rr/2007/1528/a - residents - rother district council · web viewthis would replace the existing...

Rother District Council Agenda Item: 7

Committee - Planning

Date - 19 July 2007

Report of - Director of Services

Subject - Planning Applications

Planning Committee Procedures

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

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

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

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

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

Delegated ApplicationsIn certain circumstances the Planning Committee will indicate that it is only prepared to grant or refuse planning permission if, or unless certain amendments to a proposal are undertaken or subject to completion of outstanding consultations. In these circumstances the Head of Planning can be delegated authority to issue the decision of the Planning Committee once the requirements of the Committee have been satisfactorily complied with. A delegated decision does not mean that planning permission or refusal will automatically be issued. If there are consultation objections,

1

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

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

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:-

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

REFERENCE PAGE PARISH SITE ADDRESS

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

RR/2007/1723/P 2 CATSFIELD SENLAC WOOD HOLIDAY PARK –LAND ATMAIN ROAD

RR/2007/1732/P 3 CATSFIELD WYLANDS INTERNATIONAL ANGLING CENTREPOWDERMILL LANE

RR/2007/1610/P 5 BURWASH BROOKSMARLE FARM – LAND ATHAM LANE

RR/2006/3244/P 7 BATTLE GATE FARM LODGEWHATLINGTON ROAD

RR/2007/1018/P 12 BATTLE COLENZOMARLEY LANE

2

RR/2007/1186/P 14 BATTLE 31 CLAVERHAM WAY

RR/2007/1566/P 15 BATTLE 32 HASTINGS ROADMARYLANDS

RR/2007/313/P 18 BEXHILL GLOVERS FARM

RR/2007/1345/P 20 BEXHILL 3 CLAVERING WALK

RR/2007/1354/P 22 BEXHILL 3 REGINALD ROAD

RR/2007/1516/P 23 BEXHILL 19 BEACON HILL

RR/2007/1682/TN 25 BEXHILL PEBSHAM FARMPEBSHAM LANE

RR/2007/1766/P 26 BEXHILL 17 CLAVERING WALK –LAND AT

RR/2007/1773/P 29 BEXHILL 304 COODEN DRIVE

RR/2007/1788/P 31 BEXHILL 207 COODEN DRIVE

RR/2007/1791/P 33 BEXHILL ST GEORGE’S CHURCHCANTELUPE ROAD

RR/2007/1138/P 36 BECKLEY GLASSEYE FARMFURNACE LANE

RR/2007/1443/P 38 NORTHIAM ALPINES – LAND ATEWHURST LANE

RR/2007/814/P 42 SALEHURST/ ANGELSROBERTSBRIDGE BRIGHTLING ROAD

ROBERTSBRIDGE

RR/2007/1074/P 43 BREDE BURNT HOUSE FARM – LAND ATUDIMORE ROADBROAD OAK

RR/2007/822/P 45 CAMBER 139 LYDD ROAD

RR/2007/1642/P 47 CAMBER ROYAL WILLIAM PUBOLD LYDD ROAD

RR/2007/778/P 49 TICEHURST KEEPERS COTTAGEHASTINGS ROAD

RR/2007/779/L 49 TICEHURST KEEPERS COTTAGE3

HASTINGS ROAD

RR/2007/1368/P 51 ETCHINGHAM UPLANDSFYSIE LANE

RR/2007/1758/P 53 GUESTLING GARDEENIORROCK LANE

RR/2007/1364/P 54 RYE RYE MASONIC LODGETURKEYCOCK LANE

RR/2007/1488/C 55 BEXHILL/ LAND BETWEEN A259 BELLE HILLCROWHURST AND B2092 QUEENSWAY

ST LEONARDS

--oo0oo--

4

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

Statutory 8 week date: 16 July 2007

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

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

HISTORYNone relevant.

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

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “Whilst the Parish Council do not object in principle to these signs, we would make the following observations:Sign A could be a distraction to drivers on this dangerous stretch of road.Sign B if located on the verge outside Pound Cottage is on East Sussex County Council property and we understand would need a licence from them. A sign in this position would also add further clutter and impede a clear view for traffic at this junction. We feel a better sign would be on the other side of the road, adjacent to the entrance to Ashburnham Place (with their permission).”Highways Authority:- “Does not wish to restrict grant of Consent subject to the observations below:-The proposed signs are to be erected in a position that will not interfere or obstruct visibility from the junction between the A271 and the C18. It is evident from the submitted plan that Sign B is to be erected at a height of 0.5m which will sit below the driver’s eye line. On this basis, I do not wish to restrict the grant of consent.”Planning Notice:- Councillor Miss Davies has written to express support for the proposals.

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

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT)1

1. In each location, the signs would be out of character with and detrimental to the amenities of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proliferation of signage unrelated to the property itself is undesirable in the countryside, contrary to Policies S1(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove and Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

View application/correspondence_____________________________________________________________________

RR/2007/1723/P CATSFIELD SENLAC WOOD HOLIDAY PARK – LAND AT, MAIN ROADCHANGE OF USE OF LAND FOR THE STORAGE OF TOURING CARAVANS (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Mr J M Gibbs

Statutory 8 week date: 07 August 2007

SITE The application relates to a seasonal tent and touring caravan site on the eastern side of the B2204, to the north of Redcoat Farm, formerly known as Tellis Coppice Caravan Site. The site is within a wooded area and comprises about 4ha. The applicant controls further woodland to the rear and south-eastern boundaries of the caravan site.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2004/736/P Change of use of land for the storage of touring caravans

(retrospective application) – Refused

PROPOSAL The application is a resubmission of application RR/2004/736/P. It seeks retrospective planning permission for the storage of touring caravans within a rectangular area of land measuring some 55m x 35m. The land is adjacent to the southern access track which runs parallel to the main road (B2204) and is surrounded by trees. The application also proposes operational development comprising the surfacing of the area with hardcore covered by dark grey chippings or tarmac planings and the erection of post and rail fencing around the perimeter.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Any comments will be reported.Highway Authority:- No objection.Director of Services – Environmental Health:- Any comments will be reported.Forestry Commission: Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice:- Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY The application is a resubmission of application RR/2004/736/P. That application was considered by the Planning Committee on 20 May 2004 when Members resolved to delegate authority to grant planning permission subject to conditions and the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation (legal agreement). I understand that due to personal reasons involving a legal dispute between the former partners and site owner it was not possible to complete the Section 106 Agreement. Consequently, after being held in abeyance for some time the application was refused in May 2007. The legal difficulties are now said to have been resolved and the applicant is willing and able to complete the legal Agreement if Members are still minded to grant planning permission for the proposal. The legal

2

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

Agreement would restrict caravan storage to the area identified on the plan and would require a second unauthorised area of caravan storage to be relinquished and the land restored to its former condition (identified as Area ‘A’ on the plan).

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (S106 PLANNING OBLIGATION)1. Only touring caravans shall be stored within the area identified on the plan.2. Touring caravans shall be stored only within the area identified on the plan and

no-where else within the park or adjacent land.3. Within one month of planning permission having been granted or at such a time

as shall have been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, post and rail fencing shall be erected on the boundaries of the two storage areas. The fencing shall be retained thereafter.Reason: To delineate the boundaries of the caravan storage areas on the ground and contain the area in which any caravan can be stored whilst also offering protection to surrounding trees and vegetation from the activity hereby approved.

ND7 (S.106)

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The development hereby approved is ancillary to the existing authorized trailer caravan holiday park at Senlac Wood. Furthermore, the development site is not visually prominent in the countryside, being well screened by existing woodland. Subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement to relinquish and reclaim the area of unauthorized caravan storage area identified on the plan as ‘A’, it is considered that the development would have an acceptable impact on the character of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The development accords with Policies S1(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2007/1732/P CATSFIELD WYLANDS INTERNATIONAL ANGLING CENTRE, POWDERMILL LANEREMOVAL OF CONDITION 2 IMPOSED UPON PLANNING PERMISSION RR/98/2034/P SO AS TO ALLOW LAKE TO BE USED FOR FISHING PURPOSES BY UP TO 20 ANGLERSMr D P Bull


SITE Wylands Angling Centre is situated on the south side of Powdermill Lane. Specifically this application relates to a lake created in 1998 adjacent to the east side of the match water.

HISTORYThis site has an extensive planning history but only directly relates to:RR/98/2034/P Construction of Stock Lake for trout and coarse fish – Approved

Conditional - 6 May 1999

3

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20071723p

PROPOSAL Planning permission was sought retrospectively for a ‘stock lake for trout and coarse fish’ under reference RR/98/2034/P. The permission was the subject of a condition:“The lake hereby permitted shall only be used as a fish rearing (stock) pond and shall not be used for angling without the prior grant of planning permission.”Planning permission is now requested for the use of the lake in question by up to 20 anglers for fishing purposes.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- No objection – Advice copied to applicant’s agent in respect of need for licences for fish movement.Southern Water:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- No representations received to date.

SUMMARY The lake exists, what is sought is permission to allow up to 20 anglers to fish it.The increase in anglers visiting the complex is modest in comparison to the capacity of the whole site which I do not believe significantly impacts upon the appearance of the landscape, the provision of car parking or the traffic generated. The relevant policies and guidance applicable to the countryside are intended to provide for activities appropriate to the countryside which do not detract from its character. The proposal is considered to be a modest development of such an activity. There does appear to be adequate car parking available and the applicant has indicated a planning condition limiting the number of anglers would be accepted.Unless outstanding consultee responses demonstrate otherwise I expect to make the

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A (Standard time limit – 3 years).2. The lake shall be used for the purposes of angling by not exceeding 20 persons

at any one time.Reason: To ensure that the development does not detract from the rural character and appearance of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(j) and EN1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is considered to be a modest expansion of this angling complex within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty that would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the locality and therefore in compliance with East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 Policies S1(j) and EN2; Rother District Local Plan Policy GD1(iv)(v); and guidance contained within PPS7.


4


RR/2007/1610/P BURWASH BROOKSMARLE FARM - LAND AT, HAM LANEERECTION OF 22.5M LATTICE TOWER TO SUPPORT SIX ANTENNAE AND TWO 600MM DIAMETER DISHES, WITH ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT CABINET.T-Mobile (UK) Limited


SITE The application site is located outside the development boundary to the north side of Burwash, within the High Weald AONB. The site lies in the corner of a field with clumps of woodland to the south and west sides. Other field boundaries are defined by trees with further areas of woodland screening the site from houses within Strand Meadow and Hornbeam. Burwash itself lies on the higher ridge to the south, while the surrounding land slopes away into the valley to the north.

HISTORYRR/2006/3226/P Installation of 22.5m lattice tower and associated equipment

cabinets - Withdrawn.

PROPOSAL This is a full application seeking to erect a 22.5m lattice tower with 6 antennae and 2 dish antennae, within a small compound with associated equipment cabinets, for use by T-Mobile. The proposal will upgrade 2G provisions as well as providing coverage for the new 3G system. Coverage in the area is particularly poor for commercial and residential users within buildings. Alternative sites have been considered at: St Bartholomews Church – insufficient space on tower. Southern Water Pumping Station – too low to provide required coverage (40m

tower would be required) and insufficient space. Oakleys Garage – site provider not interested. Whitehouse Farm - site provider not interested. The Bell Public House – would be detrimental to a listed building and the

character and appearance of the Burwash Conservation Area. Pavement at junction of Strand meadow and Hornbeam – very open site

adjacent residential properties. Considered detrimental to visual and residential amenity.

Burwash Conservation Area – greater policy objections. Grass verge at junction of Wealden and Shrub Lane - very open site adjacent

residential properties. Considered detrimental to visual and residential amenity. Grass verge at junction of Highfields and High Street - very open site adjacent

residential properties. Considered detrimental to visual and residential amenity.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Comments awaited.Planning Notice: One objection on the following grounds: Health risk to adjoining residents and users of the Swan Meadow recreation

area. Aesthetic effect upon the skyline. Detracts from the AONB and the conservation area. Will impede some views. Family member has a T-Mobile phone and reception appears fine.

5

SUMMARY As is usual with the siting of proposed masts, the principle planning issues relate to siting and appearance with concerns regarding health issues being raised by residents. In this particular case, the mast is proposed within the fields surrounding the village with trees and woodland providing a visual screen and physical separation from public areas. The site is some 130m from properties within Strand Meadow and some 450m from the boundary with the playing fields. The site is further screened by the undulating nature of the surrounding landscape. Some views of the top of the mast protruding above the tree line will inevitable be witnessed from more distant points, perhaps from properties higher up to the south and along the ridge of the A265 or from the opposite side of the valley as Shrub Lane rises to Ticehurst in the north. Such views are however, likely to be limited and the use of a lattice mast, which allows views through it, further minimises any visual impact. The base area will not be open to view and thus its visual impact upon the AONB is not considered to justify a reason for refusal.The distant relationship to the centre of Burwash and its conservation area will result in little if any impact to the residential amenities of the area or to the character and appearance of the conservation area.It will be noted that the application proposals fully comply with the ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines and that more recent research by the World Health Organisation published in May 2006, concludes that: “considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations and wireless networks cause health effects.”Members are also reminded of Government guidance within PPG8, which advises that it should not be necessary for the local planning authority to consider health aspects where the development meets the ICNIRP guidelines. While court cases have confirmed that public perception of health risks can be a material consideration, it has been established at planning appeals that health concerns are not a sufficient basis alone for withholding planning permission.As required the applicants have considered alternative sites that fall within the search area to provide coverage for Burwash and the valley up to Ticehurst. Increasingly landowners do not wish to provide land for such developments and the applicants are also aware of the particular concerns regarding visual impact and proximity with residential properties or other public areas. It is considered in this instance that a balance has been achieved in securing a site that does not have public access, is separated from residential properties and that is in general well screened and will not be overtly prominent within the landscape.The applicants have a requirement to improve coverage, provide the new 3G system and to provide services within buildings as well as to road users. The proposal is thus considered to be reasonably necessary in this area.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A (Standard time)2. CD12X (Removal upon cessation of use) - “mast, antennas”

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is of an appropriate size, siting and design and will not adversely affect the visual landscape character of the area or the amenities of local properties and therefore complies with Policy EN30, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan as well as the guidance contained within PPG8, Telecommunications.View application/correspondence_____________________________________________________________________

6


RR/2006/3244/P BATTLE GATE FARM LODGE, WHATLINGTON ROADERECTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME ON SITE OF EXISTING HOME INCLUDING ALTERATION TO EXISTING ACCESS AND PROVISION OF TEN PARKING SPACES.Precision Care Ltd

Statutory 13 week date: 27 February 2007

SITE The application site is located on the western side of Whatlington Road, Battle, outside the development boundary for Battle and within the High Weald AONB. The existing nursing home has planning permission for up to 19 residents (although it only has 16 rooms) and has been developed in a piecemeal fashion over a number of years. The existing property comprises a cluster of haphazard buildings and extensions of varying designs and materials, with a footprint in the region of 333m.sq., (excluding the detached double garage and workshop building). The buildings have a large area of flat roof, giving the impression of a low overall height. They are well screened from the surrounding countryside by virtue of the narrow site frontage and mature boundary vegetation.Vehicular access to the site lies close to a bend in the road, where the national speed limit applies and with restricted visibility. Existing parking is along the front side boundaries, particularly adjacent the garden of “Gate End”.

HISTORY (of care home)RR/77/1381 Change of use of part of property to provide accommodation for 8

elderly persons - Approved ConditionalRR/78/874 Extension of property to provide accommodation for 5 more elderly

persons - Approved ConditionalRR/79/181 Extension to form new lounge on ground floor - Approved

ConditionalRR/80/621 Change of use of upper floor accommodation of annexe to

occasional accommodation for staff - Approved ConditionalRR/81/1350 Extension to provide 2 bathrooms and balcony - Approved

ConditionalRR/81/1942 Erection of double garage - Approved ConditionalRR/83/1683 Private workshop building - Approved ConditionalRR/83/225 Formation of reception, garden lounge and covered way -

Approved ConditionalRR/85/1822 Alter accommodation to house maximum of 19 residents. Use

annexe as staff/owners accommodation. Vary condition RR/80/621 - Approved Conditional

RR/87/1476 Lounge extension, improvement to existing toilets and drainage work - Approved

RR/88/900 Erection of conservatory - Approved ConditionalRR/93/149/P Extension at first floor level, installation of lift and minor alterations

- Approved ConditionalRR/98/554/P Three small extensions to increase room sizes - Approved

ConditionalRR/2006/350/P Erection of new residential care premises on the site of existing

home including provision of twenty car parking spaces - RefusedRR/2006/1227/O Proposed use of care home for adults between 18-65 with learning

disabilities, epilepsy and physically challenged - Lawful DC Refused

7

PROPOSAL This application proposes the demolition of the existing complex of buildings, including outbuildings, and their replacement with three new blocks. Two blocks are arranged as a staggered semi, partly overlapping with the site of the existing and a separate block off set to the rear. The buildings are part two storey with a day room in the roof space and part single storey. The design concept is that of a barn with the use of barn hips to the roof and timber cladding to the first floor. The eaves height is 5.2m above ground level, average for a two-storey building/house. The ridge height is however, higher than that of an ordinary house, being 12.7m by reason of the required roof span. The overall appearance and layout is domestic in its window/door arrangement and design.The front elevation has been pushed further back into the site to allow the provision of improved parking and turning facilities for staff, visitors and deliveries. The access mouth is to be improved by widening it. The parking is moved off the side boundaries with additional boundary planting proposed with the neighbour at Gate End. Existing boundary planting is to be retained.The care home is to provide facilities for up to 24 adults (18-65 year olds) with learning disabilities. It is anticipated that several residents will also have associated mobility and sensory impairments. The building will therefore have maximum access to all parts for wheelchair users and is designed to provide a high level of care and rehabilitation to meet all the resident’s needs. Only residents at the home will be cared for. The agent has confirmed that the proposal does not include facilities to provide day care to non-residents. It is also proposed to divert the sewer slightly and it would run between the buildings.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council: Objects in principle to a new building, not on the footprint of the existing, within the countryside, within the AONB and outside the development boundary.Highway Authority: Recommends conditions.Southern Water Services: Advises that connection to the public sewer can be provided but requires an application. Adequacy of soakaways should be checked locally. The public sewer crosses the site. Its exact location must be determined on site before the layout of the proposed development is finalised. South East Water: Comments awaited.Environment Agency: Has no objection but advises that previous uses of the site may have left contamination. They also give advice in respect of drainage, tree felling and possible need for a bat survey. National Care Standards: Have no comments to make. It is the responsibility of the proprietors to ensure that their plans meet the standards of the Care Standards Act 2000.Planning Notice: 8 letters and a petition with 19 signatures have been received objecting on the following grounds: Change of use from a family run business to a commercial organisation,

including day care facilities Site will have more activity and increased potential for future proposals to extend Proposed buildings are too large and high and out of character for the semi-rural

location Is a lack of parking facilities Object to the change from ‘elderly’ residents to those with ‘learning difficulties’

and who may represent a threat/risk to local residents Detrimental to the natural character and appearance of the AONB The description refers to two-storey while the plans indicate three floors

8

Additional noise and traffic will be created The proposal represents new development outside the development boundary If permitted the proposal could set a precedent in the area Concern is expressed as to the severity of inmates and the need for security,

which visually may be out of character A day care facility could represent increased numbers of people and vehicles at

the siteFurther letters reiterating objections have been received as set out in the summary below.

SUMMARY This application is returned to the Committee at the request of the Local Member to review the objections raised by residents and the response by the applicant. Responses from the applicant are reproduced in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 July 2007. The application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 15 February 2007, when it resolved to grant planning permission, delegated to the Head of Planning subject to amendments to the roof and window details and reference to GOSE (Secretary of State).Window details have been submitted as well as amended plans detailing a lower ridge height to the roofs with small dormers replacing some of the rooflights. These details are considered to be acceptable. The application has also now been referred to the Secretary of State under the departure procedure rules, (correspondence is available on the website). Following consideration of the application the Secretary of State has concluded that the application should be decided by the District Council.Since the Committee meeting, 8 additional letters of objection (from 6 properties) have been received. These were also copied to GOSE, along with a letter of response from the applicant. They reiterate previous objections and are summarised in paragraph 6 of the Statement of Issues sent to GOSE which stated: “Neighbouring residents particularly object to the description of the proposed inhabitants as ‘adults aged between 18-65 with learning disabilities’ and the information contained within the accompanying statement that the premises will be secure. Neighbouring residents consider that the premises should be a home for the elderly only, as previously existed and are concerned that their safety will be put at risk by the proposed occupiers of the new home. The applicant’s have themselves written to explain the proposed nature of occupants and their letter of 26 February 2007 is attached at Appendix D. The Council does not consider the type of occupant to be detrimental to the amenities of neighbours in this rural area. The fact that the unit is said to be secure is no different from the many other care homes in the District that cater for the elderly and mentally infirm (EMI units), where the security measures are in place for the safety of the occupants of the home. Additionally the Council would draw attention to a recent appeal decision, DCS number OT100-047-327, (summary from the Planning magazine of 9 March 2007 is attached at Appendix E). This is considered to be a comparable case where the Inspector concluded that the fears regarding the nature of the prospective occupants had no land-use consequences, and allowed an appeal for a former nursing home to be used to care and treat people with brain injuries inflicted by alcohol abuse or mental illness.”In this instance the prospective residents would be derived from those suffering brain injuries and those with more severe forms of medical conditions such as autism and epilepsy, where 24 hour care facilities are required. The applicant’s advice that the development is not for a secure lock down facility such as may cater for those with a criminal record. It is a home for adults who are unable to look after themselves and who may be vulnerable to other members of our society. The security is to be minimal and

9

no different from the many other care homes where a locked entrance door is provided to preclude trespass by outsiders and provide safety and security for the residents. While the concerns of local residents in this case are noted, those concerns are not considered to be of sufficient planning merit to justify a refusal of the application. Further conditions are recommended to restrict the number and type of residents.

The original report of 15 February is reproduced below:“This application represents new development outside the development boundary for Battle as defined within the Rother District Local Plan. As such the proposal has been advertised as a departure and will be referred to GOSE should the Council be minded to recommend approval.The existing site is occupied by commercial premises, which have developed in a piecemeal fashion and are acknowledged to be unsuitable for use as a care home in accordance with modern standards and requirements in their current form. The existing buildings are low key and unassuming, in terms of their height and as viewed from the front. They are well screened by the boundary trees and shrubs and the low level of associated activity appears to have little impact upon “Gate End”, the adjacent residential house to the south side/front. Additionally the owners of Gate End constructed a double garage with annexe above in the mid 1990’s on their north, west boundary, thereby screening views to and from the nursing home and its grounds.As the site is already occupied by a commercial use, there are no objections in principle to a redevelopment for a similar use, subject to its size, design and detail. Planning permission was refused in March 2006, RR/2006/350/P, for the erection of a new residential care home for 49 residents. That proposal represented a substantial increase in the numbers of residents and level of activity at the site. Additionally the size, height, mass and design of the buildings were considered to be out of character with the locality and represented an unjustifiable increase in development outside the development boundary. The amount of new development was also compounded by the extent of hard landscaping, which provided parking, turning, footpaths and patio areas.This resubmission is considered to represent a modest increase in numbers from 19 (as previously permitted) to 24. The new buildings have a combined footprint of approximately 756 m.sq., of which 252m.sq. is single storey. The overall footprint is double that of the existing but the level and standard of accommodation will be improved to be fully wheelchair accessible and to comply with the current standards set by the Care Standards Act 2000. The design is considered to be acceptable within this semi-rural area and the majority of the buildings will be screened by boundary planting as in the existing situation. The proposed ridge height is acknowledged to be some 4m higher than the highest existing ridge, although such a difference would not exist if the existing flat roof where to have a pitch roof over it. The ridge height is however, a maximum height with the majority of the buildings being substantially lower than this, being below the 5.2m eaves level. While parking, turning and circulation areas are provided, these are not as extensive as previously proposed and thus the extent of hard landscaping is considerably less.The access is to be slightly improved and while some increase in vehicle numbers is likely, the premises will be staffed on a shift rota with a minibus also in use, thus minimising the number of vehicles at the site at any one time. Visibility splays are slightly below standard but traffic surveys have found that vehicle speeds are below the speed limits. While some highway concerns may be muted, a refusal on highway grounds is not considered to be justified.Another issue raised by objectors concerns the type of resident to be accommodated. A care home falls within Use Class C2 and there is no statutory specification or limitation as to the type of residents accommodated within the home. The applicants specified

10

when planning permission was sought to convert the existing premises, the use as a care home for the elderly. The existing premises are thus bound by this specified use. The new proposals do not however specify the user within the description of development and unless a restrictive condition was to be imposed upon any grant of permission, the type of future residents at the premises would not be restricted. Local studies provided by the applicants, from the Bexhill and Rother Primary Care Trust, submitted with the previous application in 2006, clearly indicate a shortage of care homes for a wider group of people other than just the elderly. The care home is to be a commercial property providing 24 hour care for the inhabitants. Residents will not be left unattended and the perceived threat raised by residents is not considered to justify a refusal of the application on planning grounds.In conclusion, the overall amount and level of development is thus not considered to be excessive for the site in this semi-rural location on the outskirts of Battle, albeit outside the development boundary. The proposal does not introduce a new use but represents a redevelopment of an existing commercial use. The basic approach to the design of the buildings is considered to be acceptable in this location and retention of boundary screening minimises any perceived impact upon the High Weald AONB. (However I would wish to further discuss certain design amendments to the detailing of the roofs and their fenestration.) The property sits within a substantially sized plot some distance from its adjacent neighbours and the improved layout is considered to result in minimal if any changes to the residential or other amenities of the area.” Subject to appropriate conditions as detailed below the recommendation is as follows RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A (Standard time/implementation).2. CN7B (Materials) - “bricks, colour finish to timber cladding, tiles, hard

landscaping”. Reason: To accord with Policy GD1(iv)(v) of Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f)(j) of East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. Before commencement of any construction works on site as hereby approved, full details incorporating construction details set out on Form HT407 attached, for the widening and alteration of the access at its junction with Whatlington Road, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the works shall be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to commencement of the use of the buildings. Reason: In the interests of and for the safety of persons and vehicles using the premises and/or the adjoining road and in order to secure a satisfactory standard of development and to accord with Policies S1(d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(iii) and TR3 of Rother District Local Plan.

4. Before the use of the buildings as hereby approved, the car parking and vehicular turning spaces as set out on the approved drawing no.669 06 02A date stamped 6 February 2007, shall be provided and thereafter retained for such purposes only. Reason: In the interests of and for the safety of persons and vehicles using the premises and/or the adjoining road and in order to secure a satisfactory standard of development, and to accord with Policies S1(d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(iii) and TR3 of Rother District Local Plan.

5. CN13A (Landscaping) - “… landscaping to include additional boundary planting particularly with “Gate End, …”.

11

Reason: To accord with Policy GD1(iv)(v) of Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f)(j) of East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

6. CN13B (Implementation of landscaping) – Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

7. No more than 24 residents shall be accommodated at the premises hereby approved.Reason: In order to restrict the level of use and activity at the site to safeguard the residential amenities and highway safety of the locality having regard to Policy GD1(ii)(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

8. CD8D (Restriction on Use) – “Adults with learning disabilities as specified in the application documentation”. “Class C2”.Reason: To ensure that the use and any associated activity does not result in an unreasonable change to the character or residential amenities of the locality having regard to Policy GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

Note:N1B – amended plans - “block plan, drawing no. 669 06 02A, date stamped 6 February 2007” “Domus windows, 17 April 2007” “669 06 01B, 17 April 2007”

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed redevelopment is considered to be of an appropriate size, scale and design and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policies GD1 and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1, TR3, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 -2011.


RR/2007/1018/P BATTLE COLENZO, MARLEY LANE REMOVAL OF EXISTING CONSERVATORY AND DECKING AND ERECTION OF REAR EXTENSION WITH PITCH ROOF OVER TO PROVIDE FIRST FLOOR ACCOMMODATION INCLUDING ROOF LIGHTS.Mr and Mrs Harrison

Statutory 8 week date: 28 May 2007

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

SITE This application relates to a detached bungalow located to the south of Marley Lane within the High Weald AONB. This application follows previously refused application RR/2007/334/P for a substantial extension to the dwelling. The application was refused as it was considered that by virtue of its significant massing and bulk, the extension would have an overbearing impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties. Further, the proposed decking would lead to an unacceptable degree of overlooking. The current application has therefore been revised to attempt to overcome these issues.

HISTORYRR/2002/1708/P Formation of vehicular access – Approved Conditional

12


RR/2007/334/P Removal of existing conservatory and decking and erection of rear extension with pitch roof over to provide first floor accommodation including roof lights – Refused

PROPOSAL The current application amends previous application RR/2007/334/P which was refused for the reasons outlined above. Initially in this application, the extension was reduced slightly in size and the floor level of the extension lowered. The decking was also reduced in size and height. I still considered that the proposal was inappropriate, particularly due to its design which comprised an unattractive large rear dormer which greatly added to the bulk of the extension. The Town Council shared the view that the alterations did not go far enough to address the previous concerns. The proposal has therefore been amended again. To improve the design the ridge height of the building has been increased so that the proposal no longer contains a flat roof element. The large rear box dormer has been removed and now a much smaller dormer window with a pitched roof is proposed. The floor level remains at a lower level, as does the decking to the rear.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council: Does not believe that these revised proposals adequately address the previously expressed concerns particularly in relation to the massing and bulk of the extension and its impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties. The Town Council was re-consulted on the additional amended plans: The Council has noted the further changes made to these proposals but remains of the view that they would still have a significant impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties.Planning Notice: No representations received.

SUMMARY It is now considered that the proposals are more acceptable in terms of their scale and design. Due to the removal of the unsightly rear element and its replacement with a smaller dormer, the extension has far less of an overbearing impact and the bulk has been significantly reduced. The roof height of the dwelling has been increased, however this is not out of keeping in the street scene, many other properties in close proximity having similar roof forms. The design would now not have any significant adverse impact upon the appearance of the area or the AONB in this location. Battle Town Council has noted the further changes made but remains of the view that they would still have a significant impact on the amenities of the neighbouring properties. An existing conservatory is located on the western boundary of the site. This would be replaced with the extension at a higher level, situated slightly off the boundary. No windows are proposed in the side elevation of the extension. Having visited the neighbouring property, I am satisfied that due to the difference in ground levels and the design of the proposal, the extension would not cause any harm upon the property to the west of the site. With regard to the property to the east of the site ‘Capri’, I consider that the proposal may reduce the potential impact, as currently the existing decking allows significant overlooking into the rear garden of the neighbouring property. Internal steps have been introduced to lower the floor level of the extension by 600mm. As well as this the decking to the rear has been significantly reduced in size and stepped down, reducing any impact upon the property. I consider that the alteration to the design of the roof has far less of an overbearing impact upon the neighbouring properties, as the bulk has been greatly reduced. On balance, taking all these points into consideration, I am minded to recommend approval of this application.

13

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A (Standard time period)2. CD9G (matching external materials)Note: ND1 (Amended plans) Drawing No: 2951/1/C, Date stamped 26 April 2007

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


RR/2007/1186/P BATTLE 31 CLAVERHAM WAY LOFT CONVERSION WITH REAR DORMER, ROOF WINDOWS AND ALTERATIONS. Mrs Buckley

Statutory 8 week date: 15 June 2007


SITE The detached bungalow is set at the end of a Cul-de-Sac of similar properties and is some 11m back from the highway on a site sloping away from the highway. The neighbouring properties are juxtaposed in the immediate vicinity. Open countryside is set to the rear of the dwelling.

HISTORYRR/2007/516/P Loft conversion with dormers, roof windows and alterations -

Refused.

PROPOSAL A proposed flat roofed dormer window is to be set within the rear roof slope. The proposal has been amended to remove a dormer window within the front roof slope, thus removing one proposed bedroom from the scheme. A timber decked area is also proposed.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council: “Though changes have been made to the design of the front dormer window the Council does not feel that, in isolation, this meets it previously expressed objection that the overall proposal is not in keeping with the adjoining properties and would be intrusive in the views from the surrounding open area.”Planning Notice: One objection has been received raising concern over the visual impact of the roof alteration and the potential impact of the number of bedrooms upon parking provision for the dwelling.

SUMMARY The proposed rear dormer will not be visible from the highway and no adverse impact will occur upon the neighbouring residential property. Having considered the potential relationship of the decking to the neighbouring property I am of the opinion the deck will not cause an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of 29 Claverham Way. The proposed materials are to match the existing type and therefore

14


considered acceptable, as they will not be out of keeping with the existing building. Battle Town Council has raised an objection to the initial proposal based upon the development not being in keeping with the surrounding bungalows and the development would be clearly visible from the surrounding area. The amendment addresses part of their objection. The dwelling benefits from a dense and mature tree and bush screen across the side and rear boundaries of the property and along the Southern Water facility access drive. The design of the rear dormer is not considered detrimental to the visual amenity of the area. One letter of objection has been submitted raising many points, however, while the properties may have benefited from a certain description in the 1972 plan, they are not referenced in the current adopted Local Plan and the current scheme has been tested against the provisions of the current Rother Local Plan. Therefore their occupants are not subject to any restrictions and should they wish to alter the appearance of their properties, the applications will be tested on their own merits. Members will view the site before determining the application.

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 materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match in materials, colour and texture those used in the existing building. Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the existing building in accordance with 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.

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


RR/2007/1566/P BATTLE 32 HASTINGS ROAD, MARYLANDSOUTLINE: DEMOLITION OF THREE EXISTING DWELLINGS AND THE ERECTION OF 14 TWO BEDROOM APARTMENTS WITH UNDER STOREY PARKING AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ACCESS ROADCassovia Holdings

Statutory 13 week date: 20 September 2007

SITE Marylands is a substantial residential property on the south side of Hastings Road just to the east of the Starrs Mead junction. The application relates to the properties’ residential curtilage. The southern boundary of the site is coincident with the rear boundaries of nos 36 and 30a Hastings Road, the neighbouring properties.

15


The application describes the existing property as three dwellings, Marylands (East and West wings) and Marylands Cottage. I can trace no planning permission for the sub-division of Marylands into East and West wing dwellings.

HISTORYRR/99/1391/P O/A Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 11 flats and 3

houses with alteration to access – Refused – Appeal DismissedRR/2005/1319/P O/A Demolition of building and erection of three blocks of 8

apartments with new vehicular access and 20 parking spaces – Withdrawn

RR/2005/2797/P O/A Nine dwellings with alteration to existing access – RefusedRR/2006/703/P O/A Demolition of buildings and erection of two blocks of 10 two

bedroomed apartments with 24 parking spaces including alterations to vehicular access and construction of new road – Refused

PROPOSAL It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings on the site and to erect a building containing 14 two bedroomed apartments with basement level car parking (28 spaces plus 4 motorcycles and secure bicycle storage). A new access road is also proposed with the alteration of the existing access point.The submission is for Outline planning permission but the application is accompanied by plans indicating elevations, floor plans and sections, which are not annotated as for ‘information only’. These plans should therefore be considered as a representation of a probable detailed scheme. A full land survey, a traffic impact assessment and tree appraisal also accompany the submission.Attached to this report is an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 July 2007 comprising a supporting planning statement, the conclusions of the Traffic and Transport Assessment and Arboricultural Report.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- “The Council has noted the content of the substantial documentation submitted with this application. Regarding traffic issues the Council cannot accept the contention that the proposed 14 units of accommodation would not produce any material increase in vehicle flows. The Council also assumes that the proposed access to this site would be close to any junction which will need to be provided for the Blackfriars development. On a point of detail the Council would also be concerned about the loss of hedgerows required to create improved vision splays. More fundamentally, however, the Council remains opposed to the scale of the proposed building which would be out of character with the rest of Hastings Road and be intrusive, including the view from the rear as seen from the strategic gap between Battle and Hastings. As with similarly large developments it would also bring yet more pressure on the town’s existing services and infrastructure.”Highway Authority:- Consultation response awaited.Environment Agency:- No objection in principle. Suggests that the local planning authority should be satisfied that soakaways will work effectively. Also advice is given in respect of the storage of fuel oil and on water conservation measures.Southern Water:- Does not wish to comment on this application.Sussex Police:- Response awaited.Planning Notice:- At the time of preparing this report 310 letters of objection had been received raising the following matters:- Proposal does not integrate with the family dwellings in Hastings Road within the

AONB16

Precedent would be set for further similar proposals to the detriment of the local character of development

The building will dominate the area lighting up an elevated site Noise levels from an apartment building will be greater Greater demand upon town’s overstretched infrastructure Increased traffic will add to existing congestion The available site area is inflated The highway assessment is over optimistic and not practical. The suggested

footway involves substantial earthworks, the removal of a Scots Pine tree, and would lead to a crossing point where visibility is very poor

The claimed visibility splay to the west would require removal or substantial cutting back of an important and long established beech hedge

Added light pollution Hastings Road and the town suffer serious congestion especially on weekdays Doctor/Dentists practices are at capacity Previous refusals should be adhered to The proposed building is massive in comparison to the general type of dwelling

in the locality

SUMMARY The site is located within the Development Boundary of the town and therefore some form of redevelopment is not, in principle, ruled out. The applicant’s supporting planning statement attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 July 2007 identifies the Development Plan documents considered to be applicable to the consideration of this application and also refers to National (PPS) Planning guidance. To this I would add the equally appropriate Structure Plan Policies EN1, EN2, the Council Council’s SPD produced pursuant to Policy W10 (Construction Waste).The issue which appears to be of great concern to local residents is that of traffic generation, congestion, highway safety etc and the implications of the suggested visibility splays, footway etc. The conclusions of the applicant’s highway consultant are attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this committee 19 July 2007. I am awaiting the response of the Highway Authority who previously (RR/2006/703/P) recommended refusal on the grounds of inadequate visibility being available. I would also question the applicant’s suggestion that the development of 14 flats would result in a ‘small increase’ in vehicle trips. I share concerns that important verge side vegetation may need to be removed to achieve visibility splays, especially so if substantial hedging is to be removed or may die as a result of verge excavation to provide a footway.The potential change to the existing verdant roadside character of Hastings Road resulting from the formation of visibility splays and footway construction is of concern. I am also concerned that the development itself would not only start to erode the established character of the road it would also set a precedent for that erosion to progress along Hastings Road. The road is dominated by substantial family dwellings set in mostly generous plots giving a semi-rural hedged and treed ‘green’ approach into Battle from the countryside ‘strategic gap’ with Hastings. The building proposed occupies an elevated site and is large in comparison with the general housing in the road. With this as a precedent it would be more difficult to resist similar apartment building on other plots or amalgamation of plots in the road. This would produce an entirely different approach to the town and would impact severely upon the AONB. I take the view that such consolidation of the ribbon of development on the south west side of Hastings Road is, for landscape and local character reasons, undesirable. The applicant’s arboricultural report supports the contention that the principle existing trees can be retained and protected and that this, together with new landscape planting,

17

would effectively screen and provide a sylvan setting to the development. I would only agree with this in part. The majority of trees on site are deciduous and thus for much of the year the building will be visible. I would not wish to suggest that buildings should be concealed, but it is important to emphasise that the size of the building proposed will be apparent from the public highway; its mass is also likely to be apparent at night as a result of lighting within the flats.I believe the submitted details of proposed landscaping to be broadly acceptable. The main issue is the introduction of a substantial apartment building in this locality. In this regard PPS3 is the relevant National Planning guidance; this was revised in November 2006. The guidance retains the need to make the best use of land especially brownfield land with a broad national indicative minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare (para 47). The Government also seeks local planning authorities to create mixed sustainable communities. Key characteristics of a mixed community are a variety of housing, particularly in terms of tenure and price, and a mix of different households such as families with children, single person households and older people (para 20). This advice relates to a ‘community’ and except for large sites, is not site specific. The community of Battle has the full spectrum of household types, i.e. bungalows south of North Trade Road, apartments (existing and under construction) Caldbec Hill and family housing along North Trade Road and Hastings Road amongst other locations. Blackfriars itself is expected to be a mixed household development. The erection of a purpose built apartment into this area that is almost exclusively family housing would result in significant change of character. The maintenance of local character is supported by the most recent PPS3 and this form of development is considered to be inappropriate for this prominent location.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING)1. The proposed redevelopment of the site with a single building containing 14

apartments would, if permitted, result in the erosion of the established character of Hastings Road by the introduction of a large monolithic structure within an area of low density family housing and would set a precedent for similar large apartment buildings in the locality to the detriment of the character of the approach to the town of Battle set within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies S1(b)(f)(j), EN1 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies DS1(vi), GD1(iv)(v) and BT1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. Highway reason if recommended by the Highway Authority.


RR/2007/313/P BEXHILL GLOVERS FARMCHANGED OF USE OF LAND FOR THE PARKING OF 2 – 3 LORRIES AND SKIPS (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Dial-a-skip


SITE Glovers Farm is located at the end of Glovers Lane adjoining the east side of the dismantled railway line. Part of the farm is located in an area of search for the link road and the whole site is located in an area zoned for proposed business use in the Rother District Local Plan. (Policy BX2).

18


HISTORY (Relevant) None.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission for change of use of part of land for the parking of 2 – 3 lorries and skips.

CONSULTATIONS Highway Authority – Do not wish to restrict grant of consent.Director of Services – Environmental Health – The lorries have to pass through a residential area therefore more detail is required regarding hours of use. If material is stored on site then the Environmental Agency will need to be informed. I have no concerns regarding ‘parking’ – the subject of the application but need to know re the times of use.Planning Notice – No representations received.

SUMMARY This is a limited commercial use within an existing farm/equestrian site. The part of the site in question is adjacent to a barn and an area where farm equipment is stored. I do not consider that the addition of 3 lorries parked in this area will adversely affect the appearance or character of the area.The applicant has confirmed that no waste materials will be stored at the site, it will purely be used for the parking of skip lorries. It is my opinion that the change of use of the land for the purposes of parking skip lorries will not adversely affect the amenities of the area or be unduly intrusive upon its appearance. Although the access is through a residential area the limited nature of the proposed use will keep additional traffic movements in association with this use to a minimum. The applicant is willing to accept an hours of use condition on the permission. A temporary permission will allow the Council to assess the situation as well as prevent the permission from prejudicing the North Bexhill Development Strategy. The proposal meets the objectives of Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan and does not prejudice Policy BX2 relating to longer term development. I support this proposal. RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) 1. CD1G (Insert b) The use hereby permitted shall be removed [date 2 years]

Reason: To enable the local planning authority to monitor and assess the effects of the proposal having regard to Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and to not prejudice the implementation of the strategy for North Bexhill, which is dependent on the link road that the programme is scheduled for July 2009, having regard to Policy BX2 of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. There shall be no vehicle movements to this site in association with the use hereby approved outside of the hours of 8.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.Reason: To protect the residential amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan, and Policy S1(f) and EN15 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. The change of use hereby approved is only for the parking of lorries and skips and no part of this land should be used for the storage of any waste materials.

19

Reason: To minimise the visual impact of the proposed development 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.

4. No more than three lorries in association with the approved use shall be parked on the site at any one time.Reason: To preserve the visual amenities of the locality and to restrict the number of vehicle movements in the interest of protecting highway safety in accordance with Policy GD1(ii)(iii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan, and Policies S1(d)(f) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed change of use of the land for the purposes of parking skip lorries will not adversely affect the amenities of the area or be unduly intrusive upon its appear. Although the access is through a residential area the limited nature of the proposed use will keep additional traffic movements in association with this use to a minimum. A temporary permission will allow the local planning authority to assess the situation as well as prevent the permission from prejudicing the North Bexhill Development Strategy. As such the proposal complies with Policies S1(d)(f) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(ii)(iii)(iv) and BX2 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2007/1345/P BEXHILL 3 CLAVERING WALK VARIATION OF CONDITION 4 IMPOSED UPON PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2006/2088/P TO ALLOW RESITING OF ACCESS (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION).Mr B Hepburn



SITE The site lies to the south west of Clavering Walk in close proximity to the junction with Cooden Sea Road. Outline planning permission RR/2006/634/P was granted in April 2006 for the erection of a new dwelling on the plot, and reserved matters were approved under RR/2006/2088/P. A new vehicular access was approved to the north west corner on the site. Planning permission was applied for earlier this year under RR/2007/501/P for the formation of an additional vehicular access to the north east of the front boundary of the site. That application was refused following advice from the Highway Authority that an additional access would introduce hazards at this point of Clavering Walk by the slowing, stopping, turning and reversing of traffic which would be created.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2005/1976/P Outline: Erection of a detached house and garage with provision of

new vehicular access. Existing garage to be demolished – RefusedRR/2006/634/P Outline: Construction of new dwelling and demolition of garage with

provision of new vehicular access and two parking spaces – Approved Conditional

20


RR/2006/2088P Erection of new dwelling with integral double garage pursuant to outline planning permission RR/2006/634/P – Approved Conditional

RR/2007/501/P Formation of new vehicular access – Refused

PROPOSAL Rather than an additional access point, this retrospective application proposes a variation of Condition 4 imposed upon planning permission RR/2006/2088/P to allow the resiting of the access. One access is proposed to the north east of the front boundary of the site.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- “I would prefer to see 3 Clavering Walk and the new property within the red site area served by an adjacent paired access however given that Clavering Walk is unclassified and is residential in nature of the street I do not consider that I could insist on this in this instance. I recommend that any consent include highway conditions.”Planning Notice:- No representations received

SUMMARY The Highway Authority has no objection to the application stating that ‘I would prefer to see 3 Clavering Walk and the new property within the red site area served by an adjacent paired access however given that Clavering Walk is unclassified and is residential in nature of the street I do not consider that I could insist on this in this instance’.The new position of the access would cause no danger to highway safety and would not adversely impact upon the appearance of the street scene in this location. Subject to the inclusion of highway conditions, I recommend approval of this application.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A (Standard time period)2. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling, the new access shall be in the position

shown on the approved plan, Drawing Number 06-003-6, date stamped 15 May 2007, and laid out and constructed in accordance with the attached HT407 form.Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. Within one month of the access being brought into use the existing access to the north west of the site shall be stopped up and the kerb and footway reinstated in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, and shall thereafter be retained in that condition. Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed access will not cause danger to highway safety and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy S1 and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.


21


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


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

HISTORYNo relevant history.

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

CONSULTATIONSHighways Authority: Do not wish to restrict grant of consent. I consider the change of use of this property from 5 bedsits to a residential unit for use in multiple occupancy for 5 people to be reduction in use at the site.Social Services: Comments awaited.Planning Notice: One letter of objection received concerned with the following: Not against its use in principle. The road is quite narrow. Can conditions be applied to the application, that the occupants are not all young

adults (i.e. 18 – 20) but rather a mix of ages. Back garden is in a poor upkeep.

SUMMARY The main issues that need to be considered are the principle of the use, the impact on adjoining residents and highway issues. Local Plan Policies apply and in particular Policy GD1(ii)(iii)(iv).I note the concerns raised and most specifically the condition asking that the occupants be a mix of ages. However any such condition would be beyond planning control and could not be attached to any permission.With regard to highway issues the Highway Authority have been consulted and they do not wish to restrict grant of consent.The change of use of the property does not propose any external alterations to the appearance of the property, therefore preserving the appearance of the street scene.Given the number of residents and the type of care offered I am satisfied that there would be no adverse affects on neighbouring properties by undue activity from either

22

the residents or the care staff. In reality the activities of this household need not be significantly different from the current approved use of the premises as six bedsits. It is therefore my opinion that the change of use is acceptable in this locality and will not adversely affect the amenities of this residential area, as such meeting the objectives of Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (NO ADVERSE COMMENT FROM SOCIAL SERVICES)1. CD1A (Time limit)2. The premises shall be used for a residential home for up to 5 adults with learning

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

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The change of use of the property does not propose any external alterations to the appearance of the property, therefore preserving the appearance of the street scene. Given the number of residents and the type of care offered there would be no adverse affects on neighbouring properties by undue activity from either the residents or the care staff. In reality the activities of this household are unlikely to be significantly different from the current approved use of the premises as six bedsits. As such the proposal complies with Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2007/1516/P BEXHILL 19 BEACON HILLREMOVAL OF A SECTION OF DRIVE WALL AND RELOCATING IT TO ALLOW ACCESS BY GATE TO PATH TO SIDE OF GARAGEMr J T Haslam


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

SITE 19 Beacon Hill is a detached property located within a residential development off Ninfield Road. The neighbouring property (no.18) is situated at a lower level.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/93/2021/P Erection of 40 detached houses and 3 detached bungalows with

garages and extension of existing road – Approved ConditionalRR/94/2178/P Re-siting houses on plots 12, 13 and 14; change house types on

plots 15 and 16; erection of additional house on plot 44 – Approved Conditional

23


PROPOSAL This application proposes to remove a section of wall nearest to the house to allow for a gate and path which will permit access to the side of the existing garage. A new 102mm brick edging/kerb, or similar, kept to a minimum of 25mm from the boundary, will be built.

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice:- 1 letter of objection from the neighbour, no.18 Beacon Hill. See attached APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 July 2007.

SUMMARY 19 Beacon Hill is a detached property within a small residential estate of approximately 40 houses, for which planning permission was obtained in the mid-1990s (ref. RR/94/2178/P). This planning permission had a number of conditions attached. Condition no. 4 stated:“Before any development takes place, detailed plans for boundary walls and fences on the site shall be submitted to and be subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The walls and fences shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans at the time of development and before the penultimate dwelling is first occupied and shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details.”This condition has therefore led to the currently submitted planning application for the removal of a section of wall.One letter of objection has been received from the neighbour at no.18. Points d) to k) of this letter have been addressed by the applicant’s agent (WAS Architects) in their letter dated 4 July 2007. A copy of both letters is included as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 July 2007.In my opinion the neighbour’s planning concerns have now been addressed. Other concerns within the letter are effectively private matters over which the Council has no control.It should be noted that the works proposed would, in other circumstances, be considered ‘permitted development’ and it is only because of the restrictive condition no.4 on RR/94/2178/P that planning permission is required.Notwithstanding the letter of objection received from the neighbour, I consider that the proposal is acceptable, has no adverse impact on the appearance of the area.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A (Time limited condition)

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed removal of a small section of drive wall and relocating it to allow access by gate to a path to the side of garage is an acceptable development and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policies GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.


24


RR/2007/1682/TN BEXHILL PEBSHAM FARM, PEBSHAM LANEPROPOSED 15M HIGH MONOPOLE AND EQUIPMENT CABINET WITHIN A 5000MM X 8000MM COMPOUND ENCLOSED WITHIN A 1800MM HIGH PALISADE FENCET-Mobile (UK) Ltd

Last date for decision: 01 August 2007


SITE The proposed installation would be sited in the corner of the field on the north side of Pebsham Lane and approximately 32m west of the existing 15m high mast at Pebsham Farm. The site adjoins a former farm building now being converted into employment use.

HISTORYRR/1999/334/P 22.5m tower and equipment cabins – Withdrawn.RR/2003/702/TN 15m dead tree mast and equipment cabinets – Prior Approval

Refused.RR/2003/1677/FN 15m monopole and equipment cabinets – Details Not Required.RR/2004/3154/P Redevelopment of existing 15m column mast to 20m and extension

of compound – Withdrawn

PROPOSAL This application for prior approval is for the erection of a 15m high monopole within a 1.8m high palisade fenced compound also containing one 5m x 8m equipment cabinet. This is required to provide a high level of both 2G and 3G coverage at commercial and residential indoor levels to the Pebsham Area where coverage is currently only at in-vehicle/outdoor coverage level. The site is just outside their preferred search area. Eight alternative sites were considered and rejected in favour of this co-location where less objection was likely to be received from the local community than in the more built up area that it would serve. An alternative site also considered for site share was the existing 16.5mm high mast at the Southern Water Waste Treatment Works. However, that option is too far to the west of the search area to provide the required coverage.A Declaration of Conformity ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines has been submitted with the application. A detailed Supporting Statement has also been submitted with the application and can be viewed on the website.

CONSULTATIONSLandscape Architect (ESCC) for Pebsham Countryside Park:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY Members are reminded that the regulations require this prior approval application to be determined within 56 days of receipt (last date for decision is 1 August 2007) and your consideration is limited to siting and appearance.In their supporting statement the applicant explains that, in their opinion, the co-location of a second mast close to the existing similar Orange mast at Pebsham Farm would have less visual impact than the alternative redevelopment of the existing mast. That option would require the existing 15m high monopole to be replaced with a bulkier 20m high monopole or lattice tower. The existing mast is already visible above the adjoining treetops and a taller, bulkier tower would indeed be more prominent. I therefore concur with the applicant’s view that the co-location of a second mast would have less visual

25

impact. In addition to being seen above the treetops, the proposed mast will also be visible from the residential area to the west and in particular from the rear of the properties in Filsham Drive. The nearest residential property in Pebsham Lane itself is about 50 metres to the west across the open field. Those residents in Filsham Drive are further away. The distance from the nearest residential properties should ensure that the mast would not have an unacceptable overbearing impact and I take the view that the proposal strikes an acceptable balance between landscape impact and the technical requirements of the operator. The appearance of the installation is also considered acceptable in this location. The proposal is therefore supported.

RECOMMENDATION: DETAILS NOT REQUIRED


RR/2007/1766/P BEXHILL 17 CLAVERING WALK-LAND AT DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF ONE DETACHED 5 BED DWELLING WITH INTEGRAL DOUBLE GARAGE AND ROOFLIGHTS AND TWO DETACHED 4 BED DWELLINGS WITH INTEGRAL DOUBLE GARAGES AND ROOFLIGHTS WITH ALTERATION TO EXISTING ACCESSES AND FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS. N L Suggit And Sons Ltd



SITE The property lies on the south side of Clavering Walk with a frontage measuring some 68m and average depth measuring some 47m. A detached two storey dwelling and detached two storey garage/ ancillary building occupy the level site which also benefits from two gated vehicular access points. The dwelling is set back a minimum of 6m from the highway at an angle in a level site.

HISTORY B/60/341 Outline: Application to erect a dwelling – Approved - LapsedB/60/867 Outline: Conversion into two self contained flats – RefusedRR/74/0419 Lounge extension – Approved RR90/2483/P Outline: Erection of house with garage/ parking space served by a

new vehicular access – Refused RR/91/0193/P Outline: Erection of house with garage/ parking space served by a

new vehicular access – Approved – lapsedRR/2007/826/P Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 1 no. 5 bed dwelling

with detached double garage and two no. 5 bed dwellings with integral double garages including rooflights and provision of new vehicular access and alteration to an existing access – Withdrawn

PROPOSAL The application seeks permission to demolish the detached dwelling and detached garage building and erect three detached two storey dwellings each served by their own vehicular access points.

26


CONSULTATIONS Highway Authority: Any comments will be reported.Environment Agency: Any comments will be reported.Southern Water: Any comments will be reported.South East Water: Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice:- Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY The site has been subject to approved outline applications to erect an additional dwelling in the grounds of the house during 1960 and 1991, though both applications have lapsed. A similar application was withdrawn (RR/2007/826/P) following an impending recommendation for refusal due to the size of the dwellings and their impact upon neighbouring properties and the streetscene. As a result of the withdrawal and subsequent negotiation, the latest submission though still proposing three two storey detached dwellings, has resulted in the reduction of the mass and scale of two of them. Their orientation and position has also been amended. A detached garage building has been omitted in this submission. By amending the scheme, the previous concerns regarding the potential impact upon 15a Clavering Walk have been alleviated as the previously proposed side elevation was set some 0.7m from the boundary and the plans now show a minimum distance of some 2.7m from the boundary. Plot 3 is set to the east of 21 Clavering Walk by some 3.2m. The relationship between the two properties has been improved through the reorientation of the proposed dwelling and the reduction in its size. The introduction of a ‘catslide’ roof reflects the design at 21 Clavering Walk and others found within the area. By redesigning the two outer properties, the development as a whole appears visually softer on the streetscene and more in keeping with the surrounding properties. Having considered the latest scheme with regard to the highway comments, plot sizes, orientation of the buildings, mass, scale, bulk and visual impact, I am of the opinion the scheme is considered conditionally acceptable and does not conflict with adopted plan policies.

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

3. The garage accommodation shall be used only for purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the dwelling as such, and not for any trade or business and no residential accommodation shall be formed therein. Reason: In the interests of protecting the character of the area and the residential amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy

27

GD1(ii)(iv) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

4. Within one month of the date of this permission, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of trees to replace the Sycamore tree set to the front of Plot 2 and the Silver Birch tree set to the front of Plot 3. The aforementioned trees shall be felled and replaced with a similar species. The approved species shall be planted within the first planting season following the date of this permission, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development 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.

5. Prior to the commencement of development, a plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority detailing the exact position and type of fencing to be erected to protect the trees along the rear boundary. The approved fencing shall be erected prior to any construction related materials and/ or equipment is brought onto the site and erected in accordance with both the approved details and in accordance with BS5837. The approved fencing shall be maintained in that position/ condition until the development has been completed and all construction related materials and equipment removed from site. Reason: To ensure that trees are not damaged or otherwise adversely affected by building operations and soil compaction and to ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the health and safety of the trees in accordance with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

6. No materials or equipment shall be stored or parked in any area fenced in accordance with the above condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor any excavation made. Reason: To ensure that trees are not damaged or otherwise adversely affected by building operations and soil compaction and to ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the health and safety of the trees in accordance with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

7. At the time of construction and prior to the first occupation or use of the dwellings hereby approved hereby approved, the bathroom and en-suite windows/rooflights at first floor level within the side elevations, as indicated on the approved drawing no’s. 3693.9, 3693.10 and 3693.11, date stamped 25 th

June 2007, shall be 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 and Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

8. No surface water shall be discharged to the public foul sewer. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and area in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(g) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan.

9. No dwelling shall be occupied until the turning heads, so that vehicles may enter and leave the site in forward gear and drives, have been laid out within the individual sites in accordance with the approved plan drawing no. 3693.8 date

28

stamped 25 June 2007 and they 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.

Notes: Should the planting scheme included within the approved plans be implemented prior to the completion of construction, protective fencing should be set around the planted areas to prevent compaction during construction in accordance with BS5857.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed three detached two storey dwellings are of an appropriate design and position and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(ii)(iii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2007/1773/P BEXHILL 304 COODEN DRIVE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING, ERECTION OF THREE FAMILY DWELLINGS INCLUDING DORMER WINDOWS WITH PROVISION OF SIX PARKING SPACES AND FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS.Mrs S Bestley



SITE 304 Cooden Drive is a large detached house located on the north side of the road bounded by the railway line to the north, houses to the east side and the large blocks of flats forming Westbourne Court to the west. The frontage is open and almost completely hard surfaced with a low timber picket fence. The rear garden is bounded by walls, fences and hedges. The site lies within the development boundary for Bexhill.

HISTORYRR/87/1582 Demolish property, erect 7 flats, 6 garages and 6 parking spaces

with new access - Withdrawn.RR/88/1714 Alteration to existing access to form ‘in’ and ‘out’ drive – Refused -

Appeal Dismissed.RR/2003/1104/P Demolition of existing dwellings and erection of 4 storey block of 24

no. 2 bed flats with private parking court to rear – Refused - Appeal Dismissed. (302-304 Cooden Drive)

RR/2004/3415/P Erection of front extension to form porch and carport, and rear extension to form family room and swimming pool - Approved Conditional.

RR/2007/1091/P Demolition of existing dwelling, erection of 3 family dwellings together with parking provision - Withdrawn.

29


PROPOSAL This full application proposes to replace the existing house with a terrace of three family dwellings. The existing dwelling has a large footprint, with a three storey element to the centre and a mixture of single and two storey elements to the sides and rear, including a front catslide with dormer. The proposed terrace has a comparable footprint but has a larger overall mass, with a three storey centre gable and two storey elements to the sides with dormers within the roof. The highest point of the proposed ridge is the same as that of the existing ridgeline. The front elevation includes a veranda detail incorporating the entrance porches. Traditional materials are proposed with a tiled roof, brick, render and tile hanging to the walls. The proposed building has been stepped off the side boundary to the east. The front area is to be landscaped, with planting to the boundaries, a parking/turning area and lawns to serve each dwelling unit.The accompanying statement advises that the family dwellings have been designed to reflect current housing trends, in particular the increasing pressures for extended family situations whereby younger children do not leave home until their mid twenties, whilst grandparents may require additional care with age and so move in. The ground floor has therefore been designed to include two rooms at the rear, which could be used as a bedroom and home office with a bathroom, as well as the kitchen and large dining room. The ground floor is thus fully accessible and complies with Part M of the Building Regulations.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: Comments awaited.Southern Water: Comments awaited.Environment Agency: Has no objection but recommends the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (as recommended in PPS25) and water conservation techniques. It also questions the use of soakaways in an area where high ground water levels may exist during winter periods.Planning Notice: None received.

SUMMARY It will be noted from the planning history that permission was refused in 2003 for the demolition of 302 and 304 Cooden Drive and their replacement with a large block of flats. That redevelopment proposal was considered to be out of character with the street scene, an over development of the site and detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring properties. This application relates only to the redevelopment of 304 Cooden Drive. The scheme has been revised from that withdrawn earlier this year, RR/2007/1091/P.The proposed building now reflects the existing footprint and maximum height of the existing building and is sited so as not to impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of 304 Cooden Drive. The proposal does not impact upon the railway line to the rear nor upon the garage block and parking forecourt of Westbourne Court on the adjoining west side.However, concern remains with regard to the overall increase in density and to the change in character that the scheme represents. The plot sizes for the three dwellings are considerably narrower than those existing to the east or on the opposite southern side of the road. At present there is a mix of property types and sizes along the length of Cooden Drive, with this western end being typified by larger dwellings set within wider plots and maintaining a sense of space between the dwellings. As such the proposal has a cramped appearance and if permitted could give rise to a precedence for other similar proposals to occur with the resultant erosion of the character and appearance of the street scene.

30

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD).1. Notwithstanding that the site lies within an existing town the established

character of Cooden Drive in the vicinity of the site, (with the exception of the flats to the west), is one of single detached and semi-detached family houses in individual plots. The proposed intensification in use with the replacement of a detached house with a terrace of three, four bedroom houses, would create a cramped form of development with an increased mass and increased vehicle movements, detrimental to the established character and visual appearance of the street scene. As such the development would be contrary to the provisions of PPS1 and PPS3 (para. 13 & 16), Policies S1(f) and S6(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. The proposed development, if permitted, could set a precedent for similar proposals in the vicinity of the site that would result in an incremental and harmful change to the existing character and appearance of the locality contrary to the provisions contained within Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2007/1788/P BEXHILL 207 COODEN DRIVEERECTION OF THREE RESIDENTIAL UNITS INCLUDING ROOF DORMER WINDOWS WITH PROVISION OF SIX PARKING SPACES.F Forte Developments Ltd


SITE 207 Cooden Drive is a two-storey dwelling, of castellated design with a large single storey extension to the rear over the swimming pool, located on the southern side of Cooden Drive. The site appears to be level within but actually slopes from east up to west and down to the road. The area to the rear of the building is within the Cooden Cliffs Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI), ref. CR23. The former nursing home of ‘Three Chimneys’ lies at a lower ground level to the east, while the single and two-storey dwelling of no.217 Cooden Drive lies to the west at a slightly higher ground level. In general surrounding residential development is characterised by detached and semi-detached houses set within individual plots.

HISTORYRR/80/2196 Outline: Two dwellings with garages and parking spaces. Land at

203 Cooden Drive - Approved Conditional.RR/81/0503 Approval of reserved matters to erect house and double garage -

Approved Conditional.RR/83/1536 Erection of 2m high boundary wall and double garage served by

new vehicular access - Approved Conditional.RR/83/2378 Formation of covered way and rebuilding of boundary wall -

Approved Conditional.RR/95/1358/PEnclosure of first floor balcony - Approved Conditional.RR/2000/1469/P Renewal of permission for enclosure to first floor balcony -

Approved Conditional.31


RR/2003/630/P Enclosure of existing swimming pool and extension to kitchen - Approved Conditional.

RR/2006/1693/P Outline: Demolition of existing house and garage. Construction of eight flats with parking spaces and alteration to an existing access - Refused.

RR/2007/800/P Erection of three residential units including roof dormer windows with provision of six parking spaces - Withdrawn.

PROPOSAL This application proposes the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement with a terrace of three, 4 bedroom houses. It is proposed to lower the existing ground level to that of the adjacent site to the east, (former Three Chimneys). The new building would be two storey with a central three storey gable and rooms within the roofspace to either side. The building is set off the side boundaries by 1.5-2m with side entrances. The proposed footprint is wider but narrower than that of the existing dwelling with a comparable ridge height. The existing access is to be reused with open parking for 6 vehicles to the front.The accompanying statement advises that the scheme has particular emphasis in appreciating the aspirations of extended family situations and the overall concept is to provide the look of a large Edwardian style house.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: Comments awaited.Southern Water: Comments awaited.Environment Agency: No objection but offers advice on coast protection, flood risk, surface water drainage, foul drainage and water conservation.Planning Notice: None received.

SUMMARY This site lies within the development boundary for Bexhill where redevelopment may be considered, subject to compliance with policy criteria as set out in Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1 and S6 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. Planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment of the former Three Chimneys Nursing Home, a commercial premises, and its adjacent vacant plot with a scheme for flats. Both these plots lend themselves to redevelopment and are considered capable of accommodating blocks of flats, in some form, without overt detriment to the neighbours or street scene.Planning permission has previously been refused to redevelop this dwelling house with flats, RR/2006/1693/P. 207 Cooden Drive is a house, which although of an individual design, provides a clear marker in size and type of dwelling at this western end of Cooden Drive. The neighbouring properties to the west although of a reasonably sized footprint, are fairly low in height being of a bungalow or chalet bungalow design set in wide plots. A terrace of the size and design indicated, with narrow plot widths, increased height and mass towards the side boundaries and increased number of storeys is considered to represent an over-development of the site out of character with the neighbouring dwellings to the west and opposite. The low dwelling of no.217 would accentuate the scale and mass of the proposed two and a half storey terrace. The adjacent site to the east is to be redeveloped with flats but these have been deliberately designed to step down in height to the boundary with the application property, being of two storey with a room in the roofspace. The proposed dwelling has a significantly higher eaves level and being of an Edwardian design would be out of character with the more modern designs as existing and proposed to either side. As such the proposed building would be a conspicuous feature within the street scene detrimental to the general character and form of this part of Cooden Drive.

32

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD).1. Notwithstanding that the site lies within an existing town the established

character of Cooden Drive in the vicinity of the site, (with the exception of the proposed flats to the east), is one of single detached and semi-detached family houses in individual plots. The proposed intensification in use with the replacement of a detached house with a terrace of three, four bedroom houses, would create a cramped form of development with an increased size, height and mass, detrimental to the established character and visual appearance of the street scene. As such the development would be contrary to the provisions of PPS1 and PPS3 (para. 13 & 16), Policies S1(f) and S6(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. The proposed development by virtue of its Edwardian design would be an incongruous feature out of character with surrounding development and thereby detrimental to the character and appearance of the street scene. The development would be contrary to the provisions of PPS1 and PPS3 (para. 13 & 16), Policies S1(f) and S6(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iv) Rother District Local Plan.

3. The proposed development, if permitted, could set a precedent for similar proposals in the vicinity of the site that would result in an incremental and harmful change to the existing character and appearance of the locality contrary to the provisions contained within Policy GD1 (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2007/1791/P BEXHILL ST GEORGE’S CHURCH, CANTELUPE ROADERECTION OF A TERRACE OF 6 DWELLINGS FRONTING LIONEL ROAD INCLUDING FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESSESThe United Reformed Church (Southern Province) Trust Ltd


SITE The application site comprises the southern part of the existing St George’s Church site which runs between Cantelupe Road and Lionel Road and is faced by houses in Dorset Road South to the west.The site has a frontage of about 32 metres to Lionel Road extending back some 22 metres. It is currently occupied by the church buildings which are elevated above the road level of Lionel Road. To the north (the remainder of the site) is a flat area of associated open garden.

HISTORYRR/2007/287/P Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a block of 10 flats

including formation of new vehicular access – WithdrawnSite to rear:RR/2007/278/P Erection of Centre of Workshop and communal activities (on the

remainder of the land to the north) – Approved Conditional

33


PROPOSAL The scheme comprises a single terrace of six 3 or 4 bedroom dwellings fronting Lionel Road. The houses appear as three storeys high to the front containing additional room space in the roof space. The ground level includes a garage for each property and additional parking space. From the rear the terrace appears mainly as two storeys with the front ground level here being below garden level.The development requires the complete removal of the existing church building and manse and will face towards the proposed new church building to be built near to the Cantelupe Road frontage. It also involves excavating the site to bring the ground level down to road level on the Lionel Road side.The application is accompanied by a full Design and Access Statement and computer generated axonometric drawings which can be displayed at Committee showing how the development relates to its surroundings.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- To be reported.Environment Agency:- No objections subject to contaminated land condition.Southern Water:- To be reported.Planning Notice:- To be reported.

SUMMARY This scheme follows an earlier more intensive proposal for 10 flats which was reported to Planning Committee on 15 March, at the same time as a scheme for a new church building on the remaining land to the rear. My recommendation then was to refuse permission although Members deferred a decision seeking a reduced scheme associated with the ‘new’ church site.As a consequence the church site was slightly increased and the proposal for flats abandoned.This is a more modest scheme both in terms of numbers of dwellings and the scale of the scheme. It is to be judged primarily against Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan in terms of both the character of the area and its impact on adjoining properties.

Streetscene –To the east of the site is a group of fairly recent terraced town houses in a similar form with ground floor parking and two floors above.To the west, at right angles to the site, are older larger properties in Dorset Road South. To the south (on the opposite side of Lionel Road) are both flats (built in the 1960s) and older detached seafront properties. The character of the area is mixed in terms of design and age but the new building relates acceptably to the adjoining town houses in terms of character.

Relationship to adjoining properties –The new building will affect the adjoining residents in varying degrees. The site is relatively tightly constrained and faced by the following properties: 4, 6 and 8 Dorset Road South 22a Cantelupe Road 1 Lionel RoadThe effect on the Dorset Road South properties to the west (all in flats) is the most significant, although in essence, the scheme is to replace a large church building with a terrace of houses of not dissimilar proportions. The main difference, though, is that while the church building faces the rear gardens of nos. 4 and 6 in equal measure the end of the terrace more significantly faces nos. 2 and 4. No. 2 has a relatively enclosed garden, no. 4 will be more affected by a change

34

of outlook with the flank wall close to the rear boundary. No. 6 benefits to some extent by the bulk of the new building moving southwards.To the east and north the properties are less directly affected and benefit from the removal of the church building. When the previous scheme for flats was proposed I expressed concern about overlooking towards 22a Cantelupe Road. While the terrace of houses includes facing windows the distances between properties is acceptable. As a concession to residents on either side the second floor bedroom windows at both ends of the terrace are angled inwards, to prevent direct overlooking to neighbours.The scheme makes a good use of the site and while there will be a change to the outlook of 4 Dorset Road South in particular, this effect is to be balanced against the removal of the existing building.

I consider the proposal can be supported.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRATION OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. CD1A (Time limit).2. CD9H (Materials). Insert A – (a) samples; Insert B – (a) buildings.

Reason: To ensure that the development takes account of the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. CD7T (Bin/recycling). Insert b. occupation of the buildings.4. CD12R (Levels). Insert A – House; Insert B – Levels.

Reason: Insert Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General

Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no alterations shall be made to the front entrances and the garages hereby approved shall not be used as habitable accommodation.

Reason: To retain adequate on site parking facilities that do not prejudice the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety along the highway in accordance with Policies GD1(i)(iii) and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

6. 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 any elevation or roof slope.

Reason: To prevent 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.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is of a scale and design appropriate to the mixed character of the area. The siting and size of the building respects adjoining residents and minimizes any direct overlooking. As such the scheme complies in particular with Policy GD1(ii)(iii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.View application/correspondence_____________________________________________________________________

35


RR/2007/1138/P BECKLEY GLASSEYE FARM, FURNACE LANEERECTION OF TWO STOREY FARMHOUSEMr R and Mrs P Seymour


This application was deferred at your last meeting for further information.

SITE This 36.5 ha holding is located on the southern outskirts of Beckley Parish with its farmyard located on the west side of Furnace Lane. The application site comprises a 0.05 ha plot fronting Furnace Lane and lying between the site of the former 2-storey Glasseye Farmhouse (demolished) and the replacement bungalow erected in the late 1970s. The site falls 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.RR/2004/1548/P Stationing of agricultural mobile home – Approved (Temporary –

expires 31/8/2007)

PROPOSAL The proposed 4-bedroom agricultural worker’s dwelling would front Furnace Lane and be set back from the highway boundary from between 3m and 8m. The dwelling would be of traditional design with half brick/half tile hung elevations and a plain tiled pitched roof. This would replace the existing mobile home that was granted temporary planning permission in 2004 under RR/2004/1548/P (expires 31 August 2007). The application is supported by detailed agricultural information and a design and access statement. Copies of these have been appended to previous Committee agendas and can now be viewed on the website.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- A copy letter dated 19 May 2007 received from the Chair of the Parish Council was appended to previous Committee agendas and can now be viewed on the website. The Parish Council’s primary concern is that supporting information is materially incorrect and may cause the Local Planning Authority to reach a conclusion it would not otherwise reach.Highway Authority:- “I do not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to the observations below:-Although highway safety concern continues to be expressed over the suitability of Furnace Lane (C417), it is understood that the proposed farmhouse is to replace the existing mobile home granted planning permission under RR/04/1548. Taking into account that this is a replacement, it is considered that there are insufficient highway grounds to justify a recommendation for refusal for this proposal.

36

However, it is assumed that a satisfactory planning condition (similar to that imposed on RR/04/1548) to safeguard against any future sub-division will be included with any grant of consent if your Committee are minded to approve this application.”Environment Agency:- Has no objection but offers advice to the applicant about proposed methods of disposing of foul and surface water drainage, storage of any fuel, oils and chemicals and water conservation.Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board:- Have no comments to make on this development.Southern Water Services:- Do not wish to comment on this application.Rural Estates Surveyor:- A copy of his original comments have been appended to previous Committee agendas and can now be viewed on the website. In his conclusion he advised that he was unable to comment upon the enterprise satisfying the financial test requirements of Annexe A of PPS7 without net profit figures being supplied, including those for the accounting year up to 2006.Planning Notice:- 2 letters of objection. A letter received from ‘Bernard Baverstock’ dated 16 May 2007 was included in the June Committee appendix document. The other letter includes the following comments – outside development boundary; the way the enterprise is divided could be seen as a deliberate ploy; net profit figures not given therefore impossible to judge whether project is viable or sustainable; both applicants have other full time employment which brings justification into question; Rother should review any planning permission given for the mobile homes.2 letters of support: aged owner needs help; bungalow too small for farming family; future of farm can only be assured if the incumbent is positioned to give 24 hour management that good animal husbandry demands.

SUMMARY The two main issues in this case relate to (1) whether or not the proposal satisfies the several tests for a permanent agricultural worker’s dwelling contained in Annex A of PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas together with corresponding Policy HG10(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S10(c)(ii) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011; and (2) whether or not the dwelling would have an acceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the landscape and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in accordance with Government Advice and Policy GD1(iv)(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.With regard to issue 1) additional information has now been received and a copy passed to the Council’s consultee for appraisal. A full copy of his reply is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 July 2007. The following comments in particular have been extracted:“What is relevant is the letter from Mrs Scott dated 14 May.This letter confirms that Mr Seymour (the applicant) is employed by Sir Paul McCartney and thus is not employed full time at Glasseye Farm. Advice in Paragraph 3iii of Annexe A of PPS7 states clearly that need relates to a full time worker, or one who is primarily employed in agriculture and does not relate to a part time requirement.In preparing my appraisal dated 15 May I was not aware of the precise nature of Mr Seymour’s employment off the farm.In the light of this new evidence regarding employment I must reassess my position and opinion. Mr Seymour may be primarily employed in agriculture but he is not employed full time on the farm and as he is employed elsewhere he is clearly only engaged on the farm on a part time basis. The criterion in Paragraph 3ii is not therefore satisfied.At the time of my appraisal the latest accounts were not available. These have now been provided….

37

The datum figure to satisfy the financial test criteria is usually accepted as being the minimum agricultural wage which is currently £12,160 per annum. This figure is exceeded by only a very modest amount…Details of the rented land was requested. This has been supplied and the rented land extends in all to 53.6 hectares. No figure has been included in the accounts to acknowledge this cost…In the light of this combined new information I am drawn to the conclusion that the criteria contained in Paragraph 3 of Annexe A is not satisfied and that there is insufficient agricultural justification for the permanent dwelling on the farm.”With regard to issue 2), I am satisfied that in terms of size, the proposed dwelling would be commensurate with the size of the agricultural unit and agricultural activity. Its design and materials are also considered appropriate to its rural location. In judging its impact upon the landscape, the dwelling is close to existing buildings and is not in open landscape. Whilst its close proximity to the front boundary would render it visible from the highway it would not, in my opinion, be a dominant building and would not be visible from any distant viewpoints. Furthermore, the original 2-storey farmhouse occupied an adjacent position prior to its demolition in the late 1970s. I therefore take the view that it would not cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the landscape and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. However in the light of the further information and the latest report from the Rural Estates Surveyor I cannot support the proposal. Agricultural justification has not been demonstrated as required by PPS7.

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 houses in the countryside. In this case, the local planning authority considers that the criteria contained in Paragraph 3 of Annexe A to PPS7 is not satisfied and that there is insufficient agricultural justification for a permanent dwelling on the enterprise. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to the above policies and Government Advice.


RR/2007/1443/P NORTHIAM ALPINES – LAND AT, EWHURST LANEERECTION OF BUNGALOW AND DETACHED GARAGESimon Wright Homes Ltd


SITE The site is part of the former garden of Alpines which has recently been developed with 4 new dwellings as allowed on appeal under RR/2004/2471/P. The proposed plot is immediately behind the bungalow fronting Ewhurst Lane known as Fairlea and is shown on the approved landscaping plan (condition 6) as an open grassed area planted with a single specimen ‘Heavy Standard Tree 3.6 – 4.25m’ together with shrubs adjacent to the boundaries of the adjoining properties. A single

38


garage was approved flanking the site boundary of the garden with ‘Brentleigh’. A planning application RR/2006/1943/P to erect a chalet bungalow and detached garage on the plot was refused and dismissed on appeal in February this year.

HISTORYRR/2004/2471/P Erection of 4 four bedroomed detached houses with construction of

new road and alteration to existing vehicular access – Refused – Appeal Allowed.

RR/2005/1742/P Erection of 3 four bedroomed detached houses with garages, construction of road and new vehicular access including alteration to existing access – Refused

RR/2006/1943/P Erection of chalet bungalow and detached garage – Refused – Appeal Dismissed

PROPOSAL The proposed single storey bungalow would face the existing recently erected 2-storey houses (plots 1 and 2) with its rear elevation backing onto the rear of ‘Fairlea’. The proposed single garage would be similar to that already approved but set further back to provide a parking space in front. The materials proposed would be similar to those used on the existing 4 new houses. A copy of the Design and Access Statement submitted with the application is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 July 2007.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Supports refusal on the following grounds: “The applicant has had a previous application for a bungalow on this site refused

by RDC and upheld by the Planning Inspectorate for good reasons The site is too small to accommodate another dwelling The proposals would severely affect the privacy and amenities of adjacent

properties The previous development on the site indicated the plot in question to be

landscaped to provide a green area. This was felt to be particularly important in view of the significant hardstanding included with the development and the small gardens provided In this former garden on a country lane

The predicted drainage problems put forward by residents and the PC when considering former applications for this site have occurred and would not be solved by adding a further residence

The proposals seem to the PC to represent a ‘back door’ into increasing the density of houses on a sensitive site.”

Highway Authority:- Recommend conditions requiring the provision of on-site parking and to ensure that the grass verge on the south side of the access onto Ewhurst Lane is kept clear of all obstructions to visibility.Environment Agency:- Has no objection but advise that any watercourse within the boundary of the site is the owner’s responsibility and that appropriate pollution methods (e.g. trapped gullies and interceptors) should be used for drainage from access roads and car parks to prevent pollution.Planning Notice:- 4 letters of objection – concerned about: restriction of access to existing properties 1, 2 and 3 Cedar Close shared vehicle turning space is very, very small entrance to new property’s parking space and garage area is located in exactly

the space that properties 1, 2 and 3 Cedar Close currently use in order to manoeuvre in and out

39

additional demands upon small cul-de-sac will make emergency/utility service and delivery vehicle access difficult

will create an oppressively overcrowded feel to the Close will affect our privacy, space and openness no space for delivery vehicles or visitors will lead to almost impossible parking situation visitors to Cedar Close will have to park in Ewhurst Lane land is in Conservation Area and should not be built on reduced privacy for residents of both ‘Fairlea’ and ‘Brentleigh’ consideration should be given to people living in close vicinity as enjoyment of

their gardens and environment will be adversely affected four houses already squeezed in and another smacks of overdevelopment height and design not in keeping with area where will all plant and equipment be stored during construction? increased traffic, noise and mud in road will be severe hazard countryside character slowly disappearing.Northiam Conservation Society – overdevelopment; better left as open space; this is a rural area.

SUMMARY In the Design and Access Statement (see Appendix Document) the applicant states that “The proposals have been prepared using the Appeal Inspector’s report to assess the site constraints and re-design the bungalow to resolve the issues raised.” A full copy of the appeal decision letter dated 19 February 2007 is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 July 2007. In refusing previously planning application RR/2006/1943/P for a chalet bungalow, the Council considered that 1) by virtue of the small plot size and close proximity to the adjoining properties ‘Fairlea’ and ‘Brentleigh’, the proposed development would be detrimental to the residential amenities of those dwellings. In addition, the application was refused on grounds 2) that the higher density and loss of a green landscaped area of land, would be out of keeping with surrounding development and its location within a rural village in the AONB. However, in dismissing the appeal, the Inspector did not uphold the second reason for refusal commenting that due to its size and location, he did not think that the small area of land, which is not seen from Ewhurst Lane, contributed significantly to the character of the wider area and village of Northiam, or the AONB. He consequently considered that the erection of an additional dwelling would be acceptable within the cul-de-sac. Although objections to this application have again been received on grounds of overdevelopment and loss of open space, it is unlikely that, in view of the Inspector’s comments, a refusal on this ground could be sustained on appeal.However, the Inspector did uphold the first reason for refusal commenting that the proposed chalet bungalow would lead to a dominating visual appearance and would be harmful to the living conditions of existing and future residents. This revised application seeks to overcome that dominating impact by reducing the ridge height of the dwelling by approximately 1 metre and deleting the two first floor level dormer windows that were formerly proposed in the front roof slope. The depth of the rear garden has also been increased by approximately 1 metre. The physical mass of the bungalow now proposed, particularly at roof level, is therefore much reduced and it is my opinion that this reduction would result in a less dominating appearance that would no longer lead to an intrusive and overbearing impression for the existing residents of ‘Fairlea’ or the residents of the new dwellings in Cedar Close. Although these issues are finely balanced, the reduction in size of the dwelling would appear to address the Inspector’s concerns at the last appeal.

40

Objections received regarding the likely restriction of parking and turning space within the cul-se-sac are invalid in so far as no changes to the existing road width are proposed. Inconsiderate parking by existing residents and future residents of the proposed dwelling and their visitors may indeed result in problems. However, this is not uncommon on developments of this nature and would not in itself justify a reason for refusal where on-site parking/turning meets your current standards. Therefore, in view of the above, the application is supported with a number of conditions limiting any further additions/alterations.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A (Time limit).2. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority, the materials

to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwelling hereby permitted shall match in materials, colour and texture those used in the existing dwellings in Cedar Close and approved under planning permission RR/2004/2471/P.Reason: To ensure that the development is in character with its surroundings 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 dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the garage and parking spaces have been provided as shown on approved drawing 1328/02A. The spaces shall thereafter be retained and shall not be used other than for the parking of the vehicles of the occupiers of the dwelling or visitors thereto.Reason: As in CD3K.

4. CD4C (Landscaping details). Insert a. and b.Reason: Insert a. Policies GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(b)(f)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

5. CD4D (Implementation of landscaping)Reason: Insert a. Policies GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(b)(f)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

6. CD8P (Removal of permitted development rights) a. buildings; b. structures. Insert Classes A, B, D or E.Reason: a. Insert Policy GD1(ii)(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(b)(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

7. CD8O (No other windows). Amend - End of sentence to read “… shall be inserted into the roof or gable ends.”Reason: (a)

Note: The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of the Environment Agency and contained in their letter dated 25 May 2007.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is of an appropriate size and design and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy GD1(ii)(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(b)(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


41


RR/2007/814/P SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE ANGELS, BRIGHTLING ROAD, ROBERTSBRIDGEERECTION OF DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE/GARDEN STOREMr and Mrs Lowe

Statutory 8 week date: 11 May 2007

This application was delegated to refuse at the 24 May 2007 Planning Committee for consideration of an arboricultural report when submitted.

SITE ‘Angels’ is located to the south side of Brightling Road, outside the development boundary for Robertsbridge and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2006/1028/P Erection of garage/garden store including formation of new

driveway – Refused

PROPOSAL Planning permission is sought to erect a garage/garden store including the formation of a new driveway.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “This application requires the removal of mature trees (there is no evidence submitted to prove disease in the oak tree). The council is not convinced that the use of pad foundations will prevent damage to the roots of the surrounding trees in the next few years and feels that the loss of these, now or in the future, would be detrimental to the character of the immediate area and the AONB.”Director of Transport & Environment:- Does not wish to restrict the grant of consent.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY This application was delegated for refusal at the May 2007 Committee to consider an arboricultural report. I have now received the arboricultural report, a copy of which was sent to the Council’s Tree Officer for comment. The Tree Officer has confirmed that the report is satisfactory and that the proposed double garage can be built on site providing certain remedial works are undertaken to safeguard the existing protected trees. The Tree Officer has also recommended conditions to be attached to any planning permission.The proposed garage is screened from the road by various trees and shrubs and is acceptable in terms of scale and design and would not be detrimental upon the amenities of any neighbouring properties.I can now therefore support this application.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A (Standard time limited condition)2. CD8G (Restriction on garage use). Insert a, b.3. The excavation of the foundations and any services within the root protection

areas shall be carried out by hand. If any large roots (<25cm circumference) are encountered during the excavations for the foundations, the pad will be off set to avoid these roots.Reason: To ensure that the development is in character with its surroundings and safeguards the trees which contribute to the character of the locality in

42

accordance with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. No work shall take place until a scheme for the protection of the retained tree has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include a plan to scale showing the positions of the Tree Protection Barriers. The erection of protection measures shall be undertaken before any equipment, machinery, or materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of development and shall be maintained until all equipment; machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced and the ground areas within these areas shall not be altered, nor shall excavation be made, without the written consent of this Authority. Design of protective barriers should be in accordance with Fig.2 of BS5837 2005.Reason: To ensure that the development is in character with its surroundings and safeguards the trees which contribute to the character of the locality in accordance with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority details of any ground protection measures for use during construction in accordance with procedures shown in Fig.3 of the BS5837 2005 and the no dig access drive as described in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment submitted on 31 May 2007, submitted as part of this application. Any vehicle movements within the development site will be restricted to these areas.Reason: To ensure that the development is in character with its surroundings and safeguards the trees which contribute to the character of the locality in accordance with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed garage is of an appropriate design and would not adversely affect the character of the locality or the amenities of adjoining properties, and safeguards the trees which contribute to the character of the locality. It therefore complies with Policy GD1(ii)(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2007/1074/P BREDE BURNT HOUSE FARM – LAND AT, UDIMORE ROAD, BROAD OAKREPLACEMENT OF EXISTING 20M MAST WITH A NEW 22.5M MAST TO ALLOW NEW T-MOBILE EQUIPMENT TO BE ACCOMMODATED INCLUDING ADDITION OF 6 ANTENNAS, 1 TRANSMISSION DISH AND 2 CABINETSOrange PCS Ltd


SITE This application relates to the site of an existing 20m high lattice tower at Burnt House Farm and is on the north side of Udimore Road approximately 100m east of the built up area of Broad Oak. The site is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

43


HISTORYRR/93/0643/P 20m high ‘Orange’ tower – ApprovedRR/2003/2963/P Installation of 6 antennae and 2 dishes on existing tower and

erection of 2 equipment cabinets – Approved

PROPOSAL It is proposed to replace the existing 20m high lattice tower with a similar but more robust 22.5m high tower. The existing ‘Orange’ antennae (x 6) and dishes (x 4) would be relocated on a headframe at the top of the new tower. This would enable T-Mobile to share the mast and fix a further 6 antennae and 1 dish to another headframe just below. Vodafone’s existing 6 antennae, who also share the mast, would be fixed directly to the tower immediately below T-Mobile’s. Two additional T-Mobile equipment cabinets would be located at ground level within the existing fenced compound, which would not be extended.The proposal is to allow T-Mobile to provide 2G and 3G coverage to the A28 running from Broad Oak in the north to Brede in the south, in addition to the B2089 running from east to west in the area south of Broad Oak. All the linear settlements on the A28 and B2089 in this area suffer from poor coverage along with the villages of Broad Oak, Brede and Cackle Street. As ‘Orange’ have an existing mast already located within the applicant’s search area, the applicants consider that the best option would be to locate their equipment onto the existing structure. However, the existing structure is not strong enough to support the additional equipment and would need to be replaced. Notwithstanding, 15 alternative sites were considered and discounted for a variety of reasons. These reasons are contained in the Supporting Statement submitted with the application and can be viewed on the website.A Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines accompanies the application.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “Supports REFUSAL of this application on the grounds that it is visually obtrusive in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and there are concerns over potential radiation problem and allied health issues to surrounding residential properties. The Council asks if the equipment could not be placed on the existing mast or added to the masts at either Chitcombe or Sowdens Wood. The Council requests that this application goes before the Full Planning Committee.”Planning Notice:- No comments received.

SUMMARY The main issues in this case are the visual impact upon the landscape and AONB and visual amenities of the opposite property ‘Meadow Croft’, that would result from a higher tower containing two headframes. Relevant Policies are GD1(ii)(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(b)(f)(j), EN2 and EN30 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.In addition to the 15 alternative sites discounted by the applicants, I asked them to specifically consider the Parish Council’s comments and to also advise whether or not, by reducing the height of the surrounding trees, the height of the existing mast could be maintained. A copy of their Agent’s (Harlequin) reply dated 12 June 2007 is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 July 2007. It would seem that 22.5m is the minimum height that would allow the three separate telephone companies’ equipment to operate successfully. With regard to an alternative siting at Great Sowdens Wood, they advise that the existing 18m high Airwave structure would need to be replaced with a thicker and stronger 22.5m high lattice tower. Members will recall that the mast at Great Sowdens Wood was only considered acceptable because of its lightweight nature with only the slender antennae projecting

44

above the surrounding treetops. Its replacement with a thicker 22.5m high tower would, in my opinion, have an adverse impact upon the landscape and AONB. The proposed 20m high replica telegraph pole recently approved for O2 (not yet erected) at Chitcombe Wood (RR/2006/1218/P) would also need to be replaced with a more substantial structure (e.g. lattice tower) and, due to its location outside the search area, significantly higher.In view of the above additional information, it would appear that the proposal as submitted remains the best option. In its favour are the facts that it is an existing site and is currently not particularly prominent on the skyline. For instance, due to the existing highway boundary trees, the mast is not visible to passing traffic. Also, it can only be glimpsed from a few surrounding vantage points. However the structure is visible from the residential development lying to the north and the top of the existing mast is visible from the garden of the opposite property ‘Meadow Croft’, to which it is quite close. The increased visual impact upon the landscape and opposite property that would result from an increase in height with an additional headframe therefore needs to be weighed against the applicant’s apparent exhaustive search for alternative sites. One option that has not been the subject of detailed comment is that of a second mast at Burnt House Farm and I have therefore requested a comment upon this possible final alternative. Notwithstanding, it is possible that any judgement upon the visual impact of a second mast against the proposal as currently submitted could be finely balanced. Therefore, unless a second mast clearly appears to be a preferable option I would anticipate supporting the proposal as submitted.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (APPLICANT’S REPLY)1. The mast and all equipment hereby permitted on the site shall be removed from

the land on which it is situated within 6 months of the time when it is no longer required for telecommunication purposes.Reason: To enable the local planning authority to regulate and control the development of the land in accordance with Government Advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 and Policy EN30 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The local planning authority is satisfied that the proposal strikes an acceptable balance between the applicant’s technical requirements and the impact upon the visual appearance of the landscape and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The application is therefore considered to accord with Government Advice contained in PPG8: Telecommunications and Policies S1, EN2, EN3 and EN30 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2007/822/P CAMBER 139 LYDD ROADERECTION OF EXTENSION (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Mr S Hopkins


This item was considered at Committee on 21 June, Members having previously inspected the site.

45


A decision was deferred for resolution of the position regarding ownership of the land and on the question of a utility room also erected, though not included in the original application.

SITE This proposal relates to a dwelling, which is situated in the Camber development boundary. The property shares a common boundary with 137 Lydd Road (to the north west) and 141 Lydd Road (to the south east).

HISTORY A/73/1322 Extension to “Dormers” Lydd Road Camber – Approved.RR/83/2175 Extension to bathroom and laundry room – Approved Conditional.RR/2005/2639/P Erection of single-storey front extension to enlarge bedroom, living

room and hall. Erection of first floor extension to provide master bedroom and en-suite shower room, including formation of balcony – Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL The applicant seeks retrospective planning permission to retain a small single-storey extension measuring 2.4m (width) x 1.35m (depth) x 2.7m (height), which is sited to the rear of the property on the boundary with the adjoining property (137 Lydd Road).

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: – No objection.Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board: – No objection. Planning Notice: – Two letters with attachments and an email from the occupants of the adjoining property (137 Lydd Road) objecting to the proposal for the following reasons (summarised): The extension has not been built in accordance with the approved plans The extension does not include the existing utility room shown on the plans All of the houses built along this stretch of road were built in the same design

and all are detached houses The extension has devalued the neighbour’s property as it has turned what was

a detached house into a semi-detached house The extension is built on the neighbour’s land The extension has damaged the neighbour’s wall and pathway The extension has affected the neighbour’s privacy as it is built in their gardenA letter from the occupants of the adjoining property (137 Lydd Road) enclosing evidence provided by the previous owners of 139 Lydd Road that the land the extension is built on forms part of the curtilage of 137 Lydd Road.An email from County Councillor Keith Glazier urging that the application should be refused or deferred until all the unresolved matters regarding the extension and boundary dispute are resolved.

SUMMARY Policies GD1 and HG8 of the Local Plan apply to this application.This application relates to a small porch extension at the side of the property connected to an area shown on the plan as a utility room. As a result of a complaint it was brought to my attention that the occupants of the adjoining property (137 Lydd Road) disputed the ownership of part of the land on which the extension was built. This retrospective application was submitted. Subsequently it has been claimed that the utility room itself does not have permission and is less than 4 years old. Further evidence on this matter is awaited.

46

In terms of its external appearance, I consider the porch extension to be acceptable as its design and scale are in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing building and the locality. Members have visited the site and can determine whether the proposal has any adverse impact upon the amenities of the adjoining property (137 Lydd Road). At present certain matters remain unresolved and I am awaiting further information.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FOR FURTHER INFORMATION)


RR/2007/1642/P CAMBER ROYAL WILLIAM PUB, OLD LYDD ROADVARIATION OF CONDITION 9 IMPOSED ON RR/2005/2230/P TO ALLOW TEMPORARY BUILDERS ACCOMMODATION REQUIRED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SCHEME.Yardvalley Ltd


SITE The site is the former Royal William Public House site located on the north side of Old Lydd Road facing the dunes. The site is currently being redeveloped to provide 19 dwellings and a café, and the application relates to temporary structures situated at the north end of the site adjoining Nos. 12 and 14 Lydd Road.

HISTORYRR/2005/2230/P Erection of 19 dwellings and 1 café including formation of new road

– GrantedResolution to serve Breach of Condition Notice in relation to two caravans on site used as office/restroom and for human habitation – April 2007

PROPOSAL The proposal is to retain, for a temporary period, cabins and structures necessary to facilitate construction of the new dwellings. Permission is necessitated by condition 9 imposed on the original permission which states:“Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting this order) no caravan, building, structure or erection of any kind (including walls, fences and other means of enclosure) shall be placed within the site.”The applicants state:“The condition in fact has the effect of us having to seek planning consent for temporary structures required in carrying out the development. This is frustrating as we shall be completing the scheme in July 2007.We therefore ask that condition 9 is amended to include the statement (at the end of paragraph 1) ‘save for temporary builders accommodation required during the construction of the scheme as shown on drawing D.02. Such accommodation to be removed within 7 days of substantial completion of the development, or by 1 August 2007 latest.’ Note that we have included on drawing D.02 all the usual site requirements i.e. site office, canteen, storage facilities and on site security.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- No response.

47


Planning Notice: Representation made by one adjoining neighbour (include separate letters on her behalf from the MP and Citizens Advice). In summary – Caravans too close to adjoining property Loss of privacy – need to keep curtains closed Noise Children staying at weekends There must be a better site Workers should be accommodated elsewhere No curtains in caravans

SUMMARY At the Planning Committee on 19 April it was resolved that a Breach of Condition Notice be served requiring the removal of the unauthorised caravans. This application is a result of that resolution. In support of the application the developers have since stated:“…we would like to keep the temporary site accommodation until Friday 31st August 2007 at the latest. We are very likely to move it before then, however this would be a back stop date.”These caravans and the other temporary structures are located close to the nearest residents; however it is this area which is to remain free of buildings and logically there is no obvious alternative siting. I acknowledge that full time occupation of the caravans has not made it easy for the adjoining owners but now that the works are not far from completion, and imminent ground works here will necessitate their removal, I would not object to the retention of the structures for another few weeks.The building construction is now well underway and I suggest that a temporary permission may be appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. The caravans and other temporary accommodation shall be removed from the

site on or before 31 August 2007.Reason: The caravans and other temporary accommodation are accepted only for the construction of the buildings which are now nearing completion and in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan should be removed at the end of the limit period to safeguard the amenities of adjoining residents.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The caravans and other structures are accepted only for a limited period to facilitate the completion of the development. The amenities of the adjoining residents have been balanced against the visual detriment of the structures but it is in the wider interest to see the works completed. The development does not fundamentally conflict with Policies S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.


48


RR/2007/778/P TICEHURST KEEPERS COTTAGE, HASTINGS ROADRESUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL FOR ERECTION OF TWO STOREY EXTENSION APPROVED UNDER PLANNING PERMISSION RR/97/2466/PMrs C Player


RR/2007/779/L TICEHURST KEEPERS COTTAGE, HASTINGS ROADREVISED PROPOSAL FOR ERECTION OF TWO STOREY EXTENSIONMrs C Player


These applications were deferred at the 21 June 2007 meeting for a site inspection. They have been included on your list of Committee site inspections for 17 July 2007.

SITE This detached Victorian cottage of some character is remotely sited to the south of the Hawkhurst Road and to the east of the A21 trunk road.On 1 August 1995, a decision to list the building was taken by the Secretary of State for National Heritage acting on the advice of English Heritage, and following a request to do so by this Authority. The request was based on the visual evidence that Keepers Cottage was almost certainly by Carpenter and Slater who were responsible for Seacox Heath and a number of other estate buildings, all of which were placed on the new Statutory List published in 1987. The statutory list description is as follows:-“Estate cottage. Circa 1870, designed by Carpenter and Slater and part of the Seacox Heath Estate. Ground floor coursed stone, first floor part tile hung, part timber framed with plastered infill. Tiled roof with 2 brick clustered chimneystacks. T-shaped building of 2 storeys with irregular fenestration. Front elevation has projecting left side gable with fretted bargeboard, pattern of fishscale tiles and eclectic timber framing. Triple mullioned and transomed casement to first floor and 5-light bay to ground floor. Two further casements on first floor right hand side. Garden front has similar gable but 2 casement windows on ground floor and external brick chimneystack.”

HISTORYRR/95/580/P) Two storey extension – Approved -RR/96/451/L) Not implemented

RR/97/2466/P) Revised proposal for the erection of a two storeyRR/97/2467/L) extension – Approved – Not implementedFurther alterations to the 1997 permissions were approved as a minor amendment in 2001.

PROPOSAL The applications are a resubmission of applications RR/97/2466/P and RR/97/2467/L above. The proposed development is a full height two storey extension along the building’s north-south access. The proposed extension is cruciform in plan and comprises three outward facing gables. The design of the elevations and the external materials would match the existing building. The approximate dimensions of the extension are 8.1m x 6.3m (average depth) and this would constitute an increase in the floor area of the original building of about 57%. The extension would provide a family room and breakfast room/kitchen on the ground floor and two additional

49

bedrooms, a second bathroom and a study above. A supporting statement has been reproduced in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 July 2007.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- RR/2007/778/P - General observation – “All Councillors declared an interest as applicant is current chairman of the Parish Council. No comment.” (8/5/2007).RR/2007/779/L - Support proposal – “The applicants are former colleagues of the Council. It was felt that whilst this is a large extension, it is not overlooking any neighbouring properties and the design is sympathetic with the existing and using matching materials.”Natural England:- No comments to make at present with regards to this application.Planning Notice:- No comments received.

SUMMARY A main issue for consideration is the impact of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the listed building. As the extension has previously been approved by Planning Committee it would first be prudent to expand upon the planning history. Whilst the Planning Officer expressed concern about the form and size of the originally proposed extension (RR/95/580/P), following an inspection of the site and negotiations, Members of the Planning Committee considered that the extension could be approved. A corresponding application for listed building consent (RR/96/451/L) was subsequently approved.Revised applications were submitted in 1997 under RR/97/2466/P and RR/97/2467/L. The revisions showed the design of the extension to be similar to that previously approved but the overall length was increased by some 1.5 metres. As there were existing extant permissions which had established the principle of an extension, there was seen to be little grounds for refusing the revisions and accordingly, the 1997 extensions were approved. Whilst the planning history is a material consideration in the determination of the current applications, it is also relevant that at present there are no extant permissions for an extension to this listed building. The view of the Conservation and Design Officer is that, the building at present is a fine example of an estate cottage, in typical Edwardian ‘lodge’ style, (described in the list description as ‘picturesque gothic’) and concern is expressed about the resultant loss of historic fabric and also the size of the proposed extension. Members may, however, consider that there is no justification in this particular case to withhold a further grant of planning permission and listed building consent and on balance, I would make the

RECOMMENDATIONS:RR/2007/778/P: GRANT (PLANNING PERMISSION)1. CD9G (Matching external materials).

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed extension would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the listed building, which it is desired to preserve in accordance with Section 66 of the Town & Country Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, Policies GD1(viii) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan and Government advice contained in PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment).

View application/correspondence50


RR/2007/779/L: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)1. CD9G (Matching materials).2. Condition as may be required by Conservation Officer

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The Local Planning Authority considers that the proposed extension would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the listed building, which it is desired to preserve in accordance with Section 16 of the Town & Country Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, Policies GD1(viii) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan and Government advice contained in PPG15 (Planning and the Historic Environment).


RR/2007/1368/P ETCHINGHAM UPLANDS, FYSIE LANEREVISED PROPOSALS FOR THE ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT DETACHED DWELLING INCLUDING BALCONY AND ERECTION OF DETACHED TWO STOREY OUTBUILDING INCLUDING ROOFLIGHTS AND EXTERNAL STAIR TO FIRST FLOOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2007/407/P.M Todd


SITE This application relates to a plot of land that currently contains a detached dwelling and garage. The site is located at the Church Hill end of Fysie Lane on the south facing slope. The site is mostly surrounded by open countryside and set within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYRR/2007/407/P Erection of replacement detached dwelling including balcony and

erection of detached two storey outbuilding including rooflights and external stair to first floor – Approved Conditional

PROPOSAL A previous application (RR/2007/407/P) was approved in March 2007 for the erection of a replacement detached dwelling and detached garage/games room on the site. The current application proposed revisions to the previous application. It is proposed for the basement level, which was approved simply as a cellar space, to be enlarged to contain a games room, bathroom, study and guest bedroom with an en-suite. On the ground floor, an additional wine store and laundry room are proposed. A large dormer window is also proposed in the master bedroom.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- No objection.Southern Water:- Does not wish to comment.Highway Authority:- Does not wish to restrict grant of consent.Environment Agency:- No objection provided conditions are imposed.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

51

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr2007779l

SUMMARY The floor area of the original building on site is approximately 170m². The approved new dwelling (RR/2007/407/P) has an approximate floor area of 284m². The Parish Council found this increase in size to be excessive, however the local planning authority considered the size of the development to be just within the upper limits of what is considered to be an acceptable replacement size. The Parish Council has no objection to the current application. The revised additional floor space in the current application adds approximately 70m² to that previously approved, making a total floor area of 354m². To form the additional usable space in the basement, deeper excavation of the site in required.The revised proposal is effectively creating an additional floor/level to the dwelling, significantly increasing the usable habitable space of the building. Due to this significant increase in floor space, I consider that the proposal no longer complies with the criteria set out in Policy HG10(i) of the Rother District Local Plan. The policy states that ‘proposals for new dwellings in the countryside will be refused unless it (i) is for the replacement of an existing dwelling on a one for one basis …, the replacement dwelling being within the same curtilage and of a comparable size; exceptionally, a somewhat larger dwelling may be acceptable where it would be more in keeping with the character of the locality in terms of its siting, design and materials’. The approved new dwelling (RR/2007/407/P) already significantly increases the size of the existing dwelling and was considered to be just within an acceptable allowance for a replacement size. The current revisions go beyond what is considered an acceptable size of a replacement dwelling. Adding to this, the additional windows and layout, in my view, would detract from the design of the new dwelling. The design would not be more in keeping with the character of the locality in comparison to that which has already been approved. The application conflicts with countryside protection Policy HG10(i) and would result in harm to the character of the AONB.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) 1. The site lies within the countryside outside of any town or village development

boundary as defined within the Rother District Local Plan. Within such areas the local plan contains a strong presumption against residential development unless it meets one of the exceptions described within Policy HG10. In this case, the proposal does not involve the replacement of an existing dwelling on a one for one basis which would result in the replacement dwelling being of a comparable size. Moreover, the design of the dwelling would not be more in keeping with the appearance of the area, particularly when compared to the previous approved planning permission RR/2007/407/P for a replacement dwelling with a smaller floor area. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy HG10(i) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty whereby Policies EN2 and S1(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan indicate that development will be carefully controlled to protect the character of the area. It is considered that the proposal does not meet this objective and would cause harm to the rural character of the area.


52


RR/2007/1758/P GUESTLING GARDEENIOR, ROCK LANEERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO SIDE AND REAR OF PROPERTY TO MATCH EXISTINGMr and Mrs S Warne



SITE Gardeenior is a semi-detached dwelling, which is situated on the edge of Hastings within the development boundary. The property shares a common boundary with Glen Wood (to the north) and Rockdene Cottage (to the south).

HISTORY RR/2003/2826/P Removal of carport and erection of attached garage – Approved

Conditional.RR/2007/1137/P Erection of two-storey side extension to form garage and utility

room with en-suite bedroom over. Demolition of existing conservatory and erection of single-storey rear extension to enlarge dining room and kitchen. Loft conversion to form bedroom and shower room – Refused.

PROPOSAL The applicants seek permission to erect a single-storey extension to the side and rear elevations of the property. Permission is also sought to construct a dormer window to the rear elevation. At ground floor level this will provide (i) a garage and utility room to the side of the house; and (ii) extensions to the existing dining room and kitchen to the rear – removing an existing rear conservatory. The dormer window to the rear will provide rooms in the roof.

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

SUMMARY The applicants seek permission to erect a single-storey extension to the side and rear elevations of this semi-detached property, which lies on the Hastings fringe. Permission is also sought to construct a dormer window to the rear elevation. Policies GD1 and HG8 of the Local Plan apply to this application.Planning permission (ref: RR/2007/1137/P) for the erection of a two-storey side extension, loft conversion and a single-storey rear extension was refused in June of this year, on the basis that the two-storey aspect, especially to the side, would have been disproportionately large in relation to the existing building and out of keeping with the other properties in this section of Rock Lane. The two-storey side extension would also have had a dominant and overbearing impact on the adjoining property, ‘Rockdene Cottage’.This new application has been modified to address these reasons for refusal; the side and rear part of the extension would now only be single-storey. Whilst I am supportive of the rear extension and dormer window, I still have some concern that the high pitched roof on the garage to the side would be disproportionately large in relation to the existing building. However, this objection can be overcome by a reduction in the height of the roof of the side extension. An amendment to the design of the roof has therefore been requested.

53

In terms of impact on the occupants of adjoining properties, the proposal if amended could be acceptable as it would not result in any overlooking or have a dominant and overbearing impact. I am also aware that the occupant of ‘Rockdene Cottage’ is concerned at the proximity the side extension would be to her kitchen wall (10cm at its narrowest point). Subject to receipt of an amended plan showing a reduction in the height of the roof of the side extension I expect to support this application. Members will view the site prior to determining the application.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (AMENDED ROOF DESIGN).1. CD1A (Time limit)2. CD9H (Materials) – (INSERT A samples) & (INSERT B extensions).

Note:ND13 (Rights of access/entry).

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


RR/2007/1364/P RYE RYE MASONIC LODGE, TURKEYCOCK LANEERECTION OF 4 AIR CONDITIONING UNITS ON FLAT ROOF IN CENTRE OF BUILDING.The Trustees of Rye Masonic Lodge


SITE Rye Masonic Lodge is situated in Turkeycock Lane in Rye, and is within the town’s Conservation Area. The proposed air conditioning units would be situated on the flat roof of the building between two pitched roofs and behind an existing hatch. The units would be in close proximity to residential properties in Tower Street.

HISTORY None.

PROPOSAL The applicants seek permission to install four air conditioning units on the flat roof of the building between two pitched roofs and behind an existing hatch. The dimensions of two of the units are 0.85m (height) x 0.84m (width) x 0.38m (depth). The dimensions of the two other units are 0.605m (height) x 0.85m (width) x 0.345m (depth).

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- Supports an approval.Director of Services – Head of Environmental Health:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Four letters of objection from the occupants of neighbouring residential properties concerned with the noise and appearance of the proposed air

54


conditioning units. Concern has also been expressed over the means of access to install the units if permission is granted. Rye Conservation Society: No objection subject to neighbours’ amenities.

SUMMARY The applicants seeks permission to install four air conditioning units on the flat roof of this building, which is situated in the town’s Conservation Area. The units would be sited in a discreet position between the two pitched roofs of the building and behind an existing hatch. This application should be judged against Policy GD1 of the Local Plan and Policies S1 and EN23 of the Structure Plan. The occupants of adjoining properties in Tower Street have objected to this proposal on the grounds that the units would be too noisy and unsightly in their proposed location. Right of access to install the units has also been questioned.In terms of appearance, I consider that the visual impact of the units would be minimal, as they are relatively small in scale and would be partially screened from the view of residents in Tower Street by the two pitched roofs of the building, and the existing hatch, which they would be sited behind. Right of access to install the units is a private matter that must be resolved between the parties concerned.Turning to the issue of noise, the Environmental Health Service has been consulted on this application but comments have not yet been received. Subject to these comments being satisfactory I can support this application.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO SATISFACTORY COMMENTS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REGARDING THE NOISE LEVELS OF THE PROPOSED AIR CONDITIONING UNITS).3. CD1A (Time limit).4. Any other conditions advised by Environmental Health.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed air conditioning units are of an appropriate design and by virtue of their discreet positioning will not adversely affect the character or appearance of the conservation area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore comply with Policy GD1(i)(ii)(iv)(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(j) and EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2007/1488/C BEXHILL/CROWHURST LAND BETWEEN A259 BELLE HILL, AND B2092 QUEENSWAY, ST LEONARDS CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ROAD, INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL TREATMENT WITH EARTHWORKS, PLANTING, FLOOD AND NOISE ATTENUATION, WILDLIFE COMPENSATION AND FACILITIES FOR NON-MOTORISED USERSEast Sussex County Council

Last Date for Decision: 06 July 2007

A site inspection has been arranged for Members to view the Link Road route from a number of vantage points on 13 July 2007.

55


The District Council has been consulted by the County Planning Authority in relation to the Bexhill to Hastings Link Road (BHLR) planning application. This report sets out the scope of the scheme, the main issues and a consultation response to East Sussex County Council.

THE PROPOSAL – OVERVIEW OF THE ROUTE

The scheme is a new road, 5.6km in length, from the London Road/Belle Hill/Little Common Road junction in Bexhill, to Queensway on the western side of Hastings. Almost all of the road, save the last 220 metres, is within Rother District.

The first 1.5km section of the road is known as the Bexhill Connection and will follow the route of the disused Crowhurst, Sidley and Bexhill branch railway, passing through the built-up area of the town. The road here is designed as a standard single carriageway road comprising two 3.65m lanes with 3.5m verges on either side. It is described as a “green” corridor through an urban area.

This southern section of the scheme involves a new configuration of the road junction at London Road including the demolition of some properties and taking in the current Council Depot. London Road will be diverted to join the new link road with the extreme southern section restricted to residents and buses, with a ‘bus only’ link created immediately to the north of the Belle Hill junction.

From London Road there is to be a new underpass at Chapel Path linking this area with the present Bexhill High School and Sports Centre site.

Continuing northwards the road is mostly in cutting as it proceeds towards Sidley and will involve new, replacement road bridges at Woodsgate Park and at Ninfield Road. The road continues in cutting towards Glovers Farm.

An additional over-bridge for cyclists and pedestrians is proposed just north of Glovers Farm from which point the road diverges from the former railway line moving into open countryside.

The route heads northwards, west of Actons Farm, before turning east eventually meeting Queensway. This countryside section runs south of Bynes Farm, Hillcroft Farm and Adams Farm cutting through the ridges which separate the three north-south valleys to the south of Crowhurst. This is a critical area where a series of embankments and cuttings aim to keep the road as low as possible in the landscape in the lower slopes of the Crowhurst ridge.

The length of the road through the countryside section is designed to a wide carriageway standard, comprising two 5.0 metre wide lanes, 1.0 metre hard strips and 2.5 metre minimum width verges.

Over the whole of this countryside section the area of the planning application is much greater than the line of the road itself to include areas for extensive landscaping, to secure wildlife areas including badger routes, create drainage areas and accommodate a separate ‘greenway’ for walkers, cyclists and horse riders.

56

Also within this countryside section are three over bridges, in addition to the bridge at Glovers Farm already mentioned. These bridges are in the vicinity of Buckholt Kennels/Actons Farm, Hillcroft Farm and Adams Farm; the first is a road bridge, the second two for access tracks. These are designed with a simple curved form reflecting the curved land forms in the area but providing a low key design. In this area are also under-bridges for the streams and access routes created for the Environment Agency.

East of Adams Farm, and where the road crosses the Decoy Stream the gradient of the road increases rapidly as the road heads towards Queensway. An east-bound climbing lane is included in the design. (It is in this area that the alignment deviates from the ‘Blue Route’ favoured by the District Council during the 2004 consultation on the link road options.)

Crowhurst Road will be diverted, north of Upper Wilting Farm, to enable the Link Road to cross the existing thoroughfare on a bridge. Soon after the Link Road will cross the railway line (and a high pressure gas main in this area) before meeting Queensway at a signal controlled T-junction.

SCOPE OF THE APPLICATION

This is a fully detailed application. The design parameters are set out as follows: Create as direct a route as practicable whilst considering the other parameters,

in order to maximise the accessibility and reduced journey time benefits Retain and where possible enhance the integrity of the areas of distinctive

landscape and townscape character Minimise and if possible, avoid effects upon the High Weald Area of Outstanding

Natural Beauty Avoid Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Ancient Woodland Mitigate and compensate for the effects upon wildlife throughout the Scheme Design the road and the public access routes in accordance with modern

engineering standards (DMRB) Maintain continuity of Public Rights of Way and link them where possible Avoid the most sensitive archaeological resource, i.e. the valley floor of the

Combe Haven Minimise effects upon flooding and movement of flood water, loss of flood plain

and consequent loss of floodwater storage and mitigate for unavoidable loss of floodwater storage

Minimise visual effect upon properties and countryside Minimise the effect of noise upon homes Minimise real and psychological effects of noise upon countryside, SSSIs and

recreational use of the countryside and proposed Countryside Park Maximise relief of poor air quality at Bulverhythe, whilst managing the effect of

changes to air quality along the route Develop the BHLR to complement the proposals for a Pebsham Countryside

Park Provide for Non Motorised Utility Users

– to a standard compatible with the proposals for the Pebsham Countryside Park

– related to the road corridor and– to meet the needs of people with disabilities

Minimise light pollution arising from BHLR and its use57

Minimise effect upon viable productive farms

The application is accompanied by a full Environmental Statement and a Design and Access Statement. The documentation includes the following: Planning Statement Regeneration Statement Waste Management Statement Ecological Assessment Report Traffic and Transport Report Project Sustainability Appraisal comprising:

1. Introduction2. Purpose of Scheme3A. Scheme Information3B. Construction Strategy4. History of Scheme5. Policy and Planning6. Travel and Transport7. Agriculture and Forestry8. Geology and Soils9. Water Quality and Drainage10. Air Quality11. Noise and Vibration12. Nature Conservation and Biodiversity13. Landscape and Visual Effects14. Cultural Heritage15A. Effects on Pedestrians, Cyclists and Recreation Users15B. Social and Community Effects16. Combined and Cumulative Effects17. Conclusion

together with all associated appendices, diagrams and plans.

CONSIDERATION

Introduction

This detailed planning application follows from a consultation on Link Road route options by the County Council in early 2004. A copy of this Council’s response to that earlier consultation, which conveyed this Council’s strong support for the principle of the Link Road and the associated Bexhill connection, is presented in the APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 July 2007. It is also noted that the current route is a modification of the earlier “Blue Route”, which was the clear preference of this Council at that time.

This consideration reviews the detailed scheme proposal, drawing on the extensive supporting information, as highlighted above. It is structured around:

(a) the principle of the Link Road(b) the sustainability of the current scheme(c) the implications for particular local areas

58

Principle of the Link Road

As the supporting ‘Planning Statement highlights, the Link Road scheme was a recommendation in the South Coast Multi-Modal Transport Study. That Study saw the scheme as part of a package of regeneration measures for the Hastings area. The Government responded by asking the County Council to develop the scheme in more detail, working closely with the statutory environmental bodies. Subsequently, in December 2004, it gave provisional approval to the Link Road scheme.

The Link Road is also now embraced within the Regional Transport Strategy that forms part of Regional Planning Guidance (RPG9).

The Planning Statement also, quite rightly, points out that the scheme is integral to, and necessary for, both existing and emerging local planning policies.

The adopted Rother District Local Plan’s development strategy is predicated upon the scheme’s early implementation. Most directly, major employment and housing expansion of Bexhill is essentially dependent upon construction of the Link Road. Furthermore, the Local Plan safeguards the previously identified “area of search” for the Link Road route.

Similarly, economic strategies give priority to raising economic performance within the Sussex Coast and specifically in carrying forward the ‘five point plan’ for Hastings and Bexhill This is a reference to the regeneration strategy of the Hastings and Bexhill Task Force. This identifies the Link Road as part of a package of transport improvements to assist regeneration of the area.

The principle of the Link Road is therefore both accepted by national and regional government and embedded in established planning and economic strategies.

SUSTAINABILITY OF THE CURRENT SCHEME

Further consideration is given to the economic, social and environmental implications of the scheme and the ‘complementary measures’.

The supporting Regeneration Statement emphasises the economic benefits of the Link Road:

‘The Bexhill Hastings Link Road is a necessary condition for the facilitation of both large-scale additional employment and housing in the Hastings/Bexhill area, with the potential to facilitate some 3,000 new jobs as well as safeguarding existing private sector jobs in the period up to 2025.’

Detailed assessment suggests that the more deprived wards would benefit significantly with an estimated 900 jobs for people in those areas. These wards are principally in Hastings but also include Sidley, which would benefit not only from new jobs at North East Bexhill, but also from better accessibility (by car and bus) to jobs in Hastings. Similar benefits would accrue for Central Ward, parts of which are on the margins of having high deprivation.

59

It is noted that journey times between Sidley and Conquest Ward would reduce by a third in 2010 with the scheme, with nearly as much of a saving from Bexhill Central Ward.

The main concerns of local people, as expressed through correspondence, including to the press, and at the recent development exhibitions, relate to traffic growth (also linked to a wish to maximise the potential of other modes) and environmental impacts, notably on the Combe Haven valley.

In terms of the dominant current issue of congestion at Glyne Gap and along its approaches, it is noted that the traffic forecasting indicates a 33% reduction on existing traffic levels in 2010 with the Link Road. There is an associated reduction in average journey time between Bexhill and Hastings town centres in 2010 from 21 minutes without the Link Road to 16 minutes with it.

Bus improvements are proposed, being facilitated by this traffic reduction. In fact, the supporting ‘Planning Statement’ states that the County Council is ‘committed to provide a series of complementary measures within Bexhill and Hastings. These will be provided though the Local Transport Programme.’

Those local to Bexhill are: bus priority measures along the A259, including a bus lane on the western

approach to Glyne Gap roundabout new bus services along the Link Road new signal controlled junctions at the A269 (London Road)/A2036 (Wrestwood

Road) and A269 (London Road)/ B2182 (Holliers Hill) traffic calming measures along Woodsgate Park Road

In addition, a ‘Greenway’ (for cyclists, pedestrians and horse-riders) along the Link Road corridor forms part of the planning application.

While it is understood that the routes of proposed new bus services are still provisional, it would be desirable for a service between Bexhill town centre and the Conquest hospital.

Such bus and cycling proposals may be welcomed, as the Council has previously stressed the importance of the Link Road being part of an integrated transport strategy for the area.

The draft North East Bexhill development proposals plan for a high level of non-car movement and include provision for contributions to off-site as well as on-site contributions to improved bus and cycle facilities. Therefore, it will be important for this Council to continue to work closely with the County Council to coordinate proposals.

It is acknowledged that the requirement for planning permission for construction of the Link Road does not help demonstrate the wider approach to improving accessibility.

However, it is appreciated that the County Council is also actively progressing both an up-dated Local Transport Strategy and an Accessibility Strategy for the Hastings and Bexhill area. These are vital documents, and should help ensure that the improvements envisaged for all modes of transport are properly integrated.

60

It may be noted that, while there are understandable calls for a “bypass”, both to improve links with the wider region and to reduce through traffic, it is clear that the Government would not be supportive of this. All the local authorities nonetheless recognise the importance of improvements to the strategic road and rail routes, and separately continue to press for these.

It is accepted that the Link Road is a local scheme. In essence, it introduces a second, inland, connection between Hastings and Bexhill, to complement the A259. Indeed, such a scheme that improves the effectiveness and efficiency of the local transport network, and public transport services, may be seen as the more important because of the deficiencies with wider communications.

In fact, it is noted that the application does not assume construction of an improved link to the A21 (as it is not yet committed). However, this has always been seen as an important parallel scheme. It is expected that the Government will announce a preferred route for this very soon such that the combined effects (and believed additional benefits) can be identified and, moreover, the timetables of the respective schemes can be dovetailed.

In his provisional approval, the Secretary of State clearly appreciated the sensitivity of the environmental setting and directed that the environmental impacts should be minimised. The application’s Environmental Statement identifies and assesses the full range of impacts on the environment, both positive and negative.

While the earlier bypass cut across the Combe Haven SSSI, the Link Road avoids any direct impact on it, or on the Marline Valley SSSI. Even though the road skirts the valley bottom, it would inevitably change the character of the valley. However, the County Council is clearly investing heavily in mitigating such impacts such that the scheme is assessed as having:

an overall minor to moderate adverse environmental effect in the year of opening; which reduces to

a negligible effect by the Design year (15 years after opening) when the mitigation planting matures sufficiently better to enclose the scheme and new ecological habitats become established.

In considering these impacts, it is worth noting the relationship between the Link Road and the designation of the open land enclosed by it as a ‘Countryside Park’. The Link Road will firstly relieve the access constraint on development of the Countryside Park. Also, certain design features of the scheme, notably the Greenway and new habitats, can make a positive contribution to the creation of the Park.

In terms of potential indirect environmental implications, it must be appreciated that the approved development strategy cannot be achieved without the Link Road and that, if this were to happen, there would inevitably result in substantial pressure for further development elsewhere in the District including within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Local traffic impacts are considered further below.

61

LOCAL AREA IMPLICATIONS

The Link Road will have significant localised impacts at a number of points on and around the current road network over a relatively wide area. Such a major scheme will have both positive and negative effects. The impacts are of varying kinds and of different degrees. The main areas are as follows:

De La Warr Road

De La Warr Road within the District, and Bexhill Road within Hastings, currently operate over capacity. Conditions for the communities along the A259 are in need of improvement to reduce community severance, to improve opportunities for safe walking and cycling, and more broadly to improve public transport within and between the two towns. The primary objective of the scheme is to facilitate regeneration of the area which relies on a reasonable journey time between the towns. Regular congestion has become an inconvenient way of life for many. The traffic predictions suggest that in 2004 the annual average daily traffic was 23600 vehicles and that with the Link Road there would be a 33% reduction by 2010 and still a 19% reduction over current levels in 2025. (The percentage figures are similar for Bexhill Road to the east).

It therefore appears to have a substantial traffic benefit for the eastern part of Bexhill.

Wrestwood Road - Hastings Road area

Wrestwood Road, with Hastings Road to the east, (A2036) is an important local distributor serving the Pebsham area but also linking the Sidley and Ninfield areas with Hastings. Additionally with De La Warr Road frequently congested, both roads attract traffic seeking to avoid the A259 towards Glyne Gap. The construction of the road - even taking into account the development of NE Bexhill, north of Wrestwood Road - will result in a reduction of traffic by 2025 of 13% and a reduction of 17% on Hastings Road.

Questions have been raised about the flow of traffic on the western section of Wrestwood Road, between the A269 and the new arterial road through the development to connect with the Link Road. Clarification has been sought on this from the County Council. This may have a bearing on consideration of the A269 junction.

Sidley

The nature of the BHLR is that its impact on Sidley is limited, not least because there is no direct connection to be made from Ninfield Road/Holliers Hill to the new road. Although a new replacement road bridge is to be constructed the scheme does not provide a link into or out of Sidley at this point. Thus local traffic and traffic accessing or leaving the town from the Ninfield direction will be largely unchanged. The traffic predictions suggest a minimal reduction in traffic as a result of the road, also taking into account the future development on NE Bexhill.

The A259 westwards

The BHLR does not offer any traffic relief to western Bexhill. In fact, traffic levels are forecast to increase along the A259 west of the town centre in part, seemingly, as a consequence of shorter journey times to north Hastings. While the application does not

62

identify that this increase is unmanageable, it is considered that the County Council should liaise with the Highways Agency to assess the potential for improvements to the Little Common roundabout. This would also help inform any contributions that may be sought from developers for North East Bexhill.

London Road

The London Road section involves a major change to the townscape at the southern end. Locally some of the properties on London Road, in Salisbury Road and Hillside will be relieved of through traffic. Just further north flows up and down London Road are predicted to decrease although local traffic will continue to use this route.

The former railway line at the southern end of London Road is very largely overgrown. Properties in London Road itself, in Bancroft Road and at the southern end of Buxton Drive face the route, some at broadly the same level but others at a higher level when the route goes into cutting.

As well as the Chapel Path pedestrian underpass a further new footpath link is proposed from Bancroft Road south to the underpass, to some extent replacing the current footpath running from Bancroft Road to London Road which, being dissected by the new road, will be closed.

In this section of the road the application acknowledges some ‘substantial’ and ‘major’ increases in noise levels at various properties. For the whole scheme it is suggested that 18 properties in total may qualify for noise insulation work although which properties these are is not specified. However, as a whole, the scheme includes embankments and noise barriers on both sides of the new road where it is on embankment between Bancroft Road and London Road.

Between Holliers Hill and Glovers Farm

This section of road is in cutting, emerging to grade just beyond the existing built-up area. A new over-bridge is proposed to provide access to Glovers Farm, and to the public footpath beyond.

Attention is drawn to the need for developers of the North East Bexhill developments to seek modification to the detail of the scheme in this area at the appropriate time to accommodate a junction to the developments.

Gateway to the town

The detailed design and landscaping of the Bexhill Connection will be a critical aspect.

The Design & Access Statement says “The section of the road between the Belle Hill junction and just beyond the London Road junction would set out to generate a leafy treed avenue to help mark the transition from the busy urban environment into the less formalised green corridor up to Glovers Farm. Glovers Farm bridge then acts as ‘gateway’ to the countryside and to Bexhill from the north.”

Although utilising the former railway line the intention is not to look back to the railway history but, “to strengthen the local identify of the townscape rather than use standardised features.”

63

Although a lot of this link is in cutting, where the road is more closely connected with existing properties often these properties turn away from the road. As a major approach to the town the townscape needs to be inviting and create interest. The road will become a space in itself, and the erection of badger fencing on both sides of the road will add to the sense of enclosure which must be balanced by strong soft and hard landscaping. The replacement bridge at Woodsgate Park will be similar to that existing with brick faced parapets and coping stones.

Combe Haven Valley

By its very nature a new road in an undeveloped area of countryside will have a significant impact. However, the road has been designed to cross the valley areas below the Crowhurst Ridge in as sensitive a manner as possible. The design parameters are described as follows:

To keep the level of the road as low as possible in the landscape making allowance for the depth of the structures over the streams

To use earthworks, as far as they relate to the landscape character and scale, to seek to minimise the visual effects of large vehicles on the BHLR and the effects of road noise

To develop the road and Greenway design in accordance with modern standards and as expressed in DMRB

To develop the road and greenway, its mitigation and compensation to be complementary to the proposed Pebsham Countryside Park

To minimise the effects of structures upon water flows in the valleys To minimise effects upon water quality in the valleys To minimise effects upon listed buildings To minimise effects upon farms To minimise the effects of noise in this quiet countryside, the SSSI and the

enjoyment of countryside access routes

Battle, Catsfield and Crowhurst

Aside from the visual intrusion of the road in open countryside, the major impact on the neighbouring parishes relates to traffic movements. The scheme results in significant short and long term reductions on a number of rural lanes and some through Battle itself. The following estimated figures are instructive:

% reduction 2010 % reduction 2025Lower Lake (Battle) -13% -4%Hastings Road (Battle) -14% -13%Powdermill Lane (Battle) -45% -36%Crowhurst Road (Crowhurst)

-32% -54%

Ballards Hill (Crowhurst) 0% -14%Henley’s Down (Crowhurst/Catsfield)

-41% -68%

Watermill Lane (Catsfield) -51% -62%

64

Upper Wilting Farm

During the 2004 consultation the District Council supported the ‘Blue Route’ option. Although the final route largely reflects this general alignment it deviates at the eastern end taking a route north of, rather than south of, Upper Wilting Farm before joining Queensway. As the road rises to this point it is in cutting before crossing first Crowhurst Road and then the railway. This is a completely new alignment but visually is quite acceptable as an alternative to the Blue Route which, south of Upper Wilting Farm, might have been more exposed when viewed from the south. During the construction period Crowhurst Road will be closed to all traffic except for local access.

RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

The consultation is by East Sussex County Council. However I have received or been copied in to responses from the following. 4 letters from individuals. Objections (in summary) – Demand public inquiry Crowhurst village will be irretrievably damaged Loss of heritage Route in flood plain Ill conceived plan Adverse effect on Little Common Increased traffic at Little Common roundabout, Cooden Sea Road, Peartree

Lane and other local roads Difficulties for local facilities at Little Common on both sides of main road –

schools, church, doctors, shops etc Relief road should by-pass Bexhill and Little Common Traffic will still use existing roads Lower house values in Sidley Destruction of countryside Improve current roads instead.All letters have been forwarded to East Sussex County Council.A copy of Crowhurst Parish Council’s objections to the County Council is included in the attached APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 July 2007.

SUMMARY

It is acknowledged that the Link Road will traverse part of the countryside setting of Bexhill and Hastings. However, the County Council’s considerable efforts to minimise those impacts are demonstrated through the Environmental Statement.

Set against those impacts is the substantial contribution that the Link Road will make in building on the catalytic work of the Task Force in terms of economic regeneration and growth, and in making it self-sustaining.

It also serves to reduce the worst effects of traffic levels and facilitate improved public transport, which should be pursued equally vigorously.

65

Planned development, for new jobs as well as housing, would be (and is already being) frustrated without the Link Road. Any further development arising from the South East Plan would be undeliverable.

Finally, and less demonstrably but still critically, it is seen as a key part of providing a long-term framework for the renaissance of Hastings and Bexhill, working together with the countryside park at their green “heart”.

RECOMMENDATION: THAT EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BE ADVISED THAT:1. The District Council strongly supports the Link Road proposal;2. Attention be drawn to the following matters in the consideration and further

development of the scheme:a) The desirability of, and prospect of, an A21 Link at Baldslow;b) Compatibility of the scheme with the emerging North East Bexhill

Supplementary Planning Document, notably regarding early construction of the link to Wrestwood Road and contributions to bus and cycle provision, as well as to the Link Road itself, as part of the developments;

c) The role of the Link Road, together with complementary bus and cycle measures, as part of the overall transport strategy and accessibility strategy for Hastings and Bexhill;

d) The views of the Highways Agency in respect of the A259 to the west of Bexhill town centre and, in particular, Little Common roundabout;

e) The importance of high design standards in ensuring that the Link Road presents a “welcoming” approach to Bexhill.

View application/correspondence

--oo0oo--

66

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20071488c

rr/2007/1528/a - residents - rother district council · web viewthis would replace the existing...

Documents