RR/2004/2394/P BURWASH LOWER BOUGH FARM, HEATHFIELD ROAD24 AUG 2004 ERECTION OF FARRIERS WORKSHOP WITH PROVISION OF

THREE PARKING SPACES AND REVISED ACCESS DRIVEMr and Mrs D Henry

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

SITE Lower Bough Farm lies on the north side of the A265 to the east of Burwash Weald.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2002/2035/O Lawful use of agricultural building as a dwelling - Refused.RR/2003/2360/O Lawful use of agricultural building as a dwelling - Approved.RR/2004/1616/P Demolition of existing dwelling, forge and store. Construction of

replacement dwelling, double garage, forge for farriers business - Refused.

RR/2004/2966/P Retention of mobile home - Not yet determined.

PROPOSAL This is a full application for the construction of a replacement farriers workshop together with the formation of a revised access drive. A supporting letter from the applicant’s agent is attached to this report as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 4 November 2004.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “This is an ongoing application that is subject to an enforcement order. The Parish Council will be asking advice from Rother”.Highway Authority:- Does not wish to restrict the grant of consent.Environment Agency:- No objection to proposal subject to surface water and foul water disposal advice.Southern Water:- Does not wish to comment.Environmental Health:- The findings of the applicant’s noise consultant are accepted. No further comments to make.Planning Notice:- 4 letters of support received together with a bundle of supporting letters and documents provided by the applicant: i) rural industries deserve support; ii) no disturbance noticed at ‘Medlow’; iii) essential work and advice to growing horse owning people locally; iv) applicant provides training, he currently has two apprentices; v) a rural business that must be in a rural location; vi) a natural rural diversification; vii) there is a shortage of qualified farriers.In addition to the above I have received letters of objection from the owners of Green Farm and Pine Oast. I have attached the two letters of objection from these properties as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 4 November 2004. The many documents accompanying these letters are available via the website.

SUMMARY Lower Bough Farm is a small landholding upon which an existing agricultural building is currently used as a dwelling, a store and the applicant’s forge. The former is authorised by a Certificate of Lawful Use (RR/2003/2360/O) the latter is unauthorised and is the subject of enforcement action. It has also recently been brought to my attention that a large mobile home has been brought onto the land without the necessary consent together with a timber stable building. The mobile home is the subject of a separate retrospective planning application.The current application is for a new build workshop/forge to replace the existing unauthorised use and realigned driveway. The existing forge has been the subject of

1

complaints to Environmental Health but the applicant has engaged a noise consultant and his report has been accepted by Environmental Health.I have requested further information regarding the use of the forge which has resulted in the following advice:i) Hours of work, except in emergencies: 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday to Friday,

7:30 to 13:00 Saturday, not on Sundays or Bank Holidays (These hours are not constant due to applicant being a mobile farrier).

ii) Work would be carried out within the building except for the shoeing of a horse that would not settle inside the building (rare).

iii) External lighting only when dark within the working hours identified above.iv) The workforce comprises the applicant and two apprentices.v) The existing forge would revert to agricultural use.A farriers workshop/forge must be regarded as a use appropriate to a rural area that would be considered acceptable as a business re-use in a former agricultural building. Had the applicant fulfilled his stated intention to make a retrospective application for the existing forge I would have expected to have worked towards a conditional approval perhaps with a temporary consent to ‘test’ the effectiveness of regulatory conditions. The application now before the Council is for a new permanent building for which a temporary permission would be inappropriate. The building would however be sited further from the nearest dwelling and could be constructed with good sound insulation properties. The latter are of course largely ineffective when working with the doors open; I do not believe to require enclosed working to be reasonable given the nature of the work; the submitted design however indicates the doors on the opposite side of the building to the objectors’ property.Clearly there appears to be a problem between the applicant’s use and occupation of the land and the objectors’ complaints regarding noise disturbance, hours of operation and the repeated unauthorised use/development of the site. It falls to the Council to investigate complaints, to consider any appropriate action via planning or Environmental Health legislation and to consider any planning application strictly on the planning issues. I am in no doubt that the forge/farrier use is one that is appropriate to the countryside. The submitted building design and siting is appropriate and the revised access drive is satisfactory. Your Environmental Health Officer does not oppose the application or recommend any specific conditions. If planning permission was to be granted any future complaints regarding noise would fall to be dealt with by Environmental Health under legislation relating to nuisance. In the absence of any objection from Environmental Health and the Highway Authority I could not recommend other than approval of the application. I do believe conditions are essential and the suggested 7:00 p.m. finish is rather late given the complaints received. The normal 6:00 p.m. limit would be preferable. Similarly, I would also wish to regulate the times at which any external floodlighting was in use.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN6A (Use limitation).2. CN12G (Hours of use - 7:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Monday - Friday; 7:30 a.m. - 1:00

p.m. Saturdays; not Sundays or Bank Holidays).3. No floodlighting or external lighting of the site shall take place until details of

lights and their position have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The permitted lights shall only be installed in accordance with the approved details and they shall not be illuminated outside of the permitted hours of use set out by conditions imposed upon this planning permission.(Reason: RC12).

4. CN13C (Tree retention).2

5. CN13F (Tree/shrub planting).6. CN10J (Grampian style condition - access details - amended).

RFG: 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/2004/2600/P BURWASH THE BANK BUILDING, HIGH STREET01 SEP 2004 CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY COTTAGE TO REPLACE

THE EXISTING BANK BUILDINGMr and Mrs T Hodge

RR/2004/2602/H BURWASH THE BANK BUILDING, HIGH STREET01 SEP 2004 DEMOLITION OF BANK BUILDING

Mr and Mrs T Hodge

SITE The former bank premises the subject of this application lies on the north side of the High Street adjacent to Burghurst House. It is single storey with a clay tiled roof.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2004/1063/P Two storey cottage to replace existing bank building - Withdrawn.

PROPOSAL Conservation Area Consent is requested for the demolition of the bank building and planning permission sought for the erection of a single dwelling. The proposed dwelling would be two storey with render and tile hanging under a tiled roof. It would be a three bedroomed property with an integral parking area open at the rear and gated at the front.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support refused over-development and concern of visual impact on village.Highway Authority:- Recommends refusal as submitted. Amendment would overcome recommendation of refusal.County Archaeologist:- Recommends an archaeological condition.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY This is a small site within the village development boundary. A previous application (RR/2004/1063/P) was withdrawn as a result of the Parish Council’s design concerns with which I concurred. Negotiations followed resulting in the amended scheme now submitted. I am disappointed now to find the Parish Council have changed their opinion as has the Highway Authority who previously recommended Highway Conditions.I believe the site to be adequate for the modest house proposed and I consider the amended design to be appropriate, subject to conditions, for the Conservation Area. I would expect the use of good quality clay hanging and roofing tiles and painted timber joinery to be used.The Highway Authority objection turns upon the difference between the previously proposed ‘up and over’ garage door and the presently proposed outward opening iron gates. This change was made in response to the earlier Parish Council’s objection to the garage door; the idea was to create a parking space as part of the development whilst permitting a glimpse through to the rear garden through the iron gates whilst maintaining security.

3

I have advised the applicants’ agent of the highway objection with a view to addressing the issue. The proposal includes the demolition of the bank building. The building is not listed and I would raise no objection to its removal. I would not however wish to see a situation where the building was demolished and the frontage left open. This could be ensured by the imposition of an appropriate condition upon the Conservation Area Consent.The highway issue is finely balanced which may be resolved satisfactorily prior to your meeting. I expect to make the

RECOMMENDATIONS: RR/2004/2600/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved

by the Local Planning Authority details of the colour and make of roofing tiles and hanging tiles. The tiles shall be hand made plain clay tiles and the development shall be undertaken in accord with the details approved.(Reason: RC2).

2. All external joinery shall be of painted timber construction only. The window frames shall be in the form of fully rebated side hung timber casements with or without a single horizontal glazing bar only and thereafter so maintained. (Reason: RC2).

3. The parking space permitted as part of the permitted dwelling shall be maintained for the parking of a private motor vehicle only and shall not be further enclosed at the front or rear unless approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.(Reason: RC4).

4. No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the Local Planning Authority.(Reason: The development is likely to disturb items of archaeological interest and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011).

5. The external rendered walls of the dwelling shall be painted white or such other colour that may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation of the dwelling and thereafter so maintained.(Reason: RC2).

RFG: 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/2004/2502/H: GRANT (CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT)1. The demolition hereby permitted shall not be undertaken before a contract for

the carrying out of works of redevelopment of the site has been made and planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment for which the contract provides.Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the land.

RFG: 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

RR/2004/2966/P BURWASH LOWER BOUGH FARM, HEATHFIELD ROAD05 OCT 2004 RETENTION OF MOBILE HOME FOR USE AS RESIDENTIAL

ACCOMMODATION IN LIEU OF THAT APPROVED UNDER CERTIFICATE OF LAWFUL USE RR/2003/2360/O (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Mr and Mrs D Henry

I have included this application on your list of pre-Committee site inspections.

SITE Lower Bough Farm lies on the north side of the A265 to the east of Burwash Weald. Members are inspecting this site in conjunction with RR/2004/2394/P.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2002/2035/O Lawful use of agricultural building as a dwelling - Refused.RR/2003/2360/O Lawful use of agricultural building as a dwelling - Approved.RR/2004/1616/P Demolition of existing dwellings, forge and store. Construction of

replacement dwelling, double garage and forge - Refused.RR/2004/2394/P Erection of farriers workshop, 3 parking spaces and revised access

drive - Not yet determined.

PROPOSAL Full planning permission is requested retrospectively for the retention of a single storey mobile home measuring 5.9m by 11m sited just to the west of the building on the site currently occupied as a dwelling, store and forge. A supporting statement has been provided and is attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 4 November 2004.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Any representations received will be reported to your meeting.

SUMMARY This application is made retrospectively and is said to be in lieu of the accommodation within the existing barn regularised by the grant of a Lawful Development Certificate (RR/2003/2360/O). The proposal would thus fall to be determined under policy HG10 of your Local Plan as a replacement dwelling in the countryside. The proposal is not however as straight forward as normal when the existing dwelling is required to be extinguished by means of a Section 106 Planning Agreement. In this case the existing building currently also contains the applicant’s (unauthorised) forge. Moreover, the mobile home is stated to be temporary and I would doubt that the applicant would agree to the extinguishment of the Lawful Development Certificate on the basis of a temporary planning permission for the mobile home. I am advised that an application for a dwelling house, more modest than the previously refused design (RR/2004/1616/P), is being prepared; this would replace the Certificated dwelling and this mobile home. The application for a new forge building (RR/2004/2394/P) previously reported would replace the forge in the existing building. It is therefore possible that the existing building would not have a use. I believe it is essential that an overall view of this site needs to be taken based on both the applicant’s proposals and Members’ views following inspection of the site.I have written to the applicant’s agent requesting that they set out their intentions for the site overall, the future need for buildings on the land, timescales for the retention of the mobile home and the submission of further proposals. I am not able to make a properly considered recommendation without an indication of the applicant’s actual intentions; I

5

certainly cannot support the mobile home without satisfactory safeguards that it would truly be temporary and that the end result will not be consent for two dwellings on the land.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FURTHER INFORMATION)

RR/2004/2005/P BATTLE 64 HIGH STREET06 AUG 2004 REVISIONS TO PREVIOUS APPROVAL RR/2003/263/P FOR

EXTRACTOR FLUE/HOUSING FILTERG and J Bush

This application was deferred at your last meeting so as to permit the applicant to submit a revised design for the flue enclosure and to meet with Environmental health to put in hand the request for further details.

SITE This property is on the north east side of the High Street adjacent to the twitten leading to the Mount Street car park. The building is within the Conservation Area but not listed. The application relates to the ground floor restaurant.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2003/263/P C/U from greengrocers to A3 restaurant including installation of

fume extraction duct - Approved Conditional

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- No comment.Director of Services - Environmental Health:- Further information requested.Planning Notice:- No representations received at the time of preparing this report.

PROPOSAL The application seeks the retention of an extraction system at the rear of the property ‘as built’. It is a white painted timber enclosure housing a fume extraction unit and ductwork.

COMMENT Members will be aware that in granting planning permission for the change of use of the premises to a restaurant (RR/2003/263/P) care was taken to achieve an enclosed extraction system having the appearance of a chimney. Conditions were also imposed requiring the submission of details of the proposed system and the sound proofing thereof.The planning conditions were not complied with and the ‘chimney’ is not in accord with the approved plan.Enforcement action has been authorised and an appeal has been lodged against the Enforcement Notice. When the system was installed and brought into use complaints were received in respect of its appearance and from noise and odours. The applicant’s agent has made contact with Environmental Health and I understand an acoustic engineer has been engaged to address the concerns raised. I have received revised plans that I believe to be broadly satisfactory. I hope to be in receipt of the necessary further information in respect of the equipment installed and its insulation. If so I shall make the

6

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (CONSIDERATION OF EXTRACTION DETAILS)1. Within three months of the date of this planning permission the flue installation

shall be altered in accord with the plans and details hereby approved.Reason: RC14

RFG: 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/2004/2487/P BATTLE TWO YEWS, NETHERFIELD HILL23 AUG 2004 OUTLINE: ERECTION OF DWELLING

Mr and Mrs D Ackers

SITE This application relates to garden land between ‘Two Yews’ and ‘Springbank Cottage’. The plot is irregularly shaped but has a depth of 40m and a width of 16.5m about halfway down the plot.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/89/1677/P O/A detached dwelling - Approved ConditionalRR/92/1497/P O/A detached dwelling - Approved Conditional

PROPOSAL Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached dwelling on the plot served via the existing access to Springbank Cottage over which there is a right of way. An existing single garage on the site would be retained for the new dwelling.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- The Council supports the neighbours’ concerns regarding the shading and privacy issues. The Council is also concerned about the loss of trees and hopes that the District Council will take whatever steps necessary to preserve the trees.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Representations have been received from 4 Beechwood Cottages and Springbank Cottage, including from the latter’s solicitor: i) additional traffic generation and thus highway danger on Netherfield Hill; ii) increased surface water run-off onto the highway; iii) the applicant is in contravention of covenants relating to boundary fencing and

pedestrian gateway; iv) proposed dwelling would cast shadow over the patio of Springbank Cottage; v) loss of light as proposal is on south side of Springbank Cottage; vi) access is over driveway to Springbank Cottage where increased traffic is a

safety issue through poor visibility at the access; vii) surface of access drive is breaking up; viii) children may be endangered by unprotected drops and pond at Springbank

Cottage and the absence of footways in Netherfield Hill; ix) building site will be a nuisance; x) Committee Members are invited to Springbank Cottage to view; xi) right of way over Springbank Cottage access is for Two Yews and cannot be

used for any future development.

SUMMARY Outline planning permission was granted for a dwelling on this plot in 1989, renewed in 1992 and lapsed in 1997. The plot lies outside of the Development

7

Boundary as identified by Revised Deposit Local Plan. Although I note that there is history on this site by means of two approvals of outline planning permission for dwellings on the site; the Local Plan is now in more advanced stages and consequently I feel unable to support this application which is outside the development boundary as defined in the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). The proposal would have a significant detrimental effect upon the rural character of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty outside of the Development Framework.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING)1. The site is within the countryside outside any town or village as defined in the

Rother District Local Plan (Revised Deposit). Policies S1, S10 and S11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies HG10, DS1 and DS4 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) contain a strong presumption against residential development unless it meets one of the exceptions described in the plans. The proposed dwelling is not required for the needs of agriculture or forestry and it has not been demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority that it is essential for the running of an enterprise upon which there is clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop that has been planned on a sound financial basis. The proposal 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 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/2004/2613/P BATTLE CLAVERHAM COMMUNITY COLLEGE - LAND AT, 08 SEP 2004 NORTH TRADE ROAD

OUTLINE: ERECTION OF NEW COLLEGE BUILDING AND ALL WEATHER PITCH (WITHOUT FLOODLIGHTING) WITH CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ROAD AND PROVISION OF 33 PARKING SPACESLearning Skills Council Sussex

I have included this application on your list of pre-Committee site inspections.

SITE The application is the whole College grounds on the south side of North Trade road. The proposed new building would be to the south of the existing buildings on the playing field.

HISTORYWhilst there is an extensive planning history relating to the site as a whole none is directly relevant to this ‘stand alone’ proposal.

PROPOSAL This is an outline application for the construction of a new College and all weather sports pitch; the building also includes a new nursery. However, notwithstanding that the applicant seeks outline planning permission details of siting, design, means of access and external appearance have been submitted for consideration; only landscaping is reserved.The building has a curved plan form roughly 90m by 20m overall with accommodation arranged on 3 floors, access is to the first floor level via a bridge spanning the change

8

of level between the existing college level and that of the playing field. I have attached the architect’s design report as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 4 November 2004. This explains the proposal in greater detail.The shell of the building is specified on the plans as grey blockwork, glazed curtain walling to the south, terracotta cladding and Eternit Lamina cladding panels all under a terne coated stainless steel mono pitched roof. Confusingly, the application forms give the walls as brick and tile under a zinc coated aluminium roof.Car parking for 33 vehicles, plus bicycles, is indicated at the lower field level served from the access drive from the eastern access to North Trade Road.The all weather sports pitch would be to the south/south west of the new building.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- Comments not received.Highway Authority:- Does not wish to restrict the grant of consent subject to the comment:“The Highway Authority is concerned that the provision of car parking may not fall within the limits as set out in the supplementary Planning Guidance Parking Standards. However, this can be agreed at the detail stage once the numbers of staff both teaching and non-teaching have been established.”Environment Agency:- No objection or comment.Southern Water:- No objection but any consent shall be conditional upon the submission of foul and surface water details.East Sussex County Council - Director of Education:- Supports the proposal - forms an integral part of the Authority’s strategy for East Sussex.Sussex Police:- “This site suffers from trespass and damage caused by youths skateboarding on low walls. The new building has an extensive covered area that will be attractive for youths to gather out of school hours. Careful thought should be given to this.”Sport England:- Wish to register an objection to the proposal.i) The two senior football pitches would be lostii) The cricket square and mini hockey pitches would be lostiii) The all weather pitch is not floodlit thereby reducing its community benefitiv) No justification is made for the loss of pitchesv) Sport England’s policy is to oppose any proposal that would result in loss of all or

part of a playing field.East Sussex County Council Planning:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- 23 letters of objection and a petition of 146 signatories

(i) There is already a serious problem with cars parking in surrounding roads, the proposal will make this worse

(ii) There is serious congestion on North Trade Road at school start and finishing times, the proposal will make this worse

(iii) There is insufficient on site parking for all staff and the college students that have their own car/motor cycle

(iv)Considerable additional vehicle movements close to Claverham Way properties will be an additional noise nuisance

(v) The proposed boiler chimney will be a polluting concern particularly to asthmatics

(vi)This is the wrong site, the traffic situation has reached saturation point(vii) If permitted North Trade Road should be 20 mph at start and leaving times.

The side roads will need parking restrictions(viii) Congestion of local roads will restrict access for emergency and service

vehicles9

(ix)Private driveways are blocked by parked vehicles and grass verges are damaged

(x) Members should visit the surrounding residential areas at school and to see for themselves

(xi)Pupils trespass, cause litter, graffiti and vandalism and are abusive to residents; fireworks and eggs have been thrown at private property. More students will increase the problem

(xii) An all weather pitch is not accepted by the East Sussex League or the Sussex County Football Association - local teams will therefore have no pitch to play on

(xiii) Proposal will be overbearing with loss of privacy and quality of life(xiv) Loss of sports facilities(xv) Contrary to Local Plan - The siting of such a facility should be considered in

the context of Local Plan procedures(xvi) Local residents have been more than tolerant of the expansion of the existing

school but the proposal is an expansion too far(xvii) A site nearer the station would be preferable given the proposed enlarged

catchment area(xviii) The County Council have not produced a transport plan(xix) Scale of building is intrusive in landscape and neighbouring property(xx) The design is unacceptable for historic Battle(xxi) Loss of trees(xxii) The proposed earth mound will attract youngsters, their litter and damage the

enjoyment of adjacent gardens(xxiii) How long will it be before floodlights are wanted or temporary/moveable ones

used?

SUMMARY It should be first stated that the proposed building falls outside of the development boundary for the town set out in the Rother Local Plan; it therefore follows that if you are minded to grant planning permission the application would have to be referred to GOSE as a departure from the Development Plan.Clearly the single issue that comes immediately to mind is that of transport/parking, virtually every local resident that has written refers to the existing problems being experienced. Given the obvious congestion at the start and finish of the school day I requested that the submission be accompanied by a transport assessment. This has not been provided; I am very surprised that the Highway Authority have simply stated that they do not wish to restrict the grant of consent. I believe that this issue needs to be fully addressed in the context of PPG13, your policies TR2 and TR3 and Structure Plan policies. Until this has been undertaken the site specific issues are secondary. I accept that operationally there are obvious benefits in the site proposed but the wider public effects needs to be considered by this Authority. For this and sustainability reasons I consider a transport assessment/travel plan to be essential.The application is accompanied by a landscape appraisal that I accept demonstrates that the impact in the wider landscape is satisfactory. That is not so in the immediate setting. The nearest dwellings are bungalows in Claverham Way, the nearest of which is only 50m away. The bungalows lie at a level below the site upon which the 3 storey building is proposed. An earth mound and tree planting is proposed as mitigation. I am not convinced that the impact of a development of the scale proposed can be made acceptable by this means.Car parking is proposed by the provision of 33 spaces; there is no evidence to support this level of provision particularly when there appears to be an existing parking problem for the existing school staff etc. I am mindful also that a new nursery is proposed. This

10

is likely to result in parents driving to the building to deposit and collect young children at various times of the day. If the spaces provided are for college staff where will these visitors park? The needs of the whole school site need to be assessed, hence my view that further information is needed in respect of transport/servicing/parking matters.I am reluctant to become deeply involved in the consideration of detailed development specific matters until the context of the traffic issue has been addressed and Members have inspected the site. I would however say that I am not opposed to the design concept; I have asked the applicant’s agent to clarify the materials proposed. I have also requested a response to the Sports Council’s fundamental objection to the loss of sports facilities. It is surprising that a level survey has not been provided, without this assessment of the effect of the building on these nearby properties is difficult.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FURTHER INFORMATION)

RR/2004/2912/P BATTLE NETHERFIELD HILL FARM - LAND ADJ, 29 SEP 2004 NETHERFIELD HILL

OUTLINE: ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING WITH PROVISION OF TWO PARKING SPACES AND NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS.Mr G Spooner

This application has been included on your Committee site inspection list for Tuesday, 2 November 2004.

SITE This site consists of a corner plot of approximately 17m actual frontage before the plot curves away from Netherfield Hill and is approximately 23m in depth. The site is located in front of Netherfield Hill Farm and the boundary is approximately 11m from Netherfield Hill Farm. The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is within the countryside outside of any development framework.

HISTORYRR/94/1057/P Outline: Erection of dwelling with garage/parking space with

alteration to existing access on site of former cottage.

PROPOSAL It is proposed to build a detached 3 bedroom property with two parking spaces and a garage on the proposed site. This application would also involve a new vehicular access being provided to the north east of the plot.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council: The Council has no objection in principle to the development of this site which it feels is an acceptable infill development albeit outside the development boundary. However, the Council would prefer to see the access off the existing road to the farm and not directly on to Netherfield Hill.Highway Authority: Comments awaited.Planning Notice: 2 letters of objection (Netherfield Hill Farm) and (Roslyn):- Application should be refused as the site is within the countryside and an

approval would be in contravention of Rother District Local Plan 2003 – Policy GH10.

- Within the AONB – proposal would cause harm to the rural character of the area.- Site in front of Netherfield Hill Farm and Netherfield Hill and will result in

Netherfield Hill Farm becoming backland development.11

- Access onto Netherfield Hill is substandard and under previous applications to develop Netherfield Hill Farm has been a reason for refusal. This application would intensify the use of the highway at a point already considered dangerous by the highways and the planning authorities.

- Badly sighted for entry and exit – unsighted bend on the side of the road.- Previous refusal.- Site is right opposite French’s builder’s yard whereby there is a large amount of

building going on already.

SUMMARY It is proposed to utilise this parcel of land for the erection of a detached 3 bed dwelling with two parking spaces and the provision of a garage. There is a discrepancy between the site plan and the block plan in terms of the shape and extent of the site on the west boundary. A site inspection and conversation with the applicant have confirmed that the site plan is slightly inaccurate and the block plan has proved to be accurate, this is to be confirmed in writing. There has been a similar previous application (RR/94/1057/P) which was refused due to the detrimental effect that the proposed development would have on the High Weald AONB, on a site outside of the development framework without any agricultural or rural enterprise justification. This present application does not demonstrate any relevant justification for the proposed new dwelling and the previous reasons for refusal are still applicable.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING)1. The site is within the countryside outside any town or village as defined in the

Rother District Local Plan (Revised Deposit). Policies S1, S10 and S11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies HG10, DS1 and DS4 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) contain a strong presumption against residential development unless it meets one of the exceptions described in the plans. The proposed dwelling is not required for the needs of agriculture or forestry and it has not been demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority that it is essential for the running of an enterprise upon which there is clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop that has been planned on a sound financial basis. The proposal 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 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/2004/1503/P BEXHILL 28 COLLINGTON RISE, GREENHAYES27 MAY 2004 ERECTION OF DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE

Mr and Mrs Dowse

This application has been added to your site inspection list for Tuesday, 2 November 2004.

SITE This is a detached dwelling house located on the east side of Collington Rise, within a residential area of Bexhill.

HISTORYB/68/172 Additions and alterations - Approved.

12

B/71/217 Conversion of first floor sunroom of a dwelling house into a bedroom - Approved Conditional.

RR/2001/398/P Erection of first floor extension - Approved Conditional.RR/2003/2478/P Erection of conservatory and extension - Refused.RR/2004/263/P Revised proposals for conservatory and extension - Approved

Conditional.

PROPOSAL The proposed development consists of the erection of a detached double garage with a pitched roof, measuring 5.6m x 6.2m x 4.7m high up to the ridge of the pitched roof. The new garage would be sited in front of the dwelling, approximately 2.8m away from the front boundary, and served by the existing vehicular access.

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice: No responses.

SUMMARY Following negotiations with the agent, amended plans have been submitted that show the garage resited approximately 2.8m back from the frontage of this site, to minimise its impact on the protected tree (T6) on the grass verge in front of this site. In considering this application, I am aware that there are no other garages in a similar frontage position in the immediate vicinity; however there are other garages in front of dwellings and flats further up (north) in Collington Rise. I take the view that the new garage would be screened by the tree lined road and existing hedge. I am satisfied that the amended position of the garage would not only reduce its impact on the TPO tree, but would also reduce its visual presence in the street scene. Members will view the site before determining the application.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. The garage accommodation shall be used for private domestic purposes only,

and no storage or workshop use in connection with any trade or business shall take place therein.Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the land in relation to the amenities of the locality and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

2. No development shall commence until details of a satisfactory pile foundation for the new garage has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason. To prevent damage to the adjacent protected tree and to accord with policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

3. CN7C (matching external materials).NIB Amended plans no. 2004/1029 rev A date stamped 12/07/04.

13

RR/2004/2321/P BEXHILL 154 BARNHORN ROAD, BARNHORN NURSING 02 AUG 2004 HOME

ERECTION OF TWO-STOREY EXTENSION TO EXISTING NURSING HOME WITH REVISED PARKING.London and Country Care Homes

SITE The development site is to the rear (north) of the existing Nursing Home, on the north side of Barnhorn Road. Residential properties either side, with a nursing home opposite, on the south side of Barnhorn Road.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/81/1385 Change of use from private dwelling to rest home - No Further

Action. RR/82/0625 Outline: Erection of garage to form staff accommodation and

formation of parking spaces - Approved.RR/88/2353 two-storey extension to form more additional bedroom with

bathroom - Appeal - Part Allowed. RR/84/3056/P 2 storey extension to form 5 additional bedrooms with WC facilities

and new external staircase - Approved.RR/90/0852/P Extension over existing garage at rear to form an additional two

bedrooms with en-suite - Approved.RR/94/0259/PD Proposed extensions and alterations - Approved.RR/98/1995/P Proposed single storey bedroom extension to existing nursing

home with revised parking and site entrance layout - Approved.

PROPOSAL This is a revised scheme following the approval of RR/98/1995/P for a similar scheme. The proposed development is for an extension to this nursing home, to provide 21 additional bedrooms. It differs from the above-approved scheme in that it now includes a second storey, an additional 9 bedrooms, a dining room and day room extension on the northern end, and additional car parking provision.

CONSULTATIONSHighways Agency: Any comments will be reportedHighway Authority: Any comments will be reportedNational Care Standards – Nursing Homes: Any comments will be reportedPlanning Notice: 1 letter of objection: There will obviously be considerable construction traffic passing along the

boundary of my property. Building should not exceed the normal office hours and exclude weekend activity

At the time of our recent planning application the owners of 154 insisted that a 6-metre high tree screen was maintained between the properties. This I believe should still apply.

At present the catering supply vehicles arrive at 5.30am and more recently 4.30am. They pass close to the bedroom and are particularly disturbing in the summer months. Resiting of the drive would be advantageous.

SUMMARY I will await the comments of the Highways Agency regarding the traffic movements onto the A259 trunk road. With a total of 26 bedrooms the submitted plans show 16 car parking spaces and 1 ambulance bay, I consider this to be an adequate number of car parking spaces in this edge of town location. As for the introduction of the two-storey element, I take the view that with appropriate conditions to ensure that some windows are obscure glazed, I do not consider the

14

introduction of a second floor element, in the design proposed, would adversely affect neighbouring residential amenities. The site can accommodate the overall development, which in my opinion, is an appropriate design and in character with the existing main building. However, I consider it necessary to explore what impact the development would have on the mature trees around this site. Subject to being satisfied concerning this and to no adverse comments from the Highways Agency, it is my opinion that the proposed development not conflict with existing development plan policies, and I would make the following:

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO NO ADVERSE COMMENTS FROM HIGHWAYS AGENCY AND NO DETRIMENTAL AFFECT ON TREES)1. The development hereby approved shall be constructed at the finished and floor

levels as shown on the approved drawing or as otherwise may be approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

2. CN5D (Obscure glaze windows)3. CN7C (Matching external materials)4. CN13C (Tree Retention) - Possible5. CN13K (Tree Protection) - Possible6. Access details - Possible

RR/2004/2340/P BEXHILL NAZARETH HOUSE, HASTINGS ROAD10 AUG 2004 ALTERATIONS TO CONSENT GRANTED UNDER

APPLICATION NO. RR/2003/2002/P COMPRISING ALTERATIONS TO CONVERSION SCHEME FOR MAIN BUILDING COURTYARD AND WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS AND CHAPEL; AND CHANGE OF USE OF CHAPEL FOR USE AS PRIVATE MEMBERS FITNESS AND LEISURE FACILITY.Hastings Road Development Ltd

This application was deferred at your last meeting to allow discussion on design in relation to the new build block. This has now been deleted from this application.

SITE This application relates to the buildings and grounds of Nazareth House which are situated at the junction of Wrestwood Road, Hastings Road and Penland Road. The combined site has an area of approximately 1.8ha. The original part of Nazareth House built by Leonard Stokes in 1893-4 and later extension to provide the chapel and living quarters (1911) is listed. The east wing added in 1937 and formerly used as a Roman Catholic Primary School is not included as part of the listed building.The site was owned by The Sisters of Nazareth and was until recently in use as a residential care home. Works have commenced on site in relation to conversion to residential use.

HISTORY (Relevant)Adjacent site RR/98/1766/P o/a: Erection of new primary school with improved access -

Approved.RR/98/2580/P Erection of new primary school pursuant to RR/98/1766/P –

Approved.Application site

15

RR/2001/2050/P Conversion of Nazareth House convent and residential care home and redundant primary school including part demolition and extension to provide 91 flats (including 33 affordable housing units) and associated parking with new access and estate road – Delegated for approval subject to Section 106 covering affordable housing, retention of chapel, open space and highway matters - Withdrawn.

RR/2001/2051/P Outline: 18 dwellings and associated garaging, new access arrangements Nazareth House convent and residential care home and redundant primary school - Delegated for approval subject to Section 106 covering affordable housing, retention of chapel, open space and highway matters - Withdrawn

RR/2001/2052/L Conversion of Nazareth House convent and residential care home and redundant primary school part demolition and extension to provide 91 units (including 33 affordable housing units) - Delegated for approval subject to Section 106 covering affordable housing, retention of chapel, open space and highway matters - Withdrawn.

RR/2003/2002/P Conversion of existing convent school and associated buildings to residential use (52 units), and use of chapel as community facilities for the use of site residents - Approved.

RR/2003/2003/L Conversion of convent school and associated buildings to residential use (52 units). Use of chapel as community facilities for the residents. Erection of 42 new apartments and 20 new affordable housing units - Approved.

RR/2003/2009/P Erection of 42 apartments and 20 new affordable housing units with new access and 45 parking arrangements - Approved.

PROPOSAL This application as originally submitted comprised three elements:-

1. Alterations to the conversion scheme for main building and outbuildings.2. Use of the Chapel as a private members’ fitness and leisure facility.3. Demolition of the former school building and erection of new 6 storey building

containing 27 flats. The approved scheme showed conversion of the school to 18 flats.

The agent writes:- “Following consideration of the above application by the Council’s Planning Committee on 7 October 2004, our subsequent telephone conversation, and the subsequent meeting which you had with the agent and architect Bryan Adams, we have formed the view that it would be prudent to amend the current application to exclude the proposed demolition of the existing school building and the erection of a new building comprising 27 apartments.This step is being taken to allow the various amendments proposed to the works that are being undertaken to the Stokes building, the Chapel, and the Courtyard and Washroom buildings under the previous consent (Application No. RR/2003/2002) - as agreed with you in our recent discussions - to be considered and determined in their own right, together with the change of use of the Chapel for use as private members’ fitness and leisure facility, and without approval being dependent upon the approval of the replacement building for the old school building.We would therefore ask that you accept this letter as formally amending the above application, and to that end we enclose a revised application form and site plan redefining the application accordingly. We would be grateful if you would confirm that this has been done in due course.”

16

Additional information regarding operation of the use of the Chapel for leisure purposes and use of an alternative access during construction is attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 4 November 2004.CONSULTATIONSHighways Agency:- No objection.East Sussex County Council - Strategic Planning:- “The County Council's views on the original application were:‘To support the application in principle because the density of the proposal is above the minimum indicated in PPG3 and complies with Structure Plan policy H8, provided:

The District Council is satisfied that a detailed design can be achieved that will respect the setting of the adjacent listed building (Structure Plan policy EN23);

The appropriate contribution towards the additional primary and secondary school places caused by the development is secured to the satisfaction of the

Education Authority (Structure Plan policy S3); The Highway Authority is satisfied that the transport impact, including that on the

adjacent school, can be satisfactorily accommodated (policy TR3) which may require contributions from the development to resolve; and

The District Council can secure the provision of affordable housing.‘The following is the County Council's representation on the alterations to the previous consent:A large amount of excavation and demolition waste is expected as a result of the proposal. This waste must be minimised and reused or recycled on site or removed from site to facilities which can reuse or recycle the materials to comply with policy WLP11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Waste Local Plan, Second Deposit Draft and policy S1(o) of the Structure Plan.The use of the chapel as a private members fitness and leisure facility is supported in principle (Structure Plan policy LT2(a)) provided that the integrity of the chapel space is retained and there is no adverse affect on the setting of the listed building (Structure Plan policy EN23).I notice that there is an increase of nine dwellings proposed on the site. This may affect the contribution required to provide for additional school places in the area to the satisfaction of the Education Authority. The specific requirements should be sought directly from The Education Authority.”Head of Housing:- “This application relates to amended plans for the conversion of Nazareth House. Negotiations have taken place to secure the affordable housing on this site and a draft Section 106 has been produced for the previous application. It had originally been agreed that 20 of the units would be provided on this site by the developer for Orbit Housing Association and Rother Homes. If this application increases the overall amount of housing we would require an additional number of affordable homes on the development. The homes would need to be affordable, preferably for rent, built by the developer to Housing Corporation Scheme Design Standards. Decisions about the amount and types of affordable housing would need to be discussed and agreed with Housing Services.”English Heritage:- “SummaryNazareth House is a Grade II listed complex largely designed by Leonard Stokes with later extensions by Pugin and Pugin. The special interest and significance of the building is confined to the Stokes designs, as indicated in the list description (which is non-statutory). However, the later extensions, whilst not of listable quality in themselves demonstrate the continuing expansion of the institution and in their form

17

and character, are in keeping with the listed building.Permission has been granted for the conversion of the building into residential units with new development in the grounds. This amended application now proposes demolition of the later wing rather than conversion with the only justification effectively being offered that it is "easier" to demolish and build new.English Heritage adviceThe later wing, although of modest architectural interest contributes to the interest of the listed complex, it appears to be in reasonable condition and structurally sound. The justification for demolition should therefore be robust. If your Council is minded to permit its demolition the replacement building sited adjacent to the main range of the listed building should be of good design quality. The current proposal is not of that quality. The use of standard floor to ceiling heights for example, in contrast to the existing building, results in the scale of the new building appearing inappropriate in its context. It also results in an uncomfortable visual relationship with the main building.RecommendationsEnglish Heritage cannot support this proposal and recommends that demolition of the existing wing should only be permitted on the basis of a robust and convincing justification. If such a case can be established to the satisfaction of your authority any replacement structure has to be of much higher design quality than that currently proposed.”Southern Water:- Has no objection provided the drainage design limits the discharge to 45 litres per second available capacity. As the design relies on permeable pavements, adequate procedures should be put in place to ensure their future maintenance.Environment Agency:- Has no objection in principle and recommend conditions.Ancient Monuments Society:- “The retention of the main space of the chapel is clearly welcome as is the maintenance of the proposal to replace the uPVC windows within the Stokes block with appropriate timber ones. The despatch of the hideous sun lounges remains a blessing. However is there not a real risk that the new block on the site of the Pugin and Pugin will be too dominant? The present block may be grim but its gable does acknowledge that on the Stokes 1911 block. Its storey levels also correspond with those on the more immediately adjacent Stokes block of 1893. The emphasis in the new block on windows of mostly "landscape" dimensions also has no counterpart in the proportion of solid to void on the Stokes wings. This is doubly disconcerting because the new fenestration is to be entirely plastic - this will contrast with the more satisfying timber sashes on the Stokes many of which are to be put back. Why heal the damage in one of the development and create again in the new? If extra insulation values are required these can of course be created by secondary glazing within or behind timber windows.”Sussex Police:- “My concern for this development continues to be the lack of an appropriate buffer zone around living and bedroom windows of ground floor flats. I am also concerned that some of the parking is not well supervised and is distant from the dwellings.Support for both these points is now available in the new planning guidance document "Safer Places" published by the ODPM. Page 30-32 discusses the importance of creating a buffer zone. Without a suitable barrier, it will be possible to directly approach ground floor windows. This immediate juxtaposition of fully private and fully public space is likely to create nuisance and privacy problems for future residents. I am not convinced that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient protection.I have discussed this issue with the applicant's agent and am delighted that he has suggested some positive solutions. In particular, the height of windows from ground-level may protect many of the widows. I am hoping to meet the applicant's agent on site in an effort to resolve my reservations.

18

I am also concerned that the parking area for dwellings 11-20 and 55-69 does not enjoy good supervision from the dwellings. Again, the Safer Places document supports my view. "Courtyard parking that is not adequately overlooked by capable guardians should be avoided. Courtyard parking should be small in size and close to the owners' homes".Lighting, perimeter treatment and a cul-de-sac design for this parking area would all have a beneficial influence.”Planning Notice:- 2 letters of objection received which can be summarised as relating to:

objection to the use of the Chapel other than as a place of worship aware of fitness club looking for site in Bexhill, a 7/800 membership is necessary

for a club to be viable - parking facilities inadequate traffic hazards - despite traffic signals, the junction will not cope the new block is too high and will dominate the surrounding area of houses and

bungalows object to business use – in a residential area.

SUMMARY In principle I have no objection to the use of the Chapel as a fitness and leisure facility which will retain and maintain the open space and structure of the Chapel. The details submitted are satisfactory.The main issue was the demolition of the schoolhouse and replacement with a new apartment block. As this has now been deleted from the application I can support the proposal. Highway observations are awaited and at this stage I do not wish to take a view on whether construction traffic should use the school drive. The alterations to conversion of the main buildings are acceptable. These will need to be covered by a new listed building application and a modification of the existing Section 106 Planning Obligation will be required. It is necessary to repeat conditions imposed on the original scheme.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (MODIFICATION OF THE EXISTING SECTION 106/HIGHWAY COMMENTS)1. CN9A (Road construction details).2. CN8C (Foul and surface water - drainage - add - the total discharge from the site

shall not exceed 45 litres/sec).3. 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 an oil separator designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the separator.

4. Any facilities for the storage of oils fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The bund capacity shall give 110% of the total volume for single and hydraulically linked tanks. If there is a multiple tankage, the bund capacity shall be 110% of the largest tank of 25% of the total capacity of all tanks, whichever is the greatest. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses and overflow pipes shall be located within the bund. There shall be no outlet connecting the bund to any drain, sewer or watercourse or discharging onto the ground. Associated pipework shall be located above ground where possible and protected from accidental damage.

5. CN13A (Landscaping scheme) - Amended.6. CN13B (Implementation of landscaping scheme).7. CN10B (Car parking provision/service provision - amend to relate to submitted

drawings).19

8. Details of all hard surface areas within the site shall be submitted to and be subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority within two months of the date of this permission and the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

9. CN9H (Walls/fencing - amended).10. CN12L (Floodlighting control).11. All existing aluminium framed windows in the building shall be replaced with

timber windows prior to the occupation of the building in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

12. Within two months of the date of this permission fully detailed drawings of proposedi) New windows and doors. The windows shall be of timber construction and

include a flat gauged brick arch.ii) Reinstatement of the original arched windows in the frontageiii) Making good the building following demolition of modern additions as

shown on the approved planiv) New balustradingThe development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

13. CN7G (Schedule of materials).14. Within one month of the date of this permission the existing access to Nazareth

House shall be stopped up in accordance with details to be submitted to and be subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority. All construction traffic shall use the proposed new access which shall be constructed to base course level and in accordance with details that shall be submitted to and be approved by the Local Planning Authority. No construction traffic shall use Larminier Drive.

N12A (Section 106 Obligation).

RR/2004/2364/P BEXHILL 47-59 SACKVILLE ROAD AND 1-3 MARINA02 AUG 2004 REDEVELOPMENT OF SITE WITH 24 FLATS, TWO SHOPS

WITH ALTERATION TO EXISTING ACCESS AND PROVISION OF 24 PARKING SPACES.Mr H Khan

SITE This site covers a 0.08 hectare and is in a corner position situated at the southern end of Sackville Road, to the north of the roundabout. The site currently consists of a single storey row of shops; sandwiched between buildings to Sackville Road and Marina that are three storeys in height; with commercial uses for the ground floor levels. The De La Warr Pavilion and the putting green are situated to the south of this site.

HISTORYB/61/97 Outline Application for erection over existing shops of block of 12 flats and

2 penthouses – ApprovedB/68/55 Outline application for demolition of existing buildings and erection of

block of flats and garages – RefusedRR/80/0622 Outline: Erection of 18 Self Catering Holiday Flats above lock up shops

and provision of car parking accommodation – Approved Conditional

PROPOSAL This is a full planning application which would seek to demolish the existing single storey shops located on this site at the southern end of Sackville Road. Demolition would be followed by the redevelopment of the site to provide a part

20

basement car park (24 cars) to be accessed via an existing shared vehicular access (to be improved and widened) to the north of the site. The scheme would consist of a partially raised ground floor element with an external terrace and units comprising of class A1/A3 shops/restaurants. The remaining 7 floors of the development would be of residential use; containing 24 three bedroom flats. It is proposed that each flat would have a balcony and that there would be a roof terrace to the top of the development. The exterior of the development would be rendered in a cream/natural colour with a significant amount of glazing to the south western elevation of the development. Following negotiations, including English Heritage, revised elevational drawings have been submitted. These have been re-advertised.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: Comments awaited.Environment Agency: The Agency has no objections, in principle to the proposed development but recommends that if planning permission is granted that the following planning conditions are imposed:“1. Prior to being discharged into any watercourses, surface water sewer or

soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas, roads and hardstandings shall be passed through trapped gullies to BS5911:1982, with an overall capacity compatible with the site being drained.Clean, uncontaminated rock, subsoil, brick rubble, crushed concrete and ceramic only shall be permitted as infill materials.Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters.

2. If during development, any visibly contaminated or odorous material not previously identified is found to be present at the site, must be investigated. The Planning Authority must be informed immediately of the nature and degree of contamination present. The developer shall submit a Method Statement which must detail how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.Reason: To ensure that the development complies with approved details in the interests of protection of Controlled Waters.”

Southern Water Services: The exact position of the public sewers must be determined on site by the Applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised. Southern Water would request that if consent is granted there be a condition requiring measures for protection of the sewer be agreed, prior to determination of the application. Southern Water would have no objection to the discharge of foul sewerage from the development to the public foul sewer. If the existing development discharges surface water to the existing foul/ combined system, a discharge no greater than the existing would be permitted. The on-site foul and surface water drainage should be kept separate up to the point of connection with the public sewer. The details of the proposed connections to the public sewer will require the formal approval of Southern Water Services Ltd.English Heritage: Recommendations: “Recommends that planning permission for this scheme is refused as it fails to preserve or enhance the special character of the conservation area and detrimentally affects the setting of the De La Warr Pavillion. A more contextual design approach that respects existing building heights, plot widths and articulation, but employing new design, offers an appropriate way forward. We consider that the implications of this application are so significant that we would welcome the opportunity of advising further on the revised proposals.”Sussex Police: No major concerns, recommends full height shutter/ gates control access to basement car park – otherwise building fabric and vehicles at unnecessary risk from criminal attack. I would also like to discuss the detailed design of the external seating area. Ideally I would like to see a method of excluding public access out of

21

restaurant hours. The flats should confirm to the recommendations of the police scheme Secured By Design. It is recommended, therefore, that before making any amendments to the application, the applicant or their agent first discusses these comments with the Local Planning Authority.SEEDA: General Observation – SEEDA will not be commenting on this application. A statutory response is only required for applications in excess of 10 Ha or 10,000 sq metres for office and employment uses. However, if you consider that it complies with any other criteria listed in our letter such as the Bexhill- Hastings Link Road please confirm.Director Of Services – Environmental Health: Comments awaited.Director of Services- Amenities: It is essential that the detailed designs incorporate adequate facility for the collection and short term storage of domestic waste and items for recycling as part of this Council’s proposed integrated kerbside collection. Access to the rear of the property for large service vehicles including waste collection would be advantageous.Planning Notice: 7 letters of objection (47-59 Sackville Road) (30 Linden Road) (32 Linden Road – 2 letters) (66 Cornwall Road – 2 letters) (5 Marina) (28 Linden Road), 1 letter (Richmond Avenue - copy attached as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 4 November 2004):

- Effect on value of property (43-45) which is an end terrace at the moment – will become mid terrace if application approved – may make a claim against the Authority for compensation.

- Would appear that the proposed development would result in loss of light and thus a reduction in value (loss of amenity in the flats above the shop at 43 & 45) – may make a claim against the Authority for compensation.

- Increase in traffic at already congested corner.- Potential danger of underground car park so near the sea.- The drive through to the rear of the buildings may be of insufficient

height to permit access for refuse vehicles and delivery Lorries.- Opposite the De La Warr – the design does not meet this high

standard.- No design statement.- Should be referred to CABE.- Out of scale and character with adjacent buildings.- Will harm appearance of seafront and gateway/ entrance to town.- Over development of the site.- Proposed restaurants above pavement level – creating dead frontage

at pavement level on key corner location – harmful to appearance of area and business linkage between Sackville Road and seafront.

- Exclude disabled from reasonable and dignified access to restaurants and flats.

- Only incorporates 24 parking spaces (1 per dwelling) and no visitor parking – lead to increased competition for on-street parking.

- It is in Conservation Area – should be sympathetic to this.- Extra noise created by development – unacceptable, loading

at rear and parking noise.- Loss of privacy to property.- Block sea view – lowering the price of property.- Overshadowing and cramping of our premises.

- Development seeks to demolish the existing single storey shops located on the site, this would infringe our clients’ right of

22

support and protection currently afforded to them and would therefore breach entry 3 of the Charges Register in Relation to the title number ESX1754 being 3 Marina Bexhill.

- Health and safety.- The project is just to make money for the applicant.- Would like to request 3D rendered images indicating likely

overshadowing of adjoining properties at various times of the year – have not been provided.

Petition Objecting – It accepts the need for redevelopment, but objects on the following points:

- Out of scale/ character.- Not enough parking.- Access will cause traffic hazards.- Gardens overlooked – Human Rights Act.

Signed by 33 people.

SUMMARY This corner site is an important key location for the revitalization and regeneration of the Town Centre. The applicant is negotiating on another site and may be submitting a further application. Members will be aware of the Masterplan work being undertaken for Bexhill Town Centre and the earlier competition brief for development on the seafront. In my view this site can be considered ahead of the Masterplan work but needs to consider the context for the future development options along the seafront. The site is within the Town Centre Conservation Area and in close proximity to the De La Warr Pavilion. English Heritage’s original comments took the view that the development on this site should be “stitched in” to the townscape and that the scale and design adversely affected the setting of the De La Warr Pavilion. As a result further meetings have been held with representatives of English Heritage, the applicants and your officers to address their concerns.Amended elevational details have now been submitted following these discussions which are likely to address the issues raised. The elevational treatment has been amended to give a more vertical emphasis, and wider palette of materials/colour to differentiate the design of this building from the Pavilion. The top floor has been set back to improve the scale and massing in the streetscene.Whilst I accept that the scale of development will have some impact on adjoining properties, principally because of the change from existing single storey development on the site, the development will fit into the streetscene and be a positive contribution to the regeneration of the area and the seafront.The further views of English Heritage and the Highway Authority are awaited on the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (VIEWS OF ENGLISH HERITAGE/HIGHWAY AUTHORITY)1. CN7G (Schedule of materials including colours - amended to relate to building).2. CN10A (Highway conditions).3. CN12L (External lighting).4. CN8C (Foul and surface water drainage).5. Prior to the commencement of development details of the following shall be

submitted to and be subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details:i) balconies, windows and doors including a 1:20 scale section through the

front elevation23

ii) hard surfacing, walls, gates, ramps and raised external seating, planting beds

iii) details of shop fronts to the ground floor restaurantsiv) hours of operation of the two restaurantsv) details of fume extraction system and soundproofing in relation to the

restaurantvi) facilities for collection and short term storage of waste

6. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas, roads and hardstandings shall be passed through trapped gullies to BS5911:1982, with an overall capacity compatible with the site being drained.Clean, uncontaminated rock, subsoil, brick rubble, crushed concrete and ceramic only shall be permitted as infill materials.Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters.

7. If during development, any visibly contaminated or odorous material not previously identified is found to be present at the site, must be investigated. The Planning Authority must be informed immediately of the nature and degree of contamination present. The developer shall submit a Method Statement which must detail how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.Reason: To ensure that the development complies with approved details in the interests of protection of Controlled Waters.

8. Prior to the occupation of the development details of localised improvements to pedestrian movements in Marina/Sackville Road shall be submitted to and be subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The approved works shall be carried out within six months of the first occupation of the flats.

RFG: 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/2004/2635/P BEXHILL KITES NEST WALK - LAND NORTH OF, 13 SEP 2004 BARNHORN ROAD, LITTLE COMMON

TELECOMMUNICATIONS INSTALLATION COMPRISING OF A 17.5M HIGH SLIMLINE LATTICE MAST WITH 3 NO. DUAL BAND DUAL POLAR ANTENNAS AND 2 NO. 600MM TRANSMISSION DISHES WITH 6 NO. EQUIPMENT CABINETS HOUSED IN AS FENCED COMPOUND MEASURING 6M X 6M.Orange Personal Communications Services Limited

SITE Kites Nest Walk is a short cul-de-sac off the north side of Barnhorn Road. Approximately 140m north of the turning head are two existing masts. These are sited approx. 50m apart. This proposed third mast would be located approx. 60m north of the existing masts and adjacent to the field boundary of the public footpath leading to Whydown.

HISTORY (Immediate locality)RR/2000/648/TN 15m monopole mast, ground level equipment cabin and

development ancillary thereto - Prior Approval of Details Not Required.

RR/2002/2173/P Telecommunications installation comprising 15m slimline lattice mast with 3 no. antenna and 1 no. dish - Approved.

24

PROPOSAL The mast itself would comprise a 15m high slimline lattice tower upon which would be mounted 3 antennas giving a total height of 17.5m. At approx. 15m above ground level would be mounted 2 dishes. The mast, together with 6 equipment cabinets and a meter cabinet would be contained within a 6m x 6m x 1.8m ground level fenced compound.The following information has been extracted from the supporting statement:-“The Proposed Site -The site is located on the western edge of Little Common, which is located to the west of Bexhill. The site location is in a field currently used for grazing with power lines running through the centre of the field. There are 2 existing telecoms masts in the same locality and the addition of a third was considered in terms of visual amenity to be more appropriate albeit at a greater height than the existing masts. It was considered that additional equipment and an increase in height of one of the existing masts would be more visually intrusive than the proposal.The surrounding area is mainly rural to the north, south and west of the site and suburban to the east. The site location is well screened from the visual aspects from the residential areas due to the existing trees that will provide natural screening to most of the development with only the antennas clear of the tree canopy in order to provide unobstructed coverage.Technical Justification -Due to the topography of the land surrounding Little Common, the coverage provided by the existing Orange operational sites in the general area do not provide the required level of coverage. The site is intended to enhance the current coverage, primarily to Little Common, the surrounding residential properties and main transport routes.Alternative Locations -1. Discounted Option 1 - H3g mast, land off Kites Nest Walk

The mast would need to be redeveloped and with additional antennas and dishes attached would make the installation look a lot bulkier than it is at present. In terms of appearance a separate installation although higher than the existing mast is well screened by existing trees up to the 15m in height mark and only the antennas will be clear of the tree canopy in order to allow the signal to travel unobstructed.

2. Discounted Option 2 - T-Mobile mast, land off Kites Nest WalkA site share of the T-Mobile mast was investigated but for the same reasons as the 3 mast a separate installation was looked upon as a less visually intrusive solution than additional antennas and raise in height of an existing mast.”

A declaration of conformity with ICNIRP public exposure guidelines has been submitted.

CONSULTATIONSHighways Agency:- Has no objection.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Director of Services - Environment:- Has no adverse comments to make.The Ramblers Association:- No comments received.Planning Notice:- 1 letter of objection - my property would only be 230m away with many other houses much closer; obtrusive ugly structure; out of character with one of the most beautiful areas of Barnhorn Road; monstrosity would dominate the green belt/residential area becoming a visual intrusion into the green belt; area would become much less sought after to live in; devaluation of property; health risks.

SUMMARY Since this application was submitted, I have received a request from Hutchison to enter into pre-application discussions regarding a proposed upgrade of

25

their nearby existing installation. This would result in its total height being increased from 16m to 21m. Therefore, before determining this application, I need to be satisfied that all opportunities to mast share have been fully explored and to assess whether or not the likely visual impact of sharing would be preferable to the proposed installation of a third mast in the vicinity. In order for the necessary investigations to be undertaken I therefore make the following

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (TO INVESTIGATE ALTERNATIVE MAST SHARING OPTIONS)

RR/2004/2744/P BEXHILL 3 SUTHERLAND AVENUE10 SEP 2004 OUTLINE: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING PROPERTY AND

ERECTION OF 6 TWO BEDROOM FLATS TOGETHER WITH PARKING FACILITIES AND ALTERATION TO EXISTING ACCESS AND FORMATION OF A NEW PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.Silvero Investments Ltd

The above application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 7 October 2004 when it was resolved to defer a decision on the matter pending an inspection of the site being made. This application has been added to your site inspection list for Tuesday, 2 November 2004.

SITE A large detached Edwardian property now occupied as 4 flats, located on a corner plot at the junction of Terminus Avenue and Sutherland Avenue. The plot size is approximately 0.07 ha. The surrounding area consists of residential properties.

HISTORYB/56/25 Conversion into 4 self-contained flats – Approved.RR/91/1035/P O/A. Demolition of existing building and erection of 6 flats with 8

parking spaces served by new vehicular access – Refused.RR/2001/2357/P Outline: demolition of existing flats and erection of new block of

eleven flats and underground car parking - Refused

PROPOSAL The proposed development consists of the demolition of the existing two-storey building and its replacement with a new building for 6 two-bedroom flats. Although this is an Outline application the agent has shown an illustrative drawing of a 2½ storey Edwardian style building on an extended footprint. The agent has provided supporting letters giving further details, as follows:

Following the planning refusal for the development of 11 no flats with underground parking facilities the owners of the above property have commissioned our practice to redesign the proposals to take into consideration the relevant aspects of the objections raised to this scheme.By substantially reducing the number of flats to 6 in total, as shown on the indicative drawing submitted, the scale of the development is very much more in keeping with the character of the area and which takes into consideration the concerns raised with regard to the overlooking and overshadowing & the earlier proposals.The smaller footprint of the replacement building also enables the car parking to be provided within the grounds of the development thereby avoiding the necessity for the underground parking as previously planned.

26

Being relatively close to the conservation area the external façades of the new development have been remodelled, including the choice of facing materials which it is felt will be far more In keeping with the character of the area.We therefore trust that these revised development proposals will be given favourable consideration by the panning department but should you require any additional information in support of this Outline application please do not hesitate to contact our office.Further to our discussions concerning the above development proposals. I note that you are currently preparing the Planning agenda for the Committee Meeting to be held on the 7 of October.In this respect I understand that you need to clarify the situation regarding the possible overshadowing of Number 24 Terminus Avenue, immediately adjoining the application site. Accordingly my client has discussed the planning layouts with the residents of Number 24 who have confirmed their support & the proposals as the windows on the eastern elevation are for bathroom and toilet facilities. Whilst writing I would confirm that a two metre high fence will be erected along this boundary as required by the adjoining owners.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: Any comments will be reportedSouthern Water: Does not wish to commentEnvironment Agency: No objection in principle but recommends:Planning Condition(s)“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.Clean, uncontaminated rock, subsoil, brick rubble, crushed concrete and ceramic only shall be permitted as infill materialReason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters.” Plus general informativesPlanning Notice: 1 letter from the occupier of 24 Terminus Avenue: -“I am writing to confirm that I have no objection to the proposed development at 3 Sutherland Avenue on the condition that the developers agree to erect a six foot fence at their expense along the boundary between 3 Sutherland Avenue and or own property, Being 24 Terminus Avenue. I can also confirm that the proposed development would not cause any problem to the light entering our windows on the east side of our property, as there are a row of trees providing privacy that we would also expect to be kept. I hope this information will be of use to you, and if you have any more questions I will be glad to help.” SUMMARY This scheme is an improvement over the refused scheme for a 3½-storey block of eleven flats, on a larger footprint under RR/2001/2357/P. The site has been re visited and I take the view that if the shrubs and Leylandii along the rear boundary of the site with no.24 Terminus Avenue, are retained, subject to no adverse comments from the Highway Authority, I consider the scale, design and form of the proposed development to be an acceptable of this site. Members will be able to assess the impact of the development upon their inspection of the site.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO HIGHWAY AUTHORITY COMMENTS)

27

1. No trees shall be wilfully damaged or destroyed or uprooted, felled, lopped or topped without the previous written consent of the Local Planning Authority within 5 years of the completion of the permitted development. Any trees removed without such consent or dying or being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased before the end of that period shall be replaced with trees of such size and species as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the locality and to accord with Policies S1, S5 and S6 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011. - URBAN

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 S1.

3. Clean, uncontaminated rock, subsoil, brick rubble, crushed concrete and ceramic only shall be permitted as infill material.Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters and S1.”

4. CN7B (External materials).5. CN9I (Boundary treatment).6. CN13F (Tree and shrub planting).7. All existing trees on site, which are to be retained, shall be fenced off as

recommended in BS5837, 'Trees in Relation to Construction', during the course of building works.Reason: To prevent damage to existing trees and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

8. The existing shrubs and leyandii trees along the western boundary of this shall be retained and maintained at a height of not less than 5m from ground level or as otherwise may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, and in the event of the shrubs and/or leyandii becoming seriously damaged, diseased, and/or dying, it/they shall be replaced with shrubs and/or leyandii, or other planting of such size and species as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, within six months of any such damage to the shrubs and/or leyandii or the first signs of any disease, or the shrubs and/or leyandii being removed as a result of such, or other such time period as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To maintain as far as possible the appearance of the locality and to maintain a natural screen from the presence of the building and to maintain the privacy of neighbouring residents and to accord with the requirements of 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).

Note: The applicant’s attention is drawn to the comments of the Environment Agency in their letter attached.

RFG: 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).

28

RR/2004/2820/P BEXHILL 11 GLYNE DRIVE22 SEP 2004 DEMOLITION OF EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE AND

ERECTION OF NEW LARGER ATTACHED GARAGEMiss S Grisbrook

SITE This detached bungalow is located on the south side of Glyne Drive.

HISTORYRR/2000/1466/P Erection of conservatory - Approved.

PROPOSAL It is proposed to demolish the existing flat roofed single garage attached to the east side of the bungalow and erect a larger 3.9m x 7.55m flat roofed garage. This would be constructed using brickwork to match the existing bungalow and would include a brick parapet above the garage door.

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice:- No comments received.

SUMMARY Although closer to the boundary than the existing garage, there would be no adverse impact upon adjoining amenity or the street scene. The application is therefore supported.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7C (Matching external materials).N8B (Building constructed to site boundary)

RFG: 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/2004/2833/P BEXHILL 32-34 COLLINGTON AVENUE, CONQUEST HOUSE06 AUG 2004 CHANGE OF USE FROM D1 (EDUCATIONAL) TO B1

(COMMERCIAL) 3RD, 4TH AND 5TH FLOORS AND PART 2ND.Hastings Insurance Services

SITE This application relates to Conquest House which occupies a large site to the north of Collington Avenue. To the rear of Conquest House is a car park of approximately 210 parking spaces and an open space is behind the car park and backs onto Cranston Avenue.

HISTORYB/72/1276 Closure of existing vehicular access from the site to main road and

formation of new vehicular access to the site – Approved Conditional.

B/72/1364 Erection of office block for a housing society administration centre – Approved Conditional.

RR/76/2066 Retention of block of six garages – Approved.RR/93/1300/P Change of use of floors 5, 4 & 3 and part 2 from office (B1) to

education (D1) for training of health care personnel only – Approved Conditional.

29

RR/2000/959/P Extension to existing car park (Grass crete filled with pea-beach) to provide an additional 122 spaces and new external lighting – Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL This application relates to a previous consent for the change of use of floors 5, 4 & 3 and part of 2 to D1 (educational) considered under planning application RR/93/1300/P. There is no conclusive evidence available that this permission was implemented and therefore this application seeks to regularise the current use of part of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th floors to B1 (commercial) use. No additional office use is proposed and the application relates to the current use of the whole building for B1 offices.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: No representations received.Director of Services – Chief Building Control Officer: No representations received.Planning Notice: 20 letters of opposition (13 Normandale, 21 Normandale, 10 Normans, 2 letters from occupiers 4 Normandale House, Insley Court (letter representing the residents of the 8 flats of Insley Court), Normandale, 15A Harewood Close, 23 B Harewood Close, 57 Collington Avenue, 8 Normandale House, 1 Normandale House, 17 A Harewood Close, 13 C Harewood Close, 44 Collington Avenue, 55 Collington Avenue, 21 B Harewood Close, 2 Normans, 10 Normandale House, 7 Thorndene, 7 Normandale House:- Proposal will lead to increase in vehicles parking on road thus blocking it – safety

hazard will increase.- Insufficient on site parking facilities on site but ample space for it.- 700 employees and if number rises will need extra entrance – possibly in

Cranston Avenue.- Access for public service vehicles is already severely restricted.- Elderly, infirm and disabled residents are unable to access their own premises

due to volume of street parking, with any degree of confidence.- Existing car park should be filled to capacity and it isn’t always.- (23B Harewood House) – No objection to change of use – but where will they

park?- Speeding and traffic noise is already a problem in the area.- Possible staff don’t like using staff car park due to break-ins. Perhaps improved

security is required, if parking issues resolved then no objection – (57 Collington Avenue).

- (44 Collington Avenue) – Copy of letter which occupier sent to The Editor, Bexhill Observer relating to the parking issues.

- Property values eroded by traffic problems.- (7 Normandale House) – Copy of job advertisement for Hastings Direct –

highlighted ‘750-strong team’ – in relation to car park with only one entrance.

SUMMARY This application seeks to regularise the current use of Conquest House to B1 (commercial). There have been objections to the proposed in terms of the potential impact that any extra employees could have upon the already saturated parking facilities. It seems that many objections relate to the consequences of the 3 rd, 4th and 5th floors and part of the 2nd floor being used for commercial in addition to the workforce presently employed. However, the agent has confirmed that there are in fact no proposals to increase the workforce which averages at approximately 700 employees. In addition it has been emphasised that this use has been operating for some time and as such the above floors are of commercial use already. It has been highlighted that

30

within the grounds of Conquest House there is potential for more car parking facilities and there is an approval for an extra 122 spaces to the rear of the existing car park (RR/2000/959/P), however, this has not been implemented. There have been no comments from the Highway Authority to date and any approval would be subject to the views of the Authority in relation to the provision of adequate on site parking and traffic management given that the present car park is used to nearly full capacity and overflows onto the surrounding area. It appears to me that an extension of car parking facilities is required on site.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO COMMENTS FROM HIGHWAY AUTHORITY)1. Within one month of the date of this permission details of additional on–site car

parking to be provided within the curtilage of Conquest House shall be submitted to and is subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. The additional car park shall then be provided within two months of approval of details and in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained in that condition.

2. Any additional conditions recommended by the Highway Authority regarding traffic management measures.

RFG: 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/2004/2907/P BEXHILL GRAND HOTEL - SITE OF, SEA ROAD29 SEP 2004 ERECTION OF PRIMARY HEALTH CARE FACILITIES WITH

PHARMACY AND 30 SHELTERED APARTMENTS (CATEGORY II) WITH GUEST SUITE AND COMMUNAL FACILITIES TOGETHER WITH LOWER GROUND FLOOR PARKING INCLUDING FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESSESGeneral Practice Investments Ltd

SITE The site of the former Grand Hotel on the corner of Sea Road and Jameson Road.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2004/1330/P Erection of primary health care facilities with pharmacy and 29 no.

sheltered apartments with guest suite. Appeal lodged against Non-determination.

PROPOSAL This proposal follows the continuing negotiation with the applicant on RR/2004/1330/P and has resulted from on-going consultations with English Heritage.The applicants have submitted a design report which is included as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 4 November 2004. A powerpoint presentation has also been submitted which will be available for display at the Committee meeting. The revised scheme shows a five storey building with basement car parking (41 spaces); the fifth floor being recessed from the frontage. The ground and first floor will comprise the primary car facilities and pharmacy. The three floors above will provide 30 sheltered housing units. The majority of the building will be faced in a light reconstituted stone with laminated wood style cladding and attic storey formed of

31

exposed steel framing with profiled metal cladding. The building is now similar in mass and height to the former Grand Hotel building.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- “The Highway Authority does not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to the observations below:-The proposed new access onto Jameson Road is not clearly shown on the submitted plans, The Highway Authority requires an additional plan showing the proposed access including the required visibility splays (2.4m x 90m to the east of the access and to the junction of Sea Road to the west), before the necessary highway conditions can be issued.ParkingAccording to the East Sussex County Council’s Parking Standards the proposed development should be provided withsheltered housing: 1 space per 2-4 units and 1 space per resident staff.health services: 4 spaces per consulting room and 1 space per 2 auxiliary

staff.The site is in zone 2 therefore 25-50% of this standard should be provided.ie this development requires 28-60 spaces plus additional spaces for staff.The proposed 40 vehicle parking spaces are therefore acceptable to the Highway Authority although cycle parking should also be provided (1 space per consulting room and 1 space per 10 staff and 1 short term space per 3 sheltered housing units and 1 long term space per 5 units).In accordance with the County Council's supplementary Planning Guidance "A New Approach to Developer Contributions" the Highway Authority would wish to secure a £3900 local sustainable accessibility improvement contribution. This would be utilised as supplementary funding for the County Council's Local Transport Plan as a means of mitigating the impacts of the development on the wider highway network. The contribution should be secured by means of a sI06 Agreement with the County Council as Highway Authority.The Highway Authority requires additional plans of the access and wishes to be reconsulted following the applicant’s response to these comments. “Environment Agency:- No objection in principle subject to conditions regarding:“1. The method of controlling groundwater at the site during construction shall be

carried out in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to any development commencing on site.Reason: The groundwater table may be intersected by the basement parking, footings and trench work. Unless groundwater is controlled, it will become contaminated with suspended solids which will damage aquatic ecosystems if discharged into the adjacent river (including via the surface water drainage system). In certain circumstances this may require a consent from the Agency, which could necessitate further investigations on the behalf of the applicant. It should be noted that the Agency asks to be consulted on any details submitted in compliance with the above condition.

2. Prior to being discharged into any watercourses, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas, roads 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.”

English Heritage:- Comments awaited.Sussex Police:- Comments awaited.Southern Water:- Comments awaited.

32

Head of Housing:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Any representations will be reported at your meeting.

SUMMARY This revised scheme is the result of close negotiation between your officers, English Heritage and the applicant’s agent. I am satisfied that the height and mass of the building is now satisfactory in the street scene and will make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area.The proposed uses are entirely suitable for the site and I can support the provision of basement car parking in this location. An additional plan has been requested to cover the details of access to the site. This Council has not yet considered nor adopted the County Council’s supplementary Planning Guidance “A New Approach to Developer Contributions” and I do not consider it appropriate to request a £3,900 local sustainable accessibility improvement contribution. I have asked the County Council to identify whether there is any site specific highway requirements.Further documentation and appeal decisions have been submitted in respect of the previous application which are applicable to the consideration of affordable housing in this case. I am taking further advice in relation to the cases put forward in relation to the non provision of affordable housing on this site. Subject to concluding whether there is a need for affordable housing to be provided as part of this scheme I can now support the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (CONSIDERATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING/HIGHWAY MATTERS)1. CN10A (Highway conditions).2. CN7G (Schedule of materials - amend to relate to the building).,3. Prior to commencement of development the following details shall be submitted

to and be subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details:i) 1:10 scale detailed sample section through the Jameson Road elevation

to include profile of the attic storey (4 th floor) projecting cornice over the 3rd floor, degree of window recess, construction of projecting bays (side and corner type) and profile of plinths;

ii) 1:10 scale detailed section of all external doors and window construction;iii) 1:20 scale detailed drawings of proposed external planting beds;iv) all hard and soft landscaping within the site including any walls or fences

or gates;v) all signage on the building which shall take the form of individually fixed

lettering;vi) provision for cycle parking;vii) a plan showing the allocation of car parking spaces.

4. CN12L (External lighting).5. CN8L (Foul and surface water drainage).6. The method of controlling groundwater at the site during construction shall be

carried out in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority prior to any development commencing on site.Reason: The groundwater table may be intersected by the basement parking, footings and trench work. Unless groundwater is controlled, it will become contaminated with suspended solids which will damage aquatic ecosystems if discharged into the adjacent river (including via the surface water drainage system). In certain circumstances this may require a consent from the Agency, which could necessitate further investigations on the behalf of the applicant. It should be noted that the Agency asks to be consulted on any details submitted

33

in compliance with the above condition.7. Prior to being discharged into any watercourses, surface water sewer or

soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas, roads 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.

RFG: 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/2004/2920/P BEXHILL 22 HASLAM CRESCENT01 OCT 2004 VARIATION OF CONDITION 3 IMPOSED ON RR/2004/1947/P

TO ALTER THE OPERATING HOURS TO 1100-2200 HOURS INSTEAD OF 0800-2000 HOURS.A Walia

SITE This application relates to the former convenience store and post office on the west side of Haslam Crescent. The premises is one of a parade of four shops with flats above and falls within a predominantly residential area. Planning permissions have recently been granted to use the premises as a takeaway food outlet. These have not yet been implemented and are subject to a condition that:“3. The premises shall not be used or occupied for the approved use before 8.00

a.m. or after 8.00 p.m. on Monday to Saturday, or at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.”

HISTORYRR/2003/2911/P CofU of part retail unit to form takeaway food unit (A3 Use)

including retention of post office - Approved.RR/2004/1947/P Amendment to RR/2003/2911/P to change use of whole retail unit

(previously part) to takeaway food unit (A3 use) - Approved.

PROPOSAL As submitted the application seeks to extend the authorised closing time to 10.00 p.m. and open at the later time of 11.00 a.m. This results from the applicant’s alleged inability to attract a purchaser as explained in the copy letter dated 27 September 2004 from Mayflower Planning Services contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this meeting 4 November 2004. The copy example consents and advice note referred to have not been appended but can be viewed on the website. However, the applicant has since requested the following further modification:-“Opening Hours 10:00 to 22:00, with (limited) opening on SundaysYou will appreciate that there is a necessity for Preparation/Cleaning outside of this period, which hopefully can be accommodated within any further sub-Condition applied to the case.”

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- Comments awaited.Director of Services - Environment:- Has no objection subject to conditions and temporary 1 year personal consent.Sussex Police:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- 1 letter of objection: Not in keeping with the parade of shops (i.e. late opening hours)

34

Smell entering my Salon Rubbish spoiling the parade shop fronts. Concern over drains to the rear of premises, there is already a situation where

they block easily, but the addition of fat will make matters worse. Vermin attracted by the smell General concern for my business premises, especially evenings when I am not

there.

SUMMARY The further modification requested does not stipulate proposed Sunday opening times or the additional hours required for preparation/cleaning. I have therefore advised the applicant that, if he wishes the further modifications to be considered, he would need to submit a fresh application. I therefore intend to determine this application as originally proposed and described in the heading to this report.When application RR/2003/2911/P for change of use to a takeaway was originally submitted, the applicant sought to open until 10.00 p.m. with no trading on Sundays. However in view of the fact that the premises was in an area where late night disturbance could have an adverse impact upon local amenity, the applicant agreed to the earlier closing time of 8.00 p.m. This is not a town centre location and the parade is the only commercial development (apart from the convenience store in Seabourne Road) in the area, being surrounded by residential development, including the flats above the shops in the parade. However, I am minded to the view that, if it could be demonstrated that no nuisance occurs between 0800 hours and 2200 hours, the extension of hours may be acceptable. This could be achieved by granting a temporary permission for a year, after which time, if no nuisance results, it could be renewed on a permanent basis. A temporary consent would render it unreasonable to also make it personal to the applicant. If Members agreed with this approach, I would make the following

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) 1. Unless prior approval has been obtained from the Local Planning Authority the

variation hereby permitted shall be discontinued on or before (one year from date of permission).Reason: In order to assess the impact of noise, traffic, smells and late night activity upon the residential amenities of the area 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).

2. The use hereby permitted shall not be open to customers or any persons and no employee including a proprietor shall carry out any food preparation, cooking, and/or sales or serving to customers or any persons on the premises outside the hours of 0800 to 2200 Mondays to Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays, and all clearing, cleaning, and any other work associated with the approved use shall not continue and no employee including a proprietor or other persons shall be in the premises to carry out such work outside the hours of 0800 to 2230 Mondays to Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays.Reason: In order to preserve the residential amenities of the area 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).

35

RR/2004/2949/P BEXHILL 90-92 COODEN SEA ROAD, LITTLE COMMON01 OCT 2004 DEMOLITION OF ONE DWELLING AND TWO FLATS AND

ERECTION OF TWO STOREY BLOCK COMPRISING SIX FLATS WITH PROVISION OF SIX PARKING SPACES AND NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS AND ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING ACCESS.Havenscroft Limited

SITE This is a derelict dwelling house located on the west side of Cooden Sea Road. The site is within a predominantly residential area; the site slops from east to west.

HISTORYNone

PROPOSAL The proposed development consists of the redevelopment of this site with the erection of a two-storey block of six flats. The new flats would be sited set back approximately 23 metres from the frontage of this site. The agent has provided a detailed supporting letter, which is attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 4 November 2004.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: Any comments will be reported.Environment Agency: No objections in principles, but recommend condition re surface water drainage.Southern Water: Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice: Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY Without the comments of the Highway Authority, I cannot comment on the highway aspects of this application. The proposed redevelopment of this site in the manner proposed is unacceptable. Having regard to the siting, design, scale and size of the building, it would cause overlooking and loss of privacy to, and would have an over dominant impact on neighbouring residential amenities, in particular the bungalows adjoining the west of the site in Mansell Close, and no. 94 Cooden Sea Road to the south. For the reasons given, the proposed building is unacceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (HIGHWAY AUTHORITY COMMENTS AND EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD) 1. Having regard to the siting, design, scale and size of the building, it would cause

overlooking and loss of privacy to, and would have an over dominant impact on neighbouring residential amenities; such development would be in conflict with policy ST1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

36

RR/2004/2973/P BEXHILL BEXHILL 6TH FORM COLLEGE, PENLAND ROAD6 OCT 2004 REVISED LEVELS OF SOUTHERN END OF SITE

(RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION). ERECTION OF ABSORPTIVE ACOUSTIC FENCINGBexhill 6th Form College

SITE The new Bexhill College campus in Penland Road/Hastings Road.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2001/574/P Outline: New educational development comprising teaching space,

associated facilities including community sports facility, all-weather floodlit sports pitch, parking, access and highway improvements - Approved Conditional

RR/2002/1599/P Erection of new educational development comprising teaching space, associated facilities including indoor community sports facility, all-weather floodlit sports pitch, parking and access pursuant to outline permission RR/2001/574/P - Approved Conditional

RR/2004/1341/P Erection of building to provide accommodation for music teaching prior to second phase development of the new College site - Approved (Temporary)

PROPOSAL This application comprises two separate elements:-i) The retrospective application for levelling and regrading the south of the new car

parking area bordered by properties in Glyne Ascent and Callum Walk;ii) Erection of an acoustic fence along the northern and eastern side of the all-

weather play area, 3.5m in height. Erection of a 4.5m acoustic fence along the northern and western boundaries of Parkstone Cottage.

The acoustic fence proposal results from a Noise Abatement Notice served on the College. An appeal by the College against this notice was to have been heard in Court on 5 November, but an adjournment has been requested to allow the current application to be determined.

CONSULTATIONSDirector of Services - Environment:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY The Noise Abatement Notice was served because of noise nuisance to the occupants of Parkstone Cottage resulting from the use of the all-weather play area. I am awaiting confirmation from Environmental Health that they are satisfied with the current proposals. The location of the fence next to Parkstone Cottage of a height of 4.5m is not acceptable, and I have requested it is moved closer to the edge of the play area with significant landscaping in between. Additional landscaping would be required on the northern fence. Further details regarding the use of the land south of the car park, and details of levels/drainage have been requested.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (FURTHER INFORMATION/AMENDED PLANS)1. CN13A (Landscaping scheme)2. CN13B (Implementation of landscaping scheme)

37

RFG: 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/2004/3057/P BEXHILL TESCO STORE, RAVENSIDE RETAIL & LEISURE 13 OCT 2004 PARK, DE LA WARR ROAD

REMOVAL OF CONDITION 3 IMPOSED ON RR/2001/2156/P (ALLOWED ON APPEAL) TO ALLOW COMMENCEMENT OF TRADING OF ADDITIONAL SALES AREA IN EXTENDED STORE BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF HIGHWAY WORKSTesco Stores Ltd

SITE Tesco store at Ravenside Retail and Leisure Park.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2001/2156/P Extension of existing Class A1 retail store - Called in by Secretary

of State - Allowed.

PROPOSAL This application is for removal of Condition 3 which prevents operation of trading for the new floor space until off-site highway works are completed. The applicant’s agent supports the proposal:-“As you will recall, the subject condition was imposed by the First Secretary of State in his decision dated 30 September 2003 which granted planning permission for an extension to the Tesco store; a copy of his decision letter is attached as Annex A for convenience. This condition reads:‘The new floorspace hereby permitted shall not commence trading unless and until the highway works shown on Pinnacle Transportation Ltd figures No. RL-9 and RL-10 have been completed.’You will also be aware that the works referred primarily benefit the adjacent retail development, a bulky goods warehouse on Brett Drive, and were agreed at a previous inquiry into that proposal.Although both developments are advancing apace, it has become clear that the Highway Works, which are being carried out by the Brett Drive developers, will not be completed in time for the projected opening date of the Tesco store extension, schedule for November 2004.Consequently, we submit this application to you for the removal of that condition in order that the full Tesco offer may be available, and all disruption ended at the store, in time for the important pre-Christmas trading season which starts to build up from mid-November.In order that we did not waste your Officers’ time, we took the liberty of assessing the feasibility for the removal of this condition with the relevant authorities. Whilst we realise that you will, of course, still carry out statutory consultation on this application, we nevertheless wanted to satisfy ourselves that this proposal would be acceptable to those authorities, namely the Highways Agency and the Highway Authority (East Sussex County Council).At Annex B, you will find attached a response from the Highways Agency in which it is noted that they ‘are happy to recommend to East Sussex County Council, as local planning authority [sic], that this condition be revised.’At Annex C, you will find attached correspondence from the County Council suggesting that any application be determined ‘in the light of advice provided by the Highways Agency’.

38

We trust that you will also receive similar responses when you carry out your statutory consultation and, in the light or such support, that your Authority will be able to remove the relevant condition, thus allowing a much-improved Tesco store to be available to shoppers in time for the festive season.”

CONSULTATIONSHighways Agency:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY At the time of the Inquiry the view was taken by the relevant Highway Authorities that the works to Brett Drive junction and the roundabout should be carried out prior to the commencement of trading at the Tesco extension. If support is received from the Highway Authorities on this I would be prepared to extend the period for completion but not remove the condition.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (HIGHWAY VIEWS)1. The new floor space hereby permitted shall not continue trading after … unless

the highway works shown on Pinnacle Transportation Ltd Fig No. RL9 and RL10 have been completed.

RFG: 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/2004/3081/P BEXHILL 163 BARNHORN ROAD, ASHRIDGE COURT, 12 OCT 2004 LITTLE COMMON

ERECTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL WING TO EAST SIDE OF SITE IN TWO PHASES PLUS FITOUT OF WEST WING ROOF SPACE AS ACCOMMODATION WITH ASSOCIATED STAIRCASES AND ALTERATION TO EXISTING ACCESS.Mr and Mrs Van Eugen

SITE Ashridge Court Nursing Home is located on the south side of the A259 Barnhorn Road. To the north and east of the site, it is predominately residential, with agricultural land to the west. The curtilage of the site is bounded by the development boundary of the draft Rother District Local Plan.

HISTORYB/54/38 Internal alterations and two new toilets, fuel and garden store -

Approved.B/64/435 Extension of outbuildings to form staff quarters - Approved.B/65/38 Enclosed swimming pool - Approved.RR/74/0885 Change of use from private dwelling to convalescent home -

Approved.RR/75/0221 Fire escape - Approved.RR/75/0623 Outline: Extension to premises to provide an operating theatre

suite and conversion of garage to 2 bedrooms - Approved.RR/75/1199 Addition of two bathrooms and store to ground floor - Withdrawn.RR/75/1427 Extension to nursing home to form a new kitchen, store,

replacement WC and alterations to bedrooms - Approved.39

RR/76/0757 Outline: Erect single storey extension to nursing home to provide operating theatre, 12 bedrooms and accommodation - Appeal dismissed.

RR/76/1649 Extension to existing nursing home to provide laundry, bathroom, shower room and wc - Approved.

RR/77/0226 Outline application for an addition to provide an operating theatre unit, 12 bedrooms and ancillary accommodation - Approved.

RR/77/0620 Alterations and additions to form staff accommodation - Approved.RR/78/1452 First floor extension to form staff accommodation - Approved.RR/78/2333 Enclosure of access gallery to form new first floor corridor -

Approved.RR/79/1365 Alterations to vehicle and pedestrian access - Approved.RR/80/0229 Erection of two storey block of 12 warden care flatlets with wardens

accommodation, common room and shop - No further action.RR/80/0509 Outline renewal of time on RR/77/0226 to erect operating theatre

and to contain 12 bedrooms and ancillary accommodation - Approved.

RR/80/028 Outline application for 14 warden care flatlets, wardens flat and community room - Appeal dismissed.

RR/80/1664 Outline application for the erection of two storey building to be used as ten warden care flats - Refused.

RR/81/0090 Outline application for the erection of warden care flatlet wing - Approved.

RR/82/0622 Conversion of nursing home into warden care flatlets with extension to create a total of 20 flatlets - Refused.

RR/82/1101 Outline application for erection of house and garage with vehicular access - Approved.

RR/82/0921 Convert nursing home to warden care flats and extension as 23 accommodation units, community and laundry rooms - Approved.

RR/83/0367 Change of use from 3 bedroom flat (for staff) to provide 5 bedrooms for use as nursing accommodation - Approved.

RR/83/1142 Outline for erection of a single storey operating theatre, 12 additional bedrooms and ancillary accommodation - Approved.

RR/85/0812 Two storey extension to provide additional accommodation, alterations including lift shaft - Approved.

RR/96/203/P Rear extension to lounge - Approved.RR/96/738/P New vehicular access and retention of pergola and fish pond -

Approved.RR/96/2148/P Proposed new wing to form enlarged lounge and 14 additional

rooms and staff facilities - Approved.RR/1999/2673/P New residential care wing to east side of site plus accommodation

fit out of roof to existing west wing with associated access stairs - Approved

PROPOSAL The proposed development is a revision of the approved scheme under RR/1999/2673/P. Whilst the scale, size and bulk of the development is similar to the approved scheme, there are some design changes which the agent has detailed as follows:“The proposed scheme is submitted as a two-stage proposal referred to as Phase1 and Phase 2. The Phase I proposal consists of sonic internal alterations to the existing building together with a new wing of six residential rooms, four single and two double, support accommodation and lounge dining room facilities proportionate to the room

40

numbers to comply with National Care Standards, It is our Client’s intention that this Phase, once constructed, is run for a number of years with the second phase being executed when the economic climate and finances allow.The second phase is designed to dovetail in with the first phase proposals. The phase1 first floor lounge would be fitted out as four new bedroom suites and an additional two suites would be constructed also at First Floor level. A small lounge relating to this additional accommodation would also be constructed at First Floor level together with ancillary support facilities and vertical circulation. The Ground Floor would be extended providing additional lounge dining room accommodation, toilet facilities and further vertical circulation.In addition to the above, with the fall of the land running away from, the existing Ground Floor levels, a basement area will be constructed providing new laundry, plant room and storage facilities and again vertical circulation provision.Along side this extension Phase 2 would also include the fit out of the existing West Wing with stair accommodation as previously approved under Application Ref. I 999/26731PThe full phase land 2 scheme closely follows the lines of the approved scheme under your reference as RR/I 999/2673/P dated 28-04-2000. The outline of this Approval building is indicated on the elevation and plan drawings.”The agent has provided a ‘design statement’ attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 4 November 2004.

CONSULTATIONSHighways Agency: Any comments will be reported.Highway Authority: Any comments will be reported.Southern Water: Any comments will be reported.Environment Agency: Any comments will be reported.Sussex Police Any comments will be reported.National Care Standards: Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice: Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY The material circumstances surrounding this site have remained virtually unchanged since the approval of RR/1999/2673/P. Whilst it is accepted that the principle of the proposed development is accepted, I have some concerns about the east elevation fenestration, in relation to overlooking of the garden area of the adjoining bungalow no. 149 Barnhorn Road. I will await the comments of the Highways Agency and other consultees, however if no adverse comments are received, and with appropriate controlling conditions, it is my opinion that the site can accommodate the proposed development without detrimental impact on neighbouring amenities.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (NO ADVERSE COMMENTS FROM THE HIGHWAY AGENCY/ OTHER CONSULTEES, AND EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)1. The windows on the east elevation of the extension hereby approved shaded

blue on the attached drawing shall be glazed with obscure glass in accordance with a sample of glass to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The windows shall thereafter remain glazed with obscure glass in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To prevent overlooking and loss of privacy to adjacent residential garden area. 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)

41

2 Before the new extension is brought into use on site car parking shall be provided and laid out as shown on the approved drawing No. SK17 and shall be permanently retained thereafter.

3. The window design to the bedrooms on the east elevation shall be given on the approved drawing no. SK20 and SK21 and shall not be altered without planning permission.Reason: RC11.

4. CN8B (Surface water details) - Possible.5. The existing hedge on the eastern boundary shall be retained and maintained at

a height of not less than 3m or as otherwise may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and in the event of the hedge becoming seriously damaged, diseased or dying, it shall be replaced with a hedge of such size and species as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, within six months of such damage to the hedge or the first signs of any disease, or the hedge being removed as a result of such, or other such time period as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

6. CN13C (Tree retention)7. No development shall commence until full details of the improvements to sight

lines and visibility splays as indicated on drawing no….. and details of re-surfacing of the site vehicular entrance have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development including the 27 car parking spaces on drawing no. …..shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings/details before the approved extension is first used or occupied.Reason: In the interests of highway safety. (possible).

8. The roof of the new extension shall be clad with forticrete Gemini interlocking tiles or as otherwise may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and no development shall take place until full details of the colour of tile to be used has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: RC3.

9. The new facing brick shall match in colour and texture those of the existing building.Reason: RC3.

10. Before any development takes place, detailed plans for the planting of trees on the east side of this site shall be submitted to and be subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority, the planting shall be carried out at the time of development or at such later date as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and in any event within 6 months from the completion of the development. Any trees removed, becoming severely damaged or diseased, or which die within 5 years of planting shall be replaced by trees of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.Reason: To improve and maintain the characteristics of the locality and to prevent overlooking and loss of privacy to adjacent residential garden area 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)

11. The works comprised in drawings SK20 and SK21 of the development hereby approved shall not be commenced before the works comprised in SK18 and SK19 are completed. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory development of the site.

12. No development shall take place until full details of an appropriate screen along the east side of the new balconies and the east side walk way both as shown on the approved ground and first floor plan on the approved drawing SK20 and the

42

new screens shall be in place in accordance with the approved details before the new extension is used or occupied. Reason: To prevent overlooking and loss of privacy to the adjacent residential garden area 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).

RFG: 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/2004/650/P BECKLEY SIX ACRES, STODDARDS LANE08 MAR 2004 ERECTION OF DOG KENNELS

Mr and Mrs B Baker

This application was considered at your August meeting when it was resolved that a decision be deferred for an acoustic consultant’s report and further comments from the Head of Environmental Health. 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 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.

43

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.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

44

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 -“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

45

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. The views of the Head of Environmental Health are awaited together with an amended plan reversing the orientation of the kennel block and runs in line with the recommendation of the acoustic report.

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

RR/2004/2632/P BECKLEY GREAT KNELLE FARM10 SEP 2004 REVISED SCHEME FOR CHANGE OF USE OF GREAT BARN

TO PROVIDE SIX BED SITTING ROOM UNITS WITH RECEPTION/RECREATIONAL/DINING FACILITIES. CONVERSION OF SINGLE STOREY EAST WING TO THREE STAFF UNITS OR SELF CATERING ACCOMMODATION AND SINGLE STOREY WEST SING TO EDUCATIONAL/RECREATIONAL FACILITIESFarm World

RR/2004/2716/L BECKLEY GREAT KNELLE FARM10 SEP 2004 REVISED SCHEME FOR CHANGE OF USE OF GREAT BARN

TO PROVIDE SIX BED SITTING ROOM UNITS WITH RECEPTION/RECREATIONAL/DINING FACILITIES. CONVERSION OF SINGLE STOREY EAST WING TO THREE STAFF UNITS OR SELF CATERING ACCOMMODATION AND SINGLE STOREY WEST SING TO EDUCATIONAL/RECREATIONAL FACILITIESFarm World

SITE Great Knelle Farm is a 200 ha holding located on the north side of Whitbread Lane (A268) about 1.5 Km to the north of Beckley village. In addition to the normal

46

farming activities it operates as a tourist farm, incorporating dairy, hop farm, fishing, farm trail, teas and local crafts. The applications relate to the ‘Great Barn’ and the attached two storey outbuildings which are traditional farm buildings standing in the farmyard complex just to the north of the 18th century listed farmhouse.

HISTORYRR/86/0396 C/U of agricultural land to tourist farm with dairy/hop

farm/fishing/farm trail/teas/local crafts/toilets - Approved.RR/87/2513 O/A 5 holiday units and new playhouse - Delegated for Approval -

Not Determined.RR/89/1898/P C/U of existing barn to puppet theatre - Approved.RR/91/1692/P C/U of barn to ecology interpretation centre and farm shop - to be

determined.RR/91/1236/P Erection of 5 holiday units (barn style) - Approved (with Section

105 Agreement).RR/98/156/P Renewal of planning permission RR/91/1236/P for erection of five

holidays units (barn style) - Approved.RR/98/799/P Change of use of shop, tearooms and theatre to private dwellings,

the blacksmiths shop to a holiday let, the great barn to an amenity building and adjacent modern building to an arena - Approved.

RR/98/801/L Conversion of shop and tearoom to private dwellings, the blacksmiths shop to a holiday let and the great barn to an amenity building - Approved.

RR/1999/2923/P Variation of condition 4 imposed on RR/98/799/P to allow use of building (Unit 5) for bed and breakfast in addition to the prevailing conditions - Approved.

PROPOSAL Consent is sought for the change of use of the ‘Great Barn’ to provide six bed sitting room units with reception/recreational/dining facilities. Conversion of single storey east wing to three staff units or self catering accommodation and single storey west wing to education/recreational facilities. Planning permission was granted in March 1999 for the conversion of the Great Barn to an amenity building in connection with the ‘Farm World’ tourist farm activities (ref: RR/98/799/P). In a letter accompanying the present applications the agent states:-“… This scheme is for the same general change of use for the conversion, but takes fully into account the changes of the circumstances and the current needs for this building within the present and the intended for my client’s future operation of Farm World.In consequence the layout has been varied to meet these modified requirements, the reasons for which have been summarised as follows:-(i) The number of visitors have dwindled since foot and mouth closed the farm, both

as working stock farm and also a visitors centre. Visitor numbers this season have been appalling and rarely covering the cost of staff, let alone overheads. This is due in some part to the adverse weather and also the location. When the weather is favourable, there is a tendency for families to go to the beach at no cost to themselves and if wet they seek an inside venue. This is borne out by the South East Tourist Board’s findings that overall visitor numbers are down between 10 and 20% this year and cheap flights abroad do not help.

(ii) Following a business link farm assessment after the foot and mouth disaster, the advice obtained has been taken and the Farm has moved into farm holiday accommodation, converting Blacksmiths to a cottage, The Old Tea Room to Carter’s Lodge and Unit 5 into bed and breakfast accommodation with adjoining

47

tea rooms. These have all been fully booked during the season and three extra local staff are now employed. Enquiries are being received for additional accommodation and especially catering for larger numbers of between 12 to 16.These visitors enjoy the facilities of Farm World and take part in the daily programme of animal husbandry and horse management, which swells the pathetic number of day visitors.

(iii) Thus this scheme is designed as a natural progression to extend this diversification to suit the new needs of the Farm. It is proposed to invite horse riders to come for overnight or weekly stays at The Great Barn. Together with day equestrian visitors, they can ride off-road between the two neighbouring farms and my client’s site, providing an extended 20 mile circuit. This is in line with the DEFRA policy of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme, of which my clients are members. It also accords with the East Sussex County Council’s policy of encouraging trails for horse riding off roads. Furthermore, it accords with their sponsorship to promote inter-regional visits and exchange trips from their link with Picardy, both necessitating suitable accommodation.

(iv) As members of the CSSS, Farm World is accredited as a farm for Educational Access. This is a new Government Scheme to encourage and pay for school visits to recognised farms with the right facilities. These are all provided at Farm World, including the indoor arena with wash hand basins and comply with risk assessment and the requisite insurance to enable schools to visit without charge. East Sussex has some very deprived areas financially and schools find the trips and hire of coaches too expensive. Thus the children who need to learn that food does not originate at Superstores would not have the opportunity for a visit to a real hands-on farm until the Government Scheme is introduced in 2004/5. The conversion of the western side wing with full educational and recreational facilities is therefore a very important part of this exciting new project.

(v) The eastern wing conversion would be used either for self-catering equestrian riders, or accommodation for staff. Both grooms and domestic staff need purpose built, small, easily managed units and these would be flexible to attract staff, rather than mobile homes. At least three grooms and two to three domestic staff would be employed.

(vi) John Evans of Business Link East Sussex is happy to endorse this scheme and so also is Malcom Rowe of SEEDA. Ron Parren, the local Councillor and also a member of the Planning Committee also supports this variation.

(vii) These changes do not show any marked departure from the planning permission previously granted. In addition to complying with the Recovery Plan of Business Link, they conform to DEFRA’s policies for opening up the countryside for the greater enjoyment of the public. Equally significantly they conform with Planning Policies in the promotion of Tourism and employment creating opportunities.

You will therefore observe that these revised proposals are based on sound logistical needs to create the facilities as outlined and with the full support of the appropriate Authorities.Thus the accommodation in the main Barn has been adapted from the layout of the previous approval to provide six bed sitting room units with en-suite bathrooms (two on the ground floor, which could accommodate disabled guests) and with the reception, recreational and dining facilities to support this accommodation and other visitors.The south elevation shows only minor amendments to that of the former consent, but it has been essential to introduce limited natural lighting and ventilation to the upper storey on the northern side at the cat-slide roof of the thatch. This will also enable

48

guests to witness the superb views across the countryside from this level and in this direction, which are more lacking on the south.It is appreciated that this submission will necessitate a further variation of the Section 106 Agreement, but my clients sincerely trust that your Council will give their full support and encouragement to this exciting project. My clients are most anxious to implement these proposals at the earliest possible date and thus should there be any queries or discussion that is warranted in order to establish consent, please do not hesitate to contact me.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support a refusal for the reasons that “This is a departure from the original proposal for commercial/educational use and has a marked effect on the external appearance by virtue of additional windows.”Highway Authority:- “Does not object to this proposal in principle however details of the proposed parking arrangements have not been shown on the submitted plans.Therefore an amended plan is sought showing the parking provision for each unit and additional staff.If your committee is minded to approve this application as submitted the Highway Authority wishes to be reconsulted to secure the necessary visibility splays.”Environment Agency:- “… has no objection to the proposal provided that the conditions within this letter are imposed on any planning permission granted:Biodiversitv:The Agency would not wish to see any waterbodies at this site impacted by any permitted development. Pollution prevention advice is available from our Biodiversity team if required.Contamination:The previous agricultural use of these buildings may have left contamination that could impact on the proposed development. The Agency recommends that, prior to determination, a desktop study is carried out which shall include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information.If the desktop study identifies that contamination may be a problem then the Agency recommends that development is permitted subject to suitable conditions being imposed relating to site investigation, risk assessment and remediation Method Statement. The design of the site investigation and the remediation Method Statements should be approved in writing by the LP A before being carried out.Any visibly contaminated or odorous material encountered on the site during the development work, must be investigated. The Planning Authority must be informed immediately of the nature and degree of contamination present.* No soakaways shall be constructed in contaminated land.Foul Water Disposal:The DETR Circular 03/99 in respect of the Use of Non-Mains Sewerage states that, where possible, sewerage should always be discharged to the public sewer.If it is demonstrated to the LPA that connection to the sewer is not feasible then a package treatment plant should be installed. If taking into account cost and/or practicability neither of the above methods of sewerage disposal are considered feasible then a septic tank system should be considered in preference to a cesspool.We ask that the advice within Circular 3/99 is followed with regard to the foul drainage from the proposal.DECISION NOTICE:Please forward a copy of the full decision notice to this office, quoting our reference

49

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.Director of Services - Environment:- “Please attach the following contaminated land condition to any permission:-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 The ‘Great Barn’ is one of the traditional farm buildings in the now diversified farm complex at Great Knelle and stands about 100m north of the listed 18 th

century farmhouse. Approval was granted in March 1999 for the conversion of the Great Barn into an amenity building as part of a comprehensive scheme for various changes of use of buildings in the farm complex as part of the Farm World tourist farm operation (ref: RR/98/799/P and RR/98/801/L). This scheme showed the subdivision of the barn with video theatre, shop, restaurant, kitchen, freezer room, schoolroom and toilets on the ground floor and ecology/exhibits/demonstration room, schoolroom/picnic area and stock room at first floor level. The two outbuildings were shown as providing a seated area and a small animal and pets corner.

50

This part of the proposal was not implemented and the ‘Great Barn’ is currently being used for the storage of straw bales.The current applications now relate to the conversion of the ‘Great Barn’ to 6 bed sitting room units with en-suite bathrooms (2 on the ground floor suitable for disabled units) and with associated reception, recreational and dining facilities to support this accommodation and other visitors. Only minor changes are shown to the south elevation from the original consent but ‘limited’ natural lighting and ventilation has been introduced to the upper storey on the northern side at the catslide roof of the thatch.The single storey east wing is shown as two bed sitting/kitchen/bathroom units and a double staff unit. The west wing is shown as providing games room, video room, lecture room, bar/kitchen and toilet accommodation.These are traditional farm buildings in the now diversified farm complex at Great Knelle and consent has been granted for their conversion for usage in connection with the tourist farm activities. From the historic building viewpoint however my advice is that the new scheme proposes a substantial number of deviations from that previously approved that renders it completely unacceptable. The new use for the barn (i.e. residential linked in part to a commercial function) necessitates a far higher degree of internal sub-division of space and compartmentalisation which severely disrupts the internal spatial arrangement of the Great Barn. Overall I am unconvinced by the scale and nature of the accommodation proposed (there is no substantial business plan submitted nor evidence of economic viability) and the physical repercussions of the accommodation proposed create alterations to the barn which I consider would unacceptably disrupt and damage the architectural and historic interest, form and character of the barn.

RECOMMENDATIONS: RR/2004/2632/P: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. RN8K Amended ‘The proposed development would be out of character with the

curtilage listed building or its setting …. its setting.2. Policy S10 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011

indicates that in the countryside conversions and/or changes of use of existing buildings for employment recreation, tourist accommodation and facilities, and institutional uses will be supported provided:-i) their form bulk and general design are in keeping with their surroundings;

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

surroundings.It is considered that the development does not accord with this policy in that the general design is not in keeping with the surroundings and it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the use is appropriate in terms of scale, type and impact on its surroundings.

RR/2004/2716/L: REFUSE (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)1. RN8K Amended ‘The proposed development would be out of character with the

curtilage listed building or its setting …. its setting.

51

RR/2004/2718/P BECKLEY COURT LODGE COTTAGE - LAND AT, MAIN 13 SEP 2004 STREET

OUTLINE: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING COTTAGE AND OUTBUILDING. ERECTION OF THREE DWELLINGS SERVED VIA NEW ACCESS ROADMr P Southcott

SITE This land is on the south side of Main Street, Beckley opposite the Methodist Chapel and adjacent to the site of the former butchers shop which has recently been redeveloped by a pair of semi-detached two storey dwellings (ref: RR/2003/122/P). The land is currently occupied by a detached two storey dwelling, Court Lodge Cottage, immediately to the rear of the new houses and a number of associated agricultural type outbuildings. To the west is a detached listed dwelling house, Court Lodge, and to the north-east the garden of another detached listed dwelling, Combe House. The site is within the Beckley Development Boundary and is in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORY (Relevant)A/62/229 O/A dwelling house - Approved.RR/88/0901 Extension to butchers shop to form 2 storey residential

accommodation with garage - Approved.RR/89/0260/P Dwelling house with integral garage and vehicular access and one

off street parking space - Approved.RR/2003/3107 O/A demolition of existing cottage and outbuilding. Erection of 5

cottage style starter homes served via new access road - Refused - Appeal Dismissed.

PROPOSAL Outline consent is sought for the demolition of the existing cottage and outbuilding and the erection of three dwellings served via new access road. In a supporting letter they state: “We submit this application following refusal of RR/2003/3107/P and following the decision by the Planning Inspectorate. We believe that within this application we have addressed the reasons for refusal and have positioned the buildings away from the preserved trees. We would also expect that at full planning stage the foundations to be designed to accommodate any tree roots found within the site.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support a refusal for the following reasons: “Too close to stream and preservation on trees. Concern entrance too close to school and could be very dangerous.”Highway Authority:- “…does not wish to restrict grant of Consent subject to the observations below:-Places Streets and Movement published in September 1998 recommends appropriate visibility splays for an access serving this type of development dependent on traffic speeds on the major road. In this instance the recommended visibility splays are 2.4m x 120m in each direction. The major road distance of 120m measured to the nearside kerb line, the sight line should also follow tangentially along the nearside kerb line of the major road. The visibility splays should be formed of grass or hard surface and allow unobstructed visibility at a height of 600mm above carriageway level and should be indicated on the submitted plans.The Highway Authority wishes for the proposed access road to have a minimum width of 4.5m wide for at least the first 10 metres and for a vehicle crossing to be provided at

52

the junction of the new access road and the B2088 (Main Street) giving priority to pedestrians. The vehicle crossing should have a minimum width of 6.5m and a kerb up-stand of 30mm in accordance with the recommendations in Section 4.3.4 and Figure 19 of the East Sussex County Council Manual for Estate Roads (MFER).The maximum number of on-site car parking spaces that this development attracts is 7 in accordance with the East Sussex County Council’s adopted standards. In addition each residential dwelling unit without a garage or shed should be provided with a minimum of 1 long-term cycle parking space.The Highway Authority wishes to be reconsulted on this application following the applicant’s response to the above comments.”Environment Agency:- “…The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposal provided that the condition/s within this letter are imposed on any planning permission granted:Watercourses -Any watercourse within the boundary of the site would be classified as an ordinary watercourse and would not be maintained by the Agency or by an Internal Drainage Board. In the absence of any express agreement to the contrary, maintenance is the responsibility of the riparian owners. Any culvert, diversion, weir dam, or like obstruction to the flow of the watercourse requires the consent of the Agency and/or Internal Drainage Board, under the Land Drainage Act 1991. For nature conservation reasons, the Agency seeks to avoid culverting and will not normally consent such works except for access.Surface Water Disposal -Condition: 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 an oil separator designed and constructed to have a capacity and details compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the separator. Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.Condition: 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.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.”Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY This site lies on the south side of Main Street adjacent to the recently built pair of 2 storey semi-detached cottage style ‘starter’ homes recently built on the site of the former butchers shop (ref: RR/2003/122/P). Planning permission for the redevelopment of the site with a small terrace of 3 dwellings (behind the new semi-detached houses) and a semi-detached pair of dwellings (to the east of the new semi-detached houses) served by a new access road was refused in December 2003 (ref: RR/2003/3107/P) and the appeal which followed was dismissed.The Inspector concluded that:-

“7. The appeal site is located on the south side of Main Street, within the village of Beckley. Beckley is a linear village, which is characterised by informal building lines, varied sized gaps between buildings and a variety of types and styles of

53

buildings. A good number of buildings are set in mature landscaped grounds and there are views between buildings of the open countryside. In addition the mature trees and shrubs around the boundaries of individual sites, including the appeal site, make a significant contribution to the "green" rural character of the street scene. Although the appeal site is currently in a neglected state, it respects and makes a positive contribution to the semi-rural, "green" character and appearance of this part of the village.

8. The village is essentially linear in character however, there is already a dwelling on the site and I noted that on the opposite side of the road there is a dwelling sited partially to the rear of a row of bungalows which front onto Main Street. In addition the site is clearly within the built up area of the village and there are a number of local community facilities within a short distance of the site, including a village school and village shop. As such I consider that, in principle, the site is suitable for residential redevelopment, provided any proposal could be satisfactorily assimilated into its surroundings and would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining and nearby properties.

9. I appreciate that the application is in outline form only, with siting and design being reserved matters. However, the plans submitted with the application illustrate the amount of space likely to be required to accommodate 5 houses and associated parking and access on the site. In particular very little room would be available for soft planting and landscaping both between the proposed buildings and the adjoining properties. The proposed dwellings and parking spaces would likely front almost directly onto the access drive and any dwellings and parking spaces on the eastern half of the site would be sited very close to the mature boundary trees.

10. Whilst the application form states that no trees will be felled, given the constraints of the site and the siting and nature of the trees within and around the site, I consider that it is highly likely that trees will be either felled, lopped or topped. In my opinion this would detract from the semi-rural character of the street scene. In addition, I consider that the intensive nature of the proposed development would be exacerbated by the close proximity of the recently constructed houses adjoining the appeal site. When combined the 2 developments would have an overbearing and urbanising impact on the setting of Court Lodge and to a lesser extent Combe House, which the occupier of Court Lodge has indicated are Grade II listed buildings.

11. For these reasons I consider that the proposal would appear over-intensive and cramped and would seriously harm the character and appearance of the street scene, the setting of the adjoining dwellings and the surrounding area.

12. I fully acknowledge the need to make effective use of existing developed land and to encourage higher density developments and the provision of small homes for local people. However, this has to be balanced with the need to respect and where possible enhance the character of an area and to ensure that developments do not compromise the quality of the environment. For these reasons I conclude that the serious harm that would be caused by the proposed scheme would outweigh the benefits of providing 5 small houses on the site. The proposal would be totally out of keeping with and would seriously harm the character and appearance of the area and the AONB, contrary to Structure Plan policies S1, EN2 and EN3 and emerging Local Plan policy GD1…”

The current proposal now shows a new 4m wide access road on the east side of the 2 newly built semi-detached houses serving 2 detached houses at the rear of the site (one 3 bed and one 4 bed) and a new detached 2 bed house on the frontage land.

54

The site is within the Beckley development boundary and the character of the street is semi rural with a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties with gardens and frontages of varied size. Some of the properties are closely grouped but the village generally takes a linear form with development along the road frontage rather than in depth. The development is less dense than that previously refused but it remains my view that this form of development in depth would harm the character and appearance of the area and the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and would in my view be detrimental to the amenities of adjacent dwellings.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING)1. Whilst the site is within a development boundary as defined in the Rother District

Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) it is considered that the proposal conflicts with Policy GD1 of the Plan in that the scale form and character of the development would not be compatible with the adjacent surrounding area. In particular the development would detract from the character and appearance of the locality and would be out of keeping with and unreasonably harm the amenities of adjoining properties.

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 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.

3. The proposed development, if permitted would be likely to encourage similar proposals in the vicinity and would be contrary to Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

RR/2004/2887/P BECKLEY HOP BARN FARM - THE BARN AND CATTLE 27 SEP 2004 SHED, PEASMARSH ROAD

CHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION TO FORM DWELLINGMr M D Sturmer

This application has been added to your site inspection list for 2 November 2004.

SITE The proposal relates to the existing Hop Barn farm complex which stands some 90m off the east side of A268 on the southern outskirts of Four Oaks. The buildings the subject of the application comprise the main brick barn and an associated brick cattle shed dating from the late 18th or early 19th century which are separated by a modern concrete portal framed covered cattle yard. On the north and east sides of the main brick barn are existing pole barns and just to the north is a modern steel framed barn. A brick and tile chalet bungalow stands just to the north west.The site is outside the Four Oaks development boundary and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYNone

PROPOSAL Approval is sought for the change of use of the brick and tile barn and cattle shed to a two bedroom dwelling. The concrete portal framed cattle shed between these buildings and the existing pole barns are to be demolished and a three bay detached garage is proposed on the site of the steel framed barn to the north. A structural survey report accompanies the application.

55

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support a refusal for the following reasons. “This is outside the village plan. There has been no application to change to domestic from agricultural. This should be solely for agricultural use and tied to the land.”Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- “Thank you for your letter dated 28th September 2004. The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposal provided that the conditions within this letter are imposed on any planning permission granted:The previous use of this building may have left contamination that could impact on the proposed development. The Agency recommends that, prior to determination, a desktop study is carried out which shall include the identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information.If the desktop study identifies that contamination may be a problem then the Agency recommends that development is permitted subject to suitable conditions being imposed relating to site investigation, risk assessment and remediation Method Statement. The design of the site investigation and the remediation Method Statements should be approved in writing by the LP A before being carried out.Any visibly contaminated or odorous material encountered on the site during the development work, must be investigated. The Planning Authority must be informed immediately of the nature and degree of contamination present.*No soakaways shall be constructed in contaminated land. .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.”Chief Building Control Officer:- Has no adverse comments in respect of structural matters.Community Services Officer:- Is not aware of any drainage problems and due to its rural location does not foresee any problem with surface water disposal by soakaways.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY The proposal relates to a small farm complex on the southern outskirts of Four Oaks outside the Four Oaks development boundary The scheme is to convert the two older brick and tile buildings (the main barn and cattle shed) to a two bedroom dwelling and to construct a detached garage just to the north. The existing range of modern buildings are to be demolished.The buildings are clearly visible from the Peasmarsh Road to the south and are good examples of early brick farm buildings. Removal of the more modern building will further enhance their value as a landscape feature and on this basis it is my view that the development would accord with Policy S10(c) of the County Structure Plan. At the same time I have asked the agent to demonstrate that every attempt has first been made to secure employment or tourism re-use in line with Policy HG11 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). I am awaiting this information.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FOR FURTHER INFORMATION)

56

RR/2004/1163/P NORTHIAM COMMONS WOOD FARM, HASTINGS ROAD27 APR 2004 REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNIT WITH A

NEW DWELLINGMrs A Lee

Members inspected this site before the July meeting. At the meeting in August, authority was delegated to me to grant conditional planning permission subject to receipt of satisfactory amended plans. Negotiations with the applicant have been lengthy. However, the final amended plans are not considered acceptable and the application is referred back for your further consideration. I previously reported to your August meeting as follows:

“SITE Commons Wood Farm complex is located across fields off the west side of the A28 about 1.5km to the south of Northiam village. The mobile homes the subject of this application are linked together and sited just to the northeast of the farmhouse. A Certificate of Lawful Use as one residential unit was granted in October last year (RR/2003/1912/O). This was supported by documentary evidence that they had been let and occupied by various persons before and since 1987. They are currently occupied.

HISTORYRR/2003/1912/O Lawful use of 2 mobile homes as 1 residential unit - LDC

Approved.

PROPOSAL As currently submitted it is proposed to replace the two mobile homes on the same site by a single storey timber clad dwelling. This would have three bedrooms within a chalet style pitched roof covered with slates to match the timber clad farmhouse.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support an approval.Legal Services Manager:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- 1 letter of objection - “I see that the application is not for the erection of an agricultural dwelling. I was under the impression that there were to be no new dwellings of a non agricultural nature in an area of outstanding natural beauty. Can you please confirm that this would still be the opinion of the Planning Department - would the dwelling have an agricultural tie on it as it is within the curtilage of the farmhouse, private residential use or holiday let?”5 supporting letters have been received, two of which are from the applicants and one from the agent. These were circulated at the June meeting.Other representations: CPRE - “The development is outside the settlement policy area and the development boundary. It is in an area of outstanding natural beauty. In accordance with planning guidelines any proposal should replace like-for-like and this appears not to be the case.”

SUMMARY Members will recall my verbal advice at the last meeting that, having regard to the present state of the law and the information before us, that the existing arrangement of two mobile homes and linking structure constitute a building. As such, the proposal could therefore be legitimately regarded as an application for a replacement dwelling in the countryside against Policy HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). This states:-

57

“Policy HG10 Proposals for new dwellings in the countryside will be refused unless it:-

(i) is for the replacement of an existing dwelling on a one for one basis, … the replacement dwelling being within the same curtilage and of a comparable size; exceptionally, a somewhat larger dwelling may be acceptable where it would be more in keeping with the character of the locality in terms of its siting, design and materials;”

Negotiations with the Applicant are expected to result in amended plans being received for a dwelling with a lower roof height than the “Finlodge” originally proposed. That would have been considerably larger than the existing “building”. The design would also have been out of character with the locality. In order to be supported, I would expect the dwelling to have a similar floor area to the 71m2 of the existing building. However, a pitched roof would be more in keeping with the locality than the roofs of the existing linked mobile homes. An increase in floorspace resulting from use of the roofspace would therefore, in principle, appear acceptable. Provided satisfactory amended plans are received I would expect to support the proposal.”

Copy letters dated 15 October 2004 and 22 October 2004 and photographs received from the applicant are contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this meeting 4 November 2004. The final amended plans (extracts also appended in the APPENDIX DOCUMENT and date stamped 25 October 2004) are not significantly different and would result in a building, the design of which would not, in my opinion, represent a “one for one” replacement of the existing residential unit that sufficiently accords with Policy HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).However, in view of the fact that the materials proposed would now match the existing farmhouse (weatherboard and slate), it would be reasonable to give the applicants a final opportunity to improve the design. Unless satisfactory amended plans are received therefore, I would make the following

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (UNLESS SATISFACTORY AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED)1. The site lies in 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 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.

2. The proposed dwelling would, if permitted, result in a dwelling the design of which would be out of keeping with the character of the locality. This would be contrary to Policy HG10(i) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). It would also be contrary to Policy HG4(iv) of the Plan, which indicates that all new housing development should demonstrate a respect for vernacular building designs, styles and traditional forms of construction.

N1A (Amended Plan 25/10/04).

58

RR/2004/2560/L NORTHIAM THE WILDERNESS, MAIN STREET27 AUG 2004 DEMOLITION OF PART AND REDUCTION IN HEIGHT OF

STONE BOUNDARY WALLWestridge Surveying Services

SITE The proposal relates to land on the east side of Main Street at its junction with Rye Road which is currently being developed by the erection of 4 detached dwellings (ref. RR/2004/286/P). The land is adjoined by listed buildings (The Grove and Grove Cottage on its north side and The Wilderness on its south side) and the stone front boundary wall to The Wilderness continues across part of the frontage of the development site. It is this part of the boundary wall which is the subject or the current application. The site currently being developed is within the Northiam Development Boundary and the boundary of the Conservation Area and together with the adjacent listed properties was formerly owned by Frewen College centred at Brickwall opposite. The Wilderness continues to operate as part of the school complex.

HISTORYRR/88/0484 O/A Two storey building to provide two staff flats - Approved.RR/92/2041/P Erection of two flats as staff accommodation for Frewen College -

Approved.RR/2002/2960/P O/A re-development of land to accommodate a terrace of three

bedroom dwelling houses and alteration to access - Approved.RR/2004/286/P Erection of four detached dwellings with integral garages and

alteration to existing vehicular access - Approved.

PROPOSAL Consent is sought for the demolition of 6m of the stone boundary wall and the reduction in height to 800mm of a further 6m of the wall to comply with the requirements of the Highway Authority. In a supporting letter the agent states “…We wish to point out that removal of 12 metres of the wall was included within planning permission RR/2004/286/P and that demolition took place in good faith as implementation of that permission. The removal was included in order to address the ESCC Highways requirement for improved visibility from the site access. Six metres of the wall has now been removed but our clients would be willing to reinstate 3m of the wall up to a height of 750mm along with reduction in height of the further 6m as proposed. We trust this proposal is an acceptable compromise and hope to receive a favourable decision.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support a refusal and comment that “The Parish Council are emphatically opposed to these RETROSPECTIVE proposals the approval of which would set a precedent in the village. There is already a precedent for reinstatement of a listed wall. The removal and reduction in height will not result in a safe access on this busy corner and the Council feel strongly that the developers should be made to reinstate the wall and to move the access to share that which was created when they developed the Grove and Old Grove cottages.”Highway Authority:- “The Highway Authority accepts the removal of only 3 metres of the wall provided that the 9m section of lowered wall is no taller than 800mm and therefore does not interfere with the secured visibility splay.”They recommend appropriate conditions to be attached to any consent.English Heritage:- “… We have considered the application and do not wish to make any representations on this occasion. We recommend that this case should be

59

determined in accordance with government guidance, development plan policies and with the benefit of conservation advice locally.If there are specific reasons for seeking the advice of English Heritage on this application that were not stated in the notification to us, we would be grateful if you could explain your request. We can then let you know if we are able to help on this occasion and agree a timetable with you.In the event of material changes to the plans and drawings before the application is determined, please let us know so that we can consider the need for any further advice.When you refer this application to the Government Office, it will help to save time if you attach a copy of this letter to the notification (including the enclosed list of the documentation) and confirm that the proposals have not changed.”The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings:- “…Unfortunately, we have not received sufficient information to enable us to respond usefully. No reasons and justification for the alterations to the wall have been provided, although we appreciate that the Highways department may require widening of the access to the new dwellings. A photograph would be helpful, but due weight must be attached to the wall’s conservation, if it is of interest.”Planning Notice:- Written representations have been received from the Northiam Conservation Society to the effect generally that: they wrote on this matter in June and were dismayed that partial demolition commenced on the 12 July 2004 - they were advised that a listed building application should be made and surely now a retrospective application would now be applicable - wall forms an integral part of the local landscape and removal should not be permitted - The Wilderness is a listed building as are the nearby entrance gateway and gates at Brickwall - consider the developer should be made to reinstate the length of wall removed and no reduction should be permitted to the height of the remaining wall which if permitted would seriously detract from the visual appearance of this important village feature.

SUMMARY This land is within the development boundary and the Conservation Area at the southern end of Northiam village. Outline consent was granted for the development of the land between The Wilderness and The Grove and Grove Cottage with a two storey building to provide 2 staff flats with garages/spaces was granted in May 1998 (Ref. RR/88/0484). Subsequently a fully detailed proposal for two staff flats was granted in January 1993 (Ref. RR/92/2041/P) and parking and turning space for the new building and the adjacent properties was shown in front. More recently outline consent was granted for the redevelopment of this land with a terrace of 3 three bedroom dwelling houses and alteration to the access (Ref. RR/2002/2960/P).Subsequently however four detached dwellings with integral garages and alteration to the existing vehicular access was approved in May this year (Ref. RR/2004/286/P) following the Committee’s inspection of the site. Work is now well underway on this scheme, which included the demolition of 12m of the front boundary wall and removal of the edge to satisfy the highway requirements. The applicants have removed a six metre section of the boundary wall to allow access for construction traffic but have indicated they would be willing to reinstate 3m of the wall up to a height of 750mm along with reduction in height of the further 6m as proposed. English Heritage have raised no objection to this work and I can see no objection from the listed building viewpoint.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)1. Within 2 months of the date of this consent details of the finished section

boundary wall shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The wall shall be completed in accordance with the approved details

60

before the new dwellings are first occupied and shall be so maintained thereafter.Reason: To accord with the provisions of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. CN10A (Highway Authority highway conditions).

RFG: 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/2004/2875/O NORTHIAM DIAL COTTAGE - LAND TO REAR OF28 SEP 2004 LAWFUL USE OF LAND AS RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGE

Mr J C and Mrs J H Beckley

RR/2004/2877/O NORTHIAM WISHING TREE COTTAGE - LAND TO REAR28 SEP 2004 OF, MILL CORNER

LAWFUL USE OF LAND AS RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGEMr W J Waldie

SITE These proposals relate to a narrow strip of land behind the established gardens of Dial Cottage and Wishing Tree Cottage in the settlement of Mill Corner to the south of Northiam village. The land is stated to have been used as informal garden for more than 30 years and copies of Statutory Declarations from and on behalf of the applicants have been appended to the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 4 November 2004. To the rear of the site is open agricultural land.

HISTORYNone relevant.

PROPOSAL These proposals both seek lawful development certificates for the use of a narrow strip of land at the rear of their properties as additional residential curtilage.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- RR/2004/2875/O - Support an approval.

RR/2004/2877/O - Support an approval.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY These applications follow an investigation by the Enforcement Officer and relate to the use of a narrow strip of land behind Dial Cottage and Wishing Tree Cottage, Mill Corner. Statutory Declarations accompanying the proposal relate to its use as garden for more than 30 years but my legal advice is that there does not appear to be adequate evidence of residential curtilage use. The essence of any Lawful Development Application is that operational development or a material change of use has taken place and the Council could have taken enforcement action to stop it throughout the relevant period. That period has expired without enforcement action having been taken. It is not sufficient to say that the land has not been used for agriculture and that some non-indigenous plants are growing there, and the 1994 photographs do not in my view show anything in respect of which the Council could have taken enforcement action. Against this background I would not support the issue of lawful development certificates in either case.

RECOMMENDATIONS:61

RR/2004/2875/O: REFUSE (CERTIFICATE OF LAWFUL USE) for the following reason:1. It has not been demonstrated that a material change of use of the land began

more than 10 years before the date of this application and has continued for more than 10 years immediately preceding the date of this application.

RR/2004/2877/O: REFUSE (CERTIFICATE OF LAWFUL USE) for the following reason:1. It has not been demonstrated that a material change of use of the land began

more than 10 years before the date of this application and has continued for more than 10 years immediately preceding the date of this application.

RR/2003/3217/P BODIAM NORTHLANDS FARM07 OCT 2004 RENEWAL OF RR/2002/360/P TO RETAIN WOODEN

STRUCTURE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSESMrs Carr and Mrs S McCormick

Planning permission has recently been refused for the erection of a timber dwelling at Northlands Farm following the consideration of retrospective application RR/2003/3218/P at the 9 September 2004 meeting of the Planning Committee. The application now before you relates to the other timber dwelling on the site (previously referred to as unit B). The site was last inspected by the Planning Committee on 19 April 2004.

SITE This existing Arabian Stud Farm is located to the north of the Bodiam - Hurst Green road (C19) east of crossroads at the Curlew Inn and is reached via a single track access road. There is a large stable complex on the site (RR/90/1415/P). Two mobile homes have been granted temporary planning permission (expiring 31 January 2004) following the allowed planning appeal in respect of RR/1999/1729/P. These have now been replaced by timber dwellings (Units A and B). The site area extends to over 30 hectares of pasture and woodland.

HISTORYRR/90/1415/P Erection of stabling complex and change of use of existing building

and 49.8 acres from agriculture to equestrian use – Approved.RR/92/1290/P Retention of 3 mobile homes on site for use by groom and other

staff in connection with the Silverdale Arabian Stud – Refused. Appeal – Allowed in part. The Inspector allowed the retention of one mobile home on a temporary 2 year basis.

RR/94/0299/P Outdoor manège for riding and exercising horses – Approved.RR/95/822/P Erection of hay/straw storage building – Approved.RR/1999/1729/P Continued use of land for the stationing of two mobile homes for

residential accommodation in connection with the management of stud farm – Refused – Appeal Allowed.

RR/1999/1730/P Change of use of an additional 12.9 hectares of agricultural land to equestrian use as a stud farm, and the erection of an associated dwelling for occupation by the stud manager – Withdrawn.

RR/2001/334/P Change of use of land from agriculture to equestrian – Approved.

62

RR/2001/2686/P Continued use for horse transportation business (retrospective application) – outstanding application, also being reported to 11 April 2002 meeting.

RR/2002/360/P Siting of temporary wooden dwelling retrospective – Approved.RR/2003/3218/P Replacement of caravan (allowed on Appeal) with permanent

timber dwelling (retrospective application) - Refused.

PROPOSAL The application is retrospective and follows enforcement investigations. On 25 January 2001 an appeal was allowed for the retention of two mobile homes on the site to be occupied by persons solely or mainly working at the Silverdale Arabian Stud (RR/1999/1729/P). This planning permission was made temporary, and expired on 31 January 2004.For identification purposes I will refer to the mobile home that is the subject of the current planning application as B, and the other mobile home as A.Before the temporary permission expired, mobile home B was replaced by a wooden dwelling without planning permission in 2001. A retrospective planning application (RR/2002/360/P) was granted on the basis that it was demonstrated that the dwelling had been specifically built so as to be mobile and therefore was a temporary structure that could easily be dismantled and accordingly, it did not significantly differ from the mobile home, it replaced. A temporary permission until 31 January 2004 was given so as to tie-in with the appeal inspector’s original decision. This application is for the retention of the wooden dwelling. The applicant has indicated on site that a further temporary permission is being sought and I have asked that it be confirmed in writing if that is the case. Mobile home A has also been replaced by a timber dwelling (of different size, design and construction to unit B). That timber dwelling was recently refused planning permission on the grounds of inappropriate design/external appearance within the AONB. There are presently no extant planning permissions for dwellings/mobile homes on the site.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- No objection.Rural Estates Surveyor:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- A letter of objection has been received from the occupier of Northlands Manor House on the grounds - The applicants have included part of my land in their application (blue land) Should be made to resubmit the application with corrected land area Photographs submitted with the application do not relate to the house in question

but are photographs of the other house which was refused under RR/2003/3218/P

Date on the photograph states 9/9/03 and shows the house is incomplete but the house being applied for was completed two years earlier

In one photograph the house is shown next to a mobile home and is made to look much smaller than it actually is

Object to the application on the grounds that once again false information has been supplied with this application.

SUMMARY The site is within the countryside (AONB) where new residential development is not normally allowed unless it is demonstrated to be necessary for an enterprise which must be in a countryside location. Planning permission was allowed on appeal for two residential units on the site under reference RR/1999/1729/P on the grounds that they were reasonably necessary for the equestrian enterprise. The

63

planning permission was for temporary structures for a temporary three year period. This was in order that the continued financial viability of the enterprise could be re-assessed at a later date before any decision is made on the provision of permanent residential accommodation. The financial viability of the enterprise has recently been re-assessed in the context of application RR/2003/3218/P together with a ‘functional test’ designed to assess whether the effective on site management needs of the enterprise require the continuous on site presence of the owner or staff living on site. The Rural Estates Surveyor was able to confirm that as a result of this assessment there continues to be a need for two units of residential accommodation on the site. In the light of this it is considered that the principle of two dwellings on the site has been established. The question now arises as to the form this accommodation should take. A retrospective application for the permanent retention of the other wooden dwelling (unit A) was recently refused on the grounds of inappropriate design/external appearance within the AONB (RR/2003/3218/P). With respect to the application now before you, it is not clear whether the applicants are applying for a further renewal of temporary permission or a permanent permission. One of the applicants has informally indicated on site that a temporary permission is being sought and I have asked for confirmation of this in writing together with a statement setting out their future intentions for the site. Government planning advice in PPS7 Annexe A para 13 states - “Authorities should not normally grant successive extensions to a temporary permission over a period of more than three years, nor should they normally give temporary permissions in locations where they would not permit a permanent dwelling.” Irrespective of whether a temporary permission is being sought, the legal advice I have received indicates that the question Members need to address is would you wish to grant a permanent permission for the dwelling that has been erected. If yes, than you can grant planning permission on a temporary basis if that is what the applicants are applying for. If no, then you should not grant planning permission at all. Whilst the design and external appearance is not quite as removed from the AONB rural vernacular as the other timber dwelling (unit A) the subject of RR/2003/3218/P, it does not reflect the tradition of vernacular design of dwellings in the AONB that contribute to the special character of the landscape.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (NEGOTIATIONS ON AN AMENDED SCHEME FOR A NEW DWELLING ON THE SITE THAT CONTRIBUTES TO THE CHARACTER OF THE AONB LANDSCAPE)1. Government advice in PPS7 states that Local Planning Authorities should not

normally grant successive extensions to a temporary permission over a period of more than three years. A three year temporary permission has previously been given and whilst the need in principle for a dwelling is acknowledged, the form of dwelling that has been constructed is not of the type that the Local Planning Authority would wish to see permanently erected in the countryside. The design and external appearance of the dwelling is out of keeping with the character of the rural area and does not favour conservation of the natural beauty of the rural landscape. 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 in PPS7 indicate that new development will be carefully controlled to protect the character of the area. The development is contrary to the aforementioned policies and also Policy HG4 of the Local Plan which indicates that all new housing development should demonstrate a respect for vernacular building designs, styles, traditional forms of construction and materials.

64

RR/2004/2747/P SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE ASHRIDGE - LAND 15 SEP 2004 ADJACENT TO, GEORGE HILL, ROBERTSBRIDGE

OUTLINE: ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING HOUSE WITH PROVISION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESSMr G Wells

This application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 7 October 2004. It was resolved that authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to grant planning permission subject to conditions and to the expiry of the statutory consultation period. Two further letters of objection from local residents have been received within the statutory consultation period and these are now reported for your consideration.

SITE The proposed plot forms the end of the rear garden of Ashridge – a relatively recently constructed dwelling with an access onto George Hill (RR/96/1412/P and RR/98/2482/P). The plot has a frontage of some 8 metres to Willow Bank, the estate road. This widens to some 16 metres further back from the road frontage. The average depth is about 25 metres. There is a 2 metre high close boarded fence to the Willow Bank frontage and the plot sits between two semi-detached houses (nos 27 and 28 Willow Bank). The ground levels rise from Willow Bank towards the back of the plot.

HISTORY (Relevant)The following applications include the current application site but relate to a larger site area and the erection of the dwelling known as Ashridge:RR/96/1412/P Outline: proposed detached house - ApprovedRR/98/2482/P Erection of detached dwelling pursuant to outline permission

RR/96/1412/P - Approved and Implemented

The following applications relate specifically to the current application site:RR/95/20/P Detached house and garage – ApprovedRR/96/1415/P Outline: proposed detached house – Refused.RR/2004/1334/P Outline: Erection of one dwelling house with provision of new

vehicular access - Refused.

PROPOSAL The application is in outline only and is a revised submission following the refusal of RR/2004/1334/P. That application was refused for the reason (briefly) that it had not been demonstrated that the proposed dwelling could be satisfactorily accommodated on the site without resulting in a form of development that would dominate neighbouring dwellings and also have a ‘cramped’ appearance in the street scene. Illustrative plans and drawing submitted with the new outline application indicate a proposed two storey detached dwelling (7.5m x 8.3m) in brick and weatherboarding with a plain tile roof.One on-site parking space is indicated within the frontage. A garden ash tree would be removed.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: No objections.Highway Authority:- No comments received.Environment Agency:- No objection.Southern Water Services:- Do not wish to comment.Planning Notice:- 4 letters/emails of objection have been received. Two of these (from the occupiers of 24 and 28 Willowbank) were reported to the 7 October 2004 meeting of the Planning Committee and raised the following concerns:-

65

- Development would appear ‘squeezed in’.- Located on a dangerous bend.- Inadequate car parking provision.- Already parking problems in the area.- More vehicles will increase risk of accidents.- My house is next door to the development and will be adversely affected by

overlooking and loss of privacy, and also loss of sunlight.- May result in damage to underground main line sewage and water pipes under

the site. - Any exaction of the ground levels would leave the banks at the side of our

property exposed to erosionTwo further objections have been received within the statutory consultation period (15 and 22 Willowbank) and are now reported for your consideration. Grounds of objection are:-

Existing concerns regarding lack of parking Proposal is to “wedge” a new house; giving access on a blind corner onto the

lower part of a small garden Another worry is that the plans show the use of existing drains. Last year after

heavy rain the existing drainage system in the area of the proposed new dwelling was inadequate, which resulted in overflowing drains and raw sewage being washed down into the close.

(See website for full text of letters).

SUMMARY This application was considered at Planning Committee on 7 October 2004 and was delegated to the Head of Planning to issue the decision subject to no objections being received during the remainder of the consultation period. Two further letters of objection were received after the Planning Committee meeting and these are now reported for the attention of Members. Whilst the comments have been noted, it is not considered that the matters raised are as such as to materially affect the decision to grant planning permission made at the last Planning Committee meeting.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING) 1. The detailed application shall provide information on site ground levels and shall

demonstrate that the finished floor level of the dwelling and the ridge height would result in a dwelling that is in keeping with the street scene and does not dominate neighbouring dwellings.

N1B Originally submitted plan and amended plan dated 24 September 2004.

RFG: 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).

66

RR/2004/2530/P SALEHURST HIGH STREET – LAND TO REAR OF, 16 AUG 2004 ROBERTSBRIDGE

ERECTION OF GARAGE, FORMATION OF HARDSURFACING AND USE OF LAND FOR PARKING/STORAGE OF CARS AND HORSE TRAILER (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION) AND PROPOSED ERECTION OF TWO STABLESMr & Mrs Julian Palfrey

SITE The application relates to land to the north of the former Weeks Bakery site (now re-developed for housing, and known as Bakery Place), and to the south of the Darwell Stream. The applicants occupy ‘Dolphins’ in the High Street. The application site is separate from, but close to, the residential curtilage with the house. It is served by a vehicular access track from Station Road that cross the Darwell Stream via a small bridge.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/84/1901 Formation of vehicular access to roadway off Station Road and

construct driveway and bridge to existing road - Approved.RR/97/1085/P Erection of 2 timber stables and storage room – Approved – not

implemented.

PROPOSAL The application is partly retrospective (erection of garage, formation of hard surfacing and use of land for parking/storage of cars and horse trailer), and follows enforcement investigations. It also, however, includes the proposed erection of a stable block (3.05 m x 8.53 m).

CONSULTEESParish Council:- “No objections to the open barn type building or stables. However, we are concerned about the effect of hard standing on the flood plain, so would wish to see a suitable porous surface, approved by the Environment Agency, used”.Environment Agency:- Comments awaited.Director of Services – Environmental Health:- No objection. Conditions are requested in respect of (i) provision of a manure bay and (ii) no burning of soiled bedding/manure.Planning Notice:- Letters of objection have been received from the occupiers of 2 Bakery Place, which backs on to the application site and particularly, the garage. One letter dated 1st October 2004 is reproduced in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT to this Committee 4th November 2004. Grounds of objection are as follows:-

No objection to stables, but not on the site shown in the application. This would be clearly visible from our rear bedroom windows.

We had always believed that the land was ‘orchard garden’. The site of the stables is too close to our boundary, and the development is likely

to result in nuisance from flies and odour. The existing (garage) building is also too close to our boundary. Should be

moved back to a more acceptable distance, and the land between, planted with trees etc. to screen it from our property.

No hay should be stored in the building, or close to our boundary as this is a fire hazard.

Land is within a Conservation Area, and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Concerned that the land is becoming a scrap yard for aging vehicles.

67

Horse box clearly visible from our property remained parked there for six months.

This aging box trailer was oppressive and an eyesore. Environmental impact of the hardstanding in the manner it has hitherto been

used is detrimental to our property. Applicant refers to a ‘hedge’ along the boundary with our property; this was

removed by the Environment Agency when the flood defence works were carried out.

Steel cladding is not 8ft high, but 6ft – at least on our side of the boundary. Site plan does not show our property. We have endured sleepless nights due to one of the applicants’ vehicles

suffering a fault with the alarm system. Applicants’ dwelling is some distance away, and so it is difficult for her to

maintain any control or supervision over land. When hay was stored in the building, we noticed it was smouldering, and as a

precaution, asked the Fire Service to attend. Applicant is already using one of the bays in the garage as a stable, and a pony

is now being stabled there on a regular basis. Circumstances have changed since previous consent was granted.

SUMMARY In considering this planning application, it is relevant to examine the planning history of the land. Although the land is physically separate from ‘Dolphins’, it has been used for a number of years for purposes incidental to the occupation of that dwelling house. The 1984 planning permission (RR/84/1901) allowed access to the land for the applicants’ vehicles, and the site plan with that application also showed a garage building on the site of the new garage, the subject of this current application. A garage building is also shown on previous application RR/97/1085/P. It is therefore evident that the land has been used (at least in part) for the parking of the applicants’ vehicles for some time, and moreover, a garage building has similarly existed (in one form or another) on the site of the present garage building. An issue for consideration is the letter of objection from the occupiers of No. 2 Bakery Place (contained in the APPENDIX DOCUMENT). This detached dwelling was built on the adjacent bakery site in 1998 following the granting of planning permission RR/97/828/P and backs on to the application site. The nature of the objection is the impact on residential amenity and any assessment of this, needs to take into account the established use of the application land. In this respect it is material that the new garage is a replacement of a building that previously existed on the site. It was built by contractors for the Environment Agency, when the previous garage was removed to facilitate the recent flood defence work. Whilst the replacement garage may not replicate the former, in terms of precise details of design, size and siting, no material change in circumstances has occurred that could justify a refusal of planning permission.Regarding the proposed stables, it is also a material planning consideration that planning permission has previously been granted for a stable block, although this was not implemented (RR/97.1085/P). The proposed stable block contained in the current application would be approximately the same size as that put forward in the previous application, and in the same position. Although the three dwellings in Bakery Close were not built at the time the previous stables application was approved, planning permission had been granted for the dwellings and their future presence was taken into consideration and reported to Members when a decision was made. The Director of Services – Environmental Health has been consulted on the application, and does not wish to object.

68

Finally, I note that a hedge/planting that formally existed on the applicants’ land alongside the fence boundary with No. 2 Bakery Close has been removed. This was also carried out by Environment Agency contractors during the course of the flood defence works. In the event that Members are minded to grant planning permission, it is considered that a condition requiring replacement planting would be necessary, as this would both provide some screening for the occupiers of No. 2 Bakery Place, and also prevent vehicles/trailers from parking up-against the fence. Finally, the site is located within a flood plain, and in this respect, the comments of the Environmental Agency are awaited.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (COMMENTS FROM ENVIRONMENT AGENCY)1. The garage building hereby approved shall only be used for the parking of

vehicles belonging to the owner of the land and/or domestic/garden storage.2. A detailed scheme from the planting of a hedgerow along the boundary with

No. 2 Bakery Place to the west of the garage shall be submitted for the consideration and approval of the Local Planning Authority. The planting shall be carried out in full within 3 months from the date of this permission, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees/shrubs which within 5 years from the date of the permission die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

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

4. Before the stable building is brought into use, details of a manure bay, to be provided at least 31 metres from any residential building on adjacent landshall be submitted for the consideration, and approval of the Local Planning Authority. The bay shall be provided before the development is first brought into use.

5. There shall be no burning of manure or soiled bedding on the land.6. Details of the colour, type and make of roofing tile to be used in the stable

development shall be submitted for the consideration, and approval of the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out using the approved materials.

RFG: 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/2004/2695/P SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE 1 BLENHEIM COURT, 7 SEPT 2004 CHESTNUT COTTAGE, GEORGE HILL

RETENTION OF REAR EXTENSION FAIR FACEDBLOCKWALL FACING NEIGHBOURS WALL IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITION 2 IMPOSED UPON PLANNING PERMISSION RR/2003/3499/PMr & Mrs J F Stevens

This application was considered by the Planning Committee at the meeting on 7th October 2004 when it was resolved that a decision be deferred. I had previously written to the applicant’s agent indicating that the retention of the fair-faced block-work wall could not be supported and in the circumstances, the applicant’s may wish to have the

69

opportunity to amend the application by putting forward any alternative remedial measures that may be considered feasible to screen the wall. The application was deferred to await a response to this letter. This is still outstanding at the time of writing, however, I hope to have received a response in time for your meeting.

SITE The application relates to a recently extended semi-detached dwelling fronting the western side of George Hill, and comprising part of the relatively modern Blenheim Court cul-de-sac development.The Committee inspected this site in October 2003 in connection with RR/2003/2489/P.

HISTORYRR/2003/1714/P Erection of single storey extension at front and two-storey

extension at rear of dwelling – Approved.RR/2003/2489/P Erection of two-storey extension at front of property – Approved.RR/2003/3499/P Revised proposal for single storey extension at front and two

storey extension at rear of dwelling – Approved.

PROPOSAL Two-storey extensions have been added to the front and rear of this semi-detached dwelling. The application now before you relates to the two-storey rear extension approved under RR/2003/3499/P. At the point where this extension meets the neighbouring property (No. 2 Blenheim Court), there is a tall narrow gap – in the form of a recess some 200mm wide, 1500 deep, and two stores high, culminating in an area of flat roof. The planning enforcement section received a complaint from the occupiers of the neighbouring property that the outside wall of the extension contained with this recess has been constructed in fair-faced blockwork (breeze block), and as such is in breach of the condition on the planning permission that requires all external materials to match the facing brickwork of the existing dwelling.The application now before you is for the retention of the fair-faced blockwork wall as constructed.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Letters of objection have been received from the occupier of the neighbouring dwelling (Mr & Mrs Johnson), one of which, dated 12th September 2004, has been sent to Members of the Planning committee as well as the Parish Council. A copy of this letter was contained within the separate appendix document to the last Committee 7th October 2004. The objection is principally made on the grounds of visual amenity, indicating that the blockwork is unsightly, and whilst hidden from the view of the neighbours who had the extension built, it is very prominent from their rear garden. The letter continues to list other concerns (outside the scope of this application) with respect to matters such as weathering, surface water run-off, the condition of the pointing on the brick wall, builders’ rubble left in the recess, broken fencing and fumes from the gas fire.

SUMMARY The reason for imposing the matching external materials condition on RR/2003/3499/P was to ensure the appearance of the extension would be acceptable in terms of the general visual amenities of the area. The area of wall in question, occupies a recess between the two dwellings. Whilst this is out of the view of the applicants, it is prominent from the rear garden of the neighbouring property.Moreover, its appearance is not acceptable, and in this respect, it is considered that it impacts upon the residential amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring property. In the event that Members are minded to refuse the application to retain the blockwork, it

70

will be necessary to deal with this matter as a subsequent enforcement agenda item with a view towards serving a breach of condition notice. The occupiers of the neighbouring property accept that the complete reconstruction of the wall in question would be a major undertaking, and whilst this may be the preferred option, have indicated in their letter the possibility of remedial measures being investigated such as some form of fascia to hide the blockwork. They emphasise, however, that they would wish this to be visually acceptable, and also function satisfactorily in terms of providing ventilation within the recess, as well as being weather tight. I have put this to the Agent acting for the applicant, and if any compromise solution is forthcoming, I would hope to report this to your meeting. On the basis of the submitted application, however, I would make the

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The matching external materials condition imposed upon planning permission

RR/2003/3499/P, was to ensure that the appearance of the extension would be acceptable in terms of the visual amenities of the area. The fair-faced blockwork wall that has been erected, does not match the external brickwork of the dwellings, and is in breach of the condition. The resultant impact of the wall is to present the appearance of a rough, unfinished elevation to the occupiers of the neighbouring property, which is visually unacceptable and detrimental to their residential amenity. The development is contrary to Policy S1 (b) and (f) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and Policy GD1 (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2004/2865/P WESTFIELD GOTWAYS FARM, KENT STREET09 JUL 2004 CHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION OF BARN AND

STABLES TO A SINGLE DWELLING WITH OFFICE AND DOUBLE GARAGE/WORKSHOP WITH FORMATION OF A NEW VEHICULAR ACCESSSedlescombe Golf Club Management Ltd

SITE This unlisted thatched barn is located on the southwest side of Kent Street approx. 300m northwest of the entrance to the Sedlescombe Golf Club. It is one of a group of buildings and formerly part of Gotways Farm.

HISTORYRR/2004/1697/P Change of Use and conversion of barn to a single dwelling with formation of a new vehicular access - Refused.

PROPOSAL It is proposed to convert the barn into a three bedroom dwelling. This would be achieved by converting the single storey brick and tiled lean-to that wraps around the barn’s south and east sides into two bedrooms and a kitchen. The main black weatherboard clad barn would be used as a living/dining room, the interior of which would remain open to the roof except for a first floor level gallery bedroom at the northern end. All existing openings would be reused with replacement windows and doors constructed of oak. An external stainless steel flue would be attached to the northern end and be terminated with a chinamans hat just above ridge height. It is also proposed to convert the adjoining stable block into a Class B1 office (35 sq.m.) and double garage/workshop. This would have half render/weatherboard elevations as existing. However, the corrugated tin roof would be replaced with natural slates. A vehicle hardstanding area would be formed between the two buildings with access onto

71

the unmade single vehicle width track at the rear. The ‘Structural Assessment Report’ accompanying the application relates only to the barn and concludes “The general stability and effectiveness of the structure remains acceptable.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Recommend approval.Highways Agency:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Comments awaited.

SUMMARY An almost identical application to this for conversion of the barn to a single dwelling was refused in August this year for the reason that it had not been demonstrated that residential re-use of the building was the only means of retaining it and that every attempt had been made to secure suitable employment or tourism re-use. It was also refused because a brick chimney proposed to be attached to the northern end of the barn was considered out of keeping with its agricultural character. The details of conversion of the barn are, except for the chimney, the same as previously proposed and are sympathetic to its character and appearance. However, the stainless steel flue now proposed would be very conspicuous and is also unacceptable for the same reason as the brick chimney previously proposed.More fundamental, and not so easily overcome by amendment, is that the current additional proposal to convert the adjoining stable block to provide a B1 office, does not address the main reason for the previous refusal. The applicant has still not demonstrated that the proposed dwelling would be essential for the running of an enterprise that must be in a countryside location or that every attempt has been made to secure suitable employment or tourism re-use of the barn. The application is therefore not supported.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (COMMENTS FROM OUTSTANDING CONSULTEES)1. The site is in countryside outside any town or village as defined in the Rother

District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). Policies S1, S10 and S11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 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 Plans. The proposed dwelling does not meet any of these exceptions and is therefore considered contrary to these Policies. In addition, it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that residential re-use of the barn is the only means of retaining it and that every attempt has been made to secure suitable employment or tourism re-use. For this reason the proposed development would also be contrary to Policy S10(C)(iii) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy HG11(i) and (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

2. Although the barn is not a listed building, the Local Planning Authority are nonetheless of the opinion that the building has historic importance. The proposed stainless steel flue would, if permitted, constitute an incongruous feature out of keeping with the agricultural character of the existing building. For this reason the development would be contrary to Policy S1(m) 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).

3. The Structural Assessment Report submitted with the application does not 72

demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the stable block can be converted without major or complete reconstruction. For this reason, the proposal would be contrary to Policy EM3 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2004/2377/P WESTFIELD 35 BALDSLOW DOWN, TANGLEWOOD12 AUG 2004 ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND REAR

EXTENSION TO EXISTING TWO STOREY HOUSEMr Dave Betti

This application was deferred at the last meeting to allow the submission of amended plans showing the proposed extension to form the study not extending beyond the line of the existing rear wall of the dwelling. Members inspected the site before the meeting.

SITE This detached house is located on the east side of Baldslow Down and towards its lower northern end. Floor and garden levels of adjoining properties follow the natural slope and are therefore higher to the south and lower to the north. The property falls outside the High Weald AONB.

HISTORYNone.

PROPOSAL The following is a description of the proposal as originally submitted:-“The proposed single storey extension would wrap around the whole of the north side and rear elevations. On the north side it would be 3.15m wide and be constructed to within 1m of the boundary. At the rear it would be 3.3m deep and extend to the limit of the existing raised patio. The roof would be hipped and tiled to match the existing house”.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support the proposal subject to no overlooking of neighbours, matching materials and for the planning authority to be satisfied that the development is not too close to the boundary.Planning Notice:- 6 letters of objection - overlooking of our back garden leading to lack of privacy; new development extends to within a metre of our side boundary and far beyond our building line; object to the dominating corner section of this proposed building; side windows will look directly into our bedrooms and conservatory; loss of privacy; loss of light to lounge, conservatory and patio; garden will be overlooked; are concerned about ground stability from such extensive foundations; precedent for over-extending similar properties in road; would be totally overlooked if a raised patio is built; would object to removal of mature trees and damage to wildlife; too large and out of place.

SUMMARY I previously reported as follows:-“It is my opinion that the proposed extension would have an adverse impact upon the amenities of the property adjoining the north side. This would result form the depth of the extension and its overbearing height close to the boundary. Overlooking would also result from proposed windows. I have therefore invited the applicants to consider the submission of an amended plan. However, as submitted, the application is not

73

supported”.

Amended plans showing the extension at the side cut back in line with the rear elevation of the existing dwelling have now been received. I have sent copies to the immediate adjoining owner inviting any comments in time for the meeting. As amended, the application is now supported.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7C (Matching external materials).2. CN 5D Insert “The windows and door in the north elevation ….”. (Obscure glaze windows).3. CN5E (a) Amended “no windows except as shown on the approved plans shall be inserted into the north side of the extensions”. (Restriction of alterations/additions).N1A (Amended plans).

RR/2004/1463/P WESTFIELD DOLEHAM LANE – LAND OFF25 MAY 2004 INSTALLATION OF 15M PHASE 1.5 MONOPOLE WITH

THREE ANTENNAS, TWO 300MM DISHES AND RADIO EQUIPMENT HOUSINGVodafone Limited

SITE The site is located 130m to the south of the A28 adjacent to an established tree line running along the southern boundary of a green field. The surrounding land is farmland and the nearest dwelling lies approximately 200m to the south west. The site falls within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYNone.

PROPOSAL The proposed mast itself would comprise a 15m high monopole on top of which would be mounted 2 antennas, giving a total height of approximately 17.5m. A third antenna would be affixed to the side of the monopole at a height of 9m. The pole and the antennas would be painted “Beaver Brown”. The mast and a single equipment cabinet would be enclosed within a 4.5m x 4.4m x 1.25m timber post and rail stock proof fence at ground level. The equipment cabinet would be “Holly” green in colour. The following details have been extracted from the supplementary information submitted with the application:-“Visual appearanceThe development consists of a 15 metre monopole supporting 3 antennas. This is a slim-line structure, which will blend in well with the surrounding mature trees. It is proposed that the pole and antennas should be painted Beaver Brown, in order to further reduce visual impact, thus when the site is taken into context with the surrounding telegraph poles, the development will not have a detrimental effect on the skyline.An antenna height of 15 metres is required in order to provide sufficient coverage. Due to the height of the existing tree line, the majority of the mast structure will be well screened.The design has been specifically tailored to suit the character of the land, and to have the most negligible impact on the site’s natural beauty. The mast is minimal in height and has been located as close to an existing mature tree line as practicable. The area

74

generally has limited tree coverage, and there are no existing masts which may be used to site the antennas, hence the site location against mature trees and equidistant from two existing telegraph pole structures uses existing land form to best minimise any visual impact.The site will not be significantly seen from the A28. This is because between the A28 and the site lies a mature trees hedgerow, which provides an adequate level of screening between the road and the installation. Travelling along the A28, the tree screening will prevent direct views of the proposed pole. The filtered glimpses of the site will be reduced further by virtue of the materials proposed.In addition, it is proposed to utilise one cabinet, which will not be seen from any public viewpoint. Whilst no landscaping has been deemed necessary, a natural timber compound fence has been considered appropriate. The use of natural materials, and colouring accords with the Government’s advice.Due to the favourable siting of this proposal away from residential and educational establishments and the additional benefit of major screening, this site is considered the best option within the area”.A Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP public exposure guidelines has been submitted with the application.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- If the need is proven, including confirmation that it is impossible to share sites with other operators, the Council would not object. If need is unproven would recommend refusal.Planning Notice:- Objection received from ‘Bysetters’, Cottage lane, include:- need in this position not demonstrated; should not be allowed until locality has been checked for Great Crested Newts; health risks; Vodafone has not shown that they have investigated shared sites with other operators; new mast does not provide additional coverage beyond that which is available from the other mobile operators; network rail mast further up Doleham Lane not considered; results of independent Great Crested Newts survey by Sussex Wildlife Trust not published; mast within 500m of such a habitat will require a full survey without which it might be illegal to build.

SUMMARY In view of its slimline structure, colour and location where it would not be visible from any public view point, I am satisfied that its visual impact upon the landscape and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty would be acceptable. Representations from the closest resident allege that the applicants have not satisfactorily demonstrated a need, or that other operator sites/masts could not be shared. The applicant’s consideration of whether or not, there are Great Crested Newts in the vicinity has also been challenged. I have drawn these challenges to the attention of the applicant’s. A detailed rebuttal is contained in a letter dated 15th September 2004 from, Waldon Telecom, a copy of which is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this meeting on 4th November 2004. I am satisfied that the applicant’s have demonstrated a need for a mast in the area, and that the site chosen represents a reasonable balance between the operational requirements of the applicant’s and landscape impact. No hard evidence of the existence of Great Crested Newts has been supplied. Furthermore, it is my opinion that the specific area in question is an unlikely habitat, and no evidence was found at the site inspection. It is my opinion, therefore, that in this case, a condition drawing the applicant’s attention to the fact that any permission does not authorize any interference with such protected species, would suffice.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)75

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.

2. This planning permission does not authorise any interference with animals, birds, marine life, plants, fauna and habitats in contravention of the requirements of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and other legislation. Further advice on the requirements of this Act is available from English Nature, Sussex and Surrey Team, Phoenix House, 32-33 North Street, Lewes, East Sussex, BN7 2PH.Reason: To accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

Note: The applicant is advised that this is likely to be the only Personal Communications Network Base Station permitted in this area and that in accordance with Government Advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8, the Local Planning Authority will expect the mast to be available for sharing with other code system operators should the need arise.

RFG: 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/2004/2356/P ICKLESHAM ROBIN HOOD PUBLIC HOUSE - LAND NEXT 29 SEP 2004 TO, MAIN ROAD

OUTLINE: ERECTION OF 3 BUNGALOWS (DISABLED), 2 BUNGALOWS (LOW COST), 4 HOUSES, 2 HOUSES (LOW COST), SHOP WITH POST OFFICE AND LIVING ACCOMMODATION, DOCTORS SURGERY, FORMATION OF NEW ACCESSES, ROADS, FOOTPATHS, PELICAN CROSSING AND EXTEND LAY-BYRobin Hood Public House

SITE This application relates to two separate parts of the field lying to the west and south of the Robin Hood (PH). One part would have a 114m long (approx) frontage to Main Road (A259) and be 55m (approx) deep. The other would have a 120m (approx) frontage to Watermill Lane and be 50m (approx) deep. The two parcels of land would be linked by an access road. The land is outside the boundary of Icklesham Village as defined in the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) and falls within the High Weald AONB.

HISTORYRR/2002/1955/P O/A Erection of 40 (Low Cost) dwellings with parking spaces,

construction of new road and vehicular access - Refused (Appeal dismissed).

PROPOSAL Outline planning permission is being sought for the following:-Land fronting Main Road:Erection of:- 3 disabled bungalows

2 low cost bungalows76

Shop with Post Office and living accommodationDoctors’ surgery

Land fronting Watermill Lane:Erection of:- 4 private houses

2 low cost houses

The plans appear to indicate two new accesses onto Main Road, an estate road that links the two separate parcels of land, an 18m long extension of the lay-by and provision of a pelican crossing over the A259. The application is more fully described in a supporting statement, a copy of which is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 4 November 2004.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Highways Agency:- Recommends refusal due to insufficient visibility and presence of the lay-by. Furthermore, the proposed pelican crossing would need to be subject to a safety audit along with the access.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- Comments awaited.Southern Water:- Comments awaited.East Sussex County Council - Strategic Planning:- Comments awaited.Director of Services - Housing:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Comments awaited.

SUMMARY A previous application to develop part of this field with 40 low cost dwellings was refused planning permission under RR/2002/1955/P and dismissed on appeal. In his decision letter, the Inspector upheld the Council’s reasons for refusal stating that:-“7. In my opinion, without specific evidence relating to local need and details relating

to future tenure and management, the principle of a scheme for 40 low cost dwellings outside the defined development boundary is not justified …..

9. In my opinion the site is physically separated from the main built up area of Icklesham by Main Road and is separated from the scattered buildings along the south side of the road by open fields. The construction of 40 dwellings and associated access and parking on this prominent, open site would appear incongruous and intrusive in this attractive open landscape. It would be totally out of keeping with and would seriously harm the character and appearance of the area and the AONB..…”

As with the previous application, this proposal is speculative and is not the result of any pre-application discussions with this Authority. Members will be familiar with Structure and Local Plan Policies which preclude applications such as this from favourable consideration unless there are exceptional circumstances. For instance, planning permission may exceptionally be granted for affordable housing within or adjoining rural settlements subject to certain criteria, which includes: it will meet a proven specific local need that cannot be met in a nearby town or village; the proposal should not be intrusive in the landscape and is in scale and in keeping with the form and character of the settlement and surrounding development; appropriate arrangements have been made to ensure that the dwellings will remain available in the long term as local affordable housing and no market accommodation is included in the scheme. At the time of writing this report I have not received all the necessary consultation responses. However, there would appear to be no evidence of any involvement with

77

the Local Authority or a provider of social housing proving a specific local need for affordable housing that cannot be met in the locality. Furthermore, the development would be scattered within open and visually prominent landscape unrelated to any surrounding development. It would also include 4 private houses. Finally, there is also no evidence of any involvement with any other providers of community facilities (e.g. Doctors’ surgery, convenience store/post office) and the proposal does not meet the several criteria of Policy CF1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) for the provision of such facilities outside development boundaries. It is my opinion that the proposal is unlikely to meet the exceptions criteria for the provision of affordable housing and I do not therefore expect to support the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING) DELEGATED (FOR RECEIPT OF COMMENTS FROM OUTSTANDING CONSULTEES)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, S10 and H5 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and DS3, DS4 and HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) contain a strong presumption against residential development in the countryside unless it meets one of the exceptions described in the plans. None of these apply and the development is contrary to these policies.

2. In exceptional circumstances, planning permission may be granted for residential development outside development boundaries in order to meet a local housing need among those people unable to compete in the normal housing market. Proposals for development will be considered in the context of several criteria. The proposal does not meet those criteria, and therefore the development conflicts with Policies HG2 and HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

3. The proposed shop with post office and doctors’ surgery would be contrary to Policies S1 and S10 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies DS3 and DS4 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). They would also not meet the additional criteria for permitting such facilities outside development boundaries contained in Policy CF1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

4. 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, Policy GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) and Government Advice contained in PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas 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.

5. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, in conjunction with the Highways Agency, that visibility at the proposed access point/s onto the A259 Trunk Road would be adequate to serve the development proposed. Furthermore, the proposed access/s and pelican crossing would need to be subject to a safety audit before they could be properly considered. For these reasons the proposal would be contrary to Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

78

RR/2004/2780/P ICKESHAM THE WILLOWS, SEA ROAD27 SEP 2004 OUTLINE: ERECTION OF TWO SEMI-DETACHED HOUSES

WITH FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS. RESITING OF DWELLING APPROVED UNDER RR/2003/731/PMr M Bull

SITE The irregular shaped site is situated on the south side of Sea Road, some 90m east of the Junction with the A259 and has open countryside to the west. The site lies within the development boundary for Winchelsea Beach.

HISTORYRR/2001/115/P Outline: Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and

erection of two dwellings and second vehicle access - WithdrawnRR/2001/538/P Outline: Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuilding and

erection of a new dwelling and detached double garage – Approved conditional

RR/2003/731/P Erection of chalet style bungalow with detached garage repositioned – Approved conditional

PROPOSAL The application seeks outline permission for the erection of two semi-detached houses, with formation of new vehicular access and the re-siting of dwelling approved under RR/2003/731/P.  CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Note revised proposal. Support an approval.Highway Authority – Any comments will be reported.Environment Agency – Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice – 1 letter of objection, concerned with the following; Over development of land. Outside the building line of neighbouring properties. More details required about the alterations to the approved dwelling and garage. Overlooking. The site has already been cleared, and a large number of trees have been

removed, we ask that no more trees be removed to maintain privacy. On plans submitted Raymond is not shown correctly it is further back in line with

Sea Way. Drainage system is old and inadequate, and flooding already occurs. Extra two

properties will only add to the existing problems.1 letter from the ‘Winchelsea Beach Community Association’ concerned with the following:“It has been drawn to the attention of the Community Association that the above planning application is part of a multi development, and we have been asked to mention the District Plan for this area, in which it was agreed that the redevelopment of existing sites should be on the basis of one for one. This has been the Council’s policy in recent times, the majority of the residents are very happy about this arrangement. We do agree that on large plots you may allow two properties to be built especially where there is good access and adequate sewage facilities. The Environment Agency have informed us that the sewage system in this area of the Sea Road is part of the older system, which is already overloaded.Whilst agreeing there may be a need for more housing in the area it would be greatly appreciated by the residents if the existing plots were not over developed.”

79

SUMMARY The site is located within the development boundary for Winchelsea Beach as defined within the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). The new pair of semi-detached dwellings, are proposed closer to the road frontage than those of the existing dwellings, and would therefore be out of keeping with the character of the locality. The appearance of the access driveway and proposed layout, gives the appearance of a small close, which again is out of keeping with the ribbon development. Furthermore, the proposal introduces new dwellings into a flood risk area, the Environment Agency’s comments are however awaited on this aspect. The re-siting of the dwelling and garage approved under RR/2003/731/P, proposes to locate the dwelling further from the boundary with ‘Raymond’, however, it could potentially introduce more windows that look into their property, therefore having an adverse impact on their privacy. For the above reasons I am unable to support this proposal.  RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING) DELEGATED (RECEIPT OF ENVIRONMENT AGENCY COMMENTS)1. Whilst the site lies within an existing village, it is considered that the proposed

conflicts with S8 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 in that it would be out of character with existing development in the vicinity.

2. Whilst the site is within a development boundary as defined in the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003), it is considered the proposal conflicts with Policy GD1(4), by virtue of its position within the site.

3. (Possible Environment Agency reason).  RR/2004/2832/P ETCHINGHAM SHORTRIDGE FARM, SHEEPSTREET LANE11 OCT 2004 CHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION OF COURTYARD

BARN TO PROVIDE HOLIDAY LETTING UNITS WITH AN UPGRADED ACCESS ROAD ALTERATION TO EXISTING ACCESSMrs F J Farrington

SITE Shortridge Farm is an agricultural holding of approximately 20 hectares to the east and south of Shoyswell Manor, Sheepstreet Lane. There is an agricultural occupancy restriction on the dwelling house. This application relates to a range of single storey agricultural buildings between the house and the lane.These were extensively refurbished and altered about eight years ago (the subject of retrospective application RR/97/1626/P). They were then used in connection with an ostrich farming enterprise that was being carried out on the land at that time. No agricultural activity now taken place on the holding.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/83/1147 Conversion of redundant farm building to a farm workers cottage

- Approved (with agricultural occupancy condition).RR/92/0832/P Retention of dwelling without complying with agricultural

occupancy condition imposed on RR/83/1147 – Refused – Appeal Dismissed.

RR/97/1626/P Re-cladding and re-roofing including new gables to courtyard barns – Approved.

RR/2003/224/P Erection of two-storey kitchen and bedroom extension to existing farmhouse – Refused.

80

PROPOSAL The range of buildings in question is mostly single storey (with a small 1½ storey) forming a U shape around a hardstanding. The walls are mainly studwork with some areas of solid brick/block work, and are externally clad with timber boarding. The pitched roof is covered with felt. The proposal is the change of use and conversion of the building to form 6 no. units of holiday accommodation.External alterations would include replacing the felt roof with tiles, new window openings and the creation of new roof dormers. Alterations to an existing agricultural field gate access are also proposed to serve the development. This would be widened, a visibility splay created and a new access track created. The plans show 10 no. parking spaces provided at the western side of the building. This would involve infilling and reclaiming a small wet-land area presently occupied by a drainage ditch. A letter from Tourism South East has been provided in support of the application.Finally, a structural survey indicates that the building is capable of conversion.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- No objection subject to a condition requiring a land contamination assessment.Southern Water Services:- Comments awaited.Director of Services – Environmental Health:- No objection in principle.Planning Notice:- Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY The site is in the countryside in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, where policies indicate that all new development will be strictly controlled. Government Policy in PPS 7 supports the re-use of appropriately located and suitably constructed existing buildings in the countryside where this would meet sustainable development objectives (paras. 17, 18 and 34 to 40). Structure Plan Policy S10 (b) also indicates that recreation/tourist accommodation uses will be supported where the form, bulk and general design of the building is in keeping with its surroundings and the use is appropriate to the area in terms of scale, type and impact on its surroundings (including traffic). This is reiterated in Policy EM 3 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). Whilst the form bulk and general design of the building is in keeping with its surroundings, being mindful the above mentioned policies, I have concerns about the development proposal, particularly in respect of the scale of the development (6 no. holiday units). The site is not adjacent, or closely related to a village or settlement, and it is considered that the proposal would not be consistent with sustainable development objectives. The scale of development proposed would have a marked impact on the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and would significantly lead to additional private car movements along Sheepstreet Lane. I am also concerned about the operational development involved in the proposal, particularly the alterations to the building which would detract from its rural character and appearance, as well as the opening up of a new access and the formation of a parking area which would impact on the rural character and appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty landscape.Finally, an Enforcement Agenda Item has been presented to Members in respect of the occupation of the dwelling at Shortridge Farm without complying with the agricultural condition (RR/83/1147). I am mindfull that the loss of these buildings to agriculture may affect the potential viability of the holding as an agricultural unit.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)

81

1. The application site is not adjacent or closely related to a village or settlement, and the proposed use is not consistent with planning policies, which seek to promote sustainable development. The development proposal is not consistent with Government Planning Policies in PPS 7 and Policy LT 2 (c) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. The scale of the use and the associated operational development would hava a significant detrimental impact on the rural area including traffic generation, and harm to the character and appearance of the designated High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The development conflicts with Policies S1 (d) (j), S10 (b) (ii), S11 (a) (c) (d), EN1, EN2, EN3 and LT1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. The design details of the conversion are domestic in character, and the proposal does not conserve the agriculture character and appearance of the building.

4. Possible objection from Highway Authority.

RR/2004/2781/P TICEHURST TICEHURST PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHURCH 17 SEP 2004 STREET

FURTHER TO APPLICATION RR/2002/2349/P, REVISED SCHEME FOR CONVERSION OF FORMER SCHOOL BUILDING INCREASED FROM 6 TO 10 DWELLINGSDaniel Homes Ltd

RR/2004/2782/L TICEHURST TICEHURST PRIMARY SCHOOL, CHURCH17 SEP 2004 STREET

FURTHER TO APPLICATION RR/2002/2349/P, REVISED SCHEME FOR CONVERSION OF FORMER SCHOOL BUILDING INCREASED FROM 6 TO 10 DWELLINGSDaniel Homes Ltd

SITE The former Ticehurst Primary School in Church Street. The building is now vacant following the relocation to the new school site.

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

11 new dwellings and new vehicular access - Approved.RR/2002/2573/L Demolition of extension and conversion to form 6 dwellings -

Approved.

PROPOSAL These applications show alterations to the existing scheme for conversion of the listed school buildings to provide 10 dwellings instead of 6.The applicant’s agent writes:“The original planning consent was granted in January 2003 and the scheme was conceived and designed back in the summer of 2001. In the last 4 years the housing market has changed significantly, properties which were classed as affordable homes in 2001 are now worth considerably more money and are out of the reach of most families or small households. This application seeks to readdress this balance, by providing a greater number of smaller units we will bring down the cost of each dwelling which will make for a better social mix on the site.

82

As discussed with you prior to the application being submitted two main factors will come into play when considering this application which is highways and the integrity of the Listed Building.As you can see from the submitted drawings we have been able to achieve the conversion without affecting the external appearance or internal structural integrity of the building. We can therefore see no reason for not supporting the conversion in this respect.The second major factor is highways and parking. Since granting consent further pressure has been placed on local authorities by central government to achieve lower car parking ratios on new developments. Government guidance recommends a maximum parking standard across a borough of 150%, therefore new developments in more sustainable locations should be below this target figure (say 100%) which can be balanced by more rural locations having a higher parking ratio (say 200%).We would class this site as being reasonably sustainable due to its access at the village centre and public transport routes and therefore we believe if this scheme were to be reconsidered today the consented car parking allocation of 200% would possibly be seen as an overprovision.This application still proposes 2 car parking spaces for all the new build cottage accommodation and 1 space per dwelling for the converted units with a further 5 visitors spaces being available for visitors at the entrance of the site. Therefore we are now providing 37 spaces for 21 dwellings which is a ratio of 176%. We believe this ratio respects the National planning guidance without ignoring the needs of such a development in a village setting.We accept there is a marginal increase in the overall number of car spaces on the site, 3 no., however we do not anticipate this increase causing a highway safety issue.We trust that this application which is a genuine effort to address the needs of a community as a whole will find favour with officers and members of you committee.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support refusal.Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.Southern Water:- No objection subject to appropriate condition on foul and surface water drainage.Sussex Police:- “I have now examined the application and do not identify any unnecessary risk with the layout. I am pleased to note that a buffer zone has been created around all of the dwellings and that parking provision is well supervised.”Head of Housing:- If an element of affordable housing could be included it would assist to meet the needs of the community. Information is provided on housing needs.Planning Notice:- 12 letters of objection have been received which can be summarised as relating to: over development of the site increased traffic hazards in Church Street visitors’ cars will overflow into Church Street and prevent residents parking their

own cars volume of people and traffic on a small site, no gardens and inappropriate to a

quiet rural area significant increase in traffic no provision for play areas precedent impact of surface water drainage on neighbours’ pond new houses will overlook gardens if 4 more units are allowed, would wish to

modify heights of some of new housing adjacent to southern boundary83

out of character with village and AONB doubt if proposed new units would constitute socially affordable housing original proposal for 2 car parking spaces reflects local requirements; the revised

proposal does not. Public transport is not a practical option Church Street barely space for one car to pass and is in effect a blind bend in view of traffic hazards increase in units is not a step in the right direction noise and disturbance on adjacent properties impact on the listed building loss of trees

SUMMARY When the original scheme was considered and approved it was in my view the maximum development that could be accepted and my initial recommendation was refusal of planning permission. Amendments were made to the scheme that enabled an approval to be given.The current proposal gives me reason for concern on the following matters: creation of subdivided garden area on the frontage of the listed building alterations to the original school buildings which are detrimental to its character

(detail of doors, removal of the stairway) increased hardsurfacing by provision of 3 additional car parking spaces at the

expense of amenity and landscaped area under provision of car parking on the site (I would expect to see a minimum of 2

spaces per unit) The increased number of units within the school building will lead to pressure for

external change/demands of garden and facilities that would be detrimental to the setting of the school building.

All the above matters lead me to the conclusion that the proposal is an over development of the site and would result in an increase in traffic using the site. Subject to the views of the Highway Authority I cannot support the proposal.

RECOMMENDATIONS:RR/2004/2781/P: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed development would result in an over development of the site

which would be out of character and detrimental to the existing listed building and result in a scale of development unsympathetic by virtue of the increased car parking provision.

2. The proposed development does not provide satisfactory car parking for the site and is likely to result in overflow of car parking for residents and visitors on Church Street which would result in traffic hazard to users of Church Street. The proposal would be contrary to 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/2004/2782/L: REFUSE (LISTED BUILDING)1. The proposed subdivision and alteration of the school building to provide 4

additional dwellings would result in loss of an existing staircase which is considered should be retained and the subdivision of land would adversely effect its setting.

84

RR/2004/2766/P SEDLESCOMBE STRAWBERRY HILL FARM, 16 SEP 2004 POPPINGHOLE LANE

REVISED PLANS FOR CHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION OF BARN TO FORM A SINGLE DWELLING WITH ERECTION OF ANCILLARY BUILDINGS AND TRIPLE GARAGEMr R T Caine

RR/2004/2768/L SEDLESCOMBE STRAWBERRY HILL FARM, 16 SEP 2004 POPPINGHOLE LANE, ROBERTSBRIDGE

REVISED PLANS FOR CONVERSION OF BARN TO FORM A SINGLE DWELLING WITH ERECTION OF ANCILLARY BUILDINGS AND TRIPLE GARAGEMr R T Caine

SITE Strawberry Hill Farm lies off the north side of Poppinghole Lane towards its eastern end.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/1999/1589/P Conversion of barn to a single dwelling and oasthouse to single

dwelling with cowshed as annexe and clearance of redundant outbuildings - Approved Conditional.

RR/1999/1590/L Conversion of barn to a single dwelling and oasthouse to a single dwelling with annexe and demolition of cowshed - Approved Conditional.

RR/2004/1870/L Conversion of Barn to single dwelling - Refused.RR/2004/1871/P Conversion of Barn to dwelling, new vehicular access, closure of

existing access, erection of detached garage and ancillary building - Refused.

PROPOSAL These applications propose:i) The conversion of the timber framed barn to a three bedroomed dwelling;ii) The erection of a three bay garage, weather boarded under a plain clay tiled

roof;iii) The erection of a detached clay tiled and weather boarded swimming pool

building measuring 22m by 7.8m incorporating changing facility, office and small gym area;

iv) An underground link, from barn to pool house, also incorporating a cellar, utility, plant room and sauna.

In explanation, following on from the refusal of RR/2004/1870/L and RR/2004/1871/P the applicant’s agent writes in a supporting letter:-

“Planning Application -1. The proposed development will make use of the existing site access from

Poppinghole Lane and therefore approval for the new access as previously proposed is not hereby sought.

2. Two existing farm buildings (to the north-east of the Barn) are to be retained under this proposal and the previously proposed new farm buildings (to the east and south of the farm’s main barn) do not form part of this proposal.

3. The large farm barn to the north of the Barn is to be removed under this proposal. The proposed ancillary building housing the swimming pool should therefore be considered as a smaller replacement unit. Overall there is no increase in built volume on the Farm in this proposal.

85

4. The proposed pool building has been sited carefully so as not to be visible from the lane nor any neighbouring properties. It is only visible from the north - from land in the sole ownership of Strawberry Hill Farm. Consequently, the building’s lights will not be visible other than from the Farm’s land.

5. The previously proposed garden wall boundary between properties has been replaced in this proposal by timber post and rail fencing and hedging.

Listed Building Consent Application -1. The current consent - dated 3 February 2000 ref RR/1999/1590/L approved

plans for the Barn conversion for 21 no. window opens (7 no. at first floor level) in the timber cladding (not counting existing door openings).

2. The barn - as existing - has 10 no. window openings - all at ground floor level.3. Our previous application - which was refused - proposed 19 no. window

openings in the timber cladding, none of which were at first floor level.4. Notwithstanding this, and acknowledging your concerns over this matter, the

attached application proposes a reduction in the number of window openings in the timber cladding to 12 no. - all at ground floor level (2 more than existing.) There are none proposed at first floor level, which we regard as poor development of this Listed Building. As you can see all other openings are modified existing doorways.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Does not wish to comment on this application.Highway Authority:- Recommends Highway conditions.Environment Agency:- No objection subject to contaminated land condition.Southern Water:- Does not wish to comment.Director of Services - Chief Building Control Officer:- No adverse comments but recommends that a structural appraisal be requested.Director of Services - Environmental Health:- Requests the imposition of a contaminated land condition.Planning Notice:- No representations received to-date.

SUMMARY Members will recall inspecting this site prior to the refusal of RR/2004/1870/L and RR/2004/1871/P in August this year.It is a fact that the conversion of the barn has been approved and I take the view that the new garage building is acceptable. The applicant has deleted his proposal for a new access and reverted to using the existing access adjacent to the farmhouse. Highway conditions would improve visibility for vehicles leaving the access. The previously proposed boundary walls have now been replaced with post and rail fencing with hedging.The detached swimming pool building is the same size as previously proposed but it has been re-sited closer to the rear of a large agricultural building about 16m to the east of the barn. Whilst the pool building has not been reduced in size it is now sited against a larger structure.The applicant’s agent sets out in his supporting letter details of the number of windows in the approved scheme compared to the current proposal. I do not accept that the effect of a proposal on the character of a barn can be judged simply by counting openings. The approved plan does not have roof windows, the window openings are small and carefully sited. The current proposal indicates seven roof windows as well as increased area of glass at first floor level.My concern is that the character of the barn would be adversely affected and the proposed swimming pool building is large, indeed larger than the existing barn. Notwithstanding that the pool building is sited close to an agricultural building I do not

86

believe that the proposal is acceptable within the AONB. I acknowledge that from public viewpoints the building may be well concealed but this in itself is not a good reason for a more relaxed approach being taken to development.To the south of the barn is an oast and cowshed with consent for conversion into a dwelling and annexe within the applicant’s ownership. I believe that a pool house could replace the cowshed thereby reducing its impact on the landscape.As submitted I have to conclude that the planning proposal fails to have proper regard for the need to respect the character of the AONB. As to the Listed Building application, the proposed number and type of windows are not in character with the barn.

RECOMMENDATIONS:RR/2004/1870/L: REFUSE (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)1. CN8N (Listed building application - out of character).

RR/2004/1871/P: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, where

Policies EN1, 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) 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 have a harmful effect on the rural character of the area.

RR/2004/1701/P FAIRLIGHT FAIRLIGHT GARAGE, BATTERY HILL23 JUN 2004 REVISED PROPOSALS RELATING TO AMENDED SITE

LAYOUT AND DESIGN FOR THE ERECTION OF FOUR DETACHED DWELLINGSGem Select Ltd

This application was deferred at the October meeting to allow for the expiry of the consultation period relating to amended plans submitted on 28 September 2004.

In relation to the amended plans two further objection letters have been received from Mallydams dated 6 and 8 October 2004. An objection letter has also been received from 23 Waites Lane. Copies of the above correspondence are contained in the APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 4 November 2004.

Letters of objection received to the plans presented to the September Planning Committee, from the occupiers of ‘Mallydams’ and ‘The Old Telephone Exchange’ are included within the APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 4 November 2004. Mallydams is located opposite the site on the eastern side of Waites Lane. A copy of the original objection letter dated 8th July 2004, along with correspondence dated 21 August 2004 and 26th August 2004, and responses from the Head of Planning dated 24 August 2004 and 27th August 2004 are attached in the APPENDIX DOCUMENT to this Committee 4 November 2004.

SITE This site is located at the junction of Battery Hill and Waites Lane and measures some 30m by 74m. A chalet style dwelling is located to the west of the two storey house to the south. The property is served by an ‘in and out’ access to Battery Hill. The site lies within the village development boundary.

87

HISTORYA/60/79 Additional access – ApprovedA/65/511 Redevelopment – ApprovedA/65/1111 Alterations to garage – ApprovedA/66/46 Showrooms – ApprovedA/69/157 Car showroom etc – ApprovedA/70/840 Antiques – Refused A/72/1986 Canopy – ApprovedRR/75/0901 Renewal of time limited permission for sale of antiques and bric-a-

brac – ApprovedRR/78/0799 Renewal of permission to use lock up garage for sale of small

antiques and bric-a-brac – ApprovedRR/81/1014 Underground petrol storage tank and improvements to existing

surface water drainage of forecourt – ApprovedRR/83/0755 Renewal of permission to use lock up garage for the sale of small

antiques and bric-a-brac – ApprovedRR/2000/1557/P Outline: Demolition of garage and erection of residential units –

Refused on the grounds of the loss of commercial premises.RR/2001/1864/P Change of use for 4 No. detached dwellings, each including a

separate area for office usage with new accesses – Approved

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to revise the proposed siting and design for the erection of four dwellings approved under RR/2001/1864/P to include a vehicular access to Battery Hill. In relation to the amended plans the applicant has now provided a large scale block plan illustrating the relationship of the proposed development to existing development in the locality. A cross-section is provided illustrating levels and the difference in height in relation to existing garage workshop. The development on plots 3 and 4 has been set back further from Waites Lane than the original proposal by approximately one metre. The finished floor levels have also been dropped by approximately one metre. The applicant’s agent has been advised to further consider the balconies and decking fronting Waites Lane and I am awaiting a response to this issue.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – ‘Revised proposals relating to amended site layout and design for the erection of 4 detached dwellings. The proposal is considered over development of the site. The two dwellings fronting Battery Hill are well in front of the existing building line. The proposed dwellings are also too large and are out of keeping with the area. The development will cause serious overlooking and loss of light to adjoining houses and numerous residents have voiced their concerns to Councillors. If this size of property is allowed at the entrance to the Cove then it may set a precedent for bigger buildings elsewhere. There is concern with regard to drainage and flooding of lower properties. The water already is excessive in times of heavy rain and gushes down Battery Hill. There is also concern with the levelling of the site and the removal of tanks. There is concern with regard to the overstretched sewage system with the addition of a further 4 dwellings and the use of soakaways is not recommended in this area. The Council requests that the scheme be re-designed to be more in keeping with the general area with smaller and lower dwellings and particular attention to drainage with regard to the special problems in this area.’ Email dated 11 October 2004:- “You are aware of Fairlight Parish Council’s concerns about this application as well as residents’ unhappiness with certain aspects of its progress through the planning procedures.

88

At the last Parish Meeting on 26 September, District Councillor Bird reported that new plans and amendment were requested by the Planning Department and that the case was to be deferred pending their receipt. However, a new pink notice has been put up and as yet the Parish has not received the revised plans for comment. It would be appreciated therefore if you could update us, as a matter of urgency, on the current situation with this application. We are puzzled by the new pink notice, with a final date for comments, since we understand that the developer has yet to supply fresh plans. Is this notice in relation to another application submitted in tandem and if so when will the Council have an opportunity to see the plans and comment?”Email dated 21 October 2004:- “Further to previous correspondence on the above application, in the light of its deferment, Fairlight Parish Council wishes to restate its objections as follows:The proposal is considered over development of the site. The two dwellings fronting Battery Hill are well in front of the existing building line. The proposed dwellings are also too large and are out of keeping with the area.The development will cause serious overlooking and loss of light to adjoining houses and numerous residents have voiced their concerns to Councillors. If this size of property is allowed at the entrance to the Cove then it may set a precedent for bigger buildings elsewhere.There is concern with regard to drainage and flooding of lower properties. The water already is excessive in times of heavy rain and gushes down Battery Hill. There is also concern with regard to the levelling of the site and removal of tanks. There is concern with regard to the already overstretched sewerage system with the addition of a further 4 dwellings and the use of soakaways is not recommended in this area.The Council has requested that the scheme be redesigned to be more in keeping with the general area with smaller and lower dwellings and particular attention to drainage with regard to the special problems in this area.As you know we are also concerned that revised plans have not been submitted as requested.”Highway Authority – “The Highway Authority does not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to the observations below: It is recognised that the development proposal represents a highway safety improvement with the existing vehicle access immediately adjacent to the junction of Waites Lane and Battery Hill being closed off. However, Battery Hill is subject to an unrestricted speed limit, and Places Streets and Movement recommends visibility splays of 2.0m x 215m for a 60mph traffic speed. The Highway Authority is concerned that visibility at the access onto Battery Hill falls short of the required standard. In addition Annex B of PPG 13 Transport recommends that to improve safety it is preferable for development to share a common access point onto local roads. The Highway Authority therefore wishes for the development proposal to be accessed by a single access road from Waites Lane as previously agreed under planning application number RR/0l/1864/P.East Sussex County Council's Manual for Estate Roads (MFER) recommends that where a private driveway serves two or more properties it should be at least 4.5m wide to allow for two way traffic for a distance of 10m from the edge of the carriageway. In addition the maximum gradient of a private driveway should not exceed 1:9 (11 %). For shared drives a maximum landing gradient of 1:40 (2.5%) should be provided for 5m from the back of the footway.The applicant needs to agree a suitable proposal for the bus lay by on Waites Lane located immediately adjacent to the site. The Highway Authority would wish for the proposal to include new low floor bus waiting facilities, to improve the sites accessibility for those with restricted mobility. The agreed highway improvement work needs to be

89

secured by a Section 106 Legal Agreement between the applicant and the Highway Authority.The Highway Authority wishes to be re consulted on this application following the applicant's response to the above comments.”Environment Agency – Raise no objection subject to conditions. Director of Services - Environmental Health– Any comments will be reported.Southern Water – Raise no objection with regard to the discharge of foul water. However, refusal would be recommended if permission is granted without a prior agreement being sought by the applicant for a satisfactory scheme relating to the public sewer. Sussex Police – No adverse comments. ‘…the proposals do not match our agreed criteria…’ the development is less than the minimum number of new dwellings and referred to the leaflet ‘Is Your Design Secure?’Planning Notice – Letters of objection have been received from the following properties: Mallydams, Pett Level Road, 1, 3, 19, 23 Waites Lane, The Old Telephone Exchange, Pett Level Road, 5 Battery Hill.The following matters are raised: Drainage/ flooding Loss of community facilities Loss of trees De-contamination issues Out of keeping Over looking Loss of light Mass of the houses Vehicle movementsA copy of a letter dated 20th August 2004 sent direct to the Highway Authority has been forwarded from ‘St Catherines’, 3 Waites Lane.

SUMMARY This site has been the subject of a previous planning permission (RR/2001/1864/P) for four detached dwellings for live work use. The four dwellings were all accessed from a vehicular access in Waites Lane, and the layout is such that rear gardens faced onto Battery Hill. This permission is extant until April 2007. The current proposal seeks to amend the layout by providing vehicular access to two dwellings from Battery Hill, and to two dwellings from Waites Lane. The new layout will provide larger gardens for the dwellings. The designs respect the topography of the site in order to create split-level properties, though the site levels have been reduced from the initial scheme. The site currently falls some 3m from south-west to north-east. The roof spaces within the buildings are to be used as habitable accommodation. The proposed ridge height of the dwelling design is some 1m above those previously approved. The proposed materials are considered acceptable due to the variety in the choice. The development density was considered acceptable through the approval of the extant permission RR/2001/1864/P. The dwellings have been re-orientated in order to give greater amenity space to each dwelling and reduce by half the number of dwellings using the approved shared access onto Waites Lane. When viewed against the previously approved designs, the alterations now afford a reduced mass within the street scene and offer a more efficient use of the site in terms of the garden area made available to each dwelling. The proposed scheme will present a decrease in traffic movements onto Waites Lane at the shared access point. By re-positioning the dwellings in the proposed configuration, the dwellings opposite the site should benefit, as does the street scene. With regard to

90

objections received, further negotiations have taken place to attempt to address these issues and as such the following details have been submitted:

1. An overall plan of the site, which includes the position of properties within the site and to the east of the site in Waites Lane and Battery Hill.

2. A cross section of the site (taken through a central east-west axis). 3. Confirmation of existing site levels and proposed levels (lowered 1m). These are

to include heights of all existing buildings (including the gutterline of the existing shed building) and proposed buildings. This is to be achieved in a cross sectional drawing of the site (taken through a central east-west axis).

The issue of contamination would be dealt with by way of condition and liaison between the agent/applicant and the Environment Agency and Rother District Council. With regard to the public sewer, diversion of this would be a matter between the agent/ applicant and Southern Water and Rother District Council. Office accommodation is incorporated within each property and as such is in accordance with the original design (change of use) principles and policies. The applicant is aware of the requirements of the current Planning Obligation on the extant permission with regard to the improved lay-by and the bus shelter.I am awaiting a response from the applicant’s agent in relation to the balconies and decking fronting Waites Lane. If these are satisfactory then I take the view that the Committee are in a position to determine the application. In planning terms the development is within the settlement boundary; the site has had a previous permission for four dwellings. The layout has been amended following Committee discussion, and subject to satisfactory amendments or deletion of certain balconies and/or decking then the scheme is considered acceptable. Members have viewed the site so will be able to form a view on the amended scheme.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (MODIFICATION OF S106 AGREEMENT)1. The development must begin not later than the expiration of five years beginning

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

2. Before any development commences the existing building(s) on the site shall be demolished and the site cleared of all resultant rubble and spoil, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To ensure the satisfactory development of the site (CN120) 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. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority details of the guard rails and the colour, type and make of the roofing tiles, facing bricks and of the driveway’s finished surface. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials.Reason: To ensure that the development is in character with its surroundings and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011. (CN7B)

4. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include accurate indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development.

91

Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the locality and to accord with Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

5. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the locality and to accord with Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011. - AONB

6. 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. (CN8C)

7. Before any development takes place, detailed plans for boundary walls and fences on the site shall be submitted to and be subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The fences and walls shall be constructed before the dwellings are first occupied and shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure the satisfactory development of the site and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. (CN9I)

8. Before any development takes place, details for the protection/diversion of the public foul sewer crossing the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall not commence until the approved details have been undertaken.Reason: To safeguard the public foul sewer crossing the site, to ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and to accord with Policy S1 of East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

9. 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 building. Reason: To ensure appropriate development of the site and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011. (CN5E)

10. The windows shall be glazed with obscure glass and shall thereafter be retrained in that condition in accordance with the following schedule:Plot 1: Within the west elevation at ground floor and first floor levels and the central rooflight. Within south elevation at first floor level serving the en-suite bathroom as per plan no. 2428.1.Plot 2: Within the west elevation at ground floor and first floor levels and the central rooflight. Within south elevation at first floor level serving the en-suite bathroom as per plan no. 2428.1.

92

Plot 3: Within the north elevation at ground floor and first floor levels and the central rooflight. Plot 4: Within the north elevation at ground floor and first floor levels and the central rooflight.To prevent the overlooking of adjacent properties.

11. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The bund capacity shall give 110% of the total volume for single and hydraulically linked tanks. If there is multiple tankage, the bund capacity shall be 110% of the largest tank or 25% of the total capacity of all tanks, whichever is the greatest. All filling points, vents, gauges and sight glasses and overflow pipes shall be located within the bund. There shall be no outlet connecting the bund to any drain, sewer or watercourse or discharging onto the ground. Associated pipework shall be located above ground where possible and protected from accidental damage.Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to accord with Policy S1(g) of East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

12. The office in each dwelling shall be provided at the time of the development and shall only be used by the occupiers of the dwelling or employee of the residential occupiers for home working and shall not be separately occupied.Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the land and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

13. At the time of development and before it is occupied, the garages, parking spaces and shared access shall be provided and laid out within the site in accordance with the submitted plans and maintained in that use thereafter.Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

14. Before any development takes place detailed plans for the provision of a lay-by in Waites Lane shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details before the occupation of any dwelling on the site.Reason: In the interest of highway and pedestrian safety and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

15. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting this Order) no caravan, building, structure or erection of any kind (including walls, fences and other means of enclosure) shall be placed within 3 metres of the public foul sewer crossing the site.Reason: To safeguard the public foul sewer crossing the site and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

16. The garage accommodation shall be retained for the parking of a motor vehicle and may also be used in connection with the business operated from the office incorporated within the dwelling. The garage shall not be used as habitable domestic accommodation. To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the land in relation to the amenities of the locality.

RFG: 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).

93

RR/2004/2495/P FAIRLIGHT MEADOW SWEET, GORSETHORN WAY23 AUG 2004 RAISING OF ROOF, INSERTION OF DORMER WINDOWS,

SINGLE STOREY EXTENSIONS AND REPLACEMENT SINGLE GARAGEMrs L S Rokhsar

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

SITE Meadow Sweet is located to the west of Gorsethorn Way 3 plots down from the junction with Commanders Walk, it lies within the development boundary for the village of Fairlight.

HISTORYRR/2003/529/P Raising of roof and extension to provide first floor accommodation

and replacement double garage – Refused.RR/2003/2548/P Raising of roof, insertion of dormer windows, single storey

extensions and replacement single garage – Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to extend the bungalow into the roof space to provide additional rooms, to construct a breakfast room to the rear and a new entrance hall to the front. The existing attached garage to be demolished and replaced with a garage incorporated into the roof of the dwelling. CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support refusal. The original plan for this property was turned down to the height etc and an amended plan for a smaller development was eventually passed. We feel that these plans are a back door attempt to obtain the size of property originally envisaged and should be refused on these grounds. To increase the size of the property will on infringe on all the neighbours (whose properties are bungalows) and interfere with their privacy, light and views. The proposal would be out of place in the road and cause offence to neighbours. Planning Notice – 4 letters of objection has been received, concerned with the following:

Third application to change a bungalow into what can only be described as a house.

Set a precedent. Increase in height and width. Out of keeping with surrounding bungalows. Aggravate the over-developed village and its land erosion/drainage

problems. Loss of privacy/overlooking from dormer windows. Over powering to the surrounding properties.

94

SUMMARY A previous planning application RR/2003/2548/P was approved with conditions in December 2003. This current application is a result of amendments to the approved scheme, being unable to be lawfully dealt with as minor amendments. This new proposal will increase the height of the roof by an additional 30mm (from the height previously approved), increasing the height of the existing dwelling by 1.1 metres, I do not consider this will dramatically alter the appearance of the dwelling. The garage roof will be incorporated into the roof of the existing dwelling, and there are alterations to the design of the front elevation. I have considered the differences from the application approved (RR/2003/2548/P), and the concerns of the Parish Council and the neighbouring residents, and consider that the design and scale of the proposed alterations are acceptable, and that they will not adversely affect any neighbours’ residential amenities, or be detrimental to the appearance of the street scene. I am therefore minded to    RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) 1. CN7C (Matching external materials).2. CN5E (a) windows (Restriction of alterations/additions)3. CN9I (extensions) (Walling/fencing - Non estate development)

RFG: 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/2004/1494/P GUESTLING BRIDGE YARD, ROCK LANE13 MAY 2004 ADDITIONAL USAGE FOR THE STORAGE OF TOURING

CARAVANSMr K A Bartlett

SITE Long established scrap metal store and salvage depot business located near to the junction of Rock Lane and Eight Acre Lane. The application relates to an area of about 0.222 hectare within the site. The site is located outside any town or village development boundary as defined within the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003), it lies within the High Weald AONB.

HISTORYA/60/319 Extension of salvage depot – Approved Conditional.RR/84/1449 Building for storage of motor spare parts – Approved conditionalRR/88/2042 Renewal of permission RR/79/0588 for use as scrap metal store

and salvage depot – Approved ConditionalRR/88/2568 Renewal of temporary permission for use for car dismantling and

salvage depot – Approved Conditional.RR/89/1028/P Use of part site for skip hire operation – Refused – Appeal

dismissed.ENF/GUE/89/1 Breach of planning control use of part site for skip hire operation –

Appeal dismissed.RR/93/1569/P Variation of condition 8 of planning approval RR/88/2042 to extend

opening times on Saturday to 6pm – Approved Conditional.RR/94/1803/P Erection of a store for vehicle parts – Approved Conditional.RR/2000/1314/P Continued use as scrap metal store and salvage depot –

Delegated to approve.

95

PROPOSAL The application seeks permission for the additional usage of part of the land owned by the application, for the storage of touring caravans.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support approval.Highway Authority – The Highway Authority recommends that consent be refused of the following reason: “The proposal will generate additional traffic including heavy goods vehicles and the approach roads serving the site are narrow in width, have poor alignment and no pedestrian facilities and the existing hazard would be increased as a result of the development proposal.”Environment Agency - No objection, but would like to offer advice.Planning Notice – No representations received.

SUMMARY The site is located outside any town or village development boundary as defined within the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003), it does lie within the High Weald AONB. Therefore the site is subject to planning policies that seek to restrict usages as proposed, within this sensitive landscape. In addition the narrowness of the approach roads which lack pedestrian facilities and have poor alignment would create an increased hazard when considered in connection with the additional traffic the development would generate which would include heavy goods vehicles.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposal will generate additional traffic including heavy goods vehicles and

the approach roads serving the site are narrow in width, have poor alignment and no pedestrian facilities, and the existing hazard would be increased as a result of the development proposal. The 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).

RR/2004/1514/P PETT THE TWO SAWYERS PUBLIC HOUSE -YARD AND 22 APR 2004 ACCESS WAYS, PETT ROAD, PETT

OUTLINE: ERECTION OF 5 TERRACED COTTAGES AND ONE HOUSE WITH GARAGE, FORMATION OF NEW ACCESS WAY OVER BEER GARDEN OF PUB

Mr C Soper

This application has remained deferred since the 9 September 2004 meeting. I have updated the previous report.

At the August Planning Committee meeting this application was delegated for approval, subject to no adverse comments being received as a result of re-consultation on the amended plans.The Committee inspected the site on 10th August 2004. The application has been amended on 9th August 2004 by the submission of amended drawing 1015/1C. A covering letter for the applicants agent dated 7th August 2004 explained in detail the changes. The basis of the changes were as follows:

1. Vehicular access to the car park is shown via the garden.2. Car parking layout amended.3. Extensions to the forge building – further details.

96

4. Comments on the setting of the listed building.5. Reduction in width of Forge access.6. Addition of a semi vehicle lay-by.7. Access details.

Comments were also made on the submitted objections to the original scheme. Letters from Pett Parish Council to the Chairman of the Planning Committee dated 18th August 2004, and dated 26th August 2004, outlining objections and responses to the applicants agent letter have also been received.Objection letters from the occupiers of Forge Cottage, Woodend House, Meadow Croft, Adeline, Wayside, Vernon Cottage, 1 Homestead Cottage, Pax, Whispers, 4 and 6 Rectory Park, Birchwood Watermill Lane and Sea Winds have also been received. I have included further representations received as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 4 November 2004, including letters from English Heritage and the applicant’s agent.

SITE The commercial property is located on the north side of Pett Road and predominantly within the village development boundary. The site consists of an 18 th

Century Grade II Listed public house, which has a Victorian addition fronting the car park. A curtilage listed building known as ‘The Old Forge’ and a block of garages/ stores, (circa. 1960’s), are located along the western boundary of the site.

HISTORYRR/2004/561/P Extension at ground and first floor to provide extra cellar and

kitchen area, first floor servery toilets and staff rooms – Approved RR/2003/2176/P Erection of an extension to existing car park by laying hard surface

– Approved

PROPOSAL The original proposal was to erect a terrace of 5 cottages within the current car park area to the north west of the public house and incorporate the current forge building into a separate development for a single dwelling. A new access crossing the site along the northern boundary was proposed as the means of vehicular access to the site with access via the village hall access road. The amended plans submitted on 7th August 2004 indicated the vehicular access to the car park via the garden of the Two Sawyers.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council (Original proposal) – “Support Refusal on the following grounds - this Parish Council feels that this would be over development of a rural area. The suggested application design is out of character with the rest of the village and certainly out of character with the existing/adjoining listed grade 2 building. The garden and drive are over the development boundary and it is suspected that part of the suggested houses may be also. Construction of three storey houses will adversely affect adjoining properties for various reasons - privacy and overlooking, is the drainage in the area able to cope are just two of them to mention and the siting of the car park will have a serious effect on traffic in the area and will increase parking on an already busy and dangerous road.The proposal of joining the road via the village hall drive - will increase traffic using the village hall car park and will have detrimental affect on the village hall. It was felt that visitors to these properties will use the village hall car park as an overflow parking area - this in turn will affect the parking facilities available for the users of this popular village hall. For information - it should also be noted that the hall and the roadway were funded

97

by public subscription including generous donations by the local authority and the national lottery. It should not be used to benefit the commercial interest of a local business. There is not reference in the application for “change of use” of the brewery site, nor the demolition of the dwelling at the rear of the public house.”A response has been submitted addressing issues raised by the agent and suggesting a ‘way forward’ - reducing the size of the detached house by 30%, terrace of three houses and the access point remaining unchanged. (Circulated previously).Highways Authority (Amended Plan) – “In respect of this Outline Application, subject to agreement on access and the provision of satisfactory on-site parking in accordance with the County Council’s adopted standards [and turning space] at any Detail stage.Note:It is acknowledged that this existing access serving the pub car park has substandard visibility, especially in a westerly direction, and that there would be a highway benefit associated with downgrading its functionality to serving a single dwelling. In view of this, the Highway Authority considers the proposal to utilise the village hall access to be acceptable, despite it also being substandard in terms of visibility.As part of any detailed application, the need for a formal footway link between the proposed terraced houses and Pett Road should be addressed and confirmation will be needed as to whether existing levels of car parking available for use by the public car park are to be maintained.Attention is drawn to the presence of a public footpath running alongside the alignment of the village hall access road.”English Heritage:- “Recommendations - On the basis of the information submitted and the site visit English Heritage has concerns about the potential impact of this proposal. If your council are minded to accept residential development adjacent to this listed building its scale and position should be informed by a careful appraisal of the site and consideration of how it will affect the future viability of the public house. It appears to me that the current application isolates the listed building from the street scene, has the potential to undermine its future viability and reduces the openness of its setting.” Their full comments are included in the attached APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 4 November 2004.Environment Agency – Raise no objection.Southern Water Services – Do not wish to comment on this application.Sussex Police – Any comments will be reported.Director of Services – Environmental Health – Raise no objection subject to the imposition of conditions.Planning Notice (Original Plan) – A ‘standard’ response has been circulated and is as follows: “With reference to the above I wish to lodge my objection to this planning application on the grounds that, in my opinion:a) There is inadequate space available for parking by the owners of the new

properties and visitors to the Public House. It is my belief that there will be considerable parking in the road outside the Two Sawyers, which is a blind bend, and this will make a hazardous area much worse.

b) The buildings will create overcrowding of the area. They will spoil the ‘village’ appearance.

c) The Two Sawyers is a partly listed building and these properties would detract from the ‘historic’ look of this particular area.

d) They would cause general over-development of the village.I trust you will take into consideration all of the above when making your decision.”

98

38 statements of objection have been received and of these 38 responses more than one copy was received from 10 addresses. An additional 12 letters of objection have been received in which the following issues of concern have been raised:- Principle of such large houses to the rear of a pub- Precedent - The forge building is listed- Building behind the building line- Overlooking- Over development- Impact upon amenity- Loss of parking facilities- Outside the village development boundary- Negative impact upon users of the village hall- Contention over the possible use of the village hall access drive.Following the last Committee meeting & submission of further details, a petition containing 109 signatures has been received (though appears to be a copy) which states “We the undersigned as residents of Pett Village are opposed to the proposed development at the Two Sawyers Public House”, but does not give any planning reasons.

Additional objections have been received from some 90 persons from 70 addresses in the form of objection letters and statements. Following reasons are again cited: Over development Visual impact Impact upon Listed Building Impact upon visual amenity of area Impact upon rural setting Mentioned in the ‘Doomsday Book’ Increase in vehicle movements Proposed access detrimental to pub/ amenity and highway safety Built over the building line Impact upon wildlife Reduction in parking spaces High density is unacceptable for a village Removal of & damage to trees The site is not a brownfield site Precedent

Agent: The agent has submitted two supporting letters commenting on issues raised by the Parish Council and objectors and the way the application has been dealt with and considered. (Circulated previously). The applicant has also submitted a letter outlining the issues taken to accommodate the views of the objectors. (Circulated previously).

SUMMARY The proposal is in outline only, reserving the matters of external appearance and design. In light of this, the principle of development is being tested at this stage, not its appearance. However, the proposed built form will be located within an existing commercial site, offers the potential of adapting an existing building, removing unsightly buildings and not negatively affecting the setting of a listed building, if carried out sympathetically. The proposal consists of three main elements. Firstly, the proposed terrace of 5 dwellings are set within the village development boundary, while the car park area to the rear of the site lies outside the boundary line. The site would result in the demolition of a bungalow and garage block, which date from the 1950’s

99

and 1960’s respectively. It is considered these buildings neither preserve or enhance the setting or character of the listed building and do not contribute to the aesthetic qualities of the street scene. The land to the rear of the site slopes from south to north and benefits from a dense, mature tree and foliage screen along its northern and western boundaries. The site would be lowered in order to achieve the desired three storey dwellings and would be two storey with a low pitched roof to the front elevation. The second element is the introduction of a single dwelling incorporating the forge building. Following a site inspection, it appears the building has structural problems, which will require major works, though this curtilage listed building is not being considered for demolition. The loss of the garage buildings would make way for the dwelling, though it is considered a ‘traditional’ two storey dwelling may not be suitable. Further details were required from the agent in order to ascertain whether a scheme would be appropriate for this particular site. The development would form a cluster of buildings with a common area and restrict the vehicular access point exclusively for one dwelling. The site would clearly have two separate aspects in terms of design requirements. The third element of the application relates to the access and parking arrangements. The site does have an extant permission to alter the existing parking arrangements to cater for up to 66 car parking spaces. The current application will result in a slight increase to this capacity, though achieved through an amended layout, and will benefit from a soft landscaping scheme. The Council’s Arboriculturist has inspected the amended scheme and raises no objection.Members inspected the site on 7th August 2004 and took the view at the 9th August 2004 meeting that the amended outline application could be recommended for approval on a delegated basis, subject to no adverse comments being received on the amended plans. The recommended conditions were as follows:

1. CN9A (Road Construction Details)2. CN9B (Tree Retention)3. CN13A (Landscaping scheme)4. CN13B (Implementation of Landscaping Scheme)5. CN9I (Walls/fences)6. CN8C (Foul and surface water)7. Prior to commencement of development details of all hardstandings, parking and

hard surface areas shall be submitted to and be subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

8. CN12L (External lighting)9. CN9K (Floor levels)10. Contaminated land condition.NoteN1A (Amended plans 7th August 2004).

The delegation was not exercised as a significant number of objections to the amended proposals were received.The issues that need to be considered are that part of the site is within the development boundary for Pett, whereby some form of residential development could be considered. Improvement to the car parking facilities for a public house could also be considered. It is important to note the views of the Highway Authority in relation to the amended scheme. The Highway Authority do not object to the alterations, but amongst others make the following comment:

100

“This amended access proposal is considered to be much less favourable than that previously proposed as it creates an additional junction onto the C23 (Pett Road). The Highway Authority would therefore wish to draw attention to the considerable highway safety benefits associated with the original proposal to utilise the village hall access. These relate to maintaining the existing number of junctions onto the C23 whilst affording visitors to the pub, as well as users of the new development, improved levels of visibility. The Highway Authority would therefore support the intention of the applicant to continue to pursue this form of access arrangement”.

In relation to a revised access proposal adjacent to the village hall access the Highway Authority state:“This HT401 is issued in response to a fax received from the applicant’s agent that proposes a revised alignment for the new access road.The Highway Authority’s previous recommendation dated 26 July 2004 remains unaltered but it should be noted that this revised access proposal is unacceptable on account of the close proximity of the development access junction with the existing junction serving the village hall. Any detailed planning application proposing this arrangement would be likely to attract a recommendation of refusal by the Highway Authority.Note:‘Design Bulletin 32: Residential Roads & Footpaths’ refers to ‘Roads and Traffic in Urban Areas’ as being an appropriate point of reference for determining junction spacing along distributor roads. Technical guidance contained in ‘Roads and Traffic in Urban Areas’ stipulates that the minimum spacing between junctions should exceed the stopping sight distance appropriate for the 85 th percentile speed of the major road. Although there is no speed survey data currently available for this section of Pett Road, it is considered that vehicle speeds are likely to be in the order of 30 mph and that a junction separation distance of at least 23 metres would be required. The submitted proposal indicates a junction spacing of only 15-16 metres and is not considered to be acceptable on highway safety grounds.Comments made in the Highway Authority’s consultation response dated 26 July concerning access and parking continue to remain pertinent.”Letters from the occupiers of Forge Cottage and Woodland House support the views of English Heritage and these are included in full in the attached APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 4 November 2004. The applicant’s agent has written in response to the letter from English Heritage and has also requested that a decision is made at the 4 November Committee. He states“I have read the letter from Mr Barker of English Heritage on the RDC web site. At first site I thought that his view must fan the flames of objections to this application and possibly affect the decision of your committee but, after considering the letter in detail, I feel we have followed the procedure recommended in the letter especially the consideration recommended in PPG 15. You know that I am an experienced planner with a deep interest in historic buildings. You are aware that I have made a careful appraisal of the site, including a survey of levels and a measured survey of the listed building and designed accordingly. I have written previously about Mr Soper's interest and invited viewing of his important listed Grade II* barn which Mr David Martin of Archaeology South East, the original surveyor of Mr Soper's bam and the Two Sawyers, regards as one of the best barn conversions he has seen.Mr Barker reminds that, as the principal listed building itself is not to be demolished, notification by the LPA under circular 01/01 is not required, though he understands your Council's desire for advice in view of the 'local politics'.It is also clear from my telephone discussion with Mr Barker, and his letter, that he was

101

under the incorrect impression that we intend to demolish the important Forge building. This accusation, only made by the more extreme objectors, may have coloured the tone of this letter.Mr Barker gave me a list of the documents he received in the consultation package. It is clear he does not have more recent correspondence which informs on the measures taken to respect the listed building and the survey work carried out. He also did not have the most recent plans.At a meeting chaired by Cllr Glazier with other members of your Council including the Deputy Leader and spokesman on the built environment, Parish members Mr Cornfield, Mr Soper and myself I agreed to;1. Reduce the Forge house elevation to Pett Road and place part of the building at

the rear. A chimney was suggested and tree screening of the western boundary. These amendments have now been submitted. The openness of setting was one of Mr Barker's concerns - now resolved.

2. Consult with County Highways about the acceptability of an access near to the village hall road. This I did and I believe you will have on file Mr Wright's comments that he would not approve such an access and that the current proposal does contribute significantly to traffic safety in the village. Mr Barker has concerns about the access across the garden but the village hall access is not available to us and it is desirable to reduce the traffic at the existing dangerous access. Following re-consultation, access as shown in the application is the only option to reduce the road traffic danger. Detailed design measures for segregation of pedestrians, traffic calming and convenient disabled parking have been considered, flagged and can be dealt with as approvals of reserved matters.

3. Provide a perspective drawing showing the existing pub, the listed building, the Forge and the new development. The pencil sketch I have submitted shows, inter alia, the careful integration of the new development in its scale, design and materials into the listed building setting and village fabric. Mr Barker has not had the benefit of seeing this drawing.

Mr Barker has concerns about the economic viability of the pub. I am not sure if this would be part of his remit or of your planning decision. If this is of concern, I would remind that Mr Soper has invested heavily recently by refurbishing the building, improving facilities, making a new restaurant, installing a totally new kitchen and rewiring the pub throughout for the convenience and safety of customers. This is a well known pub restaurant, a local centre of excellence. He is convinced of additional success of the enterprise even in today's difficult climate when drinking patterns are changing and many village pubs are threatened with closure.Mr Barker is on holiday until the 1st November but in his letter he says that it is not necessary to consult with him again. For the sake of informing him further and completing the triangle, I am sending him a copy of this letter and of my previous file including the up to date drawings which I feel will lay any residual worries he may have. I am also sending the file to the local MP who, I believe from consultation with Mr Barker, has also been involved in the case no doubt as a result of pressure from his constituents. It may be that he also believes we intend to demolish the Forge.”

Members inspected the site and took the view that the proposed development was acceptable in relation to the listed building and the forge. In my view there would be merit in looking at diverting the proposed access so it did not cut through the middle of the beer garden and was diverted further to the east whilst maintaining the access position as proposed.

102

If after consideration of the views of English Heritage, Members wish to support the application I will make the following recommendation

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING) DELEGATED (AMENDED ACCESS PLAN IN RELATION TO BEER GARDEN)1. CN9A (Road Construction Details).2. CN9B (Tree Retention).3. CN13A (Landscaping scheme).4. CN13B (Implementation of Landscaping Scheme)5. CN9I (Walls/fences)6. CN8C (Foul and surface water)7. Prior to commencement of development details of all hardstandings, parking and

hard surface areas shall be submitted to and be subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

8. CN12L (External lighting)9. CN8K (Floor levels)10. Contaminated land conditions.N1A Amended Plans

RFG: 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/2004/2802/P PETT ASHLEIGH – LAND ADJACENT21 SEP 2004 OUTLINE: ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING TO INCLUDE

ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING ACCESS AND FORMATIONAL OF A NEW VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.Mr S Catt

SITE Ashleigh is a detached bungalow on the west side of Pannel Lane about 75m from its junction with Pett Road. An existing access serves the property together with a detached house ‘Clayhythe’, which is situated to the east of the site. The proposal relates to a rectangle plot of garden land roughly 16m by 54m situated to the west of Ashleigh, access to the plot will b from the existing driveway and an additional driveway running along the southern boundary of Ashleigh. The site lies partially within the development boundary for Pett, and within the High Weald of AONB.

HISTORYRR/2002/2440/P Outline: Erection of one dwelling with garage – Refused – Appeal

dismissed.

PROPOSAL The application seeks outline permission to erect a detached dwelling with garage on land adjacent to ‘Ashleigh’, with alterations to existing access and formation of a new vehicular and pedestrian access. CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support Refusal. Should be rejected on the grounds that it is ‘back land development’. The committee was also concerned about the additional traffic

103

movement entering Pannel Lane particularly when taking into account the village plans to resurrect the football facilities opposite.Highway Authority – Recommends that consent be refused. The approach road Pannel Lane (UC6418) is unsuitable to serve the proposed development by reason of its narrow width, poor alignment, and lack of footways.Planning Notice – 5 letters of objection from 4 addresses, concerned with the following;

Detrimental effect on privacy. Detrimental effect on visual amenities. Noise pollution. Not isolated from the public, as it will adjoin the public footpath. Highway safety problem, introducing more traffic. Does not respect the character and charm of the High Weald Area of

Outstanding Natural Beauty. Back land development. Sanitation, sewage pumping station is already over worked.

SUMMARY Part of the planning application site falls outside the Development Boundary for the village of Pett as defined within the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). This land would be utilised to construct the access to the new dwelling, and as such this aspect of the proposal would conflict with planning policies which seek to restrict ant new residential development outside the development boundary unless there are overriding circumstances as to why a countryside location is justified. A further issue is that the site lies within the High Weald High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, where policies EN1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and government advice in PPS7 indicate that development will be carefully controlled to protect the character of the area. I do not consider that this development respects the character of the area, and it will have an adverse impact of the public right of way, which runs along the west boundary of the site. The Highway Authority recommend that consent be refused on the grounds that Pannel Lane (UC6418), is unsuitable to serve the proposed development by reason of its narrow width, poor alignment and lack of footways. Against this background I can see no planning merit in the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) 1. Part of 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, S10 and S11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 contains a strong presumption against residential development unless it meets one of the exceptions described in the Plan. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed residential development is essential for the needs of an enterprise that must be in a rural location. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to those policies.

2. Part of the proposed development site lies outside of the Development Boundary for the village of Pett as defined within the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). No compelling justification for such a location has been demonstrated, the proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy HG10 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

3. The site lies within the High Weald High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, where Policies EN1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and government advice in PPS7 indicate that development will be carefully controlled to protect the character of the area. It is

104

considered that the proposal does not meet this objective and it would have a harmful effect on the rural character of the area.

4. The approach road Pannel Lane (UC6418) is unsuitable to serve the proposed development by reason of its narrow width, poor alignment and lack of footways.

 

 

RR/2004/2191/P RYE 113 WINCHELSEA ROAD AND WESTERN BARN - 28 JUL 2004 LAND REAR OF, WINCHELSEA ROAD

DEMOLITION OF WESTERN BARN. ERECTION OF ELEVEN DETACHED AND SEMI-DETACHED HOUSES, FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS. PROVISION OF CAR PARKING AREA FOR ‘THE WOOLSTORE’, NEW BRICK WALLS, FENCES AND GATES TO WESTERN HOUSESvela Developments Ltd

RR/2004/2274/L RYE 113 WINCHELSEA ROAD AND WESTERN BARN - 24 AUG 2004 LAND

REAR OF, WINCHELSEA ROADDEMOLITION OF BUILDINGSvela Developments Ltd

These applications were considered at your September meeting when it was resolved that a decision be deferred for consultation responses and further discussion regarding the layout and access. Members had previously inspected the site.

SITE The proposal relates to a roughly rectangular site of some 0.256 ha on the west side of Winchelsea Road which comprises the curtilages of Western House and the adjacent property to the south, Western Barn. Western House is a listed 18 th century two storey farmhouse and Western Barn is the two storey converted barn adjoining it to the south. The site is within the Rye Development boundary and a tidal floodplain and outside the boundary of the Conservation Area.

HISTORYR/70/31 Alterations and renovations for private dwelling and hostel -

ApprovedR/73/65 Vehicular access - ApprovedRR/81/1537/P) Change of use of existing building to RR/81/1537/L) dwelling house with garage - ApprovedRR/83/1312 Detached double garage - ApprovedRR/87/0203 C of U of part of dwelling to nursery playgroup for maximum of 10

children - approvedRR/2003/2173/P Erection of new conservatory (glass and timber) to rear elevation,

alterations to interior and external repairs - ApprovedRR/2003/2178/L Internal and external repairs, alterations, erection of new

glass/timber conservatory to rear of property - Approved

105

PROPOSAL Application RR/2004/2191/P: Planning permission is sought for the demolition of Western Barn and the erection of eleven detached and semi-detached houses and the formation of a new vehicular access. The scheme also includes the provision of a car parking area for the woolstore and new brick walls, fences and gates to Western House. A planning appraisal prepared by the Downes Planning partnership has been submitted in support of the application.Application RR/2004/2274/L: Listed building consent is sought for the demolition of Western Barn.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- RR/2004/2191/P - Support approval subject to the approval of the Historic Buildings Officer and the proposed development not exceeding the current height of Western House.RR/2004/2274/L - Support approval.Highway Authority:- RR/2004/2191/P - “… does object in principle to this development proposal. It would however, wish for the following matter to be satisfactorily addressed prior to highway clearance being issued:The maximum number of on site parking spaces that this development proposal attracts is 32-43, in accordance with East Sussex County Council's adopted parking standards. The proposal for 22 parking spaces falls some way short of this requirement and concern is expressed that this would be insufficient for a development that predominantly consists of four bedroom dwellings. Double garages are commonly required for dwellings of four or more bedrooms and it is considered appropriate that car parking should be upgraded to prevent overspill into other areas.Note:For those dwellings without a garage or shed cycle parking should be provided at a rate of one long-term space per dwelling.This development proposal is of sufficient scale for the Highway Authority to seek adoption of the estate road as public highway. It is therefore considered appropriate that the estate is designed and constructed in accordance with the County Council’s Manual for Estate Roads (MFER) with a view to its subsequent adoption. For this to be achieved it will be necessary to provide a turning head that conforms with Figure 6 of the MFER (see attached) and address the deficiency in off-street parking to enable the carriageway width of 4.5 metres to be considered acceptable. A 2 metre wide footway and 1 metre wide verge is also normally required but it recognised that the constraints of the site may preclude this from being achieved. The applicant may therefore wish to consider a shared surface arrangement, with footways on the adjoining A259 continued around the junction radii to a safe and convenient point close to the junction. Revised details are awaited.In order to improve accessibility to the site by pedestrians the Highway Authority would wish the applicant to achieve or contribute towards a pedestrian crossing on the A259 (a short distance from the roundabout). This scheme has been identified within the County Council's Local Area Transport Strategy for Rye and is considered to have direct relevance to ensuring users of the proposed development are encouraged to walk to Rye town centre. The works/contribution would need to be secured by means of a Section 106 Agreement and be subject to the approval of the Highways Agency as appropriate.The Highway Authority wishes to be reconsulted on this application following the applicants' response to the above comments.”

106

Highways Agency (13 August 2004):- RR/2004/2191/P - “…The Agency was initially consulted on this in December 2003 as a pre-application consultation and my colleague lan Mills responded. That response highlighted that the main concerns related to visibility from the access.I have reviewed the current plans and the following concerns remain:. Evidence is needed of the speeds of vehicles on the A259, Winchelsea Road. In

order to justify the visibility splays of 4.5 x 70 metres, the 85th percentile speed must be 30mph or less. Speed surveys should be commissioned to ascertain this. If this assumption proves correct :-

. The Holm oak tree to the south of the access will need to be removed in order to prevent obstruction of the visibility splay. If this tree is protected and therefore irremovable, then it will not be possible to achieve satisfactory access. Visibility to the north is obstructed by the front wall of No. 107a, as we advised the applicant's agent, David Smith of Ratcliffe Stott, in a telephone conversation on 21st January. Unless these fundamental sight lines are achieved (measured to the near side and not the far side of the carriageway as the north splay on the submitted plan), the Highways Agency would have to recommend refusal of consent for this development.

. The taper of the bell mouth is too short, considering that large goods vehicles, e.g. furniture removal lorries, will need to be accommodated. TO 42/95 states: ‘Where provision is made for large goods vehicles, the recommended circular corner radius is ... 10m at urban simple junctions, followed by a taper of 1:5 over a distance of 30m, measured from the edge of the major road carriageway up the minor road in the case of the entry to the minor road, and followed by a similar taper measured from the centreline of the minor road along the major road for the entry to the major road. ‘

. I note the point made in the Downes Planning Partnership report about the closure of the nursery school, thus removing a land use with a dangerous access. However, this is a shared access and cannot be stopped up as other premises use it also. Reduced use of this access is offset in highway benefit terms, by the increased use of the substandard access proposed. It has been observed on-site that this is a shared access and we must request that the applicant supplies an up-to-date, accurate OS plan of the site, which reflects this:

. The shared use of the nursery school access is not illustrated on the Ratcliffe Stott drawing no. 542 / 13, Revision C - as such, we have to exercise caution in examining all accompanying drawings and information. Unfortunately, omission of important information does make us question the validity of the information that is enclosed.

Until these issues are addressed to our satisfaction, the Highways Agency must strongly advise that consent for this development is refused. This is in the interests of highway safety.”Highways Agency (23 September 2004):- “I have spoken with David Smith regarding the sub-standard access to the proposed development and I have subsequently spoken to my colleague Ian Mills who has visited the site. We have agreed that the sub-standard visibility splays are not acceptable. Visibility of 90 metres is normally required, so we have already made a concession in the relaxation to 70 metres, which was allowed because we consider that vehicle speeds are likely to be contained to 30mph. The relaxed splay of 2.4 * 70 metres still cannot be achieved in the northerly direction. We accept that the closure of the nursery access will be a benefit, but as the above splay is a fundamental requirement for safety, we cannot accept an access that does not meet this criterion, or indeed the configuration of the access itself.In view of the above, the Highways Agency re-iterates that consent be refused for this

107

application. This is in the interests of highway safety.”Environment Agency:- RR/2004/2191/P - Comments awaited.Southern Water Services:- RR/2004/2191/P - “Foul Sewerage:There is adequate capacity within the foul sewer system to accommodate the foul only flow from the proposed development.Surface Water Disposal:There is no spare capacity within the adjacent foul/combined sewerage system for any additional storm flow to be' accommodated. There are no public surface water sewers in the vicinity of this site.The impermeable area survey plans indicate that storm runoff from the existing site and the nearby properties possibly drain to soakaways. It is recommended that surface water from the site should also be drained to a separate system discharging to soakaways. Your Council's Building Control officers or your own engineers should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.I should be grateful if any full planning permission granted could be made subject to a planning condition requiring that development shall not commence until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water disposal have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water Services.Building over diversion of Public Sewers:I attach a plan extract of the sewer records showing the approximate positions of public sewers which cross the site. The exact position of the public sewers must be determined on site by the Applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised. No new building or new tree planting should be located over or within 3 metres of the public sewer.It might be possible to divert the public sewers, so long as this would result in no unacceptable loss of hydraulic capacity, and the work was carried out at the developer's expense and to the satisfaction of Southern Water Services Ltd under the relevant statutory provisions.Southern Water would request that if consent is granted there be a condition requiring measures for protection/diversion of the sewer be agreed, prior to commencement of the development.”English Heritage:- RR/2004/2274/L:- “Thank you for your letter of 24 August 2004 notifying English Heritage of the application for listed building consent relating to the above site.We have considered the application and do not wish to make any representations on this occasion. We recommend that this case should be determined in accordance with government guidance, development plan policies and with the benefit of conservation advice locally.If there are specific reasons for seeking the advice of English Heritage on this application that were not stated in the notification to us, we would be grateful if you could explain your request. We can then let you know if we are able to help on this occasion and agree a timetable with you.In the event of material changes to the plans and drawings before the application is determined, please let us know so that we can consider the need for any further advice.When you refer this application to the Government Office, it will help to save time if you attach a copy of this letter to the notification (including the enclosed list of the documentation) and confirm that the proposals have not changed.”Sussex Police:- RR/2004/2274/L - “…I have now examined the plans and comment with a view to address crime risks.

108

This is a relatively low crime area and I do not identify any major concerns with the proposals. The cul-de-sac design, combined with secure rear gardens, is capable of creating good defensible space for future residents. The perimeter treatment, although designed as a flood defence, will also assist the security of the site.I recommend that house types are constructed to comply with the police scheme "Secured by Design". The applicant's agent will find full details at www.securedbydesian.com our website.This letter has been copied to the applicant or their agent who is asked to note that above comments may be a material consideration in the determination of the application but may not necessarily be acceptable to the Local Planning Authority. It is recommended, therefore, that before making any amendments to the application, the applicant or their agent first discusses these comments with the Local Planning Authority.”Ancient Monuments Society:- RR/2004/2274/L - “We read this as the projected total demolition of a building listed in its own right - in which case it will need to be compellingly justified. To comment further we shall need to see that justification.”Victorian Society:- RR/2004/2274/L - Comments awaited.Council for British Archaeology:- RR/2004/2274/L - Comments awaited.Georgian Group:- RR/2004/2274/L - Comments awaited.Society for Protection of Ancient Buildings:- RR/2004/2274/L - Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Rye Conservation Society object to the scheme commenting generally that: Western Barn is an historic building, formerly a shipbuilders workshop and is the subject of an application for spot listing - proposal is out of context and out of scale with the adjacent bungalow - it represents over development and encroaches on the curtilage of the listed Western House - it brings forward the building line and fails to address flood risks adequately - a more sympathetic treatment would retain Western Barn. Written representations from a neighbour at 10 New Winchelsea Road are contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 4 November 2004, together with a copy of a report by the Rye Conservation Society’s historical consultant.

SUMMARY Western House is a two storey listed building within the development boundary on the west side of Winchelsea Road. The proposal is to retain this property within a smaller residential curtilage created by enclosing part of the garden within a new brick wall. The adjacent property to the south would be demolished and a small mews close of eleven detached and semi-detached houses erected together with associated car parking and a flood defence wall around the entire site. A new vehicular access is proposed between Western House and the Wool Store to the north (occupied by the agents architectural practice) with appropriate visibility splays. A small area of land is to be allocated for six parking spaces in association with the Wool Store and four bicycle stands are also proposed. Policy HG4 requires that new housing developments relate well to existing street patterns and respect vernacular building design and traditional forms with densities at least 30 dwellings per hectare. The development has a density of 37 dwellings per hectare. I have some concern regarding the layout of development and its density, and the impact on the adjoining property. A flood risk assessment has been submitted in respect of the development and this apparently has been drawn up in association with the Environment Agency whose comments are awaited. The comments of English Heritage have been received on the demolition of the curtilage listed Western Barn and they do not wish to make any representations in this instance. It does not appear to be a building worthy of listing in its own right. Discussions have taken place with the agents on aspects of the design but generally the proposal is one I would feel able to support. The agents have made

109

amendments to the design of the houses (a letter and amended plan have been received showing amendments involving the narrowing of the overall width of Unit 5, creating more space between Unit 5 and the site boundary wall, and the introduction of full gables to No.5) and are still attempting to address the concerns of the Highways Agency and the Highway Authority.

RECOMMENDATIONS:RR/2004/2191/P: DEFER (CONSULTATION RESPONSES AND FURTHER DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE LAYOUT AND ACCESS)

RR/2004/2274/L: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)

RFG: 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/2004/2631/P RYE 1 MILL ROAD02 SEP 2004 REVISED PROPOSALS FOR THE ERECTION OF A TWO

STOREY EXTENSION TO PROVIDE GARAGE AND LOUNGE WITH TWO BEDROOMS ABOVE AND SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO FORM DINING ROOMMr & Mrs Lindow Browne

SITE The existing 1960’s detached two-storey house occupies a plot some 17n wide and 42m deep in the build-up frontage at the northern end of the estate road (Mill Road) on its east side. The adjacent properties to the south are houses on a similar building line, but the detached house to the north, Mill Place, is oriented on a shallower building line facing across the application plot. The site is within the Rye Development Boundary, but outside the Rye Conservation Area and the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

HISTORYRR/2004/1269/P Erection of two-storey side extension and double garage to front

elevation – Refused.

PROPOSAL These are revised proposals for the erection of a two-storey extension to provide a garage and lounge with two bedrooms above, and a single storey extension to form a dining room.The plans show the replacement of the 2.8m wide garage addition on the north west flank, with an ‘L’ shaped two-storey addition projecting 5.772m from the flank wall and 3m to the rear. A single storey addition with a lean to roof would project 2.25m forward of the front elevation, and extend 11.35m across the façade of the building.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- Support refusal. Over-development (RN8F).East Sussex County Council – County Archaeologist:- “This application is of archaeological interest since it lies within a medieval suburb of the town of Rye. This area contained a medieval hospital and a medieval industrial area, which included kilns. Latter occupation of the area is attested by surviving 16th century houses and a windmill.

110

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 items of archaeological interest and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011).This recommendation is made in accordance with the advice set out in the Department of Environment Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 on the 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:- Objections have been received from the owner/occupier of the adjacent property to the north of (Mill Place, Saltcote Lane) and his architect, Chris McGrath, and the owner/occupier of the house opposite (The Trees), generally to the effect that:- extension slightly less large, but still an increase in footprint area of 114%; still gross over-development; flank wall reduced by 1.2m in length, but still resulting in loss of sunlight and daylight; would block attractive views to Saltcote Place stable block and surrounding woodland; first floor windows on front and rear of main extension overlook Mill Place garden with loss of privacy and amenity; front windows overlook Kitchen and Bedroom windows of Mill Place; still shows common drain at rear, flowing in wrong direction, and concerns foundation work could cause blockage; additional bedrooms would increase discharge of sewage through Mill Place; proposals neither in proportion, nor sympathetic to design; still shows two-storey extension near neighbours boundary; this style of development refused at No. 28 as too large, and affecting neighbours amenities.Rye Conservation Society object to the scheme on the ground they consider it appears contrary to Policy S1, which requires extensions to be subservient to the dominant building.Letters commenting on the representations have been received from the applicant and his ‘agent’ to the effect generally that:- site is outside Conservation Area; property was built in late 1960’s as a police house; part of site to be developed has a single garage, plus drainage and boundary walls; ground has been excavated to construct the estate; design and fabric of proposed work more in keeping with estate; suggest Mr McGrath appointed solely to oppose development; Mill Place is set at an angle, so rear elevation with a substantial number of windows overlooks front garden of No.1 Mill Road; West elevation is adjacent to highway, whilst east elevation has only a single small first floor window overlooking side and rear garden to 1 Mill Road; brick boundary wall between 2 properties is substantial, approximately 1.6m high with intermediate piers; there are trees and high shrubs adjacent to boundary within confines of Mill Place – claims of increase of 114% on original footprint, marginally exaggerated; existing footprint including garage (16.26m2) is 70.556m2; proposal will give total footprint of 148.188m2

an increase in footprint of 110%; ratio of total footprint to plot size 20%; site arrangement means east to west track of sun will not result in shadow being cast on

111

Mill Place; closest part of Mill Place is garage 15m away; view being restricted is from first floor window (presumably on landing/hall); already some degree of overlooking which will not be exacerbated; surprised Mr McGrath should seek refusal on drainage grounds as anticipate Planning Authority would impose any necessary conditions and Building Control would have to be satisfied.A supporting letter from Councillor Bantick is appended to the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 4 November 2004.

SUMMARY This 1960’s detached two-storey house occupies a plot some 17m wide and 42m deep in the built-up frontage at the northern end of the estate road on its east side. The adjacent properties to the south are two-storey houses on a similar building line, but the detached house to the north (Mill Place) is oriented on a shallower building line facing across the application plot. Planning permission for a scheme replacing the garage extension with a substantial 6.4m wide two-storey addition to the north flank extending 3.6m in forward of the front elevation and projecting 3m rearward of the rear wall was refused in July of this year (Ref: RR/2004/1269/P). The extension projecting to an indicated 1m from the boundary wall. The scheme also included a front porch, a double garage extension projecting 6m forward of the front wall at the southern end of the house, and a rear conservatory. The revised application now submitted shows a 5.772m wide two-storey addition to the north flank (replacing the garage). The forward part of this extension, which includes a porch and toilet to the front of the original house in single storey. To the rear, the two-storey flank extension projects 3m from the present rear wall with a single storey dining room extension forming part of the proposal. The flank extension now terminates 1.5m from the boundary with Mill Place, and only a single first floor obscure glazed bathroom window lights the site elevation. The roof is hipped.In principle, the scale and form of the two-storey element is now, I feel, acceptable for this site, and I do not consider it would have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of the neighbouring property (Mill Place). I have some reservations about the appearance of the front elevation, and in particular, the single storey element and the fenestration, and I have taken up this aspect with the applicant. Provided this aspect is satisfactorily resolved, and a satisfactory amended plan received, it will be my

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7G (Amended) delete ‘indicating …….dwelling’ (Schedule of Materials).2. CN8C (Foul and surface water details).3. 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 is likely to start.(Reason: The development is likely to disturb items of archaeological interest and to accord with Policy S1 0f the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.)

+Note (N1A Amended Plan).

RFG: 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).

-o0o-

112