rr/2007/2451/p - residents - rother district council · web viewa clear glazed window to the rear...

Rother District Council Agenda Item: 7Committee - Planning

Date - 8 November 2007

Report of - Director of Services

Subject - Planning Applications

Planning Committee Procedures

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

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

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

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/2007/2451/P 1 BURWASH THE OLD ORCHARD, HIGH STREET

RR/2007/2740/P 6 BURWASH LITTLE HOLTON – LAND ADJ, SCHOOL HILL

RR/2007/2689/P 9 DALLINGTON ANDORA COTTAGE, EARLSDOWN

RR/2007/1896/P 12 BATTLE BLACKFRIARS – LAND AT, HASTINGS ROAD.

RR/2007/1902/P 12 BATTLE BLACKFRIARS – LAND AT, (REAR OF BATTLE STATION),HASTINGS ROAD.

RR/2007/2222/P 20 BATTLE TIMBERS, MARLEY LANE

RR/2007/2675/P 26 BATTLE THE BEAUPORT PARK HOTEL,BATTLE ROAD

2

RR/2007/2823/P 28 BATTLE 85-86 HIGH STREET – LAND REAR OF

RR/2007/2540/P 29 BEXHILL 290 COODEN DRIVE

RR/2007/2586/P 32 BEXHILL HOLLENDEN HOUSE,BUCKHURST ROAD

RR/2007/2595/P 37 BEXHILL RAVENSIDE RETAIL PARK (UNITS 1, 2A, 2B, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 7B)

RR/2007/2669/P 40 BEXHILL OLIVERS PRINTERS, EASTWOOD ROAD

RR/2007/2837/P 46 BEXHILL 16 & 18 PEBSHAM LANE

RR/2007/1976/P 50 BECKLEY HOPE COTTAGE, HOBBS LANE

RR/2007/2829/P 52 PEASMARSH PELSHAM ESTATE – LAND AT

RR/2007/2398/P 54 RYE FOREIGN THANETS FARMHOUSE, IDEN ROAD

RR/2007/2257/P 56 HURST GREEN BELLHURST FARM, FYSIE LANE

RR/2007/2560/L 59 SALEHURST/ FORMER MILL SITE, ROBERTSBRIDGE NORTHBRIDGE STREET,

ROBERTSBRIDGE

RR/2007/2576/P 59 SALEHURST/ FORMER MILL SITE, ROBERTSBRIDGE NORTHBRIDGE STREET,

ROBERTSBRIDGE,

RR/2007/2696/P 59 SALEHURST/ FORMER MILL SITE, ROBERTSBRIDGE NORTHBRIDGE STREET

RR/2004/2819/P 66 WESTFIELD CARR TAYLOR WINES LTD, WHEEL LANE

RR/2007/2512/P 66 WESTFIELD HOLE FARM,

WESTFIELD LANE

RR/2007/822/P 70 CAMBER 139 LYDD ROAD

RR/2007/2648/P 72 ICKLESHAM 1 GOLDHURST GREEN

3

RR/2007/2365/P 73 RYE UDIMORE ROAD – LAND FRONTING, (REAR OF 39-129 UDIMORE ROAD & 69-83 COOPERS ROAD & TILLINGHAM COURT)

RR/2007/2575/P 85 RYE JEMPSONS/BUDGENS FOODSTORE, STATION APPROACH

--oo0oo--

4

RR/2007/2451/P BURWASH THE OLD ORCHARD, HIGH STREET DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND DEVELOPMENT OF 8 NO APARTMENTS, 3 NO HOUSES AND 1 NO BUNGALOW (INCLUDING 4 AFFORDABLE APARTMENTS) TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING AND PARKING INCLUDING FORMATION OF NEW AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING VEHICULAR ACCESSES AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ROAD.Eos Construction Ltd

Statutory 13 week date: 23 November 2007

SITE The application site comprises land occupied by Old Orchard, a large bungalow with extensive gardens, located to the north and west sides of Dawes House. The site is located at the western end of Burwash, on the north side of the High Street, within the development boundary for Burwash. The area is also located within the High Weald AONB. Residential properties adjoin the site.

HISTORYA/55/351 Outline: Conversion (Dawes House) and 2 new houses -

Approved Conditional.A/55/351A Four pairs of semi-detached bungalows - Approved Conditional.A/71/504 Bungalow and garage - Approved Conditional.RR/80/0245 Outline: Erection of 2 detached dwellings - Approved Conditional.RR/86/2024 Extension to provide workroom and enlarge sitting room -

Approved Conditional.RR/2006/1197/P Outline: Erection of bungalow - Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL This is a full application detailing proposals for a block of 8 apartments, 3 houses and 1 bungalow with a new access onto the A265. The existing access would serve only the proposed bungalow (as previously approved under reference RR/2006/1197/P) and a split level dwelling, (single storey to the front facing Dawes House, two-storey to the rear facing the valley to the north). The new access would serve traffic created by the additional two houses and the apartments.The apartment block is located towards the front of the site immediately to the west of Dawes House. Like Dawes House it appears as two-storey to the front dropping to three-storey at the rear, although on both elevations it appears lower as the upper floor extends into the roofspace. It would comprise 4 x 2 bedroom units for affordable housing, as supported in the documentation by Rother Homes, plus 2 x 2 bedroom apartments and 2 x 3 bedroom split level apartments for market housing. The building is of a traditional design with gable details, dormers, tile hanging to the first floor over a brick ground floor, a clay tiled roof and chimneys.The houses and bungalows to the rear are of a more modern appearance but reflecting traditional design elements and materials, including gables, weatherboarding and render to the walls with slate and clay ridge tiles to the roof. The front elevation facing Dawes House is of a more traditional appearance while the rear elevation proposes a full height glazed section to promote natural light and provide panoramic views for the occupiers. The glazing is recessed by 2m under an overhanging eaves line with balconies and decking 1.5m in depth.The application documents also include a tree survey, landscaping plans and a preliminary ecological report. The position of protective fencing is indicated for all boundary hedges and trees, along with an outline plant specification for new planting and an indication of further species surveys to be undertaken.

1

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Object to the proposed development, in which they have not previously been involved but would like to be. An additional access will add to traffic problems experienced by residents and users of the village hall. The protected hedge and trees will mean a narrow entrance. Any housing for local people must be supported by a Section 106 Agreement and the Parish must be involved. There is a lack of local infrastructure, including buses. The proposed materials will change the village and are out of keeping. The visual impact from the valley and light pollution must be taken into account.Highway Authority:- No objections subject to conditions and a legal agreement for the extension of the footway across the frontage and to secure contributions. There should be no through route for vehicular traffic within the site, only a pedestrian route.Environment Agency:- No objections, recommend condition and advisory notes.Southern Water Services:- no objections, recommend advisory notes regarding connection to existing sewer and protection of the sewer route.Director of Services - Tree Officer:- no other trees on the site are worthy of a TPO but a tree retention condition may be appropriate. Also: Details of no dig methods for the driveways, paths and decking where they

encroach into the root protection zones should be provided. Positions of protective fencing to be fully detailed on plan. The proposed retaining wall through the root protection area should be

removed. A method statement is requested to cover aspects of works during the

construction phase.Natural England:- Comments awaited.Sussex Wildlife Trust:- Comments awaited.Director of Services - Head of Housing:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice: 20 objections and a petition of objection with 213 signatures on the following grounds: Noise and disruption during construction detrimental to the health of adjoining

elderly residents. Loss of light, privacy and views. Loss of wildlife habitat, trees and hedges. New access is on a dangerous bend and increased traffic will result. Detrimental to the natural rural character of the AONB. Overdevelopment. If permitted requires traffic calming to slow vehicular speeds. Light pollution and change in appearance of the ‘ridge village’.

SUMMARY This application was the subject of a Members site visit and was deferred from the previous Planning Committee on 11 October 2007 for further information re levels/impact on the adjoining property to the west, assessment of house design, (in particular the rear glazing), highway contribution matters and tree root protection areas.A separate site visit has been made to the adjacent property, Giles Cottage. The cottage is set at a slightly lower level at present but this would not be the case if the development proceeds as the levels for the flats are to be slightly lowered. Much of the boundary screening is to be retained with additional advanced nursery stock to be planted. The applicant is considering the possibility of retaining other existing planting to this section of the side boundary and the Committee will be advised of further comments at the meeting. The property is a single storey bungalow with steps at the rear onto a new patio area. The side elevation contains 4 obscure glazed windows, 2 to the garage and 2 serving bathrooms. A clear glazed window to the rear of the integral garage serves a study. The occupier is particularly concerned about issues of

2

overlooking and loss of privacy, loss of light and views and noise pollution. There is a proposed gap of at least 5m between the two properties, mostly infilled with planting. The side wall of the apartments contains 4 small windows serving kitchen/lounge areas and which are to be obscure glazed. A small rear balcony would have a privacy screen to the side. The proposed house further to the rear also contains some small side windows to be obscure glazed, with a corner bedroom window at first floor to be tinted/obscured to the side part. The proposal is not considered to result in a loss of light to any primary windows nor to any significant degree to the main rear garden area. Some noise may be experienced from the parking area but this is set off the side boundary by almost 7m and screened by planting and therefore, is not considered to represent any significant detriment such as to justify a refusal on this ground.As with many properties along this north side ridge to Burwash, some views of the buildings can be found when walking the public footpath or on a clear day from the opposite ridge. Some are more prominent as they do not have a tree screen along the rear boundary as on the application site. Like the existing properties, an element of light pollution will therefore be experienced. The applicant has sought to minimise this and provided details of Pilkington Optifloat glass, which is a tinted glass limiting light transmission to 36%. (General standard glazing limits light transmission to approximately 75-80%). A combination of the use of Optifloat, the deep overhanging fascia/soffit and presence of mature boundary trees is considered to adequately address concerns regarding light pollution from the site.Highway contributions are sought with regard to the footway and improvements related to the bus services.The proposed small retaining wall within the rear garden areas is to be deleted from the development. Other details regarding the ‘no dig’ methods of construction where the paths and patios impinge on the root protection zone are to be provided as requested by the Tree Officer.The application site lies within the development boundary and thus there is a presumption in favour of development, subject to compliance with other policies and Government guidance. In particular consideration is to be given to any impacts upon the character and appearance of the AONB, impact upon the street scene, relationship with and impacts upon the residential amenities of the area, highway impacts and effects upon the ecology of the site.The site does lie within the High Weald AONB and there are views across the valley to the north (rear) of the site. These views are to an extent partially screened by mature trees (although deciduous). The development has been designed to step down the hillside, corresponding with existing changes in ground levels. The new dwellings to the rear are therefore lower than the existing properties of Dawes House and St Anne’s Green and positioned so as to retain views for those residents, although a right to a view is not a material planning consideration. When viewed from the valley the dwellings will be seen stepping up the hillside to Dawes House on the ridge and thus the appearance of the site as the edge of the village will still remain. The design of the rear dwellings is more modern but there is already a variation to the age and design of this more modern end of the village, with Giles Cottage to the west and the Church of Christ the King to the east. While comments regarding light pollution are noted, this is mitigated by the large eaves overhang and could be further minimised by the type of glazing utilised. Many trees to the rear of the site are protected by a TPO, where appropriate, while most other boundary trees and hedges are to be retained with additional planting, as specified in the accompanying documents. As such the proposal is not considered to have a significantly adverse effect upon the character or appearance of the AONB.With regard to the street scene, views of the new buildings will be limited, as are views of Dawes House. Some excavation of the site will be required for the new

3

access road and apartment block, which will be at a lower ground level than Dawes House and the apartments will also have a lower ridge height. The new access will result in the loss of a leylandii and some of the front hedge but other trees and shrubs are to be retained and additional native hedge planting will be undertaken just behind the visibility splays for the new access. As such the impact upon the view of the street scene is considered to be minimal.The layout of the development has been designed to minimise effects upon the neighbours. Planting to the boundary with Giles Cottage is to be maintained and improved with the apartment block sited to the side of Giles Cottage. The existing access is to serve the same number of dwellings as in the current situation (as approved) and thus use of the narrower drive should not significantly change with the amenities of St Anne’s Green maintained. The apartment block is also located to the side of Dawes House with a gap of 11m between the flank walls, thereby maintaining light and space to the side windows of flats within Dawes House. The new access will serve some parking to the front of the apartments, within what is currently a grassed open area, as well as passing between the new and existing buildings to some parking at the rear and to serve the two houses. The access is set below the ground level of Dawes House. A retaining wall will be constructed 4m from the flank wall of Dawes House with regrading of the bank and a continuation of the existing hedgeline past both buildings. The new access will have some impact upon the existing residents with traffic where there is currently none, previous permissions to develop this area having not been implemented. However, the use of the new access is not considered to be so detrimental as to justify a refusal of the application.Concerns regarding noise and disturbance during the construction phase are acknowledged but are not a planning reason for refusal. However, to reduce disturbance all construction traffic and deliveries should only use the new access.While the formal response of the Highway Authority is awaited, the position and design of the new access results from discussions with the Highway Officer and full compliance with highway standards is achieved. The scheme also provides full compliance with parking and turning spaces and access for refuse and other service vehicles. The public footway is extended into the site.The application includes an ecological survey with landscaping details and recommendations for additional species surveys, e.g. bats to be completed. These details are noted and all further surveys and mitigation measures should be completed as recommended. The scheme maintains trees and hedges of value with proposals to enhance the planting and wildlife provisions. Some trees are proposed for removal within the site, with these comprising various conifers, fruit trees and a portion of the hazel. Evidence of mammal use of the site is primarily restricted to the boundary areas, which are being maintained free of construction. Comments from Natural England and Sussex Wildlife Trust are awaited but at this stage the proposals along with the identified mitigation works are considered to be acceptable and not to result in adverse effects to the ecology of the site or adjoining areas.A further issue raised by objectors is the matter of overdevelopment. The development proposes 12 new units of accommodation within a site area of 0.628 hectares. This equates to 19.10 dwellings per hectare, well below the Government net target of 30 dwellings per hectare. The layout, while maximising tree retention and new planting, also seeks to maximise space about and between buildings and includes retention of a shared open space to the rear of Dawes House. The proposals are not therefore considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.In conclusion, the proposals are considered to be sympathetic to the character and amenities of the area. A mix of housing types and sizes is provided, including an element of affordable housing as required by local plan policy and which would be the subject of a Section 106 Obligation, and there are no highway or ecological issues such as would justify refusal of the application.

4

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO COMPLETION OF A SECTION 106 OBLIGATION)1. CD1A (Standard time period).2. The new access shall be in the position shown on the approved plan, drawing

no.5052/01, date stamped 6 September 2007, and shall be completed prior to any other development of the site. All construction and related traffic shall only use the new access. The existing access shall not be used by construction or related traffic. Reason: In the interests of highway safety for vehicles entering and leaving the site at its junction with the A265 and also to minimise disturbance for adjoining residential occupiers, having regard to Policy GD1(ii)(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. Highways as recommended by the Highway Authority.4. CD5A (Ecological surveys). “site clearance, demolition or any form of

construction” … “full bat, badger, dormouse and reptile/amphibian surveys with details of any subsequent mitigation strategies, as set out within the accompanying “Preliminary Ecological Assessment”, Revision 3, dated 20 August 2007. Reason: As per ’a’. EN17.

5. CD4P (Retain trees/hedges). Add “tree/hedge”. Reason: “b, (characteristics and landscape quality of the locality) & d”. GD1(iv, v). S1(f, j). EN2 and EN3.

6. CD4D (Landscaping implementation). Reason: ”a, b”, GD1(iv)(v). S1(f)(j) + EN17.

7. CD4O (Landscape maintenance). Add “tree/hedging”. Reason: GD1(iv)(v). S1(f)(j). EN2 and EN

8. CD6B (Drainage, foul and surface).9. CD9N (Obscure glass). “apartments” “kitchen/lounge” “ground and first floor”

“west and east side elevations” “5052/10, 6 September 2007”.10. CD9N (Obscure glass). “house on plot 4” “first floor windows within the west

side elevation” “5052/12, 6 September 2007, shall be glazed with obscure/tinted glass in accordance with a scheme to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and shall thereafter….

11. Before construction of the apartment block hereby approved, details of privacy screens to the rear balconies shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and the privacy screens shall thereafter be maintained. Reason: as per CD9N.

12. Before construction of the dwellings on plots 2-4 as hereby approved, full detailed specifications for the glazing to the rear windows of all three properties shall be submitted to approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and the glazing shall thereafter be maintained. Reason: To minimise the levels of light pollution in this edge of village area and thereby maintain the natural landscape character and quality of the area, having regard to Policy GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

13. CD8P (Restrict PD rights). ”buildings, structures, alterations, extensions, installations or operations” “Classes A-C, E or F”. Reason: “b”, GD1(iv)(v). S1(f)(j).

14. CD9H (Samples of materials). “samples” “buildings”.Note:i) ND7 – Section 106.

5

ii) ND17 – Wildlife & Countryside Act.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is within the development boundary for Burwash and is considered to be of an appropriate scale, design and siting, and respects both highway and ecological issues and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy S1, TR3, EN2, EN3 and EN17 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1, TR3, HG1 and HG3 of the Rother District Local Plan.

View application/correspondence

RR/2007/2740/P BURWASH LITTLE HOLTON - LAND ADJ, SCHOOL HILLPROPOSED DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING & ERECTION OF NEW DWELLING INCLUDING DORMERS WITH CLOSURE OF EXISTING ACCESS & FORMATION OF TWO NEW VEHICULAR ACCESSES.Mr and Mrs Bray


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

SITE Little Holton, location to the east side of School Hill at its southern end within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, comprises a detached dwelling and a detached building that was once used as a scout hut. The former scout hut that is the subject of this application lies to the south west of the dwelling house and has most recently been used as a ‘family flat and garage’. Planning permission for this use was granted without a tie to the principal dwelling in 1980 (RR/80/0425). An earlier permission allowed use as a single dwelling (ref A/72/343). Most recently planning permission was granted in 2003 for the conversion of the existing building to a private dwelling with a shared access drive, serving itself and Little Holton with two double garages.

HISTORYA/53/249 Change of use from scout hut to dwelling – Approved ConditionalA/69/804 Bedroom and bathroom on first floor - Approved ConditionalA/69/811 Cottage lieu of scout hut – RefusedA/79/343 Change of use of former scout hut to dwelling - Approved

ConditionalRR/80/0425 Conversion of garage into granny and family flat for use in

conjunction with main dwelling - Approved ConditionalRR/80/0789 Addition of sewing room and shower room at first floor level -

Approved ConditionalRR/2003/2281/P Conversion of existing building to private dwelling with new

shared access drive and two double garages - Approved Conditional

PROPOSAL The current proposal is to demolish the existing building and the erection of a new dwelling on a different footprint within the curtilage of Little Holton. It is also proposed to close-off the existing access and form two new vehicular accesses, one at the northern end of the site to serve Little Holton and one at the

6

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20072451p

southern end to serve the new dwelling. The dwelling would be repositioned nearer to the new access. The justification for the repositioning of the dwelling and the access is that, as approved under RR/2003/2281/P the development would result in the removal of a large number of mature trees and further damage others during the course of construction. The proposed position would mean that no significant trees are lost in construction. Further, the repositioning of the accesses would pose less of a highway danger that the current substandard access.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Comments awaited Highway Authority: Comments awaitedSouthern Water Services: Comments awaitedEnvironment Agency: No objection but offers advice with regard to foul drainage, surface water drainage and water conservation.

SUMMARY The principle of the use of this building as a private dwelling has been established in previous planning permissions, the most recent in 2003 under RR/2003/2281/P.

New accesses: It is proposed to stop up the existing substandard access to the site and construct instead two separate accesses, one to serve each of the dwellings. The proposed accesses are located at either end of the existing western site boundary. Enclosed with the application is a pre-application letter from the Highway Authority in which it states that there is ‘a real safety benefit in closing the existing substandard access to Little Holton. The access point to the north will provide vastly improved visibility splays in both directions and it is essential that a turning area is provided. The access to the south, which will serve the proposed new dwelling been located to maximise visibility as much as possible. It is however evident that the existing hedge will have to be cut back/trimmed to provide adequate visibility splays’. The Design and Access statement contends that the hedge is extremely large and the bulk of trimming back to achieve the necessary splays can be done without causing any demonstrable harm, the hedging still retaining its natural shape and character.Formal Highway Authority comments and the precise details of the necessary hedge removal to achieve the necessary visibility splays are yet to be received. When these requirements are known, it is necessary to demonstrate that the trimming or cutting back of any hedging will not have any significant harmful impact upon the rural character of this narrow lane within the High Weald AONB. Highway Authority comments will be reported in due course.

Repositioning of dwelling: There are two reasons for relocating the new dwelling; Firstly, for the practical reason of being in closer proximity to the access (and garage that will be applied for in due course). Secondly, the most significant reason for the repositioning is that the permission granted in 2003 would have resulted in the removal of 4 oaks, 6 pines, 3 chestnuts, 2 rowans, 2 yews, 1 hazel, 2 sycamores and 2 prunus trees, most of which are reasonably mature. There may also be damage to a further three oak trees during the course of construction.The new proposed position to the south of the existing building is located in existing scrub land. Whilst the scrub and a few minor sycamore trees would need to be cleared, no mature trees would be lost in the construction.I have conferred with the Council’s Tree Officer who, with regard to the planning permission that has been granted previously (RR/2003/2281/P), is of the opinion that given the confined space of the site and maturity of the trees, it is likely that during construction the trees may suffer damage. As well as this, through the building being

7

inhabited and the use of the site intensified, the trees may be further impacted i.e. being cut back to allow additional light to the site. She is of the opinion that the proposed position in the current application would be in a favourable location to prevent any significant harm to the mature trees on site, despite the loss of scrub land. These mature trees are considered to be important to the character of the location and I support any effort to protect and retain them. Further, the trees act as an important boundary of the site to screen the new dwelling from the street scene and from Little Holton, and to protect the rural appearance of the locality. It is proposed to landscape the rear garden area at the point of the existing access (which is to be stopped up) which would further screen the site.Taking all these points into consideration, I am of the opinion that the repositioning would be beneficial to the appearance of the natural landscape. The protection of the mature trees outweighs the loss of vegetation and scrub land/minor trees that will be removed to site the new dwelling. The repositioning would have no other adverse impact outside of the immediate site, on the neighbouring residential properties or upon the AONB.A Section 106 obligation will need to be agreed to ensure the demolition of the existing building and to extinguish the rights to rebuild on the site of the existing house.

Enlargement of the dwelling: The existing building has a footprint of 133.34m². The dwelling approved in 2003 had a floor area of 137.1m². The proposed dwelling has a floor area of 236m² which incorporates the use of the roof space to form two bedrooms, a bathroom, en-suite and store room, served via dormer windows. Whilst the floor area has been extended, the footprint of the dwelling has not been enlarged and the additional space is conditioned within the roof space. Previous similar applications under references A/69/804 and RR/80/0789 were approved but never implemented. I do not consider the additional floor space to be excessive and the design and scale of the building will not have any adverse impact upon the appearance of the locality or outside of the immediate site. Additionally, the proposed new position is situated on lower ground than the existing building and therefore the new dwelling would be more screened in the street scene and not prominent in this rural location.

Upon receipt of an agreeable Highway Authority recommendation and provided that the removal of hedging will not result in detriment to the rural character of the country lane, I expect to make the following;

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (S106 OBLIGATION)1. CD1A (Standard time condition)2. CD9H (Details of external materials)

Insert A: b) detailsInsert B: a) buildingReason: Insert: c

3. CD12S (Floor levels)4. CD4R (Retention of trees)

Reason: c Policies GD1(iv) and (v) and S1 (f) and (j)5. CD4B (Soft landscaping details to be submitted)

Insert: a, b and e Reason: c Policies GD1(iv) and (v) and S1 (f) and (j)

6. CD4O (Replacement trees)Reason: c Policies GD1(iv) and (v) and S1 (f) and (j)

8

7. CD12U (Alternative permission) Insert: no. RR/2007/2740/P on 25 September 2003

8. Highways Conditions to be inserted when Highway Authority recommendation had been received

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


RR/2007/2689/P DALLINGTON ANDORA COTTAGE, EARLSDOWNDEMOLITION OF TIMBER/ASBESTOS BUILDING AND ERECTION OF 4 BEDROOM DETACHED BRICK DWELLING INCLUDING ROOF LIGHTS AND DORMERS AND DETACHED GARAGE PURSUANT TO OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2004/1144/PB N Attewell


SITE Andora Cottage is situated to the north of the B2096 at Earlsdown, within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and outside of any town or village development boundary. Neighbouring property Roberts Cottage to the east of the site aligns with Andora Cottage and Amelia Cottage to the west is situated at the front of its site, well forward of the building line of Andora Cottage.Outline planning permission was granted in 2004 (RR/2004/1144/P) for the demolition of the existing timber/asbestos dwelling and the erection of a 3 or 4 bedroom detached brick dwelling.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2004/1144/P Outline: Demolition of timber/asbestos building and erection 3/4

bedroom detached brick dwelling – Approved ConditionalRR/2007/2201/P Demolition of timber/asbestos building and erection of detached

four bedroom detached brick dwelling including rooflights, dormers and balcony and erection of a detached garage pursuant to outline permission RR/2004/1144/P - Withdrawn

PROPOSAL This application is for the approval of reserved matters pursuant to planning permission RR/2004/1144/P. A four bedroom 1½ storey detached brick building is proposed as specified in the outline planning permission. The application includes the insertion of rooflights and dormer windows. The new building measures 6.35m high, 10m wide and 10m in depth. The application also proposes the erection of a detached two bay garage to be sited to the front of the existing dwelling, on land which is currently used as a parking area.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Comments awaitedHighway Authority: Comments awaitedPlanning Notice: 1 letter of objection from Amelia Cottage:

9


- The proposed house has taken note of our objections that the house will only have a small skylight that looks at our garden and that the design is suitable. As planning permission for a four bedroom house has already been agreed we feel that this is acceptable.

- The large double garage is directly in front of out kitchen window and will stop our view over towards Dallington. We would not mind if the garage was further north.

SUMMARY The principle for a four bedroom dwelling has already been approved in the outline permission RR/2004/1144/P. The outline specified that the dwelling must be on the footprint of the existing dwelling, a maximum of 1½ storeys, with a gross floor area not exceeding 150m² excluding garaging. A previous reserved matters application (RR/2007/2201/P) was withdrawn earlier this year as the floor area exceeded the maximum allowance. As well as this, the development proposed a balcony to the rear elevation which would have caused a significant level of overlooking and loss of privacy to the neighbouring residential properties, in particular Roberts Cottage to the east of the site. The current application is similar to the previous application, however the conservatory to the rear has been deleted which decreases the floor area to within the maximum allowance as stated in the outline permission (now approximately 146.6m²). The balcony has been removed and has been replaced with a window. The current application now complies with the specification set out in the outline permission. The proposal is of an appropriate scale and design. The dwelling is set back approximately 64m in the plot and would not be unduly prominent or out of keeping with the character of the street scene. The owners of the neighbouring property to the west (Amelia Cottage) have stated that they consider the design of the dwelling to be acceptable, taking into account their objections. The boundary between these two properties is established mature hedging and I am satisfied that the proposed dwelling will cause no detrimental impact to Amelia Cottage. I consider that the removal of the balcony has overcome the concern of any significant detrimental impact to Roberts Cottage to the east of the site. A rear first floor window is proposed, however the principle of rooms at first floor level has been established at outline stage and I believe this window to be acceptable. The roof windows facing east are situated so that the neighbouring property will not be adversely affected. The two lower roof windows provide light wells to the ground floor lounge, and the bedroom window above is set at a level of 1.7m from the bottom of the window to floor level and therefore will not allow overlooking into the neighbouring property. The proposed detached garage comprises two bays and is of a ‘heritage’ style with a catslide roof. The design is appropriate in this rural location and the garage will be partially screened from the street scene by existing mature hedging on the frontage of the plot. The neighbour the west is concerned that the garage will cause a loss of their views towards Dallington. The impact upon the neighbour’s view is not a material planning consideration. I do not consider that the garage would have any detrimental impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring property. The roof slopes away from Amelia Cottage and would cause no obstruction, overbearing impact or loss of light. I consider that by taking account all of these above matters, I make the following;

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE (RESERVED MATTERS)1. CD9H (Details of materials)

Insert A: b) detailsInsert B: a) building

10

2. CD8O (Removal of permitted development rights – windows)Amend end … shall be inserted into the building.Reason: a

3. CD8P (Removal of permitted development rights – extensions)Insert: c) alterations and extensionsClass A to CReason: a Policy GD1 and S1

4. CD8G (Restriction on garage use)Insert: a and b

5. The hedging along the frontage of the site shall be retained at a minimum height of 2m, unless dead or dying and shall not be removed without the prior consent of the local planning authority. Any hedging removed without such consent or dying or being severely damaged or becoming severely diseased shall be replaced with hedging of such size and species as may be agreed with the local planning authority.Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the locality and to accord with Policies GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

6. Highway Authority Conditions to be added.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposal is for the approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline planning permission RR/2004/1144/P. the plot as adequate in size to accommodate the dwelling and provide adequate amenity space. The proposed dwelling is of an appropriate design and will not adversely affect the character of the area within the High Weald AONB or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.


11


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

Statutory 16 week date: 22 October 2007

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

Statutory 8 week date: 7 September 2007

This application was debated at your last meeting when it was resolved to defer a decision for further information and consultations. Specifically I have advised the applicant’s agent of the following concerns expressed by Members:

1. 275 units was considered to be too many, in particular the highest part of the site at Highlands Farm should be re-examined to reduce density and incorporate more open landscape areas.

2. That the school site should be ring fenced for school/other community uses.3. The pedestrian link to the station is considered to be essential and some

parking for disabled station users provided.4. The junctions of the spine road with Hastings Road and Harrier Lane should

be re-examined, particularly the former as exit to Hastings Road is already difficult at peak times.

5. There is a problem with construction traffic perceived because Marley Lane has a 7.5 tonne limit; there was a suggestion that the length of the spine road should be constructed first.

6. A suggestion that the play area might usefully be sited at Highlands Farm.7. That sustainability should be foremost within high quality designs.At the time of having to prepare this report no formal response had been received from the applicants. Additionally, the vertical sections through the proposed road have revealed two areas where gradients would be too steep for an adopted road carrying a bus service. This matter must also be resolved.I have reproduced below the report from the October meeting updated to include representations received to-date.

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

12

trees of mostly deciduous species, which contribute to the character and environmental value of the site. Two public footpaths cross the land which in total extends to about 15 hectares.

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

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

The Inspector concluded:i) The proposed development would not conserve the natural beauty of the

AONBii) The grant of planning permission would undermine a comprehensive

consideration of all sites according to their merits through the Local Plan process

iii) That development of the site would be premature given the then early stage of the Rother District Local Plan.

In the context of the planning history the Local Plan Inspector’s consideration of this site for development and his consideration of objections to the allocation of the site for housing are most relevant. The Inspector’s report (relevant extract) is attached as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007.

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

CONSULTATIONSTown Council: The principal issues of concern are:-i. The number of dwellings proposedii. The resultant traffic and its effect upon congestion within the towniii. The benefits of a primary school in helping reduce cross town trafficiv. If not needed for a school the remainder of the allocated site should be

reserved for other community usesv. That the station footpath link is provided and of disabled access standardvi. The spine road should be provided at the startvii. Construction traffic should be directed to avoid the High Streetviii. Affordable housing should be provided evenly with the remainder of the

development.ix. Street lighting should be to the Town Council’s normal required patternx. That the spine road and Harrier Lane need to be speed controlled

13

The full text of the Town Council’s letters is attached to this report as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007. Members should also be aware that the Town Council have requested that GOSE call in the application for consideration.Highway Authority: No objection subject to receipt of an acceptable long section through the spine road in order to assess the gradients. Additional requirements:-i. Would wish to encourage the provision of the footpath link to the stationii. The footway provision within the site is acceptable subject to adequate width

and lightingiii. A contribution of £40,000 towards a zebra crossing on Upper Lakeiv. Cycle parking provision should be secured at detailed stagev. Bus service contribution of £102,000 per annum for 3 years (total 306,000). A

Sunday service will require £11,000 per annum for 3 years (total £33,000)vi. A bus stop and shelter on Hastings Road together with a dropped kerb

crossing and pedestrian refuge, subject to a fully safety auditvii. Further investigations into feasibility of bus stop provision in Marley Laneviii. A local sustainability Accessibility Improvement Contribution in accord with the

ESCC’s SPG (at £1,0225 per flat/1 or 2 bed house, £1,800 per 3 /4 bed house i.e. total approximately £365,575

ix. The preparation of a Travel Plan as part of measures to reduce car born trips to include mitigation measures

x. Harrier Lane should be upgraded to reflect the Manual for Streets and to ensure vehicle speeds remain low

xi. A contribution of £150,00 towards the cost of mini roundabouts at the Powdermill Lane and Station Approach junctions

xii. Details of development phasing are neededHighway conditions are also necessary in respect of highway details, construction vehicle wheel washing facilities, vehicle/cycling parking provision and drainage details.However, the recently provided long-sections do identify problems with the vertical alignment with two areas of excessive gradient.Confirmation has also been received that the requested contributions at (iii) and (xi) above are accepted as ‘double counting’ and are no longer sought.Environment Agency: Objection – Flood Risk Analysis requires further detail. If approved, conditions recommended.East Sussex County Council: Support in principle but should not be approved until the applicant has demonstrated to the Highway Authority’s satisfaction that access to and from the site can be provided in a manner which does not create new transport hazards and adversely affect the safety of road users (contrary to Structure Plan Policy S1(d)). In addition, the following matters relating to the provision of the County Council’s services should be secured in consultation with officers of the County Council before permission is granted:a) Contributions to deliver transport improvements in accordance with the County

Council’s Local Sustainable Accessibility Improvement Contributions as set out under (viii) under Highway Authority above.

b) The provision of the site for and contributions to an early years facility on the site and contributions towards primary education in the town as follows:i) An option agreement for the transfer of a suitable site for a nominal

consideration.ii) Contribution towards early years provision £277,200iii) Contribution to primary school accommodation at Battle and Langton

£693,000iv) Secondary school contribution – nilv) Contribution towards increase Library provision £74,000

14

c) Detailed aspects of the mitigation strategies for both archaeology and landscape are agreed with officer of East Sussex County Council prior to development commencing (policy EN2 and S1(j))

d) Detailed information on how construction waste is to be minimised and reused in accordance with adopted Structure Plan policy W10 and Waste Local Plan Policy WLP11.

e) Household waste and recycling contribution £73,00f) Contribution towards rights of way improvements £7000Southern Water: No objection to foul sewage disposal proposals subject to appropriate conditions and formal application for connection to the public foul sewer at the appropriate time. Prior to final approval the applicant needs to demonstrate long term maintenance provision for the surface water (SUDS) scheme. Approximate conditions required in respect of details, maintenance provision and protection of existing infrastructure during construction.Highways Agency: Withdraws its initial objection subject to the development not proceeding in advance of junction improvements at the Marley Lane/A21 junction.English Heritage: Do not wish to comment.Sussex Police: Little comment appropriate at this outline stage. Applicant directed to “Secured by Design” website.Natural England: Environmental Statement is particularly well written and the impacts on protected species and habitats thoroughly assessed and with well thought out mitigation measures to conserve and enhance are supported. More detail regarding retile receptor site required (now provided and forwarded). If planning permission granted measures to enhance bio diversity should be secured (para 14 of PPS9). Any landscaping/planting schemes should use native species.The Ramblers Association: No objections raised.South East Water: No response received to consultation.Hastings Borough Council: No response received to consultation.Sussex Wildlife Trust: No response received to consultation.Director of Services - Environmental Health: There is a need for a contaminated land condition and a condition regarding a survey in respect of potential noise/vibration issues from the railway.The High Weald AONB Unit: “Irrespective of the allocation of this site for residential development in the Rother local plan, 290 houses must still constitute a major development in a nationally designated landscape. Planning Policy Statement 7 requires that certain conditions to be met to justify such development within an AONB (some of which are fulfilled by the site being allocated.) PPS7 requires that:24. Because of the serious impact that major developments may have on these

areas of natural beauty, applications for all such developments should be subject to the most rigorous examination. And all so that:Consideration of such applications should therefore include an assessment of:(iii) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and

recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.

23. Planning authorities should ensure that any planning permission granted for major developments in these designated areas should be carried out to high environmental standards through the application of appropriate conditions where necessary.

The design and access statement and environmental statement submitted with the application do not fulfil these obligations because they fail to detail how the development will respond to and conserve and enhance the intrinsic character and quality of the AONB.The primary purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape. The High Weald AONB Management Plan 2004 identifies this natural

15

beauty in terms of 5 principle components of natural beauty which are summarised in a statement of the landscapes character (see p19 of the plan available at www.highweald.org) PPS7 is again very clear that policy and development should respect and respond to the character of the countryside and its locally distinctive features.The development should therefore demonstrate how it responds to local character, defines the locally distinctive features of the location and illustrate how the development conserves and enhances that character. What features does it conserve? How is it enhancing the landscape or those features that are being conserved? What design and environmental factors have been considered and how does the application meet the high standards required by PPS7? Where the application is impacting upon the landscape how have these effects been assessed?The claim in the application that the development will have little effect on the AONB is completely opposed. Almost by definition a development of 290 houses in open undeveloped landscape must constitute a direct impact on the AONB and has a direct and irrefutable affect on it. A single landscape assessment identifying a few principle view points is simply not sufficient to justify the impact both visually and physically on the landscape. The impact is not just about the limited number of views of it, but is about the actual and real physical change that will be impacted on that landscape. A significant area of the AONB in a highly sensitive location abutting a historic town will be radically and irrevocable altered by this development. Additional the assessment that further new development is set against an existing developed form in the shape of the abutting town of Battle both fails to understand the historic character of the town of Battle and its hinterland but also that of the site itself.The only way that the obligations under PPS7 to strictly control this type of major development in the AONN and to ensure that it meets the highest standards is to understand the locally distinctive character of both the High Weald AONB landscape and that of the historic town of Battle. Development that respects and responds to this character and which reinforces the locally distinctive features of it may assist in producing a development form that can help to meet the overriding aim of any development in the AONB, the conservation and enhancement of its intrinsic character.Thus how does the development utilise local materials, how do those materials respond to and blend with the landscape and the character of the town of Battle? How does the layout and siting reflect the historic development of Battle and the character of the development pattern of the AONB? How are wider sustainable aspirations being met in terms of meeting local needs and responding to land based activities and the reconnection of people with the landscape? Will the affordable housing provide homes for land based workers? How does the site access link people back to the landscape and enable access to it?The application fundamentally fails to address these matters and appears to be proposing a very ordinary and standard housing estate development that will be suitable for urban style living and necessitate the use of private cars to even access the housing. The development is unlikely to demonstrate a wider integration with the existing built area and is totally reliant on the feeder road through the site, leading to a disconnection of the development and its community from the rest of Battle. The indicative development areas could easily be accessed and serviced through existing residential areas, particularly on the northern edge where several turning heads are available to directly access the development, obviating the need for a link road between Marley Lane and the Hastings Road, a link road that appears intended to used as an alternative route to link these two halves of the town.The application fails to respond to or even fully acknowledge the impact and effect that it will have on a nationally designated landscape. The High Weald is a special landscape with a defined and unique character that is sensitive to change. Change is

16

possible and can be integrated if the development seeks to understand, conserve and reinforce local distinctiveness and character. Without this response and understanding a development of this size and complexity can only damage and adversely affect the High Weald AONB, contrary to the rigorous examination and high standards expected by PPS7. This is a major development both for the AONB and for Battle, and a much higher standard and understanding of the impacts and effects of it on the landscape is required to meet the criteria and tests necessitated by PPS7.”Planning Notice: 92 Letters have been received at the time of preparing this report, together with a petition signed over two weekends by in excess of 1300 residents and visitors to the town. The summary objection page to the petition is attached to this report as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007:i. The number of dwellings is to highii. Spine road will be used as a rat run.iii. Unacceptable traffic levels will be caused by the proposed schooliv. Traffic conditions in the High Street will result from the extra dwellings and

additional school places at Battle and Langton School.v. Pedestrian access to the station is vitalvi. Houses should not be built on Greenfield sites.vii. The County Council decision not to proceed with a new school should be reason

alone for refusal.viii.Development should be phased.ix. The spine road should be built first.x. Development at Highlands Farm was dismissed at a public enquiry, it is an

elevated site and would be very prominent.xi. Highlands Farm should be low density bungalows only.xii. Management of construction traffic will be neededxiii.The exit of additional traffic onto Hastings Road and Marley Lane needs to be

managed.xiv. Local amenities such as Doctors/Dentists may not be able to cope.xv. There will be an increased risk of flooding.xvi. Already inadequate car parking at the station and within the town.xvii. Increased risk of crimexviii. Out of scale with the market town of Battle.xix. Disruption to wildlife and flora.xx. Water supply has proven difficult already in the hot summers.xxi. Should there be traffic lights at Spinney/Hastings junction.xxii. Proposed play area is in wrong place and may be a place where youths

congregate as a result.xxiii. Loss of green fields forever.xxiv. Three storey properties should not be permitted.xxv. Houses should be for local people/key workers as first stop on owner/occupier

ladder.xxvi. Housing mix should include some bungalows for the elderly.xxvii. Trees need to be protected, and woodland areas protected to exclude damage

by children.xxviii. Rother has manipulated the situation to increase the number of dwellings and

to act as ‘Judge and Jury’.xxix. The new development and spine road will impact adversely upon the amenities

of existing dwellings adjoining the site especially those in The Spinney.xxx. Public and private views of the Abbey and St Marys Church will be lost.xxxi. More noise will result from spine road and pleasant outlook and views will be

lost.17

xxxii. New community facilities should be included on the site.xxxiii. The whole development may need a 20mph limit to ensure safety and reduce

noise from traffic.xxxiv. The sewers serving some existing properties cross part of the site and must be

safeguarded.xxxv. There are no cycle ways proposed.xxxvi. The footpath to the station must be well lit for safetyxxxvii. Rother children are already suffering poorer education than UK generally –

schools overcrowdedxxxviii.Damaging to AONB a national landscape designationxxxix. Vehicle movement statistics used are out of date – levels of traffic have

increasedxl. Local landscape would be changed for the worsexli. Overlooking of existing propertiesxlii.Battle’s status as a place of National importance will be diminishedxliii. Noise pollutionxliv. Public consultation has been inadequatexlv. Community facilities should also be catered for on a site of this importance

SUMMARY This is a development site identified within the Rother District Local Plan for a minimum of 220 dwellings. Members are advised that the site has been agreed in principle for development through the very recent Local Plan process including a pubic enquiry. The Inspectors report is attached; this most recent assessment of the site for development concluded its acceptability and is a material consideration. This application is not considered an opportunity to re-open the debate upon the principle.The submission is accompanied by the required Environmental Impact Assessment, a Master Plan, Planning Statement, Design and Access Statement, Statement of Community consultation, Sustainability Appraisal and an indicative layout and topographical survey.The site is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where local and national policies indicate development will be strictly controlled to ensure that is compatible with the natural beauty of the landscape.Following discussions at the September Planning Committee further discussions with the applicant’s agent have been undertaken. A revised indicative layout plan has been submitted along with the following information:-“We understand that your members raised the question of providing a new car park for the station on the Blackfriars allocation and as you pointed out, the Local Plan Inspector considered an objection I believe by Network Rail, who had sought an allocation for a car park at this time, but that the Inspector found that this was not justified and confirmed the residential allocation of the land which of course the Council accepted and is now included within your adopted Local Plan.However, not wishing to rule out the possibility of some disabled parking spaces, sited close to the railway station and on the allocated land, Countryside believe that the appropriate time to consider this would be as part of the detailed designs for the housing layout forming this phase of development that would be incorporated into a future reserved matters application. Clearly, it would also be necessary to ensure that the disabled spaces were provided concurrently with the provision of the footpath link to the station, in order to ensure that these spaces were available for their proper use and not simply as additional parking spaces for the proposed dwellings.Your members also raised the capacity of the site and indeed, we are aware that concern has been expressed by Battle Town Council in this respect, although we note that the Town Council have not objected to the application. We are also aware that the capacity of the site has formed the basis of local objection from Battle residents.

18

Countryside Properties Plc have revisited the assumed housing mix having undertaken a more recent assessment of the market and carried out a further capacity study through the preparation of a more detailed housing layout. The revised mix is enclosed, and while meeting your policy of delivering 30% of the proposed dwellings for one and two bedroomed households, is more in favour of delivering family homes. As a consequence, the proposed residential density of the development has been reduced, resulting in a site capacity of 275 homes. This results in a density of 41 dwellings per hectare, which form our experience, is very much the minimum density when considering the development of a Greenfield site and to achieve the most efficient use of the land in accordance with advice in PPS3.You will be aware that the planning application proposes up to 290 dwellings and rather than amend the Proposed Description, Countryside would be prepared to accept a planning condition limiting the scale of development to up to 275 dwellings should Officers decide that this is an appropriate method of controlling the ultimate capacity of the site. We would be happy to discuss with you, the wording of an appropriate condition dealing with this matter.” Notwithstanding, the reduction in the number of dwellings proposed there are issues as to whether the illustrative layout for that part of the site known as Highlands Farm is appropriate for this most elevated location. The plan does not indicate the height of dwellings. Equally, the lower and central part of the site might be capable of compensatory higher density thereby accommodating the number of units proposed. The overall number of dwellings is an important local issue most particularly in relation to traffic generation issues, parking and congestion.The Local Plan Inspector specified a minimum of 220 to accord with the minimum density required by PPS3 (30 units/hectare). The number of units is, however, a blunt measure in that a single 3 /4 bed dwelling house clearly has different potential to generate vehicle movements than say a one bedroomed flat but they each count as a single dwelling. By way of information, the applicant has given the following breakdown of units upon which the latest layout is based:-1 bed apartments 46 No.2 bed apartments 68 “2 bed houses 53 “3 bed houses 60 “4 bed houses 48 “With regard to traffic generation comparison of car parking standard requirements is one indicator. A development of 220 three bed houses would need to provide 513 parking spaces to include visitors. The currently advanced mix set out above would require 527; the difference is not considered to be significant. The number of dwellings and their height/layout is important in assessing the potential affect upon the landscape (AONB Unit consultation refers) and the level of affordable dwellings, contributions etc.Your Housing Officer has advised that of the affordable housing (40%) three quarters should be rented and the remainder shared equity at average entry level of 34% of values. To-date I have not received the applicant’s response to this information. I have also not yet received a reply from East Sussex County Council to the applicant’s reaction to requested financial contributions, viz:1) Pre school provision (estimate £199,472)2) Primary school contributions (estimate £498,680)3) Library contributions (£74,000)4) Waste and recycling contributions (£7,300)5) Footpaths maintenance contributions (£7,000)6) Contributions towards mini roundabout at Powdermill Lane and Station

Approach (£159,000) – Not now requested

19

7) Payment towards zebra crossing at Upper Lake (£40,000) – Not now requested

8) Contributions for each of the next 3 years towards bus services (£339,000 in total)

9) The County Council Local Sustainable Accessibility Improvement Contributions @ £1,025 per flat/2 bed unit and £1,800 per 3 /4 bed house (£365,575 in total)

I am also awaiting the applicant’s response to the Environment Agency’s objection to the adequacy of the Flood Risk Assessment and the matters raised by the High Weald AONB Unit.All of the issues set out at the start of this report and above are vital to the consideration of this application and for determining the content of any Section 106 Planning Obligation necessary. Moreover, the questions now arising from the gradient difficulties identified from the most recently provided sectional drawing could demand a fundamental reconsideration of the suggested road alignment. This may also impact upon the number of units proposed.At the time of preparing this report I am not in possession of adequate information to formulate a final recommendation.

RECOMMENDATIONSRR/2007/1896/P: DEFER (FURTHER INFORMATION AND CONSULTATIONS)


RR/2007/1902/P: DEFER (FURTHER INFORMATION AND CONSULTATIONS)


RR/2007/2222/P BATTLE TIMBERS, MARLEY LANE DEMOLITION OF DILAPIDATED DWELLING. ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT DETACHED DWELLING INCLUDING DECKING AND BALCONETTE WITH ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING ACCESS, FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS AND PROVISION OF PARKING SPACES. Mr and Mrs Creasy

Statutory 8 week date: 24 September 2007

SITE The proposed development site is set to the north of Marley Lane and lies outside any development boundary as defined within Policy DS3 of the Rother District Local Plan and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The irregularly shaped plot measures some 1935m² and benefits from an existing vehicular access point. One single storey timber framed and clad low pitched dwelling is currently set within the site with no ancillary outbuildings.

HISTORYRR/2007/1625/P Demolition of dilapidated dwelling, erection of replacement

detached dwelling including dormers, first floor decking and balconette with alteration to an existing access and formation of new vehicular access and provision of two parking spaces – Withdrawn

PROPOSAL The proposal is to demolish the existing dwelling and erect a new split level dwelling with habitable accommodation arranged across two levels with no

20



ancillary buildings. The dwelling is to be constructed in cedar boarding with fibre cement slates.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- The only changes between this and application RR/2007/1625/P appear to be minor alterations to the layout of the internal driveway. These have no relevance to the previously expressed fundamental objections of the Council, which disagrees strongly with the applicant’s view that the proposal would enhance this area of Marley Lane and improve highway safety. It appears that, in anticipation of the outcome of this application, some of the hedgerow has already been removed and that a substantial temporary boundary fence has been erected. The Council is always concerned about the loss of hedgerow and believes that the temporary fence has not been adequately secured to avoid the creation of a potential hazard for drivers.Highway Authority: Recommend that any consent shall include the following attached conditions:-“Notes: The existing site is currently served from an access point, which is substandard in terms of visibility. The site frontage is on a bend and subsequently visibility is blocked from the existing mature hedge line that exists. It is proposed that the access is re-sited to the eastern site boundary, therefore maximising the possible visibility to the west. In order to achieve acceptable levels of visibility I would wish to see the existing hedge cur back as shown on the attached plan. The entrance gate is to be set back 6.0 metres from the edge of the carriageway to allow vehicles to turn completely off the road before opening/ closing the gate. While the achievable visibility will not quite meet the national standards in terms of visibility, it is considered that this is of an overall safety betterment compared with the existing access and existing substandard levels of visibility. On this basis I would not wish to raise an objection. The existing access point is to be stopped up.It is also evident from the submitted plans that the satisfactory turning and parking facilities have been provided as part of this proposal.”Environment Agency:- Raise no objection subject to the imposition of suitable conditions.Southern Water:- Do not wish to comment on this application. Planning Notice:- One letter of objection has been received raising the following points: Loss of woodland Loss of a charming wood house Design bear no relation to the existing building

SUMMARY The detached dwelling lies outside any development boundary as defined within Policy DS3 of the Rother District Local Plan and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site has been subject to a larger scheme submitted under RR/2007/1625/P, which was withdrawn following negotiations. The site was almost totally screened from view from the highway and surrounding countryside by dense, overgrown mature tree, bush, shrub and hedge screens. The applicant has cleared some of the site frontage of natural screening to allow for improved access for machinery and site clearance. These works did not require the submission of a planning application. The site slopes towards the highway. A single storey timber framed and clad building currently occupies the site set close to the highway boundary. The proposal will result in a split-level dwelling being set some 25m from the highway boundary. Local ground levels will be altered to accommodate the design. The ridge height of the façade fronting the highway measures some 8.8m high while the elevation facing the rear of

21

the site measures some 6.4m high. It has not been proposed to use the roof space as habitable accommodation. A restrictive condition is proposed to support this. The view has been taken that a three storey dwelling in this position would not be supported due to the overall increase in floor area and the disparity between the potential floor area of such a structure and the existing. Also, the inclusion within the roof slopes of rooflights and or dormers would detract from the design (as were shown in the withdrawn application for reference RR/2007/1625/P) and lead to an adverse impact on the AONB. The proposed siting will result in the property being positioned more centrally within the site, benefiting both the circulation around the plot and reducing the impact of highway noise. The design includes an area of lawn to the rear of the highway boundary, creating a visibility splay. The Highway Authority do not object to the access proposals.The Town Council have lodged a strong objection to both this and the previous application. They express concern at the design of the proposed dwelling, citing the principle of replacing a small dwelling with a larger property and that the new dwelling would be excessively large for the plot. However, while I share their view that the replacement dwelling would be larger, the design takes account of the topography and proposes an individual design in an area without a strong uniform property style. I am of the opinion the scheme will not be obtrusive within the streetscene and not create demonstrable harm to the rural setting or AONB.The proposal has to be judged against Planning Policy HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan which states as follows:-Policy HG10 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, subject to meeting the criteria at Policy GD1, 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;

In this particular case the existing dwelling is small at 91.4m2 and in relation to the plot size a larger dwelling (261.2m2) is at the upper end of acceptability in policy terms. In consequence conditions are recommended to be imposed to remove permitted development rights and to exclude the formation of further living space within the building other than that shown on the approved plans.The Town Council also commented that they do not wish to see the removal of the hedgerow. I am aware of the Planning Inspectors’ decision of 14 th January 2005 regarding the fencing along the same highway boundary of the adjacent property, the applicant intends to replace the hedgerow but set it back from the highway in order to maintain the required visibility splay as grass while retaining natural screening. I believe any occupier of the site would wish to so improve the access for safety reasons.The proposed dwelling is to be set to the north of the existing dwelling and therefore the applicant will be required to enter into a legal agreement relinquishing the rebuild rights to the property. In light of the above I consider the proposal to be, on balance, acceptable subject to conditions and a legal agreement

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO SECTION 106 OBLIGATION)1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of

three years from the date of this permission.

22

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 existing dwelling on the site shall be removed/demolished within three months of the first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved and all resultant materials shall be removed from the site unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site in accordance with Policies GD1(iv)(v) and HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(j) and S10 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

3. No floodlightling or other external means of illumination of the building shall be provided, installed or operated at the site, except in accordance with a detailed scheme which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. No development shall take place on any part of the site until the [hard/soft] landscaping details within 10m of the highway boundary line have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include existing and proposed vegetation and shall include the planting of a hedge of mixed indigenous species at the rear of the required visibility splay.Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

5. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(j), EN2, EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

6. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of foul and surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the dwelling shall not be occupied until the drainage works to serve the development have been provided in accordance with the approved details and thereafter maintained in that condition. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and to prevent water pollution in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(g) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

7. Before any development takes place full details of the method preventing the approved pea beach final surface materials of the driveway (dwg. no. 207,050,2B) being dragged/washed onto highway, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained in that condition thereafter. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with the requirements of the Director of Transport and Environment of East Sussex in accordance with

23

Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

8. The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the highway works/access shall be completed in accordance with the construction details, form HT401, attached to this permission including the implementation of the visibility splay hatched green on the attached plan. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with the requirements of the Director of Transport and Environment of East Sussex in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011. Note: To give effect to this condition you should contact the Transport and Environment Department of East Sussex County Council at Sidley Depot, Ninfield Road, Bexhill TN39 5AA (Telephone 01424 220022) prior to the commencement of work and enter a Private Works agreement between yourself and the County Council.

9. The visibility splay hatched green on the attached HT407, shall be to be laid to lawn and kept free for any natural or manmade obstructions thereafter. Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with the requirements of the Director of Transport and Environment of East Sussex in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

10. Before the new access is first brought into use the area identified on dwg. no. 2007,050,2A, date stamped 05 July 2007 and hatched green on the attached HT407 document shall be cleared and thereafter kept free of all obstruction at all times thereafter (both natural and manmade). Reason: To ensure that the proposed development and associated works do not restrict visibility or prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the highway and in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(iii)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

11. No habitable accommodation other than that shown on the approved plans shall be formed within the building or roof space. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

12. The vehicular access gate is to be set a minimum of 6m from the back egde of the highway and retained in that position therafter. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development do not restrict visibility or prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the highway and in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(iii)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

13. The gate shall not be installed until full details of its design have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan and thereafter retained in that position. Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

24

14. The space identified for refuse and recyling bins on dwg. no. 2007,050,2B shall be retained as such and not used for any other purpose. It shall be retained in the approved position. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(o) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 and PPS1, paragraph 20.

15. 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 garages, building, structure or erection of any kind (including wall, fences or other means of enclosure) shall be erected and no caravan or mobile home shall be kept or stationed on the land. Countryside Reason: To safeguard the visual character and appearance of the development and locality in accordance with Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

16. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To safeguard the visual character and appearance of the development and locality in accordance with Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

Notes:(i) This decision notice relates to the proposals as shown on the originally

submitted plans and subsequently amended plan, dwg. no. 2007,050,2A date stamped 05 July 2007.

(ii) This permission is the subject of an obligation under Section106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed replacement dwelling is of an appropriate design and size and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policies EN2, EN3, S1(d)(f)(g)(j), S10 and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(x) and HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan.


25


RR/2007/2675/P BATTLE THE BEAUPORT PARK HOTEL, BATTLE ROADEXTEND EXISTING HOTEL TO PROVIDE 18 NEW BEDROOMS AND EXTEND EXISTING BAR AREABannatyne Hotels Group

Statutory 13 week date: 17 December 2007

SITE This application relates to Beauport Park Hotel close to the Hastings Borough boundary. The property is adjoined by the Beauport Park Golf Course, Riding Stables and Bannatyne’s Health and Fitness Centre. The latter is in the same ownership as the hotel.

HISTORYThis property has an extensive planning history but none is considered to have direct relevance to the current proposal.

PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for the construction of an 18 bedroom extension on the south side of the main building. The extension would be 3 storeys high measuring 16.8m by 19m adjoining the oldest surviving part of the original building where a sunken garden currently exists. The addition would occupy the footprint of an earlier building that was destroyed by fire.The intention has been to create an extension that complements the existing building, replicates architectural detailing and produces improved facilities to include disabled compliant bedrooms at ground floor level. A large bar area would be created together with an outdoor area for ancillary bar/dining purposes as well as for wedding functions/photography. Matching external materials are proposed.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- Comments awaited.Hastings Borough Council:- No comments.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- No objection subject to imposition of a drainage condition and a condition relating to any discovery of contamination.County Archaeologist:- Recommends an archaeological condition be imposed.Southern Water:- Comments awaited.Natural England:- No comments but advice given in respect of protected species that may be present.Director of Services - Regeneration and Tourism Officer:- Support proposal.Planning Notice:- Any comments will be reported.

COMMENT The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty albeit spanning the Hastings boundary. The building dates from the late 18 th/early 19th Century but is not listed. The hotel is an established good quality tourist/business hotel that is also regularly used for functions. In addition to Policy GD1 the application needs to be considered in the light of both employment and tourism policies.The submitted details indicate a design that is considered wholly acceptable. Elevationally the architect has been able to achieve the alignment of windows with the existing building and has replicated window detailing and stone quoins. A mansard roof behind a traditional parapet is shown; accommodation is not sought within the roof space.In terms of landscape impact within the AONB the extension is proposed on the Hastings side of the building. The extension is shielded from the AONB to the north

26

and the new Bannatyne’s Health Centre within Hastings lies to the south. I do not believe there is any concern from the landscape point of view.Natural England have made comments regarding the need to safeguard protected species but I have no reason to believe that there is particular risk. The proposal relates to land that is actively maintained as a garden area and no significant trees or structures likely to be used as bat roosts are to be removed. For this reason I do not believe that it is necessary to ask for a specific survey for protected species. The applicants believe that the present parking areas for the hotel and health club are adequate; the existing provision does not appear to be fully utilised at present. I believe the proposal to be acceptable, subject to conditions and is to be welcomed.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A (Standard time limit).2. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or

successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, including a timetable for the investigation, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.Reason: The development is likely to disturb features of archaeological interest, which need to be examined and recorded in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(j) and EN22 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. CD9H (External materials) – Insert a. and b.4. CD6B (Foul and surface water drainage details).5. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be

present at the site, then no further development shall be carried out (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) until the developer has submitted to, and obtained written approval from the local planning authority, details as to how this suspected contamination shall be dealt with.Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and harm to human health in accordance with Policy GD1(xiii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

6. CD4B (Landscaping details) – Insert b. Reason insert a. Policies GD1(v) and S1(f).

7. CD4D (Landscaping – implementation) – Inserts as CD4B above.Notes: ND2 (Original plans an amended plan dated 18/10/07).ND42 (Archaeology)ND45 (Submission of details).

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is considered to be of an appropriate scale, design and siting that respects the character of the area and supports local tourism and employment. The scheme therefore complies with Policies S1, EN2, EN22 and LT1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1 and EM7 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2007/2823/P BATTLE 85-86 HIGH STREET - LAND REAR OFERECTION OF TWO DWELLINGS.Mcintyre Developments Ltd

27



SITE This application relates to a site at the rear of 85-86 High Street currently unused. It lies adjacent to a terrace of three small cottages, the recent redevelopment of a disused workshop/slaughter house type building that also abutted part of the rear of the Abbey Hotel. Access is from the High Street via a narrow pathway. The site lies just within the development boundary for Battle and is within the conservation area and the High Weald AONB. The area is also of archaeological importance.

HISTORYRR/2004/1673/P Rear extension to form access to existing maisonettes and shop

storage. Approved Conditional.RR/2004/1675/L Alterations to shop, alterations to maisonettes, demolition of

chimney, conservation rooflights and erection of extension. Approved Conditional.

RR/2004/1677/H Demolition of redundant workshops and chimney. Approved. RR/2004/1676/P Demolition of redundant workshops and erection of three

dwellings. Approved Conditional.RR/2004/616/L Rebuilding of stonework wall to rear yard. Approved Conditional.RR/2005/32/L Roof top balconies and screening to replace pitched roofs with

access doors and dormer. Approved Conditional.RR/2005/33/P Roof top balconies and screening to replace pitched roofs with

access doors and dormer. Approved Conditional.RR/2007/845/P Erection of three dwellings. Withdrawn.RR/2007/1585/P Retention of terrace, fencing and bin storage area for 3

dwellings, not in accordance with plans approved under permission RR/2004/1676/P. Approved.

PROPOSAL This application for full planning permission proposes the erection of a pair of semi-detached two bedroom dwellings and is a re-submission of that withdrawn earlier this year, RR/2007/845/P. The proposal has been reduced in size, redesigned and re-orientated. The dwellings are of brick with plain clay tile hanging and roof tiles, painted timber joinery and decorative bargeboards to match the theme of the new replacement dwellings to the south. The dwellings have a north/south orientation with garden areas to the rear (north). There are no side windows at first floor level and overlooking to the front is precluded by proposals to increase the height of the adjacent fence. The proposed dwellings would be constructed at a lower ground level with access via a ramp and steps.There is no vehicular access to the site; there is a narrow pedestrian right of way from the High Street and access through the rear of the site to the public footpath. Accompanying documents state that the applicant has a long term lease for two parking spaces to the rear of the High Street in Clements Yard which could be dedicated to the new dwellings.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council: Comments awaited.Environment Agency: Comments awaited.Southern Water: Comments awaited.County Archaeologist: Comments awaited.Highway Authority: Comments awaited.Planning Notice: Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY The previous development for three dwellings approved in 2004, reference RR/2004/1676/P, represented an unusual individually designed scheme for

28

the redevelopment of an irregular shaped ‘backland’ site served by a narrow shared pedestrian access only. The dwellings replaced former workshops/slaughter house buildings and as such did not represent an intrusion into an otherwise undisturbed area of land. Those dwellings in the main abutted the side wall of the Abbey Hotel and were single facing with views to the east only over the rear of Buckley’s Yesterdays World and the side wall of Battle Club.This new application proposes a freestanding pair of dwellings within the rear plot just within the development boundary. The design and layout is such that it should not present problems of overlooking or loss of privacy and the terrace would be set at a lower ground level than the existing dwellings. The applicant considers that the new buildings fall within a building line established between the corners of the Langton Memorial Hall and the Battle Men’s Club. However, the buildings themselves appear visually as an isolated built intrusion into an otherwise undeveloped area, having no relationship with neighbouring properties and protruding beyond the line of development to either side. As such the proposal is considered to be out of character and does not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, when viewed from both within and without. The site is visible from the public footpath to the rear and also to a lesser degree from the surrounding AONB countryside.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. The proposed development, by reason of its isolated location beyond the rear

building line of neighbouring properties, will appear as an incongruous and prominent development out of character with the locality and thereby failing to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Battle Conservation Area. As such the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan, Policy EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Section 72 of the Act.


RR/2007/2540/P BEXHILL 290 COODEN DRIVEFORMATION OF NEW DRIVEWAY TO PROVIDE IN/OUT DRIVESS Kemp


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

SITE This application relates to a detached dwelling on the north side of Cooden Drive approximately 175 metres west from Beaulieu Road.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/96/1851/P Erection of fence and gates to front and side plus fence to rear

(retrospective application) – Refused

PROPOSAL This application is for the formation of a new driveway to provide in and out drives.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- “I recommend that consent be refused for the following reasons:

29


1. The proposed development includes the provision of an additional vehicular access introducing further hazard points on the B2182 Cooden Drive created by the additional slowing, stopping and turning traffic at this point.

The formation of a new access on to the B2182 is not considered to be in the interests of highway safety.Every vehicular access is a potential source of danger given the increase in slowing, stopping and turning traffic that is created. This authority seeks to resist second access unless an overriding need is shown.Also there is an advisory cycle lane along Cooden Drive. The proposed access will add to the potential hazards due to increased conflict between cyclists and vehicles.This additional access is not needed to achieve on site turning as this is already achievable given the large hardstanding area and position of the garage.”Planning Notice:- Three letters of objection received (284 (x 2) and 288 Cooden Drive): Parking along our part of Cooden Drive is already a problem as 286 and 288

do not have off road parking; making an in/out driveway at 290 Cooden Drive will mean there is less parking for these two properties thus having a knock on effect in front of our property

With the new development of Cooden Heights directly opposite, this will inevitably lead to an increase in the amount of vehicular traffic using Cooden Drive in both directions and currently traffic still does not abide by the new 30mph speed limit

There is only one tarmac footpath running on the north side of Cooden Drive from the Cooden Beach Hotel to the old boundary to the east side of the new Cooden Heights. Adding an in/out driveway would add more of a risk for pedestrians

290 Cooden Drive is on the north side and in our opinion any new vehicular access in this vicinity would be extremely hazardous as there are no sight lines visible to the east or west due to parked cars.

Recent accidents have occurred e.g. vehicles mounting the pavement; demolition of a lamp post; and damage to residential property

This will be further impacted by the new development ‘Cooden Heights’ directly opposite. This will inevitably lead to a further increase in the amount of vehicular traffic using Cooden Drive in both directions which even now do not abide by or respect the 30mph speed limit.

If the proposal is granted we and others like ourselves will not be able to park our cars outside our homes which would cause problems. I am registered disabled and have been issued with the relevant blue badge.

There is considerable difference in height between our home and 290 Cooden Drive, the former being around one metre lower, and there is no retaining wall or structural support and I understand that this could cause numerous problems and could lead to damage to our property and also affect the value of our home.

I am informed that the original laying of the brick drive and hardstanding by the previous owner does not have any foundation course. This can be witnessed by the significant subsidence that has occurred. This would not be adequate, I believe, to support frequent traffic movements, particularly as the current owners of 290 Cooden Drive own a 7 seater people carrier and a large transit van

From the west side of 290 Cooden Drive to the east side the garden and block paving is far from level and slopes down considerably towards 288 Cooden Drive. Any vehicle parked with a defective hand brake, or with the hand brake not properly applied, would definitely cause the vehicle to roll into our garden and could cause severe damage and possibly injury.

30

SUMMARY No.290 Cooden Drive is a detached house which presently has a single vehicular access. It is proposed to create a new driveway to provide in and out drives.This application has attracted a recommendation for refusal by the Highway Authority as the proposal would introduce an additional hazard onto Cooden Drive (B2182). I am also mindful of the three letters of objection (two from the same property) in relation to this proposal. The applicant has written in response to the Highway Authority’s objections and the neighbours’ concerns: “Our property is some 50 metres from the end of the corner and the proposed drive a further 15 metres on. This therefore, in our opinion, will not affect the ‘site lines’ up the long straight.We have, at the moment, two vehicles, one of which is a commercial vehicle. At the moment we only ever park one of our vehicles on the drive. This is due, despite the comments of ESCC, of the lack of room to turn them round. Our access to the garage was so tight that some time ago we blocked it off to make it safer for our children and use the garage as a utility room.Due to us working at different times and using different vehicles one of them, normally the van, is parked on the road at all times. As we are a growing family the need for two family cars and the van is not unrealistic.The new building works, Cooden Heights, we agree will increase the amount of vehicles and need for parking within the surrounding area.The main reason for the proposed driveway is to allow us to remove all our vehicles from the road at all times, clearing the ‘site lines’, freeing up the potential two spaces that our vehicles take up and removing them from the cycle path.”The concerns of the Highway Authority and the neighbours are noted. However several previous applications for similar in/out driveways along this stretch of Cooden Drive have been approved, e.g. RR/2005/974/P – 298 Cooden Drive, which was approved on 15 June 2005. In this regard I have requested further comments from the Highway Authority regarding the applicant’s comments. Members will view the site before determining the application.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FULL PLANNING) (FOR FURTHER COMMENTS FROM HIGHWAY AUTHORITY)


31


RR/2007/2586/P BEXHILL HOLLENDEN HOUSE, BUCKHURST ROADDEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF 3 BLOCKS COMPRISING 43 PRIVATE AND 28 AFFORDABLE FLATS, ALTERATION TO EXISTING ACCESS, PROVISION OF PARKING FACILITIES AND ASSOCIATED WORKS.The Park Lane Group



SITE The site lies on the northern side of Buckhurst Road not far from the junction with Upper Sea Road. The site is of an irregular shape having a frontage of about 78 metres to the road. The land is slightly elevated above pavement level and then slopes up to the north. To the west is Rayford Court a block of flats on five floors (though at a lower level than the Hollenden House site) set back from the road. To the east are St Peter and St Paul C of E School, Whitworth House (a residential block of flats) and 33 Buckhurst Road. To the north is the school playing field.Hollenden House itself is a vacant former residential home on three floors.

HISTORYRR/2003/2683/P Change of use, conversion and extension of residential home to

form 24 flats – Granted

PROPOSAL This is a full planning application for the erection of three blocks of flats. The scheme involves: (i) developing two blocks close to the road frontage, three and four storeys; and(ii) a larger more extensive block – up to four storeys – across the rear of the site.In total 71 flats are proposed, 28 of them affordable flats in the front units.Between the blocks is a landscaped area and the levels of the land allow nearly all the parking to be ‘underground’. The only exception being 11 visitor spaces on the western edge of the site.The buildings themselves have flat roofs and are of a contemporary style. The walls will be a light coloured render under dark grey powder coated roofs. Small sections of chestnut timber panels are between the windows and the balcony and other railings will be powder coated galvanised steel. The scheme incorporates a number of sustainable measures.The plan shows associated highway works including new pedestrian crossings on Buckhurst Road, relocation of the bus stop and a widening of the kerb radii at the main entrance. This main entrance will continue to provide shared staff egress for the school that lies behind the site and to the existing car park serving Whitworth House.The application itself is accompanied by comprehensive sections, street scene drawings, a photographic appraisal and axonometric perspectives which give a clear picture of the scheme from most angles.In addition a Transport Planning Statement, an Ecological Survey for Bats, an Ecological Assessment, a Site Waste Identification and Management Statement are all submitted and a Design and Access Statement which is reproduced in the attached APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- No objection in principle subject to conditions, highway works and local contribution in relation to bus services.Environment Agency:- No objection in principle but would require conditions relating to land contamination, ground source heat pumps and surface water drainage.

32

Southern Water:- Currently insufficient capacity in the local foul sewerage network. Condition required in relation to foul sewage disposal.Natural England:- Have no adverse comments. However, if the Council know of, or other representations make reference to, protected species survey work should be undertaken before a final decision is made.Sussex Police:- Comment on the layout as follows:“Firstly, so far as the proposed layout is concerned it is very permeable and although daytime hours will cause few problems at night I fear that there will be a significant threat.On that basis I would suggest pedestrian gates to the route between B1 East and West. Such a barrier would define semi-public space from semi-private space which would deter trespass.As far as vehicular entrance is concerned there will obviously be access control to the two access points to the undercroft parking, however, I would still suggest gates to the main entrance for use ‘out of hours’.I would also suggest that there be no free access to the rear of B2 from either side. These routes should be stopped up with 1.5 metre high wooden palisade fencing/gates.This specification will preserve the ‘natural surveillance’ in both directions and therefore reduce fear of crime.”Further comments are made on the internal requirements.Director of Services – Head of Housing:- Scheme should provide 28 units on site with an ‘in lieu’ contribution towards the 0.4 unit to make up the 40% requirement.ESCC – County Archaeologist:- Site is in an archaeologically sensitive area lying on a south facing slope below the mediaeval and past medieval village of Bexhill. This area could hold evidence of archaeological interest and a condition should be attached to secure a programme of investigation during any development.Planning Notice:- Objections from 21 properties summarised as follows: Duplicated letter of objection from residents of 11 flats in Rayford Court

(adjoining). One resident has also written separately:– Number of flats excessive– Will cause severe traffic congestion on Buckhurst Road which is already

very crowded with school trips and there are other developments recently completed in the area or proposed

– Views from Rayford Court to Beachy Head will be badly affected. Reduction from 4 to 3 storeys should be made

– Oppose loss of grass frontage to site– Plans not in keeping with the area– Loss of light/dwarfing Rayford Court

11 objections from elsewhere:– Conflict with traffic to and from the school– Threat to parents and children from traffic– A number of flats (windows and balconies) closely overlook the school

premises – playing fields and classrooms/against the spirit of child protection legislation

– Danger to children through construction period– No protected walkway down the drive from the school– Pressure on Victorian drainage system– Restoration of existing building would be better– Lower density scheme more appropriate– Loss of further building of architectural merit– Overdevelopment– No protected walkway down the drive from the school

Objection from Chairman of Governors of school:33

– Windows and balconies facing school, playing field and swimming pool (child protection issues)

– Loss of daylight to some rooms– Access to school must be maintained at all times– Electrically operated barriers would better control traffic problems– Suggest pelican crossing– Moving bus stop, as proposed, would be difficult– Clearly defined footpath area would be beneficial– Not convinced by traffic survey results – greater increase in volume of

traffic– Suitable perimeter fencing needed– Disturbance during construction

Comments from ESCC Children’s Services Authority:– Concern about welfare and safety of pupils from proximity of building to

school boundary/screening needed to eliminate or reduce overlooking– Controlled crossing would be beneficial– Restriction on deliveries during school time– Safety during demolition

SUMMARY This is a housing scheme on an existing urban site. The present building already benefits from a permission for its conversion and extension for residential use. In principle, a complete redevelopment of the site is an appropriate alternative way forward.Local Plan Policies DS1, DS2 (Development Strategy), GD1 (General Development considerations) and HG1 (Housing) are particularly applicable to the proposal. Government advice on design in PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and PPS3 (Housing) are relevant.This is a scheme of principally local interest and impact. The main issues relate to the scale and design of the scheme in the street scene and in relation to adjoining properties (both local residents and the school) and highway issues.

Townscape:Buckhurst Road is very mixed in character. While predominantly residential there is a considerable mix of age and size of accommodation. Over many years a more traditional road of Edwardian properties has given way to new blocks of flats. The site itself is flanked by Whitworth House to the west, Rayford Court to the east (both set back from the road frontage), with Hartwood Lodge on the opposite side of the road – all flat schemes of different scales. Further west, McCarthy and Stone have recently completed a sheltered flats scheme. There are two smaller detached houses opposite the site between Hartwood Lodge and The Chintings – which itself now benefits from an outline permission for a flat redevelopment. The application site, however, is by some way the largest site in the area. The present Hollenden House is set back from the street frontage and elevated above it and crudely might be said to be in a rather incongruous position. The proposal seeks to develop both nearer the frontage and at the same time on the rear of the site.In townscape terms – given the mixed character of Buckhurst Road – I do not object to this general form of development. The views up Buckhurst Road (eastwards) will be substantially changed as the built form is brought forward but not to the detriment of the street, per se. Likewise approaching from the east – turning into the road the new buildings forward on the site will change the current situation but not in a negative manner. The horizontal emphasis of the buildings and the changing roof heights add sufficient interest and, in themselves, the heights of the buildings are not out of place in this road.

34

Density: Policies DS1 and DS2 seek to make the best and most efficient use of land through the re-use of previously developed sites and within existing development boundaries. It might be argued that given the size of the site the existing property makes less than efficient use of the land and not just by current day requirements to increase densities. 24 units on this site (the previous permission) would create a density less than half that of the flat sites around.Objections have been raised to this scheme on the grounds of overdevelopment. This alone is not sufficient reason to refuse planning permission but it is instructive to look at the density of other sites in the area.

Approximate densities (dwellings per hectare) –Hollenden House (proposed): 110.6 dphHartwood Lodge: 103.6 dphFulmer Place and April Place: 86 dphCookham Dene: 85 dphRayford Court: 80 dphMcCarthy & Stone sheltered site: 163 dph

While the current scheme seems higher in comparison to most of the other nearby developments it should be remembered that the increased density is facilitated by underground parking, which the other sites do not benefit from. Thus a crude comparison should not be drawn.

Relationship to surrounding properties:Although a higher density scheme or bringing development towards the road are not, in themselves, reasons for rejection, the development should be seen to work in all other respects. In this case relationships with adjoining properties are relevant. How much development that might be accommodated on the site, and in what form, is constrained by the existence of adjoining properties. Few development sites exist in isolation, unconstrained. That said, adjoining occupiers cannot expect no change and – while I acknowledge the long views to Beachy Head from the Rayford Court flats – the wholesale protection of such views is not a reason to oppose this scheme.The Design and Access Statement (Sections 6.1 to 5.3) explains the evolution of the scheme (see attached APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007). From a first suggestion which had a very dominant impact on Rayford Court (see 6.1), it is evident that the design has been modified on this side of the site to lower the ends of the buildings closest to the boundary (3 and 2 storeys on the rear block and 3 storey on the front block). However, given that, the ground level of Rayford Court sits below the application site and the buildings are still located within about 3 metres of the boundary, the development still gives the impression of being pushed to the edges of the site and does not properly respect the existence of Rayford Court and the residents, some of whose windows face the site.On the other side of the site the building has similarly evolved in terms of its position on the western boundary. Here the rear block faces the school and Whitworth House with two and three storey elements and including side balconies on ground, first and second floors close to the boundary. Moreover the block now extends very close to the corner of the school building to be somewhat overbearing when seen from within the school and from the access road between.Also of concern to the school authorities are the facing windows and balconies on the rear elevation of the rearward block of flats. Unlike the initial proposal (see 6.1) the final scheme brings the building to within 3 metres of the playing field boundary with balconies even closer (albeit those on the lower floors are below the playing field level). The main aspect of many rooms will be northwards over the school. In any

35

reasonable development of this site some overlooking will occur – schools historically are never self contained units immune from some intrusion – but it is the close proximity of the buildings which gives serious concern here.I understand the architectural concept of creating a good central open space in this scheme which new residents will look onto and use – and which provides some relief from Rayford Court residents looking “through the site” - but I believe this has been at the expense of surrounding properties as it has brought the development too close to the site boundaries. In this sense, as it stands, the scheme could be considered an over-development of the site.In response to comments from both the school and local residents a letter from the agents dated 19 October 2007 is included in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007. This also refers to highway issues which are addressed next.

Highways:This is a major scheme and it will have an impact on the area. Buckhurst Road is a well used classified road (A269) and while rarely congested for long periods is very busy at school opening and closing times with additional on street parking and a crossing patrol.On site 87 car parking spaces are proposed, 72 of which will be hidden in the undercroft areas below the buildings.The District Council’s requirement would be for 94 spaces (based on one space per flat and one visitor space for every three flats). The County Council would accept a reduced level based on their zonal approach. This approach has not been adopted by this Council, although some flexibility in town locations has been accepted elsewhere and a slight under provision might be accepted, all others being equal.The scheme is accompanied by a Transport Planning Statement which includes suggested improvement measures incorporated in the application. These include two pedestrian crossing points (at the Upper Sea Road junction and opposite the school), access and visibility improvements at the entrance and the relocation of the bus stop eastwards.The Highway Authority note a potential conflict between school children and traffic on the development site via the shared access. This matter has been taken up by the applicant as the school authorities have also raised this matter.The Authority supports the relocation of the bus stop but would also wish to see a shelter provided with seating and information. An increase in zigzag markings may be necessary to improve safety of the school. The provision of cycle parking is welcomed.The traffic impact is accepted and would not be detrimental to the network. The development would justify a LSAIC contribution to improve bus services.While parking and traffic issues are clearly a concern for local residents and the school the package of measures proposed is appropriate for the development.

Other issues:Should the scheme be accepted there are no other insurmountable issues. The drainage authorities have commented on the capacity of the foul sewage system which is currently inadequate, and conflicting statements over surface water disposal in the documentation. However these are matters that can be dealt with by condition. Similarly contaminated land issues and the requirements of the County Archaeologist for a programme of archaeological works are matters for condition.Natural England have looked at the ecological reports and while they raise no objection suggest that a reptile survey be undertaken prior to determination of the application.

36

Conclusion:There is much to commend in this application. In principle it represents a positive use of an existing urban site. It is of an appropriate design, will deliver affordable housing and, using the ground levels, provides a significant level of underground parking.As it stands, however, I remain concerned at the physical extent of the scheme and believe that, with some modification and reductions at critical points near both the east and west boundaries, it can be improved to better respect its neighbours and improve the overall setting of the building on the site.At this stage I suggest that the applicants be invited to consider amending the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (AMENDED PLANS)


RR/2007/2595/P BEXHILL RAVENSIDE RETAIL PARK (UNITS 1, 2A, 2B, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 7B)RE-CLADDING OF EXISTING UNITS AND ERECTION OF A WIND TURBINE.Land Securities Group PLC



SITE Ravenside Retail and Leisure Park lies to the south of De La Warr Road and the west of Hastings Road, and is a prominent feature as you enter Bexhill from Hastings.The site for the proposed re-cladding on the existing units is on the front elevation of units E1-2 and E4-7 (B&Q, PC World, Currys, Next, Boots, Halfords, Comet and Rosebys) The wind turbine will be located on the eastern edge of the retail park, on the landscaped strip adjacent to the A259.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/77/0775 Outline application for new leisure and sports centre – Granted

by ESCC.RR/78/0775 Outline application for new leisure and sports centre – Granted

by ESCC.RR/87/0304 Retail and leisure development including bowling alley swimming

pool and restaurant and parking areas and highway improvements – Approved Conditional.

RR/90/0936/PD Relocation of entrance to unit 5 and insertion of glazed screen – Approved.

RR/93/1887/P Removal of existing manual doors and reglazing & filming over. Windows to be removed and replaced with automatic doors – Approved.

RR/96/2221/P Removal of existing revolving door and installation of new air barrier curtain with sliding door – Approved Conditional.

RR/98/751/P Alterations in connection with subdivision of unit to two separate retail units including new entrance – Approved Conditional.

RR/2000/2798/P Outline: Redevelopment to provide new retail warehouse and A3 unit, with landscaping, new access arrangements and

37


rearrangement of part of existing car park area at Ravenside Retail and Leisure Park – Refused – Appeal Allowed.

RR/2003/3038/P Redevelopment of existing premises to provide new retail warehouse and A3 unit together with landscaping, new access arrangements and rearrangements of part of existing car park area at Ravenside Retail and Leisure Park pursuant to outline consent RR/2000/2798/P – Approved Conditional.

RR/2006/21/A 3 illuminated double sided key tower signs, 2 illuminated welcome signs and 2 delivery signs – Refused.

PROPOSAL This application seeks planning permission for the re-cladding of existing units E1-2, E4-7 and the erection of a wind turbine.

Re-cladding:The units which are to be re-clad are currently occupied by B&Q, PC World, Currys, Next, Boots, Halfords, Comet and Rosebys. The re-cladding involves the front elevation of the upper sections of existing retail units E1-2 and E4-7 with composite panels and new terracotta rainscreen cladding on the existing ground level brick external walls. The existing roof features and canopies of units E1-2 and E4-7 will be demolished and replaced by steel frame signage features on the front elevation of units E1 and E4-7.All units will have new signage on the proposed steel frame features, except units E2A (PC World) and E2B (Currys) existing signage will be retained. (Separate advertisement consent applications will be required for the appearance of the signs).New windows are proposed at the first floor level of the front elevation of units E4-7.In support the agent states, “The proposed work will create uniformity and improve the appearance of Ravenside Retail Park, upgrading the overall imagine and aesthetic quality of the area…..to both shoppers and potential retail occupiers”.

Wind turbine:The wind turbine will have a height of some 14 metres and will be located on the eastern edge of the retail park, on the landscaped strip adjacent to the A259. This location allows the wind turbine to be exposed to the maximum amount of wind generated from the coast and open ground to the east. The wind turbine is a vertical axis QR5 and is designed especially for urban environment. Technical information has been attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007.The agent states in support, “As part of the re-imaging of Ravenside Retail Park, Land Securities want to demonstrate their commitment to sustainability, i.e. to reduce carbon footprint and introduce renewable energy to the site. A wind turbine is considered most suitable than other renewable energy, given that it is more cost effective and the sea side location of the retail park”. In support of the type of wind turbine the agents states, “The QR5 wind turbine produces less noise and vibration than a similarly rated HAWT traditional wind turbine. Test site results shows that the QR5 wind turbine sound level was below the ambient background level at all wind speed between 4 and 10 m/s”.

CONSULTATIONS Highways Agency – Has no objection.Director of Services – Environmental Health – Initial comments asking for additional information with regard to potential noise from the wind turbine.They have been re-consulted with regard to the noise survey – comments are awaited.

38

Planning Notice – 6 letters of objection concerned with the following: Danger of driver distraction Eyesore Noise nuisance Publicity scheme to draw attention to Retail Park Should have a scale model in relation to neighbouring buildings Tenant signage extending above roof eaves level will detract from the overall

appearance of the site and increase the negative visual impact of the site to the nearby residents

Wind turbine will provide less than 1% of the electricity used on the site Will not “demonstrate Rother’s commitment to ‘green issues’ and sustainable

energy” Will more wind turbines appear in the future? Wind turbine in wrong position, more suitable positions within Park1 letter in support: Is an innovative and exciting proposal One of wind turbine’s most appealing features is that it is designed for an

urban environment and to be quiet in operation Visually attractive and an iconic land mark 14 metres certainly higher than any point on the Retail Park but well within

keeping with telephone masts that are situated in Rother Cost of purchase and erection will be recovered in 18 years1 letter of general observation: Video footage is available on the Quietrevolution website which shows the

wind turbine in action1 letter from agent in response to video footage: video footage would not adequately represent the proposed wind turbine and would bear no similarity to noise that would be experienced in the field.

SUMMARY This application has two elements, the first being the wind turbine and the second being the re-cladding of the existing units. For clarification purposes these elements will be discussed independently.

Wind turbine:A key principle of Government advice contained in PPS22: Renewable Energy as stated in paragraph 1(i) Renewable energy developments should be capable of being accommodated throughout England in location where the technology is variable and environmental, economic, and social impacts can be addressed satisfactorily. PPS22 also states in paragraph 1(vi) Small-scale projects can provide a limited but valuable contribution to overall outputs of renewable energy and to meeting energy both locally and nationally. Planning authorities should not therefore reject planning applications simply because the level of output is small.In itself the wind turbine is not unattractive and would be a land mark feature that would not be out of character with its surroundings. Therefore the principle of a wind turbine in this Retail Park is one which I would not wish to object. However, given the prominent position, the height and proximately to the highway, is the location proposed the most appropriate. Further plans and photo montages have been requested to assess the position of the wind turbine in its setting – these are still awaited. If this site is acceptable additional soft and hard landscaping will be required to somewhat soften its appearance.A further important assessment is the potential noise impact on the local residents. A noise survey has been received from the agent, and they conclude, “Based on the findings from SRP’s acoustic report and comments from Stephen Crosher of Quietrevolution Ltd, the noise level of the proposed wind turbine will be below

39

background noise levels during operation and when it is stationary. Thus it is considered that the proposed wind turbine will not result in any loss to residential amenity in the area”. However, comments from the Council’s Environmental Health Department are awaited with regard to the survey.

Re-cladding of units:The proposed removal of existing roof features and canopies are proposed to create uniformity and improve the appearance of the Retail Park. However, it is my opinion that these features give character and distinction to the Retail Park. The roof features break up the continued longitudinal mass of the buildings and the canopies break up the height, giving the illusion of single storey buildings.The proposed re-cladding removes all distinctive features leaving less aesthetically pleasing buildings, which will not enhance the appearance of the locality. This is further deteriorated by the prominent position and size of the repositioned signs. As such the proposal does not meet the objectives of Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.The design concerns have been raised with the agent and they may seek to amend the proposal, however, at the moment I am minded to make the following recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (COMMENTS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH)1. The existing roof features and canopies give the retail units distinction and

character, their removal will result in buildings less aesthetically pleasing which do not enhance the appearance or character of the locality. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2007/2669/P BEXHILL OLIVERS PRINTERS, EASTWOOD ROADREDEVELOPMENT OF SITE WITH 4 BUNGALOWS AND ASSOCIATED ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE ACCOMMODATION AND SUPPORT FOR PEOPLE WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIESOlivers Printers


This application is added to the Committee site inspection list.

SITE This flat site, of about 0.27 hectares, is situated between residential properties in Eastwood Road, Chandler Road and Little Common Road. It is served by a narrow entrance running between 14 and 16 Eastwood Road. The site is currently occupied by a warehouse with office accommodation above covering a significant proportion of the site. This is now vacant having last been occupied by Olivers Printers.

HISTORY (recent)RR/77/2068 Demolition of stores and erection of warehouse and office,

accommodation, showroom and parking – GrantedRR/90/1742/P Extension to loading bay (for Gardeners Books) – Granted

40


RR/95/744/P Change of use from warehouse Class B8 to Class B1 business use – Granted

RR/96/1891/P Variation of operating hours to 7am – 9.30pm weekdays and 7am – 1pm Saturdays – Granted (temporary)

RR/2006/2609/P Redevelopment of site to provide specialist residential accommodation for people in need of care – Withdrawn

PROPOSAL This is a full application to develop the site with four bungalow units and an administration building to provide both accommodation and support for up to 12 residents with learning difficulties. The Design and Access Statement is included in the attached APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007. Members’ attention is drawn to the description of the use and the limitations of the site for industrial purposes. Also in the APPENDIX DOCUMENT are the applicant’s responses to neighbour objections and comments and to objections on the type of care raised by the Head of Housing and Social Services. The buildings are all of a low profile with no windows in the roof areas. They are set around a central courtyard and include parking for 24 vehicles on the southern part of the site.The four residential units contain conventional residential accommodation: two are 2 bedroom units and 2 are 4 bedroom units. Each unit also includes a small office area for staff. The administrative block includes a staffroom, office, meeting room, laundry and store.The scheme may involve the removal of a number of tall ash trees.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- No objection in principle.Environment Agency:- No objection subject to conditions relating to foul and surface waters and contamination issues.Southern Water:- To be reported.Sussex Police:- Do not wish to make specific comments.East Sussex County Council – Social Services:- Developer has not engaged ESCC Adult Social Care about its commissioning requirements. The developer has always expressed his intention to develop high cost residential care which is not in accordance with the Joint LD Commissioning Strategy. Unsure about model of care provided; likely to be occupied by out of county placements increasing pressure on local health and social care resources; Bexhill is already well supplied with accommodation that meets needs of local population.Director of Services – Head of Housing:- "Accommodation for people with learning difficulties has been highlighted as a priority within the Council’s current and draft revised Housing Strategy. Current provision of accommodation for people with learning disabilities, and range of housing options available to them has been characterised by a historical over-reliance on residential care options. The Council’s Strategic Housing section have been working with East Sussex County Council to develop a range of community based housing and support options for people with learning difficulties. Demand for all types of supported accommodation for adults with learning disabilities is anticipated to increase over the next three years. This is due in part to the changing expectations of young adults coming through transition who aspire to greater independence and adults with aging carers requiring support.East Sussex County Council Adult Social Care Team (Learning Disabilities) have developed a specification for this type of supported housing. A development which is far removed from the specification is unlikely to receive revenue funding, which would be required to provide the support element of such a development.

41

Notwithstanding the Strategic Housing Services support for a scheme specifically to meet the needs of people with learning disabilities, it is clear that the proposed development does not meet the specification required for such a scheme. The proposed development sets out residential care which is unlikely to represent value for money and is therefore not in accordance with the commissioning requirements of East Sussex County Council Adult Social Care. For this reason it is unlikely to receive the revenue funding required for such a development, or indeed Capital funding through the Housing Corporation. In such a case, the development will not be managed by a Housing Association and will not provide for any affordable housing. Such a development will place increased pressure on local health and social care resources, as nomination agreements and assessment processes will not be in place and will possibly be subject to ‘out of County’ placements."Director of Services – Environmental Health:- Requirement for contaminated land condition.Planning Notice:- One holding objection (Eastwood Road) until full details known, but would fully support bungalows in contrast to previous scheme – Access too narrow/emergency vehicles No separate pedestrian access Parking appears excessive, especially in this position – noise and disturbance Trees to be removed Need for trees between parking and residents Noise and intrusion over 24 hours Inconvenience through construction period Overdevelopment Too much traffic in the area already Need more clarification on wording of ‘disability’ No objection to development in principle, but must be the right developmentOne objection (Eastwood Road) – Loss of mature trees would adversely affect wildlife and result in loss of

security and barrier to absorb noise from car park.One letter of concern (Chandler Road) –“This is a much better proposal that the one last year but my concern over the height remains. I do not wish to have my privacy intruded upon.I note that the height will now be a little under 5 metres but there does not appear to be any mention of a boundary wall or fence.Before I can support this proposal, I would like a guarantee that my property will in no way be overlooked. (Please do not simply draw a line from the back of the development to my kitchen door.”One letter of support (Little Common Road) –“I wholeheartedly support this proposal in principle, but would like to know more on the boundary at the back of my house, if this alleyway could be tarmaced or paved during construction of the bungalows giving us proper access to the rear of our houses then you would gain more support from my neighbours with children giving us access for their bikes (we currently have to carry them through the houses to the rear garden sheds).Would there be any spaces for our cars to the rear?”

SUMMARY Members may recall a scheme last year for a proposed redevelopment of the site to provide a substantial one, two and predominantly three storey block of 29 specialist care units for the elderly. At the time the apartments were described as not being a registered care home but providing opportunities for more care for residents than would be expected in sheltered accommodation. Committee resolved to refuse permission on the basis that the loss of employment use on the site had not been justified, that the proposal was excessive in size, scale and bulk and would

42

adversely affect the amenities of local residents by reason of overlooking and loss of privacy, and that the scheme provided no affordable housing. That application was finally withdrawn prior to the final decision being issued.This scheme is of a greatly different scale providing a very low profile scheme in relation to the houses around, and of a much smaller scale than the industrial buildings to be removed. The application is to be considered against policies EM2 and GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

Policy EM2: The previous application contained limited information on the previous employment use of the site. On this occasion the Design and Access Statement gives further information and argues that the restrictions on working hours, imposed by the Council previously, and the limitations of the access in particular make this a difficult site both to utilise and market. It has now been vacant for around two years.Policy EM2 recognises that there are cases where, for the benefit of local residents, perpetuating employment use may not be desirable. Also, where this occurs, first consideration will be given to a mixed use development.In this current case, while straight employment use, in a full commercial sense, is not proposed, the scheme suggested provides both opportunities for the training of residents and creates local employment, due to the high level of care involved.The residents – up to 12 at any one time – will have one-to-one care during the day (on two shifts) and one carer per unit in the night time.

Considerations of Policy GD1: If the loss of the employment use is accepted, the principal issue relates to the impact on the surrounding residents. At present the houses in Little Common Road and those in the northern part of Eastwood Road, are faced with a large industrial building which will be removed and replaced by lower scale bungalows. The site will be opened up as a result to the potential benefit of residents’ outlook. This will also apply to some properties at the northern end of Chandler Road. The low level bungalows will have a limited effect on the outlook of other residents.Nos. 16-26 Eastwood Road are potentially most directly affected. Visually they too would benefit from the removal of the factory but the main areas of activity – particularly vehicular – will be to the rear of their gardens. This is however currently the factory car park and nos. 16-24 have a brick wall separating residents from the site which there is no need to remove. I do think the scheme is overprovided with parking and if permission is granted I would suggest reducing parking and increasing landscaping. I would also wish to consider how many of the existing trees overall might be retained on the site with the development.

Highway and access issues: The site is served by a long narrow tarmaced (but single track) access road between 14 and 16 Eastwood Road. It is this restricted access (as well as the location surrounded by houses) which has limited the industrial use of the site and its attractiveness. The narrow access is one reason for the hours of use restriction placed on the employment activity.There is no scope to widen the access whatsoever. The issue is whether the proposed use might be better, in the sense of generating less industrial traffic or the potential for disturbance. The issue is one of balance. If it is accepted the use will be akin to a residential use and open 24 hours but with some extra activity by carers going to and from the site. Daytime activity could be potentially less than an industrial use, evening use would be greater but in reality night time use would be extremely low.The Highway Authority raise no objection in principle.

43

The housing use: The scheme is a supported housing scheme but is not dependent on local or County Council support. It has been based on a development concept already working in the Midlands. The agents comment that, “there may be local issues which may have an effect on the management and delivery of the services intended but the principles of the development in the built environment should be able to accommodate any changes without materially altering the scheme for which planning permission is sought.”The Head of Housing’s advice, and that of the County Council, set out above, is that this scheme would not meet the County Council’s requirements. As a result if it is pursued without local authority support it could involve placements from elsewhere and increase pressure on local health and social care resources. This matter has been pursued further with the applicants and a response is set out in the attached APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007. From the planning point of view, the Council is concerned firstly with the use of the land. In itself this is not an unsuitable site for the use proposed and whether 12 residents alone potentially impacting on other services, if it is not supported locally, is grounds for refusing permission would be a difficult argument to sustain.I do, however, consider that if permission is granted it ought to be subject to a condition limiting the use. I believe this would meet the test for conditions of Circular 11/95.

Conclusion: I believe this scheme has merit. Physically it is of a low scale and the buildings would be less intrusive than those existing. In terms of general activity it could be less disturbing than a full employment use, but it would provide an employment element. It would see the site used 24 hours a day but in terms of making best use of an urban site the scale and type of activity suggested does not seem inappropriate.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CD1A (Time limit for commencement)2. Development shall not commence until a scheme for on site car parking has

been submitted to and approved in writing with the local planning authority which shall incorporate appropriate landscaping and barrier treatment to the boundaries with 16-26 Eastwood Road (pursuant to Conditions 3 and 4) and in this respect the parking layout shown on Drawing 1918:115 is not approved.Reason: To provide an appropriate level of on site parking to serve the development compatible with the need to limit the direct impact of cars and disturbance on the adjoining residents in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. No development shall take place until the hard landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out only as approved. These details shall include: a. all new means of enclosureb all hard surfacing materialsc. minor artefacts and structures (eg. refuse or other storage units, signs,

lighting etc.)Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. No development shall take place on site nor any demolition works take place until the soft landscaping details for the whole site have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, which shall include:

44

a. indications of all existing trees on the land including details of those to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development

b. planting plansc. written specifications (including cultivation and other operations

associated with plant and grass establishment)d. schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed

numbers/densities where appropriatee. implementation programme Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development in accordance with Policy GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

5. CD4D (Landscape works implementation).6. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in

the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings 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 takes account of the character and appearance of the locality in accordance with Policies GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

7. CD6B (Drainage). Insert: foul and surface water.8. CD7T (Bin/recycling enclosures). Insert: occupation of the buildings.9. Other than as may be agreed pursuant to Condition 3 no external lighting shall

be provided on the site without a further planning permission.Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining residents in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as subsequently amended) or in any statutory instrument revoking, re-enacting or amending that Order, the development hereby permitted shall be used only as specified in the application and shall be occupied only by adults with learning difficulties and by no more than 12 such persons at any one time.Reason: The scheme as proposed has been considered on its specific merits and is considered appropriate for the site having regard to Policy GD1(ii)(iii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan. The local planning authority would need to specifically assess any alternative care or residential use based on its particular characteristics.

11. CD12G (Contaminated land).

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposal makes a positive re-use of an industrial site which has been vacant for about two years. Although the scheme involves losing industrial premises the use proposed includes an element of employment. Given the constraints of the site – in terms of its narrow access and being surrounded by residential properties – for full scale commercial use, the intended residential use is considered acceptable having regard to Policies EM2 and GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2007/2837/P BEXHILL 16 & 18 PEBSHAM LANEDEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS. REDEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE 8 DWELLINGS INCLUDING FORMATION OF

45


NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS, CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ROAD AND ASSOCIATED PARKING.Cliveden Properties PLC



SITE The application concerns the sites of two bungalows on the south side of Pebsham Lane opposite Milland Close. The site extends to 0.35 hectares having a frontage of 44 metres to Pebsham Lane. The largely flat sites are bordered by three houses to the west, bungalows in Pebsham Lane and Rowan Gardens to the east and by the grounds of Nazareth House to the south.

HISTORYRR/2006/139/P Erection of detached dwelling with garage on land rear of 18

Pebsham Lane – RefusedRR/2006/3453/P Demolition of existing buildings. Erection of 10 houses and 1

bungalow with garages and formation of new access – Refused – Appeal Dismissed (copy of the decision letter is included in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007)

PROPOSAL The proposal is for a mixed development comprising: Two detached houses (four bedroom) One chalet bungalow (three bedroom) Two bungalows (one three bedroom, one two bedroom) Three terraced houses (four bedroom)A cul-de-sac is proposed with the three terraced houses and two bungalows positioned to the rear of the site and the remaining properties towards the front of the site. All of the properties will be served from the cul-de-sac. All of the dwellings have on-site garages and parking spaces. All of the dwellings are of a conventional design although the height of the houses is lessened by the provision of part of the first floor within the roof spaces.The application is accompanied by a detailed Design and Access Statement. Pages 13-19 of this Statement describing the scheme (from the applicant’s point of view) are included in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- To be reported.Environment Agency:- No objections subject to conditions relating to surface water.Southern Water:- To be reported.South East Water:- To be reported.Sussex Police:- To be reported.Planning Notice: 6 letters of objection (summarised):- traffic congestion already- increased traffic hazards at access- development for greed- loss of perfectly good bungalows- invasion of privacy to adjoining residents.

SUMMARY This application has been submitted following the recent appeal decision on a 2006 application for 11 dwellings on the same site.

46

Although that appeal was dismissed the decision notice (see APPENDIX DOCUMENT) makes it clear that redevelopment of the two existing plots is not ruled out in principle.The key areas of objection previously are set out in paragraphs 4 and 5 and related to the oppressive and overbearing relationship of the scheme (previous Plot 10 in particular) to 15 Rowan Gardens, and the concentration of parking activity in the centre of the site in relation to the “relatively modest but tranquil neighbouring gardens to the east and west of the site.” In dismissing the appeal the Inspector did not feel that the correct balance had been achieved between making the most efficient use of the site for residential purposes and protecting the quality of the environment for local residents.Previously I had not seen this site as an obvious one for redevelopment but the two bungalows occupy substantially larger plots than any others in the immediate area and the Planning Inspector has clearly accepted the principle of redevelopment.

Changes from the previous scheme:The current application addresses the earlier decision by:- Reducing the overall number of dwellings from 11 to 8 Removing altogether (as a result) the need for communal parking areas; and Siting bungalows in the two rear corners of the site adjoining 14 Pebsham

Lane to the west and 15 Rowan Gardens to the east instead of extending houses to the very limits of the site as before.

The Inspector accepted the three frontage dwellings previously (which remain unchanged) stating that, “The imaginative design for the frontage dwellings in this proposal satisfactorily addresses the transition in the built form along this part of the street scene.”

Policy GD1:The proposal remains to be judged principally against Policy GD1 of the Local Plan. However, the Inspector’s acceptance of redevelopment in principle now being a material consideration, the issue comes down to the effect on the amenities of adjoining residents of the revised scheme for 5 rather than 8 dwellings (and two of these now bungalows) at the rear of the site.I would not wish to minimise the impact on surrounding residents but I believe the introduction of conventional single storey bungalows at either end of the ‘terrace’ and next to the local residents, is a noticeable improvement. Two storey houses remain in the centre of the site (to the rear) but they are now, on both sides, nearly 17 metres from the boundaries of the nearest properties facing. In addition they will face a long terrace of houses accepted by the Council on the Nazareth House site to the rear. The elimination of the central communal car parking areas from the previous scheme is also a significant change. The lower density now proposed allows each property to have adequate parking within its own curtilage.

Highways:On the previous occasion many residents objected to increased traffic on Pebsham Lane and particularly to peak time congestion onto Wrestwood Road. While the Highway Authority raised no objections on traffic grounds they did object to the additional accesses onto Pebsham Lane. At appeal an amended plan showing all vehicular accesses from the cul-de-sac was tabled and accepted by the Highway Authority and the Inspector. This arrangement is repeated in the current scheme. The final highway comments on this application are awaited.

Conclusion:

47

The Council previously sought to resist a more intensive development on this site but although the appeal was dismissed the argument relating to the principle of redevelopment of the site was not accepted by the Inspector.I have to concede that the latest scheme would seem to address the Inspector’s objections and on this basis I am now minded to accept the scheme. I believe however that in order to maintain the lesser impact of this scheme it would be appropriate to withdraw ‘permitted development rights’ on a number of aspects including an extension of the bungalows to the rear of the site and any new windows on all dwellings. Members will view the site before determining the application.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. CD1A (Time limit for commencement)2. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in

the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings 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 preserve and enhance the amenities of the area in accordance with Policies GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design, height, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the building to which the provision relates is occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development and safeguard the amenities of adjoining residents 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 development shall take place on any part of the site until the soft landscaping details [for that part of the site] have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, which shall include:a. indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land including

details of those to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development.

b. planting plans;c. written specifications (including cultivation and other operations

associated with plant and grass establishment)d. schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed

numbers/densities where appropriatee. implementation programmeReason: To enhance the appearance of the development in accordance with Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

5. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the local planning authority. Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development in accordance with Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

48

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

7. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through trapped gullies to BS 5911:1982 with an overall capacity compatible with the site being drained details of which shall be first submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 (g) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or other openings (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be inserted into the elevations or roof slopes of the dwellings hereby permitted.Reason: The development has close relationships with the surrounding properties and have been designed to safeguard the amenities of adjoining residents. Any changes to the approved scheme should be carefully assessed to preclude overlooking and thereby protect the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

9. 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 extension or other alteration to the bungalows hereby permitted on Plots 3 and 7 shall be erected without the grant of a further planning permission.Reason: These bungalows are to be built close to the boundaries with adjoining properties and any extension beyond the approved buildings should be carefully assessed in the interests of the amenities of adjoining residents in accordance with Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

10. Any highway conditions as may be required by the Highway Authority. REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposal is a revised scheme following the rejection on appeal of a greater scheme on the same site for 10 houses and 1 bungalow. The scheme has addressed the concerns of the appeal Inspector, set out at paragraphs 4-6 of the decision letter, and in this reduced form is of an appropriate scale having regard to Policies DS1 and GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan, Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and the guidance of PPS3: Housing.


49


RR/2007/1976/P BECKLEY HOPE COTTAGE, HOBBS LANECONVERSION OF EXISTING FARM BUILDING INTO TWO HOLIDAY LETS Mr and Mrs Reiss


SITE This former ‘hop pickers hut’ is within the curtilage of Hope Cottage, which occupies a remote countryside location off the west side of Hobbs Lane and behind Hope Farm. The site falls within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYNone.

PROPOSAL The existing building has brick elevations and corrugated tin roof. It is proposed to divide the building internally to create 2 one-bedroomed holiday let units. The existing windows and door in the north elevation would be removed and replaced with six high cilled obscure glazed windows. Four new windows and two new doors would be inserted into the currently blank rendered south elevation. The up-and-over garage door in the western end would be removed and replaced with a high cilled window. The large window in the east elevation would be similarly removed and replaced. The two existing loading doors in the gable ends would be weatherboarded over. The roofed would be recovered using plain clay tiles to match the house. Access would remain as existing via the north side of Hope Farm. Two parking spaces would be provided.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support a refusal – conflicts with Policy HG10(ii) – conversion of buildings in the countryside and HG11(i) – re-use of a building that made a valuable contribution to the rural scene. An accompanying letter from the Chairman adds that use as a ‘hop pickers hut’ ceased a long time ago and established use of this building is in fact a garage.Highway Authority:- Recommend a condition requiring the provision of on-site parking.Environment Agency:- Has no objection subject to a contaminated land condition and offers advice in regard to surface water drainage; biodiversity; storage of fuel, oils and chemicals and water conservation.Southern Water:- Do not wish to comment on this application.Director of Services - Building Control Manager:- Has no adverse comments in respect of the structural aspects of the proposals.Planning Notice:- No comments received.

SUMMARY The main issues in this case relate to the principle of re-using and adapting this building for holiday let purposes and the details of conversion themselves and impact upon the landscape and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Relevant Policies are GD1(iv)(v) and EM3(i)(ii)(iii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.Policy EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan supports the re-use and adaptation of buildings in the countryside for employment purposes, including tourism provided several criteria are met. The building is of permanent and substantial construction and therefore complies with criteria (i). The structural survey submitted with the application indicates that the building is capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction and therefore complies with criteria (ii). Whilst the form, bulk and general design of the building is unremarkable, it is not out of keeping with its

50

surroundings and therefore complies with criteria (iii). Criteria (iv) states that the proposal should not detract from the character of the building or its setting. The details of conversion do not make use of existing openings and would result in a very residential rather than agricultural appearance. Indeed the only two significant agricultural references (i.e. loading doors in the gable ends) would be covered over with weatherboard. As submitted therefore, it would not in my opinion comply with that criterion. However, in view of the fact that applicants are normally asked to enter into a Section 106 Obligation before planning permission for holiday lets is granted, there would be time to negotiate amended plans for a more sympathetic detailed scheme of conversion. I therefore make the following

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (S106 OBLIGATION/AMENDED PLANS)1. CD1A (Time limit).2. The holiday let units shall be occupied for holiday purposes only and shall not

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

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

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

5. CD3K (Parking provision). Amended “The holiday let units hereby approved shall not be occupied”; drawing no AR/1 date stamped 4/9/07. Insert a. x 2.

6. CD12G (Contaminated land).7. CD1211 (Contaminated land). N12A Section 106 Obligation to reinforce conditions 2), 3) and 4) above.ND1 (Amended plans).Note 3: The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of the Environment Agency and contained in their letter dated 10 September 2007.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is an appropriate alternative re-use of an existing building in the countryside and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policies S1(b)(d), S11(b), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(ii)(iii)(iv)(v) and EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan.


51


RR/2007/2829/P PEASMARSH PELSHAM ESTATE – LAND ATERECTION OF AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS FOR HOUSING AND FEEDING BEEF ANIMALSThe Pelsham Estate


SITE Pelsham Farm complex is remotely located in countryside south of the village of Peasmarsh and within the High Weald AONB. Access is obtained via Tillingham Lane which is mainly surfaced as far as the farm but unmade where it continues beyond to Tillingham Farm.

HISTORYRR/2006/1881/P Erection of beef units for housing and feeding animals – Refused

PROPOSAL This proposal is an amendment of previous application RR/2006/1881/P which was refused on grounds of adverse impact upon the landscape and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site and buildings proposed are the same and would occupy a new ‘greenfield’ location south east of the existing farm complex and accessed from the unmade part of Tillingham Lane. Three buildings would be erected, two measuring 21m x 30m and one measuring 10.6m x 30m. These would all be 3.3m in height to the eaves with shallow 10 degree pitched roofs. The elevations would be clad using mid-brown coloured timber boarding and the roof with grey coloured fibre cement roof sheets. However, whereas the building previously proposed to be erected would have been at existing ground level, it is now proposed to lower the ground level by between 0.4m and 1.7m in order to reduce their visual impact. Additional hedge and tree planting is also now proposed along the north west and south west field boundaries as well as the south east boundary. In addition to the Design and Access Statement, the application is supported by a letter dated 2 October 2007, a copy of which is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- No objection subject to imposition of conditions.Southern Water Services:- Do not wish to comment on this application.Rural Estates Surveyor:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Comments awaited.

SUMMARY Members visited the site before refusing the previous application. At that time Members also visited the existing farm complex and were of the opinion that there was scope to locate the proposed buildings adjacent to the existing buildings. The applicants have considered this option and their agent has submitted a detailed letter dated 28 September 2007 and plans, copies of which are contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007. These explain that construction of these buildings within the confines of the existing complex is impractical because of their close proximity to and adverse impact upon 5 dwellings; the inability to construct the buildings with a ridgeline running north-south and thereby provide the most healthy, well ventilated conditions; the importation of a great amount of hard-fill material in order to achieve a level floor; that dirty water run-off from raised level could cause problems and that any future expansion would

52

create even more problems. The following summary has been extracted from their letter:“Summary – From our meetings with you on site we believe we have demonstrated that, apart from the site considered here, the only other option available is the original application site. For the reasons given above we consider that the Pelsham Farm site is completely untenable, and we therefore hope that the original site can be reconsidered. Our Clients would be pleased to work with you and your Conservation/Landscape Officer to find methods of reducing the visual impact of the buildings and we are sure that we can achieve an end-result that will not be detrimental to the AONB.”Meetings have been held on site with a view to identifying an alternative site to that originally proposed. However, a nearby alternative ‘greenfield’ site offered no real advantage from a landscape impact point of view and was operationally less advantageous. I am mindful of Government Advice contained in PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas advising that local planning policies should support development proposals that would enable farming and farmers to, among other things, become more competitive, sustainable, environmentally friendly and broaden their operations to ‘add value’ to their primary produce. However my view remains that this proposed site would have an unacceptable impact on the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and whilst further landscape measures are proposed they do not outweigh the harm to the landscape.In his comments upon the previous application, the Rural Estates Surveyor was of the opinion that the proposed buildings were reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit. As this application is, from an operational point of view, the same I would not expect him to arrive at a different opinion. Any comments received, together with those from other outstanding consultees, will be reported at the meeting. Notwithstanding, for the reasons given above the application is not supported.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where

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 indicate that development will be carefully controlled to protect the character of the area. This is consistent with Government planning policy set out in PPS7 which states that in nationally designated areas, the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should be given great weight in planning policies and development control decisions (para 2.1). In addition, within such areas, in accordance with Sections 5, 11 and 88 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty is the prime objective. Notwithstanding proposed lowering of ground levels and additional hedge/tree screen planting, it is considered that the proposal does not meet this criteria and it would have a harmful effect on the rural character of the area.


RR/2007/2398/P RYE FOREIGN THANETS FARMHOUSE, IDEN ROADFORMATION OF ALTERNATIVE ACCESS TO THANETS FARMHOUSE AND RE-SITING OF GARAGE APPROVED UNDER PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2006/1806/PMr P Osborne

53



Following Members’ inspection of the site, this application was deferred at the last meeting for further information.

SITE This detached property occupies the wedged shaped area of land between the junction of the A286 and B2082 near the Peace and Plenty Public House. The property falls just inside the boundary of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYRR/2006/645/P Formation of new vehicular access and stopping up existing –

ApprovedRR/2006/1806/P Erection of two timber framed garages – ApprovedRR/2007/198/P Variation of condition 7 imposed upon planning permission

RR/2006/645/P so as to retain the existing access to Thanets – Withdrawn

RR/2007/1334/P CofU of land to enlarge residential curtilage and erection of private domestic stabling, workshops and implement stores – Approved

PROPOSAL The proposed new 4.5m wide access would be formed by removing part of the hedge between two mature oak trees fronting Iden Road and approx 20m north of the road junction. This would be an alternative to the new access created further to the north and approved under RR/2006/645/P. The design and access statement submitted with the application describes its construction as follows:-“Construction of the verge crossing will be to standard ESCC design and will be finished in tarmacadam with granite sett edgings to the carriageway and the 2.00 metre radii each side.The access will slope upwards with existing contours away from the edge of the carriageway to the top of a small bank at the site boundary, approximately 275mm above the carriageway.This then drops down again inside the site to a general level 200mm lower. This area will be raised to the level of the bank so that the bank is not cut away save for the construction depth of the access thereby preserving the roots of the oak trees which the owner is keen to retain. The driveway inside the site will be of gravel.There are no overhanging low branches which need to be pruned.”The existing access on the junction serving the dwelling would be stopped up. This was also a requirement of condition no. 3 of planning permission RR/2006/645/P for the new access that has been constructed to the north, and which would be retained in connection with the agricultural building recently erected under Farm Notice RR/2006/2419/FA.The application also seeks permission to relocate the remaining of one of the two timber framed garages granted planning permission under RR/2006/645/P. This would be sited beneath the canopy of a mature oak tree and adjacent to the recently erected stable building. The type of foundation would be a 200mm thick concrete slab at existing ground level, as previously approved.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Approved.Highway Authority:- Recommend conditions commenting that:- “This application proposes the formation of an alternative access point to Thanet’s Farmhouse. It is evident from the site history that a similar application was granted to allow access

54

from the north east of the site. It is understood however that the existing two access points would be closed off either internally or externally.The existing access to the south of the site is to be closed off externally and the verge/footway is to be reinstated as stated in Condition 3. The other access, I would wish to see this closed off internally. The only use for this access should be agricultural use associated with the recently erected storage barn.This would result in one single access point for the farmhouse which is of an overall betterment than the original access point.”Planning Notice:- Rye Conservation Society – Object. Proposed access is still in unsafe location. Existing access should be closed and approved location used.

SUMMARY The main issues in this case relate to highway safety, impact upon the existing mature oak trees, which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order, hedge line and upon the landscape and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Relevant Policies are GD1(iii)(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(b)(d)(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.With regard to highway safety, the Highway Authority is of the opinion that, provided the existing access is stopped up and the new access to the north is not used to serve the dwelling, there would be an overall betterment over the original access point. I have asked the Highway Authority to explain the reasoning behind their support for the new access and a copy of their reply dated 23 October 2007 is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007.With regard to the impact upon the existing mature oak trees, I am concerned that the access and garage will cross and encroach upon the root protection areas of existing mature oak trees. For instance, the access will cross the root protection areas of both protected oak trees each side. These root protection areas are already restricted by the road to the east and driveway to the west. As the trees are not situated on more open ground I take the view that this is unacceptable. The proposed re-siting of the second garage within the root protection area of the oak tree would, in my opinion, be unacceptable. Furthermore, the potential loss of these large oak trees would, in my opinion, be detrimental to the character and appearance of the landscape and High Weald AONB. The applicant has explained the reason behind the application and a copy letter dated 22 October 2007 from his agent A&M is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007. The letter also requests that, if Members are minded to approve the principle of an access in the new position, the application be deferred pending the submission of a tree report. Planning permission RR/2007/645/P was granted after much consideration to provide a new access for the house to enable the closure of the existing access at the road junction. That permission involved considerable alteration to the hedge line to the north of this point in more open countryside, and I do not favour a further incursion into the tree and hedge line to create yet another access. Any decision should be made on the basis of a full arboricultural report.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FOR ARBORICULTURAL REPORT)


RR/2007/2257/P HURST GREEN BELLHURST FARM, FYSIE LANEDEMOLITION OF OAST HOUSE AND 11 FARM BUILDINGS. ERECTION OF DWELLING IN THE STYLE OF CONVERTED

55


OAST, CONSTRUCTION OF REPLACEMENT AGRICULTURAL HAYBARN AND GRANARY, CONVERSION OF CART SHED FOR USE AS A GARAGE AND NEW LANDSCAPINGMr and Mrs I Richardson


This application was deferred at your last meeting for negotiations on an amended plan regarding the size and design of the replacement oasthouse.

SITE Bellhurst Farm is a holding of 227 hectares of predominantly pasture and woodland to the west of Hurst Green, which is accessed off Fysie Lane. There is a second access via a single track from Pashley Road. The track is also a public footpath. The site is within the designated High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/76/0008 O/A Agricultural dwelling - Approved ConditionalRR/76/2184 Agricultural dwelling - Approved ConditionalRR/98/1137/O Lawful occupation of 1st floor flat in non-compliance of

agricultural occupancy condition (The Oast) - Lawful Development Certificate Approved

RR/2002/2166/O Proposed use of oast to form 3 holiday units and agricultural/caretakers accommodation - Lawful Development Certificate Approved

RR/2005/1145/P C/U and conversion of ground floor of oast to residential and of scrubland to associated residential curtilage. Change of use of chart shed to triple garage - Approved Conditional

RR/2005/2192/P Removal of agricultural occupancy condition imposed upon Bellhurst Farmhouse – Withdrawn

RR/2006/1590/P Demolition of redundant agricultural buildings. Erection of replacement two storey detached dwelling for approved Oasthouse dwelling. Use of cart shed to provide garage and construction of driveway - Withdrawn

PROPOSAL This application proposes the demolition of redundant farm buildings including the oasthouse, which has planning permission for full conversion (RR/2005/1145/P), and the erection of a new dwelling house. The new dwelling seeks to replicate the style of a converted three-roundel oasthouse. Also proposed is the construction of a new agricultural hay barn and granary, the conversion of a cart shed for use as garaging and new landscaping, including planting. Supporting information, including the Access and Design Statement, a Supporting Planning Statement, a Landscape and Visual Impact Statement, together with other wildlife and ecology information can be viewed on the application website.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support a refusal – “Real concerns about replacing an old original rural building with a ‘new’ copy. Creates a dangerous precedent. Over development. Disturbance to wildlife with such extensive works and demolition. Unanimously opposed – should restore existing oasts and buildings.”Highway Authority:- Any comments will be reported.

56

Environment Agency:- No objection. Advises that previous uses may have left contamination and therefore recommend investigation. Advice is also given in respect of foul water disposal, watercourses and biodiversity.Southern Water Services:- Does not wish to comment.Rural Estates Surveyor:- This concludes that there would be no agricultural justification for the dwelling. Members are advised, however, that the new dwelling is not being sought on these grounds. Further advice is being requested from the Rural Estates Surveyor on whether the proposed new buildings (hay barn and granary) are justified with respect to the agricultural needs of the holding.Natural England:- No objection in principle.Planning Notice:- A letter of support has been received from the occupier of London Barn Farmhouse (summarised) – The plans are an admirable attempt to create something which fits in with the

traditional rural architecture of this AONB Would be an immense improvement on the current collection of buildings,

which are deteriorating and have degenerated into an eyesore Proposed landscaping takes intelligent advantage of the prevailing contours

and will make the development intrusively visible from the bridleways which run along parallel sides of the valley.

SUMMARY For clarification, the supporting information makes reference to a second application (RR/2007/2255/P) for the removal of the agricultural condition on Bellhurst Farmhouse (the applicant’s dwelling). This application has now been withdrawn.The oasthouse is a twin roundel building, the kilns no longer have their conical roofs. The first floor of the stowage barn has been converted and is lawfully a residential flat. Planning permission has been granted for the conversion of the remainder of the building to form one single detached dwelling. Whilst this permission has not been implemented it is a material consideration.In essence this application is for the erection of a replacement dwelling in the countryside to which Local Plan Policy HG10(i) is most relevant, viz:-“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, subject

to meeting the criteria at Policy GD1, 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 existing dwelling (i.e. the first floor living accommodation within the stowage barn of the oasthouse) has a floor area of 74 sq.metres. The oasthouse, if converted under the existing permission RR/2005/1145/P, would have a floor area of 240 sq.metres. The permission took away permitted development rights for further extensions. The proposed new dwelling would have a floor area of 365.1 sq.metres (Supporting Planning Statement para 5.1), an increase of 52%. Moreover, the height and mass of the new building would also be greater than the existing. The increase in size is significant for a replacement dwelling in the countryside and you are being asked to consider this against the landscape benefit of removing some 1637 sq.metres of outmoded farm buildings and other structures. Twelve buildings excluding the oast are proposed to be demolished. Two of these buildings would be replaced – a new granary and hay barn. There is some benefit to the AONB landscape in removing these buildings but it should be clear that agricultural buildings do not fall within the definition of “brownfield”. The buildings that would be removed are functional in character and of basic construction. They were clearly designed and erected for an agricultural purpose. In that respect, they differ little from many other agricultural buildings to be found in parts of the countryside where agriculture is the main activity. The two allowed planning appeal cases put forward in the supporting information

57

(Whitestocks Farm and Pattenden Farm – both Goudhurst, Kent) have been noted, however, each particular case has to be considered on its individual merits. It is not considered that a precedent should be set whereby agricultural buildings are ‘traded-off’ for additional residential accommodation.Whilst Policy HG10 contains the provision whereby “a somewhat larger dwelling may be acceptable where it would be more in keeping with the locality in terms of its siting design and materials”, it is not considered that the building shown on the submitted plans would justify an exception to the policy under those criteria. The proposed new building, as previously stated, would be significantly larger than the existing building in terms of its floor area, mass and height. Consequently, it would have a more dominant impact on the local landscape. Whilst an attempt has been made in the design of the dwelling to reflect the vernacular tradition of the area, in my view it is unlikely that it would convey a convincing impression of a converted farm building. The design details for example incorporate a first floor balcony/terrace, an excess of windows set in prominent elevations of the building, no areas of blank walling, a brick chimney stack and together they do not overall convey the simple form of a traditional farm building. The resultant building would be seen precisely for what it is, a large house in the countryside. In contrast, the existing oasthouse, if restored and converted in accordance with the existing permission RR/2005/1145/P would result in an unassuming building that sits comfortably within its established rural setting. Under RR/2005/1145/P, the elevations of the building that are prominent from the adjacent public footpath are shown to contain few windows or other elements of domesticity and overall, the agricultural character of the building is conserved and the building makes a positive contribution to the AONB.At the 11 October 2007 meeting Members considered that a decision should be deferred for discussions with the applicants and their agent with a view towards an amended plan being submitted. The amended plan would relate to the proposed new dwelling (oasthouse) and would be expected to show both a reduction in the size of the building and design revisions, which improve the external appearance of the proposed building so as to respect its rural setting.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FULL PLANNING) (NEGOTIATIONS REGARDING OAST DESIGN)


RR/2007/2560/L SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE FORMER MILL SITE, NORTHBRIDGE STREET, ROBERTSBRIDGE CONVERSION AND WORKS TO EXISTING LISTED BUILDING AND ADJOINING BUILDING INTO TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS.Prem (Rooster) Limited


RR/2007/2576/P SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE FORMER MILL SITE, NORTHBRIDGE STREET, ROBERTSBRIDGE, OUTLINE: CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 1301 SQUARE METRES OF CLASS B1 BUSINESS USE BUILDINGS, CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 66 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, CONSTRUCTION OF SURGERY PREMISES UP TO 557.4 SQUARE METRES, CONSTRUCTION OF CAFE UP TO 92.9 SQUARE METRES, TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED OPEN SPACES, LANDSCAPING, INFRASTRUCTURE, ACCESS

58


ROADS, AND REVISED JUNCTION WITH NORTHBRIDGE STREET AND ASSOCIATED FOOTPATHSPrem (Rooster) Limited


RR/2007/2696/P SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE FORMER MILL SITE, NORTHBRIDGE STREETCHANGE OF USE & CONVERSION OF REDUNDANT MILL BUILDING, LISTED BUILDING & ABUTTING BUILDING TO FORM 13 RESIDENTIAL UNITS INCLUDING ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING VEHICULAR ACCESS, CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ROAD & PROVISION OF PARKING SPACES.Prem (Rooster) Limited


These applications have been included on the Committee site inspection list for 6 November 2007.

SITE The applications relate to a business premises (approximately 3.01ha) formerly occupied by SCATS and more recently by Grampian Country Food Group Ltd. The premises was involved in the production of animal foods until it closed in 2005. The site is now disused. Historically, the premises was originally a corn mill in the 1800s (Mill Farm). One building on the site (the western part of the former oast house to Mill Farm) is listed in Grade II and is the subject of applications RR/2007/2560/L and RR/2007/2696/P. There is also a substantial four storey, brick former flour mill building on the site, known as Hodson’s Mill (built between 1873 and 1898). This is the subject of application RR/2007/2696/P. The site also contains a number of rather substantial modern buildings, extensive hardstandings and a concrete access road and car park. Ground levels fall in a series of flat terraces from the north west (high ground) to the south east. There is an existing vehicular access to the northern side of Northbridge Street. Public footpaths follow the eastern/south eastern boundary of the site alongside the River Rother. Much of the site boundary contains belts of trees. Furthermore, the southern part of the site is identified by the Environment Agency as being a river flood zone. In planning policy terms the whole of the application site is within the Development Boundary for Robertsbridge, Northbridge Street, as identified on the Local Plan. It is also within the designated High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYThe site has a long and extensive planning history in connection with its past commercial uses; none is particularly relevant to the current application proposals.

PROPOSAL RR/2007/2560/L: This is an application for listed building consent for the conversion of the former oast building/stowage barn into two dwellings. The issue for consideration is the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the listed building and its setting.

RR/2007/2576/P: This is an outline planning application. It proposes: The construction of up to 1301 sq.metres of new Class B1 business units (3

storeys are indicated) to the south west of Hodson’s Mill The construction of up to 66 new residential units

59

The construction of a new doctor’s surgery premises on part of the site nearest to Northbridge Street (approximately 557 sq.metres)

The construction of a new café (approximately 93 sq.metres) adjacent to the new business units and the Mill Pond

Associated open space, infrastructure, access roads, revised junction with Northbridge Street, and footpaths

As an outline application, all detailed matters relating to layout, scale, appearance and landscaping fall to be considered as reserved matters at a later application stage. The outline application, however, seeks full approval of the means of access at this stage. Illustrative layout plans have been submitted with the outline application, including an indicative master plan layout of the whole site.

RR/2007/2696/P: This is a full planning application. It proposes: The change of use and conversion of the listed oast/stowage barn into two

residential units The change of use and conversion of the brick former mill building (Hodson’s

Mill) into 11 no. apartments.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- With respect to application RR/2007/2576/P, the Parish Council objects to the proposal. The comments, which can be viewed in full on the website can be summarised as follows:The site is currently designated within the village development boundary as a commercial site and whilst the council is not against a mixed development in principle, it feels that the balance and scale is inappropriate within this application.Following the Public Enquiry into the Local Plan in 2005, the Inspector made important references to the Mill Site in his report.When considering an application to increase the size of the (residential development) allocation at Grove Farm from 0.9ha to 2.1ha the Inspector concluded that Robertsbridge has experienced considerable development in recent years and there is no identified need for the enlargement of this allocation. He also recommended that the site (0.9ha) should be held in reserve, acknowledging that there was a possibility that the housing needs of Robertsbridge could be better met by the Mill Site.It seems clear that both the Inspector, and RDC in adopting the plan in 2006, considered that the allocation of 0.9ha at Grove Farm, with some 30 dwellings, was sufficient development for Robertsbridge. Whilst both acknowledged the possibility that this could be met by development of the Mill Site rather than Grove Farm, this current application includes 79 new dwellings (including the conversions). This is more than double the number in the Local Plan for the Grove Farm site, over an area substantially greater than 0.9ha and the Parish Council considers this to be too high.The Parish Council is concerned about the increased traffic that this many new dwellings would create on Northbridge Street and the High Street. There is already insufficient parking for residents in Northbridge Street. There is also a need to provide access for agricultural vehicles to the adjoining farmland but no detail has been given of the route for this; the Parish Council would not want to see this passing through the residential areas.The Parish Council considers that the commercial provision within the application is insufficient, as is the provision of community facilities. It feels that the consultation with the community was very limited and inadequate and more emphasis should be placed on the findings in the Robertsbridge Local Action Plan with regard to the requirements of local residents in these areas.

60

The Rother Local Plan made provision at Policy VL7 for any development at Grove Farm (the need for which may be negated by development of this site) to include housing for the elderly, provisions for a children’s play area and the developer contributions towards educational needs at Robertsbridge Community College. The Parish Council is concerned that these have not been included within this application.RR/2007/2560/L and RR/2007/2696/P: The Parish Council also objects to the proposal and comments, “Whilst the PC is not against the conversion in principle, this is a commercial site and any application needs to be looked at in the context of the whole site.”Highways Agency:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- (summarised) –RR/2007/2576/P and RR/2007/2696/P – both planning applications attract a recommendation for refusal for the reason that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed access will operate satisfactorily. It is considered that a suitable access arrangement into the site can be achieved but there is concern that the central island (providing an in/out arrangement) will be confusing to drivers. The proposed access arrangement would need to be modified. Also, in the event that a satisfactory access can be achieved, the Highway Authority would expect the following to be secured by s106/s278 legal Agreement:: LSAIC contribution of £13,325; provision of a suitable site access including a right turn lane; relocated and upgraded eastbound bus stop on Northbridge Street; upgrade western bound bus stop on Northbridge Street; cycle parking in the village centre.Director of Transport & Environment – County Planning:- Comments awaited.Director of Transport & Environment – Footpaths:- Comments awaited.Director of Transport & Environment – ESCC – Development Contributions:- (summarised): “Without prejudice to any strategic planning representations of the County Council with regard to the planning applications, I am writing to clarify the requirements for contributions from the proposed development towards the provision of additional County Council service infrastructure other than highways and transport.Having regard to the County Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance, ‘A New Approach to Development Contributions’ (the SPG), particularly paragraph 2.20, my advice is as follows:

Summary:SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS

(estimated)Education

Early education, i.e. pre-school £11,700 Secondary school (11 to 16s) £155,100

Household waste & recycling £2,000Rights of way £1,900

Thus, I estimate the financial contributions required from the proposed development would amount to £170,700.”Director of Transport & Environment – County Archaeologist:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency;- Comments awaited.Southern Water Services:- Comments awaited.Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board:- The Board is satisfied that all surface water issues from the development will be dealt with by the Environment Agency.Sussex Police:- (summarised) – “I feel that the ‘play area’ is inappropriately sited for the following reasons. Firstly, its proximity to the mill pond with the obvious health and safety implications of deep water bordering an area where children are likely to play

61

unsupervised. Secondly, the location of the play area so close to the entry/exit point of the development.I would recommend that the play area be sited at a location more central to the residential development.”Natural England:- (summarised) – “Natural England are satisfied that there was no evidence that badgers and great crested newts use the site and that whilst water shrews are present, they are unlikely to be impacted by the works.We support the proposals to provide nesting opportunities for house sparrows and starlings and the proposal to provide three barn owl nest boxes on site.Regarding reptiles, bats, water voles and dormice, we notice that surveys for all these species are ongoing. We are unable to comment further on this until the full results are available and suitable mitigation has been proposed. This relates particularly to bats and dormice which are European Protected Species (EPS) as work that affects these species cannot be undertaken without an EPS mitigation licence.We recommend that planning consent is not granted until this information has been received together with appropriate proposals to mitigate any impacts.”“This application has many opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. As such we would recommend that should the Council be minded to grant permission for this application, measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site are secured from the applicant.”Director of Services – Environmental Health:- Requests a contaminated land condition in the event that permission is to be granted.Director of Services – Regeneration:- Comments awaited.Director of Services – Housing:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- 6 letters/emails of objection (5 addresses), which can be summarised as follows: Applications RR/2007/2560/L and RR/2007/2696/P should be refused and not

reconsidered until the detailed planning application for the whole site is discussed. If the applications are agreed at this stage it would affect the potential use of the whole site

Site is not suitable for residential or business use because it is not wise to build on flood level. Would push more flood water towards High Street. Water shortages. By-pass is very noisy in the village and extra traffic would cause more stress to residents. Vibration from lorries will damage fabric of old buildings. Robertsbridge has had its fair share of building projects. River is dangerous for children. Development would harm wildlife

The number of houses/flats proposed would mean a huge increase in traffic in Northbridge Street

Insufficient on-site parking is proposed Would exacerbate existing parking problems on Northbridge Street A letter from the tenant farmer expresses concern that the development does

not take into account the need for continued access for agricultural vehicles across this site to adjacent farmland

A letter of objection from the Robertsbridge Enterprise Group (REG) –– The bias of the current application is weighted far too much in favour of

residential provision– There is a demand way above the provision in the application for a mix

of workshops and offices. Proposed commercial units appear cramped and lacking sufficient parking spaces

– Should be provision for nursery or starter business units– Surgery should not be considered as commercial floor space– Development would not improve views into the site as the applicants

are suggesting62

– No convincing evidence that the developers have exhausted all the possibilities for commercial development on the site

– There is a strong case for the provision of community facilities within any scheme e.g. sports facilities or arts venues, car park, footpath link with railway station, provision of allotments (see website for full text of letter).

SUMMARY The proposed development site is ‘brownfield’ land within the Development Boundary for Robertsbridge as identified in the Local Plan (Policy DS3) and its redevelopment is acceptable in principle. The site is an employment site, however, and an initial issue for consideration is an assessment of the proposed development against Policy EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan. This states:“Policy EM2 Proposals to change the use of existing buildings or redevelop sites currently or last in employment creating use will be resisted unless it is demonstrated that there is no prospect of its continued use for business purposes or that it would perpetuate serious harm to residential amenities.In the event of the above qualifications being met, first consideration will be given to a mixed-use development in accordance with Policy EM1 and the criteria of Policies DS1 and GD1.”The requirement to protect the level of the existing stock of industrial and commercial premises is reiterated in Policy EM5 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. The application seeks to demonstrate lack of effective demand for the site from other business users and the supporting information states that, “The whole of the former Grampian Country Food Group site has been widely marketed since the end of January 2006 for employment uses. The marketing has not produced any potential purchasers for the whole site for reuse or development for employment purposes. Full details are set out in the employment and marketing Report produced by Dyer Commercial and Montagu Evans which is submitted with the application.”The supporting information states that in the absence of demand, Policy EM2 requires that first consideration be given to mixed use development.The Inspector in his report into representations to the Revised Deposit Local Plan made the following comments relating to the Mill site:-At paragraphs 13.64 to 13.67 (in reporting on the housing allocation at Grove Farm):“I acknowledge that there are also social and economic needs to met in Robertsbridge including needs for employment, for affordable housing and for housing for the elderly. Nevertheless I consider that the Grove Farm site should be a reserve site. This is mainly because since the Revised Deposit Local Plan was published, the large Northbridge Street animal feed mill at Robertsbridge has ceased operation. 13.65 The owners of the mill site have lodged objections to the Local Plan seeking

housing development on that previously-developed land. I address those objections at the end of this section under the heading of Omission Sites. Policy EM2 seeks to retain employment sites in that use whilst exceptionally allowing for other forms of redevelopment in specified circumstances. With a lack of evidence so far that employment use could not continue, the Council has resisted the allocation of the Mill site for housing. However the options for its future development have yet to be fully investigated and Policy EM2 would exceptionally allow in some circumstances for development other than for employment.

13.66 The Mill site clearly qualifies as previously-developed land. Its redevelopment thus merits priority over greenfield sites, whether that redevelopment were to be for employment or housing. It is a large site and,

63

should there be no prospect of continued exclusive employment use of the entire site, the site has the potential to accommodate both forms of development as exceptionally provided for by Policy EM2.

13.67 Should further investigation and the Plan, Monitor and Manage process demonstrate that the housing needs of Robertsbridge and its surrounding area in the AONB would not be met by the Mill site or by other development on previously-developed land, the Grove Farm site would be brought forward. In practice that would mean that the site would be unlikely to be developed until late in the Local Plan period, if at all.”

At paragraph 13.184 (in reporting on the Mill site, as a Housing Omission site), the Inspector concluded:“This is a suitable site for development but there has been inadequate investigation of its suitability for continued employment use or of the form which redevelopment might take. If continued employment use of the whole site shown not to be feasible, there should be a preference for mixed use including employment. Not suitable for allocation without further investigative work therefore site should be dealt with on its merits under Policy EM2.”The initial points to be addressed therefore are (i) should the whole of the site be retained for business/commercial use; and (ii) in the event that Members are satisfied that it has been demonstrated that there is no prospect of its continued use for business purposes, what should be the balance between employment uses and residential. With respect to the latter, a fundamental question is to what extent the employment uses need to be cross-funded by the residential uses. To this extent the Head of Regeneration has asked the property and estates advisors, Donaldsons, to analyse the submitted scheme and also to advise the Council on what split is commercially viable. This report should inform Members of the Planning Committee of the balance of the employment/residential uses required to make a mixed-use scheme viable. It is not anticipated, however, that the report will be available before your 8 November 2007 meeting.Further principal issues that need to be addressed are: The highway objection raised by the Highway Authority Comments from the Environment Agency on the implications of the proposal

with respect to the flood zone are awaited Comments from the Head of Housing are awaited on the affordable housing

proposals Comments are awaited from the Conservation Officer on the conversion of the

listed building Although application RR/2007/2576/P is in outline only, further information has

been requested from the applicant’s agent to demonstrate that the amount of development proposed can satisfactorily be accommodated on the site.

The applications are being reported to your 8 November 2007 meeting to introduce Members to the development proposals. Comments are awaited from a number of consulteees and advice has been sought on the viability of redevelopment. It is anticipated that a full report can be presented to your 6 December 2007 meeting.

RECOMMENDATIONS:RR/2007/2560/L: DEFER (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT) (TO ALLOW THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO BE ASSESSED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS FOR THE SITE)


64

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20072560l

RR/2007/2576/P: DEFER (OUTLINE PLANNING) (FURTHER INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANTS AND TO AWAIT OUTSTANDING CONSULTATION RESPONSES)


RR/2007/2696/P: DEFER (FULL PLANNING) (FURTHER INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANTS AND TO AWAIT OUTSTANDING CONSULTATION RESPONSES)


65



RR/2004/2819/P WESTFIELD CARR TAYLOR WINES LTD, WHEEL LANEREBUILDING OF EXISTING WINERY WITH ANCILLARY SHOP, OFFICE TASTING ROOMS, RESTAURANT AND EXHIBITION SPACE. ENLARGEMENT OF BONDED WAREHOUSE.Carr Taylor Wines Ltd

Statutory 13 week date: 14 February 2005

Authority was delegated at the meeting on 25 May 2005 to grant conditional planning permission subject to receipt of an ecological survey and reference to GOSE as a departure from the Local Plan/s.

GOSE have confirmed that the application will not be called in and should be decided by Rother District Council. The only outstanding matter is that of the ecological survey. This was received in January 2006 and reveals that great crested newts and bats have been located at the site. As a result of this appearing on the website, a neighbouring objector emailed a letter drawing the Council’s attention to the need for the local planning authority to meet the Habitat Regulations. A copy of her letter (incorrectly dated 8 February 2005) received on 9 February 2006 is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007. Regulation 44(2)(e) of the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994, appears to indicate that the applicant is required to demonstrate “imperative reasons of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature” before the local planning authority can grant planning permission. A statement was requested from the applicant in July 2006. In their reply of May 2007, the applicant’s agent challenges the Council’s authority to request such a statement. A legal opinion is currently being sought from Counsel in time for the meeting and this application is therefore being reported as Members may be required to consider the application further.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (COUNSEL’S OPINION)


RR/2007/2512/P WESTFIELD HOLE FARM, WESTFIELD LANESITING OF TEMPORARY MOBILE HOME FOR FARM OWNER/MANAGER AND FORMATION OF A NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS AND DRIVE FOR THE FARMMrs E Collins


SITE This 40 hectare farm holding currently used for the keeping of agricultural livestock and horses is located on the east side of Westfield Lane, outside of a recognised development boundary and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The main cluster of farm buildings are located some 170m from the junction with the A28 (Westfield Lane) and are accessed via a shared driveway, which also serves Ripleys scrap yard.

66


HISTORYRR/2005/2304/P Relocation and reconstruction of barn to form a dwelling

including formation of new access – Refused.RR/2007/497/FN Erection of steel framed multi purpose barn for the storage of

food for livestock and the housing of livestock – Details Not Required.

PROPOSAL Approval is sought to site a temporary timber mobile home on the land for the applicant to manage the farm with the assistance of her husband Mr B.C.P Collins. The applicant proposes to expand the enterprise to include more agricultural livestock and horses. A new vehicular access, which would become the principal access to the farm, would also be formed some 220m to the north of the existing shared access. This would include a new 160m section of farm track, which would link with an existing track in the site.A Planning Report and comments from the Rural Estates Surveyor are contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: – Supports an approval subject to the usual conditions appropriate to the agricultural nature of the business.Highway Authority: – No objection subject to conditions.Environment Agency: – No objection.Rural Estates Surveyor: – Concludes: “I am of the opinion that the current circumstances at Hole Farm satisfy the

criteria of paragraph 12 of Annex A of PPS 7 and that there is justification for the proposed mobile home for a period of 3 years.

The new access will provide a completely separate access to the farm thereby obviating the current shared access with numerous daily traffic movements associated with Ripleys. Subject to the proposal satisfying the highway issues I consider that the new access is necessary and appropriate”.

Planning Notice: – One letter of support justifying the requirement for a temporary mobile home and the formation of a new vehicular access on the site.Two letters of objection concerned with the following: The extra traffic generated by a new access on Westfield Lane would be

dangerous to motorists and pedestrians.One petition of objection with the following comments (summarised): The application does not meet the requirements of PPS 7. There is no reasonable prospect for Mrs Collins to run a farm enterprise as she

is near retirement age and is not physically fit enough due to a serious back injury.

Mrs Collins will at a later date apply to build a house under the pretence of a new farm enterprise.

The animals on site have been kept as a hobby and now it is claimed that it has been and is going to be a serious business proposition.

The existing farmhouse and buildings are perfectly adequate to serve the land. There is plenty of security provided by the existing farmhouse and industrial

units next to the site. The new access road to the site is not necessary as there is a perfectly good

existing access. A new access would be dangerous for vehicles and pedestrians using Westfield Lane.

Mrs Collins has kept a number of animals on the site over a number of years without the need for on site accommodation.

67

There should be strict proof of the proposed farming enterprise. In the event that the application is granted permission it should be for a temporary and smaller mobile home. Mrs Collins should then provide strict proof of the profitability of the farm enterprise every three years for at least nine years to demonstrate that this application is not simply a continuation of her hobby.

SUMMARY A report submitted with the planning application states that the applicant has recently acquired the farm holding following the death of her father. However, the farmhouse and its domestic curtilage have been put into trust for her brother’s family. The applicant lives in Canute Road in Hastings and therefore requires some form of living accommodation on the site to care for and supervise the animals, as well as provide overall site security. Approval is therefore sought to site a temporary timber mobile home on the land. A new vehicular access, which would become the principal access to the farm, would also be formed some 220m to the north of the existing shared access. This would include a new 160m section of farm track, which would link with an existing track in the site.Planning permission (ref: RR/2005/2304/P) was refused for a new dwelling and vehicular access in October 2005 because it was not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that a new dwelling was required for the running of an enterprise in this rural location. Permission was also refused because the development would have harmed the rural character of the area. Policies GD1 and HG10 of the Local Plan, Policies S1, S10, EN2 and EN3 of the Structure Plan and government advice contained in PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, apply to this new application. Policy HG10 of the Local Plan and Policy S10 of the Structure Plan only support new dwellings in the countryside if it can be demonstrated by the applicant to be essential for the running of an enterprise which must be in a countryside location and is of an appropriate size and directly related to the enterprise. In addition to the above policies, paragraph 12 of Annex A of PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas sets out specific criteria, which must be satisfied if permission for a temporary agricultural dwelling is to be granted.In respect of the above policies/advice, the Rural Estates Surveyor considers that “the current circumstances at Hole Farm satisfy the criteria of paragraph 12 of Annex A of PPS 7 and that there is justification for the proposed mobile home for a period of 3 years”.The proposed temporary timber mobile home measures some 20m (width) x 6.8m (depth) x 4m (height) and would be sited just to the west of the main cluster of farm buildings. As such, it would be read in conjunction with these buildings and would not be visually intrusive in the landscape. In any case, the site is well screened from public vantage points by existing vegetation on the boundaries and by the contours of the land.Turning to the proposed vehicular access, no objection has been received from the Highway Authority on highway safety grounds. In this respect the proposed access is acceptable. Consideration has been given to the visual impact the proposed 160m length of additional track would have in this rural location; however, it would be partially screened from the wider landscape by an existing treed field boundary and is considered necessary to serve the rural enterprise. On balance it is therefore acceptable.On balance and having regard to government advice contained in PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, a temporary permission of three years is recommended in order to monitor the long term viability of the enterprise.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)

68

1. CD1G (Temporary permission: Reinstatement) – The mobile home hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before 29 October 2010 in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.Reason: The mobile home is not considered suitable for stationing on a permanent basis in this location but is permitted on a temporary basis because it is required for use on an agricultural/equine unit having regard to Policies GD1 (i) and HG10 (iii) of the Rother District Local Plan, Policy S10 (c) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and government advice contained in PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, Annex A, paragraph 12.

2. CD8L (Personal Permissions) – The use of the temporary mobile home hereby permitted shall be carried out only by Mrs E Collins and Mr B.C.P Collins.Reason: To control the development of the land in accordance with Mrs E Collins proposal to manage the farm having regard to Policy HG10 (iii) of the Rother District Local Plan, Policy S10 (c) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and government advice contained in PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, Annex A, paragraph 12.

3. The new access hereby permitted shall be in the position shown on the approved plan (ref: 3087/1) date stamped 11 September 2007 and shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with the attached HT407 diagram, which forms part of this permission.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.

4. The temporary mobile home hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a plan showing car parking spaces and a vehicular turning facility has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The car parking spaces and vehicular turning facility shall thereafter be retained for those purposes only.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 temporary timber mobile home and formation of a new vehicular access and drive are considered necessary to serve the rural enterprise and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore comply with Policies GD1 (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and HG10 (iii) of the Rother District Local Plan, Policies S1 (d), (j), S10 (c), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and government advice contained in PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, Annex A, paragraph 12. View application/correspondence

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

Statutory 8 week date: 12 July 2007

69


This item was considered at Committee on 21 June, 19 July and 16 August 2007. Members having previously inspected the site.A decision was deferred for further information and amended plans to include the utility room as part of this application.The requested information and amended plans have now been received. The utility room has been incorporated into the application and the description has been changed. The application has been re-advertised and the neighbours have been re-consulted. A further amended cross section plan is awaited.

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 utility room measuring 1.6m (width) x 2.4m (depth) x 2.7m (height) and a small single-storey extension measuring 2m (width) x 1.35m (depth) x 2.7m (height), which are 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. Originally, this application related 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

70

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 was claimed that the utility room itself does not have permission and is less than 4 years old. This has been acknowledged by the applicant and further information and amended plans have been submitted, which incorporate the utility room into this application. The applicant has also confirmed that he is the owner of the land to which this application relates and has submitted the relevant certificate accordingly. In terms of their external appearance, I consider the utility room and porch to be acceptable as their 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 I am awaiting an amended cross section plan and comments from the neighbours at 137 Lydd Road.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO RECEIPT OF AN AMENDED CROSS SECTION PLAN AND COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBOURS AT 137 LYDD ROAD)1. Within one month of the date of permission the new internal wall in the utility

room shown on the approved plan (ref: Ground Floor Plan) date stamped 11 October 2007 shall be constructed and shall thereafter be permanently retained.Reason: To protect the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policies GD1 (ii) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.

Note:1. ND2 (Amended plans) – (ref: Roof Plan, Side Elevation Plan and Ground Floor Plan) date stamped 11 October 2007.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The utility room and extension are of an appropriate design and scale and do not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore comply with Policies GD1(i)(ii)(iv) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.


71


RR/2007/2648/P ICKLESHAM 1 GOLDHURST GREENERECTION OF SEMI DETACHED 3 BEDROOM HOUSE WITH ALTERATION TO EXISTING VEHICULAR ACCESS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TWO PARKING SPACESK J & S J Glazier



SITE The site occupies a prominent position to the west side of Goldhurst Green at its junction with Main Road (A259). It is set within the development boundary for Icklesham as defined within the Rother District Local Plan and set within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORY RR/95/333/P Demolition of 17 dwellings and erection of 23 new dwellings and

making good 4 existing houses including roads & sewers – Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to erect a semi detached 3 bedroom house to the east side of 1 Goldhurst Green, with alterations to existing access to provide additional two parking spaces.Alterations are proposed to 1 Goldhurst Green including a loft conversion; these do not require planning permission.

CONSULTATIONS Parish Council – “The Committee declined to comment as applicant is a District Councillor who attends IPC meetings.”Highway Authority – Any comments will be reported.Highways Agency – Object to the proposal on the following grounds – The proposed access to the development is approximately 10m from the junction of Goldhurst Green with the A259. In the opinion of the Highway Agency, the house development would lead to an increase in the complexity in turning movements close to this junction with the A259 and as a result it would have an adverse effect on highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to advice contained in PPG13 and DfT Circular 2/2007.Planning Notice – 1 letter of objection concerned with the following; Contravenes Policies S1, S10, EN2 & EN3. Take up a third of the garden of no 1 Goldhurst Green. Danger to school traffic. Cause a president.

SUMMARY While I acknowledge the site is set within a development boundary, where there is a presumption that development will be acceptable, the proposal has to be addressed in terms of its appearance and setting within the street scene in context of Policies GD1 and HG4 of the Rother District Local Plan.The proposal will extend the pair of semi detached dwellings (no 1 and Defa Vu) to the east, creating a terrace of three. The site sits in a prominent position at the entrance into Goldhurst Green, which currently enjoys an open aspect between the site and no 24.The extension to no1 to create the new dwelling in this prominent corner plot will in my opinion significantly decrease the existing separation and openness that is currently afforded to the entrance to the estate. Although the site is adequate to

72

accommodate the dwelling, when viewed in the wider context it appears cramped and out of keeping with the character of the street scene. As such contrary to the objectives of Policies GD1(iv) and HG4(i) of the Rother District Local Plan.In light of the Highway Agency’s comments an amended plan relocating the new parking spaces to the north of the site, by extending the existing parking spaces has been received. The Highways Agency has been re-consulted, but at the time of writing this report, no further comments have been received – any comments will be reported. I understand the applicant is willing to set the building 0.5m back from the road and will be drawing attention to previous redevelopment proposals in relation to RR/95/333/P.However I am therefore minded to make the following recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (FURTHER COMMENTS FROM HIGHWAYS AGENCY)1. The extension to no1 Goldhurst Green to create the new dwelling in this

prominent corner plot will significantly decrease the existing separation and openness that is currently afforded to the entrance to the estate. Although the site is adequate to accommodate the dwelling, when viewed in the wider context it appears cramped and out of keeping with the character of the street scene. As such the proposal is contrary to the objectives of Policies GD1(iv) and HG4(i) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. The proposed access in close proximately from the junction of Goldhurst Green with the A259, would lead to an increase in the complexity in turning movements close to this junction with the A259 and as a result it would have an adverse effect on highway safety. As such the proposal is contrary to 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, and advice in PPG13 and DfT Circular 2/2007.

ND2 (Ref 2773-OS A) date stamped 24 October 2007.


RR/2007/2365/P RYE UDIMORE ROAD – LAND FRONTING, (REAR OF 39-129 UDIMORE ROAD & 69-83 COOPERS ROAD & TILLINGHAM COURT)OUTLINE: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 135 DWELLINGS WITH VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM UDIMORE ROAD, INCLUDING PLAY SPACE, OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPINGAroncorp Ltd


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

SITE The site is open former grazing land lying on the west side of Rye. The whole site extends to some nearly 10.9 hectares. It is an irregular shaped area of land extending south westwards from the rear of properties in The Link and Cooper Road. For some 500 metres on its south east boundary it is faced by properties in Udimore Road (from 39 to 129).

73


The land comprises three former fields that create a small valley lying below the main Udimore Ridge. The site is dissected by several hedge lines as well as a watercourse running south west to north east.

HISTORYRR/75/0571 Outline: Residential development at an average density of 10

dwellings per acre – RefusedRR/78/1553 Outline: Erection of 95 dwellings – Refused

PROPOSAL This is an outline application for 135 dwellings with a new roundabout access from Udimore Road close to the junction with Oast House Drive. In addition the application proposes play space, general open space and landscaping.Only access is to be formally determined at this stage with layout, scale, appearance and landscaping to be dealt with as reserved matters. However the application is accompanied by substantial documentation, overall strategy, layout, sections and house type plans which give the local planning authority a clear picture of the type of development envisaged and the manner in which the site could be developed for this number of dwellings. The submitted plans and documentation clearly show the constraints of the site, low lying wetland areas subject to possible flooding, existing watercourses, existing hedgerows and the contours of the land.The application is accompanied by: A Design and Access Statement Phase 1 Habitat Survey Statement of Community Engagement Planning Statement Flood Risk Assessment Transport Assessment Landscape and Visual Impact AssessmentThe full area of the application site extends to 10.87 hectares with a net developable area of 3.8 hectares.In broad terms the identified development area follows the Local Plan allocation (of the same hectarage) but with some differences at the margins taking account of topographic features.The indicative (or illustrative) layout plan shows a main spine road dropping down the valley from the higher level opposite Cadborough Farm. From this central road, which is faced by dwellings, are several shorter roads which climb the valley sides.Of the 135 dwellings, 54 dwellings (40%) are affordable – 10% to be wheelchair accessible.The scheme provides a wide mix of dwelling sizes (30.4% of the total are one or two bedroom dwellings). There are 39 flats in the total – both private and affordable. The 135 dwellings equate to 35.53 dwellings per hectare.Beyond the more central housing area are substantial areas of open space – both on the higher parts of the site especially towards the ridge line and, to the north east, in the low lying areas. The plans identify these areas as (general) open space, for buffer planting and to provide a formal kick about area. Around the existing open watercourse which will pass through the developed area, a wetland planting area with a fenced enclosure is shown at the north east end of the site.Although the road system is a cul-de-sac with all vehicular access and egress from the top of the site, the illustrative layout shows a footpath network linking towards Udimore Road and Old Brickyard to the north east. Also included in the layout is a landscape buffer strip nearly 10 metres wide to the rear of 73-121 Udimore Road provided as separation between the rear gardens of the existing houses and the gardens of the new houses and flats facing in this direction.

74

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- Support refusal (in summary): Area not been released for development No demonstrated need Planning authority has policy of priority to re-using urban land first Planning authority has policy objective of only relatively modest growth in Rye

(Town Council quotes a number of recent developments and others likely in immediate future totalling 60 dwellings)

Rock Channel, Freda Gardham and Tilling Green schools will also be available Increase in vehicular traffic detrimental to free flow of traffic on B2089 Site abuts High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and would harm

rural character Overdevelopment, out of character with and detrimental to locality Roundabout and service road will adversely affect ‘gateway’ to the town. (The

conclusion at an earlier appeal in 1975) Drainage issues – particularly surface water run-offHighway Authority:- Do not wish to restrict grant of permission subject to conditions and a legal agreement (points in summary): Welcomes provision of roundabout as a means of slowing traffic at entrance to

urban area. Position of roundabout acceptable in principle Traffic Assessment of roundabout and trips accepted, but note that no further

analysis done for town centre junctions close to level crossing. While ESCC do not consider that development will cause an adverse traffic impact on town centre they would like to understand this aspect

Public footpaths exist from site via Old Brickyard to Udimore Road and Mason Road – required to be upgraded

Dropped crossing close to improved bus stops should be provided Bus services need upgrading and development should contribute to this. Bus

stops should also be improved LSAIC contribution towards local highway will also be required Travel Plan should be provided Parking to be agreed by condition Indicative road layout acceptable in principle but some long lengths of

carriageway should be traffic calmed with other than speed humps Note Local Plan requirement for contribution towards new link from Ferry Road

to Thomas Peacocke School and sports centre(Full comments included in the attached APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007).East Sussex County Council:- Set out ‘developer contributions’ amounting to £71,500 on the basis of the County Council’s SPG.Environment Agency:- Currently objects to the proposed development due to insufficient drainage information. No objection to principle. Advice on flood risk as follows:"From a flood risk standpoint we raise no objection in principle to the development of this site for residential use. However, we have concerns regarding drainage, and so wish to object until these are resolved. We also request that the conditions within this letter are attached to any permission granted.The slab levels of all residential dwellings should be set at least 600 mm above the 200 year tide level incorporating a design horizon to the year 2115. This will need to include an allowance for the demographic sinking of the south eastern landmass and an allowance for the actual predicted increase in tide levels. These figures are quoted in PPS25.

75

We wish to express concerns with regard to the creation of the wetland habitat area and the current drainage problems, flood risk issues, including recorded flooding to gardens to the low lying existing properties in the area, particularly to the rear of the Brickyard.In view of this, careful consideration has been given to the proposed new wetland habitat area and we recommend that this area is not enhanced as a wetland feature and that all water collecting in this area is positively drained to an appropriately maintained drainage system or watercourse, and attenuated prior to discharge.We do however acknowledge the proposal to remove the existing pipe run through the middle of the site and restore to open channel. However, this water needs to be discharged away from existing development in the area.In view of the extent of the proposed development and the very large quantity of surface water run-off likely to be generated, the Environment Agency would, subject to the estimated peak discharge rate, recommend that the rate of discharge to the receiving watercourse is first controlled on-site. This would limit the rate of discharge to that of the site prior to development. This has generally been agreed to equate to approximately 7 litre/sec/hectare.........We question the proposed on site storage structure which we suggest could be designed as an open lagoon to receive all surface water draining from the site. If designed appropriately, this could also provide habitat in terms of biodiversity.Storage should be provided up to a minimum of the 100 year storm event together with an adequate allowance for climate change. We will require confirmation of a future maintenance schedule for this attenuation system details of which should be submitted to the local authority.The receiving watercourse will need to be "adopted" to ensure future maintenance is carried out, and we understand that the Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board may consider the adoption of this watercourse. We further understand that the Board have been consulted on this application by your Authority.We also suggest that all watercourses in the area could benefit from improvements and we would encourage maintenance of the watercourse draining through the Brickyard area and down to Gibbets Marsh. There is however a large culverted section and the condition of this structure is unknown.Concerns have been raised by local residents with regard to this development and the existing drainage and flooding problems in this area. We acknowledge these concerns, and it is therefore essential that a full local drainage strategy is implemented prior to the commencement of development works to ensure that the existing flood risk to the area is not exacerbated.We believe it is premature to determine this application until all drainage issues have been resolved at a local level. As stated earlier, although we do not object to the principle of development from a flood risk standpoint, we wish to maintain an objection pending agreement on all drainage issues. " Additional comments of biodiversity, groundwater vulnerability, drainage ground source heat pump and land contamination.Southern Water:- Currently inadequate capacity in local network to provide foul sewage disposal. Additional off-site sewers or improvements to existing sewers will be required.Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board:-“As an overall scheme the Board would not object to the development should the Greenfield run-off rate of 71/s/ha for the site be achievable. However conditions at the site during last winter were of much concern and subsequent works to adjacent watercourses to alleviate excessive run-off from the site as it stands have yet to be tested. The Board also notes the proposed attenuation of the open watercourse to achieve and maintain the wetland area which is immediately adjacent to existing

76

properties and would strongly advise that the developers should consider easing current wet conditions rather than maintaining or exacerbating the problem.In conclusion the scheme is at a very early stage and requires an in depth investigation into prevailing conditions at the site and the surrounding area and infrastructure before any further comment can be made.”Sussex Police:- “… the proposed road layout is good and would provide excellent ‘defensible space’ enabling residents to control their own environment and self police it, however, this is defeated by the provision of so many footpath routes. A number of these routes serve little purpose and there are other routes close by which serve the same destination. I would suggest that this is against the principles of the ‘manual for streets’.I ask the question as to whether there is a need to access the Western footpath from adjacent to unit 119 and again adjacent to units 83 and 89 as there are other routes close by that access this route. The omission of these access points would restore the ‘defensible space’ to residents enabling them to self police it as well as reducing the fear of crime.Secondly, I am concerned about the parking proposals in the case of the large number of courtyards accessed under flying bedrooms.This is a discredited layout which encourages local youths to gather in such areas causing nuisance etc. In addition because they are out of sight residents will park in the distributor roads where they can see their cars. This results in the courtyard being cluttered with caravans, trailers and abandoned vehicles.If these courtyards are to remain then I would ask that they have access controlled gates.”Ramblers Association:- No reply.English Nature:- To be reported.ESCC Footpaths Officer:- No reply.Director of Services – Head of Housing:- Comments on mix of housing required as at July 2007 and now to be incorporated in the scheme. Notes that if development is delayed mix of dwelling sizes may change slightly in relation to need for some larger units.Director of Services – Head of Amenities:- To be reported.Planning Notice:- Objections from 55 local households (summarised):Surface water drainage:– Site prone to regular flooding – development will increase this– Lack of maintenance of ditches– Applicant’s reports inaccurate in terms of actual instances of regular flooding

(residents give considerable local information)– RDC should undertake flood risk assessment– Who is responsible for correct implementation of drainage strategy if

permission granted?– Request by one affected owner to be involved in any decisions made on

drainage – Who would become riparian owners of ordinary watercourses/on whom would

obligations fall?– Permanent marsh at bottom of site– Direct threat of flooding to nearest houses– Incorrect analysis of geology underestimates flood risk– Will residents be compensated?– Against Environment Agency advice

Foul sewerage:– Old Brickyard sewer is private– Existing systems cannot cope– Foul sewers not available

77

– Water rates could rise to pay for development– Bottle neck in system

Highways/access:– East section of Old Brickyard is not a public right of way but a private road– Old Brickyard is not a viable link to the new development– Access roads not suitable– Existing traffic problems will be increased– Udimore Road dangerous/HGV/near misses/narrow pavements– Udimore Road already overloaded– Access for emergency services– Traffic pollution – If granted traffic calming of Udimore Road needed

Need for development:– Ill conceived plan– Release of site from ‘reserve list’ premature– Previous refusals on this site– No need for development at all– Brownfield sites not exhausted/other sites available

Thomas Peacocke Lower School Central Garage Freda Gardham School Tilling Green School South Undercliff Harbour Road Wharf Jempsons Haulage site Rock Channel

– Marina proposal would be better site– Site should not be released to meet government quotas because Link Road is

delayedEffect on local area/Rye:– Rye unsuited to more development – Public services stretched e.g. GPs, dentists– Insufficient shops, social facilities– No jobs in Rye – Creation of large conurbation with the Tillingham Estate out of character with

ancient town of Rye– Development would be physically and socially separate/satellite community– Smaller sites should be pursued instead– Rye needs affordable houses and accommodation for the elderly – not as

proposed– Not for Rye residents– Site not suitable for extensive development– Loss of countryside– Loss of ancient hedges– Loss of views– Loss of wildlife habitat (including badgers, foxes, owls, stoats, lapwing,

redwing)– Precedent for other Greenfield sites

Other aspects:– Loss of security/increase of crime/vandalism– Lake will be dumping ground/environmental hazards– Danger to children– Geology/land stability– Unexploded wartime bomb in boggy area

78

– Applicants have ignored residents ‘ questions and concerns– Location of playground too open/close to road– Would be identikit estate– Car dependent site/people will not walk to town– Contamination from original brickyard

Rye Conservation Society:- Object: – Reserve list site– Premature– Flood risk– Overstretched public services

SUMMARY Policy:Although many years ago development of this land was resisted by the Council (see History above), through the more recent Local Plan process the site was brought forward as a possible housing development site. The matter was dealt with at the Local Plan Inquiry when the Planning Inspector confirmed the Council’s view that, while the land could be developed for housing it ought to remain as a ‘reserve’ site until such time as it may be required to be released.The relevant extract from the Inspector’s Report is included in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007. In his report, as well as the phasing issue, the Inspector dealt with loss of agricultural land, visual impact, relationship of the site to the town centre and community facilities, access/highway considerations drainage/flooding, ecology, impact on services and facilities in Rye, residential amenities, affordable housing and the density of development.The Local Plan contains the following:

“Land north of Udimore Road12.27 This is the only ‘greenfield’ site in Rye that is not the subject of any nature

conservation designations nor is it within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Only a small part close to the northern boundary is within the flood risk area and this part could be put to recreational use or kept as informal open space.

12.28 The site is not unduly visible in the landscape, but care should be taken to mask ridge lines on the higher ground by sufficient tree planting along the north western boundary. It is estimated that at least 114 houses would be provided, although the exact extent of development would be determined following a full landscape assessment. A policy requirement would be that 40% of the dwellings are affordable.

12.29 Access to the site would be from a point beyond the outermost property on the northwest side of Udimore Road, via a mini-roundabout. Not only would this provide safe turning facilities for vehicles wishing to access the site, but could also act as traffic a calming measure at the entrance to the town.

12.30 There is already a link for pedestrians to walk towards the station and town centre. Therefore, any developer would be expected to contribute to improving the existing pedestrian facilities into the town centre. This will include crossing facilities on pedestrian ‘desire lines’. Developer contributions will be also be required towards the proposed access from Ferry Road to the Thomas Peacocke Community College Sports Hall and swimming pool.

12.31 However, as discussed at paragraph 12.17 above, the release of this site is subject to Policy DS6 in Section 4.

Policy RY5 79

Some 3.8 hectares of land north of Udimore Road, Rye is allocated for housing development. Access would be from Udimore Road opposite Cadborough Farm. The site is suitable for a minimum of 114 dwellings to be developed at a density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare, of which 40% are to be affordable. Developer contributions will be required towards improving existing pedestrian facilities into the town centre, including crossing facilities on ‘pedestrian desire lines’. Developer contributions will also be required for the new vehicular access (mini-roundabout) to Udimore Road, as well as the proposed access from Ferry Road to the Thomas Peacocke Community College, Sports Hall and swimming pool.”

Managing land release:Paragraph 4.68 of the Local Plan states:“The Council is keen to avoid the unnecessary development of greenfield sites. While the allowances for both small and large windfall housing developments are regarded as realistic best estimates, there is, inevitably, the potential for windfall sites to be realised at a greater or lesser extent than anticipated. In terms of their timing, release should be prioritised over greenfield sites where this is realistic having regard to site circumstances and maintaining a continuity of supply across the District. The overall level of housing allocations includes an element of over-provision to cater for uncertainties, such as the rate of development on windfall sites. This provides a level of robustness to the Plan and helps to ensure a continuity of housing supply. The application of a phasing policy, as discussed below, will guard against an unwarranted scale of growth.”

This is followed by Policy DS6:“The release of sites allocated for housing purposes in the Local Plan will be on the basis of the following criteria, the application of which will be informed by ongoing monitoring and annual reporting of the housing supply position:(i) wholly or substantially previously developed sites in urban areas, as indicated

in Table 3, will not be subject to phasing restrictions;(ii) the strategic land releases at north-east Bexhill will not be subject to phasing

restrictions other than required to ensure road capacity and the release of employment land, with priority to be given to the Policy BX2 area over the Policy BX3 area;

(iii) other greenfield sites not covered by (iv) below will be released to meet the housing requirement for the Plan period;

(iv) the following sites will only be released (i.e. granted planning permission) if found necessary to meet the Structure Plan housing requirements up to 2011:(a) Land off Udimore Road, Rye(b) Land adjacent to Grove Farm, Robertsbridge

NB: It is not anticipated that any of the sites at (iv) above would be released in advance of the consideration of the progress of housing development up to 2007/8, although the situation will be reviewed as part of the required on-going annual monitoring process.”

In this context the Cabinet recently considered the up to date position on the Udimore Road site. The minute states, in full:“In December of last year, as part of the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) for the Local Development Framework, Cabinet had recommended to Council that the reserve allocation of land north of Udimore Road, Rye be released for development. However, Council decided to defer the decision on the release of this ‘reserve’ housing allocation for the investigation and assessment of alternative brownfield sites.

80

The necessary assessments had now been completed, and account taken of progress on housing commitments and completions during 2006/07. The findings of the assessments were presented as a comprehensive ‘Position Statement’ that explained the prevailing planning policy context not only in relation to the Local Plan but also to current and emerging Government policy for housing land releases. It was concluded that the Council was able to demonstrate an adequacy of developable housing land and that there was not a clear case to bring forward any reserve allocation or other site at the present time. However, it was considered a marginal position and the construction of the Bexhill Link Road and release of the North East Bexhill development site in particular was critical to the timescale for development at reserved sites. In view of the relatively small margins in relation to developable land supply, it was recommended that continuous monitoring of the situation be undertaken. Cabinet would receive this years’ AMR in December of this year and it was also proposed that an update report be made every 6 months. RESOLVED: That1) the Housing Land Position Statement as contained at Appendix A to the report

be noted; 2) there is not a clear justification to release the allocated site north of Udimore

Road, Rye for housing development in the context of Policy DS6 of the adopted Rother District Local Plan, and having regard to the provisions of Planning Policy Statement 3, at this time; and

3) notwithstanding (2) above, it is noted that the supply of developable housing land remains relatively marginal in relation to outstanding Structure Plan requirements, such that the situation be updated as appropriate as part of the forthcoming Annual Monitoring Report and subsequently at regular intervals, with any recommendation for release being referred to Council.”

Consequently there would be no requirement to release this land yet and to grant planning permission at this stage would be contrary to the stated policies of the Local Plan.I am aware that the Town Council and a number of local residents have cited other ‘brownfield’ sites which should, in any event, be developed before this site is considered. In reality some of the sites mentioned already form part of the housing land supply. Further, the Council’s position is that it should be permitted to take into account other ‘windfall’ sites in ensuring a five year supply and meeting the Structure Plan requirement, and indeed, it is already reliant upon such sites continuing to come forward.

Consideration of other matters:Although at the present time it is not necessary to release this land for housing and my recommendation is to refuse permission on this ground, it is necessary for the local planning authority to address this application as a whole and to determine all other relevant issues at this stage.

Density -Although this is an outline application it is for a specified number of dwellings and at a figure above the 114 dwellings referred to in the Local Plan. However the stated figure is a minimum figure and as the preamble to the policy acknowledges, “an estimate”, with, “the exact extent of development … determined following a full landscape assessment.”The application is accompanied by a ‘Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment’ as a result of which, and other work, the actual developable area (within the overall allocation) has been adjusted. The site remains at 3.8 hectares though it is decreased

81

on the higher level on the far side of the site and increased to the lower end of the slope.The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment considers the impact of the development on the AONB (beyond the site), the visual impact of the new junction and particularly its lighting, the wider visual impact as perceived from publicly accessible locations and the physical impact of the scheme on existing landscape features.The report does not play down the impact of developing here but identifies opportunities for a new strong landscaped edge along an existing ridgeline to provide long term screening, structural landscape planting and significant areas of new public open space. A landscaped buffer strip is also proposed to the rear of the Udimore Road houses.The main zone of visual influence for the development as a whole is mainly from the north and to a limited extent from the citadel. The impact for the roundabout lighting is much wider including from the Winchelsea and Rye Harbour directions as the roundabout sits on the higher ridge line.In the end, however, the density has been less influenced by the landscape assessment (which has more of an effect on refining the developable area) than on the fact that of the 135 dwellings, 39 units will be flats, which will not be easily distinguishable from the houses of a same scale.

Form, layout and impact on residents -The general layout, while including possibly more terraced or linked units as a result of this total number of houses, fits acceptably on the slopes of the site. While some of the straight roads could give a regimented appearance, the properties on Udimore Road are similarly laid out, and from more distant viewpoints it is clear that the changes in levels reduce the impact of any more formal approach.To a great extent the topography dictates the road pattern but in general terms I consider that there is sufficient variety in the layout and landscaped areas (including the watercourse, and retained hedgerows running through the site) to create a townscape of interest. The loss of an open greenfield area, in itself, requires the development to create a new sense of place and interest.The Local Plan Inspector acknowledged that much of the site occupies, “a shallow dry valley which is contained as a fold in the landscape”, but recognised that the “development located on the more elevated north eastern part of the site would need to be sited and designed with particular care.” This is the area that, because of the topography, many of the Udimore Road residents look towards. The development here (particularly from Plot 104 to Plot 120) is less regimented than on the near side of the valley, and while not unacceptable, might need further consideration at the detailed stage.Other issues raised by Sussex Police from the ‘Secured by Design’ angle would also need to be addressed at the detailed stage.

Mix of housing -In accordance with Council’s policies the illustrative layout includes 30.4% of the dwellings as one or two beds and provides 40% affordable units, 10% to be wheelchair accessible.

Surface water drainage issues -A proper assessment and understanding of existing surface water drainage issues and measures to control and discharge surface water post-development is fundamental to this application. Local residents downhill of the site live with the consequences of surface water run-off at present and there are a number of

82

objections that raise specific issues on drainage, experience of recent flooding and information on the existing system. Some objectors challenge the information put forward in the Flood Risk Assessment accompanying the application.For the Council’s part, it has to be guided by the Environment Agency and in this area taking the local expertise of the Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board. The application documentation describes the site as forming the majority of a small valley with a catchment area extending south west of the site. It identifies the ponds and watercourses on and around the site and proposes a drainage strategy which includes laying a new land drain near the new entrance road, clearing out and reprofiling the existing SW-NE watercourse, improving the northern ditch near the Old Brickyard to cope with surcharge conditions, and monitoring the recently cleared Northern Ditch which feeds into the River Tillingham.Run-off from the new development is to be attenuated within a purpose designed Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) with storage to control discharge at appropriate points and including use of a normally dry basis in the open space are to cope with extreme rainfall events. Outflows from the development will be directed into the north west corner of the northern ditch to discharge to the River Tillingham.The application is made for a specific number of dwellings, therefore before agreeing to a development of this scale the local planning authority must be convinced that the site is capable of accommodating such development, having regard to local conditions and the means of providing adequate drainage, mitigating existing problems and providing other relevant improvements.The measures proposed thus far do not meet with the Environment Agency’s or the Internal Drainage board’s approval and I could not recommend acceptance of the scheme until all matters are resolved. The Agency raise several concerns, but I note, in particular, the concern with regard to the creation of a wetland habitat area and any consequences of this in relation to flooding of properties in Old Brickyard: this part of the site requires positive drainage to an appropriately maintained drainage system or watercourse and must be attenuated prior to discharge. In addition while welcoming the restoration of an open channel where a pipe currently runs through the middle of the site (this feature will benefit the site layout and appearance also), the Agency states that this water needs to be discharged away from existing development in the area.

Foul drainage -As the local network is not capable of taking the development flows at present it is recognised that improvement works, an up-rating of an existing intermediate foul water pumping station and some sewer upsizing works will be necessary. On site, the topography and the invert levels of the existing sewers will necessitate provision of a pumping station. There are no overriding objections to the scheme on this scale from the point of view of foul drainage.

Highway issues -Access is to be determined at this stage and the illustrative layout provides for a new roundabout junction on Udimore Road just to the south west of the junction to Oast House Drive.Within the site, the Traffic Assessment observes the layout will be designed in accordance with the principles and philosophy set in the ‘Manual for Streets’:– Placing greatest emphasis on facilities for those that walk and cycle– Keeping vehicle speeds at or below 20mph– Ensuring permeability within the site– Providing connectivity to the surrounding area on foot and by bike

83

– Using the minimum of highway design features necessary to make streets work properly; and

– Ensuring that parking does not dominate the street sceneIt is stated that car parking is to be provided on the basis of 2 spaces per dwelling. This would be acceptable for the houses though 1 space per flat and one visitor space for every three flats is appropriate for the flats. The illustrative site layout shows most of the detached and semi-detached houses with curtilage parking but a number of more remote shared areas for terrace properties. I would wish to consider this matter in more detail at the reserved matter stage but I do not see this issue as being one that will affect the overall number of dwellings being sought.The County Highway Authority’s response is contained in the attached APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 8 November 2007. There are no fundamental issues raised in terms of layout.

Developer contributions and the requirements of Policy HG1 and Policy RY5 - If permission is granted developer contributions will be sought by means of a Section 106 Obligation.In addition to the stated requirements in the adopted policy, some of which are highway requirements referred to in the Highway Authority’s response, both the Highway Authority and the County Council have set out their position in relation to other related contributions.

The County Council contributions are:(1) for highway purposes:

- bus service contributions £57,000pa- bus stops £8,000 x 4- LSAIC £193,370

(2) for other County Council services:- education £30,500- library £- household waste and recycling £3,400- rights of way £3,200

I have sought the applicant’s response on this matter.

Conclusions:This is an allocated site that has progressed through the Local Plan process and been confirmed by the Local Plan Inspector and subsequently the Council. The issues are as set out above, first the timing of release of the “reserved site”, and secondly, if the site can be brought forward, the acceptability of an outline scheme for this number of dwellings in the general form proposed.As, by the Council’s current housing supply calculations, there is no need to release the site at this stage the application fails the first hurdle. In general terms the mix of dwellings is reasonable but the final number of dwellings within the site can only be determined when a number of outstanding issues have been resolved. In this regard there remain outstanding issues on surface water drainage and for this reason too it would be premature to agree to a scheme of this magnitude without absolute certitude of a workable scheme. Further work must be undertaken with the relevant drainage authorities.If permission were to be forthcoming in the future then all other matters of detail to achieve a satisfactory development of the site and necessary improvements and contributions would be covered by conditions and a Section 106 Obligation.

84

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING)1. On the basis of current housing land availability data there is no requirement

for the early release of this site which is identified as a reserve site in Policy DS6(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan. To grant permission at this time would be premature and contrary to the local planning authority's aim of both, making first and best use of other allocated sites and mainly "brownfield" sites, and to encourage and secure a phased release of all housing sites so that reserve "greenfield" sites are brought forward only when necessary to meet the requirements of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan and PPS3: Housing.

2. Although this is an outline planning application it is not possible for the local planning authority to determine whether a scheme of 135 dwellings is an acceptable form of development in the absence of a full and proven drainage strategy. The site and surrounding properties regularly experience problems arising from surface water run-off and the development of this site will require a comprehensive approach to surface water drainage. At this stage the submitted information is insufficient for the drainage authorities or the local planning authority to determine whether and how the site can be properly drained. As such the proposal does not comply with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2007/2575/P RYE JEMPSONS/BUDGENS FOODSTORE, STATION APPROACHERECTION OF EXTENSION TO FOODSTORE AND ALTERATIONS TO CAR PARK LAYOUTJempsons + MBL


SITE Jempsons/Budgens foodstore in Station Approach, Rye.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/80/1361 Outline application – Redevelopment of land as supermarket/parking/bus

shelter/public toilets – Approved.RR/98/82/P Demolition of bus garage and enlargement of car parking and new

vehicular access – Approved.RR/98/1904/P Conversion of existing customer entrance/exit into shopfront and

formation of new entrance/exit – Approved.

PROPOSAL The application proposes the extension of the existing store utilising the existing car parking area between the front of the building and Station Approach. The extension would be approx 595m2 bringing the net sales area of the foodstore up to 1471m2. The design of the extension follows the overall roof form of the existing building with the addition of feature gables to the frontage. The north corner opposite the station provides a café entrance and space for outdoor seating.The revised layout for car parking and servicing will reduce the number of customer spaces from 91 to 83 but will be coupled with a car park management and monitoring plan. In addition change to servicing operation and relocation of the recycling centre will enable a better and simpler car parking layout.Internally, the store layout will be enhanced to include further checkouts, a coffee kiosk and seating area, bakery/butcher and delicatessen counters and ATM’s. A new

85


and enhanced store entrance will be provided with direct access to special needs parking for disabled and parent and child customers. The applicant’s agent have submitted –

1) Transport statement.2) Planning statement.3) Full design and access statement.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council – “Support refusal. RN7D – Loss of parking spaces and loss of loading bay area (large delivery vehicles manoeuvring would present a hazard to users of the car park and their vehicles); RN8B – Site is too restricted in size to satisfactorily accommodate the proposal and provide adequate amenity area; the proposed extension would create a blind spot for pedestrians crossing Station Approach from the vicinity of Rye Grill and would place them at considerable risk of injury from oncoming traffic; there is no provision for customer toilets.”Highway Authority – “I do not object to this development proposal in principle subject to agreement on the followingFootway worksI am concerned at the proposed works to the existing footway around the site way. I enclose a plan showing the considered extent of the highway at the site which demonstrates that the footway in this area forms part of the adopted highway.While I welcome the intention to improve the area for pedestrians I am concerned at the long term maintenance of the area by the Highway Authority and would expect any works/materials to be agreed with the Area Highway Manager.Travel planI note the inclusion of a travel plan with this development, which will focus on staff travel given the high proportion of staff cars in the car park. I would also wish to see measures included in the travel plan to reduce car borne trips by customers.I would wish to see a formal travel plan adopted, secured by legal agreement, to include targets to reduce car borne trips to the store and encourage the use of sustainable transport modes. The travel plan should include targets to be met to reduce car use, a monitoring regime and additional measures to be implemented should targets not be met or met too easily.I note that the applicant is proposing to re-Iaunch the "shop and drop" scheme and introduce a car park management plan with such measures as introducing a minimum store spend to allow parking on site and/or reducing the free parking time, enforced through ANPR monitoring. I would welcome the introduction of such measures as part of a travel plan along with measures to increase bus, train and cycle use and encourage walking to the store. A staff car share club would also be appropriate and I note the provision of staff changing and shower facilities and a car parking permit scheme.A travel plan framework document should be submitted for comment to be included in a legal agreementParkingI note that the existing vehicle parking spaces are to be rearranged and will be reduced in number from 91-83.The enlarged store (2060sqm) requires a total of 114 spaces (1 space per 18sqm) in accordance with the East Sussex County Council parking standards. The site is however in zone 3 and therefore the parking should be between 50-75% of this standard. The proposed 83 spaces fall within this range. It is also noted from the submitted survey results that the on site parking is not currently used to full capacity and therefore despite an increase in store size I consider that the proposed 83 spaces will be satisfactory.10 cycle parking spaces are to be provided with this development to the west of the

86

store. Given that the shop entrance and town centre is to the east of the site I recommend that some spaces are added to this frontage of the store. All cycle parking should be covered and secure.LoadingI note that the position of the loading bay for deliveries as delivery lorries will have to negotiate through the car park (and pedestrians) to reach the "Goods in" door. However given that deliveries are likely to happen out of store opening hours and the existing store does not have a formal loading area I do not consider this to be a problemContributionsThis development gives rise to the need for a Local Sustainable Accessibility Improvement Contribution to mitigate the transport impacts of the development. I wish to secure a contribution of £10,000 which will be spent on measures identified in the Rye LATS. These measures will include improvements for pedestrians and bus users close to Rye Station for the benefit of shoppers and those using this area. Works will include improvements to the pedestrian and bus facilities between the store and the railway station, ie narrowing the carriageway to create more space for pedestrians and bus users, and upgrading bus stops in this area.Along with this contribution to be secured by legal agreement I recommend that the following conditions are included in any grant of consent:1. The development shall not be occupied until parking areas have been provided

in accordance with the approved plans and the areas shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of motor vehiclesReason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway

2. The development shall not be occupied until cycle parking areas have been provided in accordance with the details which shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the areas shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of cyclesReason: In order that the development site is accessible by non car modes and to meet the objectives of sustainable development.”

Southern Water – “Please find attached a plan of the sewer records showing the approximate position of a public sewer crossing the site. The exact position of the public sewers must be determined on site by the applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised.It might be possible to divert the public sewer, so long as this would result in no unacceptable loss of hydraulic capacity, and the work was carried out at the developer’s expense to the satisfaction of Southern Water under the relevant statutory provisions.Should the applicant wish to divert apparatus:1. No new building, new trees, or large bushes, or other new permanent

obstructions should be located within the following minimum distances from the centre of the public sewer:SewerCritical 750mm diameter foul sewage = 5.0m500mm diameter brick surface water sewer = 3.5m

2. No new soakaways should be located within 5m of public sewer.3. All other existing infrastructure should be protected during the course of

construction works.Alternatively, the applicant may wish to amend the site layout, or combine a diversion with amendment of the site layout. If the applicant would prefer to advance these options, items (1)-(3) above also apply.

87

In order to protect drainage apparatus, Southern Water requests that if consent is granted a condition is attached to the planning permission. For example ‘The developer must advise the local authority (in consultation with Southern Water) of the measures which will be undertaken to divert the public sewers, prior to the commencement of the development.’”Environment Agency – “Thank you for your letter dated 18 th September 2007. The EA have no objection to the application subject to the following conditions.Potential Contamination – Planning Policy Statement 23: Planning and Pollution Control states that ‘in considering individual planning applications, the potential for contamination to be present must be considered in relation to the existing use and the possibility of encountering contamination during development. The LPA should satisfy itself that the potential for contamination and any risks arising are properly assessed and that the development incorporates any necessary remediation and subsequent management measures to deal with unacceptable risks, including those covered by Part IIA of the EPA 1990.The previous use and historical nature of this site may have left contamination that could impact on the proposed development and the Agency therefore requests the following condition:CONDITION: If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for an amendment to the Method Statement detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.Reason: To protect the environment.Flood Risk: This site lies within a Flood Zone 3 which is the highest risk zone and as such should have been accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment. However, given that the use is classified as “less Vulnerable” in PPS25 and that it is an extension to an existing building, the EA is willing to review this application and has no objection.We would however strongly encourage the applicant to raise the floor levels as high as practically possible and to ensure that flood resilient materials and building techniques are employed to help minimise damage in the event of a flood.ESCC - County Archaeologist:- “The proposed development is situated within an archaeologically sensitive area, designated because it lies adjacent to the historic core of the medieval town and port of Rye. Although outside the town wall, it is possible that this area was a focus for semi-industrial activities such as tanning, river edge hulk dismantling and rubbish disposal. Certainly by the early 19th century, historic mapping, suggests this area had been divided into a series of property plots, with the area of the proposed development containing back yards to properties fronting Cinque Port Street.In the light of the potential archaeological significance of this site, it is my opinion that the area affected by the proposals should be the subject of a programme of archaeological works. This will enable any archaeological deposits and features, disturbed during the proposed works, to be adequately recorded. These recommendations are in line with the advice given in PPG16 (the Government's advice on Archaeology and Planning).I would therefore ask that the following condition be applied to any planning permission that is granted in respect of this application:No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, including a timetable for the investigation, which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

88

Reason: The development is likely to disturb features of archaeological interest, which need to be examined and recorded in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(j) and EN22 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.It is expected that the written scheme of investigation will confirm the action to be taken and accord with the relevant portions of the East Sussex County Council document Recommended Standard Conditions for Archaeological Fieldwork, Recording and Post-Excavation (Development Control) (Version 3, dated 17-09-03) including Annexe B.In furtherance of this recommendation, we shall be available to advise the applicant on how they can best fulfil any archaeological condition that is applied to their planning permission.Perhaps you could send us a copy of the planning decision, once it has been made. Meanwhile, please do not hesitate to contact us again if you need further information or advice.”Director of Services - Design & Conservation Officer:- “Firstly, I would state that I have no objection to the principle of an extension of the store, and, at a detailed level, I am pleased to note that the architectural style of the proposed extension now displays more of the successful mix of contemporary interpretation of vernacular detailing that the entrance of the Peasmarsh supermarket does.However, this in no way overcomes my more serious concerns about the design proposed as a whole.The Rye Conservation Area Appraisal highlights this area of Rye as being of poor townscape quality, and states .'a bleak and unfriendly space is created with the main traffic distributor Crown Fields bordered by the railway track to the north, and an open expanse of space to the south. 'I consider that key to the success of any extension/remodelling scheme at the supermarket is the impact on the character of the street and quality of the public realm here. In considering this, the design of the spaces around the building/extension is as important as the design of the physical extension itself. I am concerned and surprised that the Design and Access statement submitted does not address this.I consider the scheme submitted comes up too tight to the pavement, resulting in a cramped pedestrian route here, and poor public realm. Further, the staggered footprint approach would be inhospitable, creating hidden corners, particularly at night-time. I also consider that the siting of the extension so far to the northern boundary of the site would impact heavily on views in this direction towards the listed Railway building, and would cramp the setting of this building.Government guidance makes clear that any extension should be regarded as an opportunity to improve the existing situation with regard to streetscape, public realm and the quality of the pedestrian environment. I believe alternative, acceptable proposals are possible on the site, indeed at pre-application stage I passed to the agents/applicants a rough sketch of how an extension might sit with an appropriate relationship to the street, and I would be happy to discuss alternative schemes with the architects/applicants.For all of these reasons, the design solution proposed is not good enough, particularly in the context of what should be an important approach to such an important historic town. As it stands, the proposal would warrant refusal under policies EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, Policies DS1(vi), GD1(iii)(iv)(xi)(viii), EM13 and RY1(i)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan, and Government guidance in PPS1, PPG15, and the other aforementioned guidance documents.”Romney Marsh Area Internal Drainage Board – No objection.

89

Sussex Police – “I have now had an opportunity to examine this application in detail from a crime prevention viewpoint and as a result, in an endeavour to reduce the opportunities for crime and the fear of crime, I offer the following comments.The Safer Places document from the ODPM, (2004) offers a good practice guide for the creation of well designed and safe places through the planning system. The Crime & Disorder Act 1998 heightens the importance of taking crime prevention into account when planning decisions are made. Section 17 of the Act places a clear duty on both police and local authorities to exercise their various functions with due regard to the likely effect on the prevention of crime and disorder. You are asked to accord due weight to the advice offered in this letter which would demonstrate your authority's commitment to work in partnership and comply with the spirit of The Crime & Disorder Act.a) The location is a medium risk crime area.b) I have examined the detail within this application from a crime prevention viewpoint and as a result I have a number of comments to offer.Firstly, so far as the car park is concerned the new layout proposed provides a less tortuous route for customers and because there is now a circulatory route the area will benefit from passing "natural surveillance".The service area is also an improvement; however, I assume that the whole area will be gated at its entrance.Furthermore, I would like to suggest that it may be possible to incorporate a cash handling facility within the secure service area. This would reduce opportunities for robbery because cash is carried from the car park through the store.The "new" escape stairs should have a steel lined door to accord with LPS1175SR3 with hinge bolts fitted.The extension should have external doors to LPS1175SR3 and those that are outward opening should have hinge bolts fitted.The two sets of sliding doors should be secured to conform to BS8220 using locks to BS3621.All external glazing should be laminated.The centrally monitored alarm will need to be extended to cover the extension.Lighting will be an important consideration both around the building and in the car park.Finally, I am a little concerned about the canopy over the main entrance/trolley bay. I feel that local youths will find it irresistible after business hours and may benefit from a re-think.c) This letter has been copied to the applicant or their agent who is asked to note that the above comments may be a material consideration in the determination of the application but may not necessarily be acceptable to the Local Planning Authority. It is recommended, therefore, that before making any amendments to the application, the applicant or their agent first discusses these comments with the Local Planning Authority.”Director of Services – Environmental Health – Requests contaminated land condition.Director of Services – Head of Amenities – Comments awaited.Planning Notice – Rye Conservation Society – “No objection. The development should include enhancement of the hard and soft landscaping to the car park area in particular the use of semi-mature trees”.

SUMMARY The site is within the Rye Shopping Area where the following policies apply:Policy EM13 – Shopping and related commercial development shall be focussed within the main shopping areas of Bexhill, Battle and Rye town centres, as defined on the Proposals Map.

90

Within the main shopping areas, as defined on the Proposals Map, the loss of significant existing ground floor retail floor space falling within Use Class A1 will be resisted and planning permission will be granted for the introduction of new shops and the expansion or refurbishment of existing premises, subject to suitable layout and design details.The town centre is focussed on the historic Citadel, extending northward towards the railway station. In line with Policy EM13 in Section 9, the Council seeks to maintain and, where appropriate, strengthen the role of the town centre. Retail activity should be concentrated within the established main shopping area, which has been extended to include the market site and adjoining shopping developments.In accordance with Policy SH2 of the Structure Plan and guidance in PPS6, the retail floor space needs of Rye are to be assessed, in conjunction with relevant stakeholders and the community. The assessment will take into account the forecast modest growth of the town; the need to counter the leakage of retail expenditure to other centres and the importance of Rye effectively fulfilling its strategically defined role as a residential, local shopping and employment centre and its functions as a key service and major tourist centre. Although no site-specific allocation for further floor space provision is made at this time, the assessment process will be subject to regular monitoring and review. Any proposal in the interim would be considered against the provisions of Policy EM13 and, if necessary, the sequential test in Policy EM14.Policy RY6 – The ‘main shopping area’ of Rye, as defined on the Proposals Map, will be the primary focus for retail development for the town. In the event of the assessment demonstrating a need for significant new convenience floor space growth, the potential to accommodate this will be examined, first of all within the main shopping area and will be fully assessed in accordance with the provisions of Policy EM13 and, secondly, against the sequential tests set out in Policy EM14.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (CONSIDERATION OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES)

View application/correspondence--oo0oo--

91


rr/2007/2451/p - residents - rother district council · web viewa clear glazed window to the rear...

Documents