variation of section 106 planning obligation€¦ · web viewthe local geological and hydro...

VARIATION OF SECTION 106 PLANNING OBLIGATION9/13/469 CATSFIELD SOUTH HAVEN STABLES, POTMANS LANE,

CATSFIELD SEPARATION AND INDEPENDENT BUSINESS USE OF STABLES AND STAFF FLAT FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF 'TWISLY'.F A Berger

Statutory 8 week date: 04 March 2005

This application to modify the existing Section 106 Planning Obligation was deferred for a site inspection at your last meeting. SITE This is an existing stable block and manège that was granted consent for the keeping of horses under RR/1999/1367/P, as part of the ‘Twisly’ estate. The site is a countryside location, but outside of the AONB.

HISTORYRR/95/1531/P Conversion of historic stables to form single dwelling – RefusedRR/95/2151/P Change of use of part of existing stable block to form staff flat to

service stables – Approved – S106 ObligationRR/1999/1367/P Construction of manège surrounded by fence/railings and use of

land and stables for the keeping of horses - Approved

PROPOSAL The application is for the separation of the use of the stables and staff flat from the main dwelling ‘Twisly’. The applicant’s letter dated 13 September 2004 gives a detailed explanation of the proposed development. It is attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 21 April 2005.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Object to this application, as permission would allow the property, which sits in a large piece of land, to be released.'The main objection to this application is that it will create a new independent dwelling in the countryside'East Sussex County Council – Archaeologist: Although this application is situated within an Archaeologically Sensitive Area, I do not believe that any archaeological remains are likely to be affected by these proposals. For this reason’ have no further recommendations to make in this instance.Planning Notice: No responses.

SUMMARY I have noted the concerns of the Parish Council. However, as the livery has been in use for over 5 years under RR/95/2151/P, I would be prepared to support the separation of the livery from Twisly. A variation of the existing legal agreement would be required to maintain control over the use of the staff flat and stabling. Such an amended obligation would need to ensure that the staff flat is used/occupied only as accommodation for employers/employees in association with the use of the livery (and visitors such as family etc.), and not for any form of private accommodation. I do not consider that the separation of the livery use and integral staff flat, from ‘Twisly’, if controlled by an appropriate S.106 obligation, would conflict with relevant development plan policies.

1

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE (AMENDMENT/NEW S106 OBLIGATION) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO A S106 OBLIGATION TO ENSURE THAT THE STAFF FLAT IS USED/OCCUPIED ONLY AS ACCOMMODATION FOR EMPLOYERS/EMPLOYEES IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE USE OF THE LIVERY (AND VISITORS SUCH AS FAMILY ETC.), AND NOT FOR ANY FORM OF PRIVATE ACCOMMODATION)

9/13/583 BRIGHTLING SWALLOWFIELD FARM, SALEHURSTMODIFICATION OF EXISTING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT SO AS TO PERMIT CONTINUATION OF HOLIDAY LET BUT NOT AS AN ANNEXE TO SWALLOWFIELD FARMMr W and Mrs J Page

Statutory 8 week date: 21 April 2005

SITE This application relates to a three bay oak framed barn situated about 45m to the south west of the listed Swallowfield Farmhouse on the south side of Brightling Road adjacent to Scrag Oak Farm. The ground floor of the barn has been converted to an annexe/holiday let (RR/1999/2451/P).

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/1999/2451/P Change of use of ground floor of barn to form annexe/holiday

accommodation - Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL In granting the 1999 planning permission for the conversion of the barn to an annexe/holiday let a Section 106 Planning Obligation was required limiting the use and tying the accommodation to the farmhouse. This application seeks the modification of the Legal Agreement so as to permit continued use as a holiday let but without the tie to the farmhouse as an annexe. The applicants wish to sell the farmhouse but to retain ownership of the holiday let as a source of income.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “Opposed to the application fearing it would set a precedent for others.”Planning Notice:- No representations received.

COMMENT In my view the request is a reasonable one. The commercial use of redundant farm buildings is preferred and a holiday let is an accepted economic use. It is not normal to tie a holiday conversion to a residential property but to restrain its use so as to prevent its use as an unrestricted dwelling house. The effect of the applicants’ request would be that the use would be so limited to holiday accommodation. I do not believe that to accede to the applicants’ request would create an undesirable precedent. Indeed several holiday conversions have previously been granted with the safeguard now proposed.

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE DELEGATED (MODIFICATION OF SECTION 106 OBLIGATION)

2

RR/2004/3629/P BURWASH DUDWELL ST MARY CARE HOME, ETCHINGHAM ROAD DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF DETACHED CARE HOME ACCOMMODATION AND ASSOCIATED WORKS AS AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUS PLANNING PERMISSION (REF. RR/2003/3547/P)Barchester Healthcare Homes Ltd


SITE Dudwell St Mary, the former convent, is situated on the south side of the A265 to the west of Borders Lane and is in use as a nursing home.

HISTORY RR/93/0155/P Change of use of convent to nursing home and alteration to access

– Approved Conditional.RR/94/0403/P Access to Borders Lane to orchard and septic tank – Approved

Conditional.RR/2000/1918/P Outline Application – 32 bed extension to nursing home,

associated service areas, office and conversion of existing service areas into bedrooms – Approved Conditional.

RR/2003/3547/P Demolition of existing buildings and construction of 32 bed extension and associated works - Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL This is an application for full planning permission for a revision of the scheme approved under reference RR/2003/3547/P.This amended scheme is again for a two storey detached building but with additional accommodation within the roof space. Overall 46 bed spaces are proposed with lounge, dining and service facilities on each floor.The design remains of brick and tile with tile hanging and is very similar in character and in its footprint. Dormer windows are included for the second floor bedrooms.Car parking has been revised so as to include an additional car parking area adjacent to the existing car park in front of the existing building.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Over development and concern for trees and the walled garden.Highway Authority:- No objection but would wish to see specific provision for the on site turning of large service and delivery vehicles.Environment Agency:- No objection in principle.Southern Water:- Does not wish to comment.Commission for Social Care Inspection: No objection in principle.Planning Notice:- 1 letter (Garden Lodge) attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 21 April 2005.

SUMMARY The siting, design, access and massing of the proposal closely follows the earlier approval of reserved matters (RR/2003/3547/P). The additional and revised car parking is acceptable to the Highway Authority subject to amendment to improve on site turning. The new parking arrangement ensures that trees previously intended to be removed adjacent to Garden Lodge can be retained.The submitted plan specifies the use of red/brown facing bricks, plain concrete hanging tiles, reconstituted stone cills, and Forticrete interlocking plain tiles for the roof. I would wish to see a sample brick and I believe a clay tile should be specified for the tile

3

hanging. The specified roof tiles give an appearance similar to plain tiles but are more suited to a roof of the size proposed; I consider this to be satisfactory subject to agreement of the colour.The applicant has acknowledged previously expressed concerns about overlooking of Garden Lodge and has sited the dormer windows accordingly. I am satisfied that the current proposal is satisfactory in this respect. The Parish Council support a refusal expressing concerns of over development, loss of trees and effect upon the walled garden. However, the size of the building and its siting over most of the walled garden is not materially different from the existing approval. The revised scheme retains more trees on the site than the earlier proposal and a comprehensive landscaping scheme accompanies the application.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. At the time of development, on site turning facilities for delivery/service vehicles

shall be provided in accordance with details that shall have been previously approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. (Reason: RC10).

2. CN7B (External materials - amended a) colour of roofing tiles; b) plain clay hanging tiles; c) facing bricks).

3. The premises shall be used in conjunction with the existing nursing home, Dudwell St. Mary and for no other purpose including any other purpose in Class C3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that order.Reason: To ensure an appropriate use of the property/site and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. Details of foul and surface water drainage for the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any work on the site commences. The drainage works shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans before the development hereby permitted is brought into use or occupied.Reason: To prevent water pollution, ensure satisfactory drainage of the site and accord with Policy EN11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

5. No floodlighting or external lighting of the site shall take place without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority and such details for approval shall include methods of shielding the light source from outside of the site and the lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4

RR/2005/588/P BURWASH ASHWOOD NURSING HOME, BURWASH COMMONERECTION OF NEW EXTENSION TO EXISTING NURSING HOME WITH ALTERATIONS TO VEHICULAR ACCESS (PHASE 1) AND DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 19TH CENTURY BUILDING AND ERECTION OF A NEW EXTENSION (PHASE 2), WITH PROVISION OF 10 PARKING SPACES AND FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESSAnn Morrissey


SITE Ashwood Nursing Home lies on the north side of the A265 at Burwash Common on the corner of the Stonegate Road junction. The present situation is that the main building has its ‘front’ elevation to the A265 but the entrance to the building and the car park is from Stonegate Road.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/89/0480/P Side extension to Nursing Home - Approved ConditionalRR/93/211/P Extension to nursing home - Refused - Appeal DismissedRR/2003/1544/P Erection of additional accommodation and ancillary facilities to side

and rear of nursing home and additional car parking and external works - Approved Conditional.

RR/2004/1299/P Two storey side and rear extensions and alterations with provision of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses and closure of existing access - Refused

PROPOSAL This application seeks full planning permission for a two phase development.Phase one being the demolition of part of an existing rear addition and the construction of a new rear two storey extension containing 20 bedrooms with en-suite facilities together with lounge, dining and other service provision. Phase two would be the demolition of the remainder of the existing nursing home, with the exception of the western addition built in the 1980s, and its replacement bringing the total number of bedrooms to 43.A new vehicular access to Stonegate Road would serve a new car park of 10 spaces. Staff accommodation would be formed within the roof space.The architect has used brick, clay tiles, pebbledash and render to create elevations with small elements with relief and character themes upon the original nursing home building. A supporting statement accompanying the application is attached to this report as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 21 April 2005.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “Majority supported Phase I but a split decision was made on Phase II. Concern was about over-development and the final appearance of the front.”Highway Authority:- “Recommends that consent be refused for the following reasons:- 1. The proposal would introduce hazards at this point of the B2181 by the slowing,

stopping, turning and reversing traffic which would be created by the additional access.

2. The proposal does not provide for adequate parking facilities within the site which would result in additional congestion on the public highway causing interference with the free flow and safety of traffic on the B2181.

5

Please note:If the proposal is modified resulting in the application site being served by a single access point, the Highway Authority would not wish to restrict grant of consent with regard to this point. There is a highway safety need to keep the number of accesses to a minimum as every access is a potential source of danger and in the interest of safety this site is considered to be better served by either the existing or proposed access.The parking standard for Nursing Homes is 1 space per 2-3 bedspaces (for staff and visitors) and 1 space per resident staff or proprietor. Therefore, at least 14 parking spaces are required plus 1 space per member of resident staff. The 10 spaces as shown on the plans is considered inadequate for this scale of development. One ambulance space is also required.”Environment Agency:- No objection.Southern Water:- Does not wish to comment on this application.Commission for Social Care Inspection:- No objection providing there is compliance with the Care Standards Act 2000.Planning Notice:- 2 letters of objection (Waypost and Selangor) - i) too close to boundary; ii) fire hazards; iii) loss of privacy; iv) too tall; v) over-development; vi) increased traffic hazards; vii) within AONB; viii) increased vehicle movements creating a noisy, unpleasant environment.

SUMMARY Members inspected this site in July last year prior to refusal of RR/2004/1299/P for rear and side extensions because of the effect upon the AONB of the rear addition; the side addition was very similar to that approved under reference RR/2003/1544/P.To date this nursing home has evolved in a piecemeal manner that has resulted in operational difficulties and problems with compliance to current standards. Moreover, it is my understanding that the continued successful development and operation of the home demands expansion to achieve the standard of accommodation and care that is now and will be demanded in the future.The proposal has been prepared to permit, in two phases, the construction of an entirely new nursing home whilst permitting continued occupation thereby minimising disruption and upset to residents. The existing building is not Listed, it is not within a Conservation Area but it is within the AONB. Members are, I am sure, aware of the difficulties facing nursing homes, the higher accommodation standards expected and the need to expand to be able to finance the changes required. There is also an awareness of nursing homes/rest homes closing and being re-developed, hence a high demand for the remaining bed spaces. The overall scheme is of a good design and utilises an appropriate mix of materials. The scheme also makes full use of the falling ground level to the north by cutting in the ‘ground floor’ as a ‘lower ground floor’ level, thereby reducing the overall impact.The addition is however substantial for a property within the AONB and outside of the development boundary of the village. Consideration of this proposal is a balance between the desirability of supporting an essential service business mindful of a well designed building, against consideration of the impact of the rear extension in particular upon the appearance of the AONB and the amenities of nearby dwellings.I am mindful that there was an appeal dismissed in 1993 but this is largely superseded by the approval in 2003 (RR/2003/1544/P). A comparison of the current proposal with the 2003 approved plan shows that the additional mass is not particularly significant, although I would prefer to see the roof of the new central entrance section reduced below that of the existing main building. When compared with the 2004 refusal the northern end of the rear extension has been noticeably reduced in height.

6

I believe that the current proposal is close to acceptability; the effect upon adjoining properties could not, in my view justify a refusal. There is a highway objection of which the applicant has been made aware. I expect this to be addressed prior to your meeting.The second phase is effectively the same mass of building that has already been approved but with a unified elevation to the B2096. I find this to be acceptable.The overall scheme would produce a significantly larger new building on the site but, on balance not so different from that which would result from the implementation of the extant planning permissions. I do not believe the effect upon neighbouring properties would be so materially different from the approvals previously mentioned as to justify a refusal of the current proposals. I would therefore support the grant of planning permission subject to receipt of an amended plan reducing the height of the entrance section and the resolution of the highway objection. The application should however be regarded as a departure from the Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (AMENDED PLANS AND DEPARTURE PROCEDURE)1. CN7B (External materials).2 At the time of development and before it is occupied, parking spaces as

indicated upon the approved plan together with on site turning space shall be provided and thereafter maintained.Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. The elevational alterations to the existing extension on the west side of the building shall be carried out at the time of development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

4. The roof windows contained within the east elevation shall be glazed using obscured glass only and not otherwise.Reason: To safeguard the amenities of existing property to the east of the site and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2005/790/P BURWASH SPRINGFIELD, FOOTS LANESINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSIONK Ellick

Statutory 8 week date: 16 May 2005

This application has been included upon your list of pre-Committee site inspections.

SITE This former agricultural bungalow lies on the west side of Foots Lane, about 150m from its northern end. It is a modest ‘colt’ type bungalow.

HISTORY (Relevant)A/73/0041 Agricultural bungalow - Approved Conditional

7

RR/2004/971/O Lawful occupation of dwelling without compliance with agricultural occupancy condition - Approved

RR/2004/2654/P Single storey side extension - RefusedRR/2004/3596/P Single storey side extension - Refused

PROPOSAL Planning permission is requested for a side extension comprising kitchen/breakfast room and a lounge/diner. The addition would be in the form of a wing across the northern end of the property measuring 6.15m by 11.45m using matching materials. The pitched roof of the addition would be co-incident with that of the existing property.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- No representations received to date.

SUMMARY A single storey extension to the side of this property has been refused on two occasions recently. The current proposal is for a smaller addition that also has a lower ridge.The proposal is for an addition slightly smaller than the existing property which is itself of a modest size; the extended property would be about 150 sq.m. in floor area. This is comparable with the floor area of new dwellings recently accepted as replacements for small bungalows in the countryside and is considered satisfactory in this case. The design of the extension is acceptable in my view and it relates satisfactorily with the neighbouring bungalow. It would however be desirable to require the two high level side windows to be glazed with obscured glass.Subject to the consideration of consultation responses received during the consultation period I expect to make the

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. CN7C (Matching materials).2. CN5D (Obscure glaze windows - side elevation - north).


RR/2005/166/P DALLINGTON WOODS CORNER GARAGEERECTION OF TWO SEMI-DETACHED HOUSES WITH ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING ACCESS AND FORMATION OF PARKING AREAMr G Piggott


SITE This application relates to the site of the former Woods Corner Garage on the south side of the B2096 at Woods Corner. The site has a frontage of 18m and an overall depth of 20.5m

HISTORY (Relevant)

8

RR/2003/273/P O/A Demolition of existing garage premises and erection of a detached dwelling - Approved Conditional

RR/2004/2790/P Two semi-detached houses - Withdrawn.

PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a pair of semi-detached three bedroomed houses of brick and tile served by a single vehicular access. Two parking spaces are indicated within an open carport on the west side of the pair, with three additional spaces within an area currently used for customer parking on the opposite side of the road.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- The Parish Council is concerned about:-i) vehicular access - turning space seems inadequateii) first floor windows overlook ‘Garfield’iii) no drainage detail providediv) is a soakaway adequate at this location?v) is the change from light industrial to residential in line with the Local Plan?Highway Authority:- Recommends the imposition of highway conditions.Environment Agency:- No objection subject to the imposition of conditions relating to: contaminated land, foul drainage and surface water drainage.Southern Water:- Does not wish to comment.Director of Services - Environmental Health:- Recommends the imposition of a contaminated land condition.Planning Notice:- 2 letters - i) no objection to a single dwelling; ii) two dwellings bring problems of access and safety hazards; iii) drainage issues not addressed fully; iv) there should be a 6 foot wall around 3 sides of this site; v) a bungalow would fit the site; vi) plans not adequately detailed; vii) purchasers may put roof lights in rear compromising privacy of Garfield; viii) gardens of properties would have little sun.

SUMMARY The replacement of the existing commercial use with a residential one has been approved (RR/2003/273/P) and the Highway Authority is satisfied with the means of access, turning facility and the additional parking area. The matter of drainage, of concern to both the Parish Council and the neighbour, is normally conditioned for later consideration and is also an issue addressed under the Building Regulations.In approving a single dwelling on the site (RR/2003/273/P) a single storey limitation was not imposed; a two storey property was expected. The submitted plans now provided indicate a semi-detached pair of two storey units of a similar character to the single house built on the filling station site immediately to the east. There is a bungalow (Garfield) at the rear the owner of which expresses the view that privacy issues have not been addressed in enough detail, stating that a 6 ft boundary wall should be provided. The application proposes a 1.8m close boarded fence; in my assessment this would have the same effect as a wall of the same height. I would however wish to impose a condition to prevent the insertion of roof windows in the rear roof slope. I have requested amendments to the rear fenestration.I believe the submitted design is acceptable subject to the later agreement of external materials. There is no objection from the Highway Authority and drainage details can be properly conditioned. The proposal is now acceptable subject to the above amendments.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7B (External materials - a, b and c).2. Contaminated land condition as recommended by Environmental Health.

9

3. CN10A (Highway conditions).4. The area of land on the north side of the B2096, hatched in green upon the

approved plan shall be used for the parking of no more than 3 motor vehicles with a turning area. Visibility for vehicular egress from this parking area shall be improved by the cutting back of the existing hedge to the east of the access in line with the existing fence line prior to the occupation of the permitting dwellings and thereafter maintained in that condition.(Reason: RC10).

5. CN8C (Foul and surface water details).6. CN5E (Restriction of alterations etc - a, b and c).

RR/2005/88/P BATTLE BEAUPORT PARK HOTEL, BATTLE ROADDEMOLITION OF GARAGES AND ERECTION OF TWO BEDROOM DISABLED ACCESSIBLE SINGLE STOREY PINE LODGEHarvest Hotels Ltd


This application was deferred at your last meeting for the submission of an amended plan. I have written to the applicant’s agent but no response had been received at the time of preparing this report.

SITE Beauport Park Hotel is located to the north of The Ridge, within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The land that is the subject of this application lies to the south-east of the hotel and is currently used as a small block of existing garages. The proposed pine lodge will be constructed in close proximity to an existing lodge that was approved under planning application RR/83/2001. Adjoining this site there is also a golf course, riding stables and a health club.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/83/2001 Temporary forest lodge home for owner’s occupation – Approved

ConditionalRR/98/2033/P Extension to first floor to provide additional bedrooms – Approved

ConditionalRR/1999/8/P Erection of three pine lodges – RefusedRR/1999/1151/P Erection of two pine lodges – RefusedRR/1999/1906/P Erection of three pine lodges – RefusedRR/2001/2385/NA Outline: Erection of two storey health and fitness club including

ancillary crèche and café/bar, ancillary parking and new access to Ridge West highway – No Objection with Conditions

RR/2004/466/NA Erection of three storey health and fitness club including ancillary parking and new access to Ridge West at roundabout – No Comment

RR/2004/896/P Formation of car parking bays and new link access road to existing hotel car park – Approved Conditional

RR/2004/3051/P Erection of new disabled access ramp to the front elevation – Approved Conditional

PROPOSAL It is proposed to demolish a small block of garages and erect in its place a detached two bedroom log cabin. The new unit has been designed to give proper

10

facilities and access for disabled visitors to the hotel and will be used solely for short term letting accommodation as part of the hotels overall facility.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- The Council feels that this would be an unwelcome intrusion into the countryside and that such disabled facilities should be provided within the existing hotel. Hastings Borough Council:- No objections to the proposal.Planning Notice:- No comments received.

SUMMARY Planning policy seeks to foster tourist development within Rother and this proposal should be considered against Policy EM9 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003), which states that:Proposals for the provision of an appropriate range and quality of tourist accommodation will be permitted subject to the other policies of this Plan. Proposals for the loss of good quality visitor accommodation will be refused unless it can be demonstrated that there is no longer a demand for the accommodation.I consider that the proposal complies with the above mentioned policy.Although it is separated from the main hotel, the proposed location of the pine lodge would be easily accessible for use by disabled visitors due to its positioning off the existing hotel car park.

I have requested the applicant provide plans of an amended design; to date this has not been received.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (AMENDED PLANS)

RR/2005/279/P BATTLE ST WYSTANS, CALDBEC HILL, DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND ERECTION OF BLOCK OF 10 TWO BEDROOM FLATSMid Sussex Homes Ltd


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

SITE St Wystans is a detached property on the west side of Caldbec Hill adjacent to the driveway leading to The Mill. The property was last used as a dwelling, with dental surgery attached; it is currently vacant. The site is about 0.24 hectares in area.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/85/2023 Vehicular access and hardstanding - Appeal Allowed.RR/88/0098 Extension to provide dentist surgery and waiting room - Appeal

Allowed.RR/2004/2463/P Demolition of existing building and erection of 10 two bedroom flats

- Refused - Appeal Lodged.

PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing building and its replacement with a brick and tile hung building containing 10 flats. The building proposed is of two storey height with two of the 10 flats contained within the roof area utilising dormer windows and roof lights.

11

The application proposes the widening and repositioning of the vehicular access some 7.5m further to the north to access a total of 16 parking spaces contained within two parking areas.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council - “The Council notes that these revised proposals attempt to address previous concerns. However whilst the Council remains of the view that some development of the site is acceptable in principle it continues to feel that the revised proposals are too dominant for the site and would have an adverse effect on the skyline particularly in relation to the adjacent windmill. The Council also notes the significant number of mature trees which would be lost under these proposals. Not only would the loss of the trees be regrettable in itself, their felling would also open up the site thus compounding the intrusive effect of the development on the skyline. For the record, the Council confirms its acceptance of the proposed demolition of the existing building.”Highway Authority – Recommends refusal for the following reason:“The proposal would result in a material change in the volume of traffic using the access road and lead to an increase traffic hazard at this point of the C293 (Caldbec Hill) by reason of the inadequate visibility at the proposed access”.Environment Agency – No objection.Southern Water – No objection subject to later approval of drainage details.Sussex Police - No objection in principle. Recommends use of hard and soft landscaping to secure ground floor amenity and privacy. Lack of private space around ground floor windows increases vulnerability of building to direct approach.Planning Notice - 26 letters of objection to date:i) over-development; ii) out of character; iii) loss of and damage to existing trees; iv) overflow parking on Caldbec Hill undesirable; v) detrimental to local residents’ amenities; vi) over-shadowing dominant building; vii) serious overlooking; viii) additional traffic and consequent hazards on Caldbec Hill; ix) detrimental to appearance of locality in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; x) additional congestion; xi) density much higher than surrounding area; xii) Providence Cottage, being single storey would be completely dominated; xiii) the site is of historic importance; xiv) there are inadequate footways in Caldbec Hill, they are not continuous therefore requiring pedestrians to cross the road; xv) inadequate access and sight lines; xvi) new access and foundation construction may de-stabilise bank adjacent to Providence Cottage; xvii) previous objections and reasons for refusal continue to apply; xviii) The Windmill should be left as the dominant local feature; xix) quality of individual trees not as important as the value of the collective whole. Additionally three letters have been received specifically commenting on the additional plans reported to the March meeting and debate thereon. These letters, received from Sundale, The Mill House and Whitehayes are attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT to this report.

SUMMARY This site lies within the Development Boundary as identified by the Rother Local Plan; re-development is consequently considered appropriate. The re-development of previously used land is to be supported and the proposed density of 10 flats falls in the mid range of Government advice (PPG3).The previous application for 10 flats on this site was refused for the following reasons:-“1. The development would be out of character with, and detrimental to the

amenities of existing dwellings in the vicinity, contrary to Policy GD1 (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

2. Highway reason.3. The design and external appearance and mass of the building would, if

permitted, be out of character and detrimental to the appearance of the locality. 12

The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy GD1 (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003), and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.”

The current proposal seeks to address these reasons with a scheme that is of revised siting and design, a revised access, many trees retained with the proposals supported by an arboriculturalist’s report, the deletion of balconies and the car parking at a lower reduced level.I consider the design of the building to be a significant improvement but it has to be acknowledged that the larger building and increased number of households accommodated on the site would have an effect upon the enjoyment of nearby properties. Flats are not of course inappropriate in the locality and the development would result in a change to the appearance of, and activity within the site. If Members believe that this is unacceptable it would be necessary to be able to demonstrate material harm. Crucial to the issues is a comparison between the height and level of the existing building and the proposal.A plan has been provided by the applicant’s agent indicating that by reducing the level of the site the ridge height of the proposed building would coincide with the existing building. The accuracy of this has been questioned by two residents who also emphasise the additional mass of the building. I have checked the accuracy of the plan by comparison with the original site survey and concluded that for the ridges to coincide the ground level would need to be reduced by 1.7m; the plan provided (drawing no. BA.04.120/0030) indicates 1.25m and the site layout plan (BA.04/120/001H) only a reduction of 0.46m. Clearly the ridges can be matched by additional excavation but that is not what the submitted plans currently indicate. If members wished to secure this an amended level plan would be required. It is my understanding that the applicants would concur.It should be emphasised that the re-development of this type of previously developed site at an increased density (between 30-50 units per hectare) is current policy. The site lies outside of the Conservation Area and there should be no ‘in principle’ objection to re-development. I believe the amended design combined with the reduced level mentioned above goes a long way to addressing the previous reasons for refusal. There would however, be a short term cost to the appearance of the site in the street scene by the earthworks necessary. This would also be true of the works needed to reposition the access.Turning to the access, the Highway Authority recommend refusal saying that the visibility achievable is inadequate and that the proposal would create an increased traffic hazard. I understand that the applicant is seeking to address the highway objection; this will involve the physical measurement of the access etc and comparison between previous traffic generated by the former dentist surgery with that of 10 flats.Members will view the site and consider the effect of the development upon the privacy and amenities of neighbouring properties and generally in the street scene. On balance I believe the applicant has gone a long way to addressing earlier concerns. However, there is a highway objection that I doubt can be resolved within the applicants land ownership. Unless the Highway Authority withdraw their objection as a result of the applicants discussions with them I expect to make the

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposal would result in a material change in the volume of traffic using the

access road and lead to an increase traffic hazard at this point of the C293 (Caldbec Hill) by reason of the inadequate visibility at the proposed access.

13

RR/2005/595/P BATTLE 140 HASTINGS ROAD, HIGH CROFT, TELHAMOUTLINE: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF THREE DETACHED DWELLINGSMr and Mrs Brown


SITE Highcroft is a detached single residence on a plot to the western side of Hastings Road, Battle. The plot measures approximately 0.14 hectares and the existing dwelling is set back from the road accessed via an existing drive. The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is situated within the development boundary for Battle.

HISTORYRR/96/2025/P Proposed alterations and improvements - Approved ConditionalRR/2004/2387/P Outline: Demolition of existing detached dwelling and erection of

six dwellings with provision of eight parking spaces - Withdrawn.

PROPOSAL This is an outline application for the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of three detached dwellings. The siting, design and external appearance of the proposed dwellings are matters which are reserved for subsequent approval, thus the plans submitted are for illustrative purposes only. The access would remain the same as the existing access and the development would serve 7 parking spaces.

CONSULTEESTown Council:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- “It is to be noted that means of access for this development is to be dealt with at this outline stage.Therefore the Highway Authority recommends that any consent shall include the following/attached conditions:1. The new access shall be in the position shown on the submitted plan and laid

out and constructed in accordance with the attached HT407 form. All works shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development.Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway and in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

2. On the completion of the new access any remaining sections of the existing vehicular access shall be stopped up and the kerb and verge reinstated as necessary in accordance with details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway and in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

Note: The number of proposed parking spaces is acceptable to the Highway Authority however each space should measure at least 2.4m by 4.8m. Adequate manoeuvring and turning areas should also be provided. See attached diagrams.”Environment Agency:- “No objection to the proposal, but would like to offer the following advice.Landfill - According to current records there is a landfill site (Branshill Farm) within 120 metres of this site. It should be noted that records for pre-1974 sites are from District

14

and Archive records and some of these are incomplete. The site fill is thought to have included inert material.However, there is no record of off site problems related to the landfill which are likely to impact on the above proposal.Surface Water Disposal - The Agency would expect infiltration rates for soakaways to be based on permeability tests undertaken over the winter period and not those done during the drier months. The design needs to be based upon BS6297:1983 (relating to soakage testing) and BRE Digest 365: Soakaway Design. The local geological and hydro geological characteristics of the site will dictate whether soakaways will be applicable and an investigation would be required.A copy of this letter has been sent to the applicant/agent.”Southern Water:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- 4 letters of objection: loss of privacy highway safety sets a precedent ribbon development out of character narrow access in semi rural area area will be irreversibly altered outside development boundary for Battle?

SUMMARY The site lies within the Development Boundary for Battle as identified in the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). It is an existing developed site (brownfield land) and residential re-development of the land would not be opposed in principle under existing planning policies. A major issue for consideration however is whether the proposed scheme can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site being mindful of the existing character of the area, the need to safeguard existing residential amenity of neighbouring properties in close proximity to the site, and also the requirement to provide adequate on-site parking and manoeuvring areas to serve the new residential development. An illustrative layout plan has been provided with the application. In my view, however, this does not demonstrate that the proposed three dwellings can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site in respect to the aforementioned issues.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING) 1. Whilst the application relates to the redevelopment of an existing development

site within the Development Framework for Battle as identified within the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003), and Policy S1(e) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 is noted, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site without resulting in a cramped form of development that would be out of character and harmful to the amenities of the area. In particular it has not been demonstrated that the proposed dwelling and the increase in residential activity on the site, including the indicative parking layout would not result in disturbance and loss of privacy for the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The development proposal is contrary to Policy S1(a) & (b) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD12(ii) & (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

2. The indicative layout plan does not demonstrate that a satisfactory on-site parking arrangement can be accommodated within the site that provides

15

adequate space for on-site manoeuvring and turning areas in the interests of highway safety, and also would allow for an adequate landscaped buffer to be provided to protect the amenity of the occupiers of those existing dwellings in close proximity of the site. The development conflicts with Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2004/3265/P BEXHILL 6 THE COVERT, COODEN, BEXHILLERECTION OF SMALL OUTBUILDING LOCATED ADJACENT TO SWIMMING POOL TO HOUSE THE BOILER AND METER SYSTEM (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Mr S A Roller

Statutory 8 week date: 4 January 2005

This application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 17 March when it was resolved that a decision be deferred for further information. I had reported as follows:-

SITE This is a detached dwelling located on the northwest side of The Covert. The retrospective boiler house building is located behind the front boundary wall.

HISTORYRR/2004/2374/P Erection of single storey study extension to house - Approved

PROPOSAL This is a retrospective application for the retention of a brick building with a tiled roof to match the existing dwelling. The building measures 2.46 x 1.03 x 2.16 up to the top of the mono-pitched roof. The building is in place as a housing for a boiler to heat the swimming pool in the garden of the dwelling, access to the boiler is via two thick UPVC doors in the font of the housing. A 600mm high stainless steel flue pipe protrudes through the mono pitched roof to disperse the boiler vapours. The applicant has confirmed that a ‘Corgi’ registered engineer has installed the boiler.

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice: 2 letters of objection from 7 The Covert: Too close to my house Fumes from boiler drift toward our windows, therefore they need to be closed The stainless steel cowl is detrimental to the visual amenities of the street scene Boiler itself should be included in the planning application

SUMMARY The Planning Officer, a Senior Environmental Health Officer, and the Council’s Chief Building Control Officer have inspected this site. The brick and tiled housing itself has been carefully and sympathetically constructed, and in my opinion is acceptable in relation in design, appearance and in relation to this site and the neighbouring dwelling. The main issues to be considered are:1. Whether the flue pipe meets the standards required under the Building

Regulations. To this end the Councils Chief Building Control Officer has been in contact with the applicant and inspected the site; following that visit the applicant has been requested to demonstrate whether the installed boiler including the flue pipe meets the Building Regulations; I am awaiting the applicant’s response; upon receipt of his response I will re-consult the Chief Building Control Officer.

16

2. The appearance of the flue pipe in the street scene. In my opinion whilst the flue pipe is visible above the garden wall, it is not so prominent so as to be detrimental on the visual amenities of either the neighbouring residents, or the street scene in general.

In addition to the above, I will await the comments of the Director of Services – Environment, with regard to noise readings taken on the site, and his recommended conditions for the operation of the boiler.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO FURTHER INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT RE COMPLIANCE WITH THE BUILDING REGULATIONS AND FURTHER COMMENTS FROM DIRECTOR OF SERVICES - ENVIRONMENT)1. Any conditions from Environmental Health.


RR/2005/179/P BEXHILL BARNHORN FARM, BARNHORN ROADERECTION OF OPEN SIDED BARN FOR STORAGE OF CATTLE FEEDMrs P C Ainslie


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

SITE The site is set back from the highway some 75m off a shared access drive, behind an existing barn, which houses cattle. The pole barn, subject of the application, is located within a working farmyard and is not visible from the highway due to numbers 71 and 73 Barnhorn Road screening the site, though the building is visible from the surrounding countryside.

HISTORYNone

PROPOSAL The proposal is to retain the pole barn, which has been erected prior to the submission of this application. The barn is for the storage of animal feed due to the shortcomings of the existing open-air storage bays.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Any comments will be reported.Rural Estates Surveyor: I am of the opinion that it is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the unit to retain the pole barn. Bulk bedding and feed materials are to be stored in the building and wastage will be reduced. Director of Services – Environmental Health: Any comments will be reported.Public Notice: One letter of objection has been received raising concern over: Loss of a view Devaluation of the property The indicated orientation of the building on the submitted plan The height of the barn

17

SUMMARY The pole barn is set close to the southern boundary of the private rear gardens of numbers 71 and 73 Barnhorn Road. A mature and dense tree screen is set along the rear boundary of 71 Barnhorn Road, through which the building is partially visible. The same boundary to the rear of 73 Barnhorn Road does not benefit from such a screen and therefore part of the barn is clearly visible from the rear of number 73. The rear gardens of the aforementioned properties measure some 40m in length. The barn is set predominantly to the rear of 71 Barnhorn Road at an angle of some 25º away from the boundary line because it has been built parallel to the adjacent barn. The height of the barn allows for the storage of a large quantity of hay and is similar to the ridge height of the adjacent barn, although while the pole barn has a mono-pitch roof the adjacent barn has a pitched roof, therefore giving the visual appearance of a taller building. The erection of the pole barn is considered reasonable to assist in the effective running of the farm and relative to the number of cattle on the farm (currently 200 head with the intension of increasing that number). The positioning of the barn appears a logical decision due to the layout of the farmyard and the proximity to the access gate to the shared drive and the open fields to the south side of Barnhorn Road. The site is located some 40m from the rear of 73 Barnhorn Road and is partially screen by mature trees when viewed from the patio area. The dwelling and substantial part of the rear garden is not overshadowed and the issue of overbearing does not arise. In light of these considerations, the building, while perhaps blocking views of the landscape to the south, does not otherwise materially affect the private dwellings and therefore is considered acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) 1. The barn hereby approved shall be used solely for the storage of animal feed for

animals kept on Barnhorn Farm and not for storage of any farm implements/machinery or for the accommodation of livestock whatsoever. Reason: To safeguard the amenity of the neighbouring residential properties and to enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the land.


RR/2005/402/P BEXHILL 101 COODEN DRIVE,BEXHILL ERECTION OF TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION TO PROVIDE STUDY, BATHROOM AND LAUNDRY ON GROUND FLOOR AND EXTENSION TO BEDROOM ON FIRST.Mr & Mrs K Cobb


This application has been added to the site inspection list for Tuesday, 19 April 2005.

SITE This is a detached dwelling located to the south side of Cooden Drive. The site is the second plot up from the junction of South Cliff Avenue.

HISTORY 18

RR/2004/2384/P Erection of dormer extension to front and addition of two rooflights and erection of conservatory extension to rear – Approved.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to erect a two storey rear extension, with single storey projection both with a hipped roof. It will incorporate a study, bathroom and utility room on the ground floor and new bedroom on the first floor.

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice: 6 letters of objection from the occupiers of 99 Cooden drive and 2 South Cliff Avenue. The proposed extension and balcony would tower some 4.5m above adjacent

gardens looking directly into the living areas of both properties. The proposed balcony would destroy all privacy and tranquillity to both rear gardens

and seriously affect the value of our properties. The deck level would be parallel with our dining room window and sunroom window,

completely overlooking us. Too close to boundary. Totally overbearing and intrusive in nature. A shadow will be thrown into our garden.

SUMMARY In this application it was originally proposed to erect a flat roofed ground floor extension to the rear of the property to create a new study, bathroom and utility room with first floor decking and railings. The plans were amended to incorporate a first floor bedroom extension over part of the flat roof area in order to reduce overlooking to neighbouring properties. Despite this amendment, letters of objection were received from neighbours at 99 Cooden Drive and 2 South Cliff Avenue, who took the view that the proposed balcony/decked area would overlook the living areas of both properties and gardens and remove all privacy. On inspection of these properties it was apparent that, despite the rear gardens of the surrounding dwellings being quite ‘open’ in nature, the proposed development would be significantly intrusive on the neighbouring properties. Subsequently, the decked area, railings and french doors have been removed from the application and replaced with a low pitched, hipped roof that is in keeping with the design of the existing dwelling and would prevent the roof being used as a balcony. The neighbours also raised concerns regarding the use of the new extension. They were concerned the study would be used for a new business, however it has been confirmed that no new business is to be operated from the premises. The windows in the new bathroom and utility room will be opaque so not to overlook the neighbouring property and will not vent into the neighbouring garden. The extension is of an acceptable design and scale, and despite possibly taking some evening light from 99 Cooden Drive, the impact upon the neighbouring properties would not be significant enough to warrant a refusal.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN5D (Obscure glaze windows) (Insert ‘at ground floor level, on the East elevation’)2. CN5E (a) (Restriction of alterations/additions)3. CN7C (Matching external materials) Note: N1A (Drawing Number BXL.04.146/04D) date stamped 4th April 2005

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

19

RR/2005/576/P BEXHILL 37 ST LEONARDS ROAD, THE ICE CUBEVARIATION OF CONDITION 7 IMPOSED UPON RR/2002/1414/P TO EXTEND THE OPENING HOURS FROM 11PM TO 12 MIDNIGHT ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY NIGHTSM & J Vuranel


SITE A mid-terrace property comprising a ground floor restaurant/wine bar and a maisonette above.

HISTORYRR/2002/1414/P Change of use from shop to restaurant/wine bar, new shop front

and rear extension – ApprovedRR/2004/518/P Variation of condition 7 imposed on permissionRR/2002/1414/P To extend opening hours to 1:00am on Thursday, Friday and

Saturday nights – Refused for the reasons (briefly) – the proposal would increase periods of noise disturbance for local residents into the early hours of the morning

PROPOSAL The application is a revised proposal following the refusal of RR/2004/518/P above. Condition 7 of RR/2002/1414/P restricts the hours of use to the following: “The premises shall not be used or occupied for the approved use before 9.00am or after 1.00pm on any day”. The current application is to extend the night-time opening hours on Friday and Saturday nights.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority – Does not wish to restrict grant of consent.Sussex Police – Comments include the following – “The Ice Cube continues to be a well managed establishment. Police are not aware of incidents or complaints associates with this bar and do not suggest any reason now for refusing the application”.Director of Services – Environmental Health – Comments awaited.Planning Notice – 2 letters of objection (18 and 35b St Leonards Road) on the grounds:- Constant noise and mess; unhygienic happenings through our letterbox- Music has got a lot louder since I last wrote. Over Easter the premises opened

until midnight, the volume of music went up at 11.00 and kept us awake until 12.30

- My 6 year old boy cannot get to sleep until the music stops- We are not the only ones who have had problems with the noise. Others have

moved away because of the disturbance. However, we own our flat and we would not be able to sell it because of the disturbance

- On Thursday 31 March and Friday 1 April last week there was fighting and the Police had to be called. People were arrested.

SUMMARY As was the case with the previous application, the principal issue for consideration is the impact of the proposal on the residential amenities of the locality. From the representations received in response to the application, it would appear that disturbance is presently a cause for concern. An extension to the hours of operation is likely to increase any periods of disturbance for local residents thereby significantly exacerbating existing problems of disturbance. I have asked the applicants to explain

20

what measures have been put in place to provide sound insulation to the building and a response to this is awaited. I am also awaiting the advice on the application from the Environmental Health Division. On the basis of the information available, however, I anticipate making the

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposal would increase periods of noise disturbance for local residents into

the early hours of the morning, thereby significantly exacerbating existing problems of nuisance and resulting in harm to the residential amenity of people living within the vicinity of the site. The development is contrary to Policy S1 (b) of the East Sussex & Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 and Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2005/583/P BEXHILL 160 NINFIELD ROADOUTLINE: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUNGALOW. ERECTION OF 3 TERRACED HOUSES AND FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESSMr A Verity


This application has been added to the list of pre-Committee site inspections.

SITE The site is on the north side of Ninfield Road opposite the junction with Southlands Road. The site has a frontage of about 22 metres and a depth of about 28 metres. It is currently occupied by a single detached bungalow which has a large garden. The existing bungalow sits on a level area below road level. Beyond the garden slopes quickly down to the rear behind properties in Kingscott Close. The rear part of the garden is not included in the application. The whole property is subject to a Tree Preservation Order although most of the trees are within the rear garden which is excluded from the application site.

HISTORY (Whole site)RR/2003/3147/P Outline: creation of 4 two storey 4 bed houses and 2 semi-

detached 3 bed houses with associated mews access - Refused

PROPOSAL This is an outline proposal with all detailed matters reserved. An indicative layout shows a simple terrace of three houses broadly in line with the houses either side. The development would be confined to the general area and level of the existing bungalow. The indicative plans suggest use of the existing access and one further entrance. The car parking area to the front of the terrace would be raised towards existing road level and the properties either side.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- Comments are awaited.Planning Notice:- One letter received to-date raising the following issues: highway safety - congestion and visibility; the future of the remaining land to the rear and the possibility of access from

Mayo Lane/Cooper Drive possible land slippage affecting adjoining properties

21

SUMMARY The site lies within the built up area of Bexhill. The bungalow pre-dates the development surrounding and it is now rather dominated by the houses either side, being set at a lower ground level.This application relates only to the frontage area of the property. The 2003 application was for a development of the whole property and was refused for a number of reasons not least because of the potential removal of the preserved trees and the adverse effect of developing, particularly the rear part of the site, on the adjoining residents. In addition the scheme was not considered to be an efficient use of land and there were highway objections.This is a significantly different proposal, confined to the front of the site and leaving the mature rear garden untouched. I note the objector’s comments on the land behind but this application must be dealt with on its merits.A conventional terrace is suggested which would not be out of keeping with the semi detached houses either side. Like the adjoining houses to the west it is likely that houses would be two storeys to the front and three storeys to the rear. Car parking spaces are suggested to the front of each house although access and parking needs careful assessment at the detailed stage.While the whole of the property is covered by an area Tree Preservation Order the application site contains no significant trees and development would have no adverse impact on any trees.The main issue relates to vehicular access from Ninfield Road and appropriate on site turning space. If the Highway Authority raise no objections then I would be able to support the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING) DELEGATED (AWAITING HIGHWAY AUTHORITY COMMENTS)1. The details required by condition 1 shall include the slab levels for each house

and for the car parking areas to the front of the houses and the gradients thereof. No development shall be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure a proper development of the site safeguarding the amenities of adjoining residents in accordance with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. The details required by condition 2 shall include provision for two car parking spaces per dwelling and provision for turning space within the site to allow vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear. No development shall take place other than in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure sufficient off-street parking in the interests of road safety in accordance with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

3. Plans 05:003 accompanying the application are not approved.Reason: This is an outline application with all matters reserved and the supporting drawings are accepted as indicative only.


RR/2005/609/P BEXHILL 152-160 TURKEY ROADOUTLINE: DEMOLITION OF FIVE DWELLINGS. ERECTION OF 33 FLATS IN 3 BLOCKS WITH 11 GARAGES AND 29 PARKING SPACES.

22

Mr and Mrs M Whiting

Statutory 13 week date: 01 June 2005

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

SITE This application relates to the site of 5 dwellings (2 x bungalows, 2 x semi-detached houses and 1 x detached house) on the north side of Turkey Road and between the sheltered flats known as Thornwood and the Rose & Crown (PH).

HISTORYNone relevant.

PROPOSAL To create a development of 33 flats arranged in three blocks (comprising 21 x two bedroom flats and 12 x one bedroom flats). Parking would comprise 29 car parking spaces and 11 garages plus secure cycle storage. In a supporting letter the applicant states:-“I have already consulted the County Highway Authority and have incorporated their requirements regarding the positioning of the access into the site (a copy of their letter is attached).The re-development of the nearby college site has prompted this scheme. The character of this particular part of Turkey Road has changed and I feel that a flats development is more suited to this location.The scheme fits in well with its surroundings, Thornwood is immediately to the east of the site, which comprises warden care flats and a day-care centre, to the west there is a public footpath and the Rose & Crown Public House whilst to the north (in Davis Close) there are two storey houses which are concealed behind a good tree screen.The flats have been sympathetically designed and located so that there will be no significant loss of light or privacy to these existing properties. The 3 storey design incorporates a mansard type roof, which minimises height, you will see from the plans that the heights are comparable to the adjoining properties.The scheme will provide a valuable contribution towards the housing stock of Bexhill and I trust that you will feel able to support this proposal.”

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- Does not wish to restrict grant of Consent subject to the provision of appropriate visibility splays; relocation of cycle storage; improvements to pedestrian facilities in the vicinity; adequate provision to prevent surface water discharging onto the public highway; tactile pram ramps; provision of raised kerbs at the bus waiting facilities; submission of detailed drawings of the off-site highway works; securing of off-site works by S106 Legal Agreement with Highway Authority.Environment Agency:- Has no objection subject to conditions to control the discharge of surface water from parking areas and hardstandings and type of any infill material. Southern Water:- Enclose a plan showing the sewers/mains in the vicinity.Foul Sewerage - Inadequate capacity in existing system. Any additional flows would have to be drained to a point of connection where spare capacity exists (e.g. manhole no.3202 near to junction with Southlands Road) and may need to be pumped.Surface Water Disposal - The Council’s own Building Control officers or engineers should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways. Alternatively, it is recommended that surface water should be drained to the culverted watercourse that crosses the site. The Environment Agency and/or Council’s own technical staff should

23

comment on land drainage, the adequacy of the local watercourse and the need for storm water storage.A condition requiring details of proposed means of foul and surface water disposal to be submitted before development is commenced is recommended.Attention is drawn to a culverted watercourse that crosses the site. This does not come under the jurisdiction of Southern Water. The Environment Agency and/or Council’s own technical staff should comment on any protection measures that may be necessary.Director of Services - Environment:- “I have serious concerns regarding surface water disposal as this area is prone to flooding.From the attached sewer records you will note that Southern Water have not adopted the drainage system between points A-B-C and the private ditch A-B is in poor condition and sections have been piped in.The surface water sewers in Turkey Road are close to capacity and not all have been adopted by Southern Water who allowed Redrow Homes to discharge into a section of their sewer despite my concerns as their sewer discharges into an unadopted sewer further down Turkey Road.The developer should be required to carry out a full survey of the drainage system and undertake any off-site works required together with site attenuation and the re-cutting of the open ditch at the rear of their site.The Environment Agency should also be consulted as they have recently taken over the receiving ditch in Turkey Road as a ‘Critical Watercourse’.”County Planning Officer:- Application has no strategic planning implications but attention is drawn to the requirement of the draft East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan which seeks to achieve a reduction in the amount of construction industry waste which goes to landfill. Comments regarding the matter of developer contributions include i) Education - development is unlikely to give rise to significant numbers of children of school age; ii) Library - existing library is capable of accommodating additional demands; iii) Household Waste - Mountfield site would be capable of meeting additional demand; iv) Youth, social services, environment and economic development infrastructure - unlikely to give rise to need for contributions towards additional provision.Sussex Police:- Comments awaited.Director of Services - Housing:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- 11 letters of objection - too many flats in space created; tree screen contains mature trees with no lower branches and large gaps, nos. 5, 6, and 7 Davis Close will be overlooking a solid block of garages and garage roofs; pollution of open ditch; overlooking from planned height which rises to three storeys, will look across Turkey Road; three storey dwellings on College site are sufficiently close to be intrusive; Thornwood and pub are only two storeys high and dwellings opposite are mainly bungalows; would not object to two storeys; out of character with periphery of bungalows; area already over developed; additional traffic on busy road near to junction with Gunters Lane; already a shortage of water supplies, doctors and dentists in Bexhill; further strain on sewage system; could lead to further similar applications to the detriment of the town (e.g. Chantry Avenue).

SUMMARY My comments upon the following relevant issues are as follows:-Density - The current density of the site is 12.5 dwellings per ha. The proposed density would be 82.5 dwellings per ha. Government Advice contained in PPG3 requires Local Planning Authorities to encourage housing development which makes efficient use of land (between 30 and 50 dwellings per ha) and seek greater intensity of development at

24

places with good transport accessibility such as city, town, district and local centres etc. This advice is embodied within Policy HG4 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) which adds the proviso “subject to any overriding environmental considerations.”Character - Although the proposal does not replicate the appearance of the existing five dwellings in any way the two frontage blocks are of a size and siting that would create a more open character than currently exists. Furthermore, although three storey, they would have relatively low eaves and would incorporate the third floor within a mansard style roof the height of which would closely relate to the buildings each side (i.e. Rose & Crown and Thornwood). However, Mansard roofs are not typical in the area and whilst a more traditional design would be desirable, this would reduce the number of units that could be provided in the scheme. Notwithstanding the fact that ‘design’ would be a reserved matter, it is my opinion that this issue needs to be the subject of further discussion. The rear block would not be prominent in the street scene and would not appear cramped.Amenity - Notwithstanding the objections received from local residents, it is my opinion that, in view of existing tree screening and distances between frontages, the amenities of the dwellings lying to the rear (Davis Close) and on the opposite side of Turkey Road, would not be adversely affected to a degree that would be sufficient to justify a reason for refusal.Affordable Housing - The development proposed is of a scale where both Government Advice and Local Plan Policies would require any element of affordable housing to be provided. The applicant has not indicated his intentions in this regard. However, comments from the Head of Housing have not yet been received and I shall therefore need to request the applicant’s consideration once it is known what the local need is within the area. In terms of mix (e.g. 1 and 2 bed units) and layout (e.g. 3 separate blocks) the scheme submitted would appear to lend itself well to such provision.Highway Safety - The Highway Authority has no objection to the scheme and their detail concerns could be adequately dealt with at detail stage. However, it would be appropriate to ensure that a S106 Obligation between the Highway Authority and the developer was entered into in order to obtain the off-site works required.Drainage - It is clear that there are issues regarding both foul and surface water drainage from the site. These could also be addressed at detail stage. However, it would be appropriate to impose a condition at outline stage requiring these details to be submitted and approved before any development is commenced.

In view of the above, it is my opinion that there are no overriding environmental considerations to prevent redevelopment in principle of the site at a higher density. The submitted plans indicate a form of development that, in terms of layout, scale and height, could be accommodated on the site without adversely affecting the character and amenities of the area. However, design is an issue that needs to be discussed further together with the provision of an appropriate element of affordable housing. Provided the applicant agrees to include an appropriate element of affordable housing within the scheme, and that satisfactory amended indicative plan is received, I would expect to support the proposal.

25

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING) DELEGATED (SATISFACTORY AMENDED INDICATIVE PLAN/APPLICANT’S AGREEMENT TO PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ELEMENT AND OFF-SITE WORKS SECURED BY S106 OBLIGATION)1. CN8C (Foul and surface water details).2. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or

soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through trapped gullies to BS 5911:1982 with an overall capacity compatible with the site being drained.Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

3. Clean, uncontaminated rock, subsoil, brick rubble, crushed concrete and ceramic only shall be permitted as infill materials.Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

4. CN13A amended “Any details of landscaping submitted for approval as a reserved matter shall include …”.Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) (Landscaping scheme).

Note 1: The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of Southern Water contained in their letter dated 4 April 2005.

Note 2: The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of the Highway Authority contained in their form HT401 dated 24 March 2005.

Note 3: The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments received from the Council’s Head of Amenities and contained in his memorandum dated 14 March 2005.

N1A (Amended plan).N12A Section 106 Obligation - to secure the provision of an element of affordable housing and financial contribution to the Highway Authority for off-site works.


RR/2004/650/P BECKLEY SIX ACRES, STODDARDS LANEERECTION OF DOG KENNELSMr and Mrs B Baker


Consideration of this application was deferred at your January meeting for the comments of the Head of Environmental Health following the receipt of an acoustic consultant’s report. Members had previously inspected the site.

SITE This property occupies a countryside location on the west side of Stoddards Lane about 800m north of All Saints Church. The house stands near the roadside boundary, and an unmade drive at the northern end of the frontage serves a single

26

storey former chicken house at a lower level about 25m to the rear, which has approval for Class B1 & B8 use (reference RR/2001/2162/P). The application site originally comprised an area of the adjacent field, approximately 24m x 23m some 20m beyond that building. The amended proposal now relates to a site approximately 23m x 11m in the field on the south side of the former chicken house.

HISTORY (Relevant)A/65/334 Outline – Dwelling (adjoining Six Acres) – Refused.A/66/131 Vehicular access – Permitted Development.RR/80/1435 Two stables and livestock stall – Approved.RR/88/3035 New dwelling house to replace existing chalet bungalow with

access alteration – Approved.RR/89/1475/P C of U of chicken house to office, craft, woodwork, joinery shop

manufacturing traditional handmade furniture – Approved.RR/1999/970/P Two storey extension – Approved.RR/1999/1786/P Erection of Stables – Approved.RR/2001/2162/P Change of Use of building to B1 and B8 (part retrospective) –

Approval.

PROPOSAL Approval is sought for the erection of dog kennels on agricultural land to the rear of Six Acres. The original scheme showed two parallel single storey ranges each 19.4m x 3.5m (24 units in all) with cream painted rendered walls and light green profiled metal roofing sheets. The revised scheme now shows a single range, 19.4m x 3.5m, of 12 units and Kitchen/Storage accommodation. In a letter dated 8 th June 2004, the agent states “Further to your letter dated 26th May 2004, please find enclosed 4 No. copies of our drawing number 2138/1’A’, 1:500 scale block plan and 1:2500 scale location plan that have all been amended to indicate a reduced number of kennels. The kennels have also been re-sited along side the existing industrial building.My client proposes to install acoustic double glazing as suggested by Mr Steve Mills. The existing industrial building will act as an acoustic screen to the north of the proposal and the secure perimeter fence can be constructed as a 2.0m high acoustic screen.Soft coverings will be introduced within each kennel to help absorb sound, together with rockwool insulation with the roof void to prevent reverberation.My client would propose operating hours of 9.30am – 5.30pm for owners to collect/drop off their dogs and to keep the dogs locked within the building between the hours of 6.00pm and 8.00am”In an Email to the Environmental Health Officer dated 1st July 2004, the applicant states further that:-“I am writing to confirm to you that the revised application is now for 12 Kennels, which will include an isolated unit. The significant reduction in numbers will substantially reduce the noise potential.In addition, I have taken advice from acoustic consultants. I will erect 2 meter high acoustic screening which is in the form of 12” x 1” wooden panelling constructed in such a way which has been established to minimise noise. This itself is quite attractive, and will complement the planting and general cottage type outlook which I intend to create around the kennels. It will also form part of the security fencing. In addition, I will install acoustic double glazing and internal measures to absorb sound.The reduction in numbers also means that the proposed kennel block will fit within the yard of the existing building and on the site of an industrial building, which was burnt in a fire some six years ago. There is currently an existing permission to rebuild with a stable block in this spot.

27

The general construction of the building will comply with the Model Licence Conditions for Boarding Kennels even though this has not been fully adopted by Rother District Council to ensure that the highest possible standards can be met ….”

CONSULTATIONS Parish Council:- Support a refusal. They feel the noise would be intolerable to residents and would be reflected against the workshop walls. This is more suited to a very rural area and well away from other houses.Highway Authority:- Does not wish to restrict grant of consent.Environment Agency:- “Has no objection to the proposal provided that the condition/s within this letter are imposed on any planning permission granted:Condition: No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of run off from hardstandings has been approved by, and implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment,Condition: Foul water from washing out blocks must not enter any watercourse.Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.The applicant has been sent a copy of the Environment Agency’s Pollution Prevention Guidelines ‘PPG24 – Stables, Kennels and Catteries’.Decision Notice: Please forward a copy of the full decision notice to this office, quoting our reference number, to enable us to report on High Level Target 12.A copy of this letter has been sent to the applicant/agent”.Southern Water Services:- Does not wish to comment on this application.Director of Services – Environmental Health:-6 April 2004:-“1. The separating structures to the exercise runs must be constructed of solid

material to a height of 675mm from ground level in order to comply with the construction requirements of the Model Licence Conditions and Guidance for Dog Boarding Establishments - Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963.

2. Also - please would you enquire as to any isolation facilities to be provided. There must be isolation facilities and none are shown.

3. What is the maximum number of dogs to be provided for?4. Floors must be laid to a minimum fall of 1 in 80 leading to mains drainage, or an

approved, localised sewage disposal system. This also in order to comply with the Model Licence Conditions”.

12 May 2004:-“Further to our site visit and the correspondence I have seen via the Council website - the site is in a quiet rural area with birdsong being the predominant noise during our visit. The development would introduce new noise of a potentially disturbing nature into the locality.Experience shows that noise from dog kennels can be very difficult to minimise, remedial measures can involve provision of special acoustic treatment to buildings (eg acoustic double glazing, silenced forced ventilation, automatic door closure, 2 metre high acoustic screens, light-tight screens) and close control over operating conditions (eg hours restrictions, not accepting noisy dogs).I believe that an acoustic consultant’s report would need to be submitted in support of the application due to the sensitive location. There are a number of residential properties with gardens in the vicinity who would be affected by this development.I note also that traffic issues have been mentioned and more generally - the development would involve buildings in the AONB.”15 July 2004 -

28

“I have received the amended plans. I confirm that Mr Mills’ previous comments in memorandum dated 12/5/04 are still appropriate i.e. that an acoustic consultant’s report should be submitted in support of the application due to the location of the site in relation to neighbouring residential premises. The report should detail existing and predicted noise levels and any proposals for noise mitigation. The report shall be submitted to the Head of Environmental Health and noise mitigation proposals should be agreed by the Head of Environmental Health and implemented prior to commencement of the approved use.” Planning Notice:- 9 letters of objection (Woodgate Farm, Church Lane, Woodgate House, Stoddards Cottage, Stoddards Farmhouse, Stoddards Oast, Eastlands Farmhouse, Hoopers Court, Uani – Stoddards Lane; The Old Rectory, Beckley) generally on the grounds of, at least one business at this address involving lorries and vans; narrow lane with traffic travelling at unsafe speeds; noise and pollution from 30 plus dogs; AONB; dangerous single width lane used as a rat run; barking dogs obtrusive and unpleasant in valley; little noise at present; loss of rural character; increased traffic; noise and smell carried by prevailing wind; owner has little regard for planning rules and garage has been used as a separate residence; worked for 5 years at RSPCA dog rehousing centre and can confirm barking dogs will be a problem; insufficient parking space; disposal of excrement would be a problem; nuisance to neighbours; devalue neighbours properties; where will dogs be walked and who will clean up; considerable nuisance during summer.10 letters of support have been received (The Rose and Crown, Rye Road; Church Cottage, Church Lane; Chestnuts, Main Street; Carpens, Hobbs Lane; Eastlands Cottage, Stoddards Lane; 6 Northridge, Northiam; Mill Cottage, Mill Corner; Badgers Oak Veterinary Clinic, Hastings Road, Northiam; 7 Neryan Court, Rye; 12a High Street, Rye) generally to the effect that: applaud attempt at private enterprise; sure measures planned to reduce noise and traffic problems; domestic dogs less noise than people anticipate; shortage of Kennels in area; employment opportunities could benefit local community; nearest kennels 3 villages away; ideal site well away from nearest dwelling; will be screened by soil bank; Kennels double glazed and sound proofed and all waste would be to a septic tank illuminating risk of odours; already 42 dogs in Stoddards Lane; very caring and sensible owner.

SUMMARY Six Acres occupies a rural location, part of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty on the North Western outskirts of Beckley. Planning permission for the use of a former chicken house to the rear of the dwelling for Class B1 and Class B8 purposes was granted in December 2001 (Ref: RR/2001/2162/P).Consent is now sought to establish a boarding kennels and originally this involved the construction of two parallel single storey ranges of 24 Kennels in the field to the rear of the industrial/storage building. The proposal was subsequently revised to a single range of 12 Kennels located on the south side of the industrial building. Following discussions, the applicant has revised the scheme further moving the site to the north side of the industrial building within the yard area, and on a site previously approved for stables (ref: RR/1999/1786/). The Head of Environmental Health considers that an acoustic consultant’s report should be submitted in support of the application because of the location of the site in relation to neighbouring residential properties; the report to detail existing and predicted noise levels and proposals for noise mitigation which would need to be agreed by the Head of Environmental Health. This aspect has been taken up with the agent and the necessary acoustic consultant’s report has now been received, together with an amended plan showing the dog kennel runs facing towards the existing industrial unit as suggested in the consultant’s report. The Head of Environmental Health is

29

concerned that noise levels specified appear to be on the high side and is checking readings on site before responding with his detailed comments.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FOR COMMENTS OF HEAD OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH)

RR/2005/230/P BECKLEY METHERSHAM OAST, HOBBS LANECONVERSION OF AN INTEGRAL GARAGE TO A PLAYROOM AND ERECTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE STOREMr J Bloomer


SITE This substantial converted oast is remotely located about 3.25km north of the junction of Hobbs Lane with the A268 at Four Oaks crossroads and is approached via a 1.6km long unmade farm track from the northern end of the unclassified section of Hobbs Lane. Planning permission for its conversion to a single dwelling was originally allowed on Appeal in October 1997.

HISTORYRR/85/1501 Conversion of oast building to private dwelling house - Refused -

Appeal DismissedRR/91/0027/P Change of use of redundant farm buildings to trekking and fishing

centre for children with new septic tank - RefusedRR/91/2081/P Change of use of redundant farm buildings to trekking and fishing

centre in conjunction with children’s farm - RefusedRR/93/2111/P Change of use and conversion of redundant hop kiln and drying

building to a flat - RefusedRR/96/1115/P Change of use and conversion of redundant oast and stable to

single dwelling with new vehicular access - Refuse - Appeal Allowed

RR/98/386/P Change of use and conversion of existing oast to residential - Approved

RR/1999/744/P Proposed detached garage and garden machinery store - RefusedRR/2000/754/P Proposed erection of a garage/utility building - RefusedRR/2000/800/P Revised proposals for conversion of the oast to a dwelling involving

replacement of garage doors with windows (retrospective application) - Refused

PROPOSAL Consent is sought for the conversion of the integral garage at the northern end of the front elevation to a playroom and the erection of a detached garage/store within the curtilage about 25m to the south west. The garage openings to the oast to be infilled with boarding and glazing in a similar vein to the remainder of the oast; the detached garage (11.2m x 6m x 5.5m high) to be of a traditional form with stained weather boarded walls and a clay tiled roof.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “The Parish Council voted as below -2 against2 abstentions2 in favour

30

for conversion of integral garage to playroom and erection of detached garage/store.”Director of Transport & Environment - County Archaeologist:- “This application is of archaeological interest since it lies within the medieval moated Grange of Methersham. The site was a former property of Robertsbridge Abbey until the dissolution in 1538. Evidence of a moat survives in the form of ponds and earthworks, and these would have enclosed a main hall and ancillary buildings.For these reasons I would recommend that a watching brief takes place on the site and that a planning condition is attached to any planning permission that is granted, to the effect that:Reasonable facilities shall be given to the County Planning Authority, including rights of regular access to a person, or persons, authorised by that authority, during any construction work in order to prepare archaeological records. At least three weeks notice in writing shall be given to the County Planning Authority, and their nominated representatives of the date when work on site is likely to start.(Reason: The development is likely to disturb remains of archaeological interest).This recommendation is made in accordance with the advice set out in DoE Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 on Archaeology and Planning.In this instance the local archaeological group (the Hastings Area Archaeological Research Group) is probably the most appropriate organisation to undertake this work.They can be contacted through:Mike Greenhalgh, 2 Laton Road, Hastings, East Sussex TN34 2ET (01424 720446).Perhaps you could send us a copy of the planning decision, once it has been made. Meanwhile, please do not hesitate to contact us again if you need further information or advice.”Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY Planning permission for the conversion of this oast to a dwelling was allowed on appeal in October 1997 with integral garaging, and revised plans subsequently approved retained this feature. The Inspector indicated that the removal of a number of generally unattractive farm buildings on the site would enhance the attractiveness of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and would benefit the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape. So far as the conversion of the integral garage is concerned the original approval allowed on appeal, and the subsequently implemented approval, were on the basis that the garage space could be provided within the substantial oasthouse without the necessity for additional buildings. Planning conditions consequently imposed (ref. RR/98/386/P) removed permitted development rights for both alterations and extensions to the oasthouse and the erection of garages or outbuildings within the curtilage. Applications seeking consent to replace the garage doors in the oasthouse with windows and for a detached garage/utility building were refused in June 2000 (ref. RR/2000/754/P and RR/2000/800/P). The oasthouse is now firmly established in residential use and the relatively minor changes involved to convert the integral garage to a playroom would I feel be difficult to resist. The former outbuildings removed as part of the conversion were relatively unattractive modern structures, whereas the building now proposed has the form of a vernacular cart shed. Further, having regard to the scale of the converted building it would in my view appear to be appropriate to have some additional provision for garage and storage accommodation.The proposals would not in my view detract from the character and appearance of the locality and on balance I am minded to support an approval.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7G Amended delete ‘indicating … dwelling’. (Schedule of materials).

31

2. CN11S (Large scale constructional details of windows doors and conservation rooflights)(Reason: To accord with the provisions of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011).

3. The detached garage store shall be used only for domestic garaging and storage and for no other purpose.(Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the land and to accord with the provisions of Policy S10 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011).

4. Reasonable facilities shall be given to the County Planning Authority, including rights of regular access to a person, or persons, authorised by that authority, during any construction work in order to prepare archaeological records. At least three weeks notice in writing shall be given to the County Planning Authority, and their nominated representatives of the date when work on site is likely to start.(Reason: The development is likely to disturb remains of archaeological interest).

+Note: The applicant’s attention is directed to the comments of the County Archaeologist set out in his letter dated 15 March 2005 (copy attached).

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION:Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2005/428/P BECKLEY KITCHENOUR, KITCHENOUR LANEEXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONSMr and Mrs I Standen


RR/2005/431/L BECKLEY KITCHENOUR, KITCHENOUR LANEEXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONSMr and Mrs I Standen


RR/2005/499/P BECKLEY KITCHENOUR, KITCHENOUR LANECHANGE OF USE OF OUTBUILDING FROM GARAGE/ STORE TO GARAGE STORE AND OFFICE ON GROUND FLOOR AND 2 HOLIDAY LETS ON FIRST FLOOR. ERECTION OF NEW STABLES AND POOL ROOMMr and Mrs I Standen


SITE This property stands on the north west side of Kitchenour Lane in a countryside location on the western outskirts of Beckley Parish. It comprises the early 19 th century Grade II listed two storey brick and slate house and the range of single storey outbuildings at the rear.The site is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty at the rear.

HISTORY32

N/A

PROPOSAL Consent is sought for extensions and alterations to the main house (ref. RR/2005/428/P and RR/2005/431/L) and the change of use and conversion of the outbuilding at the rear to garage store and office on the ground floor and two holiday lets above beneath a new clay tiled roof (ref. RR/2005/499/P). Stained soft wood boarding would clad the blockwork upper walls. Further to the rear a new stable/storage building is proposed (12.5m x 6.5m x 3.5m high) in blockwork with brown coloured profiled metal sheet cladding to the upper walls and a low mono pitched roof. Also proposed is a new poolroom building in reconstituted stone cornice and columns (45m x 2.8m x 3m high) to the south of the house alongside the new open pool.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support a refusal.Director of Services - Head of Environmental Health:- RR/2005/499/P - “Please attach the following conditions to any permission:1. Before the development hereby permitted is first commenced, details of a

manure bay to be provided at least 31 metres from any residential building on adjacent land shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for their approval. The bay shall be provided before the development is first brought into use.

2. There shall be no burning of manure or soiled bedding on the land.3. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to a

contaminated land assessment and associated remedial strategy, together with a timetable of works, being submitted to the local planning authority for approval.a. The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk study to be

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

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

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

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

e. Upon completion of the works, this condition shall not be discharged until a closure report has been submitted to and approved by the local

33

planning authority. The closure report shall include details of the proposed remediation works and the quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full in accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any post remediation sampling and analysis to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site.

The site lies on the Tunbridge Wells sand formation – a minor aquifer – therefore please consult with the Environment Agency if you have not already done so.”Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY This 19th century two storey brick and slate listed building occupies a countryside location on the western outskirts of Beckley Parish. Consent is sought for alterations and extensions which include the addition of an orangery on its north east flank, a porch and utility room at the rear and a glazed roofed dining room addition in the recessed part of the rear elevation. A small kitchen extension is shown to the south west flank. At the same time it is proposed to modify the single storey outbuilding at the rear to provide two holiday lets at first floor level and to construct a private stables/storage building to the rear of that. A new poolroom building is proposed to the north east of the house adjacent to the new pool under construction. In principle the proposed extensions are of a scale I would feel able to support but the advice of the Conservation Officer is awaited. The provision of the two holiday units would accord with Policy EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). I can see no objection in principle to the poolroom building but planning is required for the new pool, a new wall to the north east of the house and a new picket fence erected at the front of the property. These aspects have been raised with the agent and it is hoped to have the appropriate additional details available at the meeting. Providing these details are received and are satisfactory and no objections are raised by the Conservation Officer it will be my

RECOMMENDATIONS:RR/2005/428/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7G Amended delete ‘indicating … dwelling’.2. CN11S (Large scale constructional details of windows, doors, lantern lights).


RR/2005/431/L: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)1. CN7G Amended delete ‘indicating … dwelling’.2. CN11S (Large scale constructional details of windows, doors, lantern lights).


RR/2005/499/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7G Amended delete ‘indicating … dwelling’.2. CN11S (Large scale constructional details of windows, door and rooflights).3. CN14G (Limited holiday accommodation).

34

4. CN6G (Non commercial stables).5. CN14N (Contaminated Land - desktop).6. CN6H (Manure bay).7. CN6I (No manure burning).

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 and EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2005/560/L BECKLEY HOBBS FARM HOUSE – BARN ADJ, HOBBS LANECONVERSION AND ALTERATIONS OF BARN TO FORM DWELLINGMs S Horn


RR/2005/562/P BECKLEY HOBBS FARM HOUSE – BARN ADJ, HOBBS LANECONVERSION OF SMALL BARN AS DOMESTIC ACCOMMODATIONMs S Horn


SITE Hobb Farmhouse is an 18th/19th century brick and tile two storey Grade II listed building in a countryside location on the north side of Hobbs Lane. The small redundant 19th century single storey (9.3m x 4.6m) brick cowshed to which the application relates stands alongside and about 20m to the north-east. The site is outside the Four Oaks development boundary and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYRR/2003/3334/P Change of use and conversion of barn to small cottage for use by

family only tending to sick/elderly family members in main farmhouse – Refused

RR/2004/527/L Conversion of small barn to bungalow – RefusedRR/2004/1988/P Revised plans for change of use and conversion of cow barn to

form single storey bungalow to provide family accommodation for nursing care – Delegated to Refuse

RR/2004/1993/L Conversion of cowbarn to form single storey bungalow to provide family accommodation for nursing care – Refused

PROPOSAL Consent is sought for the conversion of this partly derelict former cowbarn (brick, weatherboard to the upper gable ends, and a corrugated iron clad roof) with the reinstatement of a previously demolished outbuilding to a small bungalow with the living room, kitchen/dining room, bathroom/WC and single bedroom facilities. The accommodation to be for the use of family in order to attend aged and sick aunt and mother who live in the adjacent main farmhouse.

CONSULTATIONS35

Parish Council – RR/2005/560/L – Support an approval. RR/2005/562/P – Comments awaited.Highway Authority – RR/2005/562/P – Comments awaited.Director of Services – Community Environment Manager – “I have no basic objection to this proposal, but I recommend that the following condition be attached to the permission if it is granted:1. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced prior to a

contaminated land assessment and associated remedial strategy, together with a timetable of works, being submitted to the local planning authority for approval.a. The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk study to be

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

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

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

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

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

Planning Notice – No representations received.

SUMMARY Hobbs Lane is an 18th/19th century brick and tile two storey listed farmhouse in a countryside location on the north side of Hobbs Lane. The small redundant 19th century single storey brick cowshed to which the application relates stands about 20m to the northeast. The plans show the intention to reinstate the single storey extension apparently lost in the recent past from its south east side and convert the enlarged building to a small cottage providing accommodation for a member of the family tending to sick/elderly family members in the main farmhouse. The scheme shows the building re-roofed with a clay tiled roof to match the farmhouse and the reinstated side extension to be given a lean to tiled roof. Previous proposals to convert

36

and extend this building for this purpose have been refused and whilst I have some sympathy for the proposed use the form of the reinstated extension particularly the roof remains one of my main concerns. If Members accept the position with regard to the status of the extension to be rebuilt I would be minded to support the proposal subject to conditions and to revisions to the design of the extension roof.

RECOMMENDATIONSRR/2005/560/L GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT) DELEGATED (FOR REVISIONS TO DESIGN OF EXTENSION ROOF)1. CN7G Amended – delete ‘indicating…dwelling’ (Schedule of materials)2. CN11S (Large scale constructional details of windows and doors)

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION:Policy S1 of the East Sussex & Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2005/562/P GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (FOR REVISIONS TO DESIGN OF EXTENSION ROOF)1. CN7G Amended – delete ‘indicating…dwelling’ (Schedule of materials)2. CN11S (Large scale constructional details of windows and doors)3. The converted barn shall be occupied only by a person who is a member of the

family (as defined by Section 186 of Housing Act 1985) residing in the existing dwelling (Hobbs Farm House) or otherwise as a holiday unit when it shall not be occupied for more then 56 days in total in any calendar year by any one person.Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the land and accord with the provisions of Policy S10 of the East Sussex & Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011.

4. CN14N (Contaminated Land – desk top)REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION:Policy S1 and S10 of the East Sussex & Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2005/642/P NORTHIAM CHASMEED, MILL CORNERERECTION OF FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION TO FORM 2 BEDROOMS AND BATHROOM, REAR PORCH AND INTERNAL ALTERATIONS.Mr & Mrs Hickman


RR/2005/643/L NORTHIAM CHASMEED, MILL CORNERFIRST FLOOR EXTENSION TO FORM TWO BEDROOMS AND BATHROOM. ERECTION OF REAR PORCH AND INTERNAL ALTERATIONS.Mr & Mrs Hickman


These application have been added to the Committee site inspection list for the 19 April 2005.

37

SITE Chasmeed stands at the western end of a small terrace of listed two storey dwellings in the built up frontage on the north side of C97 in the centre of the small settlement of Mill Corner. These cottages date from the 18th and early 19th century and were partially refenestrated and extended in the 20th century. Chasmeed has 20th Century UPVC windows and door which are referred to in the ‘list’ description together with a single storey 20th century extension.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/79/1558 Rear extension to provide scullery – ApprovedRR/90/1418/P Garden shed – ApprovedRR/91/1491/P Erection of 3 no. loose boxes – ApprovedRR/97/2031/P Erection of additional loose box (Retrospective application) –

Approved

PROPOSAL Consent is sought for a first floor extension above the modern 20th century addition on the west flank of the terrace and a lean to porch at the rear with a glazed roof. The extension would take in both the part pitched roofed section of the modern addition at the side and the flat roofed element projecting to the rear and add fully pitched roofed components to both utilising plain clay tiles to match the existing main roof. The new external wall cladding to be white painted timber boarding in line with the existing terrace. The rear lean to porch to be clad with dark brown/black stained weatherboard with a glazed glass roof.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support a refusal of the applications on the grounds that the site would be over-developed if the proposals were allowed. The Rother District Council planning committee are requested to visit the site to gain a full appreciation of the Parish Councils objections.Planning Notice – No representations received.

SUMMARY This 18th/early 19th century listed terraced property stands at the western end of a row of two storey cottages (painted brick, weatherboard above and clay tiled roof) in the centre of the small settlement of Mill Corner. The terrace has been much altered over the years and a modern 20th century addition has been added to the western flank of Chasmeed together with the replacement windows and doors in UPVC. The proposed extension reflects the form of the existing terrace with its parallel ranges and will in my view enhance the overall appearance of the property. The leanto porch is unobtrusively located at the rear and again in my view will not detract from the character of the listed building. The removal of that part of the chimney indicated will also not I consider have any significant impact on the listed cottage and only minor internal alterations are proposed to the original building. From the planning position the proposed changes will not I consider unreasonably harm the amenities of neighbouring properties. Generally the scheme as a whole is one I feel able to support but the whole scheme would be greatly enhanced by the replacement of the modern UPVC window and doors with traditional painted timber units.This aspect has been taken up with the agent and it is hoped to have his response available at the meeting.

RECOMMENDATIONS: RR/2005/642/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7G Amended delete ‘indicating…dwelling’ (Schedule of materials).2. CN11S (Large scale constructional details of windows and door).

38


RR/2005/643/L: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)1. CN7G Amended delete ‘indicating…dwelling’ (Schedule of materials).2. CN11S (Large scale constructional details of windows and door).


RR/2005/376/P PEASMARSH PEASMARSH BOWLS CLUB – LAND ADJOINING RECREATIONAL GROUNDCONSTRUCTION OF DISABLED TOILET BLOCK AND CESS PITMr E B Blake


SITE Peasmarsh Bowls Club is located to the east of Peasmarsh recreation ground. The south boundary of the site abuts the rear gardens of properties in The Old Hop Garden. The site is accessed by an unmade track, which runs around the outside of the recreation ground.

HISTORYRR/91/0359/P Relocation of children’s play area and provision of new football

pitch – Approved Conditional.RR/93/0675/P Erection of timber framed building for use as changing facility and

storage of equipment – Approved Conditional. RR/1999/2949/P Construction of car park for 16 no. vehicular spaces access to

bowls club and erection of low fence – Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL The application seeks permission to erect a toilet block comprising of two toilets of which one is for disabled use. The block is to be located to the rear of the existing changing rooms and mower shed. CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Any comments will be reported.Environment Agency – No objection to the proposal, but would like to offer the following advice;The Agency does not accept the promotion, or proliferation of cesspools as a long term sewerage option, in view of the potential environmental, amenity, or public health problems arising from inadequate operation and maintenance. Afraid Director of Services – Technical Services Officer – Surprised to find that the application includes a cesspit when a Public Sewer runs under the site.I have no objection to surface water disposal to the adjoining ditch.Planning Notice – Any comments will be reported.

39

SUMMARY The site lies partly within the development boundary for Peasmarsh, it does lie within the High Weald AONB. The adjoining land to the west is used as a football pitch, which was granted permission RR/91/0359/P. The application proposes that the foul water would be discharged to a new cesspit, it has been brought to the applicants attention that a public sewer runs through the site and that discharge directly to this would be more beneficial, confirmation that this can be achieved is currently being sought. The site is sufficient distance away from neighbouring residential dwellings to prevent the proposed toilet block from adversely affecting their amenities. The design and scale of the toilet block are in keeping with those existing, and I do not consider that it will be unduly intrusive upon this rural location, I am therefore minded to RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (CONFIRMATION OF FOUL WATER DRAINAGE DETAILS)1. CN8C (Foul and surface water details).

RR/2005/505/L PEASMARSH LAVENDER COTTAGE, BARNETS HILLDEMOLITION OF GARAGE AND ERECTION OF TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO PROVIDE SITTING ROOM AND BEDROOMSMr O Jorgenson


RR/2005/526/P PEASMARSH LAVENDER COTTAGE, BARNETS HILLTWO STOREY EXTENSION TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BEDROOMS AND SITTING ROOMSMr O Jorgenson


SITE Lavender Cottage is a listed building situated on Barnets Hill west of Peasmarsh Village close to Flackley Ash. It is a detached house on two floors. It is mainly weatherboarded under a tiled roof but with some brick extensions. There are several outbuildings in the curtilage.

HISTORYRR/89/2934 Alterations to form new kitchen and additional bedroom. Two

storey extension to form enlarged sitting room and bedroom - Planning Permission Granted

RR/89/2935 Alterations to form new kitchen and additional bedroom. Two storey extension to form enlarged sitting room and bedroom - Listed Building Consent Granted

RR/2000/2835 Demolish garage and erect new garage in different position - Planning Permission Granted

PROPOSAL The proposal involves demolishing a small single storey extension and the detached garage immediately to the west of the rear wing of the house and building, within this area, a two storey extension to create a sitting room at ground floor and a new master bedroom above. The extension measures some 6 metres x 4.5 metres in area. The intention is to build in timber frame, clad externally with white painted weatherboarding and clay roof tiles to match the existing house. The following is submitted in support of the application:

40

“The need for this extension is to provide much needed modern improvements within the existing building with additional accommodation for a young growing family, by providing a suitable family sitting room with new bedroom over. The existing ground floor bathroom is to be removed to allow space for a new entrance hall, whilst the existing first floor main bedroom will make way for the new family bathroom with an en-suite bathroom to the new master bedroom.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY The principle issue is the appropriateness of this large extension on the character of the listed building, and in turn, and the general impact on the street scene. Policy HG8 is relevant. Government advice in PPG15 includes the following:“Many listed buildings can sustain some degree of sensitive alteration or extension to accommodate continuing or new uses. Indeed, cumulative changes reflecting the history of use and ownership are themselves an aspect of the special interest of some buildings, and the merit of some new alterations or additions, especially where they are generated within a secure and committed long-term ownership should not be discounted. Nevertheless, listed buildings do vary greatly in the extent to which they can accommodate change without loss of interest ….. Some listed buildings are the subject of successive applications for alteration or extension: in such cases it needs to be borne in mind that minor works of indifferent quality, which may seem individually of little importance, can cumulatively be very destructive of a building’s special interest.”The building has already been extended in recent years with permission and listed building consent being given in 1989 to extend on two floors to the rear and to refurbish the western end of the building incorporating a dormer window in the rear roof slope. These were reasonably sympathetic additions and allowed, at the time, a positive upgrading of the living accommodation.While I acknowledge the applicant’s aspirations, this present proposal represents a significant increase in floor area which is not in keeping with the character of the listed building.It may be that this building can support some form of further extension but such extension should, in my view, be much more subservient to the main building. This is not a case where a large extension can be entertained. While it is towards the rear of the house, the proposed extension will considerably alter the original form and appearance of the listed building. Being designed with the same roof height and seeking to mirror the front wing with a long sloping roof to the internal courtyard it will be overly dominant to the detriment both to the appearance of the listed building and in turn on the general amenity of the area. I consider the size of the extension conflicts with both Policy HG8 of the emerging Local Plan and the guidance of PPG15. I recommend refusal of both applications.

RECOMMENDATIONS:RR/2005/505/L: REFUSE (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)1. The proposed extension by reason of its position, size, height and

bulk represents an undesirable and excessive addition to this listed building. The extension would not be subservient to the principle building, being overly dominant as an extension and detracting from the specific character which it is desirable to preserve. As such the works would be contrary to the guidance set out in

41

Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 - Planning and the Historic Environment.

RR/2005/526/P: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed extension by reason of its position, size, height and

bulk would represent an undesirable and excessive extension to a building outside the defined Development Boundary of the village. The extension is out of keeping with the character of the existing house and would make the building more intrusive within the general street scene. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2005/531/P PEASMARSH STREAM FARM COTTAGE, MAIN STREETREMOVAL OF EXISTING REAR CONSERVATORY/PORCH AND OLD WC BUILDING AND REPLACING A NEW CONSERVATORY/PORCH AND DISABLED WET ROOM

Mr Y Lloyd


RR/2005/535/L PEASMARSH STREAM FARM COTTAGE, MAIN STREETREMOVAL OF EXISTING CONSERVATORY/PORCH AND OLD WC BUILDING, REPLACING WITH NEW CONSERVATORY/PORCH AND DISABLED WET ROOMMr Y Lloyd


This application has been added to the Committee site inspection list for 19 April 2005.

SITE This 18th century or earlier two storey Grade II listed building (brick, tile and weatherboard) stands in the built up frontage on the north side of Main Street immediately west of its junction with Orchard Way. The site is within the Peasmarsh development boundary and a pair of modern semi-detached houses stand just to the rear fronting Orchard Way.

HISTORY (Relevant)A/56/345 Additions etc - Approved.

PROPOSAL Consent is sought for the removal of a modern conservatory and attached older toilet building and its replacement with a new larger conservatory and disabled wet room. The new conservatory to be constructed in natural finished dark timber with a roof of polycarbonate sheets and the wet room in brick to match the existing rear walls with a felt roof.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Hastings Area Archaeological Research Group comment that the site is in an area of archaeological interest. They consider that if consent is granted there

42

will be the need for an archaeological presence when the ground is disturbed for construction works.

SUMMARY This 18th century or earlier two storey listed building stands on the north side of Main Street at the northern end of the village. The applications relate to the relatively modern conservatory and toilet which stand at the end of the single storey lean-to addition at the back of the main house. In principle I can see no planning objection to the provision of this accommodation but the form of the proposed additions incorporating polycarbonate and felt roofs will in my view detract strongly from the character and appearance of the listed building. This point has been taken up with the agent but unless a satisfactory revised scheme is received it will be my

RECOMMENDATIONS:RR/2005/531/P: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. RN8M (Out of character - listed building/planning application).

RR/2005/535/L: REFUSE (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)1. RN8M (Out of character - listed building/planning application)

RR/2005/338/P HURST GREEN THE MAGPIES, SILVERHILLRETENTION OF EXISTING GENERAL PURPOSE BUILDING AND RETENTION OF EXISTING FIELD SHELTER (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Mr M Underhill


RR/2005/694/P HURST GREEN THE MAGPIES, SILVERHILLREVISED APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF EXISTING WORKSHOP AND ERECTION OF DETACHED ONE BEDROOM ANNEXE FOR OCCUPATION BY FAMILY MEMBERMr M Underhill


RR/2005/774/P HURST GREEN THE MAGPIES, SILVERHILLDETACHED STABLE BLOCK FOR FOUR HORSES WITH STORAGE FOR TACK, FEED AND BEDDINGMr M Underhill


These applications have been included on the list of Committee site inspections for 19 April 2005.

SITE The applications relate to a detached dwelling and small holding (approximately 4.6 ha). The land is used for the keeping of horses for leisure and recreation purposes.

HISTORYRR/2004/1469/P Retention of existing general purpose building and retention of

existing field shelter (retrospective application). Erection of timber 43

framed stable block and siting of one residential caravan - Refused.

RR/2004/3241/P O/A demolition of existing workshops/store and erection of self contained annexe - Refused.

RR/2004/3242/P Revised plans for retention of existing general purpose building. Retention of existing field shelter and erection of stable block - Refused.

PROPOSAL A supporting letter is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 21 April 2005.

RR/2005/338/P: General purpose building and field shelter:The building measures 18.5m x 9.0m and is enclosed by timber wall cladding and fibre cement roofing sheets. The field shelter is a small (4.8m x 3.6m) timber building.

RR/2005/694/P: Proposed annexe:A detached split-level building which would be located to the south of the existing house. The ground floor would comprise lounge/diner, kitchen, bathroom, with one bedroom above. External materials are described as Tyrolean render and concrete roof tiles. Two related families are believed to have an interest in the landholding and occupy the dwelling. The annexe would be occupied by the sister of the applicant’s partner.

RR/2005/774/P: Proposed stable block:Would be constructed in timber with a black onduline roof. It would comprise 4 no stable boxes, bedding, feed and tack store.

CONSULTEESParish Council: RR/2005/338/P - “No problems concerning the existing field shelter but are concerned that no measurements appear for the large general purpose building that dominates the plot. It is however felt on balance that the application is acceptable providing no further development takes place and it is strictly for private/agricultural use.”Highways Agency:- Any comments will be reported.Environment Agency:- Any comments will be reported.Rural Estates Surveyor:- Conclusion - “I am of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to retain the general purpose building to accommodate necessary machinery and equipment to maintain the land, hedges and fencing. I also consider that it is appropriate to retain the field shelter.”Planning Notice:- No comments received.

SUMMARY The applications are revised re-submissions following the recent refused applications described above.

RR/2005/338/P: General purpose building and field shelter:The Rural Estates Surveyor has now confirmed that these are reasonably necessary for the management/maintenance of the holding and in the circumstances I would not wish to restrict the granting of planning permission.

RR/2005/694/P: Proposed annexe:

44

This amounts to the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside and in the absence of an overriding justification for residential accommodation, the development is contrary to countryside protection policies and cannot be supported.

RR/2005/774/P: Proposed stables:The supporting letter states “The current proposal (stables) has been reduced in size from that previously submitted and is now considered the minimum desirable. It has been suggested that the general purpose building could accommodate the horses, tack, feed and bedding. However this would compromise the use of this building which is currently in use to store and maintain machinery.” In view of the fact that the Rural Estates Surveyor accepts the need for retaining the general purpose building to meet the existing needs of the holding, I would not wish to oppose the proposed stables.

RECOMMENDATIONS:RR/2005/338/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF

CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. The general purpose building shall be used only for agricultural purposes

associated with the management and maintenance of the holding or equestrian uses in association with the keeping of horses for private recreation and leisure purposes.


RR/2005/694/P: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The site is within the countryside outside any town or village as defined in the

Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). Policies S1, S19 and S11 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) and DS3, DS4 and HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) contain a strong presumption against residential development unless it meets one of the exceptions described in the plan. The proposed dwelling is not essential to the needs of agriculture, forestry, or other business activity that requires a countryside location and is therefore considered to be contrary to these policies.

2. The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, where policies S1(j), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) and Government Advice contained in PPG7 indicate that development will be carefully controlled to protect the character of the area. It is considered that the proposal does not meet this objective, and it would cause harm to the rural character of the area.

RR/2005/774/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)

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


45

RR/2005/527/P BREDE RIVERSIDE NURSERY - LAND AT, NORTHIAM ROAD, BROAD OAK, BREDEOUTLINE: DEMOLITION OF POLY TUNNEL AND GREENHOUSE AND ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY DWELLING.Mrs T Proctor


SITE The site is located on the western side of Northiam Road and has a highway frontage measuring some 10m while the site measures some 30m in depth. The site itself is level, though is set some 1.5m above the level of the existing bungalow and some 2m above the level of the highway. The plot as a whole is terraced due to the topography of the area and the application site forms the upper level. The site currently has a poly-tunnel and what appears to be the outline of a former building. The site is bounded by mature trees and bushes, though is partially visible from the highway.

HISTORYNone

PROPOSALThe proposal is to erect a single dwelling house and demolish a poly-tunnel.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Support refusal this development is outside of the village development line – we also feel that the vehicular access is poor. We request this application is considered by full committee.Highway Authority: Do not wish to restrict the grant of consent. Planning Notice: Two letters of objection have been received raising concern over: The site falls outside the village framework Highway safety implications with substandard visibility The definition of a ‘brownfield site’ Impact upon the AONB Impact upon the River Tillingham Also the CPRE stated: The site is in an area of outstanding natural beauty. The site is outside the development area as laid down in the Local Plan. The proposal is not for replacement of ‘like for like’.

SUMMARY The site lies outside any development boundary and within the AONB. The supporting statement describes the viability of the business and the desire to change the use of the land to residential. This land is described as a brownfield site and that the dwelling would make a useful contribution to the housing allocation. However, no justification has been submitted with regard the need for such a dwelling in this countryside location. While it is accepted the site has been previously developed, the dwelling would not be connected with any farming or forestry operation/ occupier and therefore the principle of developing the land for a separate dwelling, as per guidance contained within Planning Policy Statement 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, cannot be supported.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)

46

1. The site lies within the countryside, outside any town or village as defined in the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). Policy S10 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) contain a strong presumption against residential development unless it meets one of the exceptions described in the plans. None of these apply and the proposed development is contrary to these policies.

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

RR/2005/730/P BREDE CROWN COTTAGE, CACKLE STREET, BREDECONVERSION OF LOFT TO FORM NEW BEDROOM AND EN-SUITE ACCOMMODATION INCLUDING FORMATION OF DORMERS ON FRONT AND REAR ELEVATIONSMr & Mrs Bannell


SITE This 1970’s brick and tile bungalow occupies a backland plot off the west side of Cackle Street just to the north of its junction with Pottery Lane. The site is within the Brede and Cackle Street development boundary and the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYRR/75/1168 O/A one dwelling house – Refused – Appeal allowed.RR/76/1554 3 bedroom bungalow pursuant to outline application

RR/75/1168 – Approved

PROPOSAL Consent is sought for the addition of dormer windows to the front and rear roof slope to allow the roof void to be utilised as additional living accommodation. Three dormers are shown to the front of the bungalow and two to the rear and the scheme also includes a velux rooflight at the back and the windows at either end of the property at first floor level in the gable ends.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support approval but ask that this application is considered at Full Committee.Planning Notice – No representations received.

SUMMARY This is a modern 1970’s brick and tile bungalow occupying a substantial backland plot off the west side of Cackle Street in the development boundary. Consent is sought for the provision of dormers to the front and rear roof slope to allow the roof void to be utilised as extra living accommodation.The new windows are of a similar style to the existing and will not in my view unreasonably harm the amenities of adjoining properties or detract from the character and appearance of the locality.

47

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING)


RR/2005/737/P BREDE LITTLE CHART – LAND ADJ, UDIMORE ROADOUTLINE: ERECTION OF DETACHED HOUSE AND GARAGE WITH FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESSMrs A V Mackenzie


SITE Little Chart is a two storey brick house situated within spacious grounds on the south side of Udimore Road, some 60m to the east of Reedswood Road. It forms the end plot of the built-up limits of Broad Oak on the south side of the road, and is adjoined by agricultural land to the east, which is in the applicant’s ownership. The site lies within the development boundary for Broad Oak, and within the High Weald AONB.

HISTORYA/59/655 Outline: Dwelling – RefusedA/62/941 Outline: Bungalow – RefusedA/64/526 Outline: Dwelling – RefusedA/65/39 Alterations and additions – ApprovedRR/74/0356 Alterations and additions to existing house - ApprovedRR/90/0775/P Outline: Erection of dwelling in garden at side of Little Chart

together with alterations to existing access – Refused – Appeal Dismissed

RR/2000/1980/P Erection of one bedroom two storey annex connected to main house by conservatory – Refused

RR/2003/315/P Erection of 3 stables and hay store for private use – WithdrawnRR/2003/2513/P Replace existing 1.8m high fence with same in front of property,

dropping down to 1m in front of paddock. (Retrospective application) – Approved Conditional

PROPOSAL Outline permission is sought for the erection of a dwelling in the side garden of Little Chart. The plot would have a width of about 20m and depth of 44m. It is proposed to create a new access and part of the agricultural land to the east has been included within the red outline of the site, so that a 120 metre visibility splay can be achieved in the easterly direction. CONSULTATIONSParish Council – “Support Approval but ask that this application is discussed at full Committee. We also ask that there be no removal of any trees in the area and should they warrant a TPO one be applied.”Highway Authority – Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice – 1 letter of objection concerned with the following; Application can even be considered on a piece of agricultural land. Site notice was not in place. Could find no trace of this application on online site.

48

SUMMARY Outline planning permission (RR/90/0775/P) for the erection of a dwelling on a plot comprising the eastern end of the garden was refused in May 1990, and in November 2000 application (RR/200/1980/P) was refused permission for the erection of one bedroom two storey annex connected to main house. These applications were refused by virtue of their adverse impact upon the AONB, and being contrary to the village and Rother policies for Broad Oak at the time, as the site then fell outside the village stop line and development boundary. The development boundary as defined within the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003), has been amended, and it now runs along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site, therefore, unlike previous planning applications the site now lies within the development boundary for Broad Oak. The plot is adequate in size to accommodate a dwelling, and would be significant distance away from neighbouring residential dwellings to prevent it from adversely affecting their residential amenities. There are a number of trees and shrubs located within the site, the applicant has indicated that as many as possible will be retained. Although the site lies within the High Weald AONB, I consider that a suitable sitting and design can be achieved to prevent the dwelling from having an adverse impact upon the street scene, or be unduly intrusive upon the rural location, these aspects would be dealt with at the detailed stage. Subject to no adverse comments being received from the Highway Authority, I am minded to support the proposal. RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING) DELEGATED (NO ADVERSE COMMENTS FROM HIGHWAY AUTHORITY)1. Possible Highway condition.2. CN13C (Tree retention)3. At reserved matters stage the required landscaping details shall include the

provision for the planting of a mixed rural hedge along the southern and eastern boundary of the site.Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the rural location, and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.


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

Statutory 13 week date: 14 February 2005

This application was deferred at the last meeting for consideration of further information received regarding the number of evening events proposed and to investigate whether or not any protected wildlife species would be affected by the development.

SITE Carr Taylor Vineyards is located to the north west of the village of Westfield some 340m from the junction between Wheel Lane (C23) and Parsonage Lane (unclassified). The site contains a variety of small scale agricultural and portacabin type buildings and falls within the High Weald AONB. Planning permission (RR/90/1868/P) has previously

49

been granted to refurbish existing buildings, erect new buildings and to expand the business in 1990 and renewed under RR/95/1724/P in 1996. A further application RR/2001/849/P to renew the permission was deemed refused in 2002 following a direction from GOSE that the proposal was EIA development and that no such EIA has been submitted.

HISTORYRR/82/0676 Use of vineyard as a tourist attraction and use of existing

buildings as winery. Erection of general purpose farm building, tourist office and farm produce display and car parking facilities – Approved on a personal basis.

RR/90/1868/P Part demolition/refurbishment of existing buildings and erection of new building to expand winery and tourism – Approved with conditions

RR/95/1724/P Renewal of RR/90/1868/P – Approved following reference to GOSE under the departure procedures.

RR/2001/849/P Renewal of planning permission RR/95/1724/P for part demolition and refurbishment of existing buildings and erection of new buildings to expand existing winery together with improved tourism facilities – Deemed refusal following confirmation from GOSE that proposal was EIA development and that no such E/A had been submitted.

PROPOSAL The existing winery comprises a range of ad-hoc buildings linked to the western end of a dwelling together with a portacabin (office) and detached bonded warehouse. These buildings are functional in design and materials and have no architectural merit. The main building also accommodates the winery together with a restaurant and shop. Apart from the bonded warehouse and dwelling, the building housing the winery, restaurant and shop would be demolished and replaced by a single larger building. This would be approx 12m longer than the existing building and be contemporary in design and its use of materials (eg. cedar cladding and glass). Its ridgeline would follow that of the adjacent house with coloured profiled roofing to match the clay tiles. A small glazed viewing gallery above the ridge would afford visitors a panoramic view of the vineyard. The building would house wine storage tanks a bottling room, wine/food shop at ground floor level and short term bonded warehouse, 2 tasting rooms, exhibition space and reception room at first floor level. The existing separate bonded warehouse would be extended at its western end by 23m in matching materials.

The following additional information was contained in my last report.

Amended Plans:- Have been received. These propose the following:i. The three panels of the tower facing Yew Tree House will be of solid

construction blocking views to the east.ii. The eastern end of the gallery will incorporate a screen obscuring views to the

east.iii. New indigenous tree planting.iv. Location of proposed coach parking

Additional Plans:- A ‘Perspective and Axonometric Layout’ plan has been received, together with a plan showing proposed materials.

50

Additional Information:- A copy letter dated 15 February 2005 from the agent Batcheller Thacker is attached to this update sheet. The following important information has been extracted:-

Nature of business - Fundamental business is vineyard and winery- Majority of grapes are grown at Yew Tree Farm - 36 acres of

vine production- Grapes are brought in when necessary to make up for yield

fluctuations.Average proportions over last few years is as follows -o grapes grown at Yew Tree Farm 60%o grapes grown elsewhere in East Sussex 30%o grape juice or fermented wine 10%

- Business has remained and intends to remain that of an agricultural producer.

Business - In late 80s margin from wine production became squeezed.- Family sought to “add value” and retailed their own produce and

expanded the visitors side- They now aim to further enhance this business, not by

expanding or increasing wine production or visitor numbers, but by offering a better product and visitor experience - to increase average spend per visitor

- Peak demand would still be 9am and 5pm.- “Additional functions” are directly related to the operation of

Yew Tree Farm as a winery and vineyard.- There is no intention that either the restaurant or shop would be

run as destinations in their own right.

Hours of operation - Evening events would typically run from 7pm to 11pm plus half an hour clearing up etc - Sunday evening excluded.

- Would propose an annual limit based on three evenings per week.

Food Sales - More than two thirds wine made on site.- Intended to slowly introduce shelf space for fellow members of

‘Taste of Sussex’ up to a maximum of 25%.- Of remaining 75%, vast majority is wholly made on site from

their produce - mustard sales would not exceed 10% of total.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – The following comments have been received in relation to the amended/additional plans and additional information. “Members did not object to the rebuilding of the existing winery with ancillary shop, office, tasting rooms and the enlargement of the bonded warehouse. However there were a number of issues relating to hours of operation, landscaping and noise pollution, aspects of the proposed building and impact of increased traffic on Wheel Lane which resulted in Members recommending a refusal at this time.The main areas of concern are:

51

Building - The ‘Look out Tower’ was strongly objected to as adequate viewing is available.Hours of operation - The proposals to increase operations into the evenings at an average of 3 per week plus 52 major events gave concerns over the number and intensity of activities with possible concentration in summer months. Members proposed that the Planning Authority impose a condition that evening operations are limited to a MAXIMUM of 3 per week in the evenings.Restaurant, Exhibition Space and Shop - The proposals do not provide a clear role of the restaurant and exhibition space; in particular how the investment in the restaurant will be justified if it is limited to just supporting ‘wine tasting evenings’. Planning Authority should impose a condition that the restaurant does not operate on a stand alone basis. The size of the proposed shop appears to be out of proportion to the business.Noise and Light Pollution - Further detailed proposals for landscaping are needed as well as measures to limit light pollution and control of noise from evening functions affecting the near neighbours.Traffic on Wheel Lane - The main concern is the possible increased numbers of coaches which given the lack of a footway create a serious hazard for pedestrians and the limited parking facilities which could mean that cars are parked on Wheel Lane.Licence - The claim that the operators hold a full licence was questioned as members understood the present licence does not include spirits.”Highway Authority:- Briefly they:

do not consider it can justify a recommendation for refusal wish to secure by S106 a financial contribution towards the damage likely

to occur to the existing highway network wish for the existing access road to be improved at its junction with Wheel

Lane recommend designation of coach parking and turning area within the site wish for the additional access onto Wheel Lane to be permanently closed

offFurther comments upon the amended plans have still not yet been received.Environment Agency – Has no objection.Southern Water – Has no objection. The proposed winery will be subject to the terms

and conditions of the Trade Effluent Agreement for the existing winery.

Director of Services - Environment:- Recommends conditions to require details of soundproofing of the building; to control boundary noise levels and to control the fitting of odour control equipment.Sussex Police – “This is a relatively low crime area and I do not identify any major concern with the proposals. Some thefts of equipment have been experienced but the new design does address this risk”.East Sussex County Council (Footpaths Officer):- Comments awaited.Ramblers Association:- Comments awaited.English Nature:- Advise that the developer is directed to engage an ecologist to provide information on the ecological value of the site, its potential to support protected species and relevant surveys for protected species if necessary.Planning Notice – Objections received from the occupiers of 4, 5, 6 and 9 Yew Tree House include: 1987 permission does not allow for a café, sale of goods not produced on the Farm or for processing of raw materials or products not produced on farm; present application is therefore a Change of Use to a restaurant, sale of goods and processing of items not produced on Yew Tree Farm; these changes are not supported by Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003); GOSE’s ruling that

52

development is not EIA development is flawed and I am seeking a Judicial Review; Departure from Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003); additional processing would be better placed in an urban setting; there is no public transport to the site; building is out of character and will affect visual appearance of AONB; viewing turret would be extremely visible during day and night; would exacerbate problems of reflection and visual impairment; would prejudice character of contiguous ancient woodland; is in a vulnerable countryside gap; if additional processing capacity is needed Policy VL10 shows that land is allocated at Wheel Lane Business Park; outside development boundary; not near local service centres; would detract from openness of Battle to Hastings Gap; amenities of adjoining properties would be wrecked by overlooking from the observation tower the end of the first floor terrace and other windows; all should be frosted glass and screens erected; increased noise from customers and winery processes including bottling; boundary noise level condition required; the application is for 88 parking spaces or the parking of coaches or lorries; a covenant on land between Yew Tree House and Yew Tree Farm restricts use to garden or tennis court; Wheel Lane is narrow without pedestrian paths and well used; probable traffic increase of 10%; existing service road mentioned does not actually exist; changing this to paved road would change character of AONB and reduce amenity of 9 flats in Yew Tree House; application does not include change of use; building does not reflect local architecture; since photographs taken the row of 60 feet high poplars have been removed and a number of other trees and shrubs felled; out of proportion to the landscape and large area of reflecting glass; should be a survey to see of protected bats and owls roost in present buildings; the contiguous old iron workings need to be recognised; insufficient traffic information to guide planners; development needs to satisfy Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) Policies EM3, EM7 and EM14; contrary to East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 Policies EN2 and EN3; PPS7 shows national concern for continued protection of AONB and amenity of neighbours to new types of on farm developments; floodlighting should not be allowed; present opening hours are 10:00 to 17:00 any consent should be limited to these hours or a minor variation; will information be available by time a decision is taken; may possibly be rights under Human Rights Act; would support a modernisation subject to more sensitive treatment of building, traffic, overlooking, noise, opening hours, light pollution and wildlife within AONB; it is the scale, balance and intrusive nature that makes me oppose the present application; argument that Westfield needs further business and employment opportunities is completely without foundation; local infrastructure is quite unable to sustain a larger business; new building would completely spoil our view and outlook; decrease value of our flats; Wheel Lane is dangerously narrow in places and cannot accommodate additional traffic; there are other more suitable sites.Full copies of some representations received from residents at Yew Tree House are contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this meeting 17 March 2005. 18 other similar letters of objection have also been received.A letter of support from “1066 Country” states – “The Carr Taylor Vineyard is already one of the major attractions in 1066 Country and is very popular with domestic and overseas visitors alike. Indeed, we regularly take journalists and travel trade professionals there, and it is always a popular visit.The plans for expansion will help turn a good attraction into an excellent one, and it has my wholehearted support. As you may be aware, tourism generates £374m for the local economy in 1066 Country, and is directly responsible for providing over 9000 jobs in the area. Investment on the scale proposed by Carr-Taylor can only help the tourism

53

product locally. Not only does it help create new jobs directly, it strengthens the offer across the whole area and so helps safeguard other jobs in the industry too.”

SUMMARY It is my opinion that the amended plans go some way to overcoming neighbours’ concerns about overlooking and loss of privacy. New indigenous tree planting will help soften the building’s visual appearance in the landscape. The additional plans showing a perspective and axonometric layout give a much better impression of how the building will relate to the existing dwelling and sit in the landscape. Although the axonometric plan does not show the viewing gallery, it has not been deleted from the proposal (artist error?). The Council’s Conservation and Design Officer considers that the design is quite appropriate being “elegant and refined using natural materials” and “follows an approach suggested in The Countryside Agency’s 2000 publication ‘Design of Rural Workplace Buildings’. The long low profile responds well to the flat topography and is an attractive modern solution to a historic building typology.”I am therefore satisfied that the proposed buildings would not adversely affect the appearance of the countryside and AONB. The Highway Authority have been reconsulted regarding the proposed coach parking and existing rights of access enjoyed by Yew Tree House over the second access which the Highway Authority wish to be closed.With regard to the additional information received, I am satisfied that the wine making business would remain within the use originally authorised under RR/82/0676. A main remaining issue is the nature of restaurant use, number of events and nature of food sales proposed and whether these would be subservient to the primary use of the land and buildings as a winery and would not be primary uses in their own right. With regard to operating hours, the 9am - 5pm hours for the core activities are considered acceptable, as would the 11pm closing time (+½ hour clearing up) for limited additional evening functions. The number of evening functions at 3 per week is explained in the applicant’s letter dated 28 February 2005 from which the following information has been extracted:“You have asked that further consideration is given to the number of evening events proposed. This is something that we discussed with you in some detail prior to the February committee meeting. Following those discussions I then consulted with my client to seek to establish what might be acceptable. In reaching the proposal of an average of three evenings per week the applicant took into consideration a number of factors including:1. Market research into known and anticipated levels of demand2. Concerns of neighbours and the more general comments made by you.3. Comparable planning situations concerning other vineyards. Whilst our search

has not been exhaustive we have not been able to identify any other vineyards and wineries in the south-east subject to restrictions on the number of times they can be open.

4. Business Economics - The Carr Taylors are proposing a major investment in the local economy. It is imperative that this is financially viable. Three openings per week, which equates to only 40% of available time, is the minimum that would be economically viable. The total preclusion of one whole weekend day and this wider cap is felt to set a fair limit.”

In addition to the above, an email dated 15 March 2005 from Leo Hickish (agent) states:-“1. For the type of vineyard event the business is looking to operate in the evenings

there is a minimum speciation that must be met. The same investment in kitchens and restaurant area is needed whether they open for one night or seven

54

nights. A straightforward catering business would normally look to operate seven days a week to achieve a profit. This business can only succeed, where such businesses would clearly fail, because of the added value that they offer by way of the overall visitor experience. Nevertheless, the economics are very finely balanced.

2. The restaurant will need to be operated by a quality staff of chefs and front of house staff. The catering business is extremely competitive and the applicant’s research is that they will not attract the right staff unless they can offer an average of three evenings per week. The event itself will of course be managed by the applicant, otherwise this would prove a similar problem.

3. Market research and experience to date clearly identifies that there is demand for at least three evenings per week. Unless the business can offer a variety of dates to their clients they will not be able to offer a viable service and will lose business.

As stated before the business is seeking to increase the average spend per visitor. They anticipate a transition in the visitor profile from a bulk of people arriving and staying for a short time in daytime, to the same number coming for longer and over a wider time frame. Evening events are a critical part of this equation and expected to achieve the highest per capita spend. The establishment costs are however proportionately higher. In short, at less than three openings per week, the business would struggle to break even and achieve a viable return on capital employed. More significantly they might not even manage to operate this exciting part of the winery, if they cannot attract the right staff.We note that the parish council recognise the overall nature of the business and have accepted the proposal of three openings per week.In summary I am instructed that unless planning consent is secured for the proposed number of evening openings the whole scheme of redevelopment will be unviable and will have to be abandoned.”Clearly, the size of restaurant and number of evening events permitted is a key consideration and will have a significant impact upon the financial viability of the whole project. Members will therefore need to give this careful consideration before agreeing an acceptable figure. I have therefore asked the applicant to consider further the Members’ reservations about the size of the units and number of events proposed.Copy letters dated 22 March 2005 and 7 April 2005 from English Nature and a neighbour regarding protected species are contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 21 April 2005.Immediately prior to this Agenda being sent to the printers, I received a letter dated 11 April 2005 from Batcheller Thacker (Agent), a copy of which has been added to the APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 25 April 2005. RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE FURTHER INFORMATION RECEIVED)

RR/2005/398/P ICKLESHAM BROAD VIEW - LAND OPPOSITE, NORTH STREET, WINCHELSEA ERECTION OF DOUBLE GARAGEMr R Davis


This application has been included on your site inspection list.55

SITE The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and outside any village development boundary. The site, located on the north side of North Street, measures some 55m wide by some 15m deep (at the point of the proposed building) and is set at the top of the natural escarpment feature. The site is set some 1.5m to 2m below the level of the highway. The land is used as a private garden area and is separated from the dwelling by North Street and access is restricted to two pedestrian gates. Two small garden sheds and greenhouses are on the site and the boundary fronting the highway has a substantial hedge along it while the boundary fronting the escarpment has a mature tree screen, though does not cover the whole boundary line.

HISTORYNone for this plot.

PROPOSAL The proposal is to erect a double garage within the private garden. The garage is single storey from the road but with a store at the rear taking advantage of the fall of the land. The garage is designed with two individual pitched roofs. It would be built in brick under a clay tile roof.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Whilst we support this application, we note that it is outside the village envelope and are concerned, should this be granted, there could be similar developments on the north side of the road following very shortly. Approval for this, in any case, would be subject to the views of the Conservation and Archaeological Officers.County Archaeologist:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority: Do not wish to object to the proposal in principle subject to the garage building being set back 5.5m from the highway. Director of Transport & Environmental Services – County Archaeologist: Any comments will be reported. Planning Notice: Eight letters of objection have been received.Various concerns have been raised, including: The declaration of the site lies outside the Winchelsea Conservation Area Implications for the future use of the land The garage will not enhance the Conservation Area The danger created by the required access point and the cars parked in the road The commercial use of the garages for potentially dangerous materials Create a visual barrier of the view across Brede Valley Impact upon the value of propertyCPRE - The proposal is in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is an extremely visually exposed situation. HAARG - if the proposal is approved, then an archaeological presence would be required.

SUMMARY The proposed development would be set within a private garden area, currently used for the enjoyment of the occupiers of the dwelling known as ‘Broad View’ situated on the other side of North Street. Due to the prominence of the plot of land within the surrounding landscape, the development would be visible from the surrounding countryside. While the scheme is reasonably designed in itself, the principle of developing the site is not considered acceptable. Although there is an existing block of garages within the immediate vicinity, the area is otherwise free from

56

permanent structures to the north of North Street for some 150m between the aforementioned garage block and the property known as ‘Cordwainers’. This ribbon of un-developed land allows for the view of the listed buildings to the south of North Street from the approaches along Brede Valley. The site is set within the boundary of the Winchelsea Conservation Area, but outside the development boundary. The proposed development would neither preserve nor enhance this point of the Conservation Area. An annotated copy of a Land Registry document has been supplied by a neighbouring landowner illustrating an area of land purported to be within the applicant’s control is owned by them. However the submitted Certificate of Ownership indicates that the applicants own the whole site.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The site is located within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty,

the Winchelsea Conservation Area and outside the village development boundary. The proposal introduces a new building within a valuable open area which contributes both to the setting of the village and the character of the conservation area. By reason of its siting and design the garage building would be an obtrusive addition in the street disrupting the openness of the street and would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area. The development as proposed does not satisfy the requirements of Policy GD1 (ii) (iv) & (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) and Policy S1(f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. The proposed development would be out of character with the group of listed buildings to which it relates and would, if permitted, constitute an incongruous feature out of harmony with the established pattern of development, which it is desired to preserve in accordance with Section 66 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of Policy S1 (m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

RR/2005/819/P ICKLESHAM OAST HOUSE - NEW HOUSE ADJACENT, MAIN ROADINSERTION OF WINDOWS AT FIRST FLOOR LEVEL ON FLANK ELEVATIONSM T J Walsh


SITE The site lies on the north side of Main Road some 60 metres to the west of the junction with Parsonage Lane.

HISTORYRR/2004/367/P Outline: Erection of bungalow and garage - Granted.RR/2004/1535/P Erection of chalet style house and garage - Granted.

PROPOSAL The proposal is to provide two windows at first floor level on each of the side elevations of the chalet bungalow recently built. The submitted plans indicate windows with obscure glass and to be fixed closed. The windows all serve bedrooms within the roof area.

57

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

SUMMARY Members will be aware that this matter was reported to the last Committee as an enforcement issue. The planning permission granted in September 2004 included the following condition:“Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting this Order) no windows except as shown on the approved plans shall be inserted into the east or west elevations of the building.”During construction it was brought to my attention that two window openings had been provided on each elevation at first floor level. At the last Planning Committee I advised that the introduction of windows at first floor level would cause overlooking of the adjoining properties and recommended enforcement action, which Members accepted. The current application seeks permission to install obscured windows which would also be fixed, non-opening. The application must be considered on this basis.The possibility of installing fixed obscured glazed windows could eliminate the problems of direct overlooking on which the recent enforcement action was authorised. Nevertheless I remain uneasy about the provision of any fenestration on the side boundaries. The original dwelling was designed at right angles to the adjoining properties (particularly Church Farm House) with all of the windows in the roof area positioned front to back. These proposed windows serve three bedrooms all of which are lit from the front and/or rear dormer windows. The new windows are, presumably, intended to give additional light to these rooms.The original property was designed with no windows on the upper sections. I am of the view that if windows had been proposed in the first place then I would have argued for their deletion - they are after all secondary windows to the bedrooms.Even if no direct overlooking can now occur the introduction of activity at this level close to the boundaries remains a concern. Inevitably there will be lights from these windows at various times and the perception of activity.I believe there is a legitimate case for the Local Planning Authority to maintain its position and require the completion of the dwelling first approved.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. The provision of windows at first floor on the side elevations, by

reason of their close proximity to the boundaries, would introduce an element of activity not envisaged or permitted at the time of the initial planning permission. The perception of activity at this level and at time, lit windows, close to the boundaries would be intrusive to the occupiers of the adjoining properties unreasonably harming their amenities. As such the proposal conflicts with Policy GD1(ii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

58

RR/2004/3710/O TICEHURST 1 HIGH STREETLAWFUL USE OF GROUND FLOOR AS TEASHOP AND RESTAURANT WITH SUBSIDIARY TAKE AWAY USE AND UPPER PART OF BUILDING AS RESIDENTIALMr F A Cowing


This application for a Lawful Development Certificate was deferred at the Committee meeting on 17 March 2005 to await further evidence from the applicant on the use of the premises for the period between 1993 and 1998. Statutory declarations have been received from long time customers of the premises (4 no.) and the previous business owner. A further statutory declaration has been provided by the applicant.

SITE The application property, ‘The Tea Shoppe’, is a grade II listed building located within the village of Ticehurst.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/84/1729 Change of use of vacant sweet shop to tearooms - ApprovedRR/2002/1363/L Conversion of flat and teashop to two dwellings - Listed BC

GrantedRR/2002/1365/P Change of use from flat and teashop to two dwellings - Planning

Permission Refused - Appeal DismissedRR/2004/2705/P Installation of kitchen extraction system using a new dormer

window type housing to disguise discharge - Approved.RR/2004/2886/L Installation of kitchen extraction system using a new dormer

window type housing to disguise discharge - Listed BC Granted

PROPOSAL This is not a planning application but an application for a Certificate of Lawful Use (CLU). Consequently, the application cannot be determined on the planning merits of the case. It needs to be assessed on the basis of the information available and with respect to the balance of probability test. The application claims that the use has continued in breach of planning control for more than the requisite period and accordingly a Certificate of Lawfulness should be issued in accordance with the CLU applications procedure. The breach claimed in the application is as follows: Planning application RR/84/1729/P for the change of use of a vacant sweet shop to tearooms was granted subject to conditions. Condition 2 stated: “Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 18972, the premises shall be used for the purposes stated in the application only and not otherwise.” It is claimed in the CLU application now before you that the premises has operated as a fully fledged restaurant, including take-away, in breach of the planning condition and accordingly a CLU should be granted for a (Class A3) restaurant use. This would permit the ground floor premises to be used for any purpose falling within Use Class A3 (food and drink). Initial evidence provided in support of the application comprised: A statutory declaration from the current tenant - Mr F A W Cowling A copy of an assignment of good will made on 7 May 1993 indicating that “The

vendors have some time past carried on the trade or business of a Tea Shop and Restaurant at the premises situated and known as 1 High Street, Ticehurst…”

59

A site plan and sketch plan of the floor layout Renewal of Justices’ ‘On’ Licence dated 13 February 2001. Rother District Council rating demand - showing the property as ‘Restaurant and

prms.Part’

Further statutory declarations have since been received as described in the introduction to this report.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support proposal. “It was unanimously felt that this was a sensible suggestion for the property.”Planning Notice:- Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY The Legal Services Manager has seen the additional evidence provided in support of the application and it is considered that in the absence of contrary evidence, the applicants have now established on the balance of probability that an A3 business was being conducted during the requisite period.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (CERTIFICATE OF LAWFUL USE)

RR/2005/395/P TICEHURST WOODLAND ENTERPRISE CENTRE, HASTINGS ROAD, FLIMWELLCONSTRUCTION OF NEW INDUSTRIAL UNITSWoodland Enterprises Ltd


SITE The site is a cleared area within a mixed woodland to the eastern side of the A21 south of the Flimwell crossroads. The site has a main access to the A21 just to the north of the petrol filling station which is shared by ‘Tate Fencing’ - the business occupying the neighbouring site. The Woodland Enterprise Centre building approved under phase I of the development has been erected and stands to the north of the application site.

HISTORY (Recent)RR/97/36/P O/A Woodland Enterprise Centre including visitors centre,

workshops, village hall and related infrastructure (includes land to the north) - Approved.

RR/907/2414/P Phase I comprising 440 sq.m. of timber framed and clad single storey workshops pursuant to O/A RR/97/36/P - Reserved Matters Approved.

RR/98/1067/P Erection of visitor centre and formation of new access road and parking spaces pursuant to O/A RR/97/36/P - Approved.

RR/1999/348/P Erection of gridshell timber framed building with EPDM roof for provision of office space for organisation with an interest/involvement in woodlands and for display/meeting room. Alteration of access - Approved.

PROPOSAL Planning permission has previously been granted for phase II of the woodland Enterprise Centre development but is no longer extant. The application now before you is a revised scheme. A phase II Planning Report has been submitted with

60

the application and is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 21 April 2005. The application proposes the erection of 12 no. workshops and 32 no. parking spaces within an area of cleared woodland (approximately 0.36 ha). Each unit would be approximately 90 sq.m. on the ground floor with the potential for part of a first floor to be added for storage or office use. The design would incorporate modern timber construction techniques based on an updated version of the traditional cruck frame system. The application indicates that it is anticipated that the bulk of the businesses that will occupy the new workshops would be small, new, timber-related companies or individuals and it is also hoped that some of the units will be used for educational and training purposes. No specific named users have been put forward in the application. Finally, the supporting information points out that an eventual phase III is planned to the east side of the forest road.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Any comments will be reported.Highways Agency:- Requests further information.Environment Agency:- Any comments will be reported.Southern Water Services:- Does not wish to comment. Sussex Police:- Any comments will be reported.Director of Transport & Environment - County Planning:- Any comments will be reported.Director of Services - Environmental Health:- Recommends that any planning permission is subject to conditions re noise and hours of use.Director of Services - Regeneration:- “I have had sight of the above application and confirm my support for the proposed development. The proposals will offer much-needed modern small unit workspace, which is at a premium in Rother.In addition the proposals offer the potential for considerable added value in terms of the further development of the work already undertaken through the Woodland Enterprise Centre in promoting and encouraging the growth of local timber-related industries. Providing this workspace will create a centre of excellence for such industries and create an environment for those businesses to thrive through sharing of expertise and opportunities for joint working. There are further potential regeneration benefits through the creation of opportunities for training and apprenticeships, research and development.”Planning Notice:- Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY This application is a revised development proposal for phase II of the Woodland Enterprise scheme in Yellowcoat Wood. The proposed buildings, although smaller than the phase I building that has been erected, follow a similar style and incorporate modern timber-based construction techniques. In this respect the design and external appearance is considered satisfactory. There are however a number of issues in principle that need to be addressed before the development can be supported and in this respect an ecological survey of the site is required together with a ground survey of existing trees, indicating those to be retained and removed. These have been requested. Also the Highways Agency requires further information in respect of the access arrangements with the A21 trunk road and the estimated level of traffic generated by the development.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (FURTHER INFORMATION)1. The premises shall be used for purposes falling only within Class B1 of the

schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or shall 61

be used for specific timber based rural business activities subject to agreement in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

2. Condition as may be required by Highways Agency.3. At the time of development and before the buildings are occupied, parking

spaces shall be provided and laid out within the site in accordance with the details shown on the approved layout plan.

4. Other than the low level bollard lighting proposal described in the application, no floodlighting or external lighting of the site shall take place without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any such details submitted for approval shall include methods of shielding the light source from outside of the site and the lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.

5. Details of any boundary fencing that may be required shall be submitted for the consideration of the Local Planning Authority prior to being erected. Any boundary fences erected shall only be in accordance with the approved details.


RR/2005/655/P TICEHURST THE FORMER PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHURCH ROADAMENDMENT TO APPROVAL R/2002/2349/P. CONVERSION OF APPROVED PLOT 12 INTO TWO, ONE AND TWO BED UNITS INCLUDING PROVISION OF THREE PARKING SPACES WITH AMENDMENTS TO ELEVATIONS.Daniel Homes Ltd


RR/2005/666/L TICEHURST THE FORMER PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHURCH ROADAMENDMENT TO APPROVAL R/2002/2573/L. CONVERSION OF APPROVED PLOT 12 INTO TWO, ONE AND TWO BED UNITS INCLUDING PROVISION OF THREE PARKING SPACES WITH AMENDMENTS TO ELEVATIONS.Daniel Homes Ltd


SITE The former Ticehurst Primary School in Church Street. The school has now relocated to a new site and works have commenced on the approved scheme.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2002/2349/P Conversion of school building to form 6 dwellings and

erection of 11 new dwellings – Approved.RR/2002/2573/L Demolition of extension and conversion to form 6

dwellings – Approved.RR/2004/2782/P Revised scheme for conversion of former school RR/2004/2782/L buildings from 6 to 10 dwellings – Refused.

62

PROPOSAL Following the previous refusal the applicants now propose to subdivide unit 12 at the rear of the school into two smaller units, no addition of car parking is proposed. A statement from the applicants is attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT to this Planning Committee report of 21 April 2005.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority – No objection.Parish Council – Support proposal – “It was noted that there were local objections to the car parking arrangements but it was felt that the provision of smaller dwellings with car parking provision was good for the community although there were comments that the development was too dense”.Environment Agency – No objection.Southern Water – No objection.Planning Notice – 2 letters of objection from local residents (Granary Cottage and Rose Cottage, Church Street) on grounds that car parking inadequate, oldest part of village and in AONB, strain on public utilities and will mean more cars spilling out onto road.

SUMMARY Whilst the previous increase from 6 to 10 dwellings in the school building was not acceptable, I consider the proposed conversion to provide two smaller units can be achieved without detriment to the listed building. The issue of car parking remains, but on the basis of one additional unit I do not consider a refusal could be sustained on highway grounds, particularly as the Highway Authority raise no objection.

RECOMMENDATIONS:RR/2005/655/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)


RR/2005/666/L: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)


RR/2005/772/L TICEHURST SHOVERS GREEN HOUSEREVISED SCHEME FOR CONVERSION OF BARN TO DWELLINGJ A Pickering


RR/2005/770/P TICEHURST SHOVERS GREEN HOUSEREVISED SCHEME FOR CHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION OF BARN TO DWELLINGJ A Pickering


63

These applications have been included on the list of Committee site inspections for 19 April 2005.

SITE The site is located on the south-eastern corner of the junction between the B2099 (Ticehurst – Wadhurst road) and B2181 (Stonegate road). The farmhouse is a two storey ‘L’ shaped building, the ground floor of which is red brickwork with tile hanging above. It is listed in Grade II. The barn, the subject of these applications is to the west of the main house and is attached to it by a single storey wing constructed out of brickwork. It is a traditional timber framed barn clad in weatherboarding and with a half hipped clay tiled roof. There is a full height wagon door on the west elevation and a lower one on the eastern elevation.

HISTORYRR/2003/3075/L Conversion of barn to form dwelling – RefusedRR/2003/3093/P Change of use and conversion of barn to dwelling – Refused –

Appeal dismissed

PROPOSAL The applications are revised proposals for the conversion and change of use of the barn to a separate dwelling following the refusal of RR/2003/3075/L and RR/2003/3093/P listed above. A supporting statement has been provided with the applications and is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 21 April 2005.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Comments awaited.Highway Authority – Comments awaited.Neighbouring Authority - Wealden District Council – Comments awaited.Planning Notice – A letter of support has been received from the occupier of the neighbouring dwelling – Shovers Green Cottage, which includes the following:“I fully support the change of use of this barn to residential. Clearly it is a historic building and it is in danger of falling into disrepair. It is redundant as far as its original agricultural use is concerned. Its conversion would see it fully repaired and be an asset to this small community. There have, as far as I know, been no additional residential buildings in Shovers Green for at least 100 years. One more would seem appropriate in the 21st century, when as a nation we have a need for further accommodation for our population. This seems to be within present Government policy. A conversion here is preferable to a green field development in another place”.

SUMMARY The Planning Inspector’s decision in respect of the dismissed appeal on the previously refused planning application (RR/2003/3093/P) is a material consideration in the determination of these revised applications which has to be given considerable weight. Members will need to assess the applications in respect of the major issues of concern raised by the Planning Inspector and decide whether the revisions to the development scheme satisfies those concerns. The Planning Inspector’s decision letter is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT to this Committee 21 April 2005 along with a copy of the Agent’s supporting statement. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 says that in considering whether to grant planning permission for a development which affects a Listed Building or its setting, special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses. The Planning Inspector set out the main issues as follows:

64

- The effect on highway safety and the free flow of traffic on Stonegate Road arising from the proposed access arrangements; and

- Whether residential use of the barn would be justified, having regard to the requirements of development plan policy and national planning advice

- The impact of the proposal on the character, appearance and setting of Shovers Green House as a Grade II Listed Building;

Each of these issues are now considered in turn as follows:Highway Safety – The applicant has now agreed that the proposed barn conversion would be served by utilising the existing access to Shovers Green House. Subject to no objections being raised from the Highway Authority, it is considered that this issue of concern would be addressed.Justification for residential conversion – The Planning Inspector considered that the change of use and conversion of the barn would be acceptable in principle stating in para 15 that ‘uses other than residential could easily give rise to unacceptable disturbance to the occupiers of the existing dwelling’. The Inspector does not however, give support in principle to the change of use and conversion of the barn to a separate dwelling and this is opposed in the decision letter (para. 15) – ‘However, I am not convinced that the conversion of the barn and cartshed to a separate dwelling would be the only practicable means of retaining the buildings, since it seems to me that, because of their location, they would lend themselves readily to some ancillary use in connection with the domestic occupation of the existing house’. The Agents supporting letter comments on alternative uses for the barn as follows:“Home working or additional living accommodation. The existing property is of a more than adequate size for my client’s requirements as it already includes the conversion of the former single storey outbuilding adjoining the cart shed.Games or hobby use. Again, the existing dwelling is large enough to provide any facilities that are required in respect of either of these uses.Domestic storage. During my client’s ownership, the barn has been used for minimal and casual storage. This is not necessary, for the other outbuildings afford adequate space for any storage that is required without the wastage of floor space and volume that the barn could provide. Furthermore, such limited storage produces no revenue and income or capital is essential if the fabric of this building is to be preserved.Annexe. This alternative has not been mentioned but again there is no such requirement for the house does provide a suitable unit if ever this were needed”.The Planning Inspector, in reaching his conclusion, was mindful of Policy S10 of the East Sussex & Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 which includes the proviso that the conversion of a building in non-residential use to s separate dwelling will only be allowed, ‘where such conversion is the only practicable means of retaining it’. The applicants Agent has indicated that there are no other residential uses compatible with the domestic occupation of the existing dwelling that would safeguard the retention of this barn. Members will need to take a view on this and assess whether the retention of the barn in an ancillary domestic use is a practicable option to serve the farmhouse, being mindful of the possibility that subsequent future occupiers of the farmhouse may have a need for such ancillary accommodation, in which event it would be preferable to provide this within the existing barn rather than a possible extension to the listed farmhouse.Character, appearance and setting of the listed building: In the previous planning application, although this contained no information about the intended demarcation of the application (appeal) site, the Inspector expressed the opinion that ‘any noticeable subdivision of the curtilage would(…) be detrimental to the setting of the farmhouse and its attached buildings and the ability to appreciate their historical relationship. That would diminish the interest and character of the complex as a whole’. In response to

65

this, the new applications are proposing only a notional subdivision of the curtilage to the north of the barn (ie. no physical boundaries); on the southern side the existing post and wire fence to the field would remain, and between the rear of the farmhouse and the barn, an existing yew hedge would be continued up to the cart shed. Members may consider that this is an acceptable compromise although it has to be said that a yew hedge would still constitute a physical division that separates the rear curtilage into two separate components. Moreover, once the Local Planning Authority has accepted the principle of creating a separate residential unit, this may prejudice the Council’s position and it may be judged to be acting unreasonably if it was to refuse any future applications for either occupier to erect structures around their garden once the barn was occupied as a separate unit from Shovers Green Farmhouse.A second matter to be addressed in this Section is the design of the proposed conversion. The Inspector considered that the original proposal would ‘give the barn and shed an overly domestic appearance’ and was therefore unacceptable. The revised applications incorporate design changes which are considered an improvement on the original submission although it is hoped a view on this can be obtained from the Conservation Officer. In conclusion, the revised applications have gone some way towards addressing the Inspector’s concerns and the submissions are considered less contentious. However, there remains a fundamental objection to this proposal in that the Inspector considered that “the integrity of the land surrounding the house and barn is important to the appreciation of the farmhouse and its attached building as one historical and architectural unit. To my mind, this integrity would be likely to be harmed by the occupation of the barn and part of the cart shed as a separate dwelling” . Members will, however, see the site for themselves at the Committee site inspection and consider the Inspector’s decision letter in the light of the Agents detailed comments and reach a balanced decision in this matter.

RECOMMENDATION RR/2005/770/P REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. Whilst there is no objection in principle to the change of use and conversion of

the barn to residential use, the proposal conflicts with Policy S10 of the East Sussex & Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 in that the conversion to a separate dwelling is not the only practicable means of retaining it. The complex of buildings form a harmonious architectural unit that sits in an unobstructed and open curtilage. This is considered important to the appreciation of the listed farmhouse and its attached buildings as one historic and architectural unit. The integrity would be likely to be harmed by the occupation of the barn and part of the cart shed as a separate dwelling. The notional curtilage to the north of the barn has been noted, however, it is considered should the principle of a separate dwelling be accepted, this would be likely to result in a requirement for physical subdivision in the future by occupants of either premises that would then be difficult to resist. The formation of a yew hedge south from the cart shed would constitute a physical subdivision of the curtilage and the Local Planning Authority is mindful of the Planning Inspector’s views in respect of the previously dismissed appeal (RR/2003/3093/P) which indicated that any noticeable subdivision of the curtilage would be detrimental to the setting of the farmhouse and its attached building and the architectural and historic integrity of the listed complex. The proposed development would be out of character with the listed building to which it relates and would, if permitted adversely affect the building or its setting. It therefore conflicts with the provisions of Section 66 of the Town and Country

66

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which indicates that special regard will be given to preserving the building and its setting. The proposed development would also conflicts with Policy S1 (j) and (m) of the East Sussex & Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2005/772/L REFUSE (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. Whilst there is no objection in principle to the change of use and conversion of

the barn to residential use, the proposal conflicts with Policy S10 of the East Sussex & Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 in that the conversion to a separate dwelling is not the only practicable means of retaining it. The complex of buildings form a harmonious architectural unit that sits in an unobstructed and open curtilage. This is considered important to the appreciation of the listed farmhouse and its attached buildings as one historic and architectural unit. The integrity would be likely to be harmed by the occupation of the barn and part of the cart shed as a separate dwelling. The notional curtilage to the north of the barn has been noted, however, it is considered should the principle of a separate dwelling be accepted, this would be likely to result in a requirement for physical subdivision in the future by occupants of either premises that would then be difficult to resist. The formation of a yew hedge south from the cart shed would constitute a physical subdivision of the curtilage and the Local Planning Authority is mindful of the Planning Inspector’s views in respect of the previously dismissed appeal (RR/2003/3093/P) which indicated that any noticeable subdivision of the curtilage would be detrimental to the setting of the farmhouse and its attached building and the architectural and historic integrity of the listed complex. The proposed development would be detrimental to the character of the listed building which should be preserved in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The proposed development would also conflicts with Policy S1 (j) and (m) of the East Sussex & Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 – 2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2005/567/P EWHURST THE FIRS - DAIRY/STABLES ADJ, NORTHIAM ROAD, STAPLECROSSDEMOLITION OF AGRICULTURAL BARN. CHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION OF FORMER DAIRY/STABLES TO A COTTAGEMr A Crouch


SITE The site is located about 50 metres down a single track road leading off the south side of the B2165. It lies to the rear of a small cluster of dwellings to the east of Staplecross village. The track, which is a public footpath, is shared by three dwellings in the cluster. The application relates to a small complex of former dairy buildings. They are brick, single storey structures with an assortment of roof materials (tile, slate and cement fibre sheeting). The site lies outside of any village Development Boundaries identified in the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) and is

67

within an area where countryside policies apply. The site is also within the High Weald AONB.

HISTORYRR/2000/2796/P Change of use and conversion of former milking parlour and cow

byre to residential use and erection of new garage - Refused - Appeal Dismissed.

PROPOSAL The application is a revised resubmission of RR/2000/2796/P. A supporting letter with the application is contained in full in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 21 April 2005. This sets out the revisions to the previous scheme. The main points can be summarised as follows:-

Number 2 The Firs, also owned by the applicant and shown within the blue land, is no longer subject to an agricultural occupancy condition. The current application site is therefore not part of an agricultural unit.

No extension is proposed Public footpath would not be obstructed Improvements to design details of conversion in respect of fenestration

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “Ewhurst Parish Council supports this proposal as it is preserving a building worthy of preservation. Council notes that if this proposal is allowed there will be yet another residence created outside of the planning envelope for Staplecross. Access to the site could well be an issue as there only exists a single unmade up track serving all the properties. 1 neighbour expressed a concern about increased noise due to the change of use.”Highway Authority:- Recommends that consent be refused for reasons that the access at its junction with the B2165 has substandard visibility and width and existing highway hazards would be introduced.Highway Authority - Footpaths/Rights of Way:- Any comments will be reported.Director of Services - Environmental Health:- No objection subject to contaminated land assessment condition.Planning Notice:- 2 letters of objection - 1 The Firs and 4 Rosefield Cottages:-

The narrow farm track to the B2165 is not suitable to accommodate the additional vehicle movements that would be generated.

Existing development in the immediate locality has already eroded some of the rural character of the area

The farm track is unsuitable to accommodate service vehicles (such as refuse collection vehicles)

The Dairy is very close to our dwelling (no.1 The Firs) The conversion would cause noise and disruption to our property (no.1) Loss of privacy In the event that planning permission is to be granted we would ask that

conditions be imposed (obscured glass on west elevation, matching brickwork, no external lighting, no leylandii type hedges, the public right of way should not be obstructed)

The development interferes with a public right of way Loss of views

SUMMARY The application has to be assessed against Policy S10(c) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. This states that additional

68

housing will not be allowed in the countryside unless it is in one of three categories; the first two are not relevant here, and the third is that additional housing development will not be allowed in the countryside unless it is the conversion of a building in non-residential use which makes a valuable contribution to the rural scene and is the only practicable means of retaining it. The Inspector considered this matter in the appeal decision in respect of the previously refused application (RR/2000/2796/P) and concluded that the building did not make a valuable contribution to the rural scene:“8. It is thus part of the rural scene in the sense that it was clearly built and used in

connection with farming rather than any urban use, but to my mind it is an ordinary small building with no special qualities, and the scene would be no less rural and no less attractive without it. In my view its contribution to the rural scene is very limited and of little value.

11. I have found that the building makes little contribution to the rural scene and it is not claimed that the proposed residential accommodation would meet any particular identified housing need. I therefore conclude that the residential conversion of the building, as an exception to the general policy of safeguarding the countryside from additional housing development, would not be justified.”

The Appeal Decision in respect of RR/2000/2796/P is a material consideration in the determination of this current application and the decision letter is reproduced in full in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 21 April 2005. The current application, therefore, must also fail when assessed against Policy S10(c)(iii). The comments contained in the agent’s supporting letter (see Appendix) have been noted, however these do not satisfy the policy objection to the principle of conversion to residential use that was raised by the Planning Inspector.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The former milking parlour and byre are located within the countryside, outside

any town or village, where policy S10 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 indicates that development will only be permitted if a rural location is necessary. It is intended that in the countryside only dwellings essential for the running of an enterprise, which must be in a countryside location, will be permitted. The residential development proposed is not essential to the needs of agriculture or forestry and is considered to be contrary to the provisions of the Structure Plan.

2. The site does not lie within a settlement Development Boundary as defined in the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). Outside such areas where countryside protection policies apply, Policies DS3 and DS4 of the Plan indicate that dwellings will only be permitted where it has been demonstrated that new housing is essential for the running of an enterprise which must be in a countryside location. The development proposal is not essential to the needs of agriculture or forestry and is considered to be contrary to the provisions of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

3. The proposal conflicts with Policy S10(c)(iii) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy HG11(i) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) which indicate that additional housing development will not be allowed in the countryside unless it is the conversion of a building in non-residential use which makes a valuable contribution to the rural scene and is the only practicable means of retaining it. The dismissed appeal in respect of the previous application (RR/2000/2796/P) established that the

69

building does not make a valuable contribution to the rural scene and is a material consideration in the determination of the current application.

4. The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, where Policies S1(j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 indicate that development will be carefully controlled to protect the character of the area. It is considered that the proposal would not meet this objective - particularly as a result of the creation of a residential curtilage, domestic activity and associated domestic paraphernalia - and it would cause harm to the rural character of the area.

5. The existing access at its junction with B2165 has substandard visibility and width and existing hazards would be increased by the additional slowing, stopping, turning and reversing traffic which would be created. The development proposal is contrary to Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR2005/94/P SEDLESCOMBE BULMER HOUSE – REAR OF, THE STREET. ERECTION OF A DETACHED COTTAGE WITH PROVISION OF TWO PARKING SPACESMr and Mrs J Wells


SITE The application relates to a backland plot (0.052 Ha) behind Bulmer House which fronts the The Green in Sedlescombe Village. Access is via an existing track to the south of Bulmer House. The site is within the Development Boundary of Sedlescombe. It is also within the Conservation Area.

HISTORY RR2003/1075/P. Outline: erection of new dwelling – Approved

PROPOSAL This is a full planning application. The plans show a two storey house incorporating a catslide roof on the northern side. The house would be of traditional design incorporating bricks and tile hanging with a peg tile roof. Two parking areas are indicated on the site layout plan. A supporting letter setting out the design considerations that have been given to existing surrounding development is set out in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 21 April 2005.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Object to proposal. “The Parish Council supports refusal of the application as the proposed dwelling is not modest in proportions as proposed in the outline approval. If the District Council approves the application, it is requested that arrangements are made to protect the grass verge at the entrance in The Street (some of which is part of the registered Sedlescombe Village Green) and that the developer is required to make good any damage that does occur.”Highway Authority – Would wish to attach conditions in the event that permission is granted.Southern Water Services – Objects to the proposal on the grounds that it would involve building over sewers that cross the site. (Southern Water has since agreed in principle to the diversion of the sewers).Environment Agency – No objections.

70

Director of Transport & Environment – County Archaeologist – Requests an archaeological condition in the event that planning permission is granted.Planning Notice – Four letters of objection from the occupiers of ‘Claytons’, ‘Bulmer House’, 1 The Pollards and ‘The Bowlings’ (Bowlings Corner). The development would be adjacent to the rear boundary of ‘Claytons’ resulting

in its rear garden being overlooked. Loss of light to the garden of ‘Claytons’ – particularly as the new building would

be immediately to the south. Would exacerbate existing parking problems on ‘The Green’. The driveway adjacent to ‘Bulmer House’ is too narrow to serve additional

damage to ‘Bulmer House’. Would create the impression of the area behind The Green being very built up. The driveway is also a public footpath – possible hazard to pedestrians. Concerned that construction traffic would damage the grass verge between the

path and the roadway. Insufficient on site parking space would be provided. Village infrastructure cannot support further development. Overdevelopment of the village creating a decline in its AONB status.

SUMMARY Although this is a full planning application, planning permission has previously been granted in outline (RR/2003/1075/P) and the principle of a new detached dwelling on this site has therefore been established. The outline planning permission contains the following note that identifies the key issues for consideration at any detailed stage:“In determining any detailed application the Local Planning Authority would wish to be satisfied that the bulk and height of the proposed dwelling is of modest proportions that respects and does not dominate the scale of existing buildings within the vicinity of the site. Being mindful of the location of the site within the proposed Conservation Area, the proposed development would be of traditional design and constructed with vernacular materials in character with the locality. Close consideration will also be given to the detailed siting and design of the proposed development in relation to adjoining or nearby buildings to avoid any substantial loss of amenity for the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings result from overlooking and overshadowing etc.”The proposed building in the application now before you reflects the traditional vernacular in terms of its design, external materials and appearance. My concern, however, is the size, height and bulk of the building with respect to its relationship with existing properties in the immediate vicinity of the site. This is a matter which has also been raised by the Parish Council. In particular I am concerned that the proposed new dwelling would impact upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring dwelling ‘Claytons’ by dominating the rear garden, resulting in an oppressive outlook and overshadowing. Members will note that an objection has been received from the occupiers of ‘Claytons’. The architect has incorporated measures - such as a catslide roof – which would go some way towards reducing impact. An amended plan has also been submitted showing the position of the building tilted and moved slightly away from the boundary. These measures, although welcomed, do not alleviate the concerns expressed above. I am also mindful of the fact that daylight diagrams have been provided indicating the shadow cast by the new building, these do not however, indicate that the building would not dominate and enclose the rear garden of ‘Claytons’ to an unacceptable degree. Due to the size of the footprint of the proposed building and the restricted plot size, it would not be feasible to reposition the dwelling further away from the party boundary. Whilst in other circumstances I would have no objections to the proposed design of the dwelling per se, in this particular location it would have an

71

adverse impact on the surrounding area. Finally, I have received a copy of a letter from Southern Water Services giving an ‘in principle’ agreement to the required sewer diversion.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its height and bulk combined with its

proximity to the northern side boundary, would dominate existing development and have an adverse impact upon the existing residential amenity of the rear garden of ‘Claytons’ by creating a sense of enclosure, resulting in some loss of natural sunlight and creating an oppressive outlook. The proposed development is contrary to Policy GD1 (ii) and (iv) of the RDLP RD (Nov 2003).

RR/2005/464/P SEDLESCOMBE THE BRICKWALL HOTELERECTION OF EXTENSION TO FORM CONSERVATORYG. Pollio Esq


RR/2005/466/L SEDLESCOMBE THE BRICKWALL HOTELERECTION OF EXTENSION TO FORM CONSERVATORY TO EXISTING HOTEL AND RESTAURANTG. Pollio Esq


This application has been included on the list of Committee site inspections for 19 April 2005.

SITE The Brickwall Hotel is a grade II listed building, which lies to the north of the village green. The site lies within the Sedlescombe Village Conservation Area and within the village development boundary as defined within the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

HISTORYRR/85/0068 Dining Room Extension – Approved conditionalRR/89/0184/P Extension to provide additional bedroom and function room –

Approved conditionalRR/90/0339/P Single storey extension to enlarge bar lounge – Approved

conditionalRR/90/0340/L Single storey extension to enlarge bar lounge – Listed BC grantedRR/94/2225/P Outline: Reconstruction and enclosure of existing outdoor

swimming pool & provision of ancillary facilities - WithdrawnRR/95/812/P Provision of new enclosed swimming pool & associated facilities,

and 3 additional bedrooms – Approved conditionalRR/97/2646/P Demountable garden restaurant enclosure adjacent to existing

restaurant – Withdrawn RR/97/2648/L Demountable garden restaurant enclosure adjacent to existing

restaurant – Withdrawn RR/2003/3170/P Outline: Demolish the existing outbuilding and erect new dwelling –

Approved conditional72

RR/2003/3368/L Demolition of outbuilding – Listed BC grantedRR/2004/735/P Demolish existing outbuilding and erect new dwelling pursuant to

outline permission RR/2003/3170/P – Approved conditional

PROPOSAL The application seeks permission for the erection of a conservatory 8.1m wide with an average depth of 5m on the west elevation of the listed building, to provide addition space for patrons using the restaurant and bar facilities.A letter from the agent in support of the application included the following;“The proposal is for a conservatory linked to the bar and dinning restaurant. There is need to both expand the facilities to the Hotel and to improve its appeal to the visitor. Sedlescombe has seen in recent times the loss of the Coach and Horse, Tithe Restaurant, Waterfalls and Holmes House Restaurant. There remains one public house and the Brickwall Hotel. The applicants know that they must continue to change to suit an ever discerning market and the addition of the conservatory is considered a most important step forward. It should be noted that the Restaurant capacity equals 80 to 100 whilst the bar has a seating facility for just 25 to 30. The bar is used for pre-dinner drinks and also for post-meal coffee and frequently there is insufficient space. The conservatory is intended to improve this situation whilst providing an attractive alternative extension to the existing. The design of the conservatory has been purposely kept simple in its form and style to reflect the form of the Listed Building which included a number of modern adjuncts added over the forty years or so. The largely glass structure is intended to appear subservient whilst still remaining an attractive feature taking nothing away from the Listed Building”. CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support Approval Director of Transport & Environment – County Archaeologist – Do not consider that any archaeological remains are likely to be affected by these proposals. For this reason I have no further recommendations to make in this instance.Planning Notice – 1 letter from Hastings Area Archaeological Research Group;If planning permission is granted then there will be the need for an archaeological presence when the ground is disturbed for the erection of this extension.

SUMMARY The conservatory is required to provide additional space for patrons using the restaurant and bar facilities. Whilst the functional requirements of rural business is a planning consideration, there is a statutory requirement on planning authorities to have ‘special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting’. The principal issue is the impact of the conservatory on the character, appearance and setting of the listed building. In this respect the Conservation Officer has been consulted on the proposal and considers that the development should not be supported. The proposed conservatory would obscure views and interpretation of an important elevation of the listed building and would clutter the form and arrangement of the building, to the extent that it would adversely affect the building’s special architectural and historic character. The proposal is contrary to Government advice in PPG15 (paras 3.3, 3.12, 3.13, Annex C para C.7), as well as development plan policies, I am therefore minded to RECOMMENDATIONS RR/2005/464/P: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. RN8K (Planning Application – Listed Building). Add…”The development is

contrary to central government advice in PPG15, Policy S1(m) and EN23 of the

73

East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).”

RR/2005/466/L: REFUSE (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)1. RN8N (Listed building application – out of character). “The proposed addition

would be detrimental ….”etc. and “The development is contrary to central government advice in PPG15, Policy S1(m) and EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2005/488/P SEDLESCOMBE HIGHFIELD PLANTATION, A21CHANGE OF USE OF BARN FOR CLASS B1 (BUSINESS) AND CLASS B8 (STORAGE OR DISTRIBUTION) USEW H Cole


SITE The site fronts the eastern side of the A21 some distance to the south of its junction with Stream Lane. It contains an agricultural barn (25m x 11m) constructed in blockwork and clad with fibre cement sheeting. There is a vehicular access to the eastern side of the A21.

HISTORYRR/96/200/P Change of use of barn and yard to wood sawing place (Use

Class B2) – Refused for reasons (briefly): increase in vehicular traffic, inadequate access, AONB.

RR/96/871/P Change of use of barn for wood sawing and yard for wood storage, access improvement – use by one commercial vehicle – Refused – Appeal Dismissed for reasons (briefly) – inadequate access and proposed removal of hedge harmful to AONB.

ENF/WHA/95/521 Enforcement Notice – Sawing of timber and storage – Appeal dismissed.

RR/2002/618/O Lawful use of part of existing building for the manufacture of concrete products - Refused

PROPOSAL The application is for the change of use of the barn and hardstanding to a mixed use falling within Use Classes B1 (light industrial) and B8 (storage and distribution). It is intended to allocate about half of the floor space of the barn for each use. It is proposed to retain the hardstanding adjacent to the barn for a vehicle turning and parking area in association with the proposed use. The existing access to the A21 would serve the use.

CONSULTATIONSSedlescombe Parish Council:- “The Parish Council objects to this proposal because of the unsuitable entrance onto a fast stretch of the A21 and the unacceptable site in the AONB. Similar applications were refused by Rother and on appeal in 1996 and nothing has changed since then.”Whatlington Parish Council:- Object to proposal - “The development is out of keeping with the area and will cause noise and extra traffic nuisance to neighbours. The activity is industrial, Whatlington has a business park sited at Vinehall Farm and there is

74

another in Marley Lane, all industrial development should be directed to these sites not allowed to spread through our rural AONB area.”Highways Agency:- Issues previously raised by the Agency have been addressed and it no longer wishes to object to the granting of consent.Environment Agency:- No objection but recommends condition re contaminated land.Southern Water Services:- Does not wish to comment.Director of Transport & Environment - Footpaths Officer:- Any comments will be reported.Director of Services - Environmental Health:- Any comments will be reported.Ramblers Association:- Object to proposal. There is no reference to the Public Right of Way in the application. The fact that the proposed increase in traffic that will occur if the application is successful will share an exit onto the busy A21 with users of the footpath is completely ignored.Planning Notice:- No comments received.

SUMMARY The site is in the countryside (High Weald AONB) where development plan policies indicate that new development will be carefully controlled to protect the special landscape character of the rural area. Policy S10 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 states that in the countryside, conversions and/or changes of use of existing buildings for employment can be supported provided that:(i) their form, bulk and general design are in keeping with their surroundings; and(ii) the use is appropriate to the area in terms of scale, type and

impact on its surroundings (including traffic impact).With respect to (i), although a building of no particular merit, it would however meet this Policy criteria. Regarding (ii), there are a number of issues that Members will need to consider. A principal issue is the access and the roadside hedge.The original roadside hedge has been taken out for a distance (about 40-50m) on either side of the access and a new hedge (mixed hawthorn) has been replanted behind increased visibility splays. Historically, the original hedge was closer to the road and followed its straight alignment. A consequence of this was limited visibility for the drivers of any vehicles leaving the site to join the A21. This issue was raised by the Planning Inspectors at the two appeals (RR/96/871/P and ENF/WHA/95/521).- RR/96/871/P para 7 - “Visibility in both directions at the access is very limited by the hedge. I note your evidence on accident figures, but I have no doubt that the continued use of such an access on a section of road with these characteristics would be harmful to highway safety.”However, the Inspector was not in support of any proposals to take out the hedge and replant a new hedge behind a visibility splay for reasons that this would be harmful to the rural area. Para 11 -“I accept that a new hedge is proposed, but it would take some years to reach the maturity of the existing hedge. During this time the site would be open, and I do not agree that the existing trees would provide any comparable screening since they are too small and too thinly planted. Moreover, the new hedge would be on the line of the visibility splays, set back from, and at a slight angle to, the A21. To my mind this siting on an artificial line would not conserve the natural beauty of the area, even after the hedge had reached maturity. I therefore conclude that this part of the proposal would materially harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to development plan policies and national guidance.”The roadside hedge was nevertheless removed by the applicant sometime after (2003) and subsequently investigations have taken place by the planning enforcement section as to whether an offence has been committed by the removal of the hedge under the Hedgerows Regulations 1997 and consideration is being given to the serving of a

75

Hedgerow Replacement Notice. In response to this the applicant maintains that the original hedge was on highway land, it was removed with the permission of the Highways Agency and he has planted a new hedge further back from the carriageway on his own land. Clearly this issue has implications for the application now before you. If a Hedge Replacement Notice is served to put the hedge back in its original position, then as a consequence of the reduced visibility at the access the planning application should be refused. A Hedge Replacement Notice would not however be served on the applicant if the original hedge was on land outside his ownership. The Highways Agency now has no objection to the access from a highway safety point of view and Members need to be mindful of this in considering the Parish Council’s objection.A second issue for consideration is the need to safeguard the residential amenities of local residents (particularly the occupiers of ‘Highfield View’ opposite the site). Subject to no objection from the Environmental Health Division and safeguarding conditions, I would consider that the proposed B1/B8 use would be acceptable in this location.Finally, on the matter of the Public Right of Way raised by the Ramblers Association, the footpath (Sedlescombe 28b) skirts the northern side of the application site to join with the point of vehicular access adjacent to the A21. It is not considered that the proposed development would affect the footpath or its use by walkers to any material degree.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (OUTSTANDING CONSULTATIONS AND FURTHER INFORMATION RESPECT OF THE HEDGEROW)1. The premises shall be used for business purposes within Class B1 and/or B8 of

the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or in provision equivalent to those Classes in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order.

2. CN12G (Hours of Use).3. CN12I (Boundary noise levels).4. No equipment, spares, access, rubbish, materials or other articles of any

description shall be stored in the open other than to the extent and in such positions as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

5. CN12L (Floodlighting - amended).

RR/2005/760/P SEDLESCOMBE GLENDALE, CHURCHLAND LANEDEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING.ERECTION OF DETACHED SINGLE STOREY DWELLING AND GARAGE WITH ALTERATION TO EXISTING ACCESS PURSUANT TO OUTLINE PERMISSION RR/2004/2745/P.Wayne Glaze


SITE The application is located within the countryside to the north of Sedlescombe village (AONB) It is within an area covered by the ‘Churchland Lane Development Policy and Design Brief (Oct 1979); which identifies ‘Glendale’ as a residential site (as opposed to a ‘holiday site’). The residential plot has a frontage of about 17 metres and an average depth of 48 metres.

HISTORY

76

RR/2004/2745/P O/A Demolition of existing bungalow and garage and erection of new bungalow and garage with alteration to access – Approved.

PROPOSAL The plans show the construction of a single storey ‘L’ shaped bungalow, having a gross floor area of 120 square metres. External materials are described as local stock bricks, timber weatherboard, clay tile roof and timber casement windows. A supporting letter has been received with the application.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Any comments will be reported.Highway Authority - Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice – No representations received.

SUMMARY The principle of erecting a replacement dwelling on the site has been established by the granting of outline planning permission RR/2004/2745/P. The application now before you is the reserved matters pursuant to the outline permission. The details of the scheme are considered acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION APPROVE (RESERVED MATTERS) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. CN7B (External materials – bricks and roof tiles).2. CN13I (Frontage hedge retention).

RR/2005/667/P FAIRLIGHT 4 THE HADDOCKS COTTAGES, SEA ROADOUTLINE: DEMOLITION OF DILAPIDATED BUILDING (5 THE HADDOCKS) AND ERECTION OF TWO STOREY DWELLINGP Tickner


SITE ‘The Haddocks Cottages’, of which only no.5 now remains, are located on the cliff top at the end of Stream Lane and Sea Road. Approximately 6m distant from the former cottages and the cliff edge is an 11m x 5m single storey former garage/utility building converted to a dwelling following the grant of planning permission RR/80/1316. This was granted as a replacement dwelling for no.4 and is subject to a legal agreement that it would not be enlarged/extended without the express grant of planning permission. The proposal represents a resubmission of previously refused application RR/2004/1094/P but for a detached dwelling instead of attached to the northern end of no.4.

HISTORYRR/80/1316 Conversion of garage/utility building to form a one bedroom

dwelling - Approved subject to legal agreementRR/2004/1094/P O/A demolition of dilapidated building (5 The Haddocks), and

replacement with two storey accommodation occupied as a separate dwelling but attached to 4 The Haddocks - Refused.

PROPOSAL It is proposed to demolish the remaining cottage, one corner of which now overhangs the cliff edge. The proposed 8.5m long replacement two storey dwelling would adjoin the northern end of the former garage/utility buildings which has been renumbered as no.4 and be separated therefrom by a 1m gap. The application is

77

supported by a report from a Structural Engineer, a full copy of which is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this meeting 21 April 2005.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- Does not wish to restrict grant of Consent subject to adequate on-site parking being provided for both dwellings at any detail stage.Environment Agency:- Has no objection commenting that the local geological and hydro geological characteristics of the site will dictate whether soakaways will be applicable and an investigation would be required. The Council’s own engineers should be satisfied with the proposed method of surface water disposal.Southern Water:- Comments awaited.Chief Building Control Officer:- Comments awaited.Director of Services (Environment):- I enclose an extract from the new Shoreline Management Plan which indicates that the site will be lost in the medium term (20-50 years). When the rock bund was constructed in 1990, the Council’s consultants (Halcrow) estimated that up to 15m could be lost due to natural weathering of the cliff until a stable angle of repose was reached and to-date some 5m has been lost at this location. As stated in the latest report, the rock bund will become less effective in future years due to sea level rise and climate changes and development of this site would be unwise.Planning Notice:- No comments received.

SUMMARY The previous application RR/2004/1094/P was refused for the reason that, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the site is at risk from cliff erosion that is likely to occur during the lifetime of the proposed building and where a precautionary approach is necessary. Furthermore, no specialist investigation and assessment by the applicant to determine the stability of the ground and to identify any remedial measures required to deal with any instability had been carried out.This application seeks to address the above reason for refusal. The report prepared by a structural engineer claims that, since the rock bund was constructed at the base of the cliffs, the rate of erosion from 1990-2004 has dramatically reduced (173cm or 12cm a year) and that likely future losses would be minimal. Although to be constructed of conventional materials, it is proposed to sit the dwelling on 3 strip footings set at the level of the drop in the land at the rear. Similar strip footings would be cast behind the dwelling so that the dwelling could be moved back on ‘slipstrips’ if and when the building becomes at risk from cliff erosion. The conclusion to the report contains the following extract:“The current measured rate of decay is 12 cm/year. The proposed location for this extension is 15m (150cm) from the cliff edge. This would give the proposed building a life of over 100 years. At the worst 50 years would be a normal time life expectancy for a domestic dwelling.It is my opinion that it would be possible to build a structure that could actually last for ‘all time’ as the process of moving the dwelling is to cast additional simple strip footings behind it and slide it to a new location.”Notwithstanding the above claim that the proposed location would give the proposed building a life of over 100 years, the new Shoreline Management Plan (Draft January 2005) referred to by the Director of Services (Environment) predicts that the proposed dwelling and whole site, including part of the field at the rear, would be lost in the medium term (20-50 years). The Shoreline Management Plan is an ongoing report produced by Halcrow (Civil Engineers) and covering the shorelines of Kent and Sussex. This is non-statutory and evolving. The predictions contained in the Plan are being used

78

by the Council and should be given due weight. Furthermore, although it may be possible to move the building back and remain within the existing curtilage, its further movement in the longer term would position it in countryside outside the development boundary of Fairlight village where new dwellings would currently not be supported. In these circumstances therefore I take the view that the dwelling would be at risk from cliff erosion that is likely to occur during its lifetime and should not be supported.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. Notwithstanding the ‘Report on construction of new dwelling’ submitted with the

application, it is the opinion of the Local Planning Authority that the site is at risk from cliff erosion that is likely to occur during the lifetime of the proposed building and where a precautionary approach is necessary. For this reason, the proposal would be contrary to Government Advice contained in PPG14: Development on Unstable Land and PPG20: Coastal Planning.

RR/2005/818/P FAIRLIGHT FORMER FAIRLIGHT GARAGE, BATTERY HILLREMOVAL OF EXISTING FRONT BOUNDARY RETAINING WALL. REVISION TO LENGTH DIMENSION OF DWELLINGS ON PLOTS 3 AND 4Gemselect


SITE Redevelopment of this former garage site with four detached dwellings was recently approved under planning permission RR/2004/1701/P. This application seeks to amend the permission.

HISTORYRR/2001/1864/P Change of Use for 4 detached dwellings, each including a separate

area for usage with new access - Approved.RR/2004/1701/P Revised proposals relating to amended site layout and design for

the erection of four detached dwellings - Approved.

PROPOSAL1. To increase the depth of the two proposed dwellings fronting Waites Lane (Plots

3 and 4) by 370mm.2. To remove the brick retaining wall fronting Waites Lane.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- Commence awaited.Planning Notice:- Comments awaited.

SUMMARY With regard to the increased depth of the two dwellings (verbally confirmed at 370mm), this increase is relatively insignificant and is unlikely to have any impact upon adjoining amenity. The amendment is therefore supported subject to the applicant’s confirmation in writing.With regard to the front boundary wall, this currently varies from a maximum height of approx. 1.5m down to a minimum height of approx. 1m. Although as submitted it is proposed to remove the wall completely down to pavement level I have obtained the applicant’s verbal agreement to amend the application to retain the wall but reduce it to

79

a constant height of 450mm (approx. 18”). This is considered desirable and would retain some of the site’s existing character. In addition I have requested additional details showing a section through the frontage showing how the land behind the wall would be regraded and how they intend to deal with surface water. Provided these are received and are satisfactory, and the Highway Authority have no objection, I would expect to support the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (TO AWAIT AMENDED PLANS/CONSULTATION RESPONSES/EXPIRY OF STATUTORY CONSULTATION PERIOD)

RR/2005/658/P PETT TWO SAWYERS PUBLIC HOUSE, PETT ROADREMOVAL OF ROOF EXTENSION. CONSTRUCTION OF EXTERNAL TIMBER ESCAPE STAIRCASE FROM FIRST FLOOR AND FORMATION OF DOOR IN PLACE OF WINDOWMr C Soper


RR/2005/659/L PETT TWO SAWYERS PUBLIC HOUSE, PETT ROADREMOVAL OF ROOF EXTENSION. CONSTRUCTION OF EXTERNAL TIMBER ESCAPE STAIRCASE FROM FIRST FLOOR AND FORMATION OF DOOR IN PLACE OF WINDOWMr C Soper


SITE The property is a public house set back from the highway some 3m, though the development is confined to the western elevation fronting the car park and is set back some 20m. This area of the building dates from the Victorian era and has been subject to much alteration, therefore not affecting the eighteenth century portion of the building. The timber steps are serving a first floor function room and have been installed as a means of emergency egress. The door has been created from a former window to provide access onto the staircase.

HISTORYRR/2003/1386/L Erection of extension of ground and first floor to provide extra cellar

and kitchen area, restaurant servery and toilets – GrantedRR/2003/561/P Erection of extension of ground and first floor to provide extra cellar

and kitchen area, restaurant servery and toilets – Approved

PROPOSAL The application seeks to remove the roof extension and undertake the construction of an external timber escape staircase from the first floor and the formation of a door in place of a window.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Any comments will be reported.Director of Services – Chief Building Control Officer: – I am unable to comment fully on the means of escape without complete floor plans. The external escape shown is unsatisfactory because of proximity of window and door openings at ground floor level. Planning Notice: Any comments will be reported.

80

SUMMARY This application has been submitted as a result of the serving of a Planning Enforcement Notice in November 2004 seeking the removal of the staircase and dumb waiter tower and first floor door opening. The notice sought the reinstatement of the roofing and wall materials and the window. These facilities do not benefit from planning or listed building consent. The applicant states the staircase and doorway have been installed to comply with Building Regulations in terms of emergency egress from the first floor of the building. The doorway has been created from a former window aperture, though the style of door installed is not considered sympathetic to the visual appearance of the building. The dumb waiter has been installed to allow safe passage of food to the first floor dining rooms. The existing staircase is not considered satisfactory in terms of the timber used or the final finish (light coloured decking timber). By installing a rough sawn timber staircase and finished in a dark stain, the visual impact upon the listed building will be reduced. The installation of the solid timber door at first floor level and also finished in a dark stain will not detract from the visual appearance of the building. As such, it is considered the existing development is not acceptable though the proposed development will have a neutral impact upon the Listed Building and therefore can be supported. The removal of the tower housing the dumb waiter facility will improve the visual appearance and character of the building and will return the roofscape to its previous form.

RECOMMENDATIONS: RR/2005/658/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH BUILDING REGULATIONS)1. Within one month of the date of this permission, the specification of the

colour/treatment of the timber staircase and door hereby approved, shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To maintain the character of the building.

2. Within one month of the date of this permission, details of the first floor access door and frame shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall be drawn to a scale not less than 1:5 and shall also include the colour/ treatment of the door. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To maintain the character of the building.

3. Within one month of the date of this permission, a sample of the timber to be used within the door shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The door within the first floor north elevation hereby approved shall be timber close boarded. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To maintain the character of the building.

4. Within one month of the date of this permission, a sample of the roof tile to be used will be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To maintain the character of the building.


RR/2005/659/L: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH BUILDING REGULATIONS)

81

1. Within one month of the date of this permission, the specification of the colour/treatment of the timber staircase hereby approved, shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To maintain the character of the building.

2. Within one month of the date of this permission, details of the first floor access door and frame shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall be drawn to a scale not less than 1:5 and shall also include the colour/treatment of the door. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To maintain the character of the building.

3. Within one month of the date of this permission, a sample of the timber to be used within the door shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The door within the first floor north elevation hereby approved shall be timber close boarded. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To maintain the character of the building.

4. Within one month of the date of this permission, a sample of the roof tile to be used will be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To maintain the character of the building.


RR/2005/564/P RYE RYE HILL - SOUTHERN WATER TOWER ATINSTALLATION OF RADIO BASE STATION COMPRISING THREE ANTENNAE AND FOUR TRANSMISSION DISHES, RADIO EQUIPMENT HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT ANCILLARY THERETOHutchison 3G


This application has been included on your site inspection list.

SITE Rye Tower is located behind ‘The Top O’ The Hill’ public house and adjoins the south side of the access leading to the cemetery. The site falls outside the boundary of the High Weald AONB which lies to the west.

HISTORYRR/97/378/TN Installation of telecommunications apparatus - Details Not

RequiredRR/97/2050/TN Installation of 3 additional cabinets (Orange) - Details Not RequiredRR/2001/1549/P 1 colinear antenna for RNLI - ApprovedRR/2004/1233/TN Upgrade of existing telecommunications equipment - Orange -

Details Not Required

82

PROPOSAL The tower already supports several other antennae (e.g. 6 x Orange arranged in three pairs; 02). This proposal relates to the addition of three similar antennae and four dishes together with one ground level equipment cabinet. The antennae would be fixed around the top edge of the tower and be painted grey to match the existing. The 1.26m x 0.7m x 1.49m equipment cabinet would be located within the existing secure compound and occupy the site of an existing 12.5m lattice tower that would be removed. This would also be painted grey.Alternative sites considered (x7) are rejected mainly for the reason that they are low lying and would either require another site or a substantial structure. A monopole would however be an option at Rye Cemetery. In their supporting statement the applicants state:“The current proposal is for the primary development of the Hutchison 3G network within Rye. At present there is no 3G coverage in the area and this site forms a key to the effective network rollout within this area. The location and design was chosen to complement the existing installations and equipment and the location is one of an existing telecommunications site well away from the historic conservation area within the town of Rye. It is for these reasons that it is felt that the proposed development complies with both national and local policies regarding the installation of telecommunications equipment.”A ‘Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines’ (ICNIRP Declaration) has been submitted with the application.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- Comments awaited.County Archaeologist:- Does not believe that any archaeological remains are likely to be affected by these proposals.

Director of Services - Environment:- Has no comments.Ramblers Association:- Comments awaited.Footpaths Officer (ESCC):- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- 11 letters of objection and petition (68 signatures) - inadequate notification; no consultation with adjoining residents; proximity to Thomas Peacocke Nursery and College incorrect; adverse visual effect on AONB; alternative sites considered do not include existing mast at Leasam Lane or the Ypres Tower; health risks; constant upgrading and maintenance has turned site into an industrial complex completely out of keeping within a cemetery; constant damage to hedgerows, verges, road surfaces and blocking of access road has caused nuisance to local residents and visitors to cemetery; will add to unsightliness of the existing water tower; close proximity to three housing developments; obtrusive and unattractive feature; urge Committee to note that there is limited space on the roof of the water tower and when there is no more room another site will eventually be required in any case. Copies of two letters are contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this meeting 21 April 2005.

SUMMARY In view of the existing apparatus affixed at the top of the tower, the visual impact resulting from the proposed three additional antennae and four dishes is unlikely to cause any significant harm to the visual amenities of the area. Similarly, the additional equipment cabinet would be concealed by existing boundary screening. It would also have the visual benefit of resulting in the removal of a 12.5m high lattice tower. Because the application is accompanied by the usual ICNIRP Certificate, and in

83

line with Government Advice, it would not be appropriate to consider local residents’ concerns about health risks further. Whilst the alternative monopole option in the cemetery would be further away from residential properties, it is my opinion that, on visual amenity grounds, the continued sharing of this existing structure is currently preferable to the erection of a separate mast. The application is therefore supported.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. The antennae and all equipment hereby permitted on the site shall be removed

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


-o0o-

84

variation of section 106 planning obligation€¦ · web viewthe local geological and hydro...

Documents