rr/2009/308/p - residents - rother district council · web viewthe premises shall not be open to...

Rother District Council Agenda Item: 6

Committee - Planning

Date - 16 July 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/2009/775/P 1 BEXHILL ST MARY’S RECREATIONGROUNDST MARY’S LANE

RR/2009/1279/P 2 BEXHILL 17/21 COODEN SEA ROAD

RR/2009/1452/P 5 BEXHILL 154 BARNHORN ROADCOPPERBEECH

RR/2009/1453/P 8 BEXHILL 121 WINDSOR ROAD

RR/2009/1478/P 10 BEXHILL WELLINGTON PLACETERMINUS ROAD

RR/2009/1495/P 13 BEXHILL 9 WESTERN ROAD

RR/2009/545/P 14 BATTLE SOLAR UKNORTH TRADE ROAD

RR/2009/821/P 16 BATTLE THE HIGHLANDSKANE HYTHE ROAD

2

RR/2009/1230/P 19 BATTLE BEECHES BROOKTELHAM LANE

RR/2009/1455/P 21 BATTLE 77 HASTINGS ROAD

RR/2009/407/P 24 RYE THE UNION INNEAST STREET

RR/2009/550/P 24 RYE THE UNION INNEAST STREET

RR/2009/1372/L 28 PENHURST SPRAYS OAST FARMPENHURST LANE

RR/2009/1400/L 30 PENHURST SPRAYS OAST FARMPENHURST LANE

RR/2009/1107/P 32 BURWASH BOUGH FARMHEATHFIELD ROAD

RR/2009/1337/P 36 MOUNTFIELD OAKWOOD FARMPOPPINGHOLE LANE

RR/2009/1021/P 38 BECKLEY HOP BARN FARMHOUSEPEASMARSH ROAD

RR/2009/1251/P 41 BECKLEY TOLLGATE COTTAGE – LAND ADJ TOPEASMARSH ROAD

RR/2009/1345/P 43 NORTHIAM THE OLD BUILDERS YARDMAIN STREET

RR/2009/1329/P 47 BODIAM PARK FARM

RR/2009/1152/P 53 HURST GREEN HAYESMILL OAST

RR/2009/1505/P 56 BREDE PICKDICKSTUBB LANE

RR/2009/1507/L 57 BREDE PICKDICKSTUBB LANE

RR/2009/1378/P 61 WESTFIELD MICHAEL TYLER FACTORYWOODLANDS WAY

RR/2009/1122/P 65 ICKLESHAM PARSONAGE BARNPARSONAGE LANE

RR/2008/2514/P 70 TICEHURST LANDSCAPES RISECROSS LANE

3

RR/2009/713/P 74 TICEHURST 2 CLARE HOUSECHURCH STREET

RR/2009/1084/P 77 TICEHURST ROSEHILL – LAND AT

RR/2009/1327/P 82 ETCHINGHAM KING JOHN’S LODGE –GRANARY BARN ATSHEEPSTREET LANE

--oo0oo—

4

RR/2009/775/P BEXHILL ST MARY’S RECREATION GROUND, ST MARY’S LANECONTINUED USE AS CHANGING ROOMS FOR BOYS/GIRLS FOOTBALL WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH CONDITION 1 IMPOSED ON RR/2005/2652/PMrs T Aston

Statutory 8 week date: 20 July 2009

SITE The building is sited close to the southern boundary of St Mary’s Recreation Ground which is located to the east side of St Mary’s Lane, opposite the cemetery.

HISTORYRR/97/2003/P Siting of temporary portacabin for use as changing rooms for boys

football – Approved – Temporary.RR/2005/2652/P Retention of temporary portacabin for use as changing rooms for

boys football – Approved – Temporary.

PROPOSAL To permanently retain a portacabin building and use as girls and boys football changing rooms by removing condition 1 imposed on planning permission RR/2005/2652/P, which required the use of the temporary portacabin building to be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition on or before 31 January 2009.

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice – No representations received.

SUMMARY The portacabin building is set behind a row of trees close to the residential properties High Beeches and Farthings. It measures approximately 9 metres in length, 2.5 metres in width and 3 metres in height, is of a typical design, constructed of metal with flat roof and includes metal protective grilles over the windows. The portacabin building has been maintained to a good standard. It has been painted a dark green colour since the last permission was granted in 2006 and new grilles have been fixed over the windows.

A temporary 2 year permission was originally granted (RR/97/2003/P). The main issues taken into consideration in the original application were the visual amenities and possible disturbance to occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. In landscape terms the mobile unit was considered to be well sited, with trees and an existing garden wall providing some screening. A further temporary permission was granted for 3 years in 2006 to allow the Council to continue to monitor the site and also look again at the condition of the temporary building.

Paragraph 109 of Circular 11/95 states ‘…a temporary permission will normally only be appropriate either where the applicant proposes temporary development, or when a trial run is needed in order to assess the effect of the development on the area.’

Having regard to the advice contained within the Circular, I am of the opinion that a further temporary permission should not be granted and consideration should now be given to whether the portacabin should be granted a permanent planning permission or refused and therefore it would be required to be removed from the site.

1

The building has been present in this location for almost 12 years. As acknowledged within the original application, the portacabin is well sited in landscape terms and is screened by trees to the north and garden walls to the south. The trees will have matured during the past 12 years providing greater screening. In addition, the building has been maintained in good order. I therefore consider that the portacabin is appropriately sited in landscape terms and does not adversely affect the character and appearance of the locality.

The other reason for granting temporary permissions was to monitor the site in terms of the degree of noise disturbance at times when the portacabin is in use. I am not aware of any issues relating to disturbance to nearby properties and have received no representations in response to the advertisement of this application. Although there may be some increase in noise on a match day I have no reason to believe that this is unacceptable in terms of its impact on local residents.For the above-mentioned reasons:

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. Upon redecoration of the exterior of the portacabin building hereby permitted,

the colour of the paint shall match that currently applied to the portacabin building (dark green) unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.Reason: To maintain the visual amenities of the surrounding area in accordance with Policy GD1 (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: Previous temporary permissions have demonstrated that the portacabin building does not adversely affect the character and appearance of the locality or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

View application/correspondence

RR/2009/1279/P BEXHILL 17/21 COODEN SEA ROADCHANGE OF USE FROM A2 (FINANCIAL SERVICES) TO A3 (RESTAURANT) AND A5 (TAKEAWAY)Mr Choudhury


SITE 17/21 Cooden Sea Road is located on the east side of the road just south of Little Common roundabout. The premises were formerly occupied by Shuttleworths, solicitors and adjoin “The Fisherman’s” fish and chip shop restaurant/takeaway. A parking lay by adjoins to the north and on the opposite side of the road with additional parking to the south.

HISTORYRR/80/0708 Change of use of ground floor from bank to retail shop with new

shopfront. Approved conditionalRR/97/622/P Change of use from dressmaker shop to fish and chip restaurant

and take away with extraction ducting. RefusedRR/1999/1923/P Change of use from class A1 to class A3 takeaway restaurant.

Withdrawn.2

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr2009775p

RR/1999/2129/P Change of use from a shop to restaurant and fast food takeaway. Withdrawn

RR/2000/69/P Change of use of ground floor to Class A2 (estate agents/solicitors) approved conditional.

RR/2004/2322/P Change of use to A2 office as extension to existing estate agency and solicitors office (adjacent). Approved.

PROPOSAL This is a full application seeking to change the use of the vacant ground floor premises from an A2 occupier to an A3 restaurant (no. 17) with an associated A5 takeaway (no.21 Cooden Sea Road). The residential flats above (nos 15 and 19) would be retained. The kitchen extraction flue is proposed to be located within the existing chimney that goes up through the property. No alterations are proposed to the shopfronts. Opening hours for customers are proposed between 12.00 and 14.00 and 17.00 and 23.00 with cleaning and preparation times an hour either side of opening.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: Raises no objection but comments that “it would be fair to assume that the proposed change of use will result in a slight increase of vehicles travelling to and from the site compared with the existing use. However, I consider there to be adequate on-street parking within an acceptable walking distance of the site to serve this slight increase in vehicular traffic.”Director of Services, Environmental Health: Raises no objection but recommends conditions regarding odour control equipment with sound insulation and maintenance, fitting of waste water grease trap and hours of use.Planning Notice: 7 letters of objection have been received on the following grounds: Although in a retail area the majority of surrounding properties are residential The use with 10 employees would be detrimental to residential amenity in the

area by virtue of nearness, noise, disturbance and smells It would exacerbate existing complaints of environmental pollution, rotting waste,

cooling/extract/flue noise and smell It will increase pressures for on-street parking to the detriment of road safety and

residents parking. Problems are already experienced from the fish and chip shop.

Increase noise from late night customers There are already enough food outlets in the vicinity and no more are needed Could affect the new pedestrian crossing3 letters of support have been received on the following grounds: An Indian restaurant does not exist in the area and would be an asset An alternative type of restaurant would improve choice and fill an empty

premises Parking in the evening is less problematic as other shops and the surgery are

closed

SUMMARY The proposal for a restaurant/takeaway is not objectionable in principle within an existing retail area, and competition is not a planning reason for refusal for this type of proposal. Permission has previously been granted for the adjacent fish and chip restaurant/takeaway. However, Policy GD1 of the local plan does set out criteria for considering impacts of development upon the residential amenities and appearance of an area and upon highway safety. All these aspects were cited within the reasons of refusal for a similar application in 1997, RR/97/622/P.

3

With regard to the visual appearance, this application differs as it is proposed to locate the extraction/ventilation flue within the existing chimney (or rebuilt if required) and thus there would be no external changes to the building, other than the blocking up of a rear ground floor window. The highway situation has not really changed and as previously the Highway Authority does not raise any objections. On-street parking exists to both sides of the road in close proximity with longer term parking to the south. The concerns of objectors are noted but enforcement of road traffic legislation is not controlled by the Council. The new pelican crossing is located to the south in front of 25 Cooden Sea Road.

Issues surrounding residential amenity are of concern but it is considered that the premises is sufficiently far away from dwellings to the rear not to result in undue detriment to those occupiers. The applicant will also have the lease for the upper floor flats. Residential occupiers in the area should be afforded protection via the modern systems and controls that now exist with regard to the extraction systems and their insulation and that are now sought for this type of use. Some additional noise from customers may result in the evenings but given the location in a retail area and on a busy trunk road, this would not be expected to be unduly excessive or to justify refusal of the application. With regard to hours of use, the recommended condition is as applied to other restaurants/takeaways around the town and as set out by the Planning Inspectorate in appeal decisions for this type of use.

Other concerns raised with regard to waste and vermin are noted but such nuisances can be pursued via environmental legislation. As such the proposal as now presented, subject to the imposition of conditions, is not considered to conflict with adopted 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. Before the use hereby permitted commences, details of a scheme for the fitting of odour control equipment shall be submitted to the local planning authority. The scheme shall include the provision of ductwork inside existing flue(s). The ductwork shall be sealed and lined to prevent the egress of fumes/odours into parts of the building above the ground floor. The scheme shall also include details of the provision of replacement air by natural and/or mechanical means. The use of the premises shall not commence until all odour control equipment has been installed in accordance with the approved scheme and it shall thereafter be operated, maintained and replaced as need be in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and records of cleaning/replacement of filters/fans etc. shall be kept available for inspection by the local authority.Reason: To protect the residential and visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. Before the use hereby permitted commences, a scheme for the sound insulation of the odour control equipment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the sound insulation works shall be completed prior to operation of the equipment. The sound insulation shall thereafter be operated, maintained and replaced as need be in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and records of cleaning/replacement of parts shall be kept available for inspection by the local authority.

4

Reason: To protect the residential amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. A waste water grease trap shall be provided on any drain from the kitchen discharging into the public sewer.Reason: To maintain the local sewage system and protect the residential amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. The premises shall not be open to customers or any other persons and no employee including a proprietor shall carry out any food preparation, cooking, and/or sales or serving to customers or any persons on the premises outside the hours of 12.00 to 23.00 on any day, and all clearing, cleaning, and any other work associated with the approved use shall not continue and no employee including a proprietor or other persons shall be in the premises to carry out such work outside the hours of 10.00 to 23.30 on any day. Reason: To protect the residential amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan and having regard to PPG24, Annex 4.

Note: The applicant is advised that a separate advertisement consent will be required for any internally illuminated signage.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed change of use and associated works, subject to compliance with conditions, is considered to be an appropriate proposal and of an acceptable design within an existing mixed retail/residential area. Subject to conditions it will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan and Government guidance within PPG24.

View application/correspondence_____________________________________________________________________

RR/2009/1452/P BEXHILL 154 BARNHORN ROAD, COPPERBEECHEXTENSIONS TO FORM SINGLE STOREY LIVING/DINING AND SUN ROOMS AND WITH FIRST FLOOR EXTENSIONS OVER EXISTING GROUND FLOOR AREAS TO FORM A TOTAL OF 3 NO. ADDITIONAL SINGLE BEDROOM UNITS WITH EN-SUITE AND 2 NO. ENCLOSED TWO-STOREY FIRE ESCAPE STAIRCASES AND INTERNAL ALTERATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO FACILITIESMeeraraj Ltd

Statutory 8 week date: 06 August 2009

SITE The areas now proposed for development are primarily located to the south and west elevations of the existing nursing home, on the north side of Barnhorn Road. There are properties on either side, with an existing nursing home, on the south side of Barnhorn Road.

HISTORYRR/81/1385 Change of use from private dwelling to rest home – No Further

ActionRR/82/0625 Outline: Erection of garage to form staff accommodation and

formation of parking spaces – Approved5


RR/88/2353 Two-storey extension to form more additional bedrooms with bathroom – Appeal – Part Allowed

RR/89/3056/P Two-storey extension to form 5 additional bedrooms with WC facilities and new external staircase – Approved

RR/90/0852/P Extension over existing garage at rear to form an additional two bedrooms with en-suite – Approved

RR/94/0259/PD Proposed extensions and alterations – Approved RR/98/1995/P Proposed single storey bedroom extension to existing nursing

home with revised parking and site entrance layout – Approved RR/2004/3231/P Erection of two-storey extension to existing nursing home with

revised parking – Refused RR/2005/2537/P Single storey rear extension – Approved ConditionalRR/2006/3341/P Two storey rear extension – RefusedRR/2008/1448/P Erection of extension to existing care home to provide additional

single en-suite bedrooms, dayrooms, activity rooms, assisted bathrooms and formal parking facilities. Approved conditional

RR/2009/594/P Revised detail to approved extension under construction (RR/2008/1448/P) to enclose fire escape stairway previously shown to be external. Approved conditional

RR/2009/1039/P Erection of boiler room and conservatory, amendment of previously approved clay plain tiled linkway roof to patent glazed roof. Approved conditional

PROPOSAL This is a full application detailing the refurbishment of the existing nursing home which will follow the imminent completion of the new rear extension. The refurbishment includes internal and external alterations to provide improved bedroom sizes with en-suite facilities, staff facilities, improved kitchen and laundry facilities, enclosed fire escapes and additional lounge/diner/sun room space.

The external alterations include the erection of extensions, namely first floor extensions to the south and west sides, a narrow enclosed staircase to the west and north sides and a large single storey glazed extension to the south to provide the lounge/sun room. While the number of bedrooms is to increase by 3, the number of registered beds remains unchanged as the existing double rooms become singles.

Boundary planting is to remain unchanged as is the previously approved parking facilities.

CONSULTATIONSHighways Agency: Comments awaited.Planning Notice: No responses at time of writing report.

SUMMARY Planning permission was granted in 2008, RR/2008/1448/P, for a large rear extension to this nursing home. This application is in effect phase two of the development and details proposals for the refurbishment of the existing home, following completion of the rear extension. Some smaller extensions are proposed primarily at first floor level which do not increase the overall footprint of the property but do allow the re-arrangement of the internal layout resulting in larger bedrooms and improved staff and resident facilities. The design and use of materials are to match the existing property and will also result in fewer side windows, although the existing boundary trees and shrubs are being retained and provide effective screens to the neighbouring properties.

6

The proposal does, however, include a front lounge/sun room extension in the form of a conservatory style building. This extension is located centrally on the elevation adjacent an existing front extension and does not impinge upon the large copper beech tree within the front garden. The extension is not considered to impinge upon neighbours and ample garden is still retained around it.

While permission has already been granted for a substantial rear extension, the proposals within this application are considered to be relatively minor in size and will not impact detrimentally upon residential or visual amenities in the locality. They will however, improve the facilities within the existing building.



2. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions hereby permitted shall match in materials, colour and texture those used in the existing buildings.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.

3. In this condition "retained tree" means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs (a) and (b) below shall have effect until the expiration of 5 years from the date of the occupation of the building for its permitted use.(a) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any

retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the local planning authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard [3998 (Tree Work)].

(b) If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the local planning authority.

(c) The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written consent of the local planning authority.

(d) No fire shall be lit within 10 metres from the outside of the crown spread of any tree which is to be retained.

Reason: To ensure that tree(s) are not damaged or otherwise adversely affected by building operations and soil compaction and to safeguard the characteristics of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. No surface water shall be discharged to the public foul sewer.

7

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and area in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or other openings (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be inserted into the west or east facing elevations or roof slopes.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.

6. No floodlighting or other external means of illumination of the site shall be provided, installed or operated at the site, except in accordance with a detailed scheme which shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policies GD1(iv) & (v) and CF5 of the Rother District Local Plan.

Note: The applicant is reminded that under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Section 1) it is an offence to take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built. Planning permission for a development does not provide a defence against prosecution under this Act. Trees and scrub are likely to contain nesting birds between 1 March and 31 July. Trees and scrub are present on the application site and should be assumed to contain nesting birds between the above dates unless a survey has shown it is absolutely certain that nesting birds are not present.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed extensions and alterations are considered to be of an appropriate design, scale and form that complements the existing building, and relates satisfactorily with neighbouring dwellings and trees on the site. The development therefore complies with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2009/1453/P BEXHILL 121 WINDSOR ROAD SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION TO FORM KITCHEN/DINER Mrs L Hayward-Bartlett


SITE This application relates to a terraced property, situated on the western side of Windsor Road.

HISTORYNone

PROPOSAL The applicant seeks permission to demolish a single storey outshot on the rear of the dwelling and erect a single storey extension to form an extended kitchen/dining area.

8


CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice:– No representations received.

SUMMARY The main issues are whether the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the existing building and whether the proposal would have a detrimental impact upon neighbouring properties.

The extension would extend out 4.5 metres and have a width of 3.3 metres. The height would be 2.8 metres to the eaves, and 3.8 metres to the top of the single pitched roof.

The materials to be used on the external surfaces would be a rendered finish for the walls, and slates tiles, to match the existing dwelling. Two velux rooflights are proposed in the pitched roof.

I consider the extension to be of an appropriate size and design for the locality. Turning to the impact upon the neighbours, the closest affected property is 119 Windsor Road. I have visited the property and they have offered no objection to the proposal. While the extension is very close to the boundary, I am of the opinion the extension will have a limited impact upon their amenities. There are no windows proposed in the elevation facing no. 119, and the proposed pitched roof slopes down to a height of 2.8 metres high. The garden of 119 will still receive plenty of sunlight.

For the above-mentioned reasons the proposal is acceptable as the extension will not harm the character and appearance of the existing building or detract from the amenities of the neighbouring property.

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

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

2. The materials to be used in the construction of the external walls of the extension hereby permitted shall match in materials, colour and texture those used in the existing building.Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the existing building in accordance with Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or other openings (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be inserted into the southern elevation.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.

Note: The granting of planning permission does not grant or imply the right to construct foundations on adjoining property or to enter onto adjoining property without the consent of the owners of that property in order to carry out construction work or subsequent maintenance work.

9

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed extension is of an appropriate size, style and design and will not adversely affect the character and appearance of the existing building or detract from the amenities of the neighbouring property and therefore complies with Policies GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2009/1478/P BEXHILL WELLINGTON PLACE, TERMINUS ROAD ERECTION OF EXTENSION ABOVE EXISTING OFFICES AND SHOWROOM TO FORM 2 SELF CONTAINED APARTMENTSForte Development Ltd


SITE The site is part of a narrow, roughly triangular piece of land on the south side of Terminus Road. Occupied currently by open car sales and single storey office buildings. The western end of the site, but not part of the application site gained outline planning permission (RR/2007/609/P)for residential development to provide 6 dwelling units and two office suites with 14 parking spaces including formation of new and alteration to an existing vehicular accesses.

The site, which is close to the centre of Bexhill, is located in a mixed-use area, including residential, community and industrial use, with the Hastings-Eastbourne railway lint to the south.

HISTORY (Relevant) RR/84/1132 Erect single storey vehicles hire booking office prefabricated

garage. form car park served by new vehicular access – Approved conditional.

RR/90/1567/P Demolition of existing garage, erection of car preparation building with store office. Resiting of existing access – Refused.

RR/90/2694/P Demolition of existing garage – erection of new garage/preparation building with stores over – Approved conditional.

RR/92/0340/P First floor extension to provide additional office accommodation – Refused.

RR/92/0785/P Single storey office extension – Refused.RR/97/1420/P Reinstatement of detached garage approved RR/84/1132 for

valeting and car preparation (B1 Use) – Approved (temporary)RR/2006/980/P Outline: Residential redevelopment to provide 14 apartment with 7

parking spaces including formation of new and alteration to existing vehicular accesses – Withdrawn.

RR/2006/2843/P Outline: Residential redevelopment to provide 14 apartments with 7 parking spaces including formation of new and alteration to existing vehicular access – Refused.

RR/2007/609/P Outline: Residential development to provide 6 dwelling units and two office suites with 14 parking spaces including formation of new and alteration to an existing vehicular access – Approved conditional.

10


RR/2007/3197/P Erection of extension at 1st floor level above existing offices and car showroom to form 2 self contained flats including provision of parking – Refused.

RR/2008/3415/P Erection of extension above car showroom to form 2 self contained apartments – Refused.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission for the erection of a two storey extension above the existing single storey car showroom to create two self contained apartments, and a resultant three storey building. Two dedicated parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the west elevation of the building.

This current application is a reconfigured scheme following a previous application RR/2008/3415/P which was refused by the Planning Committee at their meeting in January 2009.

The agent states, “With all earlier situations having been revisited and examined in a most circumspect manner, the development utilises a unique opportunity to make good use of an existing site, with no land take involved. The nearby town centre has convenient pedestrian access. On site parking is provided utilising an existing access, this having been examined by the Highway Authority.”

CONSULTATIONS Highway Authority – Any comments will be reported. Environment Agency – Any comments will be reported. Southern Water Services – Do not wish to comment. Network Rail – Any comments will be reported. Planning Notice – Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARYIssues and PoliciesThe main issues to consider are the design and visual appearance of the building, impact upon amenities of the locality and highway safety. Local Plan Policies apply and in particular GD1 and national advice in PPS1.

HistoryA previous application RR/2007/3197/P for the erection of an extension at 1st floor level above existing offices and car showroom to form 2 self contained flats including provision of parking was refused in January 2008 by virtue, ”Notwithstanding the appearance of the existing flat roof buildings on site, the first floor extension and resultant building is of a poor unattractive design that will not contribute to the character of the area”; and that “The proposal does not provide for turning facilities within the site and reversing vehicles to or form the site onto the public highway would cause hazards to be introduced by the interference with the free flow and safety of traffic on the B2098.” The subsequent appeal was dismissed.

A subsequent application, RR/2008/3415/P for the erection of extension above car showroom to form 2 self contained apartments was refused in January 2009 by virtue, “Notwithstanding the appearance of the existing flat roof buildings on the site, the proposed extension and resultant three storey building represents a bland uninteresting design that will not make a positive contribution to the character of the area”; and that

11

“The proposal does not provide adequate parking facilities within the site which would result in additional congestion on the public highway causing further interference with the free flow and safety of traffic on the B2098.”

Design and visual appearance of localityThe mass and bulk of the extension have been broken up by the introduction of different roof styles and elevation treatments in a more conventional manner taking some references from more traditional housing opposite. The extension now proposed is of a more varied design and will improve the character and appearance of the area. It is therefore my opinion that this proposal now meets with the advice in PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development, paragraphs 13(vi) and 34, which state that; “Design which fails to take the opportunity available for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted” para 13(iv), and that “Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or fails to take the opportunity available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted” para 34.

Amenities of localityThe height and mass of the building are acceptable and although there are residential dwellings opposite the site, I do not consider that the proposal will cause demonstrable harm to their residential amenities.

Highway safetyComments from the Highway Authority are still awaited and will be reported to Committee once received.

ConclusionThe site occupies a prominent position and the proposed extension and resultant building is of an interesting design which takes the opportunity to improve and enhance the character and appearance of the area. The height and mass are acceptable and it will not cause demonstrable harm to the amenities of the residential dwellings opposite. As such the proposal meets the objectives of Policy GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan, and national advice in PPS1 paragraphs 13(iv) and 34, I therefore recommend approval. RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRE OF CONSULTATION PERIOD AND NO ADVERSE COMMENTS FROM OUTSTANDING CONSULTEES) 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 extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development reflects the character and appearance of the locality in accordance with Policies GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

12

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The site occupies a prominent position and the proposed extension and resultant building is of an interesting design which takes the opportunity to improve and enhance the character and appearance of the area. The height and mass of the building are acceptable and it will not cause demonstrable harm to the amenities of the residential dwellings opposite. As such the proposal meets the objectives of Policy GD1(ii)(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan, and national advice in PPS1 paragraphs 13(iv) and 34.


RR/2009/1495/P BEXHILL 9 WESTERN ROADCHANGE OF USE FROM A2 BUILDING SOCIETY TO A3 BAKERY AND COFFEE SHOPMr A Jempson


SITE The building is located on the south side and towards the eastern end of Western Road, within Bexhill Town Centre Conservation Area.

HISTORYRR/98/2479/A Externally illuminated fascia sign and externally illuminated

projecting sign – Approved conditional.RR/98/2478/P Installation of a new shopfront so as to ease access for disabled

persons plus installation of new signs – Approved conditional.RR/94/0325/P Installation of shopfront automated telling machine – Approved

conditional.RR/86/1115 Installation of new shop front and alterations to form office –

Approved conditional.RR/86/0383 Change of use of ground floor from shop to building society branch

office – Approved conditional.RRV/86/17 Internally illuminated fascia sign and projecting sign – Approved.RR/85/1490 Change of use of ground floor from retail butcher’s shop to building

society branch office – Withdrawn.RR/79/0098 New shopfront and alterations in connection with formation of

butchers shop – Approved.RR/78/2140 Change of use café to shop, install new shopfront, enclosure of

side yard, erect single storey rear extension – Approved.

PROPOSAL To change the use of the building from a building society (A2) to a bakery and coffee shop (A3).

CONSULTATIONSDirector of Services - Environmental Health: Comments awaited.Planning Notice: Any representations shall be reported.

SUMMARY Policies GD1, EM1 and EM13 of the Rother District Local Plan apply to this application.

The timber framed shopfront is to be retained and painted a burgundy colour. The name of the chain ‘Jempsons Café’ shall be displayed on the fascia using applied matt

13


vinyl letters as well as a new 0.6 x 0.8 metre hanging sign. It should be noted that painting the shopfront does not require planning permission; however, the previously approved advertisement consent for illuminated signs has expired and therefore if the new signage is to be illuminated an application for advertisement consent should be applied for.

The premises are located within a town centre location where the principle of A3 uses is supported. Within the application it is stated that bakery goods, food and drink shall be sold. The internal layout plan shows that internal seating for 43 people will be provided. Due to the preparation of food on the premises it is likely that an extraction system will be required. I therefore anticipate that the Environmental Health Department will recommend conditions relating to odour control equipment and sound insulation are attached to any permission, provided they raise no objection to the scheme. I shall await their comments before recommending any conditions relating to this.

I am of the opinion that the use of the premises as a bakery and café is acceptable in this location and should not detract from the character and appearance of the locality. Appropriate conditions relating to extraction of fumes, sound insulation and hours of use could be attached to any permission to ensure the amenities of nearby residents are protected. For the above-mentioned reasons I support this application.

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


Note: The grant of planning permission relates only to the change of use and any external ducting required that may be required for extraction of fumes. Advertisement Consent is required for the illuminated signs and no development in this respect should take place until that consent has been obtained.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed change of use will not adversely affect the character and appearance of the Town Centre Conservation Area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy GD1 (ii)(iv)(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2009/545/P BATTLE SOLAR UK, NORTH TRADE ROADAMENDMENT TO ROOF DESIGN ON RR/2007/1125/PSolar UK

Statutory 8 week date: 14 May 2009

This application was considered at the June Planning Committee when it was resolved to defer a decision for a site inspection to be undertaken.

14


SITE This site is at the eastern end of the Littlewood Fencing site (formerly Beechdown Sawmills) on the north side of the North Trade Road opposite the junction of the road to Catsfield. A new research and development building is currently under construction on the site.

HISTORYRR/2000/1356/P Timber products manufacturing building with alteration to existing

access – Approved ConditionalRR/2004/2427/P Revised proposals relating to siting and construction of timber

products manufacturing building previously approved under RR/2000/1356/P – Approved Conditional

RR/2007/1125/P Research, development and solar panel production facility, wind turbine, parking and alteration to existing access – Approved Conditionally (under construction).

PROPOSAL This application is for a variation to the roof design of the building permitted under RR/2007/1125/P. In place of a flat roof with perimeter safety railings a low pitch is proposed with a central glazed lantern to the atrium area.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- “Having been so strongly opposed to the initial application for this development, which the Council feels is a significant intrusion into the landscape, they do not feel able to be supportive of the proposed changes.”Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY This building was permitted in May 2007 (RR/2007/1125/P) as a research and development facility for the applicant company; a headquarters for the business growing in the field of alternative energy development. Much of the building has been constructed using recycled materials including the re-fabricated steel frame.

The originally approved plans indicated a flat roof with perimeter safety railings and the internal layout proposed a small open courtyard in the centre of the building. The structure as now built has a low pitched roof that is covered using a colour coated profile steel sheet. The roof covering is recycled and there is variation in the colours of the sheeting but because of the very low pitch (6 degrees) this is not discernable from the ground. I have concluded that since the surface of the roof covering is not apparent the colour variation should not be harmful to the AONB. Within the centre of the roof a glazed lantern is proposed to light a central reception area in place of the open courtyard.

I believe the alterations are a positive benefit to the design of the building. I have discussed the risk of light pollution from the lantern with the applicants and I am satisfied that their approach to low level, low energy LED lighting within this central circulation area. They are agreeable to a suitably worded condition in this respect. Subject to conditions I am content to support this proposal.



15

2. The lighting within the central atrium area shall be achieved using downward facing Light Emitting Diodes only at not exceeding 35 watts per square metre unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policies GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

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


RR/2009/821/P BATTLE THE HIGHLANDS, KANE HYTHE ROADREGULARISE EXISTING TIMBER YARD, TIMBER FENCING, CHARCOAL PRODUCTION AND WIND TURBINE, ELECTRICITY SUPPLY FOR WHICH NO FARM NOTICE HAS BEEN APPLIED AND TO REPLACE THE EXISTING UNAUTHORISED MOBILE HOME WITH A FORESTERS COTTAGEMr Scott

Statutory 8 week date: 10 June 2009

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

SITE The property covers some 2.1Ha lying to the west of the B2096 and falls away towards the west from the highway. The site benefits from two vehicular access points and has a hardcore access track along its eastern, southern and part of the western boundaries.

With the exception of the access points, the site is screened from the highway by substantial hedging. To the south and west the site is screened from the wider countryside by woodland. A hedge and tree screen is set along the northern boundary. The area within the curtilage is free from trees and bushes.

A series of low timber structures are set along the eastern boundary along with a caravan used as an office. On the western boundary lies the static caravan and outbuildings, a wind turbine is set towards the centre of the site and large steel charcoal burners are set to the south west corner of the site.

A stable block, hardstand and horse arena are located to the north east of the site, benefiting from a previous permission and do not affect this application.

HISTORYNone relevant.

PROPOSALThe application consists of several elements. These are to: Regularise the existing timber yard which includes a timber fencing production

facility Regularise a charcoal production facility

16


Retain a wind turbine unit constructed within the site Replace the existing unauthorised mobile home with a foresters cottage

CONSULTATIONSTown Council: The Council is content that the core forestry operation at this particular location is an acceptable one. They note, however, that, in part, this application is retrospective in so far as it relates to the structures associated with these activities. They feel that it would therefore be premature to comment on the proposal for a permanent new dwelling until that aspect has been resolved. If the use of the land is not acceptable there would be no case for a new building in the countryside. Highway Authority: Recommend consent be refused due to the existing access at its junction with the B2096 has substandard visibility and existing hazards would be increased by the additional slowing, stopping, turning and reversing traffic which would be created and would therefore be contrary to policy TR3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.Rural Estates Surveyor: “i. I am of the opinion that the timber conversion uses undertaken on site are

appropriate to the applicant’s well established timber/woodland contracting enterprise. The retention of the wind turbine provides electricity needed on site and does not rely on mains supply. I would not wish to raise an objection to these matters.

ii. The overall description of the applicant’s enterprise is set out in the business plan. The financial details supplied indicate that the enterprise is viable and satisfies the financial test criteria of the Annexe.

iii. The functional requirement is more difficult to judge. The business plan does show a marked increase in the actual charcoal production between 2006 and 2008. The increase is ongoing to the extent that charcoal production could represent 33.5% of the gross turnover by 2012. If this is to succeed to this scale it would be necessary to provide a day and night presence essential for the proper functioning of this element of the enterprise. On this basis I consider that there is justification for the proposed replacement dwelling.”

Planning Notice: Five letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns: Increased smoke emissions Increase in traffic Impact upon amenity of residents and visitors due to smoke generation Other buildings are understood to be available for charcoal burning Justification for the proposed dwellingFour letters of support have been received raising the following points: Promotes local forestry related business activity Provides a valuable local service Not aware of complaints regarding the charcoal burning Supporting woodland management and wildlife interestsAll representations can be seen in fill on the planning website and on the planning history file.

SUMMARY The site has been occupied by the applicant for less than ten years and in that time has been slowly developed to its current level. From a site inspection and testimony, it is apparent the static caravan has been in place for many years and has been added to through the construction of adjoining storage outbuildings.

17

Evidence has been submitted confirming the applicant is (and has been for some time) a self employed forester. The use of the land for charcoal burning, log production, small scale timber fencing production, other woodland related activities and the keeping of livestock are all considered to be suitable rural activities associated with a business in such a location. At the time of the site inspections, I did not see anything other than such operations being carried out.

The structures and land uses appear to have been both in place and carried out for several years without complaints being made the Local Authority. The applicant now seeks to regularise them and replace the current residential accommodation. Policies contained in both the Rother District Local Plan and Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, seek to restrict development outside development boundaries, especially residential accommodation. In determining this application I have taken of the provisions of both documents into account.

The agent has submitted details explaining the operations and justification for their retention and provision of the replacement residential accommodation.

Should residential accommodation be applied for on such a site, the aforementioned Rother District Local Plan and PPS 7 contain provisions whereby a temporary permission is normally required in the first instance. This is on the basis that the Local Planning Authority considering a permanent dwelling on the site would need to be satisfied that the use of the land can financially support the occupier and achieve at least a minimum agricultural wage. Also, as the dwelling would be essential for the running of a rural enterprise which requires on site supervision/monitoring, I have reservations regarding the necessity for on site accommodation in relation to these operations and the precedent for other similar sites.

The application seeks to regularise the various buildings around the site, including the charcoal burners, the buildings housing the saw mill equipment and the wind turbine.

The use of the metal vats for charcoal production provides an income stream for the applicant and their use requires on site supervision. This requirement forms a material consideration of this application and is advanced in the justification for on site habitable accommodation.

In determining this application I have taken account of the mass, bulk, scale and design and the timber structures containing the saw mill equipment and their impact upon the visual appearance of the rural setting and AONB. While it is clear they are set adjacent to the highway and a substantial hedge and tree screen is present, I consider through the imposition of suitable conditions, their retention can be supported.

Finally the wind turbine, though alien to the rural setting, is providing a source of electricity which provides power to the buildings, therefore making the site less dependant upon the National Grid for electricity. This sits well with sustainability considerations and while the turbine is partially visible from the highway and some surrounding vantage points, I do not consider the apparatus causes demonstrable harm to the rural setting or AONB and its retention can be supported.

While I am supportive of the application, I am concerned that a permanent dwelling would be premature at this stage. The plans do not show the limit of any residential curtilage; I suggest this issue needs to be resolved prior to any decision being made.

18

The application has attracted several letters of support and objection. In considering these I have had to take into account the enterprise includes charcoal burning which would not sit comfortably in an urban setting. As this operation is set in an area predominantly covered by woodland and agricultural land, I consider this site is best suited to it. An objection has been raised by the highway Authority as they are concerned about the intensification of use of the substandard access point. Further investigation into access improvements is required.

The needs of the applicant have been taken into account based on business grounds and not personal circumstance. Whilst the application has been submitted with substantive financial details from previous years with the applicant living on site in the static caravan, I still take the view that the normal requirement is that the applicant should pursue a three year temporary permission to test the business plan. As submitted I cannot support a permanent dwelling on the site.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) 1. The site lies within the countryside (High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural

Beauty) outside any identified development boundary set out within the Rother District Local Plan where new dwellings are not normally allowed unless there is a special overriding justification. The necessity in this instance for a dwelling has not been established in accordance with the criteria set out in PPS7, Annexe A. As such no functional justification for a dwelling exists and the proposal does not satisfy the criteria for new residential development in the countryside in accordance with the provisions of PPS7 and Policy HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2009/1230/P BATTLE BEECHES BROOK, TELHAM LANESTABLES IN REVISED LOCATION TO EARLIER APPROVAL (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION) AND CONFIRMATION OF ACCESS ALTERED UNDER PLANNING PERMISSIONMrs L Smith


SITE This site is located at the junction of Telham Lane with Powdermill Lane, with access from the former.

HISTORYRR/83/0454 Donkey shelter – Approved ConditionalRR/2005/2921/P Stables – Approved ConditionalRR/2006/238/P Hardstanding (retrospective) and revised stable building proposals

– Approved ConditionalRR/2007/2395/P C/U Agricultural land and siting of two mobile homes for one Gypsy

family and erection of amenity block – Refused – Appeal Dismissed

RR/2009/1593/P Retention of mobile home – Not Yet Determined

19


PROPOSAL Planning permission is sought to retain a block of three stables and a kennel sited adjacent to the boundary hedge with Telham Lane to the north west of the access. Additionally the application seeks confirmation of the alterations to the access, most specifically entrance gates have been installed together with fencing either side of the bellmouth.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- The Council had no objection to an earlier proposal to construct the stables in the corner of the site where they would be least intrusive. However, the location now chosen with its associated fencing makes the development much less acceptable and the Council are therefore opposed to it.Planning Notice:- No representations to date.

SUMMARY Planning permission was granted in 2006 (RR/2006/238/P) for the erection of a three stable block on the same road frontage but on the other side of the access. The retention of the stables in the constructed position is an alternative and not intended to be in addition to the earlier consent. The issue is whether the constructed site is unacceptably more prominent in the landscape than the previously approved location. The Town Council express concern in this respect. I am not convinced that the difference is significant. The building is new and therefore unweathered; it will quickly mellow. The fencing within the site associated with the stables does not require planning permission.

The entrance gates are set back from the lane so as to permit a vehicle to stand clear of the highway whilst they are opened/closed. They are close boarded gates. The flanking fences from the gate posts to the verge are also close boarded and about 2m high. These require planning permission because they exceed 1m high where they abut the highway. Planting (leylandii) has been undertaken in front of the fencing.

Overall I do not find the variations from the previously approved plan and the deviations from what would be permitted development, to be so harmful as to warrant a refusal of planning permission.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. The hedge fronting Telham Lane shall be retained at a height of not less than 2

metres. Any hedging which within a period of 5 years from the date of this permission dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with hedging of a species to be agreed in writing by the local planning authority.Reason: To safeguard the character of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in accord with Policy GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. Only clean uncontaminated roof water shall be allowed to discharge direct to a shallow soakaway via a sealed drainage system (capable of preventing accidental/unauthorised discharge of contaminated liquid into the soakaway).Reason: This site lies close to a Groundwater Source Protection Zone 1 and is therefore vulnerable to surface derived pollution and to accord with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. There shall be no burning of manure or soiled bedding on the land.Reason: In the interests of the amenities of nearby properties and to accord with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. The stables shall not be used for any purpose other than for private recreational purposes and shall not be used for hire or reward.

20

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to accord with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. No manure bay or muck heap shall be formed on the site unless its position together with details of how leachate is to be prevented from causing pollution of ground water has been previously approved in writing by the local planning authority.Reason: This site lies close to a Groundwater Source Protection Zone 1 and is therefore vulnerable to surface derived pollution and to accord with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed stables and fencing/gates do not result in the unacceptable loss of amenity to the locality. The stable is of an appropriate scale and design and will not adversely affect the character of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and therefore complies with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2009/1455/P BATTLE 77 HASTINGS ROADDEMOLITION OF 77 HASTINGS ROAD AND THE RE-DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE WITH TWO DETACHED DWELLINGSMr Hodges



SITE This site is currently occupied by a single detached bungalow on the north east side of Hastings Road. The plot dimensions are given as 22m wide by 110.5m deep, the front garden area contains small trees and shrubs and the boundary with No.79 is well hedged. Number 75, a new detached chalet occupies a plot at a lower level to the north west. On this boundary the owner of no.75 has erected a close boarded fence within their ownership; the legal boundary is more difficult to define with certainty.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2008/1584/P Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of two detached

dwellings including formation of access – Refused – Appeal Dismissed

PROPOSAL This application for full planning permission proposes the demolition of the existing bungalow and garage and replacement with two detached chalets each with integral garages.

The designs proposed are handed versions of the same basic four bedroom design with varied external finishes to be specified; each has a floor area of 183 sq.m. The existing vehicle access would be widened to form a paired access to serve both dwellings.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- Comments awaited.

21


Highway Authority;- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- 17 letters of objection received to date – Revised proposals do not address previous concerns Design too cramped, too high, too close and too long A precedent in urbanising Hastings Road A similar proposal for 71 Hasting Road was withdrawn following similar concerns

– both sites should be regarded equally The plans are inaccurate showing plots 73 and 75 being indicated narrower The existing dwelling shown on the plan is not correct relative to the boundary –

casts doubt on accuracy of plan A decision should be deferred until it can be considered with proposals for no.71

Hastings Road Additional traffic will access the Hastings Road where visibility splays cannot be

absolutely secured Loss of light and privacy to neighbouring property Proposal fails to recognise Appeal Inspector’s concerns Over development Several accidents have occurred close by – one fatal recently

SUMMARY The previous application for two dwellings on this site, one behind the other, was refused following a site inspection by Members. The subsequent appeal was dismissed and a copy of the appeal decision letter is attached as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 16 July 2009. It can be seen from paragraphs 5 and 7 that the Inspector believed that the forward position of one of the dwellings had an unacceptable effect upon the character of the area and the living conditions of no.75 Hastings Road. The concluding paragraph (no.9) cites this as the reason for the refusal whilst also stating “there is no objection in principle to more intensive use of this site, provided this can be achieved without compromising the quality of the local environment.”

Objections have cast doubt upon the accuracy of the submitted plans. Within the Design and Access Statement it is stated that the plot width is approx 22m; the plan scales 20.4m. I have requested that I meet the applicant’s agent on site to physically check dimensions. Clearly if the plot proves to be narrower the impact of the development on no.75 and the street scene, by increased need to lose boundary hedging, needs to be considered.

The applicant has sought to respond to the Appeal Inspector’s decision letter identifying both implied support for additional development on the site and criticism of the forward siting previously proposed. The assumption is made that reference to a more intensive use of the site equates to two detached dwellings. It could equally be interpreted to be one larger property, a pair of semi-detached or indeed apartments. I would however say I doubt the acceptability of the letter. There is no indication within the Design and Access Statement that informs this decision. Nevertheless, the application must be considered on its own merit.

By setting the properties back as proposed the physical appearance in the street scene has been reduced and more screening can be retained within the front garden. Similarly, the unacceptable intrusion upon the outlook from the front windows of no.75 is substantially reduced. The neighbouring property (no.75) does not have any side windows but a glazed kitchen door. Notwithstanding that I am not yet satisfied of the separation between the two dwellings I do not believe that the proposed design of

22

chalet, with its ridge running from front to back, would be so dominant over its neighbour as to warrant refusal on this ground alone.

The submitted designs propose four bedrooms, although it has to be said that two are very small with limited headroom. This has resulted in a building with an overall depth of 17.4m. The two recently constructed chalets (73 and 75) are 16.3m. The site level is about 1.2m above no.75 and the resultant ridge level about 800mm above that of the neighbour.

The design does raise an issue of loss of privacy to the rear patio of no.75, which has a hot tub installed, by reason of a rear bedroom dormer window at the higher level. On the other side of the plot, no.79, is a two storey house separated by a substantial hedge. The relationship on this side appears acceptable; the removal of a large boundary tree is however regrettable. I have requested that the applicant’s agent consider this point with a view to its resolution.

Until I can be satisfied as to the actual plot size and hence the resultant boundary separations I cannot form an accurate judgement as to how the development will impact on its neighbour, the hedge and the street scene overall. I have requested that the dwellings be pegged out for Members’ inspection and I have requested verification of the plot width etc.

I have not received the comments of the Highway Authority at the time of preparing this report. Notwithstanding that there was no highway objection to the previous application or raised by the Appeal Inspector, objectors have concerns at the available visibility. I too note that there may indeed be an issue with the front fence of no.75 interrupting visibility, or at least potential for planting within the garden to do so. I have requested the Highway Authority look at this point specifically.

There are clearly difficulties in determining the exact plot width and hence I cannot conclude that the proposed development can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site. I am not satisfied that concerns regarding the general street scene and the impact of new development upon no.75 have been adequately addressed. I cannot support the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed development can

be accommodated on the site without unacceptable impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring property no.75 Hastings Road and an adverse effect upon the character and appearance of the street scene. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy GD1(ii)(iv)(v).

2. Possible highway reason if recommended by the Highway Authority.


23


RR/2009/407/L RYE THE UNION INN, EAST STREETADDITION OF KITCHEN EXTRACTOR DUCTWORKEnterprise Inns PLC

Statutory 8 week date: 08 April 2009

RR/2009/550/P RYE THE UNION INN, EAST STREETPROPOSED EXTERNAL KITCHEN EXTRACTION DUCTWORKEnterprise Inns PLC

Statutory 8 week date: 23 April 2009

SITE The property is a public house – a listed building - in the centre of Rye located on the west side of East Street. The building is a two storey timber framed building (with basement) with a brick built single storey extension to the rear. The site comprises the building alone with no external space and it is tightly constrained by adjoining residential properties particularly 10 East Street/15 Union Street.

HISTORY This proposal is the result of a long running episode beginning in 2000 when previous owners of the property installed extract equipment for the pub kitchen on the roof of the rear extension without planning permission. Subsequent enforcement action against the owners was successful in 2002, but the offending equipment remained in position and attempts with successive owners to resolve the problem and achieve alternative or modified plant satisfactory in terms of the environmental health legislation and planning, conservation and listed building legislation were unfruitful. In 2006 applications for planning permission and listed building consent were submitted for an alternative scheme to resolve the problem: the proposed scheme was deficient and the applications withdrawn.

Last year new owners acquired the public house and in December 2008 the original offending, unauthorised, equipment was eventually removed. PROPOSAL The proposal is for a completely new extraction scheme. It involves external kitchen extraction ductwork on the rear flat roof as before, but a completely new unit designed for the current situation. Unlike the former vertical stack the proposed unit would lie across the roof of a broadly square profile about 4.7 metres long and 0.7 metre high. In addition the flat roof parapet is to be increased to three courses of brickwork.

Applications for both listed building consent and planning permission have been submitted. CONSULTATIONSTown Council: Support ApprovalDirector of Services: Environmental Health: “I have seen the plans and the supporting technical information. There is a long history of complaint in relation to noise as well as odour arising from the use of the ventilation extraction system.Reports have been provided for consideration … prior to this application which have specified proposals for the ventilation system. Requests have been made for full and proper information to be provided of specifications for noise emissions from the fan and silencer on numerous occasions.

24

These proposals have not satisfactorily proven that the proposed extraction system is capable of preventing detriment to the amenities of adjoining residents.The information that has been provided contradicts earlier data for the extract fan and silencer unit that is being proposed in this application.I am therefore concerned at the accuracy of the information being provided in this latest report in respect of the fan noise emissions and what reduction in noise levels the silencer can achieve (reduction loss). In addition, no information has been provided with this application in respect of odour control.To be able to progress this matter I therefore recommend the following conditions:-

1. A scheme for the fitting of odour control equipment to the ventilation extraction system 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 ventilation extraction system shall not commence until all odour control equipment works have been carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The odour control equipment shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

2. Noise emitted from the ventilation extraction system shall not exceed 36dB(A) LAeq 5 minute and noise emitted in the frequency range 63Hz – 4KHz shall not increase existing levels in each 1/3 octave frequency by more than 2dB, when measured at any and all points along the boundary of the premises with residential properties, at any time. The noise measurements and assessments shall be carried out in accordance with BS4142:1990.

3. The ventilation extraction system shall not be operated at the premises between the hours of (A) and (B) from Monday to Saturday and between the hours of (C) to (D) on Sundays. (Hours to be specified). “

County Archaeologist: No objectionsPlanning Notice: Neighbours: The applications raised initial objections from two properties in the immediate proximity. The objections can be seen in full on the website but the main points in summary were:- rear gardens surrounded by properties meaning ambient noise is very low;- kitchen barely 5 metres from our back door;- concerned that new system will perpetuate previous problems - but note that

recent arrangement (which does not have permission) is acceptable in noise terms;

- hope a solution can be found to enable us to sit in our back garden during parts of the day when the machinery is turned off at least when the kitchen is not actually being used for cooked food preparation;

- ducting unlikely to be adequate to remedy noise and smell nuisance;- unclear whether scheme has been prepared in conjunction with adequate

analysis of background or working levels;- continued nuisance since original apparatus installed and subsequent public

inquiry in 2002;More recently the two objectors have been advised of progress on the application and both suggest a restriction on operating hours.Rye Conservation Society: no objection subject to neighbours’ amenities and comments re. Noise, odours and restrictions on periods of use.

SUMMARYPolicyThe property is a listed building and within a conservation area – Policy GD1 (iv) and (viii) and the statutory provisions relating to these matters apply in terms of visual impact and the impact of the historic fabric of both the building and the conservation

25

area. In addition the interests of the adjoining residents in terms of noise and smell are paramount given the tight-knit nature of development here and Policy GD1 (ii) applies.

Consideration of the issuesOn the first matter the introduction of modern apparatus will always be difficult in an historic position. However, inasmuch as the site is not visible from general public view and relatively sheltered in respect of the outlook from surrounding residential properties I consider that the scheme would have a neutral effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area.

In respect of the listed building itself government guidance in PPG15 refers at Annex C to minor additions to listed buildings including standard external fixtures such as flues. It states that, “only undamaging and visually unobtrusive positions for such fixtures should be agreed.” As the equipment lays horizontally on top of a flat roof addition to the listed building, I do not consider that there will an overall detrimental affect on the listed building.

On the question of impact on neighbouring residents the decision needs to be guided by the technical assessment of the environmental health officers. In this respect the advice is that, while some of the submitted information is deficient, parameters for the equipment can now be set by conditions.

The first two conditions recommended by the Council’s Environmental Health Officers relate to the equipment itself in terms of odour and noise. The third is a suggested condition relating to hours of use. In this respect I have been in discussion with the applicants on possible hours and have been advising the two original objectors to the scheme.

For the residents part there is a desire to limit early morning and late evening use and to have a period in the afternoon where the equipment is not used. The applicants seek greater flexibility commenting:

“Can I suggest 10.30 am through to 10.00 pm. This would allow the kitchen team to start prepping before service and similarly cleaning down on completion assuming last orders at 9.30 pm. With regards the closure period in the afternoon this would not be practicable as food is available as part of the existing trading hours and practically in this town with the high number of visitors all day and all year....the new system will avoid possible noise and fume nuisance which the neighbours currently experience...it is likely though that when there is little or no demand the extraction would go off during the afternoon.”

There is a balance to be struck here but with all-day opening it would seem difficult to impose a limitation on afternoon cooking. On the basis that the Environmental Health Officer is satisfied with the general form of the proposed equipment and that conditions are enforceable I suggest accepting the 10.30am to 10.00pm period proposed by the applicants.

ConclusionI am satisfied with the physical solution now proposed in terms of the listed building. Enforcement of the suggested conditions will be crucial to safeguard the legitimate interests of adjoining residents.

26

RECOMMENDATIONS: RR/2009/550/P: 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. A scheme for the fitting of odour control equipment to the ventilation extraction system 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 ventilation extraction system shall not commence until all odour control equipment works have been carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The odour control equipment shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the residential amenities of adjoining residents having regard to the close relationships of those properties and Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. Noise emitted from the ventilation extraction system shall not exceed 36dB(A) LAeq 5 minute and noise emitted in the frequency range 63Hz – 4KHz shall not increase existing levels in each 1/3 octave frequency by more than 2dB, when measured at any and all points along the boundary of the premises with residential properties, at any time. The noise measurements and assessments shall be carried out in accordance with BS4142:1990. Reason: To safeguard the residential amenities of adjoining residents having regard to the close relationships of those properties and Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. The ventilation extraction system shall not be operated at the premises between the hours of 10.30 a.m. and 10.00 p.m. Reason: To safeguard the residential amenities of adjoining residents having regard to the close relationships of those properties and Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is of an appropriate design and specification and will not adversely affect the character of the conservation area or, with appropriate conditions relating to noise and odour control, the amenities of adjoining properties. The development therefore complies with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2009/407/L: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)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).

27


REASONS FOR GRANTING CONSENT: The proposed works are of an appropriate design and will not adversely affect the character of the listed building and therefore comply with Policy GD1(iv) and (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and the advice of PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment.


RR/2009/1372/L PENHURST SPRAYS OAST FARM, PENHURST LANEINSTALLATION OF DOUBLE GLAZING IN AN EXISTING WINDOW. A SINGLE BOW WINDOW AT REAR OF BUILDINGMr A Bargioni


SITE Sprays Oast Farmhouse is an 18th century Grade II listed oasthouse located to the east of Penhurst Lane within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORY (Relevant)A/73/1142 Oast to dwelling – ApprovedRR/2006/3443/L Installation of burglar alarm boxes on front and rear of building –

Listed Building Consent GrantedRR/2007/529/P Conversion of disused dairy to bedrooms ancillary to dwelling –

Approved ConditionallyRR/2002/347/P ) Erection of two bay garage. Replacement of perimeter fenceRR/2002/340/L ) (Retrospective) – Approved ConditionallyRR/2009/1400/L Replace door with a window, increasing light into dining room and

achieving greater visual consistency with the outside appearance of the building (Retrospective application) – Not Yet Determined

PROPOSAL This application seeks retrospective Listed Building Consent for the installation of double glazing in an existing window - a single bow window at the rear of the building.

The main issue to consider is the impact on the architectural character of the listed building. Local Plan policies apply, in particular GD1 and advice in PPG15.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- The Parish Council are happy to accept the planning officer’s recommendations on these two retrospective applications (RR/2009/1372/L and RR/2009/1400/L).Historic Buildings Consultant:- “Generally the replacement of single glazed units is not considered supportable on the basis that the section sizes become over large and the use of stuck on glazing bars etc on multi-paned windows are not considered an appropriate detail.The proposal to apply retrospectively for the removal of single glazing to 1 no. bay window and replacement with double glazed units in the existing frame and the replacement of French doors with new double glazed casement window is considered in this instance to be supportable on the basis that the double glazing has not increased the size of sections nor has it affected that external appearance of the window. However this should not be construed as the general principle; any further

28

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr2009407l

replacements should only be carried out once Listed Building Consent has been granted and then only in terms of the details approved.It should also be noted that whilst the application is retrospective Conservation and Design would require conditions to be appended to any given consent on the basis that a specification of the mortar used is to be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Should the mortar be deemed inappropriate joints will be required to be raked out in accordance with condition CD10B and a sample panel prepared, again in accordance with condition CD10C for inspection by the local planning authority prior to commencement of the re-pointing works.”Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY The scheme involves alterations to a Listed Building. Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan and Government advice in PPG15 apply.

The applicant in support of the application has submitted the following information:

“Regretfully the application is retrospective, the work having already been carried out thinking that this modification was permitted in a listed building if the existing frame maintained the same external appearance.Justification: To renovate a rotting frame and at the same time improve heat retention.Design thinking: 1. Maintain the existing frame, as it adds to the character of the building which has

a wide range of various windows, some appearing to be older than the conversion to a residence in 1975 whilst others are more modern.

2. Insertion of 20mm glazing, to be compatible with the new windows inserted in the barn conversion alongside the main building. Also to be compatible with the 30% of windows in the main building which also have 20mm units. These windows, I would guess from their appearance, were installed some time in the last decade.

3. The existing frame was simply routed to a greater depth to accommodate the 16mm thicker glass, therefore from the outside the window looks identical. The attached drawing shows the detail. The window is on the rear of the building from the road.”

I have undertaken a site visit with the Historic Buildings Consultant and it is her opinion that in this particular instance the replacement of single glazing with a double glazed unit has not altered the external appearance of the window and therefore in this case a recommendation to grant Listed Building Consent can be made.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)

REASONS FOR GRANTING CONSENT: The replacement of single glazing with a double glazed unit does not change the material or external appearance of the window as such the proposal is in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Government advice in PPG15, Annexe C, paras C40-50 inclusive.


29


RR/2009/1400/L PENHURST SPRAYS OAST FARM, PENHURST LANEREPLACE DOOR WITH A WINDOW, INCREASING LIGHT INTO DINING ROOM AND ACHIEVING GRATER VISUAL CONSISTENCY WITH THE OUTSIDE APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDING (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATIONS)Mr A Bargioni


SITE Sprays Oast Farmhouse is an 18th century Grade II listed oasthouse located to the east of Penhurst Lane within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORY (Relevant)A/73/1142 Oast to dwelling – ApprovedRR/2006/3443/L Installation of burglar alarm boxes on front and rear of building –

Listed Building Consent GrantedRR/2007/529/P Conversion of disused dairy to bedrooms ancillary to dwelling –

Approved ConditionallyRR/2002/347/P ) Erection of two bay garage. Replacement of perimeter fenceRR/2002/340/L ) (Retrospective) – Approved ConditionallyRR/2009/1372/L Installation of double glazing in an existing window. A single bow

window at rear of building – Not Yet Determined

PROPOSAL This application seeks retrospective Listed Building Consent to replace an oak door with a window. The main issue to consider is the impact on the architectural character of the listed building. Local Plan policies apply, and in particular GD1 and Government advice in PPG15.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- The Parish Council are happy to accept the planning officer’s recommendations on these retrospective applications. (RR/2009/1372/L and RR/2009/1400/L).Historic Buildings Consultant:- “Generally the replacement of single glazed units is not considered supportable on the basis that the section sizes become over large and the use of stuck on glazing bars etc on multi-paned windows are not considered an appropriate detail.The proposal to apply retrospectively for the removal of single glazing to 1 no. bay window and replacement with double glazed units in the existing frame and the replacement of French doors with new double glazed casement window is considered in this instance to be supportable on the basis that the double glazing has not increased the size of sections nor has it affected that external appearance of the window. However this should not be construed as the general principle; any further replacements should only be carried out once Listed Building Consent has been granted and then only in terms of the details approved.It should also be noted that whilst the application is retrospective Conservation and Design would require conditions to be appended to any given consent on the basis that a specification of the mortar used is to be submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Should the mortar be deemed inappropriate joints will be required to be raked out in accordance with condition CD10B and a sample panel prepared, again in accordance with condition CD10C for inspection by the local planning authority prior to commencement of the re-pointing works.”Planning Notice:- No representations received.

30

SUMMARY The scheme involved the removal of an oak door and its replacement with a window matching in style other windows within the building. The applicant has written in support of the application the following:-

“Introduction:The building was originally a farm building, part of Great Sprays Farm.The original building has parts of it back to the late 1600s and the oast tower is approximately 1850s.It was converted to a dwelling in 1975, and so the openings in the walls were created then and the windows were of a design considered appropriate to the 1970s.Justification:1. The aim is to reduce the number of main exit doors for the property from 3 to 2,

and replacing it with a window, thus improving room light in the dining room. That door is not needed, as the main front door to the property is into the hallway and there is a secondary backdoor into the kitchen.

2. It appears that the original permission in 1975 was for a French door in this particular opening, with ‘Brightling style’ glazing compatible with the rest of the house.

3. Sometime in the last 20 years, a heavy oak door was inserted with narrow windows at each side. The opening remained the same. This reduced the light into the room as the only other window in the room is only 90 cm wide. It was finished in plain wood and was completely incompatible with the other windows in the building.

4. Work was needed anyway on the opening as the brickwork over the door was cracking due to faulty framing and leaking leading to flooding of the inside during rain.

Design thinking: On the basis of the principle of reverting to a mainly glass opening, the following design thinking resulted.1. In 1998 a French door was approved to be inserted into the adjacent lounge

room. The aim is to match the new window, as much as possible, with this French door together with the bay window further to the right on this side of the building. The building has a range of different windows set from the initial conversion in 1975 but the style is consistently ‘Brightling’ and the glazing proportions similar.

2. Internally the window should match, as much as possible, the dimensions of the other window in the dining room. The ‘chunky’ style of the window it was replacing also had an influence believing that to be appropriate in maintaining the ‘qwirky’ range of styles in the house.

3. The window section is shown in the attached drawing.4. The design also includes 20mm double glazing so as to match 30% of the

existing windows in the building and be compatible with modern energy retention needs.”

As the applicant states, Listed Building Consent was given in 1998, reference RR/98/843/L, for the replacement of various windows in the property, along with a casement window at the rear with French doors. From verbal discussions with the applicant on site it appears that this consent establishes alterations to original timber windows and doors with types more suited to double glazing and ultimately means that there are various types of window and doors throughout the building.

I have undertaken a site visit with the Historic Buildings Consultant and it is her opinion that in this particular instance the replacement of the door with a timber window with

31

20mm double glazing to match approximately 30% of the existing windows in the building, is not adversely affecting the character of listed building and therefore in this instance I can make the following

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)1. Within one month of the date of this Listed Building Consent the mortar mix used

in the new brickwork above and below the new window shall be raked out using hand tools and not with mechanical or power driven devices. The joints shall be repointed in accord with details that shall have previously been approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall include a sample panel measuring not less than 1m x 1m which shall be constructed to show, type and style of pointing, width of mortar joints and details of mortar mix, for inspection and approval in writing by the local planning authority and which shall be retained on site until completion of the works.Reason: To safeguard the historic fabric and the special architectural and historic character of the Listed Building in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING CONSENT: The replacement of the door with a window is not detrimental to the character of the listed building but an appropriate mortar mix needs to replace the mortar in the new brickwork above and below the new window which is covered by a condition. The proposal is in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Government advice in PPG15, annexe C, paras C37-C50, subject to compliance with conditions.


RR/2009/1107/P BURWASH BOUGH FARM, HEATHFIELD ROADREMOVAL OF CONDITION 3 IMPOSED UPON PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2005/34/P SO AS TO ALLOW THE BUILDING TO BE USED AS A SEPARATE DWELLINGMs J Finch


SITE Bough Farm is a detached dwelling set within a site measuring approximately 0.48 hectares. It is located on the north side of the A265, outside of the Burwash Common development boundary and within the High Weald AONB.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2004/2213/P Outline: demolition of dwelling and indoor swimming pool and

erection of new house - Withdrawn.RR/2005/34/P Erection of two storey extension to provide ground floor entrance

hall and first floor bathroom and formation of bedroom in existing roof with addition of two roof dormers and a velux window – Approved conditional.

PROPOSAL Permission is sought to use an annex building, located to the southwest of and which serves Bough Farm, as a separate dwelling. A condition was imposed on planning permission RR/2005/34/P limiting the use of the building to additional accommodation to the main dwelling Bough Farm. The permission for the extension

32


has been implemented and therefore it is proposed to remove condition 3 of the 2005 permission.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- General observation. ‘Cllr Dumville (the resident of the annexe and father of the applicant) is a member of Burwash Parish Council and known to all the members. We will support the decision made by Rother district Council.’ESCC Footpaths Officer:- No objection subject to the application contingent upon access to the public footpath, running through the application site, being maintained at all times.Planning Notice:- 1 letter from a local resident commenting generally (summarised):- No objection in principle.- Concerned over use of driveway.- Highly likely to be a 100% increase in car ownership as two families are likely to

own 4 or more cars between them.- There is an entrance to Bough Farm to the west where the public footpath

starts. Few people use this gateway to follow the public footpath. It would seem sensible for the new owners of what is currently called the annex could use the other entrance and create new parking for the cars.

1 letter from Mr Finch dated 22 May 2009 (former resident of Bough Farm) (summarised):- Property subject to a court order between Mr Finch and Joanne Finch and forms

a key element of the divorce agreement as reached in court.- Court concluded Bough Farm is the former matrimonial home. Order makes no

provision for splitting the property.- Three separate offers for property.- Splitting property would provide the potential for a partial sale.- Has not been notified of the application.Agent (Mr Dumville) responded to the above commenting (summarised):- Mrs Finch granted sole conduct of sale of the property on 9 September 2008.- Have tried extremely hard since that date to sell Bough Farm.- Possible interest lost due to Mr Finch’s interference.- This interference coupled with the economic downturn means there is no other

option but to market the property separately.- To stay here would be financially destructive to our family, health and sanity.- If Mr Finch wanted to sell the property he would have no objection to split the

property.2 letters received from Mr Finch dated 8 and 15 June 2009 commenting (summarised):- Letter from Mr Dumville dated 3 May 2009 contains a number of inaccuracies.1 letter (and fax copy) received from Mr Finch’s solicitors dated 19 June 2009 chasing a reply to Mr Finch’s letters of the 8 and 15 June 2009.1 letter received from a planning consultant acting for Mr Finch commenting (summarised):- Object to the removal of the planning condition.- Building has always been used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the

main farm house.- Annex has never formed a separate dwelling at any time.- Council was not satisfied with the description of the 2004 application as the

building had always been recorded as an annex.- Council notified the applicant that the application could not be supported and the

application was withdrawn.

33

- Extension to the building in 2005 granted planning permission with the Council satisfied the annex would be continued to be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwelling Bough Farm.

- Imposition of a condition restricting the use of the building was reasonable.- Even if this condition was not imposed permission would still have been required

to use the annex as a dwelling.- The removal of this condition will be insufficient in itself to render lawful use of

the annex as a dwelling.- Statement about annex not having a condition on prior to 2005 application is

misleading.- Planning permission would have been required for the building to be used as a

dwelling prior to the condition being imposed.- If permission was granted to remove the condition a further permission would be

required to use the building as a dwelling.- Harm to the AONB.- Sub division would clearly change the character and appearance of the site

through the introduction of more domestic paraphernalia associated with two dwellings, including 2 gardens and extra parking.

- Harm to the properties setting.- Contrary to local plan policies.- Unsustainable position.- Would not accord with the thrust of PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural

Areas, which seeks to reduce car dependency by stimulating development in areas that have good accessibility to public transport, shops and other local services.

- Proposal represents an unsustainable form of development that should be resisted.

- Concern over overlooking, privacy and residential amenity.

SUMMARY Policies GD1, HG10 and HG11 of the Rother District Local Plan and PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas apply to this application.

The personal circumstances between the agent (Mr Dumville), his daughter the applicant (Mrs Finch) and Mr Finch are not material planning considerations and should not influence the decision made on this application. I can confirm that the correct notice has now been served on Mr Finch.

It is important to clarify and expand upon the history of the annex building and how it has evolved over the years. The first reference to the building now referred to as an annex, in planning terms, was within a Building Regulations application in 1975 to re-construct a swimming pool. A planning application later this year approved an extension to the main dwelling Bough Farm. On the approved plans the building now referred to as an annex was labelled as ‘existing barn’ and ‘pool cover’. From the date of approval (30 October 1975) the authorised use of the building now referred to as an annex was as a swimming pool and a barn.

The next relevant application was in 2004 to demolish the building now referred to as an annex and erect a house. In 2005 the application was withdrawn after the agent was informed the application could not be supported by the local planning authority. The agent referred to the building to be demolished as a dwelling. This was the first time in the building’s history that it had been referred to as a dwelling. Any use as a dwelling would have been unauthorised and no planning permission was ever applied for or

34

granted for this use. There are also no records of any complaints received about the use of the building now referred to as an annex as a dwelling or any Enforcement investigation or action. I am of the opinion that the agent’s description of the building as an annex should have no influence on the authorised use of the building, which at this point in time (2004/2005) would have been a barn and swimming pool.

In 2005 permission was granted for a two storey extension to the building now referred to as an annex. Within the application the building was described as a granny annex. There was no information within the application stating how long the building had been used as an annex. However, the grant of permission regularised the used of the building as an annex and changed its use from that of a swimming pool and barn. The permission included a condition restricting the use of the building as an annex, ancillary to the main dwelling, which I am of the opinion is perfectly reasonable considering the building’s previous authorised use as a barn and swimming pool and it being located within the countryside. The use of this type of condition and sometimes legal agreements is very common when approving annex accommodation within the countryside to help prevent new dwellings being created.

The site is outside of a recognised development boundary where long standing restraint policies for new residential development apply. It has not been demonstrated that the change of use of the annex to a dwelling is essential for an existing established enterprise that must be in a countryside location or is affordable housing to meet an identified local need. Neither do I consider that the existing building makes a valuable contribution to the rural scene and residential re-use is the only means of retaining it.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The site is located within the countryside, outside any development boundary as

defined within the Rother District Local Plan, where long standing countryside restraint policies apply for new residential development. It has not been demonstrated that the change of use of the annex to a dwelling is essential for an existing established enterprise that must be in a countryside location or is affordable housing to meet an identified local need. In addition, the building does not make a valuable contribution to the rural scene with residential re-use is the only means of retaining it. The application is therefore contrary to Policies GD1 (iv) & (v), HG10 and HG11 of the Rother District Local Plan and Government advice contained within Planning Policy Statement 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.


35


RR/2009/1337/P MOUNTFIELD OAKWOOD FARM, POPPINGHOLE LANEPERMANENT SITING OF MOBILE HOME FOR ACCOMMODATION OF SEASONAL AND TEMPORARY STAFF EMPLOYED IN AGRICULTUREMr M Wilson


SITE Oakwood Farm comprises a dwelling and a complex of agricultural buildings located to the south west of Poppinghole Lane, within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The agricultural holding extends in all to approximately 37 hectares and is principally involved with fruit production. A public footpath passes between the farm buildings.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/97/934/P Increase height of existing cold store by 0.72m to give extra

storage space for fruit produced on holding – Approved RR/1999/627/FN Open sided (two sides) pole barn attachment to existing building –

Details not requiredRR/2002/1113/FN Erection of two pole barns to form machinery and storage sheds

and extension of hardstandings – Details not requiredRR/2003/46/P Erection of three plastic tunnels for strawberry production -

ApprovedRR/2005/561/P Erection of six plastic tunnels for strawberry production – Approved RR/2006/278/P Replace pole barn destroyed by fire, move away from nearest

building for fire safety. Redesign to match other buildings, build concrete plinth and water storage tank - Approved.

RR/2006/2246/P Permanent siting of mobile home for accommodation of seasonal and temporary staff employed in agriculture – Approved for temporary three year period

PROPOSAL The application seeks a ‘renewal’ of planning permission originally granted under RR/2006/2246/P above for a temporary three year period. Although the description of development refers to the ‘permanent’ siting of the caravan, the applicant has explained that this refers to a wish to not have to remove the caravan from the site at any times out of season when it was not being occupied. The static caravan is positioned by the side of a barn and adjacent to the concrete farm road, which passes between the complex of farm buildings. It is used to accommodate temporary/seasonal workers to assist the applicant and his wife at peak times on the farm. The duration of the mobile home’s occupancy is usually six months. It is also explained that the expansion of the soft fruit and vegetable growing has increased the labour requirements during the growing season from Easter through to the winter and in addition to this, during the winter season labour is required for juicing apples.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support the proposal.Rural Estates Surveyor – concludes:(i) The viability of the farm is very dependent upon temporary foreign labour which

is otherwise unavailable in the locality. This type of seasonal employment is a very common occurrence in UK agriculture.

36

(ii) The retention of the mobile home will provide the necessary accommodation and I am of the opinion that there is justification for the mobile home to remain on site for seasonal workers.

Planning Notice – Any comments will be reported

SUMMARY The site is within the countryside (AONB) where planning policies seek to prevent new residential development (including mobile homes) unless it is demonstrated to be essential to the running of an enterprise which must be in a countryside location. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO gives a permitted development right derived from the wording of the ‘Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960’ for “use as a caravan site of agriculture land for the accommodation during a particular season of a person or persons engaged in farming (or forestry) operations on the same land”. A general condition requires that when the seasonal accommodation need ceases the use shall cease and the caravan be removed as soon as reasonably practicable. In considering background information provided with the previous application, it was accepted that for the period of time the caravan/mobile home would be occupied this would accord with what is commonly accepted as ‘seasonal work’ in accordance with the permitted development requirement. In the event that occupation would have extended beyond this into providing additional on site accommodation for staff employed in the more routine agricultural activities, then the application would need to be assessed in the same way as would any proposal for an additional farm dwelling in accordance with government advice in the Annexe to PPS7. On the basis of the information provided and the support given to the application by the Rural Estates Surveyor, it is accepted that there is still a temporary requirement for the retention of the caravan/mobile home for occupation by seasonal workers on the holding.

Secondly, it is necessary to assess whether permanently siting the caravan on site (ie. not removing it at the end of the season) would have an acceptable impact on the countryside AONB. In this respect, although adjacent to a public foot path, the caravan/mobile home has been positioned within the complex of farm buildings and immediately abuts the flank wall of a modern barn. In the circumstances the impact on the wider AONB landscape is limited.

Being mindful of the above, it is considered that a further temporary consent would be acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. The occupation of the caravan/mobile home shall be limited to a person solely or

mainly working in agriculture or in forestry on the Oakwood Farm holding. Reason: To reserve suitable residential accommodation for persons employed

locally in agriculture and to ensure that the need which led to the grant of permission remains satisfied and to accord with Policy HG10 (iii) of the Rother District Local Plan and PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

2. The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition on or before 30 July 2012.Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the land and also reassess any requirement for the retention of the caravan/mobile home in the future, in accordance with countryside protection requirements within Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

37

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed siting of a mobile home was supported on the basis that this provided temporary short term accommodation for seasonal agricultural workers in the existing holding. Whilst accommodation for seasonal workers had been demonstrated and was considered appropriate, the justification for a full time agricultural workers unit was not accepted in terms of Annex A of PPS 7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) and the approval of the siting of a mobile home does not therefore constitute acceptance of any future need for permanent accommodation on the holding. The mobile home would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the area or amenities of any adjoining property and would comply with Policies GD1 and HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan. On this basis it was considered that a further temporary planning permission could be granted.


RR/2009/1021/P BECKLEY HOP BARN FARMHOUSE, PEASMARSH ROAD ERECTION OF 4 POLYTUNNELS, GREENHOUSE, RAINWATER STORAGE TANKS, TRACTOR SHED/TOOL STORE AND A SMALL POTTING SHED (PART RETROSPECTIVE)Mrs M Thompson


This application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 18 June 2009 when it was resolved that a decision be deferred for site inspection. My previous report has been updated to incorporate the further information reported at the last meeting.

SITE This four acre agricultural holding lies outside of a recognised development boundary and is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. A detached bungalow, the subject of an agricultural occupancy condition, lies in the south west corner of the site. The condition states that: “The occupation of the dwelling shall be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was employment in agriculture as defined by 119(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, or in forestry, and including also the dependants of such persons as aforesaid.”

The site is accessed via a private road that has a junction with Peasmarsh Road (A268). There is currently a greenhouse and a small potting shed in the north east corner of the land.

HISTORYA/62/799 Agricultural workers dwelling – Approved conditional.A/71/487 Agricultural workers dwelling and garage – Approved.RR/2009/11P Erection of cattery with tractor store/shed – Refused.

38


PROPOSAL The applicant who has recently bought the dwelling and land is in the process of establishing a wholesale plant nursery on the land, which is classed as an agricultural use. Permission is therefore sought to:

Erect four polytunnels measuring 15m (length) x 5m (depth) x 2.5m (height) in the north east corner of the land.

Erect a tractor shed/tool store measuring 10.5m (length) x 6.5m (width) x 3m (height) at the eastern end of the land close to the field gate and dwelling.

Install two 1200 litre rainwater storage tanks with a maximum height of 1.3m at the eastern end of the land.

Retain a greenhouse and small potting shed in the north east corner of the land. Retain a parking/turning area at the eastern end of the land adjacent to the field

gate.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:– Supports a refusal for the following reasons (summarised): The site is within the countryside and the High Weald Area of Outstanding

Natural Beauty. The four polytunnels would be highly visible from public footpath No.6, which would harm the designation of Beckley in the AONB.

The submitted plans show the drawing for the cattery that was refused under planning application RR/2009/11/P. The Parish Councillors wonder why this has been included on this application.

The proposed Nursery business would generate an increase in traffic using the existing entrance/exit road to Hop Barn, which has poor visibility to the left. This would increase the risk of accidents.

The applicants Design & Access Statement is misleading, as it states that the proposed Nursery would operate as a “Trade only” wholesale business. However, the Nursery has been open to the public, which indicates that it would be a “Retail” enterprise.

An e-mail from the applicant in response to the points raised by Beckley Parish Council. A copy of this e-mail can be found on the planning website.Planning Notice:– One letter of objection from the neighbour at Beckley Gallery with the following comments (summarised): The residential curtilage of the house has been extended. The greenhouse has been erected without planning permission. The development will be visible from surrounding properties. Members of the public have been parking in the field and walking to the

greenhouse. The applicant has been burning plastic bag containers etc. on the land. This

should be checked by an environmental health officer.An e-mail from the applicant in response to the points raised by the neighbour at Beckley Gallery. A copy of this e-mail can be found on the planning website.

SUMMARY Policies DS4 and GD1 of the Local Plan apply in the determination of this application. The issues to consider are new development in the countryside and impact upon the character and appearance of the locality/conservation of the natural beauty of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Policy DS4 of the Local Plan states that “Outside of the development boundaries of the towns and villages set out in Policy DS3 and defined on the Proposals Map, the remainder of the area is shown as countryside where existing uses shall remain for the most part unchanged during the period of this plan. Proposals for new development

39

therein will be required to accord with relevant Structure Plan and Local Plan policies and, unless there is specific provision in these policies for the proposed form of development to be located in the countryside, the proposals will also be required to demonstrate that a countryside location is necessary for the development.”

Policy GD1 of the Local Plan states that “All development should: (iv) respect and not detract from the character and appearance of the locality” and “(v) be compatible with the conservation of the natural beauty of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”

The new owner is establishing a new nursery business. In my opinion the proposed structures/rainwater storage tanks are all reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture in this countryside location.

I am also satisfied that no part of the proposed development would detract from the character and appearance of the locality or unreasonably harm the natural beauty of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposed structures/rainwater storage tanks would be well screened by existing trees and a dip in the land or would be viewed in conjunction with adjoining buildings. In any case, farm buildings are not an uncommon site in the countryside.

The Parish Council has expressed concern over use of the existing access for retail sales. However, as retail sales of products grown on holdings is ancillary to the principal use of the land for horticulture there is no change of use involved. As in other similar cases of farm sales the local planning authority has no direct control over such ancillary traffic movements to and from the site.

Subject to conditions I recommend granting planning permission for the necessary facilities.


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

2. The polytunnels, greenhouse, rainwater storage tanks, tractor shed/tool store and small potting shed hereby permitted shall only be used for the purposes of agriculture and/or forestry as defined in Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and for no other purpose.Reason: To ensure that only buildings essential to the running of an agricultural holding are provided in the countryside in accordance with Policy DS4 of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. Before the tractor shed/tool store hereby permitted is brought into use it shall be treated in a colour to be previously approved in writing by the local planning authority.Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the surrounding area in accordance with Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. If the parking/turning area is to be surfaced at any time, details shall first be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the surrounding area in accordance with Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

40

5. Before the water storage tanks hereby permitted are installed 1:50 scale section drawings showing their relationship to the slope of the land shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the surrounding area in accordance with Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASON FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture in this countryside location and will not detract from the character and appearance of the locality or unreasonably harm the natural beauty of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and therefore complies with Policies DS4 and GD1(i)(ii)(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2009/1251/P BECKLEY TOLLGATE COTTAGE – LAND ADJ TO, PEASMARSH ROADDEMOLITION OF EXISTING WORKSHOPS USED FOR RURAL TIMBER WORKS AND ERECTION OF SELF CONTAINED REPLACEMENT WORKSHOP WITH GARAGING AND STORE FOR THE SAME USEMr D and Mr J Paine


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

SITE The site lies on the north side of the A268 between Four Oaks and Peasmarsh at the junction with Kitchenour Lane. It comprises a long established timber business with older workshop buildings and a cottage on the road frontage owned by the applicants. There are currently two residential caravans on the site occupied as the cottage was severely damaged last year by a car and is uninhabitable.

The site is relatively isolated and there are no immediate neighbours. The site is surrounded by woodland.

HISTORYThe business itself is long established and there is no relevant history.RR/2009/1111/P Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of replacement

dwelling – Granted (Delegated subject to S106 Agreement).

PROPOSAL It is intended to demolish the existing main workshop building and other ancillary structures replacing it with a new single storey purpose built workshop.

The applicants state: “The floor plans will consist of a store room and 2 no. garages to store tractors and machinery used for rural craft making. There will also be a workshop area with a kitchen area and toilet. The workshop will be a self contained unit and will continue to be used by the long established family run rural timber works.The single storey building will be constructed on a brick plinth with stained weatherboard. The roof will have plain tiles. There will be one cottage style window to the front elevation, with conservation roof lights being used for additional light. The

41


proposed workshop will measure approximately 22.4 metres wide with a depth of 10.7 metres (7.7 metres at its narrowest) and a height of 7.5 metres.The various corrugated outbuildings on the site will be demolished to make way for the proposed new workshop, which in turn will tidy up the site and make it more visually appealing.The owners of the timber works live on the site and we have recently submitted a planning application (RR/2009/1111/P) to demolish the existing bungalow (now structurally unsafe because of damage caused by a car accident) and to erect a new chalet bungalow.The existing vehicular access will continue to serve the domestic dwelling and the timber yard.Landscaping will remain as existing and existing trees on the site will remain.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Object – over development due to its bulk and form; too large and dominant closer to the road than existing workshop. Could be used subsequently as a dwelling and therefore should be conditional on retaining workshop. Should be viewed with the application for replacement bungalow.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where national and local policies (Policies DS1 and GD1) seek to protect and conserve the countryside. The issue in this case, being for a replacement building on an established commercial site, relates solely to the design and scale of the new building.

The existing buildings to be removed have a total footprint of about 147 sq.metres. The replacement building is some 182 sq.metres. The existing buildings are functional but are older timber buildings with corrugated roofing.

The desire for new purpose-built accommodation is both understandable and desirable. Local Plan policies support developing the economy of the rural areas and this timber business is such a case.

The building occupies a position on the site forward of the existing building but still set back about 18 metres from the road.

The building is well designed in a plain traditional style befitting both its function and countryside location. Timber construction and finish with plain tiles is appropriate. Conservation rooflights will give added light to the internal working areas.

The increase in the size of the new building and the rationalising of the site to formally separate the residential curtilage from the industrial area – while retaining the shared single access – are acceptable in the context of the site.



2. No development shall take place until details/samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building and for any external

42

hardsurfaced areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure that the development takes account of the rural setting of the existing site and to preserve amenity of the area in accordance with Policies GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposal for a replacement building will support a well established rural enterprise. The building is well designed and of appropriate materials and is acceptable in this location. The building accords with Rother District Local Plan Policies DS1 and GD1 and is compatible with safeguarding the character and appearance of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.


RR/2009/1345/P NORTHIAM THE OLD BUILDERS YARD, MAIN STREETERECTION OF TWO NEW DWELLINGSMr 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 although also with a rear garden elevated above the application site.

The site is within the Northiam Conservation Area.

HISTORYRR/83/2150 Outline: Single dwelling – Granted

RR/87/16 Outline: One dwelling – Granted

RR/2009/187/P Demolition of redundant storage buildings (former builder’s yard) and erection of two new detached dwellings with alterations to existing vehicular access – Refused for following reasons:

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.

43


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 The Old Builders Yard, Main Street – Demolition of redundant storage buildings – Approved

PROPOSAL This is a re-submission of the earlier application for two houses refused earlier this year. Two houses are again proposed but in response to the four reasons for refusal, the applicant’s agent states:-

“1. The design of the two dwellings has been altered to produce a smaller footprint and the repositioning on the site will prevent overlooking to the garden of Cherry Orchard. The photographs and montage accompanying the application show that the dwellings will sit well below Highfield which is dominant on the skyline. Similarly mature trees at the rear of the site extend well above the proposed roofline.

2. The design of the dwellings has been altered and now comprises two different buildings whilst retaining a palette of materials appropriate to neighbouring development.

3. An alternative access to the site is proposed to the west of the existing building fronting the highway. This will enable the building to be fully retained. The access will be alongside that of Highfield and relocation will reduce disturbance to the occupants of Cherry Orchard.

4. Relocation of the access will reduce the pressure on the mature oak tree. The enclosed arboricultural report confirms that development outside of the no build

44

zone is unlikely to affect the wellbeing of the tree. The report recommends some reduction in the crown. All existing trees and hedgerows bordering the site will be retained. A new hedge will be planted fronting the highway.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Object. “It is the Council’s view that the applicants have made only minor alterations, none of which address its misgivings:- The proposals are totally inappropriate for the position of the site. The proposals represent overdevelopment of the site The significant oak tree would be in great danger if the proposals were

approved. It is difficult to see how appropriate plant to build the proposed houses could possibly the site

The revised drawing has addressed the issue of the position of the adjacent cottage but now shows how close it is and the effect the proposal would have on the occupants’ privacy

The proposed new access is felt to be unsafe.In addition the Council is concerned that at present the site is used for parking by tenants of other Main Street properties and they will need to find an alternative which will only add to the current parking problems/road safety.”Highway Authority:- To be reported.Planning Notice:- To be reported.

SUMMARY This scheme is a second attempt to develop the site for two houses following an initial refusal. The scheme seeks to address the earlier reasons for refusal.

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 impact of the proposed houses on neighbouring residents The impact of the proposal on the existing oak tree Car parking and traffic issuesPolicies 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 near to 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 relates to the appearance of the two dwellings. The alteration and reduction of the older of the outbuildings which is to be retained at the front of the site, previously proposed, is no longer intended and that building will now remain in tact to be used for parking. (The loss of the other buildings to the rear which are of no merit was not previously controversial and demolition consent has already been granted).

45

In terms of the design of the houses I consider that these have been improved from the earlier scheme and while some refinements might still be made if approval is given they are not unacceptable. Those refinements might be using half hips rather than gables, more simple rear patio doors and a smaller porch on Plot 1.

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 remains relevant. Plot 2, proposed, will be set to the rear of that cottage and has been realigned as well as reduced in size. Previously I shared the neighbours’ concerns about overlooking and was 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 revised position is an improvement and direct overlooking is now unlikely. The roof of the new house and possibly part of the upper storey will be seen from the higher garden of this neighbour, which extends to the rear of the application site. It will be possible, if the scheme is otherwise acceptable, to re-configure the upstairs layout so that the only bedroom window is furthest away from this neighbour without direct overlooking.

The oak treeThe large oak tree on the site is a major feature and it is intended to retain it. In addition there are oak trees on the rear boundary. The large oak is described by the applicants’ arboriculturalist as, “a truly spectacular specimen important to the whole village landscape...”

According to the Woodland Trust and the Ancient Tree Forum’s Ancient Tree Guide No.4 this oak tree would be classified as an ancient tree, for the reason that its trunk circumference is greater than 5 metres. The standard set out in Veteran Trees: A Guide to Good Management by Natural England recommends a minimum root protection area of 15 times the trunk diameter or two metres beyond the canopy of the tree, whichever is the greater. This is a greater degree of protection than that put forward in the British Standard 5837. However the tree report that accompanies this second application does not meet the British Standard protection measures. Furthermore if development is to take place in the root protection area no special measures have been put forward as to how this is to take place.

In addition I remain concerned that the close proximity of the dwellings and residential gardens to this oak tree is not compatible with its retention because of the nuisance and possible anxiety caused to occupants.

For these reasons I remain concerned that the revised proposal does not overcome the problems with the previous scheme and would still jeopardise the long term retention of the tree.

Car parking and traffic issuesThis second scheme involves relocating the access from the original central position to a position immediately adjacent to the access of ‘Highfields’. This has been done to avoid removing a section of the older historic building on the front; one of the previous

46

reasons for refusal. The Highway Authority’s view is awaited as to whether this revised position achieves sufficient visibility.

Parking within the site is sufficient. The loss of this existing site used for car parking is noted but this is only on a ‘grace and favour’ basis to serve some local houses. The loss of the facility is not itself a reason for refusal.

ConclusionI remain concerned that the proposed scheme does not take sufficient account of the obvious constraints of the site, most notably the existence of the large oak tree.

I acknowledge that there will still be some impact on 1 Cherry Orchard Cottages but on balance I do not consider there to be grounds to refuse the scheme in terms of adverse impact. I do believe however that the health and value of the tree would prevent development in this form.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)

1. The large oak tree in the central position on the site is a very significant tree in the Northiam Conservation Area and the proposed development by virtue of the siting of the dwellings 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/2009/1329/P BODIAM PARK FARMPROPOSED INCREASE IN NUMBER OF CARAVANS AND CAMPING PITCHES FROM 130 TO A MAXIMUM OF 180, PLUS ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPINGMr R Bailey


SITE This existing seasonal tent and touring caravan site is located to the western side of Junction Road and is reached by an access track some 50m in length. The site extends over a field and parts of two adjacent fields. Within the central field are two former agricultural buildings, a block containing toilets and wash facilities and a warden’s caravan. It is authorised for use between 1 April and 31 October in any calendar year. The southern part of the site follows the bank of the River Rother and the land lies within an identified flood plain.

The site is within the designated High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYRR/77/1204 Touring caravan site – Approved.RR/2003/920/P Placement of a mobile home for site manager during season only

(1 March – 31 October) - Refused

47


RR/2003/2594/P To site a mobile home for site manager during the summer season (1 March – 31 October) – Approved – (Time limited permission – 3 years)

RR/2007/2318/P Discharge of condition 3 imposed upon planning permission RR/2003/2594/P for siting of a mobile home for a site warden during the summer season – (refers to temporary permission) - Approved

RR/2007/909/O use of main site as a touring caravan/camping site (130 pitches) throughout season; use of central areas and roadway as site access; use of central areas for ancillary games/recreation; use of central areas and main site for visitors car parking; use by visitors of sanitary block, electricity and water supply within central area and main site: as fully described in the schedule, definitions and amended site plan – plan 1A contained in the application – Lawful Development Certificate issued but only in respect of part of site and for specific uses.

RR/2008/1568/O Lawful use of land as touring caravan and camping site with variations to maximum permitted numbers of pitches at specified times during the year as set out in the schedule submitted with the application. Use of central areas and main site for ancillary games/recreation, visitor parking, and access. Use by visitors of sanitary block, electricity and water supply within central areas and main site: as fully described in the schedule and definitions contained in the application – Lawful Development Certificate Refused.

RR/2009/3405/P Extension and renovation of existing campsite wash facilities and toilet block – Approved and Implemented.

Other planning permissions on this site relate to the winter storage of caravans in farm building.

PROPOSAL

To increase the number of touring caravan and camping pitches from the approved and lawful maximum number 130 to a maximum of 180

To extend the areas of the site on which it is permitted to station touring caravans and tents

Landscaping plans and a planting schedule is put forward as part of this application.

A Flood Risk Assessment has also been provided to deal with the issues arising from the site being within the flood plain.13 letters of support have been submitted with the application. This includes letters from local businesses (e.g. The Cross Inn, Spar Convenience Store, The Castle Inn), Tourism South East and the NFU, as well as the occupiers of two nearby residential properties (1 and 2 Park Farm Cottages).

48

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “Bodiam Parish Council supports the application. The Council requests that if it is granted, the following conditions are imposed: The site rules, as attached to the application, to form part of the permission Noise heard outside the site to be limited to a specified level No floodlighting on the site, and any external lighting over 100w to be angled

downwards.”Highway Authority:- Does not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to highway conditions (specifically cutting back vegetation at the access to improve visibility).Environment Agency (summarised):- No objection subject to a planning condition. The site is located within Flood Zone 3a. The area could be affected by deep flooding and the inundation of the site would be relatively rapid; in the region of 1 metre per hour from the commencement of the flood. The Agency would wish to see a condition imposed requiring a comprehensive flood warning and evacuation plan to be put forward by the applicant and implemented in full if planning permission is granted.Romney Marsh Area Drainage Board:- Would have no objection to the proposal.Director of Services – Environmental Health:- “Due to the size of the site the proposed density of pitches will be satisfactory. If the application is successful the site licence will need to be amended.”Director of Services – Regeneration:- A summary of the comments received is as follows:- I have been informed that the existing site is operating at high occupancy levels

with the owner regularly turning away trade during the peak holiday season and at weekends

Tourism plays a key role in the district’s economy in terms of generating income and helping to support local services and amenities

Assuming that the new wash facilities and the site itself are capable of accommodating the increased visitor numbers at any one time, and providing the applications meets the necessary planning regulations, I would have no objections to the further extension of the number of pitches at Park Farm.

Planning Notice:- 17 letters of support, mainly from visitors to the site (summarised)– My family have been coming to Park Farm for many years With the additional toilet facilities I feel the site is perfectly suited to cope with the

proposed increase The site is a good place to bring children Expansion would be beneficial to business and visitors A safe and well managed site 10 out of 10 For city dwellers Park Farm is a haven of peace and quiet, where people can

relax and children can safely play Park Farm benefits those many families who are not so fortunate to live in

houses with a garden It offers those on a modest way the chance of a pleasant holiday within their

means The site is hidden from public view Restricting people to the edges of the field will stifle the business by limiting the

overall number of pitches This would provide more space between the pitches and give everyone more

space to relax in2 letters of objection from local residents – A particular grievance is the policy of allowing – actually encouraging – open

fires on the site. The resulting smoke and bonfire smell makes it unpleasant for others to enjoy summer evenings in their gardens

49

Toileting facilities on the site are barely adequate Frequently, when the camp site has been busy caravans and tents have been

pitched on the fields outside Camp site has been poorly run in the past; would like to see evidence of

improvement before it is allowed to expand Before any increase is allowed, the owner should erect and maintain a secure

fence around his site to prevent trespass onto neighbouring land Problems have occurred in the past when the ‘Hope Festival’ has been held,

particularly loud music thorough much of the night, trespass, tipping etc.1 letter from the occupiers of Park Farm – Notwithstanding the fact that we were woken recently at 3.15 hrs one Sunday

morning by “community singing” and were similarly disturbed by fireworks on another night, it is fair to say that compared to the horrors of previous years, Park Farm campsite has been relatively quiet.

Mr Bailey’s daughter and son-in-law are making sound efforts to improve the quality of the site and attract ‘family’ custom

In the light of the above we do not wish to either support or object to the application. If approved, however, we would ask that the enforcement of site management rules is made a condition.

SUMMARY Whilst the description of development refers solely to an increase in the number of caravan and camping pitches, the application also appears to be proposing extensions to the lawful site area of the Camping and Touring Caravan Site. In this respect, it is considered that the application for consideration also includes the change of use of land presently authorised as agricultural use only to increase the area of the Camping and Touring Caravan Site. I have asked for confirmation that this is the case from the agent.

BackgroundPlanning permission was granted for a small touring caravan and tent site in the 1970s (RR/77/1204/P). Unauthorised increases in the area of the site and changes in the nature of occupation led to an application for a Certificate of Lawful Use or Development being submitted in 2007 (RR/2007/909/O). Although a Certificate (LDC) was issued, this did not authorise the whole of the use or development that was being applied for in the application. In summary, the Lawful Development Certificate allowed the following:(i) an increase in the maximum number of pitches from 50 to 130(ii) individual touring caravans or tents to remain on the site for more than 21 days(iii) a limited increase in the site area that can lawfully be occupied by touring

caravans or tents.

On this last point (iii), the LDC recognised that apart from the middle field, there was only sufficient evidence to demonstrate that pitches had existed around the outer margins of two adjacent fields. Consequently it is only on the outer margins of these fields that pitches are now lawful under the Certificate.

The application now before you is a planning application. Unlike a LDC application, it has to be considered on the planning merits of the case and not solely on how the site has been used in the past. In general terms, the planning application seeks permission for those developments that were not granted under the LDC application including the use of the middle of the two adjacent fields.

50

Planning PolicyThe DCLG document ‘Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism’ sets out national policies for tourism. Tourism policy in rural areas, including AONBs, can be found in PPS7. The applicant’s agent has commented in detail on both of these documents in the supporting statement.

Policy EM10 of the Local Plan states that the provision of additional touring caravan and camping facilities will be considered against other policies in the Plan and criteria which include the following (summarised): Should be restricted to those areas where they have acceptable environmental

impact Should not detract from the needs of agriculture Should not adversely affect residential amenity Should be accompanied by full landscaping proposals Essential services should be readily available (water, power, sewerage etc) Would not be in an area that is not defended against the 1 in 100 year fluvial

flood event.

IssuesThe economic benefits of tourism within rural areas is acknowledged, however these need to be balanced against other planning considerations or key issues.

The principal issues for determination in the planning application are considered to be as follows:-

(i) Flood plainThe site is within a flood plain of the River Rother, (Flood Zone 3a), which is identified as being at risk from deep flooding. Policy EM10(viii) indicates that additional touring caravan and camping sites should not be within such areas that are not defended against the 1 in 100 year fluvial event. A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted with the application, which includes a Proposed Warning and Evacuation Plan. The Environment Agency has been consulted on the application and has raised no objection subject to a Warning and Evacuation Plan being approved. The Agency has not stated whether the submitted Plan would be satisfactory and this needs clarification. Furthermore, the Agency has stated that any Plan is likely to involve three site wardens being present 24 hours each day. Clearly, this could have both financial implications for the applicant and future planning issues for the local planning authority if additional on site wardens’ accommodation is needed. Further information is being sought on these matters.

(ii) Neighbouring residential amenityA number of complaints about this site have been received from local residents in the past and relate specifically to noise disturbance from loud music until the early hours of the morning, trespass, camp fires and antisocial behaviour. Whilst the neighbouring objection letters received on this application need to be given due consideration and weight, it appears that much of the disturbance experienced in previous years has been attributed to the unauthorised ‘Hope Music Festival’ and other events. The Environmental Health Division has advised that noise issues are not a current problem and relate to music and not activity relative to this application. In the circumstances, it is not considered that a refusal of planning permission would be justified on this issue.

51

(iii) AONBThe objective of providing additional facilities needs to be weighed against the need to protect landscapes and in particular, nationally designated areas such as AONBs. Planning Policy GD1(v) requires that all development is compatible with the conservation of the natural beauty of the AONB. The application includes a landscaping scheme which sets out proposals for new planting at certain areas on the boundaries of the site with a view toward mitigating against any landscape impacts of the scheme. This would supplement existing trees/hedges and it is recognised that at present, due to existing vegetation the site is not visually prominent from the public highway. There are still nevertheless concerns about the impact of this development on the AONB. The past spread of activity beyond the originally authorised site area has not been conducive to the conservation of the AONB. The proposed further increase in the camping/caravanning area is very significant and amounts to some 3 hectares or an increase of over 40% in the site area. This would exacerbate further the detrimental impact on the AONB. A visual impact has also resulted as a consequence of some caravans and tents being allowed to remain on the site for the full duration of the season; some seasonal occupiers have marked out their individual plots by erecting fences and windbreaks. This has led to ancillary structures being introduced and other domestic paraphernalia which remains in situ throughout the season even when the plots are not occupied. Whilst conditions could be imposed to prevent the proposed new development being occupied in this manner, such conditions would not apply to the existing use of the site. Furthermore, a restriction which applies to only part of the site may be difficult to monitor and enforce.

In view of the LDC which has been approved it is considered that there may be some scope for a modest extension to the site. However, this would need to be negotiated as part of a package to rationalise the existing use of the site, together with a comprehensive management plan. This should probably include substantial landscaping and planting proposals to improve and enhance the appearance and character of the site, measures to benefit wildlife and ecology, management of the grassland, and the provision of landscaped and dedicated areas for activities such as barbecues etc and children’s ball games. Whilst the proposed management control measures put forward in this application have been noted, they do not mitigate to any significant degree against the detrimental impacts of the development and the proposal does not conserve the AONB.

Land which is well screened or inaccessible to the general public is not excluded from the protection afforded by inclusion in an AONB. Disregarding this approach would be an argument which could be applied on a widespread basis in similar landscapes so that the character of such areas would be unacceptably compromised.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The site is in the countryside within the designated High Weald Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty where national and local planning policies indicate that an aim of planning is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic beauty and consequently, all new development should be strictly controlled. The site lies in open countryside within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where Policy C3 of the South East Plan and Policy GD1(v) of the Rother

52

District Local Plan indicate that development will be carefully controlled to protect the character of the area. This is consistent with Government planning policy set out in PPS7 which states that in nationally designated areas, the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should be given great weight in planning policies and development control decisions (para 21). In addition, within such areas, in accordance with Sections 5, 11 and 88 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty is the prime objective. The proposed development amounts to a substantial increase in the area of this tent and touring caravan site as well as a significant increase in the number of pitches. The application proposal would not enhance this tourist facility but would erode the openness of the AONB and result in harm to the rural character of the area. The development would be contrary to the aforementioned policies.


RR/2009/1152/P HURST GREEN HAYESMILL OASTERECTION OF TWO DETACHED OUTBUILDINGS: 1) POOL HOUSE AND PERSONAL PHOTOGRAPHIC STUDIO, INCLUDING PART OUTDOOR POOL; 2) PLANT ROOM – RETROSPECTIVEMr and Mrs Sallis


This site has been included on the list of Committee site inspections for 14 July 2009.

SITE The application relates to a stone oasthouse which has now been converted to a residential use and a stone barn close-by with planning permission for use as an ancillary accommodation. The site is within the countryside (AONB) and is reached via a single farm track from the south side of the A265 at Haremere Hill. The London – Hastings railway line follows the southern edge of the land. A public footpath crosses the site, passing close to the north-western side of the oast.

HISTORYRR/88/2872 Change of use and conversion of oast to dwelling – ApprovedRR/94/1751/P Change of use and conversion of pigsty/agricultural store (barn) to

ancillary store with games room – ApprovedRR/2004/1791/P New link building to provide entrance hall, new glazed opening to

office workspace area – RefusedRR/2005/2745/P Change of use of ancillary store and games room to residential

including the erection of a link building and the insertion of roof lights.

RR/2006/1654/P Erection of replacement outbuilding to comprise swimming pool and workshop – Invalid application.

RR/2007/663/P Erection of replacement outbuilding to comprise swimming pool and workshop – Approved

PROPOSAL This application is retrospective and follows planning enforcement investigations. Planning permission was granted on 26 April 2007 under reference no. RR/2007/663/P for the erection of a replacement building to comprise a swimming pool

53


and a workshop. The building that has been erected is different from that approved and consequently this application seeks retrospective permission.

The principal differences are as follows:-

Pool house/workshop: The building is greater in length by 1.8m The position of the building has changed by about 12m The position of the pool has changed by about 5m The pool now occupies a different location within the building than approved; it is

situated at the western end of the building and 5.6m of its length is outside of the building

The applicants no longer have a requirement for a workshop and instead have created a personal photographic studio at the eastern end of the building

Changes have been made to the glazing Timber door on the north east elevation has been replaced by areas of glazing The tall timber doors and timber wall at the eastern end of the south west

elevation are now fully glazed

Plant room:A plant room and pump house (3.2sq.m.) has been constructed to the north-western side of the aforementioned building.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- A letter of objection has been received and can be viewed in full on the application website. The main grounds of objection are as follows:- Site is within the heart of the AONB and yet there appears to be more and more

development taking place without need of evidence to support the new build The new pool building is 25% larger than the approved building (this is disputed

by the agent who describes the increase as being 9%) It is on a different agriculturally related site away from the curtilage It contains large amounts of glazing compared to the original specification The occupiers have advertised for tenants to lease out ‘The Barn’, which is

restricted to an annexe use only It is arguable that the photographic studio could be accommodated within the

existing annexe barn rather than necessitating new buildings Concerned about disposal of wastewater and reduced pressure to the water

supply Pump room is located on a former landfill siteEnvironment Agency:- No objection to the proposal provided that conditions/informatives are imposed relating to potential land contamination and drainage.Director of Transport & Environment – County Archaeologist:- Requests a condition requiring a full programme of archaeological works.Director of Transport & Environment – Rights of Way Group:- No objection in principle.Planning Notice:- A letter of objection has been received from the occupier of 52 Ridgeway, Hurst Green, and owner of the adjacent agricultural land. The main points are as follows:- Barn is larger than the approved building Contains an unnatural amount of glazing Not with the residential curtilage Built on an old landfill site

54

Site has been extensively developed Increased traffic on a small country lane Infrastructure is not conducive to further development Concerned that the barn annexe is being let separately

An email has been received from planning consultants on behalf of the above mentioned objector:- Inappropriate development in this location The personal photographic studio is a very large area and seems excessive Substantial size and bulk of the building There are inconsistencies as to the extent of the residential curtilage

SUMMARY Planning permission has previously been granted for a swimming pool building/workshop building under RR/2007/663/P. This is a material consideration in the determination of this new application now before you. The principal difference is the size of the building. It is the same height and width as before but is some 1.8m longer. The position of the pool and building has also changed, although the difference is not substantial. Some increase to the areas of glazing has also been carried out but again, this has a limited impact on the overall character and appearance of the building. The principal issue for consideration in the determination of this application is the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the countryside which lies within the designated High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In this respect, the development as built would not have any materially greater impact upon the character and appearance of the AONB than the previously approved pool building. The pump room is a very small structure and this does not impact upon the AONB.

Finally, the applicant’s agent has submitted an additional letter which seeks to address the various objections that have been received. It has been requested that this is brought to the attention of the Planning Committee. The letter can be viewed in full on the application website.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. This permission is granted as an alternative to that granted under application no.

RR/2007/663/P approved on 26 April 2007 to the intent that either permission, but not both, shall be implemented.Reason: To ensure that only one development is implemented and it is in accordance with an approved scheme, which is appropriate for the rural area in accordance with Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. The building hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as Hays Mill Oast.Reason: To enable the local planning authority to regulate and control the development of the land in relation to the amenities of the locality.

3. Swimming pool filter backwash should be passed to a soakaway or the foul drainage system, and not to a surface water sewer or watercourse.Reason: To prevent water pollution and to ensure satisfactory drainage of the site.

4. The swimming pool contents must be allowed to dechlorinate by standing for at least 5 days prior to a consented discharge taking place to a surface water sewer, a watercourse or controlled waters.Reason: To prevent water pollution and to ensure satisfactory drainage of the site.

Notes:55

i. The applicant may require the written consent of the Environment Agency under the Water Resources Act 1991, to discharge the pool contents direct to controlled waters and should contact the Agency for advice - The Water Quality Consenting Team - 01732 223154.

ii. With respect to condition 4, the Environment Agency should be advised at least 7 days before any such discharge to controlled waters is made.

iii. For information: Controlled waters include rivers, streams, underground waters, reservoirs, estuaries and coastal waters.

iv. In determining this planning application the Local Planning Authority does not recognise all the land contained within the red line on the submitted site plan as representing the authorised residential curtilage of the dwelling.

v. The site could have been contaminated due to the presence of the nearby historic landfill site, which accepted commercial and household waste. The applicants should be aware of the site as they may wish to undertaken an investigation to demonstrate that there is no risk to the development from potential contamination or gas.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: Planning permission has previously been granted for a swimming pool building/.workshop under planning reference RR/2007/663/P. This is a material consideration in the determination of a new application. The development as built would not have any materially greater impact on the character and appearance of the AONB countryside than the previously approved pool building/workshop. The development accords with Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2009/1505/P BREDE PICKDICK, STUBB LANEDEMOLISH VICTORIAN EXTENSION OF KITCHEN, HALL, WC & GARAGE, OUTHOUSE & STABLES. PART REBUILD KITCHEN AS DAYROOM WITH ADDITION OF FIRST FLOOR LINK ABOVE BETWEEN BEDROOMS & BATHROOMS. TWO STOREY EXTENSION WITH KITCHEN/ DINING ROOM, CARERS LIVING ROOM & UTILITY ROOM WITH CATSLIDE ROOF OVER ON GROUND FLOOR CHILDS BEDROOM & CARERS BEDROOM ON FIRST FLOOR. NEW ENTRANCE TO EXISTING CLOAKROOM WITH DORMER ROOFMr and Mrs Binks


RR/2009/1507/L BREDE PICKDICK, STUBB LANE56


DEMOLISH VICTORIAN EXTENSION OF KITCHEN, HALL, WC & GARAGE, OUTHOUSE & STABLES. PART REBUILD KITCHEN AS DAYROOM WITH ADDITION OF FIRST FLOOR LINK ABOVE BETWEEN BEDROOMS & BATHROOMS. TWO STOREY EXTENSION WITH KITCHEN/ DINING ROOM, CARERS LIVING ROOM & UTILITY ROOM WITH CATSLIDE ROOF OVER ON GROUND FLOOR CHILDS BEDROOM & CARERS BEDROOM ON FIRST FLOOR. NEW ENTRANCE TO EXISTING CLOAKROOM WITH DORMER ROOFMr and Mrs Binks


SITE Pickdick is an 18th century former farmhouse situated at the southern end of Stubb Lane in an open countryside setting. The existing building is a two storey building with a later range of largely Victorian extensions on its north west elevation.

HISTORYA/66/281 Loose boxes – ApprovedRR/96/574/P Tennis Court – ApprovedRR/2007/1665/L Alterations and repairs – Approved

PROPOSAL The proposal as described in the application has four elements. Both a planning application and listed building application have been submitted.

i) Demolition of the Victorian extension, outhouse and stablesii) Part re-building of Victorian kitchen as dayroom with first floor link aboveiii) Two storey extension with kitchen/diner, carer’s living room and utility room and

bedrooms aboveiv) New entrance to existing cloakroom with dormer roof.

The applications are to make additions to a family home. The applicant’s agent states it is the wish of the applicants, “to add an extension to their historic home that would give them the accommodation that they need to modern and sustainable standards, taking maximum advantage of the south and south-west aspect facing the sun, garden and the views.”

The particular need is to provide on-site facilities for a full time carer for one of the applicant’s children. This is further described as follows:-

“First Floor:Master bedroom with en-suite bathroom and en-suite dressing roomWilliam’s bedroom (William suffers from autism and needs full time care. He is cared for at home)Shower room and WC

Ground floor:Day room, connected toKitchen/dining room, facilitating overseeing of William at playUtility roomShower room and WCFamily snug roomAnnexe:

57

Accommodation for a live-in carer for William, connected to the house so that a doorway could be inserted between carer and William’s bedroom, if needed.”

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

SUMMARY Although the special needs of the applicants leading to this proposal are recognised in relation to the care for a child, the application is to be judged primarily in relation to policies and guidance in relation to listed buildings (Local Plan Policy GD1(viii) and PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment) and extensions to properties in the countryside (Local Plan Policy HG8). By way of background, a number of discussions have taken place with planning officers, although the submitted scheme is significantly altered and reduced from the earlier discussion when significant reservations were expressed by officers about both the scale and design of the extensions first suggested.

Policy HG8Policy HG8 of the adopted Local Plan states:Proposals to extend or alter an existing dwelling will be permitted where they are in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling and its surroundings in terms of its size, style, design and materials, as well as protecting the amenities of adjoining properties and meet other criteria in Policy GD1.

In countryside locations, particular care will be given to ensure that the extension or alteration is not intrusive in the landscape, particularly in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Extensions or alterations to properties that have previously been converted to residential use will only be permitted where it is demonstrated that they will not adversely affect its character or appearance as a rural building.

In this case the development involves replacing later extensions on the north west side of the original house and a range of stables. While the extension introduces two storeys where there is currently a range of single storey buildings the siting is neither unduly prominent on the building or from the wider area, nor overly dominant in relation to the existing building. Moreover the footprint of the new extension is more compact than the existing extensions and stables. The new extension remains subservient to the main house and does not dominate in any manner. Internally, although accommodation for a live-in carer is provided, this is only in the form of a bedroom and living room and the accommodation is fully integrated with the main house: no separate unit is intended. The proposal meets the requirements of Policy HG8.

The listed buildingThe main building has been subject to considerable investment in recent years and the proposal builds on this work. The Victorian extension and outbuilding to be removed are much later additions to the original house and their loss does not affect the integrity of the principal listed building.

From initial discussions with the applicant’s architects, when a larger scheme adopting a more contemporary approach was suggested, the scheme now is both smaller and adopts a more traditional approach.

National guidance in PPG15 includes the following:58

“Each historic building has its own characteristics which are usually related to an original or subsequent function. These should as far as possible be respected when proposals for alterations are put forward. Marks of special interest appropriate to a particular type of building are not restricted to external elements, but may include anything from the orientation, the plan or the arrangement of window openings to small internal fittings. Local planning authorities should attempt to retain the characteristics of distinct types of building, especially those that are particular to their area. The use of appropriate local materials is very desirable…..”

“Modern extensions should not dominate the existing building in either scale, material or situation. There will always be some historic buildings where any extensions would be damaging and should not be permitted. Successful extensions require the application of an intimate knowledge of the building type that is being extended together with a sensitive handling of scale and detail.”

The extension retains the integrity of the original house and, especially where it joins the house, the extension is subservient in terms of scale and overall height. Internally the new wing is joined at both ground and first floors. The ground floor link is already in position having been formed when the Victorian kitchen extension was added. Above this the first floor link is a doorway formed on an existing landing.

The only other change to the fabric of the original house is the creation of an external doorway with canopy above on the north west elevation. The top of the door and canopy will cut into the lowest part of the catslide roof but will not adversely affect the character of the roof or the building as a whole.

ConclusionI am supportive of the proposal which accords with Policy HG8 of the Local Plan and is a well designed addition which does not prejudice the character, setting or integrity of the listed building.

RECOMMENDATIONS:RR/2009/1505/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three


REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed extension by reason of its scale, design and siting would not be detrimental to the form of the original dwelling house or adversely impact on the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposal therefore accords with Policies GD1(v) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2009/1507/L: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD

59


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 works as hereby approved, samples of the bricks, tiles 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.

3. Before commencement of the works hereby approved, details of all new joinery, including all windows, doors and eaves details, at a scale of 1:10 elevations 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: 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.

4. No works shall be carried out to construct the dormer windows until details of their construction at a scale of 1:10 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.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.

5. No works shall commence in respect of the new door in the existing building hereby approved, until:(i) the existing timbers have been carefully exposed and inspected by the local

planning authority and full details for the method of construction, detailed design and any proposed alterations to the surrounding roof have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and

(ii) details of alterations to the floor level within the building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority

The works shall be completed in accordance with the approved details only.Reason: To ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the special architectural and historic character of the Listed Building in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local.

REASONS FOR GRANTING CONSENT: The design, scale, layout and position of the proposed extension and the alteration to create a new doorway in the original dwelling house are appropriate to the listed building and conform with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and government guidance in PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment.


60


RR/2009/1378/P WESTFIELD MICHAEL TYLER FACTORY, WOODLANDS WAYOUTLINE: REDEVELOPMENT OF SITE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSESMillwood Designer Homes Limited

Statutory 13 week date: 03 September 2009

SITE The application site is situated in Woodlands Way, an unadopted road on the north side of The Ridge. Although within the parish of Westfield, physically, it relates primarily to the built up area of Hastings to the south. The site currently contains three industrial buildings and hardstanding areas for car parking and servicing activity related to the industrial use. Access is obtained through the site to several isolated detached dwellings immediately to the north while to the east is open grassland the subject of a planning permission for housing.

The site itself is relatively flat although the land falls away sharply to the north and within the site at the western end.

There are a considerable number of trees on the northern, southern and western boundaries.

HISTORYThe permission relating to the main buildings currently on the site appear to be:A/59/675 Rebuilding and enlargement of existing factory – GrantedA/67/257 Extensions – GrantedA/69/421 Extension – GrantedA/70/234 Extension – GrantedRR/84/113 Single storey factory for manufacture of furniture – GrantedRR/87/004 Two storey building to provide light industrial, warehousing and

office space – Refused – Appeal AllowedRR/88/2015 Reserved matters pursuant to RR/87/004

PROPOSAL This is an outline application to redevelop the site for residential purposes. All matters other than access are reserved for subsequent approval but an indicative layout plan has been submitted to show the form of development possible. The application suggests a density of between 30 and 50 dwellings per acre. The indicative layout shows 41 dwellings on a site just marginally under one hectare (including the access to The Ridge). The layout shows a mix of dwelling sizes and styles and includes some flats.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- To be reported.Southern Water:- Currently inadequate capacity in local network to provide foul sewage disposal.Environment Agency:- To be reported.Sussex Police:- No detailed comments at outline stage but encouraged by indicative layout.English Nature:- To be reported.Highway Authority;- To be reported.Director of Services – Housing:- To be reported.Director of Services – Environmental Health:- To be reported.

61

Director of Services – Regeneration:- Does not accept that continued use for business purposes would ‘perpetuate serious harm to residential amenities’, as set out in Policy EM2. No reason for existing businesses not to continue to operate here.Planning Notice:- Letters from four local residents – Further 40 dwellings will create number of logistical problems as The Ridge

already has a level of traffic 38% higher than acceptable level Increase in traffic levels and accidents on The Ridge Factory should be retained as Hastings is an employment black spot Proposal contrary to Policy EM2 of Local Plan Small access road unable to cope with additional traffic No objection to houses in principle but at reduced number Michael Tyler lorries do cause some problems Could not a second access road next to 450 The Ridge be provided? Water shortages exacerbated by additional development

SUMMARYPlanning PolicySouth East Plan (SEP) Policies: RE3, RE6, SCT1, SCT2 and SCT3 are applicable

SEP Policy RE3 sets the general principle that, ‘Accessible and well-located industrial and commercial sites should be retained where there is a good prospect of employment use.’

The policy also states that, ‘Where land cannot be economically developed, or which for other reasons is not suitable for employment purposes (including mixed use schemes), alternative allocations may need to be made …’

In line with Government guidance in PPS4, it adds that ‘employment land reviews’ should provide the justification for local policies.

Within this general approach, the economic performance of the ‘Sussex Coast sub-region’ is a regional priority (SEP Policy RE6). This reinforces the appropriateness of RE3 to this area, stating that ‘local development documents will … protect sites for industrial and commercial use where there is a good prospect of employment use’

Within the Sussex Coast sub-region, Policy SCT2 the Hastings/Bexhill area is identified as an area in greatest need of economic regeneration, while Policy SCT3 sets out the circumstances where employment land may be released. This sets the test as being ‘… on sites which would be unviable for an employment scheme only’

Rother District Local Plan The site lies wholly within the Hastings Fringe Development Boundary: Inset Map No.19 of the Local Plan. Also shown on the Inset Map is a large area of Ancient Woodland north of the application site, the boundary of which (somewhat inexplicably, given the absence of trees or remnants of woodland) extends into the western corner of the application site.

Policies HF2, EM1 and EM2 are relevant

The Local Plan Policy EM2 is consistent with the regional policies, and has very recently been ‘saved’. It states:

62

“Proposals to change the use of existing buildings or redevelop sites currently or last in employment creating use will be resisted unless it is demonstrated that there is no prospect of its continued use for business purposes or that it would perpetuate serious harm to residential amenities.

In the event of the above qualifications being met, first consideration will be given to a mixed-use development in accordance with Policy EM1 and the criteria of Policies DS1 and GD1.”

Policy HF2 is also pertinent to this application. This allocates land to the east of the application buildings for residential use. While planning permission has been granted for 45 houses on this site (RR2007/1911/P), it has not yet been implemented.

Policy HG1 in relation to affordable housing also applies and although all matters except access are reserved at this stage the principles of Local Plan Policies DS1, GD1 and TR3 are relevant. Loss of employment landThe crux of the applicant’s case, set out in the ‘Supporting Statement’, is that the mixed commercial use of the site (it is claimed from the planning history that B1 and B2 uses apply) would, in terms of Policy EM2, “perpetuate serious harm to residential amenities”, and the site is not suitable for continued industrial use.

The applicant’s agents have provided further information which is attached as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 16 July 2009. This states in summary that, “...although these buildings are currently occupied the circumstances are somewhat exceptional. The tenant is paying a non-commercial rent and is only staying in the premises for a temporary period prior to relocating elsewhere.The lower floor of building 3 is currently occupied by a company called Alloy Wheels Ltd. It has a temporary licence that runs until November this year. I understand that it took the premises on a temporary basis as an ‘emergency measure’ rather than as a long-term arrangement, and I am not sure whether its use is in line with the lawful use of the building either.Based on these facts, I do not think that the current use of the buildings can be construed as evidence that there is a genuine ongoing need or demand for the site to remain in commercial use.”

In supporting the residential allocation to the east, the Local Plan Inspector (Report of December 2005) accepted that there would not be a conflict with existing land uses. (He specifically referred to the satisfactory access arrangements – a “conflict” now emphasised by the applicants.)

The same applicants put forward a residential scheme on adjacent land in the full knowledge of the use of this factory premises on the basis that there would be no conflict with the established industrial complex.

Similarly several of the individual dwellings to the north of the site (being those closest to its boundary) are relatively recent and their position adjacent to this pre-existing industrial use was considered satisfactory. The Environmental Health Officer has no record of any complaint relating to nuisance from the factory in recent years and none came out during the Local Plan Inquiry process.

63

Reference is made in the supporting statement to the Hastings and Rother Employment Strategy and Land Review in the context of the level of commercial development activity. However, it does not acknowledge the conclusion that states that the retention of existing sites are the more important in these market conditions. (It may be noted that Hastings Borough Council has a similar retention policy.)

The supporting statement also refers to the need to release housing land. It is pointed out that the very recent Housing Land Supply Assessment identifies in excess of a 5-year requirement, in line with PPS3. The need for housing is not regarded as over-riding the priority to supporting economic growth and regeneration at the heart of the strategy for this area (SEP Policy SCT1).

In conclusion, the application does not represent a cogent case for the loss of this employment site in an accessible location on the fringe of Hastings. It does not demonstrate either that there is no prospect of its continued use for business purposes (the premises are currently occupied) or that it would perpetuate serious harm to residential amenities.

There is a clear, current regional policy presumption of retaining employment sites in the Hastings area and that clear and over-riding reasons are needed to accept their loss.

Other issuesI consider that the proposal fails the test of Policy EM2 and should be refused on this basis. However it is necessary to consider the application in all other respects.

I consider the general form of the indicative layout to be acceptable although I have some reservations about the juxtaposition of the plots facing 450 The Ridge to the west and the new house recently constructed immediately to the north.

The application is made in outline of residential development within a range of 30-50 per hectare and I see no reason to oppose this in principle.

I note the tree belt and stream to the west of the site is closely associated with the ancient woodland to the north (Park Wood). Therefore there is potential for this development to have a detrimental effect on the ancient woodland. In view of this, an impact assessment should be carried out by an ecologist which examines the consequences of the proposed development on the ancient woodland. The woodland could be damaged by disturbance, run off of pollutants and fly tipping. It is expected that a buffer strip between the parking area and the tree belt should be included in the layout. If permission is granted I would expect at the preserved matters stage the detailed layout to be justified on the basis of a full tree survey undertaken in accordance with BS5837: Trees in relation to construction.

The applicants also acknowledge the presence of Japanese Knotweed. Although removal would be a matter for a licence from the Environment Agency a control programme suitable for the site would need to be drawn up as this could have an impact on the trees on the northern boundary of the site. Such programme should include the safe disposal of Knotweed waste material and planning conditions to ensure that the control programme is carried out would need to be imposed if permission were to be granted.

64

ConclusionThis application has been considered first against Policy EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan and the provisions of the South East Plan. The fact is that the premises have operated commercially in the vicinity of residential properties for many years and that the application by the same developer for further residential development on the adjoining site to the east was made in the full knowledge of the longstanding commercial use. The access proposed for the new housing estate would separate the industrial area with a new junction, while the access to The Ridge is of a sufficient standard. Mixed commercial and residential traffic movements within built-up areas are a normal fact of urban life and not a justification for losing employment floor space for no justifiable reason. In the circumstances the application should be refused.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING)1. The proposal represents an undesirable loss of established commercial

premises which have been occupied continuously for many years and continue to be used. Retaining the employment use of the site would not perpetuate serious harm to local residential properties: the application has not demonstrated, neither is the local planning authority aware of, any serious harm caused by the operation of the site commercially. Therefore the loss of the site for employment purposes conflicts with Policy EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies RE3, RE6, SCT1, SCT2 and SCT3 of the South East Plan.


RR/2009/1122/P ICKLESHAM PARSONAGE BARN, PARSONAGE LANE PROPOSED 40 METRE X 20 METRE EQUESTRIAN SAND SCHOOL. 3 NO FLOODLIGHTS 20 WATT SODIUM LAMPS (PART RETROSPECTIVE)Mr Allan Fennell


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

SITE The sand school has been constructed on the north side of the single track Parsonage Lane, to the west of the stable block approved under reference RR/85/1286. The site lies just outside the development boundary for Icklesham as defined within the Rother District Local Plan, it is set within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORY (Relevant) RR/85/1286 Erection of stable block for the keeping and breeding of horses,

being the hobby of the residents at ‘Parsonage Farm’. – Approved conditional.

PROPOSAL This retrospective application seeks permission for a 40 metre x 20 metre sand school enclosed by a post and rail fence. It had originally also sought permission for three floodlights that had been erected. However, following the concerns from neighbouring residents they have been omitted from the application and removed from the site. The applicant states, “1/30th approximately of grazing land is taken up by the

65


sand school which is positioned for easy access from the adjoining stable block. Existing area has always (for over five years) been used as a riding area, we have just added sand and two fences. The sand school is positioned so as to be semi shielded from direct view from Parsonage Lane (nearby housing) by existing tall hedgerows and trees, the materials chosen are of a high quality to suit the riding area and surface”.

CONSULTATIONS Parish Council – Refuse on the grounds of being outside of the village envelope and the effect, on neighbouring properties and the surrounding landscape, of light pollution from flood lights. In terms of biodiversity, it has been brought to the Committee’s attention that 2 ponds in close proximity to the school are the habitat of great crested newts, which are a protected species, giving rise to further concerns. The committee does not object to the sand school but is strongly against the flood lighting in this area. Natural England – Any comments will be reported. Director of Transport & Environment – Footpath Officer – I can confirm that the Rights of Way group has no objection to the application, contingent upon access to the Public Footpath, running from Parsonage Lane through the application site, being maintained at all times. If the path(s) are to be affected by any construction access, storage or any other activity then the applicants should contract this department before starting work. Ramblers – The site is adjacent to Public Footpath Icklesham 18, which is part of the 1066 Walk, an East Sussex County Council Promoted Route. The view from FP18 towards the lovely Brede Valley north of Icklesham and the hills beyond is marred by the floodlight standards. Furthermore, the traffic generated on Parsonage Lane by users of this facility further reduces the enjoyment for walkers along FP18. In summary, this development is detrimental to walkers’ quiet enjoyment of the countryside along a popular footpath, and I object to the planning application on behalf of the Ramblers.Planning Notice – 4 letters of objection concerned with the following; Outside development boundary. Previously had uninterrupted views across the fields, the construction of the

sand school breaks up this view. This view is now of development rather than rural.

Bright yellow sanded surface, not what you would expect in the countryside. Since we have lived in out property the land has been used by horses for

grazing and some riding. This use has continued with the occasional erection of temporary jumps. The sand school represents a permanent structure and as such a significant change of use as well as a change in the look and character of the immediate landscape.

Icklesham village has no street lights which adds to its character – we would be looking directly at any lighting from out kitchen and master bedroom.

The drawing shows the lights ‘not facing any properties’. We can see the inside of one light, which means it must be considered to be facing our property.

Breach of our Human Rights. This proposal is different to the lights at the Queens Head PH. The maps/plans included are misleading. Not all the sand school is screened by the existing tall hedgerow and trees. Any attempt at screening would have a severely detrimental affect on the overall

view from the rear of our property, and it would not be reasonable to consider this as a form of compromise to facilitate the acceptance of the application.

Fear this development will lead to extensive riding activities, which in turn will result in greatly increased traffic along the entire lane, leading from the A259.

66

Increased traffic would clearly become a ‘health and safety’ issues for ramblers using the lane.

Within High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Lights will be visible from all the Brede Valley towards Rye. There are Great Crested Newts and several types of beetle, badgers, foxes,

slow worms and bats in the area. Contrary to Local Plan Policies DS1(vi), DS4, GD1(ii)(iv)(v) and CF5(i), Structure

Plan Policies S1(s), EN3 and EN14, and advice in PPS23 – appendix A.1 letter of general observation; Concerned about the further westward extension of the existing bright lighting

outside the Queens Head and its effect on the evening sky, and out view to the south.

More energy-efficient form of lighting should be installed, and a professional lighting consultant should be asked for their advice.

A letter from the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England: “I wish on behalf of the local branch to object to this application. The application is retrospective, which should be taken into account. The application refers to the site being semi-shielded. It is definitely not shielded as far as the floodlighting is concerned. The lamp posts stand out in stark contract to the surrounding countryside whether they are illuminated or not, but even worse they will create significant light pollution in an AONB which should not be permitted. Therefore the application should be refused.”A letter from the applicant in response to the concerns received; The lane was only resurfaced as it had many potholes and was getting un-

drivable in winter. It is a private lane only used by ourselves and our neighbours Mr & Mrs

Cuthbert. The sand school and our land is strictly private and no one other than ourselves

and our invited friends have access to our land, it is not a commercial property and never will be, it is our hobby.

We have decided to take down the lights. Due to the high concerns regarding the wild life in the area of the lane, of which

we were not aware before this situation arose, we have decided to allow the hedgerows to grow and plant more hedges and plants along our lane that will encourage wild life into the area.

The plan clearly states the size of the sand school. Area was previously woodchip mulch and was not suitable for riding our own

competition horses on, this is the reason why we had the sand put onto it, the size of the sand school was reduced from that of the woodchip area.

SUMMARYIssues and PoliciesThe main issues to consider are the appearance of the sand school and its impact upon the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and neighbouring properties. Local Plan Policies apply and in particular GD1 and CF5, and national advice in PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas.

Policy GD1 states that all development should meet the following criteria; (iv) it respects and does not detract from the character and appearance of the locality; (v) it is compatible with the conservation of the natural beauty of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

67

Policy CF5 states development of new or in connection with existing equestrian establishment will be permitted: (i) there will be no significant adverse effect on the landscape character of the area nor on the residential amenities of dwellings in the locality.

Advice in PPS7 Key Principles Para 1 (iv) states, New building development in the open countryside away from existing settlements, or outside areas allocated for development in the development plans, should be strictly controlled; the Government’s overall aim is to protect the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife, the wealth of its natural resources and so it may be enjoyed by all.

The land is set outside any development boundary as defined within the Rother District Local Plan; nevertheless, this on its own is not a reason to refuse the proposal. Equestrian activities are commonly, if not normally, sited outside village development areas. However, consideration must still be given to the above mentioned Policies.

BackgroundA previous application RR/85/1286 for the erection of a stable block for keeping and breeding of horses, being the hobby of the residents of Parsonage Barn was approved in September 1985. It is within this area that the sand school has been constructed.

Impact upon appearance of localityThe sand school sits comfortably in front (east) of the stable block (RR/85/1286) and against the backdrop of the lane and trees to the south. While there is open countryside to the north across the Brede Valley, given its position in relation to other development in the area I do not consider that it appears adversely intrusive upon the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is an acceptable use in this countryside location.

Impact upon neighbours’ amenitiesThe nearest residential dwelling is set some 40m away from the site of the sand school. The floodlights have been removed form the site, therefore light pollution and disturbance caused from them is no longer an issue.

The land has an existing equestrian use; therefore I do not consider that the use of the sand school for the riding of horses will cause demonstrable harm to their residential amenities, given that the lawful use of the site is for equestrian activity.

Whilst I acknowledge that the sand school can be partially seen from these neighbouring properties, there is no right to a private view, and given the distance of at least 40m I consider that the sand school will have minimal impact upon their residential amenities, in terms of being over dominate or affecting their privacy.

Footpath and highway issuesThe County Council’s Rights of Way Officer has been consulted and raises no objection to the application, contingent upon access to the Public Footpath, running from Parsonage Lane through the application site, being maintained at all times.

I note the concerns raised with regard to extra traffic on the lane as a result of the sand school, however, the equestrian use of the site remains a wholly private use by the

68

owners of Parsonage Barn and therefore I do not consider that to grant the sand school would result in any extra traffic movements to and from the site.

Accuracy of the plansI note the concerns raised with regard to the accuracy of the plans. While the scale of the sand school appears to be correct it is not positioned correctly within the site and therefore additional plans have been requested.

Members will be able to see the scale and position of the sand school within the site as this application has been included on the Committee site inspection list.

Biodiversity I note the comments received with regard to wildlife in the area and especially the possibility of Great Crested Newts. English Nature have therefore been consulted. Their comments are still awaited and will be reported to Members at the meeting if received.

ConclusionIn my view the sand school, within this established private equestrian site, will not be adversely intrusive upon the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty given its position within the site and will not cause demonstrable harm to the residential amenities of neighbouring residential properties. As such the proposal meets the objectives of Policies GD1(iv)(v) and CF5(i) of the Rother District Local Plan, and advice in PPS1 Key Principles Para 1 (iv).

If Members share my opinion after conducting their site inspection I make the following recommendation in support of this retrospective application. RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (NO ADVERSE COMMENTS FROM OUTSTANDING CONSULTEES)1. No floodlighting or other external means of illumination of sand school shall be

provided, installed or operated at the site, unless a further planning permission is granted.Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policies GD1(iv)(v) and CF5 of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. The sand school hereby permitted shall be used for private equestrian/recreational purposes only and not for any commercial riding, livery use or other business use. Reason: To preserve the visual and/or residential amenities of the locality in accordance with Policies GD1(ii)(iv)(v) and CF5 of the Rother District Local Plan.

Note: For the avoidance of doubt the floodlights were omitted from this application and are therefore not approved as part of this permission.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The sand school constructed to the east of the stable block set against the backdrop of Parsonage Lane and trees to the south will not be unduly intrusive upon the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is set al least 40m from the neighbouring residential properties and this distance is sufficient to prevent it from causing demonstrable harm to their residential amenities. As such the sand school meets the objectives of Policies GD1(iv)(v) and CF5(i), and national advice in PPS7 Key Principles Para 1 (iv).

View application/correspondence69


_____________________________________________________________________

RR/2008/2514/P TICEHURST LANDSCAPES RISE, CROSS LANEANNEXE ON LAND TO REAR OF LANDSCAPES RISE CONSISTING OF CONSTRUCTION OF A SCANDINAVIAN LOG CABIN (AREA 55m²) COMPRISING 1 BEDROOM, LIVING AREA, KITCHEN & BATHROOM, TO BE LOCATED IN PART OF EXISTING ORCHARD & FOR USE BY OCCASIONAL GUESTS & SUMMER VISITORSMr and Mrs Baker

Statutory 8 week date: 7 November 2008

Following inspection of the site by Members, at the meeting on the 20 November 2008 this application was delegated to grant full planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Obligation, to restrict the use of the annex to ancillary accommodation to the dwelling ‘Landscapes Rise’, including visitors and summer guests.

Condition 2 stated ‘The new residential annexe is permitted solely as additional accommodation for the existing dwelling Landscapes Rise and the new residential annexe shall not be occupied by any person who is not a member of the family (as defined by section 186 of the Housing Act 1985 or in any provision equivalent to any re-enactment of that Act) residing in the family dwelling or in the case of a friend of the family not to exceed more than 14 days in any 1 calendar year.’

The 14 day restriction on friends of the family staying in the annex is not acceptable to the applicant. The application is therefore presented before members to consider whether a longer period of occupation for non family members is acceptable.

SITE Landscapes Rise is a detached two storey dwelling located to the east side of Cross Lane. The application site relates to an area of land to the rear of the dwelling that is used as additional garden area for the property.

HISTORY (Relevant)A/69/899 Outline application agricultural dwellinghouse. Approved

conditional.A/70/175 Dwellinghouse, garage and access. Approved conditional.

PROPOSAL The application seeks to erect a log cabin on land to the rear of the property to be used as additional accommodation to the main house by occasional guests and summer visitors. The main part of the proposed log cabin will measure approximately 11 metres in length, 4.9 metres in width and 3.7 metres at ridge height. A small entrance canopy will be attached to the east elevation. It will be located within the additional garden area of Landscapes Rise and be approximately 7.75 metres from the northern boundary, 15 metres from the southern boundary and 17 metres from the rear boundary of Cross Lane Cottage to the west. Two outbuildings are located to the north side of the additional garden area which are used as a garden shed and domestic storage. They are effectively joined together with a gate in between and measure approximately 16 metres in length (combined) and 5 metres in width. The cabin will be positioned close to the southern side of these buildings. Its external walls will be clad in timber and its roof pitch will be shallow with green plastic coated steel sheeting.

70

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Object to proposal. ‘Cllr. A Cook left the meeting declaring a personal interest. This was felt to be over development in a rear garden and it was felt that if granted it would present a danger in setting a precedent for back-fill with no access point for vehicles/emergency vehicles. It was felt that the reason for the application was not justified, bearing in mind the size of the existing property and number of residents.’Highways Authority: ‘While I do not wish to raise any objection in principle I would wish to ensure that adequate parking is provided for the proposed log cabin. I consider that one additional space (three in total) would satisfy the County Council’s adopted parking standards. It was evident from a recent site visit that the existing hard-standing to the front of Landscapes Rise could accommodate three vehicles and on that basis I would not wish to restrict the grant of consent.’Planning Notice: Representative for Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE): object on behalf of the local branch. ‘The reason for the objection is that the log cabin is of substantial bulk and separate from the house and represents an unwelcome intrusion into a garden/orchard area, and may set an unfortunate precedent for other such demountable buildings.’1 e-mail from applicant in response to the above comments from CPRE containing the following comments (summarised): Is an active supporter of CPRE. Fully subscribes to the principles of that organisation. Rural communities must be allowed to thrive and develop otherwise will fall into

decline. Proposes a modest construction. Carefully thought out to cause minimal intrusion in surrounding environment.

SUMMARY The property and associated garden are located within Ticehurst development boundary and within the High Weald AONB. Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan applies to this application.

The land subject to this application is currently used as additional garden area to Landscapes Rise. The applicant’s father owned this same piece of land when he owned Cross Lane House, which is located to the south of the site. The land appears to have been used as additional garden area for this property prior to the mid 1980’s. The applicant’s father appears to have sold Cross Lane House in the mid 1980’s and bought Landscapes Rise. However, the parcel of land subject to this application appears to have remained in the applicant’s father’s ownership and has been used as additional garden area to Landscapes Rise since the mid 1980’s. As part of the application, two long standing residents of Ticehurst village, as well as the applicant, have confirmed the land has been used as additional garden area for a substantial amount of time. There is no evidence suggesting the land has been used for any other purpose other than additional garden to either Cross Lane House or, more recently, Landscapes Rise, since Cross Lane House was built (pre 1947).

Impact on character of the areaThe additional garden area is densely populated with vegetation, the majority of which is to be retained. Due to the presence of the trees and plants, the garden area is well screened when viewed from the countryside to the east; the boundary with which is a minimum of 25 metres from the proposed building. I am of the opinion that given the size of the additional garden area, which measures more than 0.23 hectares, the fact it is located within a development boundary and the quite substantial vegetation

71

screening, the scale, design and siting of the proposed building is acceptable and provided vegetation is retained to the eastern end of the garden area, unlikely to detract from the character and appearance of the area.

The chalet proposes a kitchen, bathroom, living room and bedroom. It is evident that the building will be wholly self contained and whilst it may be acceptable to be used as additional accommodation to the main dwelling Landscapes Rise, I have doubts to whether it is suitable to be used as an entirely separate unit of living accommodation. I therefore consider it necessary for a Section 106 Planning Obligation to be entered into, if minded to grant planning permission, to limit the use of the building for ancillary accommodation only, which would allow occasional visitors and summer guests of the applicant’s to stay.

Impact on neighbours’ amenitiesThe building is to be sited away from the boundaries of the garden area. Agricultural land and buildings are located to the north and east of the site and therefore the cabin should not adversely impact on these. I am of the opinion that a distance of approximately 25 metres from the closest residential property (20 Cross Lane Gardens), which is to the south, is adequate and acceptable, and use of the proposed cabin is unlikely to adversely impact upon the amenities of nearby residents. A condition to retain vegetation to the south and west could be used to help protect the amenities of nearby residents.

HighwayAccess to the cabin is proposed via the existing dwelling and its associated driveway and garden. The drive has adequate parking facilities for guests of the applicants.

Variation of occupancy conditionThe applicant wishes condition 2 and the associated wording in the legal agreement to be altered to allow non family members to stay in the annex for 56 continuous days followed by a period of 28 continuous days non occupation by the same non family members.

I am of the opinion that the requested limitation still enables adequate control over the building to prevent it becoming tantamount to a new dwelling and therefore recommend this variation is supported.

Other mattersIn addition to the above, the applicant queried the wording of condition 4 which relates to vegetation retention. He commented that if the condition was taken literally he would not be able to pick flowers or prune trees. I therefore recommend the wording is altered to replace ‘vegetation’ with ‘trees and boundary hedges’.

ConclusionThe requested alterations appear acceptable and provided relevant conditions are complied with and a Section 106 Agreement is signed, to tie the proposed chalet to the main dwelling, I am of the opinion that the proposal is acceptable in design terms, unlikely to detract from the character and appearance of the locality, and should not adversely impact upon the amenities of occupants of nearby properties.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SECTION 106)

72

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

2. The new residential annexe is permitted solely as additional accommodation for the existing dwelling Landscapes Rise and the new residential annexe shall not be occupied by any person who is not a member of the family (as defined by section 186 of the Housing Act 1985 or in any provision equivalent to any re-enactment of that Act) residing in the family dwelling or in the case of a friend of the family not to exceed more than 56 days continuous occupation, after which a continuous period of 28 days non occupation by the same friend of the family shall be adhered to.Reason: In the interests of protecting the character of the area and the residential amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy GD1 (ii)(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. The building hereby permitted shall have its walls clad in naturally stained timber and roof constructed of dark green sheeting unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The approved materials shall not be painted or otherwise altered or replaced unless agreed in writing with the local planning authority.Reason: To ensure that the development is in character with its surroundings in accordance with Policy GD1 (iv) & (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. Apart from the removal of the two apple trees, one greengage tree and sections of hedge, as indicated on the approved tree survey plan dated 12 September 2008, no tree or boundary hedge within the additional garden area to Landscapes Rise, as indicated by the site outlined in red on the Land Registry title plan dated 12 September 2008, shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed nor shall any retained tree or boundary hedge be topped or lopped other than in accordance with a scheme approved in writing with the local planning authority.Reason: To safeguard the characteristics of the locality and protect the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with Policy GD1 (ii), (iv), (v) & (vi) of the Rother District Local Plan.

Note: This permission is the subject of an obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed log cabin to be used as additional accommodation to the main dwelling 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 S1 and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan. View application/correspondence____________________________________________________________________

73


RR/2009/713/P TICEHURST 2 CLARE HOUSE, CHURCH STREETCONTINUED USE OF RESIDENTIAL WELLBEING CLINIC WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH CONDITIONS 1 AND 3 IMPOSED UPON PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2006/2403/PTraditional Honouring


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

SITE The application site comprises the ground floor only of 2 Clare House, a mid-terrace listed building located on the west side of Church Street, within the conservation area of Ticehurst village centre.

HISTORYRR/2006/2403/P Change of use to create residential well being clinic for massage

and alternative medicine. Approved Conditional (temporary)RR/2006/2836/L Internal works and opaque film to lower section of shopfront.

Approved ConditionalRR/2008/171/L Replace front door with new part-solid wood door and retention of

timber detailing to shopfront. Refused. Appeal Allowed.

PROPOSAL This application initially sought to vary conditions 1 and 3 applied in respect of RR/2006/2403/P, which granted temporary permission for 3 years and restricted the overnight residential treatments to a maximum of 3 nights per treatment. The applicants now seek a full permission and to extend the length of stays and type of treatments to accord with their evolving and wider practices. As a consequence they also consider that condition 2 (specific to the use applied for) is not required.

Additional details outlining the nature of the wellbeing clinic and the work that they undertake has been submitted and Members are advised to see their full comments which are available on the website. The details explain how the clinic has evolved over the last three years, their concerns regarding local opposition and their rebuttal of the current conditions.

To summarise, the primary use of the premises remains as a “residential well being clinic for massage and alternative medicine” as previously approved. The work of the Sanctuary has however evolved, reflecting the changes in market research and their work with Black & Minority Ethnic (BME) communities with respect to promoting their cultural and religious health care via both the treatments that they offer and their program of social inclusion in the countryside, a Government initiative. The Countryside Objectives of the Sanctuary along with several articles are copied on the application website. Such community work is all inclusive and there are no restrictions with regard to age, gender or race. While residential treatments at the clinic are restricted by space to two people, other treatments and talks are provided to groups of up to 14. Such treatment sessions may include overnight meditation or detox practices but do not involve sleeping at the premises. It is also pointed out that the website offers treatments available at other premises too and as such local objections have been incorrect with regard to large groups sleeping at the property.

They are also concerned that local objections have been defamatory and demean their Sacred Indigenous Practices. They feel that accusations have been racially motivated

74

and that they do not take into account the Equality Act 2006, which offers protection from unlawful discrimination on grounds of religion and belief. They state that it is unrealistic to hold them responsible for any actions by customers that have left the premises. Accusations regarding parking are also unfounded. Unlike any other business in the village centre they issue guidance notes which refer customers to use the local car park for parking and not the on-street parking that has created a long standing problem in the centre. A copy of the guidance notes is also available on the application website.

With regard to the use of conditions, the applicants refer to Circular 11/95. They consider that the current conditions do not comply with the requirements of the circular as the use is acceptable in this mixed use location and should be given a full permission. They consider there should be no use class restriction and that the residential aspect should reflect the mix of courses and treatments that are offered. The treatments offered over longer stays are mixed treatments and thus they consider that there has been no breach of the current condition which states that customers ‘shall not stay for more than 3 nights for any one treatment session’.

They also refer to the granting on appeal of the timber shopfront details. This was a separate issue and is not part of this current application. The Appeal Inspector considered the timber detailing to be acceptable, he was not commenting on the use of the property.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Comments awaited.Planning Notice: 1 objection has been received raising the following concerns: The notice was moved and not easy to see The premises has been operating in breach of the temporary consent which

expired in December 2008 The external details to the front are out of character and should have been

removed when permission for the use expired Incorrect information has been given on the adverts for the premises with regard

to numbers of people permitted to stay Excessive numbers of people have used the site Details with the application refer to minimal uptake so why will this change The retail use should be retained with no residential use of the unit Increasing the length of stay could increase parking problems The use as operated has not been in accordance with the details of the previous

application

SUMMARY This application seeks to retain an existing use with a variation to the conditions. The Wellbeing Sanctuary has been operating at the site since 2007 but by the applicant’s admission the nature of the operation has evolved and changed during the last year. Group sessions are now being held, on a limited basis but the nature of the treatments has not changed. The use remains linked to the provision of alternative medicines and massage with the option of on-site residential treatments for up to two people.

Previously a temporary permission was granted to enable the local authority to monitor the use and assess any impacts on residential amenity or the local highway situation. The local planning authority have not received any complaints specific to residential amenity or highway issues, although concerns have been raised regarding breach of

75

conditions. Such breaches related to numbers of people at the site (not conditioned) and to the continuation of the use after the temporary permission had expired, pending the determination of a new application. In view of the changing nature of the work undertaken to provide community treatments and given the restricted size of the site, it may be considered appropriate to again issue a temporary permission, to further monitor any potential impacts from the use. There is no clear indication regarding hours of use and thus the arrival and departure of larger groups of customers may give rise to disturbance to neighbours, especially outside normal business hours, e.g. before 8.00am and after 8.00pm. However, the applicants consider a temporary permission to be contrary to circular 11/95 as it is unreasonable and impractical and it makes it impossible to establish, develop and sustain the business. They consider that the use is appropriate in this area and has been in operation without detriment and should therefore be granted a full permission.

With regard to condition 2, the use as practised is not considered to fall within a specified use class. Class D1 of the Use Classes is for non-residential institutions for the provision of any medical or health services, while Class C2 relates to residential institutions such as care homes, hospitals and schools. The Wellbeing Sanctuary does not fall into either of these classes and hence the condition to restrict the use to that stated within the application. It is acknowledged, however, that the previous wording of condition 2 should be adapted and be more specific to reflect the lack of any appropriate use class in this instance. The current use for alternative medicine and therapies as detailed in the application and operated by the Wellbeing Sanctuary is not considered to be objectionable on planning grounds. However, a different occupier may operate using different procedures and guidelines and thus a condition to limit the use to that described or to personalise the consent should be considered. A personalised consent should only be applied where a named person is available but in this instance there is only a company name, which could be sold to other persons. As such a condition regarding the use is considered to be more appropriate.

Condition 3 was set to ensure that the use did not result in unauthorised permanent residential occupation and as such some form of it is still considered to be pertinent to ensure that the ground floor of the property remains available for business use. The applicants have stated that some of the treatments, in particular detox ones, require considerably longer to be completed safely and as such are requesting a longer period of time per treatment session of up to 10 nights. The applicants have kept registers of customers and these have been made available to the District Council in accordance with the condition. The applicants consider a treatment session to relate to one individual type of treatment and not to the length of overall stay by any one customer, who may undertake several different treatments during their stay. It may therefore be considered appropriate to word any condition to restrict the length stay by any one person rather than reference to the numbers of treatments being undertaken.

In conclusion, the use remains a business one and as such is not considered to be objectionable in principle. It is however, considered appropriate to attach conditions to any permission to ensure that the activities or numbers of people at this confined site do not result in a loss of amenity for neighbouring occupiers, including the flat above, and to ensure that the property does not become a permanent residential unit of accommodation.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PERMISSION)1. The use hereby permitted shall be discontinued on or before 31 July 2011.

76

Reason: To enable the local planning authority to monitor and assess the use as now practiced, to ensure that larger groups of customers and the hours of operation do not result in noise and undue disturbance to adjacent residential occupiers and thereby protect the residential amenities of the area having regard to Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. The premises shall be used as a clinic offering alternative medicine and treatments for individuals and groups of people as set out in the application documents, up to a maximum of 14 customers unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority, with the additional provision of residential treatments in accordance with condition 3 below.Reason: In recognition of the limited capacity of the property, to safeguard the residential amenities of adjoining properties and to ensure the continuing use of the premises as a commercial unit, having regard to Policies GD1(ii & iv) and EM1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. Any customer visiting the site shall not stay for more than 10 nights continuously at any one time and the business owner/operator shall maintain an up-to-date register of their names and main home address, and shall make this information available at all reasonable times to the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To ensure that the approved clinic use is not used for unauthorised permanent residential occupation and thereby retain a business use of the premises in accordance with Policy EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development as specifically described in the application by the applicants is considered to represent an appropriate use within a village centre location and subject to the imposition of conditions should not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy GD1 and EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2009/1084/P TICEHURST ROSEHILL – LAND ATERECTION OF DWELLING AND GARAGEMagnus & Co


This application has been withdrawn from a Notified ‘D’ report dated 5 June 2009.

SITE The application relates to a backland plot to the rear of the cottages nos 21-25 Church Street. It comprises a rectangular shaped area of grassland (0.04 ha) with a frontage hedge and gated access onto the unmade single track – ‘Rosehill’. The site measures approximately 27m x 17m and ground levels fall across the site to the south-western corner.

‘Rosehill’ and the adjacent unmade track, ‘Sunnyside’, serve 13 or so existing backland properties in the vicinity of the application site.

The site is within the Development Boundary for Ticehurst, and it lies just outside the western boundary of the Conservation Area. The whole of the village lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

77


HISTORYRR/2006/522/P Erection of two new attached two storey three bedroom houses

with provision of new vehicular access and four parking spaces – Refused.

RR/2008/2639/P Erection of two semi-detached dwellings with car parking - Refused

PROPOSAL It is proposed to construct one detached house on the site. This is shown to be positioned at right angles to ‘Rosehill’ and cut into the sloping ground. The design incorporates a half-hipped roof with a rear catslide. The dwelling would be two storeys at the front (south east) and single storey at the rear. External materials are described as white painted bricks, tile hanging and plain clay roof tiles. The drawings indicate that the existing frontage hedge would be retained with the exception of a new (widened) access point being created. The application form states that the total number of proposed on-site parking spaces as being two. This includes a new detached single garage.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support the proposal.Highway Authority:- Recommends that any consent shall include highway conditions dealing with provision and retention of on-site parking and turning areas. The following note is also relevant:“It has been demonstrated that permission has been previously been granted for the creation of an access and hardstanding under planning permission reference RR/97/669 to serve 24 Church Street. It has been suggested that we use the permission previously granted to serve the proposed dwelling and therefore resulting in no additional nett increase of vehicles using Rosehill. On this basis the Highway Authority would not wish to restrict the grant of consent and that the permission to use this track can be tied into any grant of permission by Rother District Council. It should be noted that the Highway Authority would not wish to see any increase of vehicular traffic using Rosehill.”Environment Agency:- The Agency has no comments to make on this application.Southern Water:- No objection subject to conditions dealing with the means of surface water and foul water drainage disposal.Planning Notice:- 22 letters/emails of objection from local residents. The main points are summarised as follows:- Proposed development will increase vehicular traffic movements on the access

road (Rosehill) and at the junction with High Street The access road is narrow and unsuitable to serve additional development The increase in traffic will increase congestion and add to existing highway

hazards Prejudicial to road safety Will exacerbate existing parking problems in the area A number of statements made in the supporting statement are misleading –

particularly in respect of levels and the degree of overlooking towards neighbouring properties that would occur

Over-development The perspective drawings provided with the application are misleading The site is within a Conservation Area (This is not correct) The site borders boundaries with listed properties Concerned about increased surface water drainage affecting our property (Oast

Bungalow), which is at the lowest point in Rosehill

78

Loss of amenity for the occupiers of neighbouring residential properties in terms of loss of privacy, noise, light, overlooking, vehicle movements

Loss of views for existing occupiers Reasons for refusal in respect of the previous application equally apply to the

current application Loss of wildlife habitat The site abuts the Ticehurst Conservation Area Size of the proposed building would appear too dominant Precedent Unlikely that the existing hedge will be kept Detrimental to the AONB Proposed dwelling is too close to existing properties Visual impact of the development would be unacceptable. The new dwelling

would be seen from 45 existing properties (these are specifically named in a list) a number of which are in the Conservation Area

Land should be used as allotments for villagers A new bungalow would be more appropriate rather than a two storey house on

this particular site

1 letter of comment has been received stating that if planning permission is given, restrictions should be imposed dealing with – retention of the boundary hedge; work/construction/delivery times, reinstatement of the surface of the lane; timber gate piers to be installed; measures to prevent flooding.

SUMMARY This application is a revised re-submission following the refusal of application RR/2008/2639/P for two semi-detached dwellings on the site in October 2008. Members of the Planning Committee inspected this site in connection with the previous application.

The application site is located within the Development Boundary for Ticehurst as identified in the Rother District Local Plan (Policy DS3) and as such there is a presumption in favour of development, subject to its detail and compliance with other policy criteria. Policy GD1 is particularly important with regard to the need to provide satisfactory highway conditions, to ensure that development is in character with the area and also, the need to protect residential amenity. The previous application RR/20087/522/P was refused for the reasons (briefly) (i) traffic generation and highway concerns; (ii) overdevelopment, dominant scale and mass; and (iii) the design and external appearance would be out of character with the historic core of the village.

With respect to the current application, the principal issues are as follows:-

(i) Highway safety:One dwelling only is now proposed as opposed to two previously. This would clearly give rise to fewer vehicle movements that would potentially be generated as a result of the development. It is noted that the Highway Authority now no longer wishes to object to the development proposals for the site. A reason given by the Highway Authority is that planning permission has previously been given under reference RR/97/669 for the creation of an access and hardstanding for car parking on the application site. That would be utilised to serve the new dwelling and consequently there would be no additional net increase in traffic generation. In view of the Highway Authority’s comments it is considered that a refusal on highway grounds can no longer be sustained.

79

(ii) Size (scale of the proposed development):This is now significantly less than previously proposed. The reduced scale of the proposed development is now appropriate relative to the site area and the undulations in ground levels. It is considered that the previous objections concerning this issue have now been addressed.

(iii) Design:The site abuts the Conservation Area and is close to the historic core of the village. Consequently, it is important that any new development respects the form of the traditional rural vernacular and reinforces local distinctiveness. The design of the development has been revised from that put forward in the previous application. The form of the building, with its rear catslide, has been simplified, and the architectural design details reflect local styles. Furthermore, external materials have been chosen to match existing traditional properties within the village. It is now considered that the design issue has been addressed.



2. No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The above shall include precise details of the proposed colour treatment of the external brickwork.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.

3. Before commencement of any ground works for the development hereby approved, the finished ground floor levels of the buildings in relation to existing and proposed site levels and the adjacent highway (Rosehill), together with details of levels of all accesses, to include pathways, driveways, steps and ramps, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure the satisfactory accessible development of the site in accordance with Policy GD1 (i) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of foul and surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning authority and the new dwelling shall not 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.

5. No hedges on the south-western boundary (adjacent to the access roadway) of this site, unless dead or dangerous, shall be felled without the prior consent of the local planning authority within 5 years of the completion of the permitted

80

development. Any hedging removed without such consent or dying or being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased before the end of that period shall be replaced with hedging of such size and species as may be 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.

6. The two trees on the site shall be retained in accordance with the approved plan. No trees, unless dead or dangerous, shall be felled 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 safeguard the characteristics of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

7. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the protection of the roadside hedge and the two retained trees during the course of development work shall be submitted for the consideration and approval of the local planning authority. The protection scheme shall be implemented before development and kept in place for duration of construction work.Reason: To ensure that trees are not damaged or otherwise adversely affected by building operations and soil compaction and To safeguard the characteristics of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

8. The roof lights to be inserted into the building shall be in the form of conservation style roof lights.Reason: to ensure that the development is in character with the area and to accord with Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or other openings (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be inserted into the south-western and north-eastern elevations at first floor or the roof slope.

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

10. The new dwelling shall not be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plan drawing no. 145-11-PI date stamped 22 April 2009 for two cars 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.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: 1. The site is within the Development Boundary for Ticehurst and there is no policy

objection to the principle of residential development.2. The Highway Authority has been consulted on the application and considers that

the proposed development will not result in unacceptable traffic or transport conditions.

81

3. The size and scale of the development is appropriate in relation to the site area and surrounding properties.

4. The development is of an appropriate design and will not adversely affect the character of the area, including the adjacent Conservation Area.

5. The development will not materially affect the amenities of adjoining properties. – - The development proposal complies with Policies DS3 and GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.


RR/2009/1327/P ETCHINGHAM KING JOHN’S LODGE – GRANARY BARN AT, SHEEPSTREET LANECHANGE OF USE OF BARN FROM RESIDENTIAL TO FOUR HOLIDAY LETS. (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Mrs J Cunningham


SITE The application relates to a converted barn next to King John’s Lodge, a listed building. Both buildings are within the same ownership. Access to the barn is via the vehicular access onto Sheepstreet Lane that serves King John’s Lodge. The site is within the countryside (AONB) and lies outside any identified settlement boundary in the Local Plan. There is a neighbouring property (Tamarind) set within a large curtilage immediately to the west. Other residential properties are thinly scattered along this stretch of Sheepstreet Lane, mainly on its southern side.

This site was inspected by the Planning Committee on 16 December 2008 in connection with a previous application RR/2008/3161/P.

HISTORYRR/2001/105/P Change of use and conversion of granary to residential use served

by a new access with parking area – ApprovedRR/2005/972/P Extension and alterations to the granary – ApprovedRR/2008/3161/P Change of use of barn from residential to four holiday lets

(retrospective application) – Refused

PROPOSAL The proposal is a revised resubmission of RR/2008/3161/P, which was refused for the reasons (briefly) (i) the subdivision of the building into four units is an over development of the property; out of character with the area and detrimental to neighbouring residential amenity; and (ii) the development will lead to increased traffic hazards on Sheepstreet Lane.

The principal differences between the previously refused application and the new submission are set out in the Design and Access Statement together with additional supporting information.

The current application, as before, seeks retrospective planning permission to subdivide the building into four units. However, the Statement explains that it is now proposed to form fewer bedrooms within the units. The Statement explains the reduced occupancy as follows:-

82


“The total number of residents that could be accommodated at any one time is expected to be 18, being 8 adults and 10 children. Previously, the Planning Officer had considered that the total number of residents that could be accommodated at any one time was expected to be 30, being 14 adults and 16 children. As such, there would be a reduction in the total number of residents that could be accommodated at any one time of 12, a fall of some 40%.”

The Statement also states that consideration of the previous application drew upon other issues which did not form part of the application (wedding receptions held at King John’s Lodge and bed and breakfast in the main house); it is explained that these have now ceased and the sole issue is whether the development meets the relevant development plan policies and government guidance.

On the second reason for refusal, the highway issues, the Statement states that pre-application discussion have taken place with the Highway Authority and the results of these consultations is that amendments to the existing access will provide satisfactory improvements.

Finally, the Statement includes a letter from English Country Cottages, commenting that this indicates the support of the tourist industry for the proposed accommodation.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “Objects to proposal as it is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site.”Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Director of Services – Regeneration:- Comments include the following:-“Market Research collected by Tourism South East, the regional tourist board suggests that there is an identified gap in the market in terms of self catering accommodation within the South East, including Rother. The study also identified businesses operating at high quality standards were achieving higher occupancy rates than other properties.

I understand from the applicant that the existing Bed and Breakfast operation within the premises has now ceased trading, this along with the reduction in the number of bed spaces from the previous application (RR/2008/3161/P) and addition of shared communal spaces will reduce the maximum number of visitors at any one time and should enhance the visitor experience within a rural retreat.

For these reasons I would support this application and would recommend the applicant looks at offering a high quality product to support the existing historic house and gardens.”Planning Notice:- 7 letters of support (Battle, Northiam, Etchingham, Pashley Manor Gardens, Hurst Green, Bodiam and ‘Tourism South East’) summarised – The objections raised in the previous application have been addressed There is a general lack of holiday accommodation in this part of East Sussex This property, due to its history, location and stunning gardens is ideally suited to

holiday let use We support the application because we have found great difficulty in

accommodating overseas guests for family parties and weddings, especially in the summer

Tourism South East supports this application to provide necessary and beneficial self-catering accommodation in this rural area.

83

An email from the owner states that over the years they have had numerous repeat visits from guests, as they have enjoyed the surroundings so much.5 letters of objection (South View, Shoyswell Cottage, Shortridge Farm, Tamarind, Robin Wood – all Sheepstreet Lane) – Wedding receptions etc were not authorised and the fact they have stopped only

returns everything to the situation as it should have been in the first place Disturbances have been caused by a variety of activities, not just wedding

receptions On 6 June 2009 loud music had been emanating from the site from 21:00 to at

least 23:00 We refute absolutely the view expressed in the application that the level of

occupancy proposed is acceptable The applicant’s claim that the level of disturbance is not related to the number of

guests is illogical We have no confidence that the owners of King John’s Lodge can or will

exercise control over the holiday lets and any resultant disturbance The Granary, as their website shows, caters for exclusive hire The difference between this application and the previously refused submission is

marginal – save for the destruction of mature vegetation now proposed (access) There is already King John’s Lodge printed literature in circulation that offers

accommodation for up to 30 people The Granary is too close to residential properties to be developed as a

commercial property Letters of support are from others who live far away from the property and never

have to endure the noise from it Typical occupants of these apartments seem oblivious to neighbours and play

loud music, yell, scream etc., rather than enjoying the tranquillity of the countryside

Proposal involves the felling of trees (in addition to decimating the hedgerow) As recently as 27 June 2009 there was extremely loud noise late into the night.

SUMMARY This is a revised resubmission of application RR/2008/3161/P, which was refused in December 2008.

Planning policiesIn principle the change of use and conversion of appropriate redundant rural buildings to holiday/tourist accommodation is generally supported under planning policies (Policy EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan and PPS7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’). Such proposals are, however, required to accord with other Development Plan policies and general development control criteria. In this particular case there are still concerns about the development that has taken place.

Impact on neighbouring residential amenityThe fact that wedding functions etc that have been held in the past have now ceased is not material to the consideration of this application. As pointed out in the previous report, this did not form part of an application and the only matter for Members to consider is the change of use and conversion of the barn to four holiday lets. Following on from this, the difference between the previous application and this submission is not substantial. The subdivision of the building into four separate units of residential holiday accommodation, as before, is considered to be an over development of the site. The Granary has been subdivided and compartmentalised in an intensive manner. As a result, it has the capacity for exclusive hire and large group occupation. The potential

84

for activities that result in continued noise disturbance for neighbours cannot be discounted.

Highway issuesComments from the Highway Authority are still awaited. However, it is noted that the proposed measures put forward in the application to improve visibility at the access involve the removal of two trees and the frontage hedge cut to a height of 800mm. One of these trees is a large mature oak at the side of the lane. Whilst the Highway issue may therefore be capable of being addressed, there are concerns that this would be at the expense of the rural character and visual amenities of the area.

ConclusionWhist in planning policy terms there would be no objection in principle to the change of use and conversion of this building to holiday lets, the formation of four separate units is an over development of the property. The application does not address the objection raised in the previous application. In the event that Members concur with the recommendation, the matter would be passed to the Planning Enforcement Section.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The subdivision of the building into four separate units of self-contained

accommodation and the associated intensive level of occupancy is an overdevelopment of the property. The development is out of character with the rural area and potentially detrimental to the residential amenity of the occupiers of properties in the vicinity of the site. The development conflicts with Policies GD1(ii)(iv)(v) and EM3(v)(vi) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2. The existing access is unsuitable to serve the traffic generated by the existing authorised use of the site and the proposed 4 no. holiday units. In order to bring the access up to a standard that would satisfy the Highway Authority, it would be necessary to remove trees, including one mature oak, and significantly reduce the roadside hedge. This would have a detrimental impact on the rural character and visual amenities of the area. The development would be contrary to Policy GD1(iv)(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.


--oo0oo--

85


rr/2009/308/p - residents - rother district council · web viewthe premises shall not be open to...

Documents