rr/2009/226/p - residents - rother district council · web viewdevonshire square rr/2009/62/p 8...

Rother District Council Agenda Item: 6Committee - Planning

Date - 19 March 2009

Report of - Director of Services

Subject - Planning Applications

Planning Committee Procedures

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

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

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

electronic Notified D system as a means of providing further information for elected Members. This delegation also allows the Head of Planning to negotiate and amend applications, conditions, reasons for refusal and notes commensurate with the instructions of the Committee. Any applications which are considered prior to the expiry of the consultation reply period are automatically delegated for a decision.

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

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

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

REFERENCE PAGE PARISH SITE ADDRESS

RR/2009/226/P 1 BEXHILL 207 COODEN DRIVE

RR/2009/387/P 6 BEXHILL THE DEVONSHIRE ARMSDEVONSHIRE SQUARE

RR/2009/62/P 8 BATTLE DOCTOR'S COTTAGE –LAND ATDARWELL HILL

RR/2009/419/P 13 RYE FERRY ROAD AND CYPRUS PLACE – LAND ADJACENT

RR/2009/420/P 16 RYE FERRY ROAD AND CYPRUS PLACE – LAND ADJACENT

RR/2008/1030/P 20 PENHURST MANOR HOUSE

RR/2008/1261/L 20 PENHURST MANOR HOUSE

RR/2009/379/P 24 BRIGHTLING OLD STONESDOWNFARMHOUSEBATTLE ROAD

2

RR/2009/15/P 25 BURWASH DAWES FARM

RR/2007/3413/P 27 BECKLEY HERON LEAHOBBS LANE

RR/2008/3568/P 32 BECKLEY ABBEY LODGEHORSESHOE LANE

RR/2009/136/P 37 BECKLEY EASTLANDS FARM – BARNS ATSTODDARDS LANE

RR/2009/297/P 43 BECKLEY RAYNEHURSTWHITEBREAD LANE

RR/2009/187/P 46 NORTHIAM THE OLD BUILDERS YARDMAIN STREET

RR/2009/188/H 46 NORTHIAM THE OLD BUILDERS YARDMAIN STREET

RR/2009/429/P 50 NORTHIAM GREAT DIXTER HOUSE

RR/2009/430/L 50 NORTHIAM GREAT DIXTER HOUSEDIXTER ROAD

RR/2009/434/L 53 NORTHIAM THE GREAT BARN – GREAT DIXTER HOUSE ANDGARDENSDIXTER ROAD

RR/2009/436/P 55 NORTHIAM GREAT DIXTER HOUSEDIXTER ROAD

RR/2009/438/P 56 NORTHIAM GREAT DIXTER FARMDIXTER ROAD

RR/2009/442/P 60 NORTHIAM 47/54 DIXTER ROAD

RR/2009/99/P 64 CAMBER 16 THE SUTTONSTHE PILOT

RR/2009/189/L 67 TICEHURST SHOVERS GREEN HOUSESHOVERS GREEN

RR/2009/190/P 67 TICEHURST SHOVERS GREEN HOUSESHOVERS GREEN

RR/2009/312/P 69 TICEHURST CHERRY TREE NURSERYTHE MOUNT

3

RR/2009/107/P 74 ETCHINGHAM GREENBANKSHIGH STREET

RR/2009/162/P 81 SEDLESCOMBE SPRINGFIELD COTTAGEBREDE LANE

RR/2008/3343/P 84 FAIRLIGHT MOON COTTAGE – FIELD ATHUMPHREYS FARMFRIARS HILLGUESTLING/FAIRLIGHT

RR/2008/3382/P 87 FAIRLIGHT 87 BATTERY HILL

--oo0oo--

4

R/2009/226/P BEXHILL 207 COODEN DRIVE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND OUTBUILDING. ERECTION OF 6 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS TOGETHER WITH PARKING.Mr F Forte

Statutory 8 week date: 18 March 2009

SITE 207 Cooden Drive is a two-storey dwelling, of castellated design with a large single storey extension to the rear, over the swimming pool located on the southern side of Cooden Drive. The site slopes up from the road at the front with lawns sweeping down to the beach at the rear. The area to the rear of the building is within the Cooden Cliffs Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI), ref. CR23. The former nursing home of “Three Chimneys” to the east has now been redeveloped with two and three storey apartment blocks set at a considerably lower ground level. The single and two-storey dwelling of no.217 Cooden Drive lies to the west at a higher ground level. The site is located within the development boundary for Bexhill and is characterised by a mix of residential dwellings comprising flats but mostly larger detached houses and smaller semi-detached houses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Approved Conditional.RR/2006/1693/P Outline application for the demolition of existing house and garage

and construction of eight flats with parking spaces and alteration to existing vehicular access - Refused.

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

RR/2007/1788/P Erection of three residential units including roof dormer windows with provision of six parking spaces - Withdrawn.

RR/2008/9/P Demolition of swimming pool building. Erection of single storey extension, two storey rear extension and extension to roof. internal alterations to form self-contained accommodation - Refused.

RR/2008/1471/P Demolition of swimming pool structure. Extensions and alterations to include self-contained integral unit. Approved conditional.

RR/2008/3331/P Erection of first floor balcony to rear south elevation (retrospective application) - Approved Conditional.

RR/2008/3384/P Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuilding. Erection of 6 residential apartments together with parking - Withdrawn.

1

PROPOSAL This application proposes the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement with a block of 6 flats, (5 x 3 beds and 1 x 2 beds), of the same design as those now constructed to the east, Cooden Heights, (formerly Three Chimneys Nursing Home). It is proposed to lower the existing ground level substantially, almost to that of the adjacent flats. The new building would be three storey and to the same depth as the adjacent flats but deeper than the dwelling at 217 Cooden Drive. The height is comparable to the existing dwelling. The building is set off the side boundaries by between 1 and 4m to the flats (giving a minimum space between the buildings of 3m) and by 1.8 and 5m to 217 Cooden Drive, (giving a minimum space between the buildings of 5.2m). The proposed footprint is in effect a cross, having a wider central section. The projection to the front is narrower than existing while those to the rear are slightly wider but some 9m shorter than the existing swimming pool enclosure. The rear projection on the west side (to 217 Cooden Drive) is 4.3m shorter at second floor level. The existing access is to be reused with the provision of 10 parking bays as well as a refuse enclosure. The height of the front and east side walls are to be reduced with hedge planting to the front boundary behind the wall.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- Raises no objections subject to the imposition of conditions. It is noted that the proposals require between 10 and 13 spaces in this location to comply with parking standards and thus the standard is achieved. The existing access is to be reused.Southern Water:- Initial investigations indicate that foul sewage disposal can be provided but consent is required to connect to the public sewer. While reference is made to the use of SUDS systems for surface water drainage, there are no details and it may not be the best method for this site. As such details as specified in the response from Southern Water should be submitted and agreed prior to any construction works commencing.South East Water:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency: The site overlies a minor aquifer, as such the developers should adopt all appropriate pollution control measures, both underground and on the surface, to ensure that the integrity of the aquatic environment, both groundwater and surface water, is assured.Planning Notice:- 5 objections have been received on the following grounds: There is no material difference to that withdrawn in January. This part of Cooden Drive is characterised by large detached houses and this

proposal is out of character. The adjacent development replacing an institutional type building is not a reason

to perpetuate this type of proposal and further erode the character of the area. It would set a precedent. It will increase traffic and highway hazards. A lack of parking spaces will give rise to an increase in on-street parking. More flats are not needed as some of the existing ones are still unoccupied. Overlooking will result in a loss of privacy. Will add to flooding problems.

SUMMARY This site lies within the development boundary for Bexhill where redevelopment may be considered, subject to compliance with policy criteria as set out in Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1 and S6 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. The adjacent sites to the east have been redeveloped with planning permission with a scheme for flats and two houses. The adjacent plots lent themselves to redevelopment and were considered

2

capable of accommodating blocks of flats, in some form, without overt detriment to the neighbours or street scene. The development was designed to be lower at the side boundaries reflecting the lower two-storey scale of adjacent dwellings.

Planning permission was previously refused to redevelop this dwelling house with flats, RR/2006/1693/P for a variety of reasons including: Disruption to the domestic scale of this part of Cooden Drive, with a proposal

that was out of character and failed to enhance or protect the local environment. The mass and scale would be larger and dominant, therefore adversely

impacting upon the street scene. There would be a loss of amenity for neighbouring residential occupiers by loss

of privacy and intrusion resulting from increased activity on the site, and a dominant and overbearing outlook resulting from the size and mass of the resultant new building.

Could set a precedent for similar proposals in the vicinity of the site that would result in an incremental and harmful change to the existing character and appearance of the locality.

The proposal did not provide adequate foul and surface water drainage.

Planning permission for the detailed redevelopment of the adjacent site was granted after this refusal and the site is now developed. This has given rise to a change in planning circumstances and to the character and appearance of the street scene in this vicinity. The application site is now considered to be capable of some redevelopment but regard should be had to the previous comments and concerns and to the detailed scheme now presented.

The proposed new building is to be constructed at a lower ground level, comparable to the adjacent apartments and a whole floor lower than the chalet bungalow at 217 Cooden Drive. This application differs from that withdrawn in January with a reduction in the roof mass and lowering of the eaves to the sides and the removal of part of the rear projection at second floor level. As such the street scene illustrated on drawing no. 81053/07B indicates that the eaves and ridge height remain comparable to both the existing building and the neighbours on either side. With regard to building width, the proposed apartment block is only 0.6m wider than the dwelling at 217 Cooden Drive while being considerably narrower than the new development to the east. It is thus considered to represent a gentle scaling down between the two types of dwelling at this point.

The depth in relation to 217 Cooden Drive was raised as a concern, with regard to the second floor, which would be at first floor level with No.217. The flat to this side has therefore been reduced to a 2 x bedroom unit and the depth of the building reduced by 4.3m on this side. A larger balcony is retained but this would be required to retain an opaque privacy screen to its side elevation. No.217 has a single storey flat roof rear extension of 5m to this side (not indicated on the plans), which is slightly deeper than the first floor element now proposed. With the presence of privacy screens and the staggered rear line of the proposed building projecting beyond the rear of neighbouring dwellings to the west, there should be no issues of overlooking or loss of privacy such as to justify a refusal on this ground.

The objections raised by occupiers not adjoining the site are noted. As advised, the proposal complies with highway requirements and is considered to fit within the existing street scene with regard to the height and massing of the building. There are no side

3

windows and the rear elevation is designed and located such as to minimise any impacts upon the amenities of neighbours. Cooden Drive contains a variety of dwelling types and sizes although it is acknowledged to contain larger detached properties from this point to the west. The existing two-storey castellated house is uncharacteristic of this section of the road. Dwellings to the west on the seaward side are characterised by their design as bungalow/chalet bungalows, while the two storey houses to the north side of the road increase in size until they become the large blocks of flat roofed flats at Westbourne Court. The proposed new building is located at a junction between changes in the type of dwellings and as such is not considered to be out of character and would thus fit within the street scene. This proposal is, however, reliant upon the excavation of the site, which would be inappropriate among the dwellings to the west and thus unlikely to set a precedent. As is usual any future proposals would be judged on their individual merits at that time.

In this particular instance, the proposals are considered acceptable and in accordance with policy.

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

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

2. No development shall take place until samples/details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development reflects the character and/or appearance of neighbouring existing buildings and to preserve the visual amenities of the area 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.

3. The finished ground floor levels of the building hereby approved in relation to existing and proposed site levels, the adjacent highway and adjacent properties, together with details of levels of all accesses, to include pathways, driveways, steps and ramps, shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings no. 81053/06C and 07B, date stamped 21 January 2009.Reason: To provide for the proper development of the site and to accord with Policy GD1(i), (ii), (iii), (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(b), (e), (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. Prior to the construction of the building hereby permitted, details of surface water drainage for the site, to include surface water from parking areas and hardstandings which shall be passed through trapped gullies to BS 5911:1982, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in association with Southern Water. The drainage works shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any of the dwelling units hereby approved.Reason: To prevent water pollution and ensure satisfactory drainage of the site in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy EN11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

5. Before commencement of any building works in respect of the dwellings hereby approved, full details of all window and door openings, to include materials,

4

reveals, lintels, arches and cills, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and the works shall be completed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form and appearance to the development in the interests of the character and visual amenities of the area, 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.

6. Prior to the occupation of any of the dwelling units hereby permitted details of the surfacing materials for the access, turning and parking areas and the footways shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and these hard surfaced areas shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance to the development and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (as amended), (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification), no windows or openings (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be inserted into the west side elevations or roof slopes of the building hereby permitted, without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To prevent overlooking of adjacent properties and to accord with Policy S1of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

8. No development in respect of the apartment block hereby approved shall commence until details for the landscaping of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include a planting plan with schedule of plants/trees, noting species, plant sizes and positions and a programme of implementation.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.

9. If within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree/plant that tree/plant, or any planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies, [or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective] another tree/plant of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the local planning authority gives its written consent to any variation.Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality 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. Before occupation of any of the apartments hereby approved, the car parking and vehicular turning space as set out on the approved drawing no.81053/06C date stamped 21 January 2009, shall be provided and thereafter retained for such purposes only.Reason: In the interests of and for the safety of persons and vehicles using the premises and/or the adjoining road and in order to secure a satisfactory standard of development and to accord with Policies S1 and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1 and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan.

5

11. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (as amended), (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification), no additional boundary enclosures shall be erected, without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To maintain the visual appearance of the site and to ensure protection of the Site of Nature Conservation Importance on the beach, having regard to Policy EN17 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed residential development is located within the development boundary for Bexhill and is considered to be of an appropriate scale, design and appearance at this point within the street scene, and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy S1 and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan.

View application/correspondence_____________________________________________________________________

RR/2009/387/P BEXHILL THE DEVONSHIRE ARMS, DEVONSHIRE SQUAREINSTALLATION OF EXTERNAL STEPS TO EXISTING TERRACEF Forte Development Ltd

Statutory 8 week date: 6 April 2009

SITE The Devonshire Arms is a public house located to the south of Devonshire Square, in a prominent position within Bexhill Town Centre Conservation Area.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2008/3131/P Installation of external awnings – Approved conditional.RR/2007/762/P Removal of external steps and construction of raised external

terrace – Approved conditional.

PROPOSAL Permission is sought to construct a curved set of steps to the southern end of the raised terrace area that was approved in 2007.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority – ‘I do not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to the observations below: The proposed external steps to the existing terrace are to be located off the existing highway. I would wish that the proposed steps are easily identifiable for all footway users including the mobility impaired.’Planning Notice – Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY The proposal involves removing a section of railing approximately 1.5 metres in length, to the southern end of the raised terrace area. Four steps set into the raised terrace are proposed, arranged in a curved form, rising from the pavement level to the existing terrace level. A short section of new railing to match the existing is

6

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr2009226p

proposed, to be set back from the pavement, behind the new steps. The existing raised terrace area can only be accessed from the internal bar area and therefore the new steps are seen to improve access as well as offer another means of escape from the building in the case of an emergency. Prior to the raised terrace area being constructed, a set of steps and an access were present to the south of the building.Details of the steps, to ensure they comply with Highway requirements, could be requested via condition. Provided the new short section of railing matches the existing I am of the opinion that this small scale alteration is acceptable and unlikely to detract from the character, appearance or setting of the Conservation Area. I therefore support this application.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD 20 MARCH 2009) (SUBJECT TO NO ADVERSE COMMENTS FROM CONSULTEES)1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three


2. The railing to be constructed to the east of the steps hereby approved shall match in design, materials, colour and texture that of the existing railing present on the raised terrace area.Reason: To ensure special regard is paid to the interests of protecting and preserving the character, appearance and setting of the Bexhill Town Centre Conservation Area in accordance with Policy GD1 (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. At no time shall any item(s) of any description be attached to the railings hereby approved.Reason: To preserve the character, visual appearance and setting of the building and the Bexhill Town Centre Conservation Area in accordance with Policy GD1 (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the steps hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Details shall include the material, colour and texture. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure special regard is paid to the interests of protecting and preserving the character, appearance and setting of the Bexhill Town Centre Conservation Area and to ensure the steps are easily identifiable for all footway users including the mobility impaired, in accordance with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed steps are of an appropriate design and will not adversely affect the character, appearance or setting of the Bexhill Town Centre Conservation Area, pedestrian safety or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore comply with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.


7


RR/2009/62/P BATTLE DOCTOR'S COTTAGE - LAND AT, DARWELL HILLERECTION OF SINGLE 4 BEDROOM DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE TO MEET THE VERY SPECIFIC NEEDS OF THE APPLICANTS.R and C Martin


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

SITE The application site is part of a field, located outside any identified development boundary and within the High Weald AONB.

HISTORYThere is no planning history for the field.

PROPOSAL The application details proposals for the erection of a new purpose built, specially designed dwelling on the south facing hillside, with access via an existing field gate off Darwell Hill. The dwelling is two storey, partially cut into the hillside with excavated earth used to create additional banking around the dwelling, including to the western side. A detached garage is located at the upper level between the dwelling and roadside copse. The dwelling is large with the footprint of the ‘main’ house measuring 23.5m wide x 7.8m deep. The dwelling has a lounge, diner, kitchen and bed-sitting room (annexe) to the upper level with four bedrooms, laundry, cloakroom and boiler at the lower level. A study and storage room and ventilation pump are also included within part of the roof space.

The architect has sought to design the building to give the impression of a barn set within the hillside, while incorporating special elements to provide a near dust free but airy environment to meet the special medical needs of the applicant’s daughter and improve the life of the family.

The application includes several accompanying documents, including the agents ‘supporting statement’, details of the current cleaning regime for dust mite control, copies of letters from the family doctors and London consultants, supporting letters from the house builder who would supply an active ventilation system with filters to prevent house dust mites, a case study of a house designed for allergy sufferers in Australia, copy email from a local estate agent regarding the lack of locally available building plots, copy email correspondence with the Highway Authority and the Design & Access Statement. A summary paper has also been produced and is copied in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 March 2009.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council: “The Council has considered very carefully all the papers supporting this application which set out fully the difficult circumstances faced by the applicant in caring for both his daughter and elderly parents. The Council acknowledges that the applicant wishes to live near his parents and build a new house specifically designed to minimise the cause of his daughter’s problems. The application argues that a location in the countryside is essential to achieve the latter and that this factor should outweigh planning policies designed to protect the countryside and specifically, the AONB. The Council has weighed these issues but does not accept that there is an overriding case for departing from these policies. They are therefore opposed to the application.”

8

Highway Authority: has no objection subject to the imposition of conditions requiring the upgrading of the access and the provision of on-site parking and turning.Planning Notice: 2 letters of objection, including one from the CPRE have been received on the following grounds: Although distressing, this case does not fit the specified exceptions for

development in the countryside and thus national and local policy objections should be upheld.

Alternatives are considered to be available including development of a building plot within a rural community which should be further considered.

The real reason for this application on this particular site is that the land is already owned by the family but this should not be used as a justification for granting permission against policy.

The land is farm land within the AONB and should be retained as such. The dwelling is very large and with associated development it will cover a large

area of the field and thus be visible from several surrounding properties.

9 letters of support have been submitted on the following grounds: The building has been well designed to fit the character of the area. The building will be screened from the road by the woodland with minimal views

available from elsewhere. While in favour, a management plan should be included for the woodland and

local ecology and a dormice survey undertaken. The medical circumstances of the case are considered sufficient to justify this as

an exceptional case to support development in the countryside against normal policy restrictions.

Visibility at the access is good. The location enables support for the applicant’s parents to be available enabling

them to stay in their long time home at Doctors Cottage. The proposal will enable the family to live a normal life. The siting and design will have minimal impact upon the visual character of the

AONB.

SUMMARY It is considered that the issues relevant in this proposal are:1. Compliance with policy2. Impact on the landscape3. Personal circumstances4. Alternative options.

1. PolicyThis application proposes the construction of a new dwelling in the countryside which in general is contrary to both national and local policy. As set out in Policy HG10 of the local plan“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;

(ii) is the conversion (without the need for substantial rebuilding) of a building in accordance with Policy HG11;

9

(iii) 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; or

(iv) is housing for local people unable to compete in the local housing market, subject to the criteria in Policy HG2 above;

(v) is the conversion or sub-division of an existing larger property where it is the only effective means of reusing it and meets the criteria in Policy GD1.”

The proposal as presented does not fit within any of these criteria. The supporting documents, however, indicate the attempts undertaken to try to comply with this and other policies, and cites various Government guidance which the agent considers permits the Council to consider these proposals as an exceptional circumstance.

2. Impact on the landscapeThe application site is located on a south westerly facing hillside within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Limited views of the site may be gained from the local public footpath, as referred to by the applicants and also from Penhurst Lane (dependent upon time of year and hedge height). Distant views may also be available to the west along Battle Road, where the land level is higher. At present the site is open grazing land bordered to the north by trees and a small copse. The proposals are to partially excavate so stepping the dwelling into the hillside with bunding around it to screen the lower sections of the building from any wider view.

The height of the building measures almost 6m to eaves and almost 10m to the ridge. As such it is expected that the roof would clearly be visible and possibly some of the upper level too. The building is set against the backdrop of trees and is proposed to be clad with dark grey/faded brown timber boarding to the walls and dark brown/red mottled clay tiles to the roof. Such a building would thus be expected to blend with the landscape, although in view of its size and the presence of rooflights it is likely to have a degree of prominence which some may argue to be uncharacteristic in this rural area.

3. Personal circumstancesIt is argued that the personal circumstances of the applicants are a material consideration and should be an integral consideration in the determination of the application. Specific reference is made to para. 21 of ‘The Planning System: General Principles’ (an accompanying document to PPS1). This states that ‘exceptionally, personal circumstances of an occupier may be material to the consideration of an application’. However, it goes on to say that “in such circumstances, a permission may be subject to a condition that is personal to the applicant. Such arguments will seldom outweigh the more general planning considerations”. The use of a personalised condition in this case would, however, not be recommended as it would be considered unreasonable and would not address the primary concern relating to the construction of a new dwelling in the countryside. This is not the only reference to exceptional circumstances cited. References to the need to provide a variety of housing types to meet the needs of elderly and disabled and to recent health guidance are also made including Policy HG6 of the Structure Plan which states that:

10

“Encouragement and support will be given to schemes which aim to provide accommodation by a variety of means and tenures to meet specific local requirements including, in particular, those for:(c) “lifetime” housing and other accommodation designed to be suitable for

people with disabilities or mental health problems;”

The application stems from the acute illness of the applicant’s daughter who has a sever dust mite allergy as well as asthma. The allergy is currently controlled by a strict, continuous cleaning regime and strong medication. Attendance at school is difficult and she suffers from a deterioration in health as the week progresses. Her immunity levels are low and the allergy can result in respiratory problems which can lead to an anaphylactic shock. As a result she carries a life saving adrenalin injection. Her medical advisers consider that she is unlikely to grow out of her condition and recommend that the family move further into the countryside to an area with good air quality to a house that is as dust free as possible.

The elderly parents also have illnesses, Parkinsons and partial vision and increasingly require general assistance. The applicant’s wife is carer for both her daughter and the elderly parents and herself has a back problem and finds stairs difficult. The application refers to a doctor’s letter and Government guidance advising that the elderly parents would be best kept in their own home which they know. They consider that to move them would create a quicker deterioration in their health. As such the applicants would wish to live closer to the elderly parents.

4. Alternative optionsThe applicant’s existing house is in a rural location but its age, construction and small rooms foster the accumulation of dust and the associated dust mites and while many changes have been made, it is impossible to undertake further structural alterations or install the large pipes required for the necessary ventilation equipment. On the advice of my officers, the applicants have therefore also considered proposals for a replacement dwelling (under provisions within Local Plan policies), or for a new build within their garden. However, they consider the site to be too restrictive in size and state that the location has poor air quality with high humidity levels, which suit dust mite growth and are detrimental to the daughter’s health.

It was thus decided to look at alternative sites but in doing so the family have expressed a need to locate close to their elderly parents, long standing residents of rural Netherfield. Because of the desire to locate near the elderly parents, this has restricted the area of search for alternative dwellings to upgrade or sites on which to construct a replacement dwelling or which have a permission as a building plot. Building plots within the Netherfield area are said to be extremely rare, excessively priced or inappropriate in size/location. The reasons given for not upgrading or redeveloping their existing home are repeated for other rural housing sites in the Netherfield area. The existing parent’s home at Doctors Cottage is a grade II listed building and does not lend itself to adaption and a suitably sized extension is considered by the applicant’s to be unlikely to meet their requirements or receive permission.

All the preceding considerations are said to have lead to this ‘last option’ in an attempt to overcome the circumstances now faced by the family. The land at

11

Doctors Cottage is in the family ownership already and thus has no cost implications. The existing dwelling would be sold to fund the construction of the proposed dwelling, following its completion. The location has been specifically picked not only because the resultant dwelling as designed can be reasonably concealed within the landscape but also because of the health benefits afforded from the southerly orientation, clean SW winds, low humidity and opportunity for an eco build using natural untreated materials, rainwater harvesting pond and drainage via a reed bed. The size of the dwelling (183 sq.m. for the main building footprint alone), is said to be the minimal required to accommodate the special build requirements for air and dust control. It includes a guest bedroom for visitors as the family are unable to make the usual family visits or holidays that others enjoy. The bed/sitting room is required for emergency respite care for the elderly parents, whose existing cottage is located 240m down the hill to the north west through the woods. It is stated that there would be no other buildings on the hillside and that additional tree planting and grass/woodland management would be undertaken to maintain the rural visual character of the AONB. The applicants consider their case to be unique and unlikely to be repeated by others.

The special medical conditions highlighted and the family circumstances given are acknowledged and have been taken into consideration. However, are these circumstances of sufficient material importance to justify the dwelling proposed in this particular location? It is a common request by many people to build a new dwelling in the cleaner, healthier countryside and for many others who wish to accommodate or be located near aging parents. As already highlighted, having regard purely to Policy HG10 of the local plan, such a proposal would be refused. Instances of permission being granted for annexe extensions are increasing but a small scale proposal of this nature is not considered to full fill the requirements in this instance. The desire for a new build of specific design to alleviate the allergy symptoms is understood but the proposed site comprising grazing land on an open hillside within the High Weald AONB raises particular concerns for the future protection and preservation of the protected countryside. PPS7 advises that we should ‘strictly control new house building (including single dwellings) in the countryside’ (para. 9) and goes on to state that ‘isolated new houses will require special justification for permission to be granted’ (para.10). ‘Very occasionally the exceptional quality and innovative nature of the design of a proposed, isolated new house may provide this special justification for granting planning permission’, (para.11). No such argument is put forward in this instance and the design, construction and use of materials are not considered to be sufficiently exceptional to comply with this special justification. The guidance here makes no allowance for any other type of special justification.

ConclusionWhile I have sympathy with the applicants’ personal circumstances regarding their daughter and parents, I consider the proposal does not justify a departure from long established countryside policies and is therefore contrary to the Development Plan.

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

boundary as defined within the Rother District Local Plan. Policies S1(c)(e)(j)(q), S10(c) and S11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies HG10, DS1 and DS4 of the Rother District Local Plan contain a strong presumption against residential development unless it meets one of the

12

exceptions described in the plans. The proposed dwelling is not required for the needs of agriculture or forestry and it has not been demonstrated to the local planning authority that it fits any other exception set out in the plans. The proposed new house has also been assessed against the national policies contained in PPS7 and particularly paragraph 11, however, it is not considered that the design proposal is of sufficiently exceptional quality, innovative nature, outstanding or ground-breaking, to justify "exemption" from the planning policy presumption not to build new houses in the countryside.

2. While the special medical conditions of the family may require a particular remedy, it is not considered that the proposal as presented utilising this particular site are of sufficient weight to justify an exemption from adopted policies and Government guidance. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy S1(c)(e)(j)(q), S10(a), S11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, Policy HG10, DS1(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)(ix) and DS4 of the Rother District Local Plan and guidance contained within PPS7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’.


RR/2009/419/P RYE FERRY ROAD AND CYPRUS PLACE – LAND ADJACENTPROPOSED CAR PARK EXTENSION TO LAND OFF CYPRUS PLACE FOR 24 NEW CAR SPACESReliant Building Contractors


SITE The site comprises a narrow strip of former railway land between the railway line and the car park at the rear of the Kettle O’Fish restaurant in Rye. The site is at a lower level than the railway line and overgrown with scrub and a few trees. It is currently fenced-off from the adjoining car park with a chain link fence. It is some 78 metres in length by, on average, about 12 metres in depth.

HISTORYRR/2008/828/P 8 apartments, 29 lock-up garages, car park extension of (larger site including 58 spaces - Withdrawnland on far side of railway line)

PROPOSAL The scheme involves clearing, filling and levelling the land to provide 24 parking spaces about 7 metres in depth. The scheme retains within the site scrubland and trees in a 5 metre margin alongside the railway line and to the south west end and, outside the site, the scrubland and trees to the rear of Forge Mews. The retention of these ‘green’ areas considerably reduces the scale of the car parking area proposed last year for 58 spaces. The site will be finished in tarmac as an extension to the existing car park.

CONSULTATIONSHighways Agency:- Offers no objection.Highway Authority;- To be reported.Environment Agency:- To be reported.Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board:- No comment.

13


Planning Notice:- To be reported.

SUMMARY The site lies within the Development Boundary of Rye. Policy GD1 of the Local Plan applies. The site is within Flood Risk Zone 3 although the car park use is not included in any of the categories of vulnerable use.

The principle issues are: impact on the nearest residents; any traffic impacts; the loss of part of the ‘green area’ alongside the railway line; and any surface water issues arising.

Impact on local residentsA major concern with the 2008 application was the large area of the proposed car parking area which extended from the existing car park north eastwards to Cyprus Place. This involved extending the car park rear of, and close to, the houses in Forge Mews.

The current proposal is considerably reduced and the new car parking area is now separate from Forge Mews. In my view this represents a modest extension which is now unlikely to directly affect the amenities of the nearest residents.

Traffic impactsThe new extension to the car park is in a separate ownership but it is wholly served from the car park. Both the Highways Agency and the County Highway Authority have been consulted on the scheme and Members will be advised of their comments.

‘Green space’ and ecologyA survey of the wider site in 2007 concluded that:“The site does have ecological value, and lies in a position that means it plays a role as a Green Corridor, linking other more significant sites. However, the ecological value that is present is not based on particular species, or assemblages of species, but primarily depends on the cover it provides, and the opportunities for food and breeding. The loss of these opportunities is not a significant ecological impact, as the location of the site is such that other such opportunities will be available nearby. Simple mitigation measures could offset part of the impact.”

I consider that the more limited nature of this proposal and the retention of landscaping around the car park and adjoining the railway would not be significantly detrimental to the ecology or amenity of the area. It is important that the strip of vegetation to the rear of the proposed car park is maintained and enhanced with new planting if there are any gaps, or where trees require felling. This would be from the landscape point of view and to preserve the green corridor. Any new planting should be with native species. In addition some mitigation measures should be carried out to make up for the loss e.g. bird/bat boxes, log piles.

Surface water drainageBoth the Environment Agency and the Local Drainage Board have been consulted on the scheme and any comments from the Environment Agency will be reported to Members. At this stage, if permission is to be granted, a condition relating to surface water control would be prudent.

14

ConclusionThis is a modest extension to the existing car park. With appropriate conditions relating to landscaping, levels information and surface water, at this stage, my recommendation is to approve the scheme.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (CONSULTATION REPLIES)1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three


2. No development shall commence until such time as a scheme for the control and disposal of surface water run off has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall proceed only in accordance with the approved scheme.Reason: To ensure that the development does not create surface water flooding away from the application site having regard to Policy GD1(xv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. No development shall commence until such time as full levels of all earth movements, infilling, and changes of ground levels necessary to implement the scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall proceed only in accordance with the approved scheme.Reason: To ensure that any earth movement on the site takes account of the need to safeguard the railway embankment and the vegetation to be retained on this land in the interests of the amenity of the area and having regard to Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. No development shall take place until a soft landscaping scheme has 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 programmef. features for ecological enhancement including bird/bat boxes and log piles

in appropriate locations.Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development and the visual and ecological character of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(iv) and (vii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. If within a period of five years from the date of planting any tree or plant, or any tree or plant planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies, [or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective] another tree or plant of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the local planning authority gives its written consent to any variation.

15

Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development and the visual and ecological character of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(iv) and (vii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The development of a limited area of car parking with appropriate landscaping will not be detrimental to the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining residents having regard to Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2009/420/P RYE FERRY ROAD AND CYPRUS PLACE – LAND ADJACENTERECTION OF 5 NO. APARTMENTS AND ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING ON LAND OFF FERRY ROADReliant Building Contractors


SITE The site is a parcel of former railway land immediately adjoining the Ferry Road level crossing on the north west side.

The site is covered with vegetation and currently enclosed by chain link fencing. The site has a frontage to Ferry Road of about 24 metres and a maximum depth (alongside the railway) of about 54 metres.

HISTORYRR/2008/828/P Erection of 8 apartments, 29 lock up garages and car park(larger site) extension – WithdrawnRR/2009/421/P Erection of 8 apartments and car parking – Not Yet Determined

PROPOSAL The scheme is for a single block of 5 apartments. The building is on two main floors – two flats on each – with a further flat within the roof space. The building is on the corner of Ferry Road with its main frontage to the side access road. There is a small car park for 8 cars proposed to the rear of the site with landscaping on the remaining areas. In addition to the main scheme the access road to the side is to be widened to 5.5 metres. The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement as well as a Planning Statement, Biodiversity Report, Flood Risk Assessment, Ecology Report and Environmental Noise and PPG24 Assessment.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- To be reported.Highway Authority:- To be reported.Environment Agency:- To be reported.Southern Water:- To be reported.Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board:- No objection if drainage is to main sewer.Fire Brigade:- To be reported.Network Rail:- To be reported.

16


Director of Services – Environmental Health:- To be reported.Planning Notice:- One letter of objection: Loss of trees and scrubland habitat No tree survey No bat survey Flood risk issues

SUMMARY In planning policy terms the site has no specific designation in the adopted local plan. The development has to be judged primarily in relation to Policies DS1, GD1 and TR3 of the Local Plan and having regard to PPS25 in relation to flood risk.

A number of issues arise:-

Principal of developmentThe site lies within the Development Boundary of Rye and, as the applicants note in the planning statement, the Council’s planning strategy is to focus development primarily in existing urban areas. As overgrown scrubland, however, it is not in my view previously developed land; a factor of relevance later in relation to flood risk. However, all other things being considered, it may be possible to site a single building in this location.

Flood RiskThe site lies within Flood Risk Zone 3. The Council’s own Strategic Flood Risk Assessment has been published since the last (withdrawn) application. The Council’s Sequential Test advice included in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment states in relation to Rye (west of the River Rother):

“40. It is concluded that at Rye (western bank) any planning application received for the redevelopment of Previously Development Land or for ‘infill’, that is within a flood risk area, will require an Exception Test which will be informed by the Level 2 SFRA.”

This site is not, in my view, previously developed land – a position accepted in the applicants’ Flood Risk Assessment. PPS25 sets out the terms of the Exception Test which if a site for a more vulnerable use (e.g. housing) is to be passed:

“a) It must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a SFRA where one has been prepared. If the DPD has reached the ‘submission’ stage – see Figure 4 of PPS12: Local Development Frameworks – the benefits of the development should contribute to the Core Strategy’s Sustainability Appraisal;

b) The development should be on developable previously-developed land or, if it is not on previously developed land, that there are no reasonable alternative sites on developable previously-developed land; and

c) A FRA must demonstrate that the development will be safe, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.”

The applicant’s supporting information includes the following:“6.3 Breach analysis on the River Tillingham was undertaken by Scott Wilson Group,

in order to fulfil the requirements of the strategic flood risk assessment (SFRA), indicates extensive flooding around Rye, with areas of flooding dependent upon

17

breach location. The centre of Rye is exempt from flooding due to raised topography, however brownfield development prospects are limited due to a lack of available land in the town centre. The SFRA notes that it is unlikely that development can always be sequentially steered away from high risk flood zones, due to the extensive spatial coverage of tidal floodplain.

6.4 Indeed it is apparent that land which is exempt from flooding, as indicated by the SFRA, falls into the greenfield category which lies outside of Rye. As a result, developable land falls within flood zone 3. It is important to consider the need for housing and the consistency with the planning application with the wider sustainability objectives of the area, balanced with the undesirability to develop on greenfield land, and the flood risk posed to developing on developable, brownfield land.

...6.7 It is therefore suggested that the reviewing body of this document considers the flood risk to the proposed property, balanced against the necessity for housing and the wider sustainability benefits that the proposed development will bring to the community. This is the basis of the exception test and, accompanied with the flood risk assessment, enough information is presented to reject or approve planning permission on the premises that the flood risk to the development is acceptable or too great.”

Broadly the provision of new development within the boundary of Rye is to be supported in terms of achieving sustainable development and broader socio-economic objectives. However the development of previously developed land should be considered first and there are several possible sites in, or close to, Rye town centre, including the former primary school sites, the former nursery site in Udimore Road and land around Rock Channel. At this stage, therefore, it may be considered premature at best to bring forward any proposal on land not previously developed that is within Flood Zone 3. The views of the Environment Agency will be presented to Committee.

Design and townscape issuesThe Design and Access Statement gives a broad view of the development context. The stated intention is, “to provide reasonably priced traditional apartment accommodation sympathetic with their surroundings, of good quality design”. However the claim of the Planning Statement that, “the scheme has been sensitively designed to make a positive contribution in the area”, is not developed in any detail. I am concerned that form and design of the building will not contribute positively to the locality. In terms of government guidance in PPS3, I do not consider that the proposal is “well integrated with, and complements, the neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally in terms of scale, density, layout and access ...” I appreciate that the existing development hereabouts is diverse in character but in my view the scheme does not take the opportunity to establish a new focal point – as, in comparison, the new building on the former pottery site further along Ferry Road might be said to do.

Green space and ecologyPPS3: Housing, states that new development should “provide for the retention or establishment of biodiversity within environments”.

The previous application was on larger tracts of land on either side of the railway which would have had a considerable impact on the ‘green corridor’. This is a much more limited proposal. The applicants’ ecology report concludes:

18

“The site does have ecological value, and lies in a position that means it plays a role as a Green Corridor, linking other more significant sites. However, the ecological value that is present is not based on particular species or assemblages of species, but primarily depends on the cover it provides, and the opportunities for food and breeding. The loss of these opportunities is not a significant ecological impact, as the location of the site is such that other such opportunities will be available nearby. Simple mitigation measurers could offset part of the impact.”

I accept this is a reasonable assessment of the situation. The land as a whole, either side of the railway, has some merit as a ‘green corridor’ but it is not formally designated nor part of an adopted policy to secure its protection. The development of this limited parcel of land would not prejudice the overall corridor south westwards.

Other mattersThe application is still the subject of public consultation and consultation with other statutory bodies. Members will be updated on progress on the application at the Committee meeting including matters such as access, drainage, the relationship to the railway. These consultations may raise other issues but at present I do not consider that the scheme should be supported. As, even if the site might be accepted in terms of the Sequential and Exception Tests of PPG25, the design of the building is not appropriate for this site.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (FOR CONSULTATION REPLIES)1. The design does not create a building of a distinctive character that relates well

to its surroundings having regard that, in relation to both road and rail, the site is at a notable entrance point of the town. The design fails to take the opportunity available for improving the quality of the area and as such is contrary to Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan, Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and the principles of PPS1: Delivering Sustainability Development and PPS3: Housing.

2. The site lies within Flood Zone 3 and is not previously developed land. Adopting the Sequential Approach the local planning authority accepts that development in the centre of Rye may be acceptable but, on the basis of the Exception Test, there are alternative sites potentially available on previously developed land which should be developed in advance of this site. Accordingly the proposal conflicts with Policy GD1(xv) of the Rother District Local Plan and PPS25: Development and Flood Risk.


19


RR/2008/1030/P PENHURST MANOR HOUSEDEMOLISH EXISTING WORKSHOP AND WOOD SHED AND BUILD NEW SINGLE STOREY BUILDING WITH 2 BEDROOMS WITH EN-SUITE BATHROOMS AND A MEETING ROOM TO PROVIDE DISABLED ACCOMMODATION.Mr R Hann

Statutory 8 week date: 10 June 2008

RR/2008/1261/L PENHURST MANOR HOUSEDEMOLISH EXISTING WORKSHOP AND WOOD SHED AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SINGLE STOREY BUILDING INCORPORATING EXISTING TOOL SHEDMr R Hann

Statutory 8 week date: 10 June 2008

These applications were considered at the June 2008 Planning Committee when it was resolved to delegate refusal of both planning permission and listed building consent unless amended plans were provided to indicate a more traditionally designed and detailed scheme to include the retention within it of the brick built Victorian tool shed. Members inspected the site prior to reaching this decision.

The applicants indicated that they did wish to pursue a revised proposal; they appointed a different architect as their agent and amended plans have now been received. I have re-consulted the Parish Council and English Heritage.

SITE The Manor House is a Grade II* listed building which forms part of a very attractive group of buildings that includes the Parish Church, a listed barn and other traditional structures. The application specifically relates to the replacement of an existing building close to the northern boundary adjacent to the Church and churchyard.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/98/1113/P Change of Use from single dwelling to retreat centre – Approved

Conditional.

RR/2007/434/P) Demolition of garage/workshop and tool shed and erection ofRR/2007/443/L) single storey building with 2 bedrooms, en-suite bathrooms and

meeting room to provide accommodation for disabled persons – Refused

PROPOSAL Planning permission and Listed Building Consent are sought for the demolition of the existing garage/workshop building dating from the 1960s. A replacement building, incorporating the Victorian tool shed is now proposed comprising 2 bedrooms, chapel/quiet room, disabled WC, boiler room and two en-suites.

Externally the walls are to be of brick bedded in lime mortar to match in with the tool shed, dark stained weatherboarding and natural stone piers; the roof would be of handmade plain clay tiles.

20

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- (On original scheme) - “Penhurst Church and the Manor House are an important group of listed buildings and are of particular value in this unique setting. The Manor House is Grade 2* and the Church is Grade 1 and as such, every effort should be made to preserve their special architectural and historical character and not least their setting in this superb rural environment.Reasons 1-4 for refusal of the previous application (RR/2007/434) still apply. We quote the planning officer’s reason 1 for refusal, which applies even more so to this proposal: ‘The proposed development by reason of its suburban character, appearance and non-traditional design elements would be an alien intrusion into the setting of the group of important listed buildings. The development would result in insignificant harm to the special architectural character of the listed buildings and their setting.’It should also be noted that English Heritage in response to RR/2007/434 suggested an alternative scheme based on more traditional rural buildings or a hand-crafted contemporary scheme. (Contemporary in this context meaning, we suspect, belonging to the same period and not ultra-modern).”Parish Council:- (Revised scheme): “The Parish Council find the revised plans acceptable, but recommend that particular attention is paid to materials to blend in with the Manor House and the Church. We also recommend a condition be added that the building is only to be used for accommodation incidental to the main house.”English Heritage:- (Original comments): “Advice. As indicated earlier, this is a very sensitive site. The Manor House and Church combine as a rather unique and unaltered part of the landscape. Any proposal must carefully respect that setting and the replacement for the existing shallow pitched building should be just as understated - a building with a light touch is needed. We consider that the overall form of the revised design does, for the most part, achieve this. But, we consider that the proposed eaves line is unnecessarily deep and visually cumbersome, instead we suggest this should be a visually narrow eaves with a good overhang.The loss of the little Victorian store is regrettable, as it was felt that by retaining and perhaps linking this to the more contemporary building that it would break the visual roof mass, particularly when viewed from the courtyard approach to the Manor House. We also made comments regarding the location of a boiler room which we understood was needed – this part of the proposal now appears unnecessary?The retention of the tree near the west elevation is important to the overall setting of the buildings viewed from the land – so the nature of construction here needs to be carefully considered.We would urge you to address the above issues, and recommend that the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation and design advice, without further reference to English Heritage.”English Heritage:- (Amended scheme): Comments not yet received.Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings:- (Original comment): “The Society welcomes the approach that has been taken by this application with its emphasis on keeping to the footprint of the precious buildings as a ‘memory’ and adopting contemporary design ideas and detailing.May we suggest that consideration be given to keeping the stone wall as a way of anchoring the new building in its context and reusing the bricks from the tool shed where brick work is indicated in the new building.”The Victorian Society:- Comments not received.Ancient Monument Society:- Comments not received.Council for British Archaeology:- Comments not received.The Georgian Group:- Comments not received.

21

Planning Notice:- No representations to amended scheme received to date.

SUMMARY Applications for planning permission and listed building consent (RR/2007/434/P and RR/2007/443/L) were refused having attracted design objections from English Heritage and following officer concern at the loss of the tool shed.

The various design approaches, both contemporary and traditional with and without the tool shed retained, have been explored. The general consensus of members, Parish Council and Conservation Officer has been that a traditional approach incorporating the tool shed and utilising a ‘local’ palate of materials is the most appropriate one. The latest amended scheme is well detailed, produces a building of appropriate scale with materials appropriate to an ancillary outbuilding; it does not compete with or detract from either the Manor House or the nearby church.

I have not received any further comments from English Heritage but I expect to be able to make the

RECOMMENDATIONS:RR/2008/1030/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three


2. Before commencement of any building works/alterations or repairs as hereby approved, details/samples of the materials, bricks, roofing tiles, stone and weatherboarding to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works shall be completed utilising the approved materials only. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, and to ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the architectural and historic character of the Listed Building in accordance with Policy GD1 (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(m) and EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. Details of any floodlighting or external illumination shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the building is occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and no other lighting shall be installed. Reason: To safeguard the visual/rural/residential amenities of the locality and to control overspill and light pollution in accordance with Policy GD1 (ii) and (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

4. Except as may be necessary for carrying out detailed building operations, no trees on the site exceeding 10.16cm (4") in diameter, at a height of 1.2 metres (4ft) above ground level, shall be felled or destroyed without the prior consent of the local planning authority within 5 years of the completion of the permitted development. Any trees removed without such consent or dying or being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased before the end of that period shall be replaced with trees of such size and species as may be 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(iv)(v) of the Rother

22

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

5. The new building is permitted solely as additional accommodation for the existing property ‘Penhurst Manor House’ only and not otherwise.Reason: In the interest of providing suitable accommodation for the disabled and to preclude the creation of a new dwelling within the countryside in accordance with Policy GD1(i), HG8 and HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(i) and S10 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: Following an inspection of the site it is considered that the existing outbuilding could be demolished without significant effect upon the primary listed building or loss of important historic material. The proposed replacement outbuilding is considered to be acceptable in terms of its siting, design and specification and its relationship within the setting of a group of listed buildings within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal would not impact upon the residential amenities of any other nearby property. The development is therefore considered to be in compliance with Policies GD1(i)(ii)(iv)(v) and (viii) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan, and Policies S1(a)(b)(f)(j) and (m), S10 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

View application/correspondence

RR/2008/1261/L: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT) DELEGATED (AMENDED PLAN AND SECOND CONSULTATION WITH ENGLISH HERITAGE)1. The work to which this consent relates shall be begun before the expiration of

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

2. Before commencement of any building works/alterations or repairs as hereby approved, details/samples of the materials, bricks, roofing tiles, stone and weatherboarding to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works shall be completed utilising the approved materials only. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, and to ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the architectural and historic character of the Listed Building in accordance with Policy GD1 (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(m) & EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. No works shall be carried out until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the works thereafter shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in respect of :(a) 1:10 scale drawings illustrating proposed eaves detailing, indicating the

provision of eaves level ventilation and the specification of any roofing felt and insulation where proposed.

(b) details of all rainwater goods and other external pipework, drawn to a scale of 1:5, indicating section sizes and profiles.

(c) details of all new joinery, including windows, doors and partitions, with elevations at a scale of 1:10 minimum and with full size sections through cills, frames and opening lights, including glazing bars and mullions, and showing the relationship to the existing structure.

23


Reason: To ensure that special regard is paid in the interests of protecting special architectural and historic character and detailing of the listed building in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(m), EN22 & EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING CONSENT: Following an inspection of the site it is considered that the existing outbuilding could be demolished without significant effect upon the primary listed building or loss of important historic material. The development is therefore considered to be in compliance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan, Policy S1(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Planning Policy Guidance 15.


RR/2009/379/P BRIGHTLING OLD STONESDOWN FARMHOUSE, BATTLE ROADSINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION TOGETHER WITH REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING INTERNAL STAIRS AND ASSOCIATED WORKSMr and Mrs Beddard


SITE Old Stonesdown Farmhouse is a detached two storey dwelling occupying a site located at the end of a single unmade track, approximately 240 metres west of Cackle Street. The site slopes gently downwards from north to south, which continues towards woodland outside of the site to the south. The site is located outside of a recognised development boundary and within the High Weald AONB.

HISTORYA/68/772 Minor amendments - Approved. RR/2005/2328/P Demolition of garage. Erection of garage with garden room/store -

Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL It is proposed to erect a lean to side extension to the southern elevation with a dormer window at first floor level. The proposal will enable an entrance hall to be created, which the property currently lacks; the internal stairs to be re-configured, the current stairs being shallow in depth and the ceiling low; and the creation of a snug and new small bedroom.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice:- Any representations will be reported.

SUMMARY The main issues to consider are the impact of the extension on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area and any impact on neighbouring properties. Policies GD1 and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan apply to this application.

24

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20081261l

Although the property has been extended since it was first built, the majority appears to have been added before 1947. Small scale additions were approved in 1968 and have subsequently been built, including the formation of a roof and inclusion of dormer windows to a middle section of the property.

The proposed extension is to be set back approximately 0.25 metres behind the principal (east) elevation of the dwelling and will measure approximately 5.9 metres in length and 3.4 metres in width. The high point of the lean to roof will adjoin the main property just below the eaves level. A pitched roof dormer is proposed. Materials are to match the existing.

I am of the opinion that the scale and design of the extension is acceptable and unlikely to detract from the character and appearance of either the existing dwelling or surrounding area.

The closest neighbouring residential property is some 90 metres to the northeast. This distance is adequate to ensure the proposal is unlikely to adversely impact on the amenities of the occupants.

For the above-mentioned reasons I am minded to support this application.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD 17 MARCH 2009) (SUBJECT TO NO ADVERSE COMMENTS FROM CONSULTEES)1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three


2. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match in materials, colour and texture those used in the existing building, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the existing building in accordance with Policies GD1(iv)(v) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed extension is of an appropriate design and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policies GD1 and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2009/15/P BURWASH DAWES FARMERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO REAR/ SIDE OF PROPERTYMr D Fussell

Statutory 8 week date: 17 February 2009

This application has been added to the Committee site inspection list.25


SITE Dawes Farm comprises the former farmhouse and the attached oast and barn that were converted to a dwelling in the 1960’s. There are no records regarding when the two semi-detached dwellings became one. The property is located outside the development boundary on the north side of Burwash. Access to the site is via a track from the High Street, which is also a public footpath. The property lies within the High Weald AONB, is partially screened to some elevations by trees and planting but also has views over the valley to the north.

HISTORYA/67/905 Conversion of store into dwelling - Approved Conditional.A/68/295 Conversion of oast house and store - Approved.RR/2001/845/P Installation of an oil tank for domestic central heating - Approved

Conditional.RR/2005/1821/P Reinstatement of oast house roof incorporating pitched roofs to

existing flat roof dormer windows and to bedroom window. Erection of new porch - Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL This application proposes the construction of a single storey side extension to the Victorian part of the house to provide a sunroom with link at the rear to the kitchen, and direct access to the patio area.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- The site has been over developed. The design is not in keeping with the area and possible reflection from windows across the valley is unacceptable and would be seen for many miles.Planning Notice:- None received.

SUMMARY This application has been referred to the Planning Committee by the local Member with reference to the Parish Council objection.

The extension is considered to be essentially traditional in design and proportions and is to be of brick with a tiled roof to match the existing. The front of the extension, which is partially visible from the track, has been amended to remove two glazed panels from the roof. The rear of the sunroom has some full height glazing, which wraps up into the roof area, maximising the availability of any natural light on this north facing elevation. The brick link projects forward of the glazing adding additional shade. Being north facing there will be no direct sunlight and thus reflections from the glazing are unlikely.

There are no close neighbours to be affected and the extension is considered to be relatively modest in comparison to the house as it now exists. It would be viewed from the open countryside to the north against the backdrop of the existing house and surrounding trees/shrubs. It is not therefore considered to be prominent and nor will it be detrimental to the character and appearance of the property within the High Weald AONB.

While acknowledging the concerns of the Parish Council, having regard to the preceding comments, the extension is not considered to be over development and is unlikely to result in any more reflections across the valley than already occur from the existing north facing windows. The extension is considered to be relatively small and will be less conspicuous than a traditional glass conservatory, which would reflect light.

26

As such the proposal is considered to comply with the criteria of policies GD1 and HG8 of the Local Plan.



2. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match in materials, colour and texture those used in the existing building.Reason: To ensure that the development is in character with its surroundings within the AONB in accordance with Policies GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. 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), there shall be no changes to the roof materials and no windows or other openings (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be inserted into any roof slope of the extension.Reason: To ensure that the visual appearance of the development and locality is maintained and to preserve the natural landscape quality and character of the High Weald AONB 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.

Note: This decision notice relates to the proposals as shown on the originally submitted plans and subsequently amended plan(s) 0747(PL)200A, date stamped 28 January 2009.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed extension is considered to be of an appropriate size, design and siting and will not adversely affect the character of the High Weald AONB or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy S1 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2007/3413/P BECKLEY HERON LEA, HOBBS LANE REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING KENNELS WITH A NEW KENNEL BLOCK ON THE EXISTING SITE REMOVING HAY BARN AND OUTBUILDINGSMr K G Curley

Statutory 8 week date: 27 February 2008

This application went before the Planning Committee at their meeting on 14 February 2008 and again on 13 March 2008. At the March meeting the decision was deferred for noise issues/noise mitigation measures and design of kennels.

27


The applicant has provided an Environment Noise Assessment report and details of the kennels present on site. This information has been attached as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 March 2009.

SITE The site lies to the east side of Hobbs Lane within 4.8 hectares of land in a predominantly rural area set within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The kennel block is shown to be sited within the residential curtilage of the property and will replace existing outdoor kennels, hay barn and outbuildings, which are all to be demolished. It is proposed to be accessed from the north access to the site, where they will be a small car park area. The kennel block is immediately surrounded by land in the applicants’ ownership with the nearest neighbour being some 150m to the north.

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

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

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

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

agricultural occupancy condition – Lawful DC refused.RR/2007/2113/P Replacement and resiting of kennel block – Refused.

PROPOSAL This application seeks planning permission to replace existing kennels with a new kennel block sited within the residential curtilage of Heron Lea, as shown on the submitted plan, on the site of existing hay barn and outbuilding that are to be demolished along with the existing outdoor kennel blocks. The unit comprises 20 kennels set in parallel ranges comprising sleeping areas and exercise runs with a central walkway. The unit will be some 25.6m by 11.5m with a height of 3.2m, it will be finished with a tile roof and clad with dark brown timber to match Heron Lea and the detached garage.

CONSULTATIONS Parish Council – Support refusal. Too much extra traffic on single track lane and concerns over noise. All councillors supported a refusal.Highway Authority – Do not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to the observation below;“This application proposes to replace and to re-site an existing kennel block which will not result in an overall increase of use at this site. It is evident that as part of the proposal 6 parking spaces are to be provided which satisfies the County Council’s adopted parking standards and on that basis I do not wish to raise an objection.”Environment Agency – Any comments will be reported.Southern Water Services – Does not wish to comment on this application.Director of Services – Environmental Health – (Initial comments): “I have revisited the site and note that the proposed block is now to be inside the curtilage of the domestic property. I have read the letters of objection concerning various matters including the potential for disturbance by barking dogs.The control of barking dog noise is difficult. The structure (including any openings for ventilation etc) of the proposed block needs to be assessed in terms of its insulation against the transmission of noise. Whilst the site is relatively remote – it is in a rural area rather than urban – there are residential properties who would suffer loss of amenity (rather than statutory noise nuisance) if proper controls are not attached to any

28

permission. Background noise levels will be relatively low particularly at night therefore noise from barking dogs would potentially be a problem. The block seems to be somewhat robust compared to some but I recommend that a proper acoustic report should be submitted before permission is granted. The applicant has stated certain management/handling techniques in the “consideration of noise statement” page of the application and these could possibly be part of a condition. A sound insulation scheme for the building – possibly along the lines of that to be recommended by the noise consultant – should be attached to any permission.”(Further comments -24/02/09): “Thank you for the additional information from the noise consultant in response to my queries. I still have some queries and also make the following comments:The consultant has based his conclusions and calculations on a maximum of 12 dogs but the kennels can hold 20. Also, are there to be any openings for ventilation? With both these points in mind – will the target level of background +2dB (A) as measured at the nearest residential property (not in applicant’s ownership) – over 5 minutes NOT 15 as previously stated – the 15 minutes is aimed at steady noise from say equipment like extract fans. Dog barking is generally relatively short lived and therefore needs to be measured over as short time frame.Are we sure of the exact location and orientation of the proposed block?It will be necessary to condition the permission – if granted – and the following incorporates the summary and conclusions made in the Environmental Noise Assessment ...”Planning Notice – 15 letters of objection concerned with the following: Adverse impact on amenities of neighbouring properties. New kennels can hardly be described as a mere replacement. Existing kennels

where the current owner keeps his own dogs were only intended and used in the distant past for birds of prey.

Hobbs Lane has a very restricted width. The increased traffic generated by such a proposal with incoming and outgoing vehicles at this particular location would dangerously exacerbate a situation which is already causing considerable concern.

Never been any boarding kennels on the site before. Noise from existing dogs on site can be heard over a wide area. Within AONB. Access into property is poor. Large number of foxes in area – will aggravate dogs. Hobbs Lane totally unsuitable for commercial venture of this nature. All the years we have lived here there has never been boarding kennels on this

site. Problems with drainage from site. Barn owls and bats could have their habitats destroyed if existing buildings are

demolished. Noise. 1961 permission for boarding kennels – low key operation and in no way related

to the current grandiose plans – one might also presume that nearly half a century ago the attention given to the effects of excessive noise on the environment and human beings was not as concerned as now. Equally it might be accepted that the traffic in the lane at that time was much less than today.

A letter with the names of six residents who live in the local area, who state there has never been any boarding kennels at this property. Information received from the applicant with regard to the use of the site for kennels, including a diary showing the intake of dogs for 2007.

29

A letter from a previous property owner stating: “With reference to the above application, there appears to be confusion as to the past history of the site and in order to clarify this I would like to confirm that when I purchased the property in 1971 there were no boarding kennels then, and certainly not during the whole period of my residence until 2002, when I sold the property to Mr Curley”.

SUMMARY Heron Lea occupies a predominantly rural location set within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to the east side of Hobbs Lane. Permission is sought to replace an existing kennel block, which comprises 12 outside and 1 inside unit, with a new kennel block comprising 20 indoor units proposed to be located within the residential curtilage of Heron Lea.A previous application RR/2007/2113/P for replacement and resiting of kennel block was refused by the Planning Committee at their meeting on 13 September 2007 by virtue:1. “The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where

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

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

This re-submitted proposal has sought to address these previous reasons for refusal by locating the proposed kennel block within the residential curtilage of Heron Lea, in place of the existing outdoor kennel block, hay barn and outbuilding, which are all to be removed.

Appearance and scale of buildingIt terms of appearance and scale the proposed kennel building is acceptable, and given its revised siting within the residential curtilage of Heron Lea I do not consider it will cause demonstrable harm to the appearance of this rural location. As such meeting the objectives of Local Plan Policy GD1(iv)(v) and Structure Plan Policies S1(j) and EN2.

Highway impactI note the concerns raised with regard to traffic impact and safety, however, the Highway Authority have been consulted and does not wish to restrict grant of consent.

Drainage worksDrainage details for the site will be sought prior to the building being constructed by way of conditions, and assessed for their acceptability.

Noise assessmentThe noise report has been sent to the Council’s Environment Health Department. Please see their comments above dated 24 February 2009. I have taken up their queries with the applicant and am awaiting a response.

30

Use of landPermission was granted for boarding kennels under reference A/61/593. This permission was implemented and the building is still present on site. Even though the kennel use has not been continuous since the grant of consent (see letter from previous owner) the permission still remains extant as it has not been revoked or permission granted for an alternative use. Therefore a new permission is not required for the use of the land for boarding kennels.

ConclusionThis matter has moved on and while there are still some unresolved issues on noise, Members may wish to determine whether permission should now be granted and, rather than defer the matter again, resolve to grant permission on a delegated basis on the basis of the noise issues being resolved.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO RESOLVING NOISE ISSUES)1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three


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

3. A scheme for the soundproofing of the building shall be submitted to the local planning authority and no development shall commence until a scheme is approved by the local planning authority. The use of the building shall not commence until all soundproofing works have been carried out to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. The soundproofing works shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the local planning authority.Reason: To protect the residential amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(s) and EN15 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. A scheme for the suitable treatment of all plant and machinery against the transmission of sound and/or vibration shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The use of the building shall not commence until all specified works have been carried out to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the local planning authority.Reason: To protect the residential amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(s) and EN15 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

5. The maximum number of dogs to be housed at any one time shall not exceed 12.Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality against noise disturbance in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies

31

S1(f)(s) and EN15 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

6. A maximum of 5 dogs at any one time shall be let out in their runs, areas marked ‘A’ on the kennel floor plan date stamped 2 January 2008. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality against noise disturbance in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(s) and EN15 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

7. Prior to the kennel block first being brought into use a method statement indicating the procedure for the acceptance and collection of dogs shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. This statement should include the procedure for dealing with noisy dogs. The operation of the kennels should thereafter be in accordance with the approved statement.Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality against noise disturbance in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(s) and EN15 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

8. No dogs shall be accepted/collected outside the hours of 07:00 to 22:00 hours.Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality against noise disturbance in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(s) and EN15 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The appearance and scale of the kennel building sited within the residential curtilage of Heron Lea, will not cause demonstrable harm to the appearance of this rural location. No objection is raised by the Highway Authority, given the existing use of the site and space for six vehicles to park. Subject to a satisfactory noise assessment concluding that noise levels at adjacent residential properties are at an acceptable level the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to their residential amenities. As such the proposal meets the objectives of Policy GD1(ii)(iii)(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(f)(j) and EN15 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2008/3568/P BECKLEY ABBEY LODGE, HORSESHOE LANEVARIATION OF CONDITION 2 IMPOSED UPON PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2005/1670/P TO ALLOW THE USE OF THE BUILDING TO INCLUDE USE AS A HOLIDAY LETMrs H Everest


SITE This application relates to a former agricultural building that is now within the residential curtilage of Abbey Lodge, which is a detached dwelling occupying a countryside location on the west side of Horseshoe Lane and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

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

gymnasium – Approved32


RR/2005/1872/P Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of new 2-storey dwelling with erection of triple garage – Approved

RR/2007/458/P Variation of condition 2 imposed upon planning permission RR/2005/1670/P so as to allow gymnasium to be used as short term holiday let – Withdrawn

RR/2007/2077/P Alterations and conversion of existing outbuilding and change of use to form holiday let (retrospective application) – Refused (Appeal Dismissed)

PROPOSAL Planning permission was granted under RR/2005/1670/P to replace the original damaged mono pitched felted flat roof with a shallow pitched hipped and plain tiled roof. Those works were connected with the intended use of the outbuilding as a personal gymnasium and would not have required planning permission for change of use. The planning permission contained the following conditions:-

“3. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a fully detailed schedule of all external materials and the development shall be carried out using the approved materials.Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. The roof fascia construction shown on drawing no: MJS/06-05/PLA24-03 is not approved.Reason: To maintain the character of the listed building and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

5. Before any development is commenced details of the roof construction which shall include open eaves and exposed rafter feet shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To maintain the character of the listed building and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.”

However, the works carried out to the building are in breach of that permission. For instance, the roof is higher and no details were submitted for approval in compliance with the above conditions (nos. 3 and 5). A previous retrospective application (RR/2007/2077/P) to retain the roof of the building as is, and change the use to a holiday let, was refused and dismissed on appeal. The exact nature of this re-application is unclear and I have sought clarification from the applicants. However, it would appear that it is now proposed to:

1) Implement planning permission RR/2005/1670/P, which does not expire until 11 August 2010. This would involve reducing the height of the roof to accord with the approved plans and submitting details in accordance with conditions 3 and 5; and

2) Change the use of the outbuilding from ancillary residential use to a holiday let. However, submitted plan no.PL23-08 contains a note that “The conversion from a gymnasium is a temporary situation. The rooms are laid out as shown with bedrooms in the converted roof void with Velux roof lights as original Planning Application.” I have therefore asked the applicant to clarify her intended use of the building and to submit a layout plan for the bedrooms in the converted roof void, pointing out that the plans approved under RR/2005/1670/P only show 5 roof lights whereas submitted plan no.PL23-08 shows 8.

33

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support a refusal commenting – previous appeal decision is a material consideration; Parish Council wholeheartedly support Inspector’s findings in that the conversion of the insubstantial outbuilding was without planning consent – did not accord with plans for gymnasium – does not accord with Policy EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan; can be clearly seen from public footpath 23c; out of keeping with AONB; urban style inappropriate in this isolated farmstead location; former outbuilding made no valuable contribution to the rural scene and required major reconstruction; would set a precedent for other insubstantial outbuildings to be converted into holiday cottages.Highway Authority:- Do not wish to restrict grant of Consent subject to a condition requiring the on-site parking proposed to be provided before the holiday let is occupied.Planning Notice:- 2 letters of objection – additional traffic in lane; overloading of sanitary outlets from the property; it would condone and legalise bad faith; objections same as previous application turned down in 2007; thought you would have enforced demolition by now; Horseshoe Lane is a small narrow lane that cannot take extra traffic.1 letter of support - fully support proposal; village and local area would benefit from tourism; village is dying, small businesses, shops and post office have gone; encouraging tourism can only help this.

SUMMARY Provided the applicants confirm that they will be restoring the roof of the building to accord with the plans approved under RR/2005/1670/P and complying with conditions 3 and 5, the main issues for consideration would be the impact of the proposed holiday let use upon:1. Local employment opportunities judged against Policy EM1(iii) of the Rother

District Local Plan and Policies S10(b)(i)(ii) and E17 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011;

2. The amenities of the area; and3. Highway safety.

With regard to:1. Local employment opportunities –

In the countryside, as this site is, Policy EM1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan supports small-scale business activities where this does not detract from the character or appearance of the area as well as meeting general development considerations. Policy S10(b) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 supports the conversion and/or changes of use of existing building of permanent and substantial construction provided:(i) their form, bulk and general design are in keeping with their surroundings;

and(ii) the use is appropriate to the area in terms of scale, type and impact on its

surroundings (including traffic impact and impact on the vitality of towns and villages).

Policy E17 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 seeks to promote and maintain a range of employment opportunities in the rural areas, in particular a) employment provision in the East Sussex Rural Development Area; andc) developing the tourist industry.

34

In dismissing the appeal against previously refused retrospective application RR/2007/2077/P to retain the building as it currently stands, the Inspector took the view that the changes from the original building to what is now seen on site do not accord with the spirit or the provision of Structure Plan Policy S10(b) and is not a feature that conserves the landscape quality and character of the AONB, contrary to national policy and Structure Plan Policies EN2 and EN3. However, whilst that application related to the unauthorised changes that have been made to the building this application, subject to confirmation by the applicant, is seeking to change the use of the outbuilding as originally approved under RR/2005/1670/P where the changes to its external appearance and internal layout resulting from additional doors and windows being inserted in the elevations and a first floor installed are permitted development. In these circumstances it would, in my opinion, be hard to argue strongly that the form, bulk and general design of the building is out of keeping with its surroundings. Furthermore in dismissing the previous appeal, the Inspector had no issues regarding the principle of using the outbuilding as a holiday let. Her reasons were purely against its visual appearance/impact. Therefore in view of the positive policies that exist to support rural businesses and the rural economy, I take the view that the proposal would not be contrary to Policy EM1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S10(b)(i)(ii) and E17 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. The amenities of the area –The nearest residential properties are, in my opinion, of sufficient distance from the building to be unaffected by any noise/human activity generated by use of the building as one holiday let is also unlikely to be significant. The proposed use is therefore not considered to be contrary to Policies GD1(ii) and EM1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and S10(b)(ii) and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. Highway safety –Whilst the site can only be accessed via narrow local lanes, I do not consider that the number of vehicles generated by one holiday let to be sufficient to have an adverse impact upon highway safety. Furthermore, the Highway Authority support the proposal. The proposal is therefore not considered to be contrary to Policies GD1(iii) and EM1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(d) and S10(b)(ii) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

In conclusion, subject to the applicant confirming that it is proposed to:1) implement planning permission RR/2005/1670/P and comply with the conditions;

and2) permanently use the building as a holiday let,and supply amended plans that accord with those intentions, I take the view that the benefits to the local economy resulting from the proposed holiday let would outweigh the adverse impacts (if any) resulting from noise and traffic generated by the use, and that the form, bulk and general design of the building would not be sufficiently out of keeping with its surroundings to justify a refusal of planning permission. For these reasons therefore, the proposal is supported subject to a condition preventing its use as a separate dwelling and the usual conditions and Section 106 Obligation regarding holiday lets.

35

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (APPLICANT’S REPLY/AMENDED PLAN/S106 OBLIGATION)1. The development must begin not later than the expiration of three years

beginning with the date of this permission.Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The premises shall be used for holiday let accommodation and for no other purpose, including any other purpose in Class C3 Dwellinghouse of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order, 2005 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order.Reason: To ensure the appropriate use of the land and to accord with Policies HG11(i)(ii) and GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies E17 and S1(f)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. The proposed holiday unit shall not be occupied for more than 56 days in total in any calendar year by any one person.Reason: To ensure that approved holiday accommodation is not used for unauthorised permanent residential occupation in accordance with Policies HG11(i)(ii) and GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies E17 and S1(f)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. The owners/operators shall maintain an up-to-date register of the names of all owners and/or occupiers of holiday accommodation on the site, and of their main home addresses and shall make this information available at all reasonable times to the local planning authority.Reason: To ensure that approved holiday accommodation is not used for unauthorised permanent residential occupation in accordance with Policies HG11(i)(ii) and GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies E17 and S1(f)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

5. The holiday let shall not be occupied until parking and turning space has been laid out in accordance with the approved plans date stamped 15 January 2009 for two cars to be parked and it shall thereafter be retained for those purposes only.Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

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

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

amended plans date stamped (not yet received).

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed change of use to holiday let accommodation is of an appropriate use and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policies GD1(ii)(iii) and EM1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(d), S10(b)(i)(ii), E17 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


36


RR/2009/136/P BECKLEY EASTLANDS FARM – BARNS AT, STODDARDS LANEALTERATIONS AND CHANGE OF USE OF BARNS TO A SINGLE DWELLING TO INCLUDE THE UPGRADING OF THE ACCESS DRIVEMiss Howse


SITE The subject barns are remotely located in the southern corner of a field and south east of the former farmhouse that is now in separate ownership. Access to the barns is via a long unmade track off the south east side of Stoddards Lane. This passes the south side of the former farmhouse before rising into the field in which the barns are located. The barns are in open landscape and fall within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. A public footpath passes the south west boundary of the proposed site.

HISTORYNone

PROPOSAL It is proposed to convert the main two-storey height brick barn into a three bedroom dwelling and the smaller single storey height brick store to a domestic store. The submitted plans show a garden area provided at the rear of the main barn and enclosed by the storage building and field boundary wall. The front of the barn would be left open and a curtilage defined by a stock proof fence only in order to retain the open character of the field. This area would contain a parking and turning area. The application is supported by a structural report, barn owl and bat surveys and a financial appraisal containing the costs and returns for alternative use as holiday accommodation.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support approval subject to sensitive restoration and use of hand made clay tiles; protection of Barn Owl roost and other wildlife; no diversion of public footpath passing west side of perimeter wall.Highway Authority:- Do not wish to restrict grant of consent commenting that the existing access is suitable to accommodate any additional traffic.ESCC Footpaths Officer:- Comments awaited.Director of Services – Building Control: Whilst the matter of structural stability will be dealt with as part of the Building Regulations process, attention is drawn to the requirement to ‘Strengthen the roof structure’ and how that is done in such a way as to not compromise the planning application.Natural England:- Are satisfied that bats are unlikely to be impacted but support the recommendation for the ridge of the detached storage building to be dismantled by hand. “We note that barn owls are using the site and support the recommendations made in the report and suggest this is made a condition of planning.”Planning Notice:- 5 letters – sharing of drive violates our privacy, devalues our property and increases traffic in Stoddards Lane which is narrow in several places; cattle grid unsuitable for heavy lorries; would prefer access route to go out to Main Street, Beckley via the old Pannells Lane; increase of human presence will lead to disappearance of barn owls and bats; great crested newts in ponds in adjacent fields; concerns about sewage disposal and soakaways etc; prevents daily use of rights of way now in garden area; could compromise sporting rights; evening/sunrise bat survey not carried out at

37

right time of year; no water vole survey carried out; dormice may be present; discrepancies in barn owl report; water pollution from run-off; no Waste Disposal Statement.

SUMMARY The main issues are:1. Principle of re-use as a dwelling2. Details of conversion3. Impact upon landscape and AONB4. Impact upon local amenity5. Impact upon highway safety6. Impact upon protected species

Relevant Policies are GD1(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(viii), HG10(ii), HG11(i)(iii) and EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(d)(f)(j), S10(b)(c), EN2 and EN17 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. With regard to each of the above main issues:-

1. Principle of re-use as a dwellingThe structural report appears to confirm that the main barn is capable of conversion with only limited works to the structure being necessary. However, whilst it does “not detail specific repairs that may or may not be necessary to parts of the structure”, it concludes with the comments that “... only one small corner of the building is recommended for reconstruction.” Provided this remains the case during conversion, Policy HG10(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan, requiring the building to be converted without the need for substantial rebuilding, would be complied with. In that event, the issue would be covered by the usual barn/oast conversions note added to such permission advising that, if the building or any part of the building the subject of the scheme collapses or has to be demolished or rebuilt after planning permission has been granted, the local planning authority may regard it null and void. Whilst the structural report does not include the second smaller storage building, this would be covered by the same note.

In addition to the above, criterion (i) of Policy HG11 of the Rother District Local Plan requires the building to make a valuable contribution to the rural scene, and for residential re-use to be the only means of retaining it. It also requires the applicant to demonstrate that every attempt has been made to secure suitable employment or tourism re-use unless such a use would be inappropriate in that location. Apart from the roofs of these buildings having had their original clay roof tiles replaced with inappropriate concrete interlocking tiles, the buildings remain in their original traditional form and make a valuable contribution to the character and appearance of the landscape. In principle their retention through appropriate re-use is fully supported. The applicant considers that the limited size, remote location and single access track, together with noise impact upon Eastlands Farmhouse, renders the buildings unsuitable for employment re-use. I concur with this view. Whilst these failings would be less significant if re-used as a holiday let, the applicant has supplied costings by a chartered surveyor with input from Tourism South East demonstrating that good quality self-contained holiday accommodation would achieve a return on investment of less than 6%, making the project unviable. Residential re-use is therefore accepted as the only viable re-use for these buildings. Policies HG10(ii) and HG11(i) of the Rother District Local Plan would therefore be complied with.

38

2. Details of conversionNo alterations to the side elevations are proposed except for the glazing on the inside of the characteristic ventilation slits. The rear (SW) elevation with catslide covering the currently open bays would be preserved except for the glazing of the bays, the insertion of an additional window in the side (SE) outshot and the insertion of two small cast iron ‘conservation’ style rooflights in the main roofslope. The front (NE) elevation would also be preserved where the existing main timber side-hung doors would be replaced and the opening glazed. The ventilation slits would be similarly glazed from the inside and an existing single window in the outshot replaced with two. A single conservation rooflight would be inserted in the main roof slope. The modern concrete interlocking roof tiles would be replaced with plain clay tiles. The use of existing openings and minimal insertion of new windows and rooflights will preserve the agricultural character of the traditional rural farm buildings and will comply with Policies GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and S12(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. Impact on landscape and AONBThe open field character of the landscape in which these buildings are located is a particularly strong feature of this part of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is therefore highly sensitive to be spoilt by change. In this respect, the applicant states an intention that the site should remain as open as possible so that its relationship with the rest of the field is maintained, with any domestic planting and paraphernalia limited to the courtyard garden at the rear with permeable hard surfacing to the drive and parking/turning area. Details of construction and finish for the parking/turning areas and proposed upgrading of the access drive can be dealt with by condition and I would not expect the character and appearance of the landscape and AONB to be significantly adversely affected, in which case the proposals would comply with Policies GD1(iv)(v) and HG11(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. Impact upon local amenityThe main impact upon local amenity is the noise and disturbance generated by additional vehicles associated with use of the buildings as a dwelling. Two properties would be affected. These would be Eastlands Cottage, adjoining the access onto Stoddards Lane and Eastlands Farmhouse, which immediately adjoins the unmade access track leading to the buildings. However, whilst an objection has been received from the owners of Eastlands Farmhouse on grounds of loss of privacy and devaluation, the adverse impact resulting from vehicles and human activity generated by a single dwelling would not, in my opinion, be sufficient to justify a reason for refusal and be contrary to Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. Impact upon highway safetyThe Highway Authority consider that the existing access is suitable to accommodate any additional traffic generated by a single dwelling. Visibility at the access point onto Stoddards Lane is good and I have no reason to disagree with the Highway Authority’s support for the proposal which is considered to comply with Policies GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

39

6. Impact upon protected speciesBarn Owls: The Barn Owl Survey concludes that the main barn is not occupied on a day to day basis but probably for occasional roosting. The report recommends that the original nest box be incorporated in the new roof and alternative nest boxes be provided in nearby trees. The applicant intends implementing this advice and suggests that a condition to secure these requirements be attached to any grant of planning permission. Natural England concur with this approach.

Bats: The Bat Survey concludes that there is no evidence of bats, or use of either of the buildings by bats but recommends that the ridge of the detached storage building is dismantled by hand. Natural England concur with this approach and it would be appropriate to add a condition to any planning permission granted to this effect.

In view of the two surveys submitted, I am satisfied that Policies GD1(vii) of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(j) and EN17 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 would be complied with.

ConclusionI am satisfied that the development would comply with Local Plan policies regarding the re-use of buildings in the countryside. The proposal is therefore supported.

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


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

3. Before commencement of the alterations hereby approved, details of all new joinery, including windows, doors and partitions, at a scale of 1:10 elevations with full size sections through cills, frames and opening lights, including glazing bars and mullions and showing the relationship to the existing structure, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and only those approved details shall be employed within the development and thereafter retained.Reason: To safeguard the historic fabric and architectural character of the building in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(m) and EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. 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,

40

height, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the buildings are occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance 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.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no 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.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.

6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or other openings (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be inserted into the buildings.Reason: To ensure that the visual appearance of the development and locality is maintained and to preserve the natural landscape quality and character of the High Weald AONB 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.

7. The development shall not be occupied until parking areas have been provided in accordance with condition 9 below and the areas shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of motor vehicles.Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance 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.

8. The development shall not be occupied until a turning space for vehicles has been provided and constructed in accordance with condition 9 below and the turning space shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used for any other purpose.Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance 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.

9. The access drive shall not be upgraded and parking/turning areas provided until details of their layout, levels construction and surface finish have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the appearance 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.

10. No development shall take place until full details of measures for barn owl mitigation and conservation, in accordance with the recommendations contained

41

within the submitted Barn Owl Survey dated 2 October 2007, have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timing of the works unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.Reason: To ensure the survival and protection of important species protected by legislation in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(j) and EN17 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

11. The roof ridge of the storage building shall be carefully dismantled by hand only, as recommended in the submitted Ecological Scoping Survey dated 6 November 2007.Reason: To ensure the survival and protection of important species protected by legislation in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(j) and EN17 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

Notes:i. If the building or any part of the building the subject of the scheme for conversion

collapses (or has to be demolished or rebuilt), whatever the cause or whatever the circumstances, after planning permission has been granted for its conversion to an alternative use, the local planning authority may regard the planning permission granted as not capable of being implemented and consequently null and void.

ii. The conversion hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans and failure to do so may result in enforcement action being taken to secure compliance with them.

iii. The applicant is reminded that it is an offence to damage or destroy species protected under separate legislation. Planning permission for a development does not provide a defence against prosecution under European and UK wildlife protection legislation. Separate licences and consents may be required to undertake work on the site where protected species are found and these should be sought before development commences.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The local planning authority is satisfied that the building is capable of conversion without the need for substantial rebuilding, makes a valuable contribution to the rural scene and that the applicant has demonstrated that residential re-use is the only means of retaining it. There would also be no significant adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the landscape and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the amenities of the locality, highway safety and protected species. The development is therefore considered to comply with Policies GD1(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(viii), HG10(ii), HG11(i)(iii) and EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(d)(f)(j), S10(b)(c), EN2 and EN17 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


42


RR/2009/297/P BECKLEY RAYNEHURST, WHITEBREAD LANEDEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF THREE DWELLINGS TO INCLUDE NEW ACCESSFGP Developments


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

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

HISTORYRR/2008/981/P Demolition of existing dwelling. Erection of four two storey

dwellings with integral garages and alteration to existing vehicular access to form shared access – Refused

PROPOSAL To demolish the existing bungalow and erect three detached dwellings with integral garages. These would be set back from the road frontage and in line with existing adjoining development and comprise a large 4 bedroom chalet style dwelling (Plot 2) in the centre of the plot and two smaller three bedroom chalet style dwellings either side (Plots 1 and 3). The dwellings would be constructed using traditional brick and tile materials with the middle dwelling featuring a mock Tudor front gable. These would be served by a new shared access with ‘in’ and ‘out’ each end of the frontage. Each dwelling would have parking for at least two vehicles.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- 1 letter of objection (Manor House) – Close proximity to our property would affect our quiet enjoyment Overlooking from bedroom window Refuse collection point could be better sited on aesthetic grounds and would

avoid traffic hazard Boundary trees should be retained Serious concerns about accuracy of the plans Site is an eyesore and potentially dangerous.

SUMMARY The layout plan submitted with the application is incorrect and the applicant has been invited to supply an amended plan. However, I would not expect this to fundamentally change the nature of the proposal, the main issues for which are:-

1) Density, design and impact upon the character of the area. Relevant policies include GD1(iv)(v) and HG4 of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

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

43

3) Impact upon highway safety. Relevant policies include GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(d) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

Density, design and character of the areaA previous application RR/2008/981/P to erect four 2-storey dwellings on the site was refused for reasons that the density, close relationship of the four dwellings, their height and shared driveway across the front would have resulted in an urban form of development with a spatial relationship that would have been out of keeping with the character of existing development in this part of the village and AONB. This resubmitted scheme for three chalet style dwellings seeks to overcome those reasons for refusal. For instance, density and plot size would now be more in keeping with adjoining frontage development and the spatial relationship has been improved by incorporating chalet style sloping roofs rising from single storey height eaves instead of first floor level elevations. The design of the dwellings with gable ends fronting the highway is considered acceptable, as would be the use of traditional brick and tile materials. The submitted plan shows a significant area of new planting along the frontage, which will help to overcome previous concerns about the urbanising effect of the development and shared driveway. It is my opinion that the revised scheme would now comply with Policies GD1(iv)(v) and HG4 of the Rother District Local Plan and S1(f)(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

Impact on adjoining propertiesThe adjoining property at greatest risk from being adversely affected is ‘Manor House’ adjoining the south east side. There are a significant number of trees within the site along the boundary of this property, which is currently dense enough to provide a fair degree of privacy. However, as submitted, the plans do not appear to accurately show the position of these trees and size of their canopies and do not indicate whether any of these would be removed or trimmed back. I have therefore asked for these to be shown on the amended plan requested. I have also asked the applicant to remove/amend the first floor level bedroom dormer window from Plot 3, which has the potential to overlook the adjoining property and to inset the rear north west corner (similar to Plot 1) in order to improve its relationship with the adjoining property and an adjacent boundary tree. Provided a satisfactory amended plan is received I would not expect the amenities of any adjoining properties to be adversely affected and in which case the proposal would comply with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

Highway issuesAt the time of writing this report, the comments of the Highway Authority have not been received. However, unlike the previously refused application, which proposed to serve all of the dwellings from the existing single southern access point, this application seeks to create a second access in front of Plot 1 at the northern end of the frontage. As before, a communal refuse collection point is also proposed just inside the existing southern access. Their comments upon these points will be particularly relevant and will be reported at the meeting.

ConclusionIn conclusion, provided (i) a satisfactory amended layout plan; (ii) a satisfactory amended plan for Plot 3; and (iii) satisfactory comments from the Highway Authority are received, this amended scheme for three dwellings can be supported.

44

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (1) AMENDED LAYOUT PLAN; 2) AMENDED PLAN FOR PLOT 3; 3) HIGHWAY AUTHORITY COMMENTS)1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three


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

3. No development in respect of the dwellings hereby approved shall commence until details for the landscaping of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details 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; and

b. a planting plan with schedule of plants/trees, noting species, plant sizes and positions

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

4. 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 safeguard the characteristics of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

5. As recommended by the Highway Authority.Note: This decision notice relates to the proposals as shown on the originally submitted plans and subsequently amended plan(s) (Ref...............) date stamped ...............

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is of an appropriate density, design and materials and will not adversely affect the character of the area, the amenities of adjoining properties or highway safety and therefore complies with Policies GD1(ii)(iii)(iv)(v) and HG4 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(d)(f)(j), TR3 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


45


RR/2009/187/P NORTHIAM THE OLD BUILDERS YARD, MAIN STREETDEMOLITION OF REDUNDANT STORAGE BUILDINGS (FORMER BUILDER’S YARD) AND ERECTION OF TWO NEW DETACHED DWELLINGS WITH ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING VEHICULAR ACCESSMr and Mrs Rigby


RR/2009/188/H NORTHIAM THE OLD BUILDERS YARD, MAIN STREETDEMOLITION OF REDUNDANT STORAGE BUILDINGSMr and Mrs Rigby


SITE The application site is a small irregular shaped parcel of land within Northiam village on the north east side of Main Street. It is a former builder’s yard. Much of the site is laid to concrete and there are several buildings on the site in differing states of repair. Towards the front of the site, in a central position, is a large oak tree. There are other trees at the rear of the site in the adjoining site.

The site is flanked by two houses: Highfields at a higher level towards the rear of the application site, and Cherry Orchard at the same ground level towards the road frontage.

The site is within the Northiam Conservation Area.

HISTORYRR/83/2150 Outline: Single dwelling – GrantedRR/87/16 Outline: One dwelling – Granted

PROPOSAL Two applications have been submitted:

(i) A full planning application to erect two houses on the former builder’s yard. The scheme shows the two houses set towards the rear of the site outside a root protection, no build zone, of the oak tree as defined by the applicants. Two identical two storey houses are shown, each with three bedrooms. The upper floor of each house is partially incorporated in the roof space. The oldest building on the site – to the front – is to be retained to provide domestic storage, though slightly reduced in length. Two parking spaces per house are shown.

(ii) An application for Conservation Area Consent to remove the three redundant storage buildings from the site.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- In respect of the houses: Object – “The proposals represent a major overdevelopment of the site. The PC is extremely concerned over the future of the large oak at the front of the site which is probably the most significant tree in the streetscape. It is anticipated that if the development were to proceed the proximity of the tree to the new houses could lead to future requests for further reduction in the tree’s size to the detriment of the village. The Parish Council fully supports the comments of Mr and Mrs Franklin who live in the adjacent property particularly

46

regarding the inaccuracies on the drawings and the loss of privacy they would suffer if the development went ahead.”In respect of the demolition: Object – “Whilst the construction of the building concerned could be construed as temporary the building has been part of the Northiam streetscape for many years and if the associated application to develop the site is refused as recommended by the PC then the alterations will be unnecessary.”Highway Authority:- No objection in principle subject to conditions.Planning Notice:- Three objections – Bat survey should be undertaken before any works to the trees Block plan does not fully reflect 1 Cherry Orchard Cottage as it has been

extended Proposed house (Plot 2) will block natural light to kitchen Overlooking/loss of privacy – conflict with Policy GD1(ii) Overdevelopment – scheme too dense Will displace off-street parking for tenants of other properties nearby, resulting in

dangers from more on-street parking Any adverse impact on oak tree would change the character of the village

SUMMARY The two applications are being considered together as a whole scheme. The principal issues are: The loss of an employment site The effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area of the

proposed buildings The effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area of the

proposed demolition The impact of the proposed houses on neighbouring residents The impact of the proposal on the existing oak tree Car parking and traffic issuesPolicy S1 of the Structure Plan and Policies EM2 and GD1 of the Local Plan apply.

Loss of employment site:In normal circumstances consideration would need to be given to the loss of an employment site. However the builder’s yard has not been used as such for possibly 30 years and it has been used, alternatively, for many years for car parking and storage by residents living opposite the site. In these circumstances I consider that an alternative residential use can be considered.

Impact on the Conservation Area:The potential impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area is twofold: the addition of two dwellings and the alteration and reduction of the older of the outbuildings which is to be retained at the front of the site. (The loss of the other buildings of no merit is not controversial).

In terms of the design of the houses I consider that the pair together have an unduly urban style and the combination of a number of design features make them unsuited to this village site.

The reduction of the older outbuilding, to facilitate access to the new houses, is also unfortunate. The building would be better retained in total and the loss of a section of the building is detrimental to the character of the conservation area.

47

Impact on neighbouring residents:At a higher level and separate from the application site I do not consider that the house at ‘Highfields’ will be affected by the scheme. The impact on 1 Cherry Orchard Cottage is more relevant. Plot 2, proposed, will be set to the rear of that cottage although at an oblique angle. I do share the neighbours’ concerns about overlooking and I am concerned that the house will also be relatively close to the rear of Cherry Orchard and once the site is cleared and developed (even with the oak tree retained) the house would appear overbearing in this rear position.

The oak tree:The large oak tree on the site is a major feature and it is intended to retain it within the development. However, the analysis of the impact of the proposed development on the tree (T1) has not been carried out in accordance with BS5837: Trees in relation to construction, and the tree, because of its size, should have a much larger root protection area (RPA) than that shown in the tree report. The RPA is shown as 7.6m and should be approximately 18 metres. There are already multiple incursions into the RPA with the hard surfacing and various structures in the yard. I am concerned that no account has been taken of the close proximity of the tree to the proposed dwellings which I consider would be too close and cause nuisance and anxiety to residents because of its size. This would also be the case with the trees to the rear of the site.

In addition the Tree Report does not include a full tree protection plan, and as well as protection barriers details of ground protection to protect the RPA should be shown, together with a method statement of how the development is to be constructed without disturbing the trees. This would be essential on such a small site and should include details as set out in BS5837.

The large oak is a very significant tree in the Northiam Conservation Area and the proposed development would result in a threat to the continued wellbeing of the tree, as well as the other trees on the site. This loss of trees would be unacceptable because of the impact on amenity and character of the Northiam Conservation Area.

Car parking and traffic issues:The scheme involves widening the access to allow two way traffic movements, the formation of improved visibility splays and planting a new hedge on the back line of the splays. There are no objections from the Highway Authority.

Within the site two parking spaces per house are proposed to the front of the houses. As the tree and timber framed storage building are to be retained in front of the car parking area the front parking need not be overly obtrusive in the street scene.

Conclusion:The site has potential for redevelopment. However I am concerned that the proposed scheme does not take sufficient account of the obvious constraints of the site, namely the existence of the large oak tree, the position of 1 Cherry Orchard Cottages and the narrowness of the site to the rear.

The desire to retain the tree means that the developable area is severely constrained to the rear of the site where the site narrows and requires the houses to be sited behind the adjoining cottage. The resulting scheme gives Plot 2 a very small rear garden and positions this house within less than 10 metres from the cottage. As a result Plot 2 will appear as an overbearing presence on the rear garden of the cottage and there will be

48

direct overlooking from the upper bedrooms. As a whole I consider the arrangement for two houses in these positions to be an overdevelopment detrimental to the adjoining residents. I am also not satisfied that the design of the properties is appropriate for this location.

Furthermore, I do not consider that the issue of trees on the site has been satisfactorily addressed such as to ensure that there will not be damage to, or the eventual loss of the oak tree. Moreover in terms of BS5837 (Section 6.3) the new houses are unrealistically close to the large oak tree that it will inevitably cause loss of light, nuisance and anxiety to residents leading to pressure for its removal.

In the circumstances I consider the scheme to be inappropriate for the site as it does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area.

RECOMMENDATIONS:RR/2009/187/P: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The development of the site for two houses positioned to the rear of the site

results in an overdevelopment of the site with the house on Plot 2, by reason of its height and position, having an overbearing effect on the rear garden of 1 Cherry Garden Cottage and resulting also in overlooking towards this property. As such the scheme conflicts with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. The design of the two houses adopts an overly urban approach out of character with the immediate village context. In particular, the following details contribute in combination to this approach which does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and would be contrary to Policy GD1(iv)(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan: the extensive use of brick to the front projections; the lean-to porches and modern front door arrangements, the overly large dormers and the use of thick barge boards.

3. The development of the site for two houses, necessitating a wider access, involves the undesirable removal of a section of an existing historic outbuilding which contributes to the character and appearance of the site and this part of the conservation area. Its loss would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and conflicts with Policy GD1(vi)(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. The large oak tree is a very significant tree in the Northiam Conservation Area and the proposed development by virtue of its size and siting would result in a threat to the continued wellbeing of the tree, as well as the other trees on the site. The loss of trees would be unacceptable due to the adverse impact on the amenity and character of the Northiam Conservation Area contrary to Policy GD1(iv)(vi)(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2009/188/H: GRANT (CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT)1. The work to which this consent relates shall be begun before the expiration of


49


Note: for the avoidance of doubt this permission relates only to the three buildings to be wholly demolished and not to the building nearest the frontage which it is proposed to alter as part of planning application RR/2009/187/P.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The three buildings to be demolished do not contribute to the character or appearance of the conservation area and their loss is of no consequence having regard to Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2009/429/P NORTHIAM GREAT DIXTER HOUSEINSTALLATION OF BIOMASS BOILER AND UNDERGROUND FUEL BUNKER AND ASSOCIATED SERVICES. SOLAR PANEL ARRAY ON EXISTING FLAT ROOF. LIGHTNING CONDUCTOR INSTALLATION.Great Dixter Charitable Trust


RR/2009/430/L NORTHIAM GREAT DIXTER HOUSE, DIXTER ROADREPAIRS TO NORTH ELEVATION. UPGRADING OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SERVICES ALONG WITH INTEGRATION OF NEW AND UPGRADED SITE WIDE SERVICES. INSTALLATION OF BIOMASS BOILER AND UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE BUNKERGreat Dixter Charitable Trust


SITE These proposals relate to the historic house and gardens at Great Dixter which are located on the western edge of the village just outside the development boundary but within the Conservation Area for Northiam as defined within the Rother District Local Plan. The house is Grade I listed and the 18 th century Oasthouse and the adjacent 15th century timber-framed barn are Grade II* listed.

The site is set within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and within an Archaeological Sensitive Area.

HISTORYRR/2003/2922/L Conversion of redundant Oasthouse to visitor centre – Listed

Building Consent GrantedRR/2003/2926/P Conversion of redundant Oasthouse to visitor centre – Approved

ConditionalRR/2003/2928/L Conversion of part redundant barn to student accommodation and

office – Listed Building Consent GrantedRR/2003/2929/P Conversion of part redundant barn to student accommodation and

office – Approved ConditionalRR/2008/434/L Repairs to the great barn. New internal staircase and reinstatement

of external staircase – Not Yet Determined

50

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr2009188h

RR/2009/436/P Erection of timber frame building (loggia) to be used as a shelter with male/female/disabled WC facilities, for use of the patrons of the garden tea shop – Not Yet Determined

RR/2009/438/P Change of use of buildings for educational and residential learning in association with Great Dixter House and gardens – Not Yet Determined

PROPOSALSRR/2009/429/P: This application seeks permission for the installation of a biomass boiler within the existing chemical store (a lean-to addition to the oast) and an underground fuel bunker adjacent to the chemical store as a storage facility for fuel for the biomass boiler, together with the installation of solar panels and lighting conductor on a flat roof area within the roof of the main house.

RR/2009/430/L: This application seeks consent for repairs to the north elevation of the house; the upgrading of mechanical and electrical services along with integration of new and upgraded site wide services; the installation of a biomass boiler within the existing chemical store (lean-to addition to the oast); and an underground fuel bunker adjacent to the chemical store as a storage facility for fuel for the biomass boiler.

Biomass boiler: The biomass boiler shall be set to operate on the lead boiler in the system and shall only be shut down for maintenance purposes.

The existing lean-to chemical store shall be refurbished for use as a new plant room.

A biomass boiler shall be installed in a central location within the plant room. This shall enable the removal of ash and maintenance to take place through the opening of the plant room door. The boiler shall use wood chip as its fuel source and produce Low Temperature Hot Water (LTHW). The LTHW service shall be linked to the existing oil fired boilers within the main house and in turn serve a new heating distribution. Buried pre-insulated plastic pipe shall link the biomass boiler to the main house. The LTHW distribution shall then distribute through the main house floor void, using existing redundant pipe work routes where possible and connect to a new heating system within the existing boiler room.

Wood chip shall be stored within a purpose built underground fuel silo with hydraulic access cover. The silo shall be located to the west of the plant room. Wood chip fuel shall be supplied to the biomass boiler via the arrangement of a sweep auger and a number of helical augers. The sweep auger, positioned in the base of the store, shall feed the helical augers with wood chip which will in turn be transported to the biomass boiler hopper within the plant room. The detailed design of the fuel transport mechanism is currently being undertaken but the design drawings indicate the design intent.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Any comments will be reported.English Heritage:- Any comments will be reported.Director of Transport & Environment – County Archaeologist:- Concerning application no. RR/2009/429/P – Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice:- Any comments will be reported.

51

SUMMARY The main issues to consider are the impact the proposed works may have on the architectural appearance and historic character and fabric of the listed building. Local Plan Policies apply and in particular Policy GD1 and Advice in PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment.

In judging these proposals it is essential to assess the effects of the alterations and works on the special historic fabric and character of the listed building. Although this proposal follows discussions between the applicants and the Council, at the time of writing this report responses from consultees are still awaited. I expect to be able to support the proposals.

RECOMMENDATIONS: RR/2009/429/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO NO ADVERSE COMMENTS FROM OUTSTANDING CONSULTEES/REFER TO SECRETARY OF STATE)1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three


2. Before commencement of any building works/alterations or repairs as hereby approved a schedule of radiator designs for each room shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The radiators shall be installed in accordance with the approved schedule and thereafter retained.Reason: To ensure that special regard is paid in the interests of protecting the historic character and detailing of the listed building in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposal follows a comprehensive feasibility study of the listed buildings and the works proposed are sympathetic to and respect the historic fabric, character and appearance of the listed building in accordance with the objectives of Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2009/430/L: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO NO AVERSE COMMENTS FROM OUTSTANDING CONSULTEES/REFER TO SECRETARY OF STATE) 1. The work to which this consent relates shall be begun before the expiration of


2. Before commencement of any building works/alterations or repairs as hereby approved a schedule of radiator designs for each room shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The radiators shall be installed in accordance with the approved schedule and thereafter retained.Reason: To ensure that special regard is paid in the interests of protecting the historic character and detailing of the listed building in accordance with Policy

52


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

3. The repairs to the north elevation of the house shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on approved plan (ref. PL/33) date stamped 13 February 2009, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.Reason: To ensure that special regard is paid in the interests of protecting the historic character and detailing of the listed building in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING CONSENT: The proposal follows a comprehensive feasibility study of the listed buildings and the works proposed are sympathetic to and respect the historic fabric, character and appearance of the listed building in accordance with the objectives of Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2009/434/L NORTHIAM THE GREAT BARN – GREAT DIXTER HOUSE AND GARDENS, DIXTER ROADREPAIRS TO THE GREAT BARN. NEW INTERNAL STAIRCASE AND REINSTATEMENT OF EXTERNAL STAIRCASEGreat Dixter Charitable Trust


SITE These proposals relate to the historic house and gardens at Great Dixter, which are located on the western edge of the village just outside the development boundary but within the Conservation Area for Northiam as defined within the Rother District Local Plan. The house is Grade I listed and the 18 th century Oasthouse and the adjacent 15th century timber-framed barn are Grade II* listed. The site is set within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and within an Archaeological Sensitive Area.

HISTORYRR/2003/2922/L Conversion of redundant Oasthouse to visitor centre – Listed

Building Consent GrantedRR/2003/2926/P Conversion of redundant Oasthouse to visitor centre – Approved

ConditionalRR/2003/2928/L Conversion of part redundant barn to student accommodation and

office – Listed Building Consent GrantedRR/2003/2929/P Conversion of part redundant barn to student accommodation and

office – Approved ConditionalRR/2009/429/P Installation of biomass boiler and underground fuel bunker and

associated services. Solar panel array on existing flat roof. Lightning conductor installation – Not Yet Determined

RR/2009/430/L Repairs to north elevation. Upgrading of mechanical and electrical services along with integration of new and upgraded site wide services. Installation of biomass boiler and underground fuel storage bunker – Not Y`et Determined

53


RR/2009/436/P Erection of timber frame building (loggia) to be used as a shelter with male/female/disabled WC facilities, for use of the patrons of the garden tea shop – Not Yet Determined

RR/2009/438/P Change of use of buildings for educational and residential learning in association with Great Dixter House and gardens – Not Yet Determined

PROPOSAL This application seeks consent for repairs to the Great Barn, new internal staircase and reinstatement of external staircase. The agent states, “The Great Barn, listed Grade II*, is a magnificent timber framed structure, largely medieval and of exceptional interest. The proposals will make it available for public viewing as a seasonal exhibition space (thus avoiding the need for insulation of the walls) as well as informally managed seasonal workshop spaces. The aim will be to retain the present fabric without loss of atmosphere and its inspiring architectural quality.”

The proposals for the Great Barn and attached oast falls into a number of categories: repair to the frame and cladding; a new single flight staircase in the south west corner of the barn; and reinstatement of internal stair to oast.

Repairs fall into three general categories: 1. The first is the repair of individual elements of the structural frame or the

strengthening of joints in the frame. Historic fabric will be retained and if no longer capable of performing a structural function, will be reinforced by additional timber rather than the replacement of the failed member.

2. The second element is repair to the cladding. This will be carried out on a ‘like for like’ basis with the replacement of individual boards as necessary.

3. The third aspect relates to floors at both ground and first floor level. At ground level the earth will be returned to its historic level; at first floor individual boards will be replaced but the present uneven floor level will be retained.

Proposed staircase works:The new internal staircase can be accommodated within the main structural bays of the floor framing, but would result in the loss of some intermediate joists. There is evidence that an external staircase was in situ to access the oast and it is proposed to reinstate this feature.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Any comments will be reportedEnglish Heritage:- Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice:- Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY The main issues to consider are the impact the proposed works may have on the architectural appearance and historic character and fabric of the listed buildings. Local Plan Policies apply and in particular Policy GD1 and Advice in PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment.

In judging this proposal it is essential to assess the effects of the alterations and works on the special historic fabric and character of the listed building. Although this proposal follows discussion between the applicants and the Council, at the time of writing this report responses from consultees are still awaited. As the building is Grade II* listed the application will be referred to the Secretary of State. I expect to be able to support the proposals.

54

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO NO ADVERSE COMMENTS FROM OUTSTANDING CONSULTEES/REFER TO SECRETARY OF STATE)

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposal follows a comprehensive feasibility study of the listed building and the works proposed are sympathetic to and respect the historic fabric, character and appearance of the listed building in accordance with the objectives of Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2009/436/P NORTHIAM GREAT DIXTER HOUSE, DIXTER ROADERECTION OF TIMBER FRAME BUILDING (LOGGIA) TO BE USED AS A SHELTER WITH MALE/FEMALE/DISABLED WC FACILITIES, FOR USE OF THE PATRONS OF THE GARDEN TEA SHOP.Great Dixter Charitable Trust


SITE The Great Dixter site lies on the east side of Northiam village at the end of Dixter Lane. The main house is a Grade I listed building around which is a complex of listed barns and other outbuildings and extensive gardens which are included in the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest. The application site is to the south west of the main site next to Garden Cottage which functions as a small shop and tea room and next to the retail nursery area. It is outside of the boundary of the Registered site.

HISTORYThis is one of five current applications relating to developments at Great Dixter reported on this agenda.

PROPOSAL The proposal is for a new oak-framed timber clad building on the site of an existing greenhouse. The building is a loggia, open on three sides under a clay peg tile roof. Internally it will include two WCs and a small store cupboard. The covered open area will be paved in York stone and will provide a seating area. The new building will be set at right angles to Garden Cottage facing the tea garden already used by clientele of the café and shop. The building will complement and enhance the existing use of this part of the site.

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

SUMMARY The principle issue in this case is the impact of the new building on the character of the site and its appropriateness in this location having regard to Policies GD1 of the Local Plan and S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 in particular. The building is to be sited over 100 metres from

55


Great Dixter House itself and has no effect on the setting of the listed building or the principal formal garden areas. It relates to Garden Cottage – which is not listed – and in this context is an appropriate traditional design which will positively enhance this part of the site.

Subject to satisfactory replies to the consultation process I expect to be able to support the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRATION OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. Before commencement of the development, samples of the tiles, bricks,

weatherboarding and York stone to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. In this respect the scheme should utilise new clay peg tiles. The development shall be completed utilising the approved materials only. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity, and to ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the architectural and historic character of the site in accordance with Policy GD1 (v) and (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

Note: The use of second hand clay peg tiles is not approved. REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed building is of an appropriate scale and design having regard to its historic context and siting within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and taking account of Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2009/438/P NORTHIAM GREAT DIXTER FARM, DIXTER ROADCHANGE OF USE OF BUILDINGS FOR EDUCATIONAL AND RESIDENTIAL LEARNING IN ASSOCIATION WITH GREAT DIXTER HOUSE AND GARDENS.Great Dixter Charitable Trust


SITE The application relates to a small complex of unused farm buildings situated about 130 metres north of the grounds of Great Dixter House. The site lies in open farmland sloping down northwards away from Great Dixter.

The buildings comprise two L-shaped single storey buildings – brick and tile – grouped around a central concrete courtyard over which is an open concrete portal framed barn with a corrugated roof. To the south and southwest of this main group are three further barns of corrugated and concrete block construction.

HISTORYRR/2005/1548/P Change of use of 5 redundant agricultural buildings to B1

use/storage including associated landscaping and parking. Demolition of one redundant building – Granted.

56


Also on this agenda are four other applications on the main site to the north.

PROPOSAL The scheme relates to the older single storey red brick buildings which it is intended to convert to provide: In the southern building (Building A), four single bedrooms with en suites (one for

wheelchair use), a communal lounge and a separate boiler room and plant and fuel store

In the northern most building (Building B), an education room, wet area, staff room, offices and WCs

These buildings are part of the original farm buildings of Dixter Farm thought to have been built at the time of Nathaniel Lloyd.

Externally it is intended to replace existing doors and windows (provided for agricultural purposes) on both buildings to make them fit for purpose for the new uses. In the main the scheme works with the existing openings.

The following are extracts from the applicant’s submission:“The present buildings were last used in conjunction with livestock and have always been in agricultural use. In recent years maintenance has been limited but the buildings are generally dry although there are areas of rot in timber and structural movement has occurred in several places.... the use of the complex at Dixter Farm provides the opportunity to locate a number of key support activities from the main estate. These functions are under four broad headings Administrative offices Education facilities Living accommodation for apprentice gardeners Chemical preparation and storage

...Three main principles direct the design of the alterations to the Farm buildings. The first is to maintain the scale and character of the whole range, the second is to introduce energy conscious construction, and the third is to ensure accessibility for all.The general arrangement of the buildings follows the existing plan. The asbestos-clad frame will be removed and the rough hardstanding replaced, to reinforce the feeling of a group of simple buildings ranged around a courtyard. Levels and surfaces are designed to not only provide accessibility throughout but also to define particular external spaces.

...Structure repairs and the introduction of high levels of insulation require the replacement of the roof structure and the re-use of existing tiles. The opportunity will be taken to relocate the position of tie-beams, which are currently at wall plate level, forming considerable interference within spaces.Concrete floors which were formed for use with cattle. These will be broken out and replaced with highly insulated construction, which also incorporate under floor heating.External walls will be lined with high levels of insulation and windows will be glazed with argon-filled double-glazing. The windows will follow the design of the surviving fabric and be constructed of painted softwood. Doors will follow the vertical plank and ledged and braced construction of the existing.Internal partitions will be constructed of block work finished in plaster, to provide suitable levels of acoustic separation.”

57

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- To be reported.Highway Authority:- To be reported.Director of Services – Environmental Health:- To be reported.Planning Notice:- To be reported.

SUMMARY The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where Policies GD1 of the Local Plan and Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the Structure Plan apply in terms of safeguarding the appearance of the High Weald countryside.

Principle of the useIn 2005 planning permission was granted to utilize all five of the buildings on the site (including three buildings not part of this application) for light industrial/storage use. At the time it was confirmed to the Planning Committee that the buildings had ceased to be used agriculturally as far back as the 1960s when a milking herd was last on the land.

Policy EM3 (relevant then and now) provides for the re-use and adaptation of buildings in the countryside for employment purposes, including tourism subject to a number of criteria including that:

- they are of permanent and substantial construction (including modern buildings);- they are capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction;- their form, bulk and general design are in keeping with their surroundings;- the proposal would not detract from the character of the building or its setting;- the proposed use either has an acceptable impact on its surroundings, including

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

This scheme is both employment and tourism related and is linked directly to, and will serve, the main estate at Great Dixter. The user will provide key support activities of administration; education; living accommodation for apprentice gardeners; as well as separate chemical preparation and storage. Ordinarily residential accommodation would be viewed critically in the countryside (and assessed under Policy HG10 of the Local Plan), but I am considering this proposal as a whole in relation to Great Dixter.

The character of the areaThe whole complex of the five buildings at present does not contribute to the landscape, not least because the two more attractive buildings – the subject of this application – are largely obscured and dominated by the concrete portal frame over the internal courtyard. This proposal involves a significant benefit for the countryside with the removal of this structure and the replacement of the rough concrete hard surface. Although the upgrading will involve re-covering the roof and changes to the openings of the buildings, the overall form and character of the original buildings will be retained.

Other amenity issuesThe nearest visible residential properties are in Dixter Lane nearly 200 metres from the site. The proposed activities are not such that they would generate undue noise or activity detrimental to the nearest residents, or indeed activity greater or more intrusive than the alternative uses for agriculture or light industry/storage.

58

Other issuesThis application is reported to Committee at an early stage and there are still some outstanding consultations. It is likely that conditions will be required concerning contamination on the former farmyard and the highway advice is awaited. At this stage I am able to advise that as a matter of policy and principle the scheme is acceptable, and would recommend a delegated approval of the scheme pending expiration of the consultation period.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SATISFACTORY CONSULTATION REPLIES AND EXPIRATION FO CONSULTATION PERIOD.1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three


2. No development to undertake any specific part of the scheme shall take place until details or relevant samples of the materials to be used in the construction or alteration of all external surfaces of the buildings and all hard surfaced areas around the buildings, on that part of the scheme, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development safeguards and enhances the character and appearance of the existing building to preserve the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policies GD1 (iv) & (v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1 (f) & (j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to a contaminated land assessment and associated remedial strategy, together with a timetable of works, being submitted to the local planning authority for approval and all works shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.a) The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk study to be

submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The desk study shall include the history of the site's uses and a walk-over survey. It shall, if necessary, propose a site investigation strategy based on the relevant information discovered by the desk study. The strategy shall be approved by the local planning authority prior to investigations commencing on site.

b) The site investigation, including relevant soil, soil gas, surface and ground water sampling, in accordance with a quality assured sampling and analysis methodology.

c) A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of analysis, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remediation strategy shall be submitted to the local planning authority. The local planning authority shall approve such remedial works as required prior to any remediation commencing on site. The works shall be of such a nature so as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment (including any controlled waters).

d) Approved remediation works shall be carried out in full on site under a quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance. If during any works contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified then the additional contamination should be fully assessed and an

59

appropriation remediation scheme submitted to the local planning authority for approval.

e) Upon completion of the works, this condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The closure report shall include details of the proposed remediation works and the quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any post remediation sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site.

Reason: In order to avoid risks to health or the environment in accordance with Government Advice in PPG23: Planning and Pollution Control and Policy GD1 (xiii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. Details of any floodlighting or external illumination shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the buildings are occupied. Development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved details and no other lighting shall be installed. Reason: To safeguard the rural amenities of the locality and to control overspill and light pollution in accordance with Policy GD1 (ii) & (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

5. The premises shall be used only for residential purposes as defined in the approved plans and on the basis of the approved room layouts and the occupation of any of the residential rooms shall be limited to persons solely working at the Great Dixter Estate.Reason: The use of the buildings for residential purposes is considered acceptable in this rural location only as an integral part of the whole scheme to convert the buildings to provide key support services for Great Dixter having regard to Policies HG10 and EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The change of use of these former agricultural buildings is appropriate both in terms of the level and type of activities proposed and the alterations necessary having regard to Policies GD1 (iv) & (v) and EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1 (f) & (j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, subject to the residential use being wholly related to the Great Dixter Estate and its current operation. View application/correspondence_____________________________________________________________________

RR/2009/442/P NORTHIAM 47/54 DIXTER ROADFORMATION OF HARD PAVED AREA AT ENTRANCE TO PREMISES. DROPPED KERB TO PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE. COVER TO METER BOXES. (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION) J Perigoe & Son


SITE This Grade II listed building is located on the south side of the junction between Dixter Road and Ewhurst Lane. It is set within the development boundary and

60


Conservation Area for Northiam as defined within the Rother District Local Plan. It is also set within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORY (Relevant) RR/86/1432 Change of use from retail shop to estate agents offices – Approved

Conditional.RR/88/2511 Conversion of existing store rooms over shop to 2 residential units.

Rear first floor door and external staircase – Approved Conditional.RR/89/2578/L Replacement of sliding sash windows at first floor level with UPVC

units, and new front boarding – Listed Building Consent Refused. RR/90/1454/P Additional use of shop premises to provide teas etc (8 covers) –

Approved Conditional. RR/93/0110/P Change of use from tearooms to veterinary surgery – Approved

Conditional.RR/1999/1666/P Proposed change of use from veterinary surgery to opticians and

change of shop interior layout – Approved.RR/2008/2359/L Internal alterations, replacement and alterations to existing

windows and doors – Listed Building Consent Granted. RR/2008/2364/P Installation of condenser unit associated with cols storage facility –

Withdrawn. RR/2008/3552/P Formation of hard paved area at entrance to premises. Installation

of bollard to protect meter boxes. Dropped kerb to pedestrian entrance - Refused

PROPOSAL This premises has currently undergone building works in connection with its proposed use as a funeral directors premises, these works were approved under application RR/2008/2359/L.

This application seeks permission for the formation of a hard paved area at the entrance to the premises with a dropped kerb at the road edge and installation of a timber cover at ground floor level to protect the meter boxes. The hard paved areas have already been erected/laid on site; however, the dropped kerb has yet to be constructed.

The agent states: “The applicant instructed his contractors to re-form this area in hard pavings to provide a suitable means of access fro his clients and to satisfy his obligations under the disability discrimination act. He also instructed a bollard to be positioned at the north corner of the building in order to protect the floor mounted service meters from damage by vehicles. The applicant was unaware that these works would require planning permission, as were his contractors. The applicant was advised by Rother District Council that these works would require planning permission and he would like to take this opportunity to make a further improvement for his disabled or frail clients by installing a dropped kerb at the road edge”.

“Accordingly it is now proposed that the bollard be removed and it is on this basis that this revised application is submitted. In order to protect the service meter boxes and prevent a trip hazard it is now proposed that the boxes be fitted with a timber cover at ground floor level.”

CONSULTATIONS Parish Council – Any comments will be reported.

61

Highway Authority – Notes from previous correspondence dated 13 January 2009 in response to previous application RR/2008/3552/P:“It is evident from a recent site visit that the bollard has already been installed. I am concerned that the current location of the bollard will force pedestrians off the footway and into the carriageway which is unacceptable in highway safety terms.With regard to the proposed dropped kerb to pedestrian entrance, I feel that the proposed pedestrian visibility is acceptable. However, this could be further enhanced by relocating the dropped kerb closer to the stone pavings.In order to overcome this Highway Authority’s objection, I would wish to see the bollard removed or at least relocated to a suitable location that will not interfere with the free flow of pedestrians using Ewhurst Lane.”Planning Notice – 1 letter of objection concerned with the following: The original frontage of the building was not a 10mm shingle area but had an old

York stone slab frontage, with brick paving up to the door. There was also a flower bed with a long established yellow climbing rose that was ripped out

There is a very real problem with parking on this corner; a dropped kerb will restrict parking and enable Perigoes to load up a hearse; a demountable ramp would be used for disabled customers

It is a retrospective application for work that has already been done. If they had wanted to put in a dropped kerb for access they would have done it when putting in the gas meters, brick pavers and the Indian sandstone frontage - not to then go and rip it up at some later date

Dropped kerb is three times the size of the pathA letter from the agent in response to Mr Reed’s letters and a picture of the site frontage taken on 20 June 0208, showing that the relevant area was at the time formed in pea shingle, not in York Stone and brick paving.

SUMMARY BackgroundThis revised application follows the refusal at the January Planning Committee of previous application RR/2008/3552/P for the formation of hard paved area at entrance to premises, installation of bollard to protect meter boxes, dropped kerb to pedestrian entrance by virtue that, “The bollard would constitute an obstruction to pedestrians using this section of Ewhurst Lane, forcing pedestrians off of the footway and into the carriageway which is unacceptable in highway safety terms, contrary to the objectives of Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.”

The bollard is shown to be removed in this current application and replaced with a timber meter box cover at ground level obviating the need for the bollard as a form of protecting the meter box area.

The hard surfaces, to which no objections were raised initially, remain unchanged from the previous application.

IssuesThe main issues to consider are impact upon the setting and appearance of the listed building and Conservation Area, where proposals will need to preserve or enhance its character; and highway safety issues with regard to pedestrian safety. Local Plan Policies apply and in particular GD1.

62

Visual appearanceThe hard paved areas appear to be laid to a good standard using appropriate materials, and it is now proposed to cover the meter boxes with a timber cover at ground level. I therefore do not consider that these works cause demonstrable harm to the appearance of the listed building or locality.

Highway safetyThe bollard is shown to be removed, and therefore pedestrians will be able to use the footpath without having to enter onto the highway.

I note again the previous comments of the Highway Authority (dated 13 January 2009) regarding the position of the dropped kerb in relation to pedestrian visibility. Although the Highway Authority did state that visibility would be enhanced should the dropped kerb be relocated further westwards towards Ewhurst Lane, given that the proposed current position of the dropped kerb is acceptable I am unable to insist on its relocation.

I do have concerns regarding the length of the proposed dropped kerb being some 2 metres in length. I consider that this is excessive to serve the path which has a width of 0.75 metres. A letter to this effect has been sent to the agent. In this respect I am aware that the concern of some local residents is that a dropped kerb to facilitate disabled access could be provided to the other access path serving the premises rather than on this narrower new path. At the time of writing this report a reply is still awaited and any response will be reported to Members at the meeting.

ConclusionThe appearance of the hard paved areas and timber meter box cover will not have a demonstrable impact upon the appearance of the listed building or the conservation area. Subject to receipt of satisfactory amended plans reducing the length of the dropped kerb to minimise the disturbance to on-street parking I am minded to support this proposal and make the following recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (RECEIPT OF SATISFACTORY AMENDED PLAN AND EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three


2. Before commencement of any works hereby approved, details of the materials to be used, construction method and relationship with the footpath and listed building of the timber meter boxes cover, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and only those approved details shall be employed and thereafter retained.Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the architectural and historic character of the listed building in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed works are of an appropriate design and will not adversely affect the historic setting or character of the listed building or the character of the conservation area. With the reduction in the length

63

of the dropped kerb to minimise the disturbance to on-street parking, the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the free flow of traffic movement. As such the proposal meets the objectives of Policy S1(d)(f)(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iii)(iv)(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2009/99/P CAMBER 16 THE SUTTONS, THE PILOTDEMOLITION OF EXISTING FOUR BED BUNGALOW. ERECTION OF TWO STOREY FOUR BED HOUSEMs C Williams and Mr G Dunning



SITE The detached single storey bungalow lies to the south side of The Suttons, which is an unmade road and abuts the public beach. It is flanked by a two storey house on one side and a chalet bungalow to the east. The site lies within the development boundary for Camber as defined within the Rother District Local Plan. The site is adjoined to the south by the Dungeness, Romney Marshes and Rye Bay SSSI.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/75/2004 Additional bedrooms and store room – Approved Conditional

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to demolish the existing bungalow and erect a two storey flat roofed contemporary design house.

The main body of the house is cube shaped and will be sited on a similar footprint to the existing bungalow - although it will extend past the existing rear building line of the bungalow (south elevation) - with a single storey outshot extending from the north elevation. It is proposed to incorporate a balcony on the south elevation (beach elevation) and a roof terrace on the outshot.

The main issues to consider are the design and scale of the replacement house in the context of the character of the locality; and the impact upon neighbours’ amenities. Local Plan policies apply, in particular Policy GD1.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Have requested a site visit as they have received several objections.Environment Agency:- Have no objection to the proposal provided that conditions are attached to any permission.Romney Marshes Internal Drainage Board:- No objection.Planning Notice:- 4 letters of objection have been received concerned with the following: Object to roof terrace – will overlook my property Loss of privacy Overshadowing Loss of natural light Loss of view

64


Unsure drawings are a true representation with regard to the position on the plot of the existing bungalow and outbuildings

Use of roof terrace directly adjacent to our bedroom window Chimney stack in relation to bedroom windows Design not suited for plot

SUMMARY DesignThe Suttons is characterised by a mix of properties varying in size and architectural style and of different ages: there are several recent replacements. I therefore do not consider that this contemporary flat roofed designed dwelling will appear out of keeping with the locality both in terms of scale and design.

Impact upon neighbours’ amenitiesI note, and have considered, the concerns raised by the adjoining properties.

It is my opinion that the proposed roof terrace (north elevation) will allow direct views into the property of neighbouring dwellings, and to this degree I have asked the agent to remove it from the proposal. I also have concerns that direct views into no.17 will be allowed from the proposed balcony on the south elevation. To prevent this, a screen would be required at its western end. This point has been taken up with the agent.

With the omission of the proposed roof terrace, I consider that the distance (some 20 metres) is sufficient to prevent the replacement dwelling from causing demonstrable harm to the amenities of dwellings to the north accessed from Lydd Road.

No.17 The Suttons has windows that face into the site, and while I note that the replacement dwelling, being two storeys in height, will have a greater physical impact upon this property, I do not consider that the loss of light to ground floor windows will be significantly greater than that already experienced. Whilst light will be obscured to the first floor window this is a secondary window and I therefore could not justify a refusal on this element. The occupier of no.17 has no right to a view from this window.

Given the orientation with no.15 and the position of the windows, I do not consider that the replacement dwelling would have an adverse impact upon their residential amenities. I note the point regarding the chimney and have taken this up with the Council’s Building Control section.

ConclusionSubject to the omission of the proposed roof terrace and adjacent balcony screening to prevent overlooking to no.17, the proposed replacement dwelling, although having a greater physical impact upon neighbouring properties would not result in demonstrable harm to their residential amenities to warrant a refusal. Members can assess the impact upon neighbours’ properties during their inspection, and subject to their agreement I make the following recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (DELETION OF ROOF TERRACE [NORTH ELEVATION] AND SCREENING ON WEST SIDE OF BALCONY [SOUTH ELEVATION])1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission.

65

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. 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 dwelling.Reason: To preclude overlooking and thereby protect the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy GD1 (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no 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.Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development and amenities of the locality are maintained 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.

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

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed replacement dwelling is of an appropriate scale and design for this location within the Camber development boundary. The replacement dwelling, being two storeys in height, will have a greater physical effect upon the neighboring properties than that existing. However, with the omission of the roof terrace on the north elevation and a screen to the west elevation of the southern balcony, it will not result in demonstrable harm to their residential amenities. As such the proposal meets the objectives of 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.


66


RR/2009/189/L TICEHURST SHOVERS GREEN HOUSE, SHOVERS GREENERECTION OF BRICK DIVIDING WALL AT THE REAR OF SHOVERS GREEN HOUSE, SHOVERS GREEN. VARIATION OF CONDITION 3 IMPOSED ON LISTED BUILDING CONSENT RR/2005/772/LMrs P Pulman


RR/2009/190/P TICEHURST SHOVERS GREEN HOUSE, SHOVERS GREENERECTION OF BRICK DIVIDING WALL AT THE REAR OF SHOVERS GREEN HOUSE, SHOVERS GREEN. VARIATION OF PLANNING CONDITIONS 3(C) AND 5 OF PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2005/770/PMrs P Pulman


This site has been included on the list of Committee site inspections for 17 March 2009.

SITE Shovers Green House is an attractive L-shaped building of soft red brick, with part tile-hung elevations and a tiled roof, large decorative chimney stacks and elaborate bargeboards with gable finials. The building is listed within Grade II. It is linked to a traditional timber barn by a long single storey wing of brick and tile construction, with its own prominent chimney stack. The timber barn also benefits from listed building status as a curtilage building. This building is presently undergoing conversion to a separate dwelling and works are nearing completion. It is now in separate ownership from Shovers Green House.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2003/3075/L) Change of use and conversion of barn to dwelling -RR/2003/3093/P) Refused – A planning appeal lodged in respect of the

planning application only was subsequently dismissed

RR/2005/770/P) Revised scheme for conversion of barn to dwelling -RR/2005/772/L) Approved

PROPOSAL The proposal is to build a brick wall along the new ownership boundary between the existing house and the newly converted barn on the south eastern side of the buildings. It would be 16m long and approximately 2m high. The proposed wall would extend to the inside back wall of the open bay cart lodge (also referred to as a former cattle byre), which links the two buildings thereby forming an internal brick dividing wall. This would be a full height wall of cavity construction. The Design and Access Statement and a Planning Statement submitted with the application seek to demonstrate that there is a historic justification for this type of wall in the position proposed (the supporting details can be viewed in full on the application website). The supporting information also states that the reasons for requiring the wall are to ensure the long term privacy, security and enjoyment of the occupants of both properties as well as providing a degree of acoustic as well as fire separation to the two dwellings.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Any comments will be reported.

67

Planning Notice:- 3 letters of support have been received from the occupiers of residential properties in the vicinity of the site (Normanswood, Shovers Green Cottage, Shovers Green Barn). These state that Wall will provide greater security, reduce fire risk, give greater privacy Would be consistent with the history of the building The garden already has old walls of the same design, so would be in keeping

with the environment Our house (Normanswood) is the only one in the vicinity likely to see the

proposed wallOther representations: An email of support has been received from Councillor Elliston, commenting that the wall would give some privacy to this property; the neighbour supports the application; it would be harmonious with the wall on the opposite side of the garden; security would be improved.

SUMMARY The main issue is the impact of the proposal on the character, appearance and setting of Shovers Green House as a Grade II listed building. The planning history of the attached barn undergoing conversion is material to the consideration of the applications now before you. The original planning application and listed building consent application (RR/2003/3075/L and RR/2003/3093/P) for the change of use and conversion of the barn were refused by this local planning authority and a subsequent appeal application was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate. In dismissing the appeal, the Inspector raised concerns about the impact of the development on the subdivision of the curtilage of Shovers Green House as a historic listed building

With respect to this issue, the Inspector commented: “...the integrity of the land surrounding the house and barn is important to the appreciation of the farmhouse and its attached buildings as one historical and architectural unit.” The Inspector considered that in the event that a separate dwelling in the barn was created, some sort of physical subdivision would be required for privacy by the future occupiers of both dwellings. The Inspector concluded that, “Any noticeable subdivision of the curtilage would, in my opinion, be detrimental to the setting of the farmhouse and its attached buildings and the ability to appreciate their historical relationship. That would diminish the interest and character of the complex as a whole.”

Following this appeal decision, amended applications for planning permission and listed building consent were submitted to this local planning authority (RR/2005/770/P and RR/2005/772/L), which sought to address the Inspector’s objections. These applications proposed no physical boundaries to subdivide the curtilage apart from a new yew hedge in the position of the wall now being proposed. The application also proposed leaving the cart lodge intact in its unaltered state.

On the basis of the amended applications the Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission and listed building consent for the barn conversion subject to conditions, one of which required that other than the boundary details shown on the approved plan there shall be no physical demarcation of the boundary between the curtilage of the converted barn and Shovers Green House. Whilst the reasons put forward in the application and supporting statement have been noted the overriding issue has to be the requirement to preserve the listed building and its setting in accordance with Sections 16 and 66 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Being mindful of the Planning Inspector’s comments, I am concerned that the erection of the proposed 2 metre high brick wall, regardless of the design details, would be detrimental to the setting of the listed

68

farmhouse and its attached outbuildings. Moreover, extending the proposed wall into the open bay of the cart shed would be harmful to the appearance and character of the listed building and confuse the historic integrity of the building.

RECOMMENDATIONS:RR/2009/189/L: REFUSE (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)1. The proposed alterations to the cart shed and the subdivision of the curtilage by

a 2 metre high brick wall would have a harmful impact on the character, appearance and setting of the Grade II listed farmhouse and its attached buildings. The proposed development conflicts with the provisions of Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which indicates that special regard will be given to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The proposed development also conflicts with Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan indicate that all new development should not prejudice, but protect and enhance, the character, appearance or setting of heritage features, including listed buildings.


RR/2009/190/P: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed alterations to the cart shed and the subdivision of the curtilage by

a 2 metre high brick wall would have a harmful impact on the character, appearance and setting of the Grade II listed farmhouse and its attached buildings. The proposed development conflicts with the provisions of Section 66 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which indicates that special regard will be given to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The proposed development also conflicts with Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan indicate that all new development should not prejudice, but protect and enhance, the character, appearance or setting of heritage features, including listed buildings.


RR/2009/312/P TICEHURST CHERRY TREE NURSERY, THE MOUNTRETENTION OF CHALET MOBILE HOME.Mr Lindsay


This application has been included on the list of Committee site inspections for 17 March 2009.

SITE The application site is a relatively level rectangular area of agricultural land (approximately 0.93 hectares) with a vehicular hardstanding and access to the A268 in the south western corner. Buildings on the site comprise a pair of polytunnels and an agricultural storage building which were allowed on appeal in 2003 (RR/2002/925/P).

69



The mobile home is on the site and this application seeks retrospective planning permission.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2002/925/P Modification to existing access, two polytunnels and agricultural

storage building – Refused – Appeal Allowed in PartRR/2004/3394/P Resubmission of application for erection of lean-to to existing

agricultural storage building - ApprovedRR/2006/1856/P Change or use of barn to allow sale of garden furniture, sheds,

farm produce and plants and flowers including formation of parking area – Refused

Mobile home - Two mobile homes were brought onto the land about four years ago. This has been the subject of planning enforcement procedures.

An enforcement notice was issued on 27 February 2006 to take effect from 14 April 2006. This gave a 3 month compliance date for the removal of the mobile homes (14 July 2006).

An appeal was subsequently lodged against the enforcement notice. This was dismissed in part but effectively extended the period of compliance with the enforcement notice by 12 months, giving a compliance date of 27 October 2007.

Whilst one mobile home has been removed, as a result of the failure to comply fully with the enforcement notice prosecution proceedings commenced on 17 July 2008. Matters have, however, been adjourned pending the outcome of this current planning application.

PROPOSAL Full planning is sought for the retention of the mobile home for occupation by a Gypsy family. Supporting information submitted with the application explains that the applicant’s long term partner (Caroline Delahunt) is descended from a traditional Romany Gypsy family and she seeks permission to continue living in the mobile home with her family as a necessary part of her way of life.

A letter from the President of The Gypsy Council has been submitted in support of the application. This states, “I am, nonetheless, aware that Mrs Lindsay (Caroline Delahunt) is a bred-and-born Gypsy, and that even though she and her husband have spent some time living in conventional housing stock she still falls within the current legal definition.”

Other documents submitted in support of the application include: 1 letter from the Chairman of The Gypsy Council reconfirming the above 12 letters of support from local residents 1 letter from a Gypsy acquaintance of the family 1 letter on behalf of ‘Romany Life – Heart of Kent Centre for Culture and

Education’ 1 letter from ESCC – Director of Children’s Services: States that one of the

applicant’s children has ongoing health needs and attends a special needs school in Tonbridge. The letter goes on to state that in the context of the property where the family resides, he is able to be managed in a safe environment due to the space available to him.

70

1 letter of support from ‘Headstart Nursery School’ regarding the benefits that have arisen as a result of the younger children attending the nursery and its close relationship with the family.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- Offers no objection.Highways Agency:- Comments awaited.Director of Services – Housing:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- A letter of objection has been received from the occupiers of no.1 St Richards Cottages (opposite the site), which can be summarised as follows: Although Mr Lindsay has included letters of support with the application he did

not approach the people it most concerns; there are only four people in favour of Mr Lindsay, the rest do not even live close to the site

This has been going on since 2001 No planning permission for extending the entrance, change of use for living on

site: why has this never been followed up? This site is within the AONB where planning policies state that development will

be carefully controlled to protect the character of the area We strongly oppose the mobile home The shed on the site was built for storage of produce which is supposed to be

grown on the land. For the past two years little fruit has been grown. Fruit and vegetables and bedding plants have been brought in by lorry and sold

Storage shed has been used for the repair of motor cars Does this mean we have an influx of caravans when (children) get older?The letter can be viewed in full on the application website.

SUMMARY The site lies outside of any Development Boundary identified within the Rother District Local Plan. It is also within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. A planning enforcement notice has been issued by this Council for the removal of this mobile home. An appeal lodged by the applicant was dismissed in respect of the mobile home (and another, which has since been removed). In dismissing the appeal the Planning Inspector concluded that an essential functional need for any mobile home in connection with a viable agricultural enterprise had not been satisfactorily demonstrated. The Inspector also concluded that the stationing of two mobile homes on the land had an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside and AONB. This application now seeks to retain the mobile home on the land based upon an entirely different justification, namely that the applicant’s partner’s status as a statutory Gypsy confers special consideration in accordance with Government advice contained in Circular 01/2006, ‘Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites’. With respect to your Development Plan policies, HG6 of the Rother District Local Plan is particularly relevant:

“Policy HG6 Proposals for new Gypsy sites, extensions to existing Gypsy sites and sites for travelling showpeople will be permitted provided the following criteria are met:

(i) There is no adverse impact on the character of the countryside, particularly in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

(ii) The local environment and residential amenities will not be adversely affected;

(iii) There is a satisfactory means of vehicular access and the local road network is adequate;

71

(iv) The site is conveniently located in relation to schools and other community facilities.”

In determining the application, the main issues are:(i) Whether the proposed occupiers of the site are Gypsies as defined in Circular

01/2006;(ii) If they are found to be Gypsies, then it is necessary to consider the effect of the

development on the landscape quality of the AONB; and finally(iii) Whether any harm identified is outweighed by any other considerations.

(i) Gypsy status Letters have been submitted with the application from The Gypsy Council stating that the applicant’s partner, Caroline Delahunt, is a bred-and-born Gypsy. This, for the purpose of planning policy, is not disputed. Not a significant amount of detail has, however, been put forward as to the extent that a traditional Gypsy lifestyle has been followed.

(ii) Landscape quality and character The Inspector’s comments in the previous appeal decision are a material consideration in this respect. The Inspector concluded that, in the absence of any special justification and with their modern incongruous appearance, the stationing of two residential caravans on the land has an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the countryside and the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Whilst one of the mobile homes has since been removed, it is nevertheless still the case that the remaining mobile home has such an adverse impact. The view expressed by the Inspector was made notwithstanding his observation that the caravans (mobile homes) were both well screened from public view. I would also add on this particular point, that the buildings screening the mobile home from the A268 (the two polytunnels and the agricultural storage building) are the subject of a condition imposed by the Appeal Inspector (ENF/TIC/2005/393) requiring that, in the event that they cease to be used for agricultural purposes in connection with the holding, then they shall be removed. Therefore, in this event, the mobile home would still remain but would be open to public view. Circular 01/2006 –‘Planning for Gypsy and Caravan Sites’ advises that in AONBs planning permission for Gypsy sites should only be granted where the objectives of designation will not be compromised by the development: in view of the findings by the previous Appeal Inspector, this would not appear to be the case and the objectives of designation would be compromised.

(iii) Other material considerations Both the applicant and his partner appear to have established connections with the local area. They occupy the caravan with their three children all of whom occupy local schools. One of the children has special health needs. Since 2006 the Government has redefined the statutory definition of Gypsies to include people who, for reasons of health or other (including the education of their children), have either temporarily or permanently stopped travelling. Whilst all of the personal circumstances are capable of being considered as material planning considerations, Members will have to decide whether on balance, these are sufficient to outweigh harm to the AONB.

72

Secondly, consideration has to be given to whether or not other sites are available for occupation within the District. The Council’s LDF Core Strategy – Consultation on Strategy Directions indicates that the South East Plan Partial Review will determine the number of pitches that the Council will need to provide for. Since then SEERA has now submitted its advice to the Government Regional Office and this recommends 7 pitches within Rother between 2006 and 2026. Site specific allocations to be contained in a Development Plan Document are projected to be adopted in 2012; however, sites are unlikely to be capable of occupation immediately the DPD is adopted. There is therefore a need for sites within Rother, but this has been recognised as being a small need. Furthermore, Planning Inspectors have taken the view elsewhere (ENF/BAT/2007/487 Battle, para 20 and RR/2007/2522/P Ewhurst, para 19) that sites should not be decided by appeal (or by applications) on a case by case basis in advance of the DPD but rather, the time should be taken to see if there are suitable sites outside of the environmentally sensitive areas and in which case, the Development Plan will identify them. Consequently, the matter of alternative available sites can only be given limited weight in the consideration of this application.

Thirdly, consideration has also been given to the other criteria contained in Policy HG6, specifically access, local residential amenity, and the proximity to schools and other community facilities. It is considered that there is no direct conflict with these criteria in HG6.

Although the personal circumstances outlined above carry some weight in support of the applicant’s case, it is not considered that they outweigh the AONB landscape issue. A Planning Inspector has previously dismissed an appeal on this site finding that the mobile home is harmful to the character of the AONB. Further to this, Circular 1/2006 advises that in an AONB planning permission for new Gypsy sites should only be granted where the objectives of designation will not be compromised by the development. In the circumstances I have to conclude that planning permission should not be granted for the change of use of this agricultural land and the stationing of a residential mobile home.

Consideration has been given as to whether a recommendation should be made for a temporary planning permission. Advice on the use of temporary permissions is contained in paras 108-113 of the DoE Circular 11/95, and this states that a temporary planning permission may be justified where it is expected that the planning circumstances will change in a particular way at the end of the period of the temporary permission. I have recently received a copy of a High Court Judgment relating to another site, Bramble Farm, Ewhurst, which has a direct bearing on the application now before you. A copy of the Judgment is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 March 2009. A planning application RR/2007/2522/P for the retention of a Gypsy mobile home at Bramble Farm had been refused by this local planning authority and subsequently dismissed at appeal. The issue that was taken to the High Court by the appellant was whether the decision should be quashed because the Inspector refused to grant a temporary planning permission. The Judgment found that it would have been inappropriate for the Inspector to have granted a temporary planning permission. In summary, this looked at the allocation of Gypsy sites and concluded that as there was no prospect of sites becoming available within the range of a reasonable temporary permission, a temporary permission would not have been appropriate (paragraphs 22/23); it gives particular importance to the need to protect the AONB (paras 37/38); in overcoming

73

personal circumstances (paras 27-31); and giving support to the Inspector’s comment that, “allowing a period of grace in any decision would send out a mixed message and undermine the finding that this is an unacceptable location for a Gypsy site.”

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposal involves development in the countryside outside of any town or

village Development Boundary identified by the Rother District Local Plan and is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. No compelling justification or need for the development to be sited in such a location has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. The mobile home has an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside and the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and as such, it is contrary to Policies S1(j), S10 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(v) and HG6(i) of the Rother District Local Plan. It also conflicts with Government advice contained in Circular 01/2006, ‘Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites’ – paragraph 52.


RR/2009/107/P ETCHINGHAM GREENBANKS, HIGH STREETDEMOLITION OF PART OF EXISTING DWELLING. ERECTION OF TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS WITH ACCESS, CAR PARKING AND TURNING FACILITIES. Cedar Grange Equity Ltd



SITE The site is currently occupied by a single detached dwelling set within the Etchingham 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 is sloping north to south with the highway being on the southern boundary. A detached dwelling, known as Mistletoe Cottage, lies immediately to the west of the site and set slightly behind the dwelling within the application site. A semi-detached dwelling is set immediately to the east of the site.

The existing dwelling benefits from permission allowing a substantial extension and alterations to be carried out. When measured at the centre of the boundary lines the site measures some 75m in deep and some 25m wide and served by a single vehicular access point.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2007/931/P Demolition of existing car port/workshop and erection of two

detached dwellings with car parking and access together with relocated parking – Withdrawn

RR/2007/1474/P Erection of two storey extension and first floor side extension, insertion of dormer window into the front roof and additions to roof to create an amended roof form including roof window. – Approved

74


RR/2007/2808/P Demolition of existing car port/ work shop & erection of 2 detached dwellings with car parking & access together with relocated parking. Refused – Appeal dismissed.

PROPOSAL The application seeks to erect two new detached dwellings and shared access drive. One two storey dwelling and a bungalow are proposed with associated parking to be set in the in the rear garden of the two storey dwelling and in the front garden of the bungalow. A screened car port is to be provided for the bungalow.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Any comments will be reported.Highway Authority: Raise no objection subject to the imposition of conditions.Environment Agency: The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposal.

Southern Water: Southern Water does not wish to comment on this application.Planning Notice: 12 letters of objection have been received representing 18 people from 10 addresses raising the following concerns: Constitutes backland development out of keeping with the area Impact upon AONB Increased noise and disturbance Water runoff and flooding issues Highway safety issues Devalue existing property Potential further development causing overlooking issues Disagree with the Inspector that a new dwelling would not cause overlooking to

Misletoe Cottage Adverse impact upon village services Set a precedent for other development behind the houses Overlooking Concern regarding the 1.8m high fence on the eastern boundary & loss of

greenery Loss of a view

Above are the perceived primary concerns raised by members of the public. Full versions of the letters are held on the planning history file available to the public and stored on the electronic file on Rother District Council’s website.

SUMMARY The site has been subject to a previously refused application for the erection of two, two storey dwellings in the rear garden of Greenbanks (RR/2007/2808/P). The subsequent appeal to the Planning Inspectorate was dismissed. This latest application has been submitted to address issues raised in light of the reasons for refusal by Rother District Council and dismissal by the Planning Inspectorate. It is important that both the aforementioned application and this subsequent application should be read in conjunction as they are inextricably linked.

With regard to the Inspector’s report, while the content of that report are the opinions of the Inspector, they must be given material weight in determining this application. Notwithstanding that, the matters raised by public representation must also been considered accordingly.

To assist Members in understanding the main issues raised by the public and the Inspector in respect of both the previous application (RR/2007/2808/P) and this current

75

application, I have outlined the public comments above and paraphrased the main comments made by the Inspector below (full details of all documents are available on file and the planning website): The Inspector:

Paragraphs 1 to 4 set out the decision, main issues and reasons.

Paragraph 5. Did not consider that development of the site for two dwellings would cause an adverse impact upon the AONB or cause material harm to the character of the highway.

Paragraph 6. Did not consider the plot layout would adversely affect the established pattern or use of ‘previously developed garden land’ would conflict with the development plan.

Paragraph 7. Addresses the site levels and design of the dwellings without south facing first floor habitable room windows (for example, clear glazed bedroom windows).

Paragraph 8. Considered that sufficient boundary screening (fencing and natural) along the western boundary would not cause detriment to the amenity of ‘Mistletoe’ along with the proposed dwelling having suitable window arrangement as to not cause overlooking.

Paragraph 9. Expresses concern regarding the relationship between the proposed eastern side dwelling and Circles. This paragraph forms the basis for the dismissal and I therefore specifically draw Members’ attention to this paragraph.

Paragraph 10. Sets out his conclusion to the content of Paragraph 9.

Paragraph 11. Did not agree that the reason for refusal that noise generated from use of the shared access drive would cause an adverse impact upon the amenity of the occupiers of Circles or Greenbanks.

Paragraphs 12 and 13. Conclusion

Having considered the design statement submitted in support of this application it simply revisits, in an expanded format, information previously submitted. The opening paragraphs explain what the applicant’s agent believes should and should not be taken into account by the Local Planning Authority in determining the application, the agent/ applicants view that the pre-application advice offered was not to their satisfaction and what their course of action will be should the application be refused. They request the letter (which forms part of the statement as submitted) be annexed in full to the Committee report. However, I do not consider the document needs to be attached as it forms an integral part of the full statement (not separate to the design and access statement) and therefore Members and the general public will be aware of it. I do not consider the annexing of the majority of the application to this report would be of benefit to any party. Nevertheless I do draw Members’ attention to the agent’s supporting statement.

76

To assist Members with regard to the 11 page supporting document, its content effectively describes information as submitted on the scaled plans, describes information which can be seen on supplied photographs, explains Government guidance and adopted plan polices and why the proposal does not conflict with them. The document concludes by reaffirming their interpretation of the Inspector’s report and what their course of action will be should the application attract a further refusal.

In considering this application I have taken account of the supporting statement, but consider the plans adequately address the situation due to their clarity and layout. I am of the opinion the plans show the potential relationship between the bungalow and the property currently known as ‘Circles’.

In assessing the plans, I am of the opinion the designer has addressed the views of the Inspector in terms of the potential impact upon the rear aspect of the aforementioned property.

I arrive at this conclusion based on the understanding of the Inspector’s report and the design presented. Paragraph 9 of the Inspector’s report forms the crux of his reasoning for dismissing the appeal. He explains his concerns regarding the previously proposed two storey dwelling and its relationship with ‘Circles’ and concludes the paragraph by stating “Notwithstanding the distance between the two dwellings, the height of the new house in relation to Circles would also, in my opinion, lead to the occupiers of Circles feeling unreasonably overlooked.” I am therefore of the opinion that the only reason for dismissal was the potential impact from the southern elevation of the previously proposed two storey dwelling. The plans clearly show that the building has been changed to a bungalow, room usage has changed, a screened car port and a 1.8m high fence have been introduced.

Concern has been raised at the loss of boundary screening and the introduction of a 1.8m high fence. I am of the opinion that should Councillors be minded to approve the application a condition can be imposed to address this arrangement.

The designer has also provided specifications of roofing materials and solar power units which after having researched these, I am of the opinion, are considered acceptable elements which would not require further submission of details.

The application also includes details of the alterations to be carried out to the existing vehicular access point. This is to be reconstructed to account for the additional traffic generated by the proposed dwellings. The Highway Authority conditionally have support the alterations.

In determining this application I consider the southern elevation of the buildings to be the principle elevations of the buildings.

While I have given weight to the Inspector’s findings, which have been outlined above, I have also taken into account the concerns raised by the objectors. Following the dismissal, it is clear the designer has revisited the scheme and now presented drawings that when tested against development plan policies and taking account of relevant documents, does not appear to conflict with relevant policies.

However, while the principle has effectively been accepted by the Inspector, I consider elements of the scheme can be further addressed through the imposition of suitable

77

conditions, following comments received by the public. Such conditions would seek to restrict further development of the two dwellings with regard additional windows, boundary detailing and other measures to mitigate potential disturbance to the neighbouring properties. If Members share my view that the applicant has now, on balance, satisfactorily addressed the issues leading to the dismissal of the recent appeal I would make the:



2. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, the refuse and recycling storage and collection point facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans, drawing no: 06.373/31 C, date stamped 28 January 2009 and thereafter retained, with all bins and containers available for use, maintained and replaced as need be. 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.

3. The highway works/reconstructed access shall be completed in accordance with the construction details, form HT407, attached to this permission.Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with the requirements of the Director of Transport and Environment of East Sussex in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(d) & TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011. Note: To give effect to this condition you should contact the Transport and Environment Department of East Sussex County Council at Sidley Depot, Ninfield Road, Bexhill TN39 5AA (Telephone 01424 220022) prior to the commencement of work and enter a Private Works agreement between yourself and the County Council.

4. Before the new access is first brought into use, the area shown in green on the attached plan shall be cleared and thereafter kept free of obstruction to the visibility of drivers using the access and the adjoining road. For this purpose the height of the driver's eye and of the object viewed is taken to be 600mm above the access/carriageway levels. 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 in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

5. The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking and turning areas, as shown on dwg. no. 06.373/31 C, date stamped. 28 th January 2009, have been provided in accordance with the details shown on dwg. no. 06.373/31 C, date stamped. 28th January 2009. The parking and turning areas shall thereafter be retained for those uses and no other purpose. 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 in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local

78

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

6. No development shall take place on any part of the site until the hard and soft landscaping details 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 vegetation; proposed vegetation; and means of enclosure – all fencing details.Reason: To safeguard the characteristics of the locality and amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers in accordance with Policy GD1(i)(ii)(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.

7. All hard and soft landscape works and fencing 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 safeguard the characteristics of the locality and amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers in accordance with Policy GD1(i)(ii)(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.

8. The permission hereby granted does not relate to the boundary treatment (fencing or natural screening) as shown on dwg. no. 06.373/31 C, date stamped 28 January 2009. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

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 fences, gates or walls, or structures of any kind, shall be erected within the curtilage of either dwellinghouse hereby approved, in a position forward of the south elevation of the any wall of the dwellinghouses other than those approved in accordance with the details submitted pursuant to Condition 6. Reason: To safeguard the rural character and appearance of the development and locality and to safeguard the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties in accordance with Policy GD1(ii)(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.

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

11. The screened car port and parking areas hereby approved shall be used for parking of private vehicles only and for no other purpose including any other purpose in Class C3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order.

79

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

12. No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the shared driveway, parking and turning areas 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 and retained in that condition thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the development preserves the visual amenities of the area 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.

13. No method of external illumination shall be installed or operated which illuminates the southern aspect/ curtilage of the dwellings hereby approved.Reason: To safeguard the visual and residential amenities of the locality and to control overspill and light pollution in accordance with Policy GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f)(s) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

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

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

16. At the time of construction and prior to the first occupation or use of the two storey dwelling, identified as Plot 1 on dwg. no. 06.373/31 C, date stamped 28 th

January 2009, the first floor south elevation window of Plot 1 serving the bathroom as indicated on the approved drawing no. 06.373/03 I, date stamped 28th January 2009, shall be glazed with obscure glass of obscurity level equivalent to scale 5 on the Pilkington Glass Scale and shall thereafter be retained in that condition.

80

Reason: To preserve the residential amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

17. At the time of construction and prior to the first occupation or use of the single storey dwelling identified as Plot 2 on dwg. no. 06.373/31 C, date stamped 28 th

January 2009, hereby approved, the east elevation windows of Plot 2 serving the bathroom and en-suite rooms as indicated on the approved drawing no. 06.373/31 C, date stamped 28th January 2009, shall be glazed with obscure glass of obscurity level equivalent to scale 5 on the Pilkington Glass Scale and shall thereafter be retained in that condition. Reason: To preserve the residential amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

18. Development hereby approved shall be built in accordance with the approved plan details and those pursuant to the imposed conditions. Reason: To maintain the visual appearance of the area, AONB and amenities of the neighbouring residential properties and to accord with Policies GD1(i)(ii)(iv)(v) and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies EN2, S1(f)(j)(s)(o) and TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

Note:(i) For the avoidance of doubt, the Local Planning Authority considers the south

elevations of the dwellings form the principle elevations when considering any future development against the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No.2) Order, 2008.

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


RR/2009/162/P SEDLESCOMBE SPRINGFIELD COTTAGE, BREDE LANEOUTLINE: ERECTION OF A PAIR OF SEMI DETACHED COTTAGES ADJACENT TO EXISTING SEMI DETACHED COTTAGE WITH AMENDED CAR PARKING PROVISION.Mr and Mrs Millns


SITE The application site comprises land currently forming the side and rear garden of Springfield Cottage, located within the development boundary for Sedlescombe. The site is also located within the High Weald AONB and is bordered by established hedges and trees. The site is set at a lower ground level than Gorselands to the east but higher than the adjacent semi, Ivy Cottage, to the west.

HISTORY81


RR/86/1784 Outline for erection of new dwelling & garage with new garage to Springfield Cottage, with existing access - Refused.

PROPOSAL This is an outline application proposing the erection of a pair of semi-detached cottages within the rear garden of Spingfield Cottage. Access and layout are to be considered at this stage. The design indicated is indicative only, although an amended plan has been submitted to indicate that a lower building could be achieved. The existing access in the side garden would be utilised to serve both the existing and proposed dwellings. The existing detached garage would be demolished. Parking and turning spaces are indicated for all dwellings. Boundary trees are indicated to be retained. A section of the rear garden is retained for the existing cottage. The new drive would border the rear garden but is set in from the east side boundary hedge to the public footpath allowing space for retention of the hedge and neighbouring trees. The proposed dwellings are located almost 40m from the rear of the existing cottage with a rear garden to the proposed units in excess of 20m deep. The side/rear garden of 19 Gorselands adjoins the east side boundary of the site, with a distance of 7m between the rear corners of the dwellings.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Supports refusal for the following reasons: The three storey building indicated would not be in keeping with the character of

its surroundings in terms of its size, style and design. The proposed properties would overlook surrounding properties which are closer

than they appear on the plan. The proposal would be visible from several properties not only in the immediate

vicinity. The proposal would maximise the risk of flooding from the small stream to the

rear and would take away a flood soak area to the detriment of surrounding properties.

Public footpaths to the side and rear are not clearly illustrated on the plans. If approved a full tree survey should be provided.Highway Authority:- Has no objection subject to conditions requiring the access, parking and turning to be provided in accordance with the plans. It was noted that visibility can easily be provided in both directions to meet the required standards and that the access is width will allow the safe two-way passing of vehicles in the site. Planning Notice:- 20 letters of objection have been received from 17 addresses on the following grounds: Inadequate tree survey Loss of light and privacy Boundary trees/hedges are outside the ownership of the applicant and may be

affected Overlooking of new loft conversion New dwellings will be invasive and over bearing Backland development out of character and would set a precedent Loss of cultural heritage as Springfield Cottage is of historical interest Loss of views, devaluation of properties A three storey building would be out of character and overly large Detriment to the local habitat Detriment to highway and pedestrian safety from the increase in traffic onto

Brede Lane, adjacent the public footpath Detriment to local natural drainage and the spring A bungalow may be acceptable

82

A development may be acceptable but the issues regarding trees, drainage and parking need to be more detailed

SUMMARY The application is in outline only with access and layout (siting) to be determined at this stage. The site is located within the development boundary for Sedlescombe where there is a presumption in favour of development subject to its impact upon the character, amenities, ecology and highways of the surrounding area. It is noted that permission was refused for a dwelling on this site in 1986 but the planning circumstances and policies have since changed. Access to the site complies with the required highway standards and is not overtly close to the existing or neighbouring dwellings. The site is considered to be of ample size to accommodate a development but it is acknowledged that issues regarding size, design, proximity to neighbours and impacts upon the stream and local ecology need to be considered.

As an outline application details of construction have yet to be identified and these could affect the local surroundings in terms of drainage and impacts to trees. Construction methods are considered to be available that would minimise any detrimental effects and these would need to be fully detailed with any detailed proposals. The siting is however, to be determined at this stage and the Council’s tree officer advises that the current siting of the dwelling and parking spaces is considered to impinge upon the recommended ‘root protection area’ (RPA) of the oak tree on the eastern side boundary. The crown spread may also be over the roof of the proposed building and would cause nuisance and possible anxiety to the occupants, as well as damage to the tree. As such the proposed building may require re-siting, although the parking spaces may be acceptable subject to their method of construction and surfacing.

With regard to the proximity with neighbours, the closest property is the bungalow at 19 Gorselands which is located at a higher ground level and generally orientated east/west. It has a loft conversion with permission for a new rear dormer overlooking the proposed rear garden areas. The proposed dwellings are orientated north/south and thus there should not be any direct overlooking from windows. However, given the proposed siting to the south west of no.19, the height of any new development is considered to be of concern, to ensure that it is not overtly dominant or overly restrictive to light. The proposed indicative elevations indicate a two storey building with rooms in the roof. As amended, the indicative plan illustrates a building 4.2m to the eaves and 7.7m to the ridge. Given the change in ground levels the eaves are unlikely to be much higher than those of the adjacent bungalow although no sections have been provided. The ridge height would be likely to be taller in view of the steeper roof pitch. Some impact may occur to 19 Gorselands, subject to the height and exact siting but it is not considered that the new building would have any significant impact upon any other neighbours, who are located some distance away, at varying levels and screened by trees and hedges.

The proposal includes the provision of parking spaces and garden areas for the existing cottage, which by reason of the existing outbuilding and shape of the garden would be screened from the new development.

Objections have related to the design of the scheme as ‘illustrated’ but this is indicative only and design is not a matter to be determined at this stage. It is however, noted that the adjacent properties comprise bungalows and chalet bungalows, although the illustration is of a traditional pair of Wealden cottages.

83

In conclusion, it is considered that the site could accommodate some form of new residential development. However, the proposed pair of semi-detached dwellings as currently sited my result in detriment to the amenities of the neighbour at 19 Gorselands and to the future health and preservation of trees bordering the site. As such the scheme as currently presented is considered to be contrary to policy.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING)1. It has not been demonstrated that the current scheme comprising a pair of semi-

detached cottages, could be accommodated on the site in the layout presented, without detriment to the amenities of the neighbouring dwelling at 19 Gorselands or to surrounding trees. As proposed the scheme is considered to result in a building that would be overbearing and result in a loss of light to the neighbour and would result in damage to the health, safety and future preservation of boundary trees, which are an important characteristic of the area located within the High Weald AONB. As such the proposal is considered to be contrary to the criteria of Policy GD1(ii)(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(f)(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


RR/2008/3343/P FAIRLIGHT MOON COTTAGE – FIELD AT, HUMPHREYS FARM, FRIARS HILL, GUESTLING/FAIRLIGHTCHANGE OF USE OF LAND AND ERECTION OF SHED IN CONNECTION WITH SILENCED AIR RIFLE SHOOTING INTO FIELD (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Mr A Marchant



SITE The application site comprises a field at the rear of detached dwellings on the south side of Friars Hill. The field is in the ownership of the adjoining Moon Cottage, access to which – and to other properties nearby – is via a narrow roadway leading from Friars Hill. Definitive footpath no.48 runs along the west side of the field although does not abut the shooting area that is already in use. The Parish boundary between Fairlight and Guestling runs through the centre of the field. The shooting area is in Fairlight but most of the adjoining residents are in Guestling Parish.

HISTORYNone

PROPOSAL The proposal comprises both the use of land for shooting and the erection of a shed for silenced air rifle shooting. The shed, already erected, is a green stained, shiplap timber shed, 7.3 metres long, 3.35 metres wide and 2.7 metres high at the highest point. It has four opening hatches facing the shooting range. The shooting area, as marked, runs the full width of the field – about 50 metres – with the shed positioned in the south eastern corner. The applicant advises: “Shooting may take place 2-3 times a week but not every week, some weeks there will be no shooting at all,

84


shooting times are approx: 10.00-15.00 hours in winter and 10.00-16.00 in summer, and very occasionally on a summer’s evening.”Shooting has evidently been taking place on the site for about two years.

CONSULTATIONSFairlight Parish Council:- No objection provided all the concerns raised by neighbours and various agencies regarding usage are addressed. We note that a footpath runs close by and public safety would be a major concern. If this application is allowed to go ahead confirmation would need to be sought from the owners that no guns, ammunition etc would be kept on site as this could be dangerous in the event of a break-in.Guestling Parish Council:- Recommend refusal. There are no obvious precautions to prevent stray pellets falling in adjacent gardens or on the public footpath. The field is in the AONB, there does not seem to be a compelling reason for these changes, either the erection of the structure or the construction of a driveway to improve access and hardstanding for vehicles. There is already the 1066 Rifle and Gun Club in the Parish.ESCC – Rights of Way Officer:- No objection. “Given the nature of the shooting and the distance from the path I would not view it as posing a risk to the public. The organisers would of course need to adequately notify participants and marshal shoot days to ensure that the activity is contained as proposed and that their own obligations under the Occupiers Liability Act are met.”Director of Services – Environmental Health:- Recommends refusal. “I confirm that noise from the firing of an unsilenced rifle is subjectively noisier than that from a silenced rifle – to be expected. Subjectively, the sound is akin to a dry branch/twig snapping when heard at the bottom of the gardens of the houses on the south side of Friars Hill. Whilst no actual noise measurements were taken, subjectively even over limited time periods (controlled by planning conditions(s)) the noise – intermittently over a few hours a day – could interfere with the enjoyment of residential occupiers, especially in their gardens. The noise is definitely audible. I recommend refusal of the application.This is essentially a new (albeit retrospective) noise in what has been a relatively quiet area (a field adjoining a wood). The site is not enclosed, it is open and the public footpath is relatively close by though not directly in the line of fire.”Sussex Police:- To be reported.Planning Notice:- 6 obligations – No information about extent of use Noise of guns – crack of air rifles Noise of radios and cars Safety issues Extent of firing from ‘dawn to dusk’ Access via private lane not appropriate for multiple use Applicant advertising rifle shooting ‘holidays’ Public footpath near the site Is there a ‘competent person’ overseeing shooting activities? ‘Pink notices’ not seen Loss of privacy from use of field AONB Inappropriate commercial use Activity will lead to greater use/rifle clubLetter of support from one of the users of the site – Initial idea of running a gun club has now been abandoned Numbers shooting now dropped to 4 people (3 of whom are pensioners) Air rifles do not need police approval

85

Shooting on private land does not need permission Rifles are silenced All weapons and ammunition removed from site Range has safe backstops for targets Fully insured

SUMMARY The use of this land for air rifle shooting has evidently taken place since 2007; the new building has been constructed more recently. The use of open land for shooting can take place for up to 28 days in any calendar year, but the amount of use in this case and the provision of a building are such that planning permission is required.

The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where there are strict controls on new development. Leisure uses are not inappropriate. The issues here are the impact of the activity (and the building) on the rural character of the area and on adjoining residents.

Character of the area (Structure Plan Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 and Local Plan Policy GD1(iv)(v)) What was formerly an open field has now been sub-divided to provide an open shooting area. A single strand of string on low posts marks the boundary of the range and along its length at regular intervals some leylandii-type trees have been planted. At the end of the range, furthest from all the houses and gardens that border the field, has been placed the timber hut. It is set against the back-drop of adjoining woodland and has no adverse impact, on its own, on the character of the area. In other circumstances a stable of the same size might be considered quite appropriate. The ‘range’ itself remains as grassland but at different points along its length are targets. Most of the targets are at a low level and several enclosed by straw bales. At the southern end of the range a larger structure has been provided which contains a number of targets. Cumulatively these give the impression of clutter on the site. The activity and the structures erected have clearly changed the appearance of the field, and while the building, in itself, is not obtrusive, taken as a whole I am concerned that the state of the site is untidy and detrimental to the rural character of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Adjoining residents (Local Plan Policy GD1(ii)) In terms of the effect on adjoining residents, this is clearly an exposed site and the comings and goings of people shooting on the site, and their presence for several hours on a number of days each week, is potentially intrusive and the cause of disturbance to local residents.

The sound of a single air rifle with a silencer has been assessed on site and while, in isolation, this is little more than the sound of a twig being snapped, the cumulative effect of more continuous firing over several hours by a number of people does have the potential to adversely affect the quiet enjoyment of the area by footpath users, and particularly the amenities of residents, the nearest of which are less than 50 metres from the range. The use has already introduced a notable change to the former peace and quiet of this field. Without the building the land could be used for up to 28 days a year, but used 2-3 times a week this level of activity is far in excess of those ‘permitted development’ rights. With the building, the use has to be considered as a permanent facility. When not being used the paraphernalia of the range remains in place.

86

Conclusion I acknowledge that there is now no longer the intention of setting up a gun club as there may have been originally, but the impact of the present use could be comparable.

I have considered the option of limiting the use by conditions, although I have reservations about this approach given that the nature of the use is already known. However if Members, having viewed the site, consider a temporary permission for one year to be a way of monitoring the site further to assess its use then a limitation on numbers of people present on the site, and limitations of hours per day and confining the activities to weekdays, would be necessary.

At the present time, however, I am minded to recommend refusal of the use as being detrimental to the character and quiet amenity of this area.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The use of the site for shooting activity, by reason of the changed appearance of

the land – including structures and a marked firing area – the regular activity of persons using the site and the associated noise from both persons and guns, has a detrimental impact on the appearance of the open field and therefore on this part of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and on the amenities of local residents whose gardens immediately abut the field on which the activity takes place. As such the development would conflict with the aims of 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 in protecting the countryside and the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and Policy GD1 in terms of safeguarding the amenities of adjoining residents.


RR/2008/3382/P FAIRLIGHT 87 BATTERY HILL ERECTION OF EXTENSION TO BEDROOMS INTO ROOF SPACE/BALCONYMr R Bird



SITE This application relates to a detached chalet bungalow that is situated outside of the Fairlight development boundary. The site is adjoined by The Croft to the east, High View to the south and White Gables to the west.

HISTORYA/73/0508 Chalet bungalow garage and access – Approved conditional.RR/1999/927/P Replacement conservatory – Approved conditional.RR/2001/99/P Erection of double garage with linked entrance – Approved

conditional.

PROPOSAL The applicant seeks permission to enlarge bedrooms 1 & 4 by erecting a flat roof extension and a pitched roof gable extension on the front elevation of the

87


building. A pitched roof would also be formed over an existing flat roof dormer window on the front elevation of the building.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:– No representation received. Planning Notice:– No representations received.

SUMMARY The main issues to consider in respect of this proposal are impact upon the character and appearance of the bungalow and impact upon the amenities of adjoining properties.

Policy GD1 of the Local Plan states that ‘all development should respect and not detract from the character and appearance of the locality’ and ‘not unreasonably harm the amenities of adjoining properties.’

Policy HG8 of the Local Plan states that ‘proposals to extend or alter an existing dwelling will be permitted where they are in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling and its surroundings in terms of its size, style, design and materials, as well as protecting the amenities of adjoining properties and meet other criteria in Policy GD1.’

The property is a detached house, well separated from its neighbours. These are small additions within the context of the existing building. The proposed extension would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, detract from the character and appearance of the locality or unreasonably harm the amenities of adjoining properties.


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

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is of an appropriate design and will not adversely affect the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, detract from the character and appearance of the locality or unreasonably harm the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policies GD1 (i), (ii), (iv) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan. View application/correspondence

--oo0oo--

88


rr/2009/226/p - residents - rother district council · web viewdevonshire square rr/2009/62/p 8...

Documents