in accordance with Policy GD1 (iii) & TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(c), TR3 & TR5 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

7. The occupation of the development authorised by this permission shall not begin until the County Council highway works to construct a footway/cycleway on Harbour Road as detailed on Drawing No. E06033/36 – Proposed Layout and Drawing Nos. 262696/23, 262696/24, 262696/25, 262696/26, 262696/27 and 262696/28 have been completed, unless alternative arrangements to secure the specified works have been approved by the local planning authority. Reason: In the interest of securing necessary highway improvements in accordance with Policies GD1(iii) and RY7(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

8. Control of pollution – as recommended by the Environment Agency.9. Control of flood risk – as recommended by the Environment Agency.10. Before any development commences the existing building(s) on the site shall

be demolished and the site cleared of all resultant rubble and spoil, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.Reason: To ensure the satisfactory development and appearance of the site in accordance with Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

Notes:i. This permission is the subject of an obligation under Section 106 of the Town

and Country Planning Act 1990.ii. This decision notice relates to the following schedule of approved plans:-

Drawing No. 836/1 Date stamped 29 January 2009Drawing No. 836/2 Date stamped 29 January 2009Drawing No. 836/3 Date stamped 29 January 2009Drawing No. 836/4 Date stamped 29 January 2009Drawing No. 836/5 Date stamped 29 January 2009Drawing No. 836/6 Date stamped 29 January 2009Drawing No. 836/7 Date stamped 29 January 2009Drawing No. 836/8 Date stamped 29 January 2009Drawing No. 836/9 Date stamped 29 January 2009Drawing No. 836/10 Date stamped 29 January 2009Drawing No. 836/11 Date stamped 29 January 2009Drawing No. 836/12 Date stamped 29 January 2009

54

Drawing No. 836/13 Date stamped 29 January 2009iii. The applicants’ attention is drawn to the comments of the Highway Authority

regarding a financial contribution towards providing the Harbour Road, Rye cycle/footway and contained in their HT401 dated _______, copy enclosed.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development strikes an acceptable balance between efficient use of land and form of development and is of a size, design and materials that will not adversely affect the character of the area, the amenities of adjoining properties or highway safety. It has also been demonstrated that the development would meet the flood risk at the site and that any contamination of land resulting from the previous use can be adequately dealt with. The proposed development therefore complies with Policies GD1(ii)(iii)(iv)(xiii)(xv), DS1(xi), HG1, HG3 and HG4 of the Rother District Local Plan, Policy S1(d)(f)(g)(h) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Government Advice contained in PPS25: Development and Flood Risk.


RR/2008/3572/L ICKLESHAM 9 HIGH STREET, WINCHELSEAFIX REMOVABLE BLACKBOARD TO EAST ELEVATION

Mrs A Rumsey


RR/2008/3574/A ICKLESHAM 9 HIGH STREET, WINCHELSEAREMOVABLE BLACKBOARD FIXED TO WALLMrs A Rumsey


SITE 9 High Street is a Grade II listed corner property. Currently used as a shop the premises are situated on the corner of Castle Street and High Street, within Winchelsea’s Conservation Area and the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORY (relevant)RR/2004/1674/P) Lower and widen step to Castle Street door and erection of RR/2004/1674/L) handrails. Installation of external light. Erection of awning over

shop window on High Street - Refused – Appeal Dismissed.RR/2005/2825/P) Lower and widen step to Post Office. Erect hand rails and install RR/2005/2828/L) light for disabled customers - Approved/Granted PROPOSAL These listed building and advertisement applications relate to the fixing of a removable blackboard to the east elevation of the building. The blackboard measures approximately 800mm wide and is 1100mm in height and advertises the butcher’s shop on another part of the street.

55


CONSULTATIONSParish Council – “By its size and location, the Committee felt that the sign contradicts the Conservation Appraisal. To be in line with the Appraisal, a smaller sign, situated higher (‘simple and discreet in character’), would be more appropriate.”Planning Notice – 2 letters of objection to the listed building application: I object to the blackboard because it is a further piece of clutter on the front of

this simple and attractive listed building There are now two tables on the pavement outside the building, a newspaper

collection box under one of the tables, another advertising blackboard at the front of the shop (which also lacks planning), a litter bin and hanging baskets. There is also a panel of adverts on the side gate and a conspicuous three-cabinet notice board The second table, newspaper box and two blackboards are all recent, and the three-cabinet notice board replaced a simple open notice board

These many new fixtures are cluttering the building and changing the character and appearance of this important street corner

The characterisation of Shopfronts and Advertisements in the Winchelsea Conservation Area Appraisal states, ‘There are only a very small number of commercial premises within Winchelsea, and those that do exist have been inserted into the historic dwellings in such a way as their domestic character has been largely retained.’ It also observes that all the shop fronts in Winchelsea are ‘simple and discreet in character’

The increasing clutter on, and in front of, the shop is destroying that simplicity and there is no longer anything very discreet about the corner

The blackboard serves no useful purpose. It is unlikely to attract passing trade, if only because it tends to be hidden by vehicles outside the shop, and the butcher at the end of Castle Street has prospered for many years in his current location

The advertiser, J Wickens & Son, Butchers, has been trading very successfully for over twenty years during which time it has never been thought necessary to erect advertisements in other parts of the town

The board is ugly and unnecessary and could set a precedent for any business which saw fit to erect advertisements around the town

The fact that it is removable does not mean that it will not be in full view for most of the day

SUMMARY The blackboard is mounted on small metal hooks attached to the building so that it can be removed when the shop is closed. At the moment it is advertising the butcher’s shop, which is situated further along Castle Street; however the applicant has also confirmed that it may also advertise what is sold in the shop itself. The issues in relation to the listed building application are its impact on the character of the listed building. The issues in relation to the advertisement consent application are ones of amenity (including the siting in the Conservation Area) and highway safety. The blackboard is of a plain appearance and, in itself, acceptable on this elevation of the listed building.

56

The Conservation Area Character Appraisal has identified that there are only a small number of commercial premises within Winchelsea. The sign is removed at night and does not have any adverse affect to the character of the Conservation Area. I appreciate that the corner property with two busy frontages has a number of appendages but this reflects its use and is not inappropriate in terms of the character of the town. While signs remote from the premises to which they relate are not always appropriate (as they can result in a proliferation of signs) this sign is non corporate, is reasonably domestic in scale and character and is fabricated in wood with hand painted lettering. In its simple form and character with a rustic and domestic appeal it does not have any significant impact to the listed building or character of this Conservation Area or street scene.

RECOMMENDATIONS: RR/2008/3572/L: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)

REASONS FOR GRANTING CONSENT: The blackboard is of an appropriate design and will not adversely affect the character of the listed building, Conservation Area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policies S1 and EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

View application/correspondence

RR/2008/3574/A: GRANT (ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT)1. Any advertisements displayed and any site used for the display of

advertisements, shall be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the local planning authority.

2. Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a safe condition.

3. Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the removal shall be carried out to the reasonable satisfaction of the local planning authority.

4. No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.

5. No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to obscure or hinder the ready interpretation of any road traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air, or so as otherwise to render hazardous the use of any highway, railway, waterway or aerodrome (civil or military).Reason: To comply with Regulation 13(1) and Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisement) Regulations 1992, and to preserve the visual amenities and highway safety of the area.

6. The projecting sign shall not be illuminated.Reason: To preserve the amenities/highway safety of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii)(iv)(v)(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f)(j)(m)(s) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

57

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

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The blackboard is of an appropriate design and will not adversely affect the character of the listed building, Conservation Area or street scene or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policies S1 and EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2009/106/P ICKLESHAM CHURCH FARM HOUSE, PARSONAGE LANEOUTLINE: ERECTION OF DETACHED BUILDING TO BE USED AS STUDIO/WORKSHOP FOR DISABLED OWNER INCORPORATING ANNEXE ACCOMMODATION FOR DISABLED GUESTSMr R Lee


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

SITE Church Farmhouse is a Grade II listed building situated at the junction of Main Road and Parsonage Lane. The house fronts the lane but the rear garden is side on to the main road. It is a 16 th century timber framed building with painted brick to the ground floor and tile hung above. There is a rear catslide roof.

Adjoining the rear boundary of the site and at a higher level is a new detached house and garage.

HISTORY

RR/2007/675/L External vent and plume flue – Granted.RR/2007/2538/P Erection of trellis up to 2.5 metres – GrantedRR/2007/3220/P) Erection of single storey RR/2007/3226/L) rear extension – RefusedRR/2008/3334/P Retention of fence and trellis (2.8 metres) – Granted

PROPOSAL This is an outline proposal to erect a timber framed outbuilding in the rear garden of the property. All matters are reserved at this stage although indicative plans submitted show an L-shaped building 13.5 metres x 13.67 metres with a pitched roof up to 4 metres high.

In support of the application the Design and Access Statement includes the following:

“By virtue of their condition many disabled require more space to accommodate their daily regimes; also additional therapeutic equipment may be required in order to maintain their quality of life; the wheelchair bound owner has insufficient space in the main house and as such requires access to additional equipment currently housed in the garage and elsewhere; in addition the owner has a number of activities and hobbies, which cannot be pursued in the main house, e.g. woodwork and painting.

58

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20083574a

In respect of the guest annex, the owner has many friends and acquaintances, many of whom are prevented from visiting because they cannot stay after a tiring journey, and cannot be offered the owner’s hospitality or courtesy overnight.”

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

SUMMARYNeed for planning permission:Although in many cases planning permission would not be required for such an outbuilding – depending on position and size – any outbuilding within the curtilage of a listed building requires permission.

Policy and issues:Policy GD1 of the adopted Local Plan is relevant to the case in respect of the amenities of adjoining properties, any impact on the character of the area, and the context of the listed building.

Listed building:The listed building sits to the front of the site close to Parsonage Lane which leaves a rear garden, on average about 31 metres deep and about 26 metres wide. The garden rises behind the house, such that the proposed building will be on the elevated section of the garden. Although siting is a reserved matter the 1:2500 site plan shows the building positioned in the far corner of the site from the listed farmhouse. In this position it would be around 18 metres from the listed building and located here, and of the design proposed, I do not consider that the building would have any adverse impact on the farmhouse.

Relationship to adjoining properties:The garden area of Church Farmhouse is situated at a lower level than the adjoining bungalow ‘Karibu’, and the recently built chalet bungalow, 5 Oast House Mews. Sited in the corner of the plot the roof of the new building at 4 metres high is likely to be visible in part from the rear garden of ‘Karibu’. The building would be more prominent from 5 Oast House Mews. This property, while at a higher level, has kitchen and dining room windows facing over the garden of Church Farmhouse. In order to prevent direct overlooking into the garden from these windows the owner of Church Farmhouse has erected a fence and trellis of around 2.8 metres on this boundary. Of the dimensions proposed the new outbuilding would extend along this boundary, or close to it, for almost the whole length of the adjoining house. While the ground level is lower, an outbuilding of 4 metres in height will have some effect on the outlook from the side windows of the new house. Ultimately however, it is not unreasonable to site an outbuilding in this general position although I am concerned at its overall size.

Character of the area:The building will have no significant impact outside the site. It may be partially visible from Main Road but a timber building under a plain tile roof is acceptable in this context and in this village location.

59

Conclusion:I accept the principle of the outbuilding on this site. I have some reservations on the size of the building in relation to 5 Oast House Mews and to ‘Karibu’. I recommend that permission be delegated subject to the actual size of the building being clarified at this outline stage and that the building be smaller than shown on the current indicative plan.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (CONFIRMATION OF THE ACTUAL SIZE AND POSITION OF THE BUILDING AND SUCH SIZE BEING REDUCED ON THE WESTERN AND NORTHERN BOUNDARIES)1. Before any part of the development hereby approved is commenced approval

of the details of the appearance, layout and scale of the site, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters"), shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing.Reason: In accordance with the requirements of Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended).

2. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 2 above shall be submitted in writing to the local planning authority and shall be carried out as approved.Reason: In accordance with the requirements of Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended).

3. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

4. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.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).

5. The building hereby permitted shall be used only as an annexe to the house or for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the site and not at any time for any business use or as an independent dwelling.Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining properties, the setting of the listed building and the character of the area in accordance with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: An outbuilding of the design suggested and for the purposes described is an acceptable adjunct to the main residential use of the site having regard to the amenities of adjoining properties and the setting of the listed building in accordance with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.


60


RR/2009/17/P SEDLESCOMBE SPILSTEAD FARM – LAND AT, STREAM LANECONTINUED USE OF LAND AS AN AIRSTRIP WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH TEMPORARY CONDITION IMPOSED ON PLANNING PERMISSION RR/98/1323/PMr W Cole


SITE Spilstead Farm is situated to the east of the A21 and to the south of Stream Lane. It is approximately rectangular in shape and extends to some 26 hectares. At its northern end, to the east of a surfaced access, is a group of farm buildings with an adjacent hardstanding. The remainder of the site comprises undulating farmland which is manly down to grass. The village of Sedlescombe lies to the east, and there are small enclaves of development in other directions. The character of the site is, however, essentially rural and is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Two public footpaths cross the site and one runs parallel with the eastern boundary. There is no surfaced runway.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/88/0988 Regularisation of use of land for agriculture and the taking off

and landing of light aircraft – Approved ConditionallyRR/89/0622 Application to vary conditions 2, 5, 6, 7, 11 and 12 of

RR/88/0988 – Approved ConditionallyRR/90/1791 Continued use of land for agriculture and flying light aircraft on a

permanent basis and vary conditions on RR/89/0622 – Approved Conditionally

RR/94/663/P Use of farmland as private unlicensed airstrip – Refused – Appeal Allowed

RR/98/1323/P Continued use of land as an airstrip – Approved ConditionallyRR/2003/2175/P Retention of use without complying with conditions 2 and 3 on

planning permission RR/98/1323/P to enable one specified helicopter to use the airstrip – Refused – Appeal Allowed

RR/2005/37/P Variation of condition 12 imposed on temporary permission RR/98/1323/P so as to allow the land edged red to be used for the parking of aircraft – Approved

RR/2005/2898/P The continued use of helicopter GBYKF at Spilstead without complying with Condition 1 imposed on appeal decision APP/U1430/A/04/1147063 – Approved

PROPOSAL The proposal is to continue to use the airstrip without complying with the temporary planning permission RR/98/1323/P. That permission contains a number of conditions which have been framed to ensure that the impact of the airstrip is kept to a minimum. In summary these conditions are: Restrict the type and weight of aircraft Prohibit the use of helicopters, jets or microlite craft Restrict the use of the airstrip to a private unlicensed airstrip, with no hire or

reward, parachuting, pilot training etc The total number of take-offs shall not exceed 15 in any one day; 35 in any

one week and 750 in any one calendar year

61

Aircraft movement shall take place only between sunrise or 07:30 hours (whichever is the latter) and sunset on Mondays to Saturdays, and between 10:00 hours and sunset on Sundays

A record of all take-offs and landings to be kept Outside storage is restricted Removal of permitted development rights for temporary uses Provision of low flying aircraft signs on the A21T A flight protocol to be adhered to

The flight protocol requires and restricts the following: A log to be kept of all take-offs and landings Pilots will avoid flying in a flight avoidance zone centred upon Whatlington and

Sedlescombe Pilots will confine arrivals and departures to a route shown on a flight protocol

map Pilots will avoid overflying the farm and its environs at less than 1500 feet as

shown on the flight protocol map Aeroplanes are to be parked in a specific area Pre-flight checks involving high engine power settings shall only take place in

the engine run up area Pilots will avoid unnecessary taxiing or other movement on the ground

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “Supports renewal of the planning approval with the same conditions, including the same number of flights and the temporary condition (because of the special care of an airstrip close to houses), as in RR/98/1323/P. If, however, Rother grants permanent planning approval, the Council requests that the permission should be personal to Mr W Cole during his lifetime only and that the amenities of the neighbours should be protected by finding some way of closing the airstrip down if more than a few breaches of the conditions are found to have occurred.”East Sussex County Council:- Have no objection to the continued use of the land as an airstrip. This is on condition that the current maximum flight restrictions remain in place and the landowner continues to clearly notify the public using the footpaths on either side of the airstrip. The applicant should be notified of the existence of all the public rights of way.Highway Authority:- Do not wish to restrict the grant of consent subject to the land to be used for personal purposes only and the continued use will not generate any significant vehicular movements.Highways Agency:- No objection.NATS (En Route) Ltd:- Does not conflict with safeguarding procedure, therefore have no objection.Director of Services – Environmental Health:- Have received no noise objections, and provided the other conditions (number of movements etc) will remain have no objection.Planning Notice:- 1 letter of support. 2 letters of objection on grounds of: noise and effect on my amenity and on

surrounding villages; effect of tranquillity of the AONB; strongly opposed to

62

any increase in flying or movements; flights are a distraction to traffic using the A21

7 letters containing either qualified support or objection unless changes are made to the conditions: would want application approved if the recorded use over the last few years is not exceeded (the permitted usage is unnecessarily excessive); permission personal to applicant; permission is not permanent - do object to a permanent permission; use recently been less than allocated and is tolerable; the log needs to be inspected to assess the present level of usage; have asked Parish Council to supply data from the flight log, but they have declined to do this as current level does not cause a nuisance – a point we concur with; any decision should be supported by accurate data; current actual take-offs are at 250 a year, but condition 7 allows for 750, a 200% increase; airfield is in an Area of Outstanding Beauty, an airfield does not fall within that category; if it is felt that permission should be granted it should be for a 10 year period; number of movements restricted to the number used during the past 12 months; existing protocol and conditions continue; a fine imposed when there are breaches; have been numerous breaches over the past years; my property is the most affected and I have strong reasons for the number of flights being restricted to a reasonable level; during the last 2 years the number of flights have been reasonable and would be satisfied if the new permission were to be restricted to the average of the last 2 years; any planning approval should be for Mr W Cole only; object to 750 take-offs a year; each take-off causes a problem to residents in Stream Lane and the number of take-offs should be reviewed; from 15/4/07 to 26/03/08 there were 287 take-offs shown in the log or about 26 per month or 313 per annum; from 26/3/08 until mid-January 2009 there were 173 take-offs; whilst not wishing to be unfair to the applicant I would like to see the number of take-offs reduced to say 400 per annum – if this were done would withdraw my objection.

SUMMARY There are a number of policies that are relevant to this application. The East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 does not contain any policies relating specifically to this type of aviation. There are specific policies relating to Gatwick, Lydd and Shoreham airports.

I consider there are three main issues that are relevant to this application:i) the effect of the use of the land as an airstrip on residential amenityii) the effect on the impact of the AONBiii) whether there are any other material considerations.

There are policies which require development to minimise the effect on the environment, including residential areas, and to protect and enhance the attractiveness and individual character of urban and rural areas for residents, businesses and visitors (S1(b) and (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011). There is also a policy in the Rother District Local Plan which requires development not to unreasonably harm the amenities of residential properties (GD1(ii)). With regard to noise, I consider that the following matters are relevant:

National Advice in PPG24 deals with planning and noise and makes the point in paragraph 2 that the impact of noise can be a material consideration in the

63

determination of planning applications. Paragraphs 6 to 12 of Annex C of the Circular deal with noise from aircraft. Paragraph 7 states that for small aerodromes local planning authorities should not reply solely on Leq where this is based on less than 30 movements a day. It also states that in some circumstances the public perceive general aircraft noise levels as more disturbing than similar levels around major airports.

In respect of the appeal decision RR/94/663/P the Inspector stated “...the noise of a relatively small maximum number of daily take-offs, even at weekends ... would not cause unacceptable disturbance ... subject to effective conditions the proposed use would not cause unacceptable disturbance to residents ...” The Head of Environmental Health has confirmed that no complaints regarding noise have been received, and on the basis that the other conditions remain (number of movements etc), has no objection to the proposal.

With regard to the impact on the AONB, again both the Structure and Local Plans have policies that are relevant. Policy S1(j) of the Structure Plan states that development should accord with the objectives of, and not cause damage to, the AONB. Policy EN2 states that conserving and enhancing landscape quality and character will be the primary objective which will be achieved by a number of measures including (a) the careful control of development and (f) minimising the impact of development by carefully integrating development into the AONB landscape. Policy EN3 states that in order to protect and promote the quiet enjoyment of AONBs, development will be limited to that derived from the character and qualities of the countryside having regard to the social and economic wellbeing of the area. Development involving change or damage to their character or qualities, including significant increases in noise will not be permitted. Policy DS1(vi) of the Local Plan requires development not to prejudice the character and qualities of the environment, particularly the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Policy GD1(v) states that development should be compatible with the conservation of the natural beauty of the AONB. In respect of the appeal decision relating to application RR/94/663/P the Inspector concluded that he did not consider that the airstrip caused harm to the AONB. Given the limited use of the airstrip in terms of number of movements etc I agree with this view. The use does not cause significant visual harm to the AONB, and the low key nature of the use results in the quiet enjoyment of the AONB not being harmed. It is also significant in this context that the site is very close to the A21 trunk road, and that Environmental Health have not received any complaints.

I have noted the comments that a further temporary planning permission should be granted, and if that is not possible a personal permission should be given. There is national advice on such conditions in Circular 11/95. The advice is that a time limit should never be used because of the effect of the development on the amenities of the area. A temporary condition should normally only be appropriate either where the applicant proposes temporary development, or when a trial run is needed to assess the effect of the development on the area. With regard to personal permissions the advice is that planning permission runs with the land, and it is seldom desirable to provide otherwise. There are occasions when it is proposed exceptionally to grant a personal permission where development would not normally be allowed, because there are strong compassionate or personal grounds for doing so. Therefore, as the

64

use has been in existence for over 20 years, I do not consider a further temporary condition would be appropriate. There do not appear to be any strong compassionate or personal reasons for a personal permission. Furthermore it should be borne in mind that if this application is approved all the other conditions on RR/98/1323/P will continue to be in force. Given this and the other material considerations referred to in this report, I make the following recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)Note to applicant: That all the other conditions imposed on RR/98/1323/P, together with the flight protocol, remain in full force.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The site has been in use as an airstrip since planning permission was first granted in 1988, and has been the subject of further temporary permissions. Whilst some objections have been received regarding the continued use of the airstrip without complying with the temporary conditions, a further temporary permission would conflict with Government advice contained in Circular 11/95. It is considered that the continued use of the airstrip on a permanent basis, subject to the original conditions controlling the use, would not conflict with Policies DS1(vi), GD1(ii)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(b)(f)(j), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011


RR/2009/229/NA ST LEONARDS ON SEA QUEENSWAY – LAND WEST OF, (KNOWN AS MARLINE FIELDS) PROPOSED 2 MEGAWATT WIND TURBINE AND ASSOCIATED GROUND INFRASTRUCTURE AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION WORKSSea Space

Last date for decision: No date given

This is a consultation from Hastings Borough Council.

SITE The site lies on the north west side of Queensway, wholly within Hastings Borough, opposite the junction of Queensway with Napier Road.

The site is a flat area, beyond which to the north west the land drops down to the Marline Stream (also an SSSI) and open countryside in Rother District beyond.

HISTORY (Recent consultations from Hastings BC)RR/2007/3517/NA B1 accommodation comprising offices and light manufacturing

including energy centre – No ObjectionRR/2007/2880/NA Installation and erection of 60m high, wind and meteorological

monitoring mast – Object – “No information has been submitted with the application to explain why the mast is necessary in this location. At 60m high there is a concern that it would be highly visible and visually intrusive in the wider landscape.”

65


RR/2008/2242/NA New visitor and interpretation building comprising exhibition and restaurant facilities – No objection

PROPOSAL The scheme is for a wind turbine intended to provide electricity for the offices and manufacturing scheme to be developed on the land immediately to the south west. The turbine is of a conventional appearance based on the following:- 2 MW electrical generating capacity- Horizontal axis with 3 rotor blades- 80m rotor diameter- 83m high conical tower(thus 123 metres high from ground to the tip of the rotor blade)

The siting of the turbine is dependent on local wind and noise conditions. The colour and finish of the rotor blades and tower are to be agreed if permission is granted.

CONSULTATIONDirector of Services – Environmental Health:- To be reported.

SUMMARY This Council is consulted as neighbouring local authority. Crowhurst Parish to the north west is affected by the proposal but it is possible that there may be longer views of the structure from the wider area.

The issues in relation to this Council are primarily:- Visual- Noise

Although currently undeveloped, this site is to be developed for commercial purposes in line with the Borough Council’s adopted Local Plan. This part of Hastings has grown in recent years bringing the commercial estate closer to the district boundary. Thus far, however, the development has been lower scale factory style buildings and the outstanding permission follows this pattern. In comparison the turbine will be prominent and highly visible from a much larger area.

Nevertheless the backdrop is the urban area and fringe of Hastings when the site is viewed from the Rother direction. As such it has no direct visual impact on Rother, other than the same sort of impact that a high building or structure within the urban area can have (e.g. the telecommunication masts).

I note that the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty unit raise no objections to the scheme in terms of the AONB. Their comments are pertinent. They state:

“In terms of views from the AONB round the Crowhurst area towards the proposed development, views of the turbine will be set against the urban area of Hastings, and is unlikely to significantly affect the AONB setting in this respect. Specific local impacts on Park Farm, near Crowhurst should be assessed in relation to the immediate impact of the structure on that property within the High Weald AONB.

The proposed development is likely to have limited impact on views towards the AONB from selected points on the Queensway and urban area. These impacts are

66

probably limited to views directly opposite the turbine and some impacts travelling along the Queensway. Given the slender nature of the turbine it is not considered that these impacts would be significant, although there will be some specific locations where the turbine may dominate views towards the AONB.

Overall the turbine is not considered to have a significant impact on the setting of the AONB, whilst it is in close proximity to it, the scale of the turbine is not so great that it will materially alter or affect the overall AONB setting. It will have some specific impacts from locations along the Queensway introducing a new structure into views of the AONB and these will need to be considered, and it is recommended that a landscape and visual impact assessment be required to identify these impacts and also impacts on Park Farm and other neighbouring properties.”

In terms of noise, I note that the nearest residential property within Rother District is over 600 metres distant on the other side of the Marline Valley. At this stage I do not anticipate any adverse impact, but the views of the Environmental Health Officer are awaited.

CONCLUSION Wind turbines of this scale are becoming more regular features in both urban and rural situations. While objections were raised to the temporary mast installed on this site, this structure is of a more permanent nature and it is functionally linked to the new commercial development on the site. The structure will be widely prominent but this does not, of itself, make it unacceptable. It will have limited impact on the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty on the wider countryside, and (subject to the Environmental Health Officer’s comments) on the nearest residential properties.

RECOMMENDATION: THAT HASTINGS BOROUGH COUNCIL BE ADVISED THAT ROTHER DISTRICT COUNCIL, AS NEIGHBOURING LOCAL AUTHORITY, RAISES NO OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL - DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO ANY COMMENTS ON NOISE ISSUES)

View application/correspondence

--oo0oo--

67

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr2009229na

rr/2007/3515/p · web viewcommittee - planning date - 19 february 2009 report of - director of...

Documents