RR/2003/3235/P CATSFIELD REDCOAT ORCHARD20 NOV 2003 REMOVAL OF AGRICULTURAL OCCUPANCY RESTRICTION

CONDITION IMPOSED ON RR/86/2078D M Gowland

This application was deferred at the last meeting of the Committee to await the comments of the Rural Estates Surveyor.

SITE Redcoat Orchard lies on the north east side of the B2204 roughly opposite the Old Hunt Stables. The house was built in the late 1980s.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/86/2078 O/A dwelling in connection with fruit orchards - Refused - Appeal

Allowed.RR/88/0623 Erection of farmhouse pursuant to outline permission RR/86/2078 -

Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL This application seeks the removal of the agricultural occupancy restriction imposed upon the property which reads as follows:-“The occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed, in the locality in agriculture as defined in Section 290 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and in forestry or a dependant of such a person residing with him or her, or a widow or widower of such a person.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- No objection but would strongly support tying the land to the house by Section 106 Agreement.Director of Resources - Legal Services Manager:- The applicant has conducted a fairly thorough appraisal of demand with perhaps the exception of retired agricultural workers.Rural Estates Surveyor:- “Conclusioni. The details provided by the applicant’s agent do in my opinion represent a

realistic assessment of the need for such dwellings in the locality.ii. I think that the assessment provides sufficient evidence of a lack of demand for

such dwellings and that in this case it would be appropriate to remove the Agricultural Occupancy Condition.”

Planning Notice:- 4 letters - i) would object to any development of the land for building or commercial purposes; ii) a prospective purchaser has tried to buy the property but applicant has not responded to a written offer of £420,000.

SUMMARY This application seeks the removal of the agricultural occupancy condition imposed upon the property. The applicant’s agent has followed the normally accepted practice of advertising the property, at a suitably reduced valuation, since January of this year. The marketing process has included advertisements in the ‘Farmers Weekly’ and ‘The Fruit Grower’ and a direct mailing exercise to local farmers and landowners with reply paid envelopes. From the marketing exercise the applicant’s agent has concluded that there is no demand for the property with the agricultural occupancy restriction. However, I have received a letter from a prospective purchaser stating that they would like to purchase and that an offer of £370,000 in June 2003 received no

1

response. An improved offer of £420,000 in writing made in November has also not received a response.I have noted acknowledgement within the applicant’s presentation of the interest expressed above; this appears to have been discounted because the interested party had property to sell and required planning permission for development of the site. I do not believe that to discount the enquiry for these reasons is acceptable. It is not surprising that a prospective purchaser has property to sell and it is my understanding that the development proposed involves the erection of polytunnels which may be possible by way of a farm notification depending upon their size.I have therefore written to the applicant’s agent suggesting that the potential buyer needs to be seriously considered; I have requested further information in this regard.Whilst the prospect of a purchaser that satisfies the agricultural occupancy restriction exists I can only conclude that an absence of demand has not been demonstrated. Subject to the applicant’s agents’ response to this issue I expect to make the

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. In considering the request for the removal of the agricultural occupancy condition

the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that no demand exists for agricultural workers’ dwellings in the locality. Under the circumstances the Local Planning Authority having taken account of Government advice, particularly that contained in Annexe I of Planning Policy Guidance No.7, considers that the agricultural occupancy condition should be retained in order to maintain the overall stock of agricultural dwellings within the rural area.

RR/2003/2553/P CROWHURST 11 AND 13 FOREWOOD RISE - REAR OF04 SEP 2003 ERECTION OF THREE NEW DWELLINGS

Rother Homes

This application was first reported to your October 2003 meeting when it was deferred. It has been deferred at your subsequent two meetings, the last being to allow further negotiations in respect of the housing mix proposed and for consultation with English Nature regarding the adjacent SSSI. Your suggestion that there is a need for 1 bed flats in the area has been put to the Applicants, as has the requirement, if approved, to enter into a Section 106 Planning Obligation on grounds that it would be an ‘exceptions site’.

SITE This 0.9 ha site currently comprises the parking area for the Forewood Rise former Council housing estate and contains 6 prefabricated concrete flat roofed garages and 14 parking spaces. The site is located behind nos. 11 to 14 (four 2-storey flats). Access is via a single vehicle width driveway between nos.13/14 and 15 Forewood Rise and off the turning circle at the western end of the estate road.

HISTORYNone.

PROPOSAL The proposed development would take the form of three terraced dwellings backing onto the western boundary with an open field. The southern end three bedroom dwelling would be two storey. The middle and northern end dwellings would be single storey with a bedroom and WC in the roofspace and single dormer windows in the front (east) roof elevations. The existing six garages would be

2

demolished. A total of 11 parking spaces would be provided. Five of these would be within the frontages of the dwellings. The remaining six would adjoin the 1.8m high boundary fence with no.15. The dwelling would be constructed using traditional brick and tile materials in keeping with existing adjoining development.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Recommends approval – “There is already a parking problem on the estate which will be exacerbated by the withdrawal of the rented garages on the application site. There will be an increased traffic flow to and from the new development, and the planning department is asked to give consideration to:1. a) requesting that the plans be amended to use some of the ‘p’ areas on the

proposal to provide 3 or 4 replacement rented garages for the existing residents; and/orb) redesign the present ‘roundabout’ area to provide additional car parking spaces to the front of the estate, retaining the existing tree and a small grassed area if possible.

2. The actual site size should be checked as it is not believed to be the area indicated on the plans.

3. There have been problems with the foul water system on the estate. The viability of an additional demand on the present sewer system needs to be thoroughly checked.

4. Residents who back on the existing garages which are to be demolished would like assurances that a fence will be erected without delay in order to maintain their privacy.

5. It is noted that the proposal is outside of the development stop lines.6. Access by footpath into Fore Wood, which has existed for over 50 years, should

be maintained”.Highway Authority:- Wishes to withdraw its objection commenting that:“The Highway Authority generally seeks to resist development proposals that result in the substantial removal of existing resident off-road parking and could cause additional hazards associated with increased levels of on-street parking.In this instance however, the Applicant has demonstrated that usage of the off-road parking is at a low level and it would be difficult for this Authority to defend a recommendation of refusal in an appeal situation.”Environment Agency:- Has no objection but advise that English Nature should be consulted because the site is adjacent to Fore Wood SSSI.Southern Water:- Do not wish to make any comments.Sussex Police:- Do not identify any unnecessary crime risk.Director of Services - Housing:- Support the proposal.Director of Services - Estates:- Has no objection.English Nature:- “English Nature have no objection provided none of the houses or garage footprints are within the SSSI boundary and that no construction materials and equipment are stored on or within the boundary.”Planning Notice:- No comments received.

SUMMARY In view of the Highway Authority’s withdrawal of its objection to the loss of resident off-road parking, a refusal of planning permission on highway grounds would not be justified.The following reply has been received from the Development Manager of Horizon Housing Group:“With regard to housing mix please note the following:

3

Forewood Rise consists in total of 27 dwellings of which 14 (all houses) have previously been sold under the Right To Buy. That leaves only 3 houses and 10 flats for rent. All the flats are two bedroomed but can if necessary be under occupied to provide single person accommodation. The balance of accommodation in Forewood Rise is therefore already skewed towards single persons, couples or smaller families.The latest housing needs information that I have from Rother District Council (August 2003) indicates the following:registrations for 1 bedroomed accommodation in Crowhurst – 27registrations for 2 bedroomed accommodation in Crowhurst – 22registrations for 3 bedroomed accommodation in Crowhurst – 31The evidence would suggest that in order to provide a balance of rented accommodation in Forewood Rise, that we include at least one three bedroomed unit, which of course, we have. We have also included two cottage style bungalows which provide versatile accommodation capable of being used by individuals, or couples, or small families, and we feel this in an appropriate mix.If the planners have a problem with the 3 bedroomed unit being adjacent to the flats at 11-14 Forewood Rise, it would be possible to reverse the terrace so that the three bedroomed house is on the far side and that the two chalet bungalows are nearest to the flats.With regard to entering into a Section 106, we would of course be quite happy to do this”.In view of their above response I consider the housing mix proposed acceptable. It is my opinion that the two-storey height 3 bedroomed dwelling adjoining the rear of flats 11-14 Forewood Rise, would be at a sufficient distance (between 13-18m) to ensure that their amenities would not be significantly affected. It is my opinion therefore that the scheme should be supported as submitted.

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (S106 – AFFORDABLE HOUSING)1. CN7B a), b) and c) (External materials)2. CN12S Amended “parking of the vehicles of the occupiers of the dwellings

hereby approved, existing dwellings in Forewood Rise and visitors thereto” (Parking provision)

3. CN13F Amended by deleting ‘Before any development takes place’ (Tree/Shrub planting)

N12A (S106 Obligation)

RR/2003/3270/P WHATLINGTON SPRINGFIELD, WHATLINGTON ROAD05 DEC 2003 USE OF LAND AS RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGE

R Vallier

This site was inspected by members of Planning Committee on 15 July 2003 in connection with application RR/2003/1225/P.

SITE Springfield is a detached dwelling in a countryside location, set within the loosely knit ribbon of residential properties fronting the south eastern side of Whatlington Road. The site formerly comprised an agricultural nursery and one large glasshouse remains within approximately 2.8 hectares of land.

4

HISTORY RR/2001/1585/P Extension to dwelling – Withdrawn.RR/2001/2411/P Erection of extension – Refused.RR/2002/1588/P Erection of extension – Refused.RR/2002/2759/P Extension to dwelling – Approved.RR/2003/1225/P Replacement pond and patio – Refused.RR/2003/2591/P Formation of replacement pond and patio - Refused.

PROPOSAL The application is for the change of use of an area of former nursery/agricultural land to the rear of the dwelling (approximately 95m x 50m) to residential garden curtilage. A formal ornamental pond with a paved surround (9.3m x 14m) has been constructed on this land. This has been the subject of planning enforcement investigations and two recently refused retrospective planning applications. These applications were refused principally on the basis that the land fell outside the authorised residential curtilage and no application for the change of use of the land itself had been put forward.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council - No comments received.Planning Notice – 1 letter of objection from the occupier of ‘Freshfields’. On the grounds that, we would be concerned about any future plans for buildings on the land. Would prefer the six foot fence to be taken down and the land left as agriculture. (Note: this appears to relate to the land to the south-west of the dwelling which is not part of the application site)..

SUMMARYThe application now before you differs from the previous applications RR/2003/1225/P and RR/2003/2591/P in that it now proposes the change of use of the land containing the newly constructed pond and patio to garden. It is an application for an extension of the curtilage of the existing dwelling in the countryside and as such, needs to be assessed against Policy HG9 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003):‘Extensions of the curtilages of existing dwellings in the countryside will not normally be permitted unless the extension:(i) is modest in area, and the change of use and associated domestic paraphernalia

does not harm the rural character of the area; and(ii) is to a natural boundary or is a logical rounding off’.

With respect to (ii) of the policy, the extent of the residential curtilage to the rear of the dwelling is presently not clearly defined by physical boundaries on the ground. The field that it is proposed to include within the residential curtilage, on the other hand, is bounded by hedgerows. The proposed development would result in a larger curtilage, but with a clear demarcation line between garden and open-countryside. Regarding (i), whilst the proposal would not positively enhance the appearance of the countryside, the application site is not prominent in the wider landscape and the visual impact of the development would be limited.The field to the south west of the dwelling, within the applicant’s ownership and shown edged blue in the application, does not form part of the development site and would remain outside the curtilage. In the event that planning permission is granted for the change of use of the application site to residential garden curtilage, the pond and patio that have been constructed on the land would be permitted development. In such

5

circumstances, however, Members may consider that a condition taking away permitted development rights for further structures would be appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING)

1. Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting this Order), no caravan, building, structure or erection of any kind shall be placed on the land shown outlined in red on the submitted site location plan unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the land and to protect the character and appearance of the countryside.

RR/2003/1585/O BATTLE NETHERFIELD PLACE, NETHERFIELD ROAD16 JUN 2003 LAWFUL RETENTION OF NINETEEN 2.96M HIGH LIGHTING

COLUMNS INCORPORATING 7 WATTAGE BULBS ALONG RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYMr and Mrs M Rudland

RR/2003/2931/P BATTLE NETHERFIELD PLACE, NETHERFIELD ROAD14 OCT 2003 RETENTION OF 4 NON-ILLUMINATED LIGHTING COLUMNS

AND 15 ILLUMINATED LIGHTING COLUMNS ALONG DRIVEWAY SERVING NETHERFIELD PLACEMr and Mrs M Rudland

Arrangements have been made for Members to make an evening inspection of this site at 6.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 14 January 2004.

SITE Netherfield Place, now occupied as a single house, lies on the south side of Netherfield Road and is accessed there from via a long driveway.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2001/324 C/U of Hotel to dwelling - Approved ConditionalRR/2002/1032/P Erection of lighting columns, gates and walls (retrospective) -

RefusedRR/2002/2591/P Entrance gates, walls, piers and two lights (retrospective) -

Approved ConditionalRR/2002/3017/P Erection of lighting columns along drive - RefusedRR/2003/401/O Construction of swimming pool - LDC RefusedRR/2003/1889/P Construction of swimming pool - Approved Conditional

PROPOSAL Application RR/2003/1585/O seeks a Lawful Development Certificate for the retention of 19 lighting columns along the access drive on the basis that they are permitted development within the residential curtilage. Application RR/2003/2931/P is submitted without prejudice to the Lawful Development Certificate submission, for planning permission to retain the lighting columns but with 4 of the 19 being non-illuminated; the non-illuminated lamp standards being four of the first six along the first part of the drive from the entrance gates.

6

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- “The Council has always opposed any lighting at this property and continues to feel that this principle should be adhered to. Notwithstanding the discussion relating to the definition of the curtilage of the property it is therefore opposed to the two illuminated lighting columns.”Director of Resources - Legal Services Manager:- “…Accordingly, I need you to investigate what the land either side of the access track is used for. If, as the photograph supplied with the application suggests, it is just fields, I think that it would be unlikely to comprise residential curtilage and therefore the Certificate should be refused except in relation to all but the nearest 2-4 standards.”Planning Notice:- 1 letter of support - i) lights are an amenity; ii) no effect on any other property; iii) additional security.3 letters of objection - i) cause of light pollution; ii) inappropriate in AONB; iii) unnecessary and unsympathetic; iv) visible in autumn, winter and spring from Netherfield Down and surrounding hills.

SUMMARY Early in 2002 entrance gates and flank walls surmounted by lights together with 19 lighting columns along the length of the entrance drive were installed without the necessary planning permission. An application to retain the installation was refused (RR/2002/1032/P and RR/2002/3017/P) but the entrance gates, piers and flank walls together with the lamps on top were approved under reference RR/2002/2591/P.The application for a Certificate of Lawful Use (RR/2003/1585/O) seeks to establish that all 19 lamp standards are within the residential curtilage of the property; if this could be established the lamps would be permitted development by reason of being less than 3 metres high. Legal advice is that whilst some of the lamps close to the dwelling may well be permitted, from the application plan it is noted that the track continues for a considerable distance before the public road is reached. However, it is important to consider the function of the land and it is clear to me that the initial part of the driveway runs through land which is not in use domestically and the drive serves not only the dwelling but the applicant’s whole landholding, some of which is grazed. I do not accept that the lamp standards are permitted development.The current planning application relates to the retention of the lighting columns. Four of the first six lamps along the first part of the driveway from the entrance gates would be non-illuminated and the remainder lit using 7 watt longlife bulbs.The issue in this case is the effect of the lights upon the character and appearance of the AONB.Policy DS1(vi) states“(vi) It avoids prejudicing the character and qualities of the environment, particularly

the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and undeveloped coastline.”Policy GD1 reflects the same issue, viz:“(v) It is compatible with the conservation of the natural beauty of the High Weald

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.”In addition policy S1(s) of the Structure Plan sets the objective of “avoiding and reducing unnecessary noise and artificial lighting.”In order to make an assessment the lights have been inspected after dark and so far as I have been able to ascertain the principle public viewpoint is at the property entrance. The low wattage bulbs are dim in comparison with the permitted lights at the entrance gates. I am inclined to the opinion that the lighting columns, with four of the most visible being non-illuminated and the remainder now filled with low wattage bulbs, the lights do not impact unacceptably on the appearance of the AONB. The larger number

7

of lamps, closest to the house, do not appear to be obviously visible in the landscape from Netherfield Road.I am of course mindful of the Enforcement Appeal at Ockham House, Hurst Green where, in dismissing the appeal, the Inspector concluded that nineteen lamp standards would produce unacceptable light pollution to the detriment of the appearance of the AONB. The lamps were more obvious in the landscape than those the subject of this application, by reason of being elevated and clearly visible from a wide area to the south. The Inspector did not believe that a reduction in lamps or lower wattage bulbs would be satisfactory. A copy of the appeal decision is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 22 January 2004.It is my opinion, on balance, that the Netherfield Place lamps do not have the same demonstrable harm to the AONB and could be accepted. Members will form their own conclusion following a night time inspection of the site.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

RR/2003/1585/O: REFUSE (CERTIFICATE OF LAWFUL USE).

RR/2003/2931/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. The four lamp standards marked A, B, C and D upon the approved plan shall be

non-illuminated and hereafter retained in that condition.(Reason: To maintain the character of the High Weald AONB and in accordance with Policy S1(j) and (s) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. The 15 illuminated lighting standards shall be fitted with bulbs of not exceeding 7 watts and thereafter retained in that condition.(Reason: To maintain the character of the High Weald AONB and in accordance with Policy S1(j) and (s) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

RR/2003/2939/P BATTLE PILGRIMS REST - LAND REAR OF15 OCT 2003 ERECTION OF NEW DWELLING

T Wilkins

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

SITE This application relates to a plot of land measuring 15m by 25m at the rear of The Pilgrims Restaurant, Abbey Green.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2001/117/P Erection of single storey detached dwelling - Refused - Appeal

Allowed.

PROPOSAL This application is for a revised dwelling in that it is the same design as previously approved on appeal (RR/2001/117/P) but with two additional bedrooms.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- “The Council has always opposed any development on this site and believes that its objections made in relation to application RR/2001/117 remain valid.”Highway Authority;- Does not wish to restrict the grant of consent.

8

Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY The planning permission which exists for the development of this site is for the construction of a two bedroomed house built with the exception of the lounge, below ground level. The current application relates to the same design but with two additional subterranean bedrooms. If permitted the finished development would, from the public perspective, have the same appearance as that for which planning permission exists.I am aware that the Town Council are, in principle, opposed to the development of this site but I do not believe that it is realistic to resist this application. A planning permission exists for most of what is proposed. The additional two rooms are below ground and thus cannot be said to impact upon the setting of nearby Listed Buildings or the character of the Conservation Area.It would, in my view be appropriate to grant planning permission subject to the same conditions imposed by the Inspector upon the earlier consent.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the

construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

2. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of walls, gates, fences or other means of enclosure. These shall be completed before the building is occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting the Order with or without modification), no garages, sheds, fences, gates or walls shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling and no extensions or other enlargement of the dwelling house shall take place.

4. No development shall take place within the appeal site until the applicants, or the agents or successors in title, have secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing.

RR/2003/2979/P BATTLE NETHERFIELD HILL FARM, NETHERFIELD HILL07 NOV 2003 CHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION OF REDUNDANT

BUILDINGS TO HOLIDAY LET UNITS AND REPLACEMENT OF POLE BARN WITH HOLIDAY LET UNIT AND FORMATION OF STABLES IN EXISTING BARN.Mr T Petzal

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

SITE Netherfield Hill Farm lies off the south west side of Netherfield Hill. The farm buildings are approached via an access drive of about 100m, beside the farm bungalow, and are currently not used.

HISTORY (Relevant)

9

RR/92/1888/P C/U of redundant agricultural buildings to vehicle repair workshops - Approved Conditional.

RR/93/2110/P Continued use of vehicle repair workshops on a permanent basis - Approved Conditional.

RR/97/2531/P Extension to vehicle repair workshop to form parts and equipment store - Approved Conditional.

PROPOSAL The application seeks the formation of holiday accommodation to provide income to the farm. The accommodation is aimed towards equestrian and disabled facilities including the formation of four stables within an existing barn.A total of five units of accommodation are proposed 2 no. 2 person and 2 no. 4 person units from 2 existing buildings. A further 4 bed unit is proposed to be constructed to replace an existing pole barn. The submitted details include timber cladding of the building formerly used for motor vehicle repairs; its roof would be recovered with slates. Clay roof tiles would be used on the other existing building and the new build unit would be of brick and tile.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- “The Council is opposed to this development in the countryside and outside the recommended development area. The Council also has considerable concerns about the traffic implications.”Highway Authority:- Recommends refusal. “The existing access at its junction with Netherfield Hill (C96) has substandard visibility and width and existing hazards would be increased by the additional slowing, stopping, turning and reversing traffic which would be created.”Environment Agency:- No objection subject to investigation of contamination from previous uses and the submission of drainage details.Director of Services - Chief Building Control Officer:- Compliance with part M of the Building regulations required for use by persons in wheelchair.Director of Services - Environmental Health:- No objection provided that contaminated land condition imposed.Southern Water – The application indicates the use of a septic tank but a foul sewer is nearby and should be used.Planning Notice:- 3 letters of objection - i) within the AONB; ii) Increased traffic using narrow drive to a busy road iii) additional traffic using access between two bends; iv) Netherfield Hill is used by vehicles at speed and large delivery lorries; vi) sub-standard visibility; vii) noise from building works.

SUMMARY The buildings the subject of this application are currently not used; the applicant wishes to form a modest enterprise offering equestrian holiday accommodation suited to both able bodied and disabled visitors.The Local Plan includes the following Policy:-Policy CF5: Development of new or in connection with existing equestrian

establishments will be permitted provided:-(i) there will be no significant adverse effect on the landscape

character of the area nor on the residential amenities of dwellings in the locality;

(ii) the development normally involves a change of use of existing farm buildings or is within or adjacent to such building;

10

(iii) where new buildings are involved, they must be located, and designed and of materials in keeping with its rural setting, with particular attention will be paid to new proposals in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

(iv) the proposal will not give rise to additional traffic problems in the area;

(v) where the enterprise will involve riders using the bridleways and roads in the area, the bridleways must be adequate in extent and suitable for joint use by walkers. Where they are not, a planning obligation will be sought with the applicant and the County Highway Authority to secure satisfactory improvements to the routes in order to ensure the safe and effective working of the enterprise. Where these problems cannot be overcome, planning permission is likely to be refused.

The proposal is of course within the High Weald AONB and thus landscape impact is also a principal issue.The buildings in question form quite a tight group which are visible in the landscape from nearby properties but are not particularly prominent in wider views. The proposal would improve the appearance of the group and put them to a new use in accord with PPG7. The buildings are sufficiently separated from existing dwellings.The package of proposals could be accepted under the terms of policy CF5 although there are two matters which are of concern to me. Firstly, the Highway Authority recommend refusal based upon sub-standard visibility and width of access. The applicants’ agent has been advised of this. Secondly, whilst the applicant owns about 10 hectares of land it does not connect directly with any bridleways. The nearest bridleway joins the other side of Netherfield Hill close to the golf course. Horse riders wishing to use the bridleway would need to cross Netherfield Hill; as I have previously stated visibility is restricted at the access.I am mindful that in rural areas PPG13 gives the following advice: “Diversification of agricultural businesses is increasingly likely to lead to proposals for conversion of re-use of existing farm buildings for other business purposes, possibly in remote locations. PPG7 indicates that for development related to agriculture and for farm diversification, appropriate new buildings may also be acceptable. In plan polices and development control decisions local authorities should encourage farm diversification proposals particularly, but not exclusively, where this enables access by public transport, walking and cycling. They should be realistic about the availability, or likely availability, of alternatives to access by car. Similarly, they should not reject proposals where small-scale business development or its expansion would give rise to only modest additional daily vehicle movements in comparison to other uses that are permitted on the site, and the impact on minor roads would not be significant.”The applicant’s agent has provided additional information in respect of the access issue; in particular a comparison is presented between the previous vehicle repair workshop and the proposed use. This is attached to this report as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT and it has been forwarded to the Highway Authority for consideration. I have particular concern in respect of the use of the access by horse riders and unless the Highway Authority withdraw their previous recommendation of refusal I shall adhere to my previous recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)

11

1. The existing access at its junction with Netherfield Hill (C96) has substandard visibility and width and existing hazards would be increased by the additional slowing, stopping, turning and reversing traffic which would be created.

RR/2003/3149/P BATTLE BEAUPORT PARK RIDING SCHOOL, HASTINGS 11 NOV 2003 ROAD

ERECTION OF INDOOR RIDING SCHOOL AND FORMATION OF NEW CAR PARKING AREAMr and Mrs N Simes

SITE Beauport Park riding school is located to the north of Beauport Park Hotel; vehicular accesses to the A2100 Battle Road and The Ridge West are shared with the hotel and the golf course.

HISTORY (Relevant)A/66/812 Covered riding school - Approved ConditionalRR/84/1173 Reconstruction of stable block - Approved ConditionalRR/84/2249 Covered riding school - Approved ConditionalRR/2001/893/P Erection of replacement stables - Approved ConditionalRR/2002/1810/P Revised plans for stables approved under reference

RR/2001/893/P - Approved Conditional

PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for the construction of a new building for an indoor riding school. The proposed building, located to the north of the existing covered school (A/66/812) would measure about 80m by 32.4m wide and 10m high overall. A grey fibre cement roof sheeting is specified with walls clad using a green profiled steel cladding. The submitted plan also indicates the clearance of an area 40m by about 25m for car parking which I estimate might provide 40-50 spaces for cars/horse boxes depending upon layout.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- “The Council noted the substantial scale of this development which it feels is inappropriately large in what is in effect a countryside location.”Highway Authority:- Does not wish to restrict the grant of consent.Environment Agency:- Site is within a designated ‘Site of Nature Conservation Interest’. Use of soakaways should be based upon permeability tests. Manure storage should be at least 10m from any watercourse.Hastings Borough Council:- Raises concerns about the use of the proposed materials in the AONB.Director of Services - Environmental Health:- No objection subject to conditions.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY Beauport Riding Stables has woodland to the north and a private dwelling (Sawmill Cottage) to the west. However, Beauport Park Hotel and Golf Course are both close by and given this and the close proximity of the Hastings Borough boundary I believe that the equestrian use of the site, within the AONB is appropriate. It is however essential that if the principle of a covered school building is accepted the Council must be satisfied that the landscape impact is satisfactory.The applicant has already cleared and roughly levelled the proposed site of the building leaving a screen of trees to the east and north. Although I have to observe that in the

12

event that the trees were lost, and many are rather spindly specimens and not all are within the applicant’s ownership, the building would be open to the AONB in those directions.Similarly, I have received further supporting information from the applicant’s agent following my query into the size of the building proposed. Whilst an explanation is provided regarding the space requirements it is equally now apparent that the applicant is wishing to facilitate the accommodation of competitions. The design is centred around an international dressage arena and the additional areas necessary for such competitions. The applicant also points out the nearest indoor facilities for indoor carriage driving are 25 and 45 miles away. The design also incorporates a spectator viewing area.My particular concern at this stage is that I am not in possession of the full picture and as a result I cannot assess the need for car parking and spectator/competitor facilities. I have written to the applicant’s agent but at present I have to believe that the proposal could generate significant additional traffic and impact adversely upon the character of the AONB. I expect to make the

RECOMMENDATION: 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 Policies DS1(vi) and 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.

2. Highway reason (as may be supported by the Highway Authority).

RR/2003/3275/P BATTLE WILLIAM TERRACE - (FORMER SENLAC MOWER 01 DEC 2003 CENTRE SITE), LOWER LAKE

ERECTION OF 5 TERRACED HOUSES, PARKING SPACES AND ASSOCIATED WORKSThe Park Lane Group

SITE The application site lies on the south west side of Lower Lake at the foot of Battle Hill opposite the Senlac Public House. The site has a frontage of 25.5 metres and depth varying from 26m to 34.5m. In area it equates to about 0.1 hectares.

HISTORYRR/2001/967/P O/A Terrace of 4 houses - Approved ConditionalRR/2002/1340/P Terrace of 5 houses - Refused - Appeal Dismissed

PROPOSAL Full planning permission is requested for the erection of a two storey terrace of 5 dwellings fronting Lower Lake. An access road is proposed between the terrace and the Methodist Chapel to a parking area at the rear. The pedestrian access to Chapel Cottages at the rear would be maintained.The terrace would be of brick construction with white painted weatherboarding at first floor level, timber windows, clay roof tiles and timber canopies over entrance doors.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council – No objection to this.

13

Highway Authority – Recommends refusal; access too narrow and fence obstructing visibility.Environment Agency – No objection subject to conditions. In particular the site attracts the need for contamination to be investigated and if found dealt with.Southern Water – No objection.Director of Services – Environmental Health – Contaminated land condition required.Planning Notice – 1 letter supportive of the application and attaching copy letter to applicants regarding the safeguarding of services and pedestrian access to Chapel Cottages.

SUMMARY The site is within the Battle Conservation Area and the development boundary; outline planning permission has been granted for a terrace of four houses. The last two applications on the site for a terrace of five were refused and dismissed on appeal but only on design grounds. The Inspectors have both concluded that the provision of five dwellings on the site is acceptable and the level of parking provision (5 spaces) is satisfactory given the location of the site.The design and materials now proposed follow meetings with the applicants agents and I am now satisfied that the proposal is acceptable in respect of its appearance within the Conservation Area.I have copied the Highway Authority’s consultation response to the applicants agent requesting that the points raised be addressed. I expect an amended plan prior to your meeting when I shall make the

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7B (External materials – a and c amend to ‘handmade’ roofing tile)2. The weather board cladding to the first floor elevations shall be of white painted

timber feather edged type only and not otherwise.Reason: RC2

3. CN14N (Contaminated land – Amended).4. All window frames, front entrance doors and door canopies shall be of painted

timber construction only and not otherwise.Reason: RC2

5. Highway Conditions as may be recommended by the Highway Authority.6. The boundary walls and fences indicated upon the approved plans shall be

constructed at the time of development and completed within one month of the occupation of the first dwelling on the site and shall thereafter be retained.

Notes:N7A (Private right of way).The Rother District Council, as Local Planning Authority, is approving the application in approving the application is aware of the possible existence of service pipes and cables on or beneath the site. It is for the developer to locate and protect all such services so as to maintain continuity of service to the properties so supplied.

14

RR/2003/3299/P BATTLE 29 CLAVERHAM WAY05 DEC 2003 PROPOSED GARAGE, PORCH AND LOFT CONVERSION

Mr R Eldridge

SITE This is a detached bungalow located as the penultimate bungalow at the far southwest end of Claverham Way. The site is within the development boundary of Battle, and it is within the High Weald AONB.

HISTORYNone directly relevant

PROPOSAL The proposed development consists of the erection of a full depth and height dormer, across approximately two thirds of the rear roof slope. This would provide two new bedrooms in the roof of this bungalow. The second element of the proposed development consists of converting the existing garage into a bedroom and bathroom, and the erection of a single storey extension onto the converted garage up to the level with the front wall of the bungalow. Finally, a new entrance porch would be erected. A new conservatory is shown to be erected on the rear elevation, but is not included in the description.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council - “Whilst the Council accepts these proposals in principle it feels that the detailed design is aesthetically unpleasing”.Planning Notice:9 letters of objection from neighbouring residents;

Out of place and character Should not inhibit access by water board and/or emergency vehicles Reduces on site parking Will lead to on street parking/turning problems/hazards Dormer on rear should be subordinate to the roof size Would design withstand high winds Will set undesirable precedent Shortage of small bungalows like this Proposed extension would obscure no.31 Claverham Way form the road making

it more vulnerable to burglary and detrimental to visual amenity Proposed development changes character from retirement bungalow to four

bedroom house Detrimental to daylight, outlook and aspect, of no. 31 Would blight and de value no. 31 Noise and smells from the new bathroom window and extractor fan, opposite our

bedroom window, would be detrimental to no.31

15

SUMMARY Having regard to the proposed new garage extension, from measurements taken on site, only if a horizontal or vertical roller or sectional garage door was used would there be sufficient space to park a vehicle in front of the garage without encroaching onto the adjoining access track. I have considered the above objections, however whilst it would be seen, I do not consider that the new development would have a detrimental impact on the visual and daylight amenities of the occupiers of no.31 Claverham Way. My main concern is with the flat roof design of the front extension, and the size and appearance of the proposed rear dormer. It is too large and disproportionate for the roof, and therefore out of character with the bungalow. Both the front extension and rear dormer would be inappropriate development in the AONB. Also, with regard to the new bedroom roof light on the northwest elevation, this would overlook the garden of the neighbouring property (27) and cause loss of privacy to the occupiers thereof. As submitted I cannot support this application.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. Having regard to the size, bulk and height of the new dormer, it would be

disproportionate and over dominant in relation to the bungalow, and the new bedroom roof light is likely to cause overlooking and loss of privacy to the neighbouring residents. Also, the flat roof design of the front extension would be inappropriate in the street scene. Such development would be in conflict with policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and policies and GD1 and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003)

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/2003/3371/P BATTLE 21 VIRGINS LANE16 DEC 2003 DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF

TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS SERVED BY NEW VEHICULAR ACCESSMr & Mrs Bond

SITE 21 Virgins Lane lies on the north side of the lane roughly opposite Bowmans Drive. The application site has a road frontage of 30m and a minimum depth of 50m; the applicant owns further land to the north. The land slopes significantly away from the road.

HISTORY (Part of site)A/62/739 O/A Residential development - Refused - Appeal DismissedRR/2001/162/P O/A House and garage - RefusedRR/2001/166/P O/A 6 houses and garages - RefusedRR/2001/167/P O/A 6 houses 2 bungalows and garages - RefusedRR/2001/2850/P O/A Erection of new houses and formation of new access road -

Refused - Appeal DismissedRR/2003/1396/P 4 semi-detached 3 bed houses, garages and new vehicular access

– Withdrawn

16

PROPOSAL This application is for full planning permission for the erection of two detached houses with double garages attached served by a shared central access. The houses would be of the same 5 bedroomed design but handmade facing bricks, tile hanging and a plain tiles roof are indicated.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council – Comments awaited.Highway Authority – Comments awaited.Environment Agency – Comments awaited.Southern Water – Comments awaited.Planning Notice – 1 letter of objection (17 Virgins Lane)1. Loss of amenity/light/view for 17 Virgins Lane. Proposed house at no. 19

would completely block morning sunlight from our conservatory/breakfast room. We would have a high brick wall right against the boundary of our property.

2. Loss of amenity/light/view for no 23 Virgins Lane.3. Loss of views through from Virgins Lane to AONB beyond4. Properties out of keeping and out of scale with surrounding properties, 3 storeys

is excessive 5. Over-development

SUMMARY The site is within the development boundary as is some land to the north; as a matter of principle residential redevelopment is acceptable in my view. The majority of dwellings in Virgins Lane are detached with a mixture of houses and bungalows. The proposal for two detached houses seeks to utilise the site slope with the result that the design has a rear elevation 3 storeys high whilst the garages attached to the front elevation incorporates a bedroom above partly within the roof construction.I believe two detached properties to be appropriate for this site but there are aspects of concern to me. The application is not accompanied by any levels and thus accurate assessment of the proposal in relation to the adjacent properties is difficult. To the west no. 17 is a two storey house but it is built at a low level; to the east and slightly above the level of the application site is a property having the appearance of a bungalow from the front. The submitted designs are 16m deep from the front to the back with the result that the side elevations are extensive. Moreover, the depth of the buildings combined with their siting would emphasise the impact upon the neighbouring properties.I have written to the applicants agent expressing my concerns but I do not believe that the provision of a level survey and re-siting alone will adequately address my concerns. As submitted I must make the

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed development would, if permitted be out of character with and

detrimental to the amenities of neighbouring dwellings by reason of the design and siting of the dwellings proposed. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy GD1 (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2003/2683/P BEXHILL HOLLENDEN HOUSE, BUCKHURST ROAD17 SEP 2003 CHANGE OF USE , CONVERSION AND EXTENSION OF

RESIDENTIAL HOME TO FORM 24 FLATS

17

The Ex-Service Fellowship Centre

This application has been added to the Committee Site Inspection list.

This application was deferred at your last two meetings for legal advice relating to the Applicant’s challenge to the Council’s ability to implement its revised affordable housing policy. This is contained in the letter dated 4 November 2003 from Malcolm Hollis, a copy of which is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this meeting 22 January 2004.I have since received a letter dated 5 January 2004 referring to a similar case with Tonbridge & Malling Council which recently also sought to introduce a revised affordable housing policy. A copy of the letter together with copies of the correspondence referred to are also contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this meeting 22 January 2004.

SITE Hollenden House is a range of two storey buildings occupying an elevated position on the north side of Buckhurst Road and last used as a 41 bedroomed residential home for ex-service personnel. This was recently closed for economic reasons and is currently boarded up.

HISTORY latest applications include:RR/91/1318/P Construction of pitched roofs and erection of 2 lift shafts, 2

conservatories and additions and alterations at rear – ApprovedRR/94/2185/P Erection of conservatory – Approved

PROPOSAL It is proposed to convert the building internally to provide 24 self contained flats. The proposed extensions comprise the addition of first floors above existing flat roofed extensions at the rear and western end of the building. The accommodation provided would comprise 3 x three bed flats, 14 x two bed flats and 7 one bed flats. Parking would be provided at a ratio of 1:5 parking spaces per unit and the submitted plan shows 35 spaces in the frontage and 2 spaces adjoining the western end.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority – Does not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to the following observations:- proposed use as 24 flats would result in a similar number of vehicles movements

as previous use as a 41 bedroom residential home- 36 parking spaces are provided to serve 24 flats. Maximum number under

County Council’s adopted parking standards is between 16 and 24. The Highway Authority wishes the number of spaces to be reduced and 1 secure and covered cycle parking space provided for each residential unit.

- minimum dimensions for a car parking space is 5m x 2.5m increased in width to 3.6m for disabled.

- the Highway Authority is concerned that the reversing traffic created by spaces 20-23 will increase the hazard to young school children. The 14 spaces located on the south-western corner of the site has a substandard layout. All vehicles should enter and leave the parking area in forward gear.

- the Highway Authority wish to secure by S106 Legal Agreement a £20,000 contribution towards improving disabled and pedestrian facilities on routes leading to the site. The identified improvements will enhance the accessibility

18

to/from Bexhill Town Centre by modes of transport other than the car, and will need to give due consideration to the access requirements of St Peter & St Paul’s Junior School located adjacent to the proposed development.

Environment Agency – Has no objection.Southern Water – Foul – proposed development would increase the flows to the public sewage system which is currently overloaded. There is insufficient capacity to accommodate any additional foul flows. However, a flow no greater than the existing can be accommodated. Any excess surface water should be disposed of by alternative means subject to all interested parties approval.Surface Water Sewage – only part of site is connected to the public sewer for surface water disposal. In view of the lack of downstream capacity, alternative surface water disposal to soakaway or local land drainage should be sought, in order not to increase the load on downstream sewers. A condition requiring submission of details of foul and surface water disposal is recommended.Sussex Police – Are concerned about open access around the building and believes that amenity and public order incidents will occur unless adequate perimeter treatment is installed.Director of Services – Housing – Amended comments have been received increasing their minimum requirement of affordable housing from 25% to 40% in accordance with the Council’s revised Local Plan Policy HG1.Planning Notice – 1 letter of objection “should be kept as retirement home; just for once save these buildings”.

SUMMARY The legal advice you have sought regarding implementation of your revised affordable housing policy has been circulated to Members of the Planning Committee.At the time of writing this report I have not received any amended plans addressing the provision of on-site parking. I have advised the Applicant’s of your wish that parking is provided to your adopted standard of 11/3 spaces per unit. However, I am concerned about the adverse impact that so much frontage parking would have upon the visual amenities of the area and have suggested that they consider the possibility of rationalising the parking areas of this site and adjoining Whiteworth House (also in their ownership) with a view to removing parking, if possible from the most visually prominent areas. I have also asked the Applicant’s to confirm whether or not they would be prepared to make the financial contribution requested by the Highway Authority.If following consideration of the legal advice, Members decide to support the proposal, I would make the following:

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (AMENDED PLANS AND RECONSULTATION WITH THE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY)1. CN7C (Matching external materials)2. CN8C (Foul and surface water details)3. CN13F (Tree/shrub planting)4. The parking provision shown on the application plans shall be made available for

use before any of the flats hereby permitted are first occupied and shall be maintained at all times as available for parking of the vehicles of the occupiers and visitors thereto.Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to remove the necessity for off-site parking and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton &

19

Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

5. No development shall commence until the developers have entered into a Section 106 Legal Agreement with the ESCC Highway Authority.Reason: To secure a £20,000 financial contribution towards improving disabled and pedestrian facilities on routes leading to the site in accordance with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

6. As recommended by the Highway Authority.RR/2003/2911/P BEXHILL 22 HASLAM CRESCENT8 DEC 2003 CHANGE OF USE OF PART OF RETAIL UNIT TO FORM TAKE

AWAY FOOD UNIT (A3 USE) INCLUDING RETENTION OF POST OFFICEMr H Walia

SITE This application relates to the two-storey parade of four shops on the west side of Haslam Crescent. These all have flats above and fall within a predominantly residential area. The shops are fronted by a lay-by and have garages at the rear. The premises had, until recently, been used as a convenience store (now ceased trading) and local post office.

HISTORYB/57/425 Block of four shops with flats over and garages – ApprovedRR/2002/2962/P Change of use of part of retail unit to form self-contained flat

including retention of post office – Approved

PROPOSAL The submitted plans show the former shop floor area separated from the post office and refitted with a serving counter and kitchen. An external galvanised steel fume extract duct would be attached to the rear elevation terminating just above eaves height with a ‘chinamans hat’ type cowl. Internal ducting would incorporate ‘carbon filter and ‘fan’ units. The post office would remain in its existing location but be fitted with a new shopfront similar in appearance to the existing but with its own entrance door. In an accompanying letter the Applicant states:“1. Fume extraction system: I have indicated this on the existing drawing and have

also provided another drawing showing the external route etc. 5 copies of each plan are enclosed.

2. The premises are to be a fish and chip shop, selling the usual fish, chips, pies and sausages that one finds in such an establishment. Canned and bottled soft drinks will also be sold.

3. Hours of opening will be:Monday – SaturdayDaytime from 11.00am until 2.30pm and evenings from 4.30pm until 10.00pm (max)Sundays – Closed

I hope that you will now have sufficient information, I’m afraid that I cannot be more specific at this time as my client only has a potential tenant to take the premises on and only if planning permission is granted.Further details can be provided later if required but could these be covered by conditions on the planning consent?”

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority – Does not wish to restrict grant of consent.

20

Sussex Police – “This locality is troubled by vandalism and other crime and disorder issues. If consent is granted I ask that a time condition is imposed to ensure that the facility does not trade after public houses close. A time condition of 11pm would help protect local residents’ amenities and reduce crime and disorder issues. I strongly recommend that, as part of any consent, a CCTV system is installed to monitor and record behaviour within the premises”..Director of Services – Environmental Health – “I consider the mechanical ventilation extract system to be discharging too low and it is shown with a ‘chinamans hat’ which will deflect cooking odours downwards. Also, land to the rear is higher than the site. The flue should be taken to stack height either along the roof pitch and up or through the roof from ground floor via the first floor internally.This may have visual amenity implications. Even with correct filters the discharge point should be higher than shown.No details of the fan and/or filter(s) are shown.Noise from takeaways can be disturbing to local residents. this location is not ‘town centre’.Application should be refused on the basis of what has been submitted”.Planning Notice – 2 letters of objection – are already daytime parking problems; take away will encourage parking for lengthy periods; extended hours will restrict parking in lay-by for overnight parking by local residents; nuisance from loud music from parked vehicles; litter; trespass onto private property for seating and shelter; vandalism and graffiti; vermin from discarded food litter; fire risk; out of keeping with parade of shops; late opening hours; smells; block drains from fat.

SUMMARY It is my understanding that the applicant owns the flat above the proposed take-away and it may therefore be possible to incorporate most of the fume extract ducting within the building and thereby overcome the problems regarding point of discharge and visual amenity. This has apparently not been explored by the Applicant. However, it would not overcome my concern regarding the impact of the proposed use upon the residential amenities of the area. As mentioned by the Director of Services this is not a town centre location and would be particularly sensitive to late night disturbance, especially as it is proposed to stay open until 10.00pm. For this reason therefore, the proposal is also not supported.

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. RN11A a) noise, b) traffic, c) smells, d) late night activity

(Disturbance/environmental effect).2. It as not been demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority that a satisfactory

fume extraction system could be installed that would not be detrimental to the residential amenities of the are by virtue of smells, fumes and mechanical noise associated with the system. For this reason the development could be contrary to Policy S1 (b) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1 (ii) and (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2003/2969/P BEXHILL PEBSHAM FARM - LAND AT, PEBSHAM LANE17 OCT 2003 CONTINUED USE OF THE FORMER AGRICULTURAL

BUILDINGS FOR CLASS B1 PURPOSES FOR A FURTHER TWO YEAR PERIOD

21

Mr M Worssam

SITE Pebsham Farm is located on the north side of the unmade section of Pebsham Lane (opposite Pebsham Riding School) some 160m from Filsham Drive. There is a range of converted buildings, formerly farm buildings. Immediately to the north east of the site, and served by the same access, is Pebsham Farmhouse, in use as four dwellings. The site is outside the development boundary for Bexhill and is identified as a Strategic Gap and within the area identified for the location of the Country Park in the Initial Deposit Draft Local Plan, 2001.

HISTORYRR/95/21/P Change of use to include a micro brewery within building also used

as a store - Approved.RR/2001/0001/P Change of use of agricultural buildings to B1 use (retrospective

application) and alteration to existing access - Approved (temporary) – Appeal Dismissed.

RR/2003/1731/P Removal of Condition 2 imposed on RR/2001/1/P to allow continued use on a permanent basis of former agricultural buildings for class B1 use – Refused.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to use the former agricultural buildings as light industrial units for a limited two year period.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority – Do not raise an objection, though does not discount their underlying concern over continued traffic increase. Full comments are included as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 22 January 2004.Environment Agency – Raise no objection.Director of Transport & Environment – Strategic Planner – Do not consider the application raises any strategic planning issues. Director of Services – Environmental Health – Raise no objection to the proposal provided that the previous noise level condition is attached to any permission. Director of Services – Economic Development Officer – No comments received.Southern Water – Raise no objection.Hastings Borough Council – No comment to make.Planning Notice – Two hundred and twenty eight (228) letters/statements of objection have been received. Within the objections received, 222 letters/statements of objection have been received which states: “I wish to register my objection to the above application (ref RR/2003/1731/P) to extend the use of the buildings at Pebsham Farm for B1 industrial use for a further two years, as the inevitable increase in the heavy commercial traffic through a residential area is totally unacceptable.” The remaining letters were citing the following concerns:

Road network not designed for HGV movements Pollution through noise, vibration, dust from lorries Conflicts with the concept of area being part of countryside park Problems for emergency vehicle access Safety of residents compromised – speeding traffic (lorries); many families and

children in area; riding school Road/pavements showing signs of damage due to HGVs Breach of planning conditions Impact upon property values

22

Impact upon road surface

SUMMARY Whilst the re-use of agricultural building for employment purposes falls within advice in Government guidance in PPG7, it is necessary in this instance to ensure there is no unacceptable impact on the adjoining area. In addition, because of the proposed Country Park it is important to ensure that development does not prejudice proper implementation of the Country Park proposal. The application in 2001 was therefore granted on a temporary basis for this reason, including the inclusion of a trial run period as set out in Circular 11/95 para 111/112, in order to assess the impact of the development on the surrounding area.Following inspection of the site the entire site does not appear fully occupied and operational. In addition the use by “Grilles Direct” is in my view not a B1 use by virtue of noise and size of delivery vehicles used. The trial period has not therefore established that the uses now proposed are acceptable. The main weight of public objection is regarding the commercial traffic generation through the adjoining residential area.Confirmation of the occupancy level has been supplied by the agent (Appendix 1), which illustrates the site is operating at nearly 100% capacity. It must be stressed at this point the response provided by East Sussex County Council Highway Engineers is based upon data made available to them by objectors as well as their own information though consider the data a ‘snapshot’ of activity levels. However, the site inspections raised issues such as, for example, Building 5 was not secure and was empty and no evidence of glass ornament storage or a builder occupying the building was present – therefore raising doubt over the ‘definitive quantification of traffic movements or building occupancy’ required by the Highway Authority. The authority points out the previous reason for refusal on highway grounds was based upon the ‘broader consequences of traffic on public amenity and residents’ quality of life’ which is seen as a material consideration of the planning application. The authority does however have an underlying concern over traffic generation from the site and if permission be granted would require a reassessment of traffic conditions. However, the occupying company of units 9 and 10 have deliveries made by articulated lorries and large ridge lorries which are the cause for concern for so many residents. It is considered unit 11 does not form part of the application for a change of use.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) 1. It is considered that with the current occupiers a temporary permission for this

use would result in an adverse impact upon the amenity of the residential area and highway network throughout the Pebsham area. It is considered the type of vehicles and frequency of vehicle movement to/from the site are causing unacceptable levels of intrusion by way of vibration, noise, pollution and general detriment to the residents’ quality of life within both the immediate and surrounding area. As such this conflicts with Policy GD1 contained within the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) and Policy S1(d) contained within the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

RR/2003/3009/P BEXHILL OLD ROAD FARM - OFF BARNHORN ROAD23 OCT 2003 ERECTION OF BARN FOR STORAGE OF FEED

R A Eggers

23

SITE The new barn would be sited in the southwest corner of the field; it would be accessed via an existing farm access track around the edge of the field. The site is approximately 360m southwest of Old Road Farm.

HISTORYRR/98/827/P Erection of Barn for storage of feed – Approved

PROPOSAL The proposed development consists of the erection of a detached barn measuring 12m x 24m x 4.6m high. The barn would be constructed of concrete block walls with netting above.

CONSULTATIONSRural Estates Surveyor: Any comments will be reported.English Nature: Any comments will be reportedEnvironment Agency: No objection in principle, but gives informative notes for the applicantPlanning Notice: 1 letter of objection: “Our clients wish to object very strongly to the proposal as the building is completely out of character, it is very close to the boundary and will have an adverse effect upon the adjoining land. It is noted that the marshes beyond this building are an SSSI and our clients are most concerned that the proposed building, and its use, could well adversely affect this important area. We will be pleased therefore if you will place our clients’ objection to the proposal before the relevant committee.”

SUMMARY In considering this application members should be aware that the 1998 permission for the same development, only expired in mid October 2003; this is effectively a renewal of that permission. I have considered the above objections, however, as concluded in my report for RR/98/827/P, I remain of the view that the proposed barn would not adversely affect the character of this rural land, including the adjoining land. I will await the consultation responses from the Rural Estates Surveyor and English Nature before reaching a final conclusion on this application. Subject to no adverse comments from the outstanding consultees, I would make the following:

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO NO ADVERSE COMMENTS FROM ENGLISH NATURE AND THE RURAL ESTATES SURVEYOR)NOTE: The applicant’s attention is drawn to the letter from the Environment Agency dated 18th November 2003, copy attached.

RR/2003/3060/P BEXHILL 134 NINFIELD ROAD, SIDLEY30 OCT 2003 ALTERATION OF THE ROOF LINE TO THE REAR OF THE

PROPERTY TO CREATE ROOMS IN THE ROOFMr K D Booker

 This application has been included on the list of Committee site inspections for 20 January 2004.

SITE The site is located on the north east of Ninfield Road.

24

HISTORYRR/83/0189 Outline: Erection of pair of semi detached dwellings with detached

garages – approved conditional.RR/83/1704 Erection of 2 detached four bedroom dwellings with integral

garages and combined vehicular access – approved conditional.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to alter the existing roof line to the rear of the property to create rooms in the roof. CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice: No representation received.

SUMMARY The increase in height and addition of new windows will not have an increased adverse affect on the residential amenities of the adjoining dwellings nos 132 and 134a Ninfield Road. The dwelling to the rear of the site in Watermill Close is built on a higher level and has a 3m high hedge on its boundary, therefore I do not consider that their amenities will be adversely affected. However, the increase in the bulk and design of the proposed roof is out of character with the existing dwelling. The design is unlike any other dwelling in the vicinity, and therefore will be out of character with and detrimental to the locality and is therefore contrary to Policy GD1 (4) of the Revised Deposit Rother District Local Plan. Amended plans were received, however, the applicant was unhappy with them and further amendments are expected. RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (UNLESS SATISFACTORY AMENDED PLANS ARE SUBMITTED)1. The proposal would be out of character with and detrimental to the appearance

of the locality. This would be contrary to the requirements of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and Policy GD1 (4) of the Revised Deposit Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2003/3216/P BEXHILL 7 OSBERN CLOSE, COODEN18 NOV 2003 ERECTION OF A TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO SOUTH EAST

Mr and Mrs A R Gain

SITE This is a detached two storey dwelling located on the north side of Osbern Close.

HISTORYRR/89/1184/PD Single storey extension to provide games room - Approved

PROPOSAL The proposed development consists of the erection of a two-storey extension on the southeast elevation, measuring 5.9m wide x 4.0m deep. It would be finished with matching external materials and would provide a new bedroom and lounge.

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice - 2 letters of objection: Overlooking and loss of privacy Unacceptable visual impact Over dominant on visual amenities Will disrupt outlook and aspect

25

SUMMARYI have taken into account the concerns expressed in the above objections. However, I do not consider the physical impact of this building to be detrimental on neighbouring amenities. In order to prevent overlooking into neighbouring properties I have been in discussion with the applicant, and agent and have since received amended plans. The amended plans show a change in the floor plan layout of the rear bedroom, to incorporate an ensuite bathroom; this bathroom would be served by the installation of a pair of fixed and obscure glazed lower pain windows, with top opening fanlights. I am now satisfied that this type of fenestration would overcome my concerns about overlooking of neighbouring residential amenities. I would now make the following:

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7C (matching external materials)2. 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.

3. The new ensuite bathroom windows at first floor level on the rear north east elevation shall have fixed and non opening lower panes’ and any openings shall be top fanlight openings only as shown on the approved drawing and all shall be glazed with obscure glass and retained as such thereafter. Reason: To prevent overlooking into neighbouring residential amenities and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

N1B Amended plans 2003/1082 – Rev 3 date stamped 12 Jan 2004

RR/2003/3468/3R BEXHILL DEVONSHIRE SQUARE – LAND AT16 DEC 2003 REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING FENCE WITH PART

BRICK/PART GLAZED BOUNDARY SCREENRother District Council

SITE This is the boundary fence along the northern side of Devonshire Square from the corner of 5 Devonshire Square up to the Council’s public conveniences. The site is within the Bexhill Town Centre Conservation Area. The railway station was designated as a grade II listed building in 1999.

HISTORYNone directly relevant

PROPOSAL The proposed development consists of the removal of the existing advertisement hoardings and the replacement of the existing white picket fence with a high brick wall modelled with a plinth, intermediate piers and copings along part of the frontage. The remainder of the proposed new boundary treatment would be constructed as a series of cast iron ornamental archways with toughened glass panels between the columns. The top of the archways would be finished in painted timber to reflect the canopy valances of the railway station itself.

CONSULTATIONSNetwork Rail: - No objection in principle.

26

South Central: Generally support proposal.Planning Notice: Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY This application needs to be considered in the context of the improvement works currently under construction in Devonshire Square. I take the view that the proposed scheme is an excellent complimentary development proposal to these works, and will enhance the visual amenity and quality of the town centre street scene. It will also enhance the appearance of the Town Centre Conservation Area. I would therefore make the following:

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) REGULATION 31. No development shall commence until details of the colour, type and make of

facing brickwork have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: RC4

2. Before work commences details drawn to a scale not less than 1:5 showing the type and design of the new columns, spandrels and glazed infill panels, together with the valance above shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

RR/2003/3508/P BEXHILL 38 HASTINGS ROAD – LAND REAR OF18 DEC 2003 OUTLINE: ERECTION OF BLOCK OF 4 FLATS AND 6 CAR

PARKING SPACES INCLUDING ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING ACCESSRegis Group Plc

I have added this site to your list for inspection.

SITE The proposed 27.5m wide x 35m deep site is currently garden land at the rear of 38 Hastings Road, which is a 5 storey late Victorian period building converted into 6 self contained flats in 1947. The land currently appears to be divided into separate garden areas and contains several mature trees and shrubs. Planning permission was refused in September last year to develop the site with a three storey block of 6 flats and 8 parking spaces.

HISTORYRR/77/1552 Erection of 4 garages – Approved.RR/2003/2333/P O/A Erection of a block of 6 flats and 8 car parking spaces

including alterations to an existing access – Refused.

PROPOSAL An accompanying letter states: “Further to the refusal for six flats and eight car parking spaces, dated 15 September 2003, we now enclose herewith a revised application for four flats and six car parking spaces for the above site.We have reduced the development down to two storeys and made various alterations to the driveway to screen the new development from the existing property. We have undertaken a brief tree survey on the site and the large tree on the eastern boundary can now remain and one dead tree will have to be removed. The block configuration of the flats has been changed to accomplish this”.

27

In common with the previous application, a 5m wide access to the site would be provided down the west side of the existing frontage building and parallel to the boundary with adjoining flats win Mayfield Way. This would lead to an area in front of the proposed building where turning and parking spaces would be provided for six cars. The existing western access would be widened to 5m and 6 parking spaces created in the front garden of the existing building. The existing eastern access would be retained.CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority – Does not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to agreement on access and the provision of satisfactory on-site parking and turning at any detail stage.Environment Agency – Has no objections but recommends conditions to control surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings and type of any infill material.Southern Water – Comments awaited.South East Water – Comments awaited.Sussex Police – Comments awaited.Planning Notice – 5 letters of objection from Lessees of Leigh Holme and 9 letters of objection from residents in Dorset Road/Penland Road – sufficient development already proposed at Nazareth House and Battle Abbey tennis court sites; increased traffic/parking on Hastings Road; loss of green space; loss of wildlife habitat; health and safety issue with front door of Leigh Holme facing directly onto proposed access; trees lost for access to and for the proposed development; Lessee of Flat 1 will not sell their garden for Leigh Holme parking spaces on frontage who would have to park on road; gardens are demised to lessees of the flats and cannot be taken; freeholder has no chance of having the land on which to build; number of vehicles generated and loss or trimming of trees would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area; overcrowding of buildings with loss of light and privacy; would directly overlook school playground; parking problems; increased damage to school property and anti-social behaviour; eyesore at end of my garden; will be completely overlooked; overdevelopment.

SUMMARY In considering this application I have taken account of PPG3 advice encouraging Local Planning Authority’s to avoid inefficient use of land and in particular, those of less than 30 dwellings per hectare. In this case, the proposed density would be 33.3 dwellings per hectare and would be of a form and layout that is in keeping with other flat development in the immediate locality. In addition, Policy HG4 of you Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) states:“New housing developments will be permitted where their layout and design provides sustainable residential environments, including by demonstrating the following principles:(vii) subject to any over-riding environmental considerations, making the best use of land by achieving an overall net density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare, with higher densities in locations more accessible to frequent public transport routes and a range of local facilities”.In common with the previously refused application, this proposal also does not include replacement of the frontage building, when it might have been possible to locate the access to the land at the rear away from the western boundary. However, the number of dwelling units proposed has been reduced from 6 to 4 and I would not expect the development to generate a significant amount of traffic. Furthermore, there is a distance of 5m approx between the rear of the adjoining block of two-storey flats (nos. 1-6) in Mayfield Way and proposed access. This distance together with an expected relatively low generation of traffic leads me to the view that the adverse impact upon the

28

amenities of the said adjoining flats would not constitute an ‘over-riding; environmental consideration‘ referred to in Policy HG4 or be sufficient to justify a refusal of planning permission. Similarly, removal of the second floor would result in less overlooking of the long rear gardens in Dorset Road. On balance therefore, I take the view that the proposal should be supported.However, my support does depend upon being satisfied that no trees would be harmed, particularly as a result of the proposed widening of the existing western access to 5m. I expect to advise Members further on this matter at the meeting.

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING) DELEGATED (CONFIRMATION THAT NO TREES WOULD BE HARMED)1. ‘The detailed plans shall provide for one car space per unit plus one car space

per three units for visitors, for both the proposed development and existing development at 38 Hastings Road, in accordance with the adopted car parking standards of the Local Planning Authority. The car parking provision for the existing development at 38 Hastings Road shall be made available for use before the proposed development is commenced. The car parking provision for the proposed development shall be made available for use before any of the flats hereby permitted are first occupied.Reason: In the interests of highway safety, remove the necessity for off-site parking 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).

2. Details of construction including finish material, of the proposed parking spaces and means of access thereto shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The parking spaces and means of access thereto shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure that the root systems of existing trees on the site are not harmed by the proposed development 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. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through trapped gullies to BS 5911:1982 with an overall capacity compatible with the site being drained.Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

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

RR/2003/3140/P BEXHILL 37 THE HIGHLANDS, LENNOX LODGE NURSING 11 NOV 2003 HOME

ERECTION OF A TWO STOREY EXTENSION AT REAR TO PROVIDE 4 ADDITIONAL BEDROOMS AT 1ST AND 2ND FLOORSMr G Haddow

29

This application was deferred at your December meeting for a Site Inspection.

SITE This property is a substantial detached building in an elevated position to the north west of the junction of Clinch Green Avenue and The Highlands. The building sits within the plot abutting the rear boundary (39 The Highlands) and has 34 & 36 clinch Green Avenue abutting the western boundary of the site. The site has vehicular access from The Highlands and pedestrian access from Clinch Green Avenue.

HISTORYRR/2002/2580/P Erection of two storey extension at front and first floor extension at

side – RefusedRR/2003/677/P Revised proposal for two storey extension at front and side -

Approved

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to erect a two storey extension at the rear to provide 4 additional bedrooms at 1st and 2nd floors.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority – Do not wish to restrict the grant of consent.Environment Agency – Raise no objection.Southern Water – Raise no objection.National Care Standards Commission – ‘… I have no concerns about the application …’Planning Notice – 11 letters of objection have been received in response to the site notices. Issues raised within the letters include:

Cumulative impact of previously approved extensions Low number of parking spaces Ambiguous plans Impact upon unadopted highway Overshadowing Overlooking Affect the value of property prices Disruption during construction works

30

SUMMARY This substantial building is prominent in this area of The Highlands. However, the proposed development is to the rear of the property and not visible from The Highlands and only partially visible from the turning head in Clinch Green Avenue. The design and materials of the proposed development would not be out of keeping with the existing building. The proposed development would reduce the current position of overlooking into the rear garden of 39 The Highlands since five existing windows would form part of the internal element of the building. No elevation windows are proposed for the flank wall (marked ‘end elevation’ on plan 03.44.2) thus, no direct overlooking will occur over the aforementioned property. This arrangement will also benefit the occupiers of 36 and 38 Clinch Green Avenue due to the windows being set closer to the mature conifer screen to the rear of number 36. The proposed development will not result in an increase of the footprint of the building, while improving the level of privacy currently experienced by the aforementioned dwellings. It is considered the proposed development will not be overbearing to 39 The Highlands due to the proposed elevation being set back some 4.5m from the boundary. Two inset dormer windows are proposed for the elevation fronting The Highlands. These are not considered to be detrimental to the visual appearance of the building or the street scene. The proposed increase in four bedrooms should not have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the area. The parking spaces marked on the submitted plan are included for clarity within the required block plan, no increase in parking will occur.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) 1. CN7C (Matching external materials).

RR/2003/3456/P BEXHILL AMANDA CLOSE – LAND NORTH OF15 DEC 2003 OUTLINE: ERECTION OF 2 DETACHED HOUSES WITH

GARAGES WITH NEW VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESSMr & Mrs Bishop

This application has been added to the Committee Site inspection List.

SITE The area proposed consists of a vacant piece of land forming the northern boundary of Amanda Close adjacent to Pebsham Stream. The site slopes from the highway towards Pebsham Stream. The site falls within the Bexhill development boundary.

HISTORYB67/228 – Two new Cul-de-Sac’sRR/79/2150 – Outline: Erection of 7 detached, 14 semi detached and 22 terrace houses, each with a garage (Phase II).RR/82/160 – Plots 3-13 and 15-27 (odd numbers only), Amanda Close. Erection of thirteen terraced houses each with garage, pursuant to outline permission RR/79/2150 – Erection of 7 detached houses and 13 terraced houses – Approved.RR/2003/2725/P – Outline: Erection of four pairs of semi-detached houses and garages, two detached houses and garages, four parking spaces and formation of new access – Refused.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to erect (in outline) two detached properties, one at either end of the Cul-de-Sac, both with vehicular access.

31

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority – Do not wish to restrict grant of consentEnvironment Agency – No comments received to dateSouthern Water – No comments received to dateDirector of Services – Environmental Health – “I have no objection but believe the watercourse adjacent to both sites has been adopted by the Environment Agency as a ‘main river’ and should be consulted.”Planning Notice – One letter of objection has been received from the occupier of number 31 regarding the impact upon the highway, the potential loss of light and the loss of a public right of way.

SUMMARY The proposal to site two detached dwellings in the positions indicated within this application have been proposed within a previous application (RR/2003/2725/P). However, the previous (outline) application included an additional development between the proposed sites. By reducing the proposed development to only two detached dwellings either end of the Cul-de-Sac, it is considered that a neutral impact would occur upon the amenity of the area. The submission of a reserved matters application will address issues such as potential loss of light, overlooking etc. The proposed scheme has taken into account the comments raised by the Environment Agency with regard to Pebsham Stream, as well as the reasons for refusing the previous application. One letter of objection has been received in which the objector raises the question of a right of way which runs past number 31. I am not aware of a right of way crossing this private land. The proposal is in outline only seeking only consideration for the siting and means of access for the dwelling. The external appearance and design of the dwellings will be dealt with by a reserved matters application.

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO CONSULTEE RESPONSES)1. CN13A – Landscaping scheme2. 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, S5 and S6 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

3. 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 dwelling(s) 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)

32

4. Prior to occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, a minimum of two parking spaces shall be provided and laid out within the site to the approval of the Local Planning Authority and maintained in that use thereafter. Reason: In the interest of road safety.

RR/2003/3524/P BEXHILL 15 & 17 FAIRMOUNT ROAD18 DEC 2003 DEMOLITION OF RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME, ERECTION OF

BLOCK CONTAINING 6 TWO BEDROOM FLATS WITH ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING ACCESSBeverley Homes Ltd

SITE The application relates to a pair of late Victorian semi-detached former dwellings fronting the west side of Farimount Road. The buildings were last used as a residential care home but were vacated in 2003 following the identification of significant subsidence damage. The area is predominantly residential, mainly flats and a terrace of 9 town houses opposite.

HISTORYRR/81/0644 Change of use from private house into rest home – Approved.RR/85/2160 Change of use from private dwelling to rest home as an extension to

no. 17 to provide 7 additional bedspaces – Approved.RR/88/1219 Extension and alterations and installation of lifts together with increase of

residents from 15 to 19 – Approved.

PROPOSAL It is proposed to demolish the existing buildings and replace these with a single block containing 6 two-bedroom flats on three floors. The building would occupy a similar footprint to the existing but would be approximately one third less in depth resulting in a front elevation set back approx 5m from that of the existing building. This would enable 8 parking spaces to be provided on the frontage. The proposed block would have ridge and eaves lines to match the adjoining buildings and would contain front bay windows and roof gables in keeping with the design of the existing building and those adjoining. It is also proposed to dismantle the existing porch and re-erect it. This is an architectural feature common with other properties in the road. The application is accompanied by a supporting letter dated 10 December 2003 from the Agent Kember Loudon Williams; a copy of which is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this meeting 22 January 2004.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority – Comments awaited.Environment Agency – Has no objection but recommend conditions to control the discharge of surface water from parking areas and hardstandings and any infill material.Southern Water – Comments awaited.Sussex Police – Comments awaited.Planning Notice – 2 letters of objection – problem with parking in this small road; building contractors with their huge lorries and equipment; why can’t building be converted; were under the impression that outside of building would not change but building will be demolished; is there going to be parking for 6 flats.

SUMMARY In terms of height and design, the proposed building would be in keeping with the adjoining properties and is considered appropriate. However, the appearance

33

of the streetscene would change due to the building being set back from the front elevations of the adjoining properties by approximately 5m and by the provision of 8 parking bays on the frontage. The submitted plans do however, show the erection of new front boundary walls and side boundary planting. This would result in an improvement to the appearance of the frontage as existing, which is currently totally open and covered with tarmac. The resulting development is therefore likely to enhance the appearance of the street scene and is on balance supported.

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7B a) roofing tiles, b) hanging tiles, c) facing bricks, d) finished surface

material for the proposed access and parking bays. (External materials)2. CN5E a) amended ‘no windows except as shown on the approved plans shall be

inserted into the side elevations of the building’. (Restriction of alterations/additions)

3. CN13F (Tree/shrub planting)4. The parking provision shown on the application plans shall be made available for

use before any of the flats hereby permitted are first occupied and shall be maintained at all times as available for parking of the vehicles of the occupiers and visitors thereto.Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to remove the necessity for off-site parking.

5. 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 BS5911:1982 with an overall capacity compatible with the site being drained.Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

6. 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 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).

7. As recommended by the Highway Authority.

RR/2003/3551/P BEXHILL GILLHAM WOOD COURT - GARDEN OF, 22 DEC 2003 GILLHAM WOOD AVENUE

OUTLINE: ERECTION OF 2 DETACHED 3 BEDROOM BUNGALOWS AND GARAGES WITH FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS AND ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING ACCESSMr C F Henty

This application has been added to the site inspection list for Tuesday 20 th January 2004.

SITE The application site is the southern half of the garden of ‘Gillham Wood Court’, at the far end of Gillham Wood Avenue and adjoining the northern end of Gillham wood, which is owned by Sussex Wildlife Trust.

34

HISTORYRR/83/0988/P Outline application for one dwelling with double garage – Refused

PROPOSAL The application site would be divided into two plots measuring approximately 17m wide x 50m deep. The agent will submit clarification concerning vehicular access to the site, in the form of an amended plan. It is proposed to erect a 3-bedroom bungalow, with garage, on each plot.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: Any comments will be reported.Director of Services – Estates: Any Comments will be reported.Planning Notice: Sussex Wildlife Trust – No adverse affect from bungalows Concern as to whether any new vehicular access would adversely affect the

wood; any loss however small would have a serious effect on the wildlife of the area.

1 letter of objection from 12 Gillham Wood Road: Over dominant and intrusive on rear of my property Outlook and aspect from living room will be spoilt Would cause loss of privacy Would de value property Back land development Would blight other properties in the location Cause difficulties for access for emergency vehicles

SUMMARY In considering this application, regard need to be had to the refusal of planning permission for a single dwelling on this land under RR/83/0988. This application was refused on the grounds that the development would have extended the built up nature of Gillham Wood Avenue into Gillham Wood; and that it would have set an undesirable precedent for similar development of the land opposite.However, taking into account the current advice in PPG3, the main issues with this application are: What affect the development would have on a mature tree within the site. Clarification with regard to the vehicular access Whether the site is suitable for one or two dwellingsI am seeking advice on these matters, and would suggest that the decision on this application be deferred pending these issues and the comments of the Highway Authority.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE ABOVE, THE COMMENTS OF THE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, ESTATES OFFICER AND EXPIRY OF THE CONSULTATION PERIOD)

RR/2003/3289/P BECKLEY CROOKED COTTAGE, CLAYHILL12 DEC 2003 TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO THE WESTERN ELEVATION OF

THE EXISTING DWELLINGMr and Mrs A Chuck

RR/2003/3290/L BECKLEY CROOKED COTTAGE, CLAY HILL

35

08 DEC 2003 ERECTION OF A TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO THE WESTERN ELEVATION OF THE EXISTING DWELLINGMr and Mrs A Chuck

SITE Grade II listed thatched two storey cottage, 17 th century or earlier, in the built up frontage on the south east side of Beckley Road. It stands at the northern end of a large 0.175 ha plot in the loosely knit group of dwellings at Clayhill. The site is in a countryside location well outside the Beckley development boundary.

HISTORYN/A

PROPOSAL Consent is sought for a two storey addition extending some 3.5m forward of the west elevation and providing a study and dining room at ground floor level and an additional bedroom and bathroom at first floor level. The new external walls to be in timber weatherboarding, brickwork and render and the roof in thatch to match the present appearance of the property.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- Written representations from the owner/occupiers of the two adjacent bungalows (Clay Hill Cottage and Lowerspringwood) generally on the grounds of:- first floor bedroom window will overlook living room of Clay Hill Cottage and extension will result in a significant loss of natural light - additional parking that may be required could not be accommodated by off-street parking resulting in increased traffic hazards - loss of quality of life - Crooked Cottage is at the entrance of a narrow trackway shared by 2 other properties which is a public right of way with a footpath to Clayhill Farm - trackway must be kept clear at all times for emergency vehicles - highway authority erected 2 bollards to avoid problems in the past - Crooked Cottage has no private drive and only a hardstanding for one car - most of the holiday lets come in 4 x 4s taking up too much room - understand there must be fire doors and kitchen inspections if 8 people stay here and should be a no smoking rule because of thatch - business rates - damage to trackway especially in winter months - concern about drainage from heavy machinery to Lowerspringwood, which goes back to 1537 and has no foundation and is on the edge of the trackway - loss of peace and quiet to elderly residents - does not want thatched two storey extension towering above single storey cottage.

SUMMARY This listed two storey cottage stands in the built up frontage on the south east side of Beckley Road and is set back about 10m from the edge of the highway. The proposed extension has been sympathetically designed in keeping with the existing building and projects some 3.5m to the west of the existing dwelling. Concern has been expressed by the owner/occupiers of the two adjacent single storey dwellings regarding the impact on the residential amenities of those properties and the effect on the trackway to the west of Crooked Cottage. I can see no objection from the listed building aspect and I do not consider the addition will have a significant impact on the residential amenities of those dwellings. It is well away from the property to the west, Lowerspringwood, and screened from the property to the north, Clay Hill Cottage (which has a carport at its south west end) by a high hedge.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

36

RR/2003/3289/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7G Amended (delete indicating … dwelling). (Schedule of external wall

materials).

RR/2003/3290/L: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)1. CN7G Amended (Delete indicating … dwelling). (Schedule of external wall

materials).

RR/2003/3300/P BECKLEY FORMER ROYAL OAK, MAIN STREET26 NOV 2003 DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND ERECTION OF 7

COTTAGES WITH GARAGES, PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS INCLUDING ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING ACCESSCentral & Provincial Ltd

This application has been added to your inspection list for the 20 January 2004.

SITE Oak Tree House, formerly the Royal Oak Inn occupies a roughly triangular shaped plot of about 0.185ha at the junction of Main Street and Kings Bank Lane. The two storey property stands at the western end of the plot which has a frontage of about 55m to Main Street and 80m to Kings Bank Lane. Planning permission for the change of use of the Royal Oak Inn to a dwelling was allowed on appeal in December 2001 (ref. RR/2001/1240/P).

HISTORYA/71/581 Ladies toilet – ApprovedRR/77/0690 Repositioning of existing garage – ApprovedRR/85/1917 Extension to toilets and new pitched roof – ApprovedRR/2001/1240/P Change of use of the Royal Oak to a dwelling – Refused – Appeal

allowed.RR/2002/2677/P Demolition of Oak Tree House and the construction of nine

cottages with associated parking and landscaping – Refused.RR/2003/1201/P Demolition of Oak Tree House and erection of seven cottages with

garages, parking and landscaping with alterations to existing access.

PROPOSAL Approval is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the construction of seven cottages with garages, parking, access, landscaping and associates works. The scheme shows a range of 3 two storey cottages extending all the Main Street frontage and a second range of 3 similar two storey cottages fronting Kings Bank Lane. Between the two ranges are 3 blocks of garages (2 two bay and 1 three bay and a detailed two storey cottage. Supporting documentation accompanies the application and includes architectural and design advice from the Edward Nash Partnership and an arboricultural report from Quaife Woodlands. The full text of these comments can be seen on the Councils’ website.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support a refusal and comments that “The Beckley Parish Council unanimously rejects this application on Oak Tree House, formerly the Royal Oak/Beckley Poor House. The Council has no objection to some development of the

37

site providing the original building is retained, the green remains intact and the parking provision is realistic.This site supports the only purpose built 18th century parish poor house in Rother. The vast majority of the poorhouse still stands with its timbered upper room, cellars and inglenook fireplaces. Although the front wall is missing the size and shape of the rooms are unchanged and full of historic character. Although the building is not currently listed English Heritage are presently reconsidering our application. In their report they stated that the building was of ‘considerable local historic interest’ for which reason we feel it is our duty to fight demolition on behalf of the local population.We also believe this application fails owing to the following points:1. The loss of the ‘green’ would be a great and permanent loss to the village. Used

by the village for 263 years for bonfires, parties etc it provides views of the AONB for all walking or driving through the village. Whilst the applicant claims to retain the green his present plan in fact builds on half of it.

2. The terraced cottages, which claim to follow the vernacular tradition are huge compared to the local terraces or to the older cottages nearby. They are too dense for the site and the impression is likely to be overpowering and unattractive.

3. There are likely to be severe parking problems, as in other terraced properties in the village. Most households have 2 cars, often more. Since one terrace has doors onto the Main Street is likely that visitors/residents will park on the Main Street, and owing to the curve and fall of the road here this will cause a traffic hazard.

Overall the Council considers this development wholly inappropriate in not suiting the topography, the nearby housing (none of which is clad with white painted weather board) traffic safety requirements or the wishes of the Beckley residents. We would ask you to refuse it”.Highway Authority – “The submitted plans demonstrate that a visibility splay of 4.5m by 50m is achievable in both directions at the proposed access to the site. On account of traffic speed survey data collected by the applicant for a previous application (RR/03/1201) these visibility splays are acceptable to the Highway Authority and would need to be secured by condition. The closure of the existing access points would also need to be secured by condition.It is noted that pedestrian links within the site are inadequate. The proposed new footway, although welcomed by this authority to improve access to the rest of the village for new residents is not properly linked to the development. The Highway Authority required an amended plan showing improved pedestrian routes within the site and onto the proposed footway.For the previous application the applicant did not intend to offer estate road and footway for adoption as public highway. It is assumed that this is still the case. However the Highway Authority would wish to see the road and footway laid out and constructed to, or least close to, adoptable standards.The Highway Authority wishes to be reconsulted on this application following the applicants response to the above comments, before the necessary conditions can be issued”.Environment Agency – Has no objection to the proposal.Southern Water Services – Has no objection provided surface water from the development is not discharged to the foul sewer.Sussex Police – “I have now examined the plans and do not identify any major concerns with the proposals for this relatively low crime area.

38

I do recommend that great care is taken with the boundary treatment and landscaping to create private space around ground-floor windows. In particular, the area to the rear of Plots 5-7 should be landscaped and fenced to deter unauthorised access. The hedging planned to border rear gardens should be of sufficient thickness to form an adequate deterrent to trespass.I recommend that the house types are built to the standards of the police scheme ‘Secured by Design…This letter has been copied to the applicant or their agent who is asked to note that the above comments may be a material consideration in the determination of the application but may not necessarily be acceptable to the Local Planning Authority. It is recommended, therefore, that before making any amendments to the application, the applicant or their agent first discussed these comments with the Local Planning Authority”.Director of Services – Housing – “The application relates to the redevelopment of a site at Main Road, Beckley.The application looks to provide 7 cottages. If this development were approved the Strategic Housing Service would require a minimum of 40% affordable homes for clients registered with the Council for re-housing, this being 2 units on this development. The developer would be advised to work with a selected Registered Social Landlord (RSL) approved as a development partner of the council to ensure good management of the properties long-term with an RSL that has an interest in the local community.The design of the affordable housing would have to comply with Housing Corporation Scheme Development Standards and Lifetime Home Standards. The developer must be guided to work closely with the councils Strategic Housing Service to produce an acceptable design for affordable housing. The affordable housing units must also be developed in accordance with the design and specification brief to be provided by the strategic hosing service.Decisions about the amount and types of affordable housing to be provided in individual proposals should reflect local housing need, as set out by the strategic housing service. This objective should be to ensure that the affordable housing secured would contribute to satisfying local housing needs of the area, informed by statistics from the Housing Register, Homelessness and the Housing Needs Survey findings.Where a local planning and housing authority has decided, having regard to the criteria set out in paragraph 10 of circular 6/98, that an element of affordable housing should be provided in the development of a site, there is a presumption that such housing should be provided as part of the proposed development of the site. Failure to apply this policy could justify the refusal of planning permission.Therefore, in addition to the requirements set out in Article 25 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, local planning authorities must ensure that full information about planning obligations involving affordable housing contributions is provided.Estimate of Need and Household Growth - Estimates of household growth in England show that 80% of the projected population increase is expected to be in the Southern part of the country. 45% of this is the level of estimated growth in London – however, it must be realised that the capacity constraints in London will result in the pressure falling on the Southern part of the country. Rother has experienced a consistent increase in its population in recent years as a result of net in-migration. The District has, in addition, experienced a continued increase in the cost of housing, and some areas are now inaccessible to families and single people living on local wages. with the

39

continued pressure of in-migration, affordable housing demand remains high and unmet.Housing Needs – Homelessness and Housing Register applications have increased in Rother over the past year. There are currently in excess of 2000 applicants registered on the Housing Register in need of an affordable home, and the Council has recently undertaken a District wide Housing Needs Survey, which suggests that the true level of housing need is much higher.There is an abundance of information available from the Councils 1995 Housing Needs Survey, which was updated by a validation survey year on year up to 2000. Also the findings of the latest published Survey in 2001 is now available and shows that 200 new homes are required each year within Rother to address the local housing needs.Revised Deposit Local Plan – The Rother Council approved Local Plan defines ‘affordable housing’ as that which is provided for local people (or key workers) who are unable to meet their housing needs in the housing ,market without a level of subsidy because of the relationship between housing costs and incomes.The Plan goes on to state that affordable housing ‘should primarily consist of housing for rent managed by a registered social landlord, since this is the only option available to a large proportion of people identified as being in greatest housing needs. An element of shared equity housing, (normally also provided by an approved Registered Social Landlord) and suitably discounted, low cost market housing may be considered, but must be accessible to people on low incomes. These should be targeted at keyworkers an to assist other local people’s aspirations to ‘get on the housing ladder’. No definition of ‘low cost market’ is provided. However, recent guidance provided by Government Officer for the South East states that ‘small private homes offered for sale at under the market valuation, under Section 106 agreements do not constitute affordable homes’.Planning Policy Guidance – Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 agrees that it is important to help create mixed and inclusive communities, which offer a choice of housing and lifestyle. It does not accept that different types of housing and tenures make bad neighbours. Local planning authorities are encouraged to develop mixed and balanced communities, ensuring that new housing development help to secure a better social mix by avoiding the creation of large areas of housing of similar characteristics.Rother takes account of assessments of local housing need in determining the type and size of additional housing for which they should plan. We assess the composition of current and future households in the area and of the existing housing stock, and formulate plans, which include:- Securing an appropriate mix of dwelling size, type and affordability in both new

development and conversions to meet the changing composition of households in the areas in the light of the likely assesses need;

- Encouraging the provision of housing to meet the needs of specific groups.Strategic Housing Services – Affordable Housing Requirements, Main Road, BeckleyThe strategic housing service will agree the mix, minimum standards and price formula for the affordable housing on this development with the developer on this site”.Planning Notice – Written representations have been received from the owner/occupiers of 29 neighbouring properties (1 Homestead, Joamar, The Gables. 2 The Homestead, Two Steps, 1 Oaklea Cottages, Weald Cottage, Larkspur, Geranium Cottage, 1 Oak Tree Meadow, Camellia, The Bartletts Main Street, The Corner House, Juxta Kings Bank Lane, Eastlands Farmhouse Stoddards Lane, Wildenrath Rectory Lane, Confiers The Stream, Millstones Watermill Farm Watermill Lane, Heather Cottages Bixley Lane, Oak Oast Hobbs Lane, Fairlfield Horseshoe Lane, Hargeisa

40

Woodview Four Oaks, Downham Carpens Oaklands, Knelle Hill Lodge, Beckley, Fortune Cottage School Lane, Peasmarsh – objecting on generally on grounds of:- Overdevelopment of such a small site- Block view from my window, block most natural daylight - Proposed housing out of character and detrimental to the village- Housing will inhibit clear views for traffic exiting Kingsbank Lane onto Main

Street already a dangerous road junction, ill inevitably lead to serious accident- Parking is insufficient for each house and visitors, extra cars will be parked on

Min Street and this is not acceptable from a safety point of view.- This building is of significant local historical interest as the only surviving former

18th Century work-house in this part of East Sussex albeit with an early 20th Century façade during conversion to a public house, to demolish it would be a crime

- Royal Oak is focal-point in the hamlet of Four Oaks. Also the small green has great local significance

- The proposed development will deprive Four Oaks of its rural charm by transforming the area into a bland housing development out of character with the hamlet, destroying what remains of a uniquely Sussex rural village

- In the developers report they want to retain the green, however, the size after development means its value as a communal green is rendered useless

- Not opposed to a development similar to the former Six Bells- Having read the ‘Critical Appraisal of Design Issues’ the descriptions of my

property is incorrect and this makes me question the accuracy and intent of the remainder of the appraisal and therefore whether the conclusions drawn can be meaningful and/or reliable

- Development will place greater pressure on our utilities- Surely a way can be found to convert the former Royal Oak not demolish it- Moving the Royal Oak Tree could kill it- There is already a problem with on street parking in Main Street and 7 extra

houses would mean an even greater problem- It is understood that an Inspector of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport

has confirmed that the building had an interesting history and that it was of considerable local historical interest

- The site is in an AONB- The Beckley Poor House is part of the history of the Village which will be lost

forever as will be the green which has existed for 233 years- The village of Beckley is drifting towards urbanisation- the three proposed houses nearest Kings Bank Lane have no doors facing the

road. This creates a most inappropriate rural façade, apart from the safety concerns of houses with only one means of exit

- To alter the demolition of what is now a wholly residential property and therefore a normal house is every sense of the word, would be a worrying precedent. There are a number of other large houses in Beckley with large gardens, which could be developed

Hastings Area Archaeological Research Group comment that the Royal Oak is of historical interest and a detailed record should be made before it is demolished. If planning permission is granted they consider there will be a need for an archaeological presence when the ground is disturbed.

SUMMARY This roughly triangular 0.185ha site occupies a prominent location at the junction of Main Street and Kings Bank Lane in the centre of the village. The site is

41

within the Four Oaks Development Boundary and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. A Tree Preservation Order has been made in respect of the existing oak tree. A previous proposal to demolish the existing dwelling and to redevelop the site with 9 cottages with associates parking and landscaping was refused in December 2002 (Ref: RR/2002/2877/P. The scheme then involved the erection of 9 cottages with associated parking and landscaping. The plans show the existing crossover retained and 6 houses fronting Main Street (a pair and a staggered units) and a further terrace of three houses in the south west corner of the site 50m from the road junction. The protected oak tree was to be relocated about 15m to the north east and circular seating around the base. The previously refused houses were of a vernacular style and the development fell within current guidelines in PPG3 of 30-50 dwellings per ha. It was however, considered that the proposal represented an overdevelopment of this prominent site in relation to the character of surrounding development. Development along the road frontage on the north side of Main Street is a continuous ribbon at this point whilst frontage development on the south side of Main Street and in Kings Bank Lane is relatively very sparse. Furthermore, the protected oak tree does necessarily further restrict the development of the application site. Subsequently a further scheme was submitted (ref. RR/2003/1201/P) which reduced the number of cottages to 7 which still gave a density of 38 units per hectare and followed a linear pattern of development which I considered more appropriate for the location. The house designs were generally of a form I felt able to support but at the same time the density was in my view excessive for this part of the village having regard to the relatively open nature of the existing site. So far as the indicated movement of the protected oak tree was concerned my advice was that its movement to a smaller space would detract from its potentially considerable amenity value. Further, the allocated space would not be sufficient to allow it to grow to its full potential without it causing nuisance to adjacent buildings and the road.The current scheme proposed to leave the protected oak in its original position and supporting arboricultural advice indicates the proposal would have no detrimental effect on its well being. The architecture and design of the dwellings incorporating a mix of red, brick white boarding and slate and clay roofing tiles reflect the local vernacular which contain a mixture of bungalows, cottages and terraces of differing designs. I remain concerned however, that the density is excessive for this part of the village having regard to the present relatively open nature of the existing site. Further, whilst a proposal by the Parish Council seeking to have the existing building listed was unsuccessful it does nevertheless contribute to the appearance of the locality and possible a scheme involving the conversion of this building to say 3 units with say a small terrace of cottages would have been more appropriate. Additionally the Revised Deposit of the Local Plan requires that on sites of 5 or more dwellings 40% of the number of dwellings provided should be affordable housing for local people and no account is taken of this requirement. These points have been taken up with the applicants but as it stands it will be my

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The development of the site in the manner proposed conflicts 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) in that the development is of a scale and form that is not compatible with the character of the locality and would be overdevelopment of the site and detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

42

2. Whilst the site lies within an existing village it is considered that the proposal conflicts with Policy S8(c) 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.

3. The site lies within the High Weald AONB where Policies S1(j), EN2 & 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.

4. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that 40% of the total number of dwellings to be provided are intended for affordable housing for local people. The proposal therefore conflicts with the requirements of policy HG1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2003/3180/P NORTHIAM NORTHIAM SERVICE STATION, MAIN STREET17 NOV 2003 OUTLINE: DEMOLITION OF FORECOURT/WORKSHOP AND

ADJOINING HOUSE, ERECTION OF NEW WORKSHOP/ ACCESS ALTERATION/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTMr and Mrs K B Hedley

RR/2003/3182/P NORTHIAM NORTHIAM SERVICE STATION, MAIN STREET17 NOV 2003 OUTLINE: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING FORECOURT/

WORKSHOP AND ADJOINING HOUSE, ERECTION OF NEW WORKSHOP/ACCESS ALTERATION/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTMr and Mrs K B Hedley

These applications were deferred at your last meeting for legal advice and consideration of the Applicants letter dated 4 December 2003, a copy of which is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this meeting 22 January 2004. I have also reconsulted the Highway Authority upon the highway matters referred to in the letter. The legal advice is expected to be similar to that received upon application RR/2003/2683/P for the proposed conversion of Hollenden House, Bexhill and which you will also be considering at this meeting.

SITE These premises are located in the centre of the village and on the east side of Main Street. They currently comprise a large corrugated sheet workshop building, petrol forecourt with canopy and attached dwellinghouse. The site is just outside the Conservation Area. The site includes a small part of a larger area of land at the rear and shown for proposed housing in the recently published Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

HISTORYRR/2003/2093/P Outline: Demolition of existing forecourt workshop and adjoining

house, construction of new workshop, alteration to access and residential development including new estate road - Withdrawn.

RR/2003/2094/P Outline: Demolition of existing forecourt workshop and adjoining house, construction of new workshop, alteration to access and residential development - Withdrawn.

43

PROPOSAL The two schemes propose similar frontage development comprising two dwelling units and a garage workshop with a central access through the buildings to the land at the rear. The proposals for the land at the rear are similar in concept but differ in that RR/2003/3182/P shows housing backing onto the northern boundary and RR/2003/3180/P backing onto the southern boundary. An identical letter of support from Urban Design dated 29 October 2003 accompanies both applications, a copy of which is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this meeting 22 January 2004.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support a refusal for the following reasons:“1. Loss of Commercial premises. (As far as we are aware no attempt has been

made to sell the Business as a going concern).2. Loss of established village house, which appears still in good order and repair.3. Proposed development is outside village envelope.4. Despite assurances of the agreement of the Highways Dept. this Council are still

concerned at the likely volume of traffic using exit on to A28.5. Restricted access to new properties.”.Highway Authority:- Does not wish to restrict grant of Consent subject to the provision of adequate visibility splays; vertical clearance; increased on-site parking; cycle parking and a transport assessment in order to identify if any highway improvements are required which would need to be secured by S106 with the Highway Authority.Southern Water:- Has no objection.Director of Services - Environmental Health:- Recommends condition regarding 1) contaminated land, 2) hours of use, 3) sound insulation scheme for garage workshop, 4) odour control equipment, 5) sound insulation of odour control equipment, 6) transmission of sound and/or odour vibratrion from plant and machinery, 7) boundary noise levels, 8) vehicle movements (workshop), 9) no industrial activity outside the proposed workshop.Director of Services - Regeneration:- Comments awaited.Sussex Police:- Do not identify any unnecessary crime risks.Director of Services - Housing:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- Has no objection but recommend several conditions regarding contaminated land, drainage and infill material.Planning Notice:- 3 letters of objection - utterly inappropriate; loss of viable commercial premises; increased traffic and noise pollution; overlooking and loss of privacy; thought we were living in a Conservation Area and protected from this sort of haphazard sprawl; threat to abundant wildlife; will do nothing to help provide affordable housing in village which is virtually non-existent; the office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s website speaks explicitly of the need for a mix of housing, the provision of housing for local people and the need for the Local Planning Authority to ensure these objectives are met; could have negative effect on the village; destruction of trees and fallow land; increased hazard to traffic and pedestrians on A28 from higher volume of traffic accessing the site and parking in Main Street; properties probably too expensive for existing villagers; overcrowding of cramped backfill site with minimal amenity space; loss of property values.

SUMMARY The garage no longer provides petrol sales but is, in part, currently an employment creating use. The proposal therefore needs to be judged against Policy E5 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy EM2 of

44

the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003), the latter of which states:- “Proposals to change the use of existing buildings or redevelop sites currently or last in employment creating use will be resisted unless it is demonstrated that there is no prospect of its continued use for business purposes or that it would perpetuate serious harm to residential amenities.”In this case, it is intended to replace the workshop. In the supporting letter, the Applicants state:-“The fuel operation has been forced to close as it was losing money through supermarket competition, having been subsidised for some years by the workshop operation. The objective is to ensure that the workshop remains a viable business with modern up to date facilities unencumbered by the failing business. …Ensuring continuity of employment for his employees.”In view of the similar sized replacement workshop, I take the view that the proposal would not be contrary to the above Policy and should not therefore be resisted on this ground. At the time of writing this report, I do not have the comments of the Head of Regeneration. However, it is my view that use of the whole site for employment generation in this location, is unlikely to be viable and that, in principle, a mixed use such as that proposed is an appropriate use for the site.With regard to the form and scale of the two schemes, it is my opinion that a frontage development similar to that shown on the submitted plans would be acceptable. With regard to the “mews” type development of the land at the rear, there is no precedent for this form of development. The proposal therefore needs to be judged on its own merit and against Policy HG4 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). This supports new housing developments where their layout and design provide sustainable residential environments, and demonstrate a number of key principles. Whilst it may be possible to achieve a layout that demonstrates these principles, the proposed schemes do not include any affordable housing. For instance, in order to comply with your Local Plan Policy HG1, 40% of the total number of dwellings would need to be affordable housing for local people. The scheme for 10 dwellings would therefore need to provide 4 affordable units and the scheme for 8 dwellings would need to provide 3 affordable units. At present, the schemes are designed for local retired persons and include a mix of flats and houses with very small private gardens and a larger landscaped communal garden. This form may not be appropriate for a scheme/s that include an element of affordable housing. I therefore requested the applicants consideration of an amended scheme/s that includes the provision of affordable housing together with their agreement to enter into a Section 106 Obligation. In their reply contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee meeting (see letter from Urban Design dated 4 December 2003) they state that “It is entirely inequitable that revised policies passed very recently, and within the plan which is not yet adopted, should be suddenly applied to a situation which has been ongoing for a considerable time”.. “I cannot see how affordable housing and homes for the active retired can possibly be mixed in such a small scheme”…”I think it is entirely inappropriate to expect my client to enter into some sort of social experiment on such a small scale”…”I would suggest that there may be other larger more appropriate sites where it might be easier to achieve such a high proportion of affordable housing, where the economic and aesthetic constraints are more conducive”. These applications need to be deferred for legal advice relating to affordable housing issues.

RECOMMENDATIONS: RR/2003/3180/P: DEFER (FOR LEGAL ADVICE)

45

RR/2003/3182/P: DEFER (FOR LEGAL ADVICE)

RR/2003/2715/L PEASMARSH NEW HOUSE FARM, WITTERSHAM ROAD05 DEC 2003 CHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION OF OAST AND BARNS

TO B1 OFFICE AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL UNITSMr and Mrs Ashby

SITE The proposal relates to the listed historic farm group at New House Farm about 200m off the east side of Wittersham Road (C91). The weatherboarded two storey farmhouse is 17th century or earlier and the adjacent brick and tile oasthouses and granary date from the 19th century. The oasthouse is listed in its own right (Grade II). The site occupies a countryside location in the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty about 1.5km to the north of Peasmarsh.

HISTORYRR/89/3074/P Change of use from agricultural to business class - Approved.RR/89/3178/L Alterations to provide for change of use from agricultural to

business class B1 use - Approved.RR/2003/2714/P Change of use and conversion of oast and barns to B1 Office and

Light Industrial Units - current application (delegated for approval subject to conditions and improvements to the vehicular access).

PROPOSAL The scheme relates to the conversion of the oasthouse and the attached modern hop shed to 5 office and light industrial units. Relatively minor changes are involved to the fenestration together with new staging to the west elevation and the reinstatement of cowls to the roundel roofs.

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

SUMMARY The proposal relates to the existing farm complex at New House Farm in a countryside location off the east side of Wittersham Road. Consent was previously granted for the use of part of the oasthouse for class B1 (business) purposes and this operation has since ceased. The present application now relates to the conversion of all of this building and the attached modern hop shed to 5 class B1 office and light industrial units. The planning application was considered at your December meeting when authority was delegated to the Head of Planning to grant planning permission subject to conditions and improvements to the vehicular access to satisfy the requirements of the Highway Authority (ref. RR/2003/2714/P). The listed building application accompanies that proposal and I can see no objection from the listed building viewpoint.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)1. CN11S (Large scale constructional details of windows and doors and

conservation roof lights and new staging).2. CN7G Amended (delete ‘indicating … dwelling’). (Schedule of materials).

46

RR/2003/2805/P BODIAM MIDICY OAST, BODIAM BUSINESS PARK10 NOV 2003 SITING OF PORTACABINS/CONTAINER FOR EXTRA

STORAGE SPACE AND OFFICE USE (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)USL Ltd

This application has been included on the list of Committee site inspections for 20 January 2004.

SITE The application site forms part of a complex of former agricultural buildings that are now in business use. The site is within the countryside (AONB) outside any identified village/town Development Boundary. A public footpath crosses the site.

HISTORYRR/97/1518/O Lawful subdivision of building (Medicy Oast) into smaller industrial

units (B1) - Lawful Development Certificate Approved.RR/2000/1878/P Temporary stationing of portacabin offices for a period of three

years (retrospective application) - Refused.RR/2002/1362/P Demolition of existing building (next to Medicy Oast) and erection

of two storey office building - Approved - Not implemented.RR/2003/3267/P Revised proposals for removal of existing buildings and provision

of office building and associated works (previously approved under RR/2002/1362/P) - Not yet determined.

PROPOSAL The application is retrospective and follows enforcement investigations. It seeks retrospective planning permission for one portacabin-type office and two metal cargo containers that have been stationed alongside Medicy Oast - a two storey, brick building which was converted to business use a number of years ago.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council: Support an approval: Request approval on temporary basis. Recommend investigation into re-siting/screening. Aware of the need for inexpensive accommodation for rural businesses. Request Planning Committee visit. Highway Authority: Does not wish to restrict grant of consent.Environment Agency: No objection.Southern Water Services: Does not wish to comment.Planning Notice: No comments received.

SUMMARY The application site forms part of a complex of former agricultural buildings that are now in business use. A supporting letter has been provided with the application. This states that the portacabin and containers are required for office and storage uses in connection with the applicant’s existing manufacturing business (USL Limited) which operates from Units 7 and 8 within the existing converted agricultural building (Midicy Oast). The site is within the countryside (AONB), outside of any identified Development Boundary within the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). Principal issues for consideration are the impact on the character and appearance of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, weighed against the rural economy/employment issues. In this respect the design and external appearance of the containers and portacabin are out of keeping with the character of the rural area and detrimental to the appearance of the AONB. Members may recall that a retrospective planning application (RR/2000/1878/P) for the retention of 3

47

portacabin offices that had been stationed on an adjacent site by another business user was refused planning permission (24 October 2000). Those portacabins have since been removed. The existing structures that have been stationed on the site are equally harmful to the AONB. I note the economic considerations, however, if ancillary storage/office space is essential to the functioning of the existing manufacturing business at the premises, it should be necessary to demonstrate that this could not be accommodated within the existing buildings on the site or by other more appropriate forms of development. With respect to the Parish Council’s comments, Government Advice in Circular 11/95 sets out the principles applying to temporary permissions and states that the reason for granting a temporary permission can never be that a time-limit is necessary because of the effect of the development on the amenities of the area. Moreover, the fact that the boundaries of the site are drawn fairly tightly around the building, limits the opportunity for re-siting or screening. The site area does however include land with an extant planning permission for a new business unit (RR/2002/1362/P). This has not been implemented but could be a further avenue for investigating as an alternative to the proposal being put forward in this application if the company in question requires additional business accommodation.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The business park lies in rural surroundings remote from any recognised

settlement within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Within such an area normal countryside development restraint policies of the East Sussex County Structure Plan are strengthened and as advised in Planning Policy Guidance No. 7, special attention is given to applications in order to protect the special quality of the landscape. The structures that have been put in place appear incongruous and out of keeping with the character of the rural area. The development is harmful to the appearance of the AONB and conflicts with Policy S1(j), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

RR/2003/3269/P HURST GREEN HORSESHOE FILLING STATION & LITTLE 24 NOV 2003 CHEF, LONDON ROAD

CHANGE OF USE OF FORMER FILLING STATION AND A3 USE TO HAULAGE VEHICLE YARD AND ERECTION OF WORKSHOPS AND OFFICESC J Burgess

SITE The application relates to a 0.45 hectares site fronting the western side of the A21 trunk road, about midway between Hurst Green and Flimwell. It formerly comprised the Horseshoe Filling Station, a Little Chef restaurant, and a used car sales area/office. The site is now vacant and in a derelict state. The site is within the countryside (AONB), outside any ‘Development Boundary' identified in theRother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). There is a scattering of residential dwellings in the vicinity of the site including, Corner Cottage and Foxhole Farm to the south, Orchard Cottage and Boarzell Cottage to the north, and 'Elphics' opposite.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2000/191/P Outline: Erection of a travel lodge – Withdrawn.RR/2001/520/P Demolition of existing petrol station, erection of extension to

48

existing restaurant facility and erection of 24 bedroom travellers rest hotel with alteration to existing access – Refused – Appeal Dismissed.

RR/2002/2631/P Demolition of existing petrol station and restaurant facility, erection of 7 residential units with alteration to existing access and construction of new road – Refused

PROPOSAL The application proposal is the demolition of the existing buildings and structures on the site and the redevelopment of the site by the formation of a haulage yard and the erection of workshops and offices. The applicant presently operates a haulage yard from a site at Ashes Wood, Bodiam. It is intended to transfer all operations to the Hurst Green site. No information has been provided with respect to the applicant’s intentions with respect to the Ashes Wood site. The development of the (Hurst Green) application site is shown on the submitted plans as follows:- The formation of parking bays for 30 no. articulated vehicles- A new workshop building located in the rear part of the site (maximum footprint

dimensions 21.65m x 27.85m (600 sqm) with a ridge height of 8.5m). The greater part of the building would comprise a workshop with an open roof void above. A range of offices and ancillary rooms/services are indicated along one side of the building on two floors. General storage rooms are also shown to be provided adjacent to the workshop area.External materials are described as, profiled colour coated steel sheet cladding with some areas of facing brickwork for the walls and profiled metal roofing sheets.

- Parking bays for 12 cars- Washdown bay- Underground diesel tanks- The closure of one vehicular access and the other access modified to form a

single point of entry/egress with the A21

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support an approval – “3-1 plus 1 Abstention, lively debate, concern over unsocial hours, restricted night access and non-obtrusive lighting required. Road access a concern but positive over employment issues”.Highways Agency – “Because the use now proposed is considerably different from the previous use, traffic types and patterns will change. It is therefore essential that the applicant provides the following information before the Highways Agency is able to give its final comments:A Transport Assessment (to compare the traffic from the previous maximum permitted use with that now proposed) is required. The proposed method of operation should be stated and should include comment on loaded and unloaded vehicles, times of day and how the workshop and offices will operate. (I do not have details of the ‘Ashes Yard’ operation).The predicted swept path of the heavy vehicles now proposed as they enter and exit from both directions on the A21 together with an appropriate new access configuration, is required. The drawing should show the existing highway markings and traffic separation island as well as the maximum achievable visibility splays in each direction”.Environment Agency – No objection subject to conditions dealing with (i) land contamination, (ii) surface water disposal.Southern Water Services – No objections.Sussex Police – Comments awaited.

49

Director of Services – Regeneration – Comments awaited.Director of Services – Environmental Health – No objection subject to conditions on the following:(i) land contamination(ii) standard hours of use condition(iii) boundary noise levels (to be provided)(iv) scheme for soundproofing the building(v) scheme for the suitable treatment of all plant and machinery against the

transmission of sound and/or vibrationPlanning Notice – 3 letters of support (Corner Cottage, Four Hedges and Foxhole Farm):- We approve of this commercial use of the site; would provide employment which

is one of the Council’s Corporate Aims- Suited to this location- Site has a long history of commercial usage- One reservation regarding high lorries parked against my boundary fence but

understand that the applicant will be addressing this by submitted an amended plan showing flat bed lorry parking only in this location (Corner Cottage)

- Fits in with similar activities around this part of the A21- One concern regarding second floor office windows overlooking Foxhole Farm.

Applicant has agreed to amend his plan to deal with this problem2 letters of objection (Elphicks Stables and Orchard Bungalow):- Proposed lorry park would be unsightly, noisy and hazardous- We have had planning applications turned down. Area is described as an

AONB. Planning permission for a lorry park would quash reasons for refusing development at Elphicks Stables. I will be wanting some answers from the Council if this current application is passed.

- My stables, horses and livelihood are already in jeopardy due to new roadplans being threatened.

- The area falls within an AONB to which the East Sussex Structure Plan and Rother District Local Plan are committed to preserve and enhance. A large heavy goods vehicle haulage yard would contravene this commitment on the grounds of: visual intrusion, highway safety, noise and general disturbance, smell

- The development is surrounded by residential properties, to infill with heavy commercial use would be detrimental to residential amenity. Given the need for additional housing throughout the southeast to infill with a small housing scheme would be more in keeping with the adjoining surroundings

- Insufficient parking would be provided- Significant level of extra traffic would be generated- Hours of operation would have an impact on residential amenity- No indication of what security measures would be required – floodlighting and

boundary fences- Provision of underground diesel tanks would harm roots of adjacent mature trees- There is no mains drainage- A considerable amount of surface water drainage would be generated – unlikely

that soakaways would be effective- Existing foul water system has not been used for 5 years. In the past this proved

inadequate. Required emptying every two weeks. The existing system is located in the position of the proposed diesel tanks

50

- The proposed washdown area is just 2m from our boundary. No specific details or means of disposal of waste water. Concerned about contaminated water/chemical detergents would cause groundwater pollution, resulting in harm to soil and plantlife

- Safety concerns re storage of hazardous materials- Removal of waste products by contractors (waste oil, tyres etc) would add to

noise and vehicles movements- No details have been given of the existing yard/premises (at Ashes Wood)

despite the application form requesting this information

SUMMARY Although located in the countryside the application site is considered to be a ‘brownfield’ site and redevelopment should not be opposed in principle. The principal issues for consideration are:(i) The requirement to retain sites in employment generating use and maintain the

rural economy(ii) The highway implications(iii) The need to conserve the AONB(iv) The need to protect existing residential amenity. With respect to (i) Policy EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) and Policy E5 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 recognises the need to retain sites currently, or last in, employment generating use. Members have previously refused residential development on this site on the basis that it should be retained for commercial purposes. In this respect the application is consistent with the principles of the aforementioned policies.Whilst the development proposal involves the transfer of a business use from one site within the District to another – rather than the setting up of a new business – the application indicates that some new/additional employment is likely to occur as a consequence of the development and this is put in the region of 13 no. new posts.With respect to (ii) a positive benefit of the proposal is that it would allow the applicant’s haulage vehicles to gain immediate access to the trunk road as opposed to negotiating narrow country lanes – as is the case with operations from the existing Ashes Wood site. It is noted, however, that a full traffic assessment is required by the Highways Agency. This has been requested and is presently outstanding.Regarding (iii) the need to safeguard the AONB: I have two principal concerns. The first is the fact that no new landscaping/planting to screen the development is proposed in the application, or indeed, could be achieved with the submitted site layout. Haulage vehicle parking bays are shown positioned hard-against the site boundaries. Although there is some existing hedge/tree vegetation on the site boundaries, no provision is contained in the application to address how this would be protected or the implications of any new boundary fencing that is likely to be required. It is considered that a ‘buffer zone’ of additional screen planting at the boundaries of the site would be desirable.The second of my concerns is the design and external appearance of the proposed new building. It is considered that amore sympathetic surface treatment of the building would lessen its visual impact and intrusion within the AONB.With regard to (iv), I note that letters of support, as well as objection, have been received from local residents. Views expressed, both for and against, need to be given due consideration. The site has a long history of commercial use and consequently its established character, its developed nature, and the activity associated with its existing permitted use are material considerations. Accordingly, any impact has to be assessed with respect to the established level of residential amenity based upon the existing permitted use of the site. The Director of Services – Environmental Health has been

51

consulted on the application and would have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. One of the conditions requested, however, is the standard hours of use condition (8.00am – 6.00pm weekdays; 8.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays; no permitted use on Sundays or Bank Holidays) which I understand would not be acceptable to the applicant. Details of the applicant’s proposed hours of use are required in order that the proposed development can be given full consideration. A further matter that needs to be addressed is the proposed siting of the washdown area close to the boundary with Orchard Cottage. I am concerned that this would result in harm to neighbouring amenity (noise, wastewater run-off, contaminants etc). Finally, I understand that the applicant has agreed to submit amended plans to address the concerns raised by the occupiers of Foxhole Farm and Corner Cottage. These are awaited. Whilst I am able to support the proposal in principle, further information is required in order that the full impact of the development can be fully considered. In the circumstances I must make the

RECOMMENDATION DEFER (FOR TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT, FURTHER INFORMATION AND AMENDED PLANS)

RR/2003/2489/P SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE 1 BLENHEIM COURT - 01 SEP 2003 CHESTNUT COTTAGE, GEORGE HILL, ROBERTSBRIDGE

ERECTION OF TWO STOREY EXTENSION AT FRONT OF PROPERTYMr and Mrs J F Stevens

This application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 11 December 2003. It was resolved that authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to refuse planning permission unless satisfactory plans dealing with the problems of linkage with the adjoining property are received. The Planning Committee was concerned that without the consent of the owner of the neighbouring property it will not be possible to build the extension as shown on the plans in the event that planning permission was granted. Consequently it has not been possible to assess the impact of any resultant development on the street scene or the neighbouring property.I have now been advised that the applicants are investigating party wall issues under the legal procedures set out in the Party Wall etc Act 1996 and a meeting is being set up between Party Wall Surveyors to discuss the proposal. This is expected to take place on 17 January 2004. I am further advised that a ‘Party Wall Award’ may be prepared on, or around 20 January 2004, in which case I would hope to be able to advise Members accordingly at the Planning Committee meeting.In the event that an Award is made prior to your meeting, the Award Surveyor should be in a position to set out the legal position with respect to the applicant’s rights to carry out works affecting the neighbours’ property and indicate the precise form of extension that is capable of being fully completed at its northern end with no.2 Blenheim Court.This site was included on your list of Committee site inspections of 7 October 2003.

SITE The application relates to a semi-detached cottage fronting the western side of George Hill and comprising part of the relatively modern Blenheim Court cul-de-sac development.

HISTORY

52

RR/2003/1714/P Erection of single storey extension at front and two storey extension at rear of dwelling – Approved.

RR/2003/3499/P Revised proposal for single storey extension at front and two storey extension at rear of dwelling - Outstanding Application.

PROPOSAL The application is for a two storey extension on the front of the dwelling, having a footprint of 7.3m x 2.1m. It is shown to extend outwards from the present dwelling and become flush with the front elevation of the neighbouring property, no. 2 Blenheim Court. The design incorporates a forward facing gable. Materials are described as brickwork, tile hanging and interlocking concrete roof tiles to match the existing. The proposed extension is shown attached to the neighbouring dwelling, no. 2 and the statutory notice has been served on the owners of that property. The extension would be an alternative proposal to the single storey front extension approved under RR/2003/1714/P. A supporting letter from the applicants includes the following:-“We would like to make it clear that we need additional space for our son, who is living with us due to ongoing medical difficulties with Diabetes and CMT neurological disease. He is with us because of ongoing and severe problems with his feet condition, which has unabled him to work. This is a severe problem and will need a long recuperation time... There would be very little noticeable difference in the size of the property and there would be no difference in character. The 8’7” back extension would not be visible from the front... The extension would not affect the next door property. It would continue along the same building line and in fact, would be more in keeping with the other Blenheim Court cottages further down on the main road. We are the only recessed property in this development. Surely to build out to the building line would be, by your definition, ‘more in character’ with the ‘small cottage style’ found on George Hill.”

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support a refusal – “Whilst support was given for the previous application for a single storey front extension and a two storey rear extension, it is felt that this further extension would make the property of such a size as to be totally out of character with the small, cottage style, semi-detached nature of the site as originally developed”.County Archaeologist – Recommends that if planning permission is granted, an archaeological recording of the site should be requested of the applicant.Tree Officer (Planning) – “The use of the pad foundation should reduce the effect on the roots of the tree.The crown of the tree would have to be pruned back to stop it hitting the side of the extension. This should be done before they build the extension and should be carried out in accordance with BS3998 Recommendations for tree work”.Planning Notice – I summarised the original letters of objection from the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling – no.2 as follows:“We totally object to any further planning consent being given at this stage with regard to the application for a two-storey front extension without further discussion. when we previously discussed this with Mrs Stevens the plans were for a single storey extension at the front to accommodate a cloakroom downstairs which, at the time, we had no objection to and, agreed that we would prefer the front extension rather than the rear. We are now led to believe that the front extension is to be extending right across the front of the property. Will this be adjoining our property?

53

Surely these plans for both a two-storey rear extension is far removed from the original house plans and totally out of keeping with the rest of the small development of eight small cottage style semi detached houses.”“As discussed, no mention appears to have been made of the large Oak tree at the front of the property, which, if you take a line from our property to the left side of Chestnut Cottage, would have some impact on this tree. It may only be removing some of the bank in which the tree is positioned and one or two branches but we understood that a preservation order had been placed on this tree when a former owner of the above property wished to add a hard-standing or driveway to the front of the property.We would also inform you that no agreement has been obtained by Mr & Mrs Stevens regarding their rear extension adjoining the rear of our property and, as yet, no mention of this has been made with regard to the planned front extension. We understand that this is a personal matter between the two parties and does not involve either the Rother District or the local parish council. However we will be contacting the Building Inspector in due course regarding this matter”.All letters of objection received from the neighbour have now been reproduced in full in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT to this Committee 22 January 2004.

SUMMARY This application was first considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 9 October 2003. It was resolved that authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to grant planning permission subject to conditions and to receipt of a satisfactory plan which demonstrated that there will not be any adverse impact on the adjacent tree which is subject to a Tree Preservation Order. An amended plan was subsequently received which was considered satisfactory by the department’s Tree Officer. Although this met the terms of the delegation, I was not able to issue the planning permission due to a further complaint received from the occupier of the neighbouring property (no.2 Blenheim Court) to the effect that the Committee had not given full consideration to his objection. The matter was therefore brought back to Members for consideration. The application proposes linking the extension at the northern end with the neighbouring dwelling (no.2 Blenheim Court) and the Statutory Notice has been served on the owners of that property. Information that has been received on the application indicates that consent to carry out work affecting the neighbouring property is unlikely to be given.In the circumstances, Members considered at the 11 December 2003 Planning Committee meeting that there was serious doubt that, in the event that planning permission is granted, the development will be capable of being fully implemented in accordance with the details shown on the plans. Accordingly there was concern that a satisfactory form of extension had not been shown that was capable of being fully completed, and consequently it had not been demonstrated that the resultant extension would be of a design, bulk and form that would be in keeping with the street scene and the visual amenities of the area. The applicant now seeks to resolve the legal situation according to the ‘Party Wall Awards’ procedure set out in the ‘Party Wall etc Act, 1996’. I hope to be able to report the outcome of the Party Wall Surveyor’s decision to your 22 January meeting.

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FULL PLANNING) (FURTHER INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF PARTY WALL AWARE DECISION

RR/2003/3347/P SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE STONE COTTAGE - PARK

54

02 DEC 2003 FARM, REDLANDS LANE, ROBERTSBRIDGEERECTION OF TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSIONMr and Mrs D Jeremy

SITE A detached dwelling within a relatively remote countryside location (AONB). It fronts a single unmade track that extends off Fair Lane to the north, across open fields to the small cluster of buildings at Park Farm, and then on to the application site. The rear of the site is wooded. Although not listed, the dwelling is an attractive period cottage of special character. The front part of the building is stone with a brick and weatherboard range behind.

HISTORY (Recent)RR/77/0430 Living room extension - Approved.RR/98/415/P Single storey detached timber building to be used as an artist studio and

occasional guest accommodation - Approved.

PROPOSAL The proposal involves the demolition of the aforementioned single storey extension approved under RR/77/0430 and the erection of a more substantial extension. This would comprise a two storey structure at the rear of the cottage linked to the building by single storey extensions to the back and sides. External materials are described as untreated weatherboarding and clay roof tiles for the two storey element, with brick/stone and clay tiles/glass for the single storey additions. The additional accommodation would provide garden room, play room, utility room and WC on the ground floor, with two further bedrooms and bathroom at first floor.A supporting letter from the agent is reproduced in full in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 22 January 2004.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- “The Council is concerned that the proposed development is out of character for a small rural dwelling.”Planning Notice:- No comments received.

COMMENT The development proposal should be assessed with respect to Policy HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) which seeks to control the size and character of extensions to existing dwellings in the countryside. In this respect, I have concerns regarding both (i) the size of the extension; and (ii) its form and design. With respect to (i): the original dwelling has a floor area of approximately 135 sq. metres (excluding the living room extension that was added under planning reference RR/77/0430). The proposed new extensions would have a combined floor area of approximately 146 sq. metres. The resultant increase of around 108% is therefore considerable. Regarding (ii): the proposed development does not integrate well with the original cottage and obscures its simple form and proportions by the addition of a substantial range of extensions of varying shape and height. The proposed two storey element in particular, although linked to the existing dwelling by new single storey additions, by virtue of its height and bulk, does not relate well to the original cottage and appears over-dominant - whereas new additions are normally expected to be subservient to the original dwelling. Moreover, I have concerns about the proposed large blank window

55

openings in the new additions, which in terms of design and arrangement pay little regard to the traditional fenestration of the original cottage. Members’ attention is drawn to the supporting letter in which the agent sets out the reasons for adopting a rather more contemporary design solution. Whilst this has been fully noted, for the reasons already given above I do not consider that the development proposed conserves either the character or the integrity of the original cottage.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The site lies in a rural area and the proposal would if permitted constitute a

substantial increase in the size of the existing dwelling and would result in a fundamental alteration to its appearance and character. The size of the proposed development is not proportionate to the existing dwelling or in keeping with its character. The development conflicts with Policy HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) and would be detrimental to the visual amenities and character of the rural area.

2. RN4B (Non-essential development - Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - Amended - EN2 and S1(j) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011).

56

RR/2003/3499/P SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE 1 BLENHEIM COURT – 9 DEC 2003 CHESTNUT COTTAGE, GEORGE HILL

ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AT FRONT AND TWO STOREY EXTENSION AT REARMr & Mrs J F Stevens

SITE The application relates to a semi-detached cottage fronting the western side of George Hill and comprising part of the relatively modern Blenheim Court cul-de-sac development.

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

extension at rear of dwelling – ApprovedRR/2003/1714/P Erection of two storey extension at front of property – outstanding

application last considered at the 11 December 2003 meeting of the Planning Committee when Members resolved to delegate authority to refuse planning permission because (briefly) it had not been demonstrated that agreement could be reached under the Party Wall Act to tie-in the extension with the neighbouring property (no. 2 Blenheim Court) and consequently it could not be established that the extension would be capable of being built in accordance with the submitted plan.

PROPOSAL The application before you is a revised submission of application RR/2003/1714/P. That application, which was approved in July 2003, involved tying-in the rear extension with the neighbouring property (no. 2 Blenhiem Court) and accordingly the Statutory Notice was served on the owner of the neighbouring property. Whilst work on the rear extension has almost been completed, it has not been possible for the applicant to secure agreement with the neighbour to tie-in the extension with his property. The application now before you seeks a revised solution to this. Whilst the overall form and size, of the rear extension is as previously approved, the end wall is now shown to ‘return’ before meeting the party wall, thereby leaving a gap of about 18cm – 20cm between the extension and the side wall of the neighbours’ cottage.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Any comments received will be reported.Planning Notice – Any comments received will be reported.

COMMENT The proposed single storey front extension is the same as that previously approved under application reference RR/2003/1714/P and is acceptable. with respect to the two storey rear extension, in terms of the general form and size, again, this has been accepted in principle with the granting of planning permission RR/2003/1714/P. The issue for consideration is whether the amendment put forward in this current application to ‘detach’ the proposed two storey extension from the neighbours side wall is acceptable, being mindful of what has already been approved. In this respect the amendment is not a significant alteration in visual terms and would comprise the formation of a narrow gap between the extension and the neighbouring property. Subject to any outstanding comments from consultees within the consultation period, I anticipate making the

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING)

57

1. CN7C (Matching external materials)2. CN14J (Alternative permission to RR/2003/1714/P)N8B (Rights of access/entry)

RR/2003/3500/P SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE THE GEORGE INN – SITE 17 DEC 2003 ADJACENT TO, GEORGE HILL, ROBERTSBRIDGE

ERECTION OF 4 NEW DWELLINGS AND FORMATION OF NEW ACCESS WITH ALTERATION TO EXISTING ACCESSMiss F Parkes

SITE The application relates to the yard formerly occupied by Countrycrafts (fencing manufacturers) which has been left unused for a number of years. The dimensions of the site are given as being a frontage of 36 metres and a depth of 33 metres, The site lies just outside the boundary of the Robertsbridge Conservation Area and is within the Development Boundary for the village as identified in the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

HISTORYRR/96/1903/P O/A Erection of detached dwellinghouse and garage – Refused

(this application relates to part of the site).RR/97/2745/P Erection of 4 dwellings with alteration to existing access – Refused

– appeal Dismissed.RR/98/628/P Erection of a terrace of 3 dwellings with alterations to an existing

access – Refused – Appeal dismissed.RR/98/808/P Outline: Erection of showroom and workshops for garden

machinery with two flats over – ApprovedRR/2003/1937/P Erection of six terraced houses with alteration to existing access

and formation of new accesses – withdrawn

PROPOSAL The erection of two pairs of semi-detached houses on the site served by a new centrally positioned roadway providing access to 2 double garages and parking areas in the rear part of the site (8 spaces in total).

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – No comments received.Highway Authority – No objection in principle. In the event that Members are minded to grant planning permission an amended plan would be required to ensure that the private access road is laid out close to adaptable standards. Adequate visibility site lines should be shown. Also the number of parking spaces is less than the adopted standard (9).Environment Agency – No objection.Southern Water Services – Comments awaited.Director of Transport and Environment – County Archaeologist – Comments awaited.Director of Services – Regeneration – Comments awaited.Director of Services – Environmental Health – Comments awaited.Planning Notice – No comments received.

COMMENT As was the case with the previous applications, a primary issue for consideration is whether or not members would wish to accept the principle of

58

residential development on what would be classed as an employment site. Policy EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) states:“Proposals to change of the use of existing buildings or redevelop sites currently or last in employment creating use will be resisted unless it is demonstrated that there is not prospect of its continued use for business purposes or that it would perpetuate serious harm to residential amenities”.The requirement to protect the level of the existing stock of industrial and commercial premises is reiterated in Policy E5 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. A key issue, therefore is whether or not it can be demonstrated that the site is genuinely redundant for industrial and/or commercial use. The application seeks to demonstrate lack of demand by the marketing exercise that has been carried out and by providing a written assessment of the unlikely potential of the site as economically viable business premises. The following supporting documents are contained within the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT to this Committee 22 January 2004:(i) Report on the marketing, commercial viability and planning history of the site(ii) Letter from Chris Campbell, estate agent, stating that the site has been on the

market for seven years and I am aware of one occasion, when there was a commercial inquiry and that was mixed with residential and subsequently failed to materialise

(iii) A letter from Freeman Foreman Commercial on the economic viability of two alternative scheme for a mixed residential/office use of the site, concluding that the proposed office units are likely to prove uneconomic

(iv) A copy of a letter from Lesley Waters identified as the owner of the land stating that there has never been more than 1 employee working at the site when it was used as the base for Country Crafts.

If the site can be shown to have been marketed at a realistic level over a reasonable period of time without generating interest, only then would there be a case for considering alternative uses. In the event that this point can be demonstrated, what should then be considered is a mixed scheme, providing an acceptable balance of residential and commercial redevelopment to provide a scheme that is workable and economically viable. The supporting information indicates that a mixed use on the site has been investigated and concludes that office units would not be viable.What this does not appear to do, however, is address the question of the residential development acting as an enabling device in order to make the commercial element possible. However, the application is for a purely residential use on the site and that is the development now before members for determination. I have forwarded copies of the supporting information submitted with the application to the Council’s Head of Regeneration (Economic Development) and I am awaiting a response.Notwithstanding the employment/economic development issue. the form and design of the dwelling shown on the submitted plan are not suitable for this site. The site abuts the Conservation Area and it has been acknowledged in previous appeal decisions relating to this site that any development on the site should have regard to the character of the historic High Street as well as the adjacent development in George Hill. In design terms the proposed dwellings are very deep (11.9 metres/nearly 40ft) and incorporate a very low roof pitch (about 30o) the result of which is a development of excessive bulk in a prominent position on George Hill. Whilst the low roof pitch gives a correspondingly lower ridge height to the development than may otherwise be the case, it serves to emphasise the uncharacteristic depth of the building. The proportions of the proposed dwellings are in stark contrast to the steep, small scale, and intricate roof forms found on existing buildings near to the site and elsewhere in the High Street.

59

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed use of this site for residential development conflicts with Policy E3

of the Initial Deposit Rother District Local Plan in that proposals to change the use of existing buildings or redevelop sites currently or last in employment creating use will generally be resisted if the proposed use or redevelopment would not provide suitable employment opportunities. The proposal also conflicts with Policies E5 and E7 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 which sets out a requirement to safeguard the level of the existing stock of industrial and commercial premises.

2. Notwithstanding the policy objection to residential development on the site, the form and design of the proposed dwellings – specifically the substantial depth, low roof pitch – would result in building of excessive bulk on the site that would be out of character with this village location within the High Weald AONB and detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality. The development proposal is therefore contrary to Policies S1(f) and (j) and EN2 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy ST1 of the Initial Deposit Rother District Local Plan.

3. The proposed development has insufficient provision for on site car parking and conflicts with Policy S1(d) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

RR/2003/2359/P WESTFIELD CHAPEL COTTAGE – LAND ADJ, CHURCH14 AUG 2003 LANE

ERECTION OF THREE BEDROOM DETACHED HOUSE WITH PROVISION OF PARKING SPACES PURSUANT TO OUTLINE PERMISSION RR/2001/1399/PMr A Cryar

This application was deferred at the last planning committee for site inspection. SITE The site is located on the north west side of the unmade Chapel Lane.

HISTORYRR/98/871/P Outline: Erection of detached house and garage with alteration to

access – Refused – Appeal dismissed.RR/98/2715/P Outline: Erection of detached house and garage with alteration to

access – Refused – Appeal dismissed.RR/2000/1399/P Outline: Erection of detached house and garage and alteration to

access – Approved conditional.RR/2001/2731/P Erection of detached house with provision of parking spaces

pursuant to outline permission RR/2000/1399/P – Refused.RR/2002/655/P Erection of detached house with provision of parking spaces

pursuant to outline permission RR/2000/1399/P – Approved conditional.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission for compliance with conditions breached in grant of permission RR/2002/655/P. 

60

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – The quality of the plans are confusing. Members have concerns about the appearance of the building and its impact on neighbouring properties whilst not wishing to refuse it outright.Highways Authority – Does not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to the observation, although this proposal includes the alterations to an existing access, it is from Chapel Lane, which is not an adopted highway, and therefore highway conditions have not been issued in this instance.Planning Notice – 2 letter of objection from Chapel Cottage. Concerned with the height of the building which absolutely towers over anything in the immediate area, worried about the amount of traffic that will be coming and going along the very small little Lane, where will the extra vehicles park, this extra traffic is a serious threat to our child and the children in out care, the Lane becomes especially dangerous during school drop off and pick up times, it is not a road and cars to the volume that appear to be anticipated is just not acceptable, maintaining privacy with the retention of boundary trees, can windows on elevation facing our property be hinged so as not to open onto our back garden, loss of privacy to our rear garden due to height of house and size of windows.1 letter from Whispers – Concerned regarding the very narrow width of the Lane where parking could create mayhem, vehicles using the Lane would have to reverse which is both noisy and dangerous, the subject of intrusive outside lighting was a potential problem but I have spoken to the owner who assures it will be kept to a minimum, it has come to my attention that the land around 2 Anscombe Cottage is being cleared to allow residents to park there, which is again not suitable as vehicle access is appalling.

SUMMARY Planning permission was granted RR/2002/655/P in July 2002, for the erection of a detached house pursuant to outline permission RR/2000/1399/P, subject to compliance with conditions. However, the following conditions 1, 4 and 5 imposed on the grant of planning permission have not been complied with, making the development unlawful. The principle has already been accepted for the erection of this dwelling, however, there are a number of discrepancies between what has currently been constructed and the plans submitted, so new accurate plans that show the specifications to which the dwelling is being constructed too, have been requested. Samples of the materials being used to construct this dwelling have been received and are considered to be acceptable.  RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO SATISFACTORY PLANS BEING SUBMITTED)

1. Within 3 months of the date of this decision detailed schedule of all external materials indicating types, colours and finishes of the external material shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out using the approved materials.Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and to accord with policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. Within 3 months of the date of this decision details of the surface water drainage for the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage works shall then be constructed in accordance with the approved plans.Reason: To prevent water pollution and ensure satisfactory drainage of the site and accord with Policy EN11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2001.

61

3. Within 3 months of the date of this decision detailed plans for boundary walls and fences on the site shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The fences and walls shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans 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.

  RR/2003/3360/3R CAMBER YATES CLOSE – LAND ADJOINING3 DEC 2003 OUTLINE: ERECTION OF SIX SEMI-DETACHED HOUSES

Rother District Council

This site has been added to your list for inspection.

SITE This application relates to the allotments at Yates Close. The land adjoins the rear boundaries of nos. 119, 121 and 123 Lydd Road and falls within the development boundary of Camber as defined in the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

HISTORYA/66/888 Housing (Battle RDC) – ApprovedA/67/838 O/A 2 dwellings (Battle RDC) – ApprovedA/72/89 Renew A/67/838 (Battle RDC) – Approved.

PROPOSAL The submitted plan indicates a development with six semi-detached houses fronting Yates Close.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – “Three of the allotment holders attended a Parish Council Meeting last night to express their dismay at the prospect of losing their allotments and the ability to garden should this application be successful. They will be writing in person to object. The Parish Council members also objected to this application – concerns over drainage of 6 more dwellings in the system and of course, the loss of the green space”.Highway Authority – Does not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to agreement on access and the provision of satisfactory on site parking at any detailed stage. Off-site works to improve its accessibility by public transport for those with restricted mobility will need to be secured through a Section 106 Legal Agreement between the Applicant and the Highway Authority.Environment Agency – Comments awaited.Southern Water – “Foul Sewerage – There is not adequate capacity in the existing sewerage system to serve the development. The proposed development would increase the flows to the public sewerage system, which is currently overloaded, and existing properties and land would be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result.The development is premature, pending the improvement of the sewerage system to provide adequate capacity.Any additional flows would have to be drained to a point or points of connection on the existing sewerage system where capacity exists. In such cases it will be possible to requisition the sewers from Southern Water Services Ltd, under the provision of Section 98 of the Water Industry Act 1991.Surface Water Disposal

62

A capacity check is required to ascertain the available capacity in the adjacent surface water sewer in Yates Close. Attenuation and storage on site may be required, in order for the discharge to be permissible.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”.Sussex Police – Comments awaited.Director of Services (Housing) – If this development were approved the Strategic Housing Service would require a minimum of 40% affordable homes for clients registered with the Council for re-housing, this being 2 houses on this development.Planning Notice – 4 letters of objection to loss of the allotments. A copy typical letter is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this meeting 22 January 2004. Two copy letters received from Miss S M Ormerod dated 29 December 2003 are also appended.

SUMMARY This application needs to be judged against Policy S8 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy CF2 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). These state:“VillagesS8 The development boundaries of appropriate villages will be defined in local plans

in accordance with policy S5 and the considerations below. In addition, these considerations will be used to determine the scale and nature of change in such villages…

(f) The need to maintain adequate open space and gaps in development which contribute to the character or amenity of the village”.

and“Policy CF2 Development which would result in the net loss of community facilities,

including recreational facilities, play space, amenity areas or allotments will be resisted. Exceptionally, such development may be permitted where:

(i) an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the facility or area to be surplus to the requirements of the community which they serve;

(ii) there is no potential value for the other forms of community use; or(iii) alternative provision is made elsewhere in the locality that results in a significant

improvement in the level and quality of facilities”.Policy CF2 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) is supported by the following paragraph:“7.2 Recreational provision embraces sports facilities and play space together with

other open spaces used for leisure purposes, such as parks and gardens, as well as semi-natural and amenity greenspaces/corridors. Allotments are a further specific form of open space. Such facilities are a key component of the social ‘infrastructure’ of towns and villages and play a major role in terms of community cohesion and the ‘liveability’ of places, as well as in health and well-being”.

As submitted, the application is not supported by an assessment showing that the allotments are surplus to the requirements of the local community or that alternative provision is made elsewhere in the locality. Furthermore, it is necessary to consider the comments received from Southern Water and the Highway Authority. At this moment in time therefore, it is necessary to obtain further information on the issues raised above

RECOMMENDATION DEFER (FURTHER INFORMATION FROM APPLICANT)

63

RR/2003/2459/P IDEN IDEN WOOD FARM, COLDHARBOUR LANE30 SEP 2003 OUTLINE: PERMANENT AGRICULTURAL DWELLING TO

SERVE IDEN WOOD FARMM & J Dawson

SITE The proposal relates to a 27 hectare holding on the north side of the unmade Malthouse Lane (a public byway) at its eastern end near the junction with Coldharbour Lane. The land was purchased by the applicant in 1977, at which time it was all woodland, and since then about half has been converted to grassland. There is an existing yard and buildings at the eastern end of the site about 30 metres from the junction of Malthouse Lane with Coldharbour Lane.

HISTORYA/62/221 O/A agricultural bungalow – Refused – Appeal Dismissed.A/71/123 Cattery – Approved.A/72/2053 O/A pair of houses – Refused.A/73/0739 O/A pair of houses – Refused.RR/83/0967 Excavation of site and construction of dam to form trout lake for

recreational purposes and provision of 6 parking spaces – Approved.

RR/91/0540/P O/A erection of three bedroom single storey agricultural dwellings with alteration to access – Refused.

RR/91/1052/P Creation of lake for maximum of 12 anglers also provision of car parking and new access – Refused – Appeal Dismissed.

RR/2000/2038/P Temporary siting of mobile home – Refused.RR/2001/136/P Siting of mobile home - Approved (temporary until March 2004)

PROPOSAL Outline permission is sought for the erection of a permanent agricultural workers dwelling to serve Iden Wood Farm. A supporting statement is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 22 January 2004.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support an approval.Environment Agency:- “…has no objection to the proposal, but would like to offer the following advice.Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 19912, written approval of the Environment Agency is required for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent into controlled waters, and may be required for any discharge of sewage or trade effluent from buildings or fixed plant into or onto the ground or into waters which are not controlled waters. Such approval may be withheld. (Controlled waters include rivers, streams, underground waters, reservoirs, estuaries and coastal waters). The Applicant is advised to contact the Kent Area Office (Water Quality Consenting Team) to discuss this matter further.The previous use of this/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

64

Statement. The design of the site investigation and the remediation Method Statements should be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority 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.A copy of this letter has been sent to the applicant/agent.”Director of Services - Environmental Health:- “No objection - details of discharges to be submitted on full application.”Rural Estates Surveyor:- “I am able to confirm that I have inspected the site, meeting the applicants and their agent Mr Samuel of Charles Clarke and Co.The application is a transfer from the temporary consent to a permanent dwelling and the criteria contained in Paragraph I5 of Annexe I of PPG7 have to be satisfied.As discussed with Mr Wilson the application is not accompanied by any financial evidence to satisfy the criteria regarding profitability which can be demonstrated by audited trading accounts.I spoke to Mr Samuel at the time of my meeting about this and also by telephone on Friday 24 October. Mr Samuel will attempt to produce some accounts to support the agricultural argument. At present the agricultural income is dealt with other income from other non agricultural sources. It may take some time to prepare these accounts.”Planning Notice:- Written representations from the owner/occupier of a neighbouring property (Iden Boarding Kennels) generally to the effect that:- the boarding kennels have been established for some 30 years and were carefully chosen for its isolated wooded location to avoid noise problems - kennels have provided an invaluable service for many years to the Council and Police in the collection and handling of stray dogs and there has been a decline in kennel services in the Rother area - if permission is granted for housing in the area around the kennels problems pertaining to noise associated with boarding dogs could be encountered particularly if developments change ownership - would like to address potential problems at an early stage and request any approval be conditional on noise from the kennels being considered in any purchase/rental agreement and complaints should not thereafter be possible on those grounds - recognise that proposed dwelling is of an agricultural nature to serve Iden Wood Farm but this may not always be so.

SUMMARY This 27 ha property was purchased by the applicant in 1977 when it was all woodland. Since then the applicant has created some 10 ha of grassland with the remainder of the land being still woodland. The farming operation is based around the yard and grassland area at the main entrance of the holding where the livestock buildings are also located. The applicants’ mobile home is located nearby and was approved on a temporary 3 year basis in March 2001 (RR/2001/136/P). The family run a calf rearing business whereby week old calves are brought in from dairy producers and reared until 12 to 15 years of age when they are sold back to farms as dairy replacements or as bull beef animals. Alongside this a worm farming enterprise has been developed where earthworms are used to break down the manure produced by the calf business. This produces quality compost which is used on the farm and once mature the worms are sold as fishing bait.The 10 ha of grassland is managed in association with the calf business. The applicants are currently considering entering part or all of this grassland into the Countryside Stewardship Scheme which will require commitment to a 10 year scheme to manage the pasture for environmental benefits. The Rural Estates Surveyor has inspected the site but is not satisfied that the criteria regarding profitability has been

65

adequately demonstrated. In the absence of satisfactory audited trading accounts I am unable to support an approval.

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 (November 2003). Policies S1, S10 and S11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 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. None of these apply and in particular the agricultural necessity for the provision of a dwelling has not been established to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and the development proposed is 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/2003/3246/P TICEHURST DALE HILL GOLF CLUB20 NOV 2003 REVISED PROPOSALS FOR EXTENSIONS TO PROVIDE

ADDITIONAL HOTEL AND GOLF FACILITIES PURSUANT TO OUTLINE CONSENT RR/97/2274/PDale Hill Hotel and Golf Club

SITE Dale Hill Hotel and golf course.

HISTORY (relevant)RR/97/2274/P O/A Extension to hotel with accommodation, conference facilities,

pro shop, changing and storage and car parking – Approved.RR/2001/260/P Construction of 6 self-contained flats, professional shop and

changing rooms pursuant to outline permission RR/97/2274/P.RR/2002/2006/P Variation of condition 1 on RR/97/2274/P to extend period to

submit reserved matters – Approved.RR/2003/806/P Extension to provide additional hotel and golf facilities (alternative

reserved matters approved to RR/2001/260/P) – Approved

PROPOSAL This is a further alternative reserved matters application for the hotel/golf facilities. Works have commenced on site the applicant’s agent explains the proposal as follows:“Approval of reserved matters ref. RR.2003/806/P was granted 22 May 2003 for a building totalling 1980 square metres as shown on site plan 1040/004 however, the Club have recently decided that whilst they require exactly the same internal components the locker rooms and public areas can be smaller.Our current application is therefore for a building of 1290 square metres, some 690 square metres smaller than that approved earlier this year.Detailed planning approval was granted in 2002 for the relocation of the existing greenkeeper’s building ref. RR/2002/2027/P. The permission has been implemented and the greenkeepers are relocating at present.

66

Whilst this building is outside of the outline approval boundary and therefore outside of the scope of this application the access and a large part of the open storage associated with the greenkeepers is within the application site and this area will be converted to car parking. We have therefore produced a comprehensive car park layout indicating how the parking will ultimately relate to the site of the removed greenkeeper’s building and compound.Earlier applications on this site have shown potential future phases stretching to the south of the existing staff accommodation. Whilst we cannot predict how matters might be in the future the Applicant has no current plans to extend the hotel or golf facilities beyond the current application. We also recognise that should there be a future requirement then any proposals need to fall within the ambit of the current outline approval and be judged on their merits at the time”.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority – No objection subject to satisfactory car parking provision.Environment Agency – No objection.Southern Water – “Foul Sewerage The proposed development would increase the flows to the public sewerage system, which is currently overloaded, and existing properties and land would be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result. Any additional flows would have to be drained to a point or points of connection on the existing sewerage system where spare capacity exists. This has been identified as manhole 0803, to the north of the site.Surface Water SewerageThere are no public surface water sewers in the vicinity of the site.Surface water will need to discharge to soakaways if effective at this location or to a local land drainage watercourse. Your Council’s own technical staff should comment on the effectiveness of soakaways and the adequacy of the local land drainage system.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”.Parish Council – Comments awaited.Planning Notice – No representations received.

SUMMARY The detailed proposal follows the general format of the previous approvals and can therefore be supported.

RECOMMENDATION APPROVE (RESERVED MATTERS)1. CN7G (Schedule of materials – amend to relate to the proposed building).2. Details of the proposed surface treatment of the car area shall be submitted to

and subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority within 3 months of the date of the permission and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3. CN8C (Foul and surface water drainage) amended – prior to occupation).

67

RR/2003/3350/P TICEHURST THE RETREAT, CHURCH STREET03 DEC 2003 REMOVAL OF CONSERVATORY AND ERECTION OF

EXTENSION CONSISTING OF LIVING ROOM, DINING ROOM AND BEDROOMMr & Mrs Dann

This application has been included on your site inspection list.

SITE The Retreat is a two storey detached dwelling located within the conservation area of Ticehurst. The property occupies a back land plot accessible via an access from Church Street.

HISTORY No previous history.

PROPOSAL Planning Permission is sought to remove the conservatory which presently is attached at the rear of the dwelling. It is proposed to erect a two storey extension at the rear and a single storey extension to the southern elevation of the house. The application requires an addition which would be approximately 2.5 metres wider than the widest part of the existing property. This application involves a change to the style of the roof; from a characteristic gabled roof to a hipped roof.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – General Observation – ‘This appears to be a 50% increase on the existing building which is very large in this position – notice of application was not obvious and no comments have been received’.Director of Transport & Environment – County Archaeologist – ‘I do not believe that any archaeological remains are likely to be affected by these proposals. For this reason I have no further recommendations to make in this instance’.Planning Notice – 3 letters of objection (Granary Cottage, Dell Cottage and Cinque Cottage)- The two storey extension would prevent sunlight reaching the neighbouring

gardens.- Loss of privacy.- Not in keeping with the small cottages which occupy a limited space adjoining

Church Street.- Not appropriate within the High Weald AONB.- The addition of the extension at the rear would virtually run the entire length of

the garden of the neighbouring property (Granary Cottage), a Grade II Listed Building – adverse impact upon the house and garden.

1 letter of support (Rose Cottage)- The extension will fit in with the existing properties as it would be built from

the same materials.- The extension would fulfil the genuine need for extra space for the young

family- The family are very involved in the local community and should be encouraged

to stay1 letter from applicant- The family has strong connections with Ticehurst.- The extension may only affect sunlight to Granary Cottage, not light as the

proposed is to be 4ft from the boundary fence at its closest point.- As regards Dell Cottage, it is too far away for shadow to be cast onto the garden.

68

- The wall of the extension would be screened by the foliage in Granary Cottage garden.

- The extension is designed to lessen the impact to the area, using a part of the garden which is dead – ground.

- Church Street does not only have small cottages but over time larger houses have been built.

- The proposed will add to the area as it is sympathetic in design, in keeping with the original house and area.

SUMMARY This application relates to a two storey cottage, occupying a back land plot; possibly originating from outbuildings of 19 th century origin. A characteristic of the dwelling is the narrowness of the building and a gabled roof. There have been several objections to the proposed from the immediate properties to the north of The Retreat. In particular, an objection highlights the effect a two storey extension would have upon the garden of the neighbouring Grade II Listed Building (Granary Cottage). This alone does not in my view warrant reason enough for refusal of the proposed extension. However, the scale of the proposed extension is large and would alter the form and character of the existing dwelling. The design of the extension is such that the roof would be hipped to the western elevation and the dining room on the southern elevation is poorly aligned to the rest of the elevation. In this case an extension of such unsympathetic design and scale to the existing building would have a serious detrimental effect upon this property within the conservation area and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed design and scale of the extension would be detrimental to the

character of the existing building which is in the Ticehurst Conservation Area and the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which should be preserved in accordance with Policy GD1 (4) (5) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2003/3357/P TICEHURST SEACOX FARM, DELMONDEN ROAD3 DEC 2003 CHANGE OF USE OF TWO POULTRY SHEDS TO STORAGE

AND RESTORATION OF FURNITUREMr & Mrs C Attwood

SITE Seacox Farm is located to the south side of the Hawkhurst Road on the Kent border. The application relates to two former poultry sheds, 100 metres and 68 metres long respectively. These are now in business use having been granted a temporary (three year) planning permission.

HISTORY (relevant)RR/2000/1589/P Change of use of two poultry sheds to storage and

restoration of furniture – approved – temporary 3 year – planning permission

The access to the site is in Kent and planning permission for the use of the poultry sheds (within Rother District) to the storage and restoration of furniture was granted by Tunbridge Wells Borough Council in December 2000.

PROPOSAL The temporary planning permission (RR/2000/1589/P above) expires in January 2004. The application now before you seeks permanent planning permission

69

for the business use of the premises. The applicant has also requested that the hours of use condition be modified to allow business operations on site to take place on Saturday afternoons.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support proposal – “In support of local business providing work in the area. Council recommends that 3 year temporary licence be extended”.Highway Authority – Has no particular concern to express in respect of the proposal, however, Kent County Council needs to be consulted on the application.Tunbridge Wells Borough Council – Comments awaited.Environment Agency – No objection.Southern Water Services – Does not wish to comment.Director of Services – Environmental Health – Comments awaited.Planning Notice – 3 letters of objection from local residents (Spring Cottage, Well Cottage and Seacox Coach House) on the grounds:- My dwelling is very close to the access road; the substantial increase in lorry

traffic directly affects the safety of my 3 young children- The number and size of lorries visiting the site has increased markedly. Road

has already been resurfaced as a consequence of lorry damage- Delmonden Lane is a single track road and unsuitable for use by heavy lorries.

There is a blind bend in the road.- The daily total of vehicle is well in excess of the 30 each week stated.- The original proposal was to let the building to 3 firms; there are now 7 separate

units resulting in additional traffic generation- Original condition restricting hours if use has been breached with traffic

movements in evidence before 7am to 8pm or 9pm weekdays, and at a reduced level at weekends and some bank holidays.

COMMENT Planning consent was originally granted for the change of use and conversion of the two former agricultural buildings on a temporary basis in order that the impact of the business use on the amenities of the area could be tested.The three letters of objection, from local residents, all of whom are close to the access to the site, indicate that the business use of the site to date has had some adverse impact on residential amenity. Enforcement complaints have previously been received also.The objections from local residents principally concern two issues (i) the frequency and character of vehicle movements and (ii) the alleged breach of the hours of use condition impose on the original consent.The applicant has responded in writing to a number of the specific grounds of objection raised and the letter is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT to this Committee 22 January 2004. Briefly, the letter points out that:- A considerable number of heavy vehicle movements previously existed when the

premises operated as a poultry farm, sometimes during the night- The applicants have paid to have areas of the communal driveway resurfaced- Our tenants do keep to business hours- Our largest tenant outgrew the site and has complied with our request to leave

the site and find alternative premises. We are dividing their single unit up into smaller units to avoid having another large tenant

Whilst clearly there is a need to safeguard the residential amenity of neighbours, the points made in the applicant’s letter carry some weight as material planning considerations, as does the need to safeguard the employment and rural economy. I

70

am aware that Government advice contained in Circular 11/95 indicates that Local Planning Authorities should not repeatedly issue temporary planning permissions, however, I consider that a further grant of temporary permission would be appropriate in this case to further test the impact of the business use – particular as there appears to have been a recent change in circumstances with respect to the nature of the business use carried out on the site. I do not, however, consider that a relaxation of the existing hours of use condition, as requested by the applicants, would be appropriate at this time. If members are minded to grant a further temporary planning permission and it is brought to the attention of the Local Planning Authority that the hours of use condition is being breached, there is no reason why this could not be dealt with during the trial period as a separate matter by the serving of a Breach of Condition Notice. Subject to any outstanding comments from the Director of Services – Environmental Health I anticipate making the

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN14B (Time limited permission use) – three years.2. The premises shall only be used for purposes within Class B1 of the Schedule to

the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.3. The premises shall not be used or occupied for the approved use before 8.00am

or after 6.00pm on weekdays; before 8.00am or after 1.00pm on Saturdays, or at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

4. Boundary Noise level condition as RR/2000/1589/P.5. No floodlighting or external lighting of the site shall take place without the prior

written approval of the Local Planning Authority and such details for approval shall include methods of shielding the light source from outside of the site and the lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approve details.

6. CN8G (Bunded tanks)7. There shall be no retail sales on the site.

RR/2003/3314/P SEDLESCOMBE PUMP HOUSE YARD - LAND AT, THE 28 NOV 2003 GREEN

ERECTION OF 4 TERRACE COTTAGES WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING SPACES AND VEHICULAR ACCESSMr D Thomas

SITE The application site forms the rear part of a linear shaped strip of land presently in use as a builders yard. The application site is 22 metres wide and has an average length of 45 metres. The land is within the village Development Boundary. There is an existing frontage to the turning head at the end of the Gammons Way cul-de-sac. The side boundaries of the site border the RDC car park and properties in Gammons Way to the northwest, and the rear garden of Harriet House - a private residential property - to the southeast. There are a number of mature oak trees around the perimeter of the site.

HISTORYNone relevant.

PROPOSAL The application is in outline only. An indicative layout plan shows the erection of a terrace of 4 no. cottages (each with 3 bedrooms), a strip comprising 8

71

parking bays and the formation of a new vehicular access onto Gammons Way. The following supporting information has been provided by the agent:“1. You were concerned that the land subject to this application should remain as

commercial use, however, as you noted from your site visit the land is overgrown and is not used at present, as it is excess to requirements.

2. We can confirm that no jobs will be lost due to this proposal and the workshop will remain intact and fully functional.

3. We would also like to clarify that the application is ‘outline’ only, position and orientation of the dwellings can be subject to a full planning application as would their design, to ensure minimum impact on neighbouring properties”.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Supports a refusal – “1. Although the proposed development is within the Sedlescombe development boundary, the access is not satisfactory being too close to the school entrance which is already congested at certain times of the day. The additional traffic that would be engendered by the development, if allowed, would create an unacceptable increased hazard for children.2. The loss of part of an industrial site within the village is not supported”.Highway Authority:- No objection in principle.Environment Agency:- No objection in principle.Southern Water Services:- Requests that a condition dealing with satisfactory means of foul and surface drainage is attached to any planning permission.Director of Transport & Environment - County Archaeologist:- “Although this application is situated within an Archaeologically Sensitive Area, I do not believe that any archaeological remains are likely to be affected by these proposals.”Director of Services - Environmental Health:- Requests that a contaminated land condition is attached to any permission.Planning Notice:-

4 letters/emails objecting to the application, from the occupiers of 4 Gammons Way and ‘Brookfield’: Harriet House and 129 Old Roar Road, St Leonards a new access off the Gammons Way cul-de-sac would lead to the greater

probability of a road accident. This is unacceptable, particularly as it is directly opposite to the gates to Sedlescombe Primary School.

Car parking and traffic congestion is presently a problem in this area and further vehicles would exacerbate the situation.

Loss of employment opportunity Variety and mix of land uses are part of character of village B1 starter units would be the most appropriate use of this land Application should be a full planning application in order to properly

assess the proposal The development is likely to result in loss of trees Communal car parking has long since been shown not to work Three of the houses have no rear garden access Gardens would be overshadowed Would directly overlook the rear garden of Harriet House Contrary to the Councils Planning Policies for the area (DS1, GD1 and

HG4) Inappropriate change of use from established business and light industrial

to housing. So eroding historical context, village vitality and future employment opportunities

72

Appropriate environmental and design quality (for a proposed conservation area and adjacent to listed buildings) not demonstrated. This includes tree relationships/retention, sustainability issues and overlooking into private gardens

1 letter from the occupier of The Post Office indicates that there is no objection in principle to the development but points out that an area of land edged in blue on the site plan is not owned by the applicant although there is right of way.

Hastings Area Archaeological Research Group (HAARG) - “...if planning permission is granted there will be the need for an archaeological presence when the ground works starts for the erection of the cottages.”

SUMMARY A primary issue for consideration is whether or not members would wish to accept the principle of residential development on what would be classed as an employment site. Policy EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) sets out your position on this as follows:“Proposals to change the use of existing buildings or redevelop sites currently or last in employment creating use will generally be resisted unless it is demonstrated that there is not prospect of its continued use for business purposes or that it would perpetuate serious harm to residential amenities”.The requirement to protect the level of the existing stock of industrial and commercial premises is reiterated in Policy E5 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. With respect to Policy EM2 it is generally accepted that a demonstration of demand, or lack of demand, for the continued use of the site for business purposes would require the site owner to carry out a full and satisfactory marketing exercise. No information has been provided with the application and consequently it has not been established that all means of retaining the site in business/commercial use have been fully explored. Regarding the second criteria within Policy EM2, it is not considered that the continued use of this site for business/commercial purposes would be unacceptable in this location by perpetuating serious harm to residential amenities. The principle of residential development has not therefore been established.A second issue for consideration is the potential harm to the amenity of the occupiers of the neighbouring property - ‘Harriet House’. Although the application is in outline only, the indicative plans show a terrace of cottages a distance of only some 5 metres from the site boundary and directly facing the rear garden of that neighbouring property. The garden is presently secluded and my concern is that the development is likely to result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy.Finally, I have requested advice on the potential impact of development on the mature trees on the perimeter of the site. I hope to have comments from the Tree Officer in time for your meeting.With respect to the highway issues raised by local residents, I note that the Highway Authority has no objection in principle and accordingly it is not considered that a refusal on highway grounds could reasonably be sustained.

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING)1. The proposed use of this site for residential development conflicts with Policy

EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) in that proposals to change the use of existing buildings or develop site currently or last in employment creating use will generally be resisted. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that all means of retaining the site in

73

business/commercial use have been full explored or that the continued use of the site for business/commercial purposes would perpetuate serious harm to residential amenities. The proposal also conflicts with Policies E5 and E7 pf the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 which sets out a requirement to safeguard the level of the existing stock of industrial and commercial premises.

2. Although the application is in outline only, the indicative layout plan does not demonstrate that the development can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site without resulting in loss of residential amenity for the occupiers of the neighbouring property - ‘Harriet House’ - by directly overlooking the secluded rear garden of that property and resulting in loss of privacy. The development is contrary to Policy S1(b) 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/2003/3196/P GUESTLING FRAYSLAND FARM17 NOV 2003 INSTALLATION OF 15M PHASE 2 MONOPOLE WITH 4 NO.

ANTENNAS, 2 NO 300MM DISHES, RADIO EQUIPMENT HOUSING AND ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT THERETOVodafone Ltd

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

SITE Fraysland Farm is located on the west side of the A259 trunk road approx 0.5m north of Guestling Green.

HISTORYNone relevant

PROPOSAL The proposed base station would be located approx 350m west of the A259 and to the rear of some large agricultural buildings. The installation would include a 15m high slimline monopole (goosewing grey) on top of which would be mounted four 2.4m high antennas. Two microwave dishes would be attached to the mast at a height of 12m. At ground level it is proposed to install two steel equipment cabinets (holly green) and a mains input unit within a 3.5m x 7.00m compound enclosed by a timber post and rail fence.The installation would fill a gap in existing signal strength and provide 2G coverage over Guestling and the surrounding area and extend south to Batchelor’s Bump and north to Guestling Thorn. Signal strength would be sufficient to provide adequate service for indoor use of a hand portable mobile phone. Alternative sites considered include three in Ore, Hastings and five in Guestling, all discounted on grounds that included technical unsuitability and unwilling landowners. An existing Police mast at Ore, Hastings had to be discounted because it has now reached capacity and it is not possible to install any further equipment on it. Furthermore, although Vodafone obtained planning permission RR/2000/2828/P to replace Network Rails existing 30m trackside mast at Three Oaks with a 30, lattice tower, Network Rail have since withdrawn their consent to Vodafone on grounds of Health and Safety. The current proposal is therefore Vodafone’s alternative option. A ‘Declaration of Conformity with ICNIRP Public Exposure Guidelines’ accompanies the application.

74

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support a refusal and make the following comments – “Guestling Parish Council, having considered all the information available and consulted with Guestling School oppose this development on the following grounds:1. The application is mis-leading in its description. The total height of the mast will

be some 17.5 metres in height not 15 metres as described in the application.2. It is an enhancement of Vodafone’s service in the area, NOT to fill a gap.3. It is considered too close to the Guestling Primary School. In the absence of

categoric proof regarding safety of emissions, the mast needs to be sited much further away from both the primary school and Buckswood school.

4. It will scar the surrounding area which is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.5. Vodafone’s suggestion that the mast will be barely visible from the A259 is not

considered accurate. Our estimate is that it will stand some 10 metres above the existing farm buildings and the existing treeline will not screen it”

Highways Agency:- Has no objection subject to a condition in respect of keeping the highway clean at the access point throughout the construction period.Highway Authority:- Advise that the Highways Agency need to be consulted as access would be from a trunk road.Director of Services – Environmental Health – Has no objection but recommends a boundary noise level condition.Planning Notice – 2 letters received from the headteacher of Guestling Bradshaw CE Primary School and Chair of the governing body dated 17 December 2003 have been received, copies of which are contained within the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 22 January 2004. These refer to letters by pupils and parents and a petition containing 173 signatures objecting on health and landscape grounds. Two letters from pupils support the proposal. In addition to the above, 5 letters have been received from local residents. These are mainly concerned about associated health risks with some comments regarding adverse impact upon the landscape and AONB.

SUMMARY With regard to visual appearance, the Applicant’s make the following comments:“Visual appearanceThe development consists of a 15 metre monopole supporting 4 antennas. This is a slim line structure which will blend in well with the surrounding mature trees, and when taken into context with the surrounding land use (ie. industrial farm buildings) 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 and the existing farm buildings, the majority of the mast structure will be well screened. The area generally has limited tree coverage and there are no existing masts which may be used to site the antennas.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 as practicable and will not be significantly seen from the A259. This is because between the A259 and the site lies several mature trees and farm buildings which provide an adequate level of screening between the road and the installation. Travelling along the A259, 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 cabinets which will not be seen from any public viewpoint. Whilst no landscaping has been deemed necessary a natural timber

75

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”.I concur with the Applicant’s above analysis and am satisfied that the proposal strikes an acceptable balance between technical requirement and landscape impact. It would not be appropriate to impose a condition as recommended by the Highway’s Agency as legislation to keep the highway clean is, I believe, embodied in the Highways Act.With regard to the health concerns of the local school, copies of the letters received have been sent to the Applicant for comment. At the time of writing this report I had not received their reply but expect to receive this in time for your meeting. However, pre-application discussions were undertaken by the Applicants with the school who were advised that radio frequencies measured at the school were likely to be 37,000 times below the European Union recommendation (based upon ICNIRP General Public Exposure Guidelines). Provided similar advice is received from the Applicant, I would expect to support the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SATISFACTORY REPLY FROM APPLICANT)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. CN12I (Noise levels)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.

RR/2003/3485/P PETT CALROUST, CHICK HILL8 DEC 2003 REVISED PROPOSALS FOR THE ERECTION OF EXTENSION

AND ALTERATIONS INCLUDING ENLARGED ROOF DORMER AND ADDITIONAL DORMER WINDOWMr & Mrs G Dymott

This application has been added to the Committee Site inspection List.

SITE This is a substantial detached dwelling located on the North side of Chick Hill. The site is within the countryside, outside any village development boundary and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. HISTORYRR/2003/725/P – Erection of extension and alterations to include enlarged roof dormer and an additional dormer window - Approved

76

PROPOSAL Following the construction of the roof not in accordance with the approved plan, this application seeks permission to regularise the structure. The revised proposals are for the erection of an extension and alterations including enlarged roof dormer and additional dormer window.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – No comments received to date.Planning Notice – No comments received to date.

SUMMARY The previous application was amended prior its presentation to the Planning Committee, which resulted in the slight reduction in the size of the second floor rear dormer window. However, during construction the applicants decided to further develop the building in terms of the roof detail. The footprint has not been increased from that approved under RR/2003/725/P. The changes are ostensibly to the rear of the building. At second floor level, the roof light has been replaced with a dormer window, the approved dormer has been reduced in size and repositioned within the roof slope and a small rooflight (north elevation) has been included to allow light into the landing area. The roof detail has been enlarged at first floor level to accommodate a cupboard and a larger dormer window serving an en-suite bathroom. In light of the changes, it is not considered the opportunities for overlooking have increased unduly on condition the first floor dormer window has obscured glazing installed.

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING) 1. Within one month of the consent hereby granted, obscure glazing shall be

installed within the first floor dormer window (east elevation) and shall thereafter be retained in that condition.Reason: To prevent the overlooking of adjacent properties.

2. The roof of the single storey extension (east elevation) shall not be used for any purposes ancillary to the occupation of the dwelling house including use as a balcony.Reason: To prevent the overlooking of adjacent properties.

3. CN5E (a) (Restrictions of alterations/ additions)

RR/2003/3239/P RYE FISH PROCESSING BUILDING, ROCK CHANNEL20 NOV 2003 RECLAD BUILDING AND FORM NEW OPENINGS

The Rye Partnership

This application was considered at your December meeting when authority was delegated to the Planning Officer to grant planning permission subject to the expiration of the statutory advertisement period. Further representations have been received from a neighbour and the Rye Conservation Society.

SITE The proposal relates to the substantial modern two storey fish processing building which is located off the east side of Fishmarket Road at Rock Channel. The site is within the development boundary but just outside the boundary of the Conservation Area.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/94/0355/P Extend use - sorting/weighing/packing/wholesaling/retailing of sea

food products, vivier tanks, construct boat moorings - Approved.

77

RR/96/1034/P Extension for box washing and storage/workshop, addition of two canopies and first floor windows - Approved.

PROPOSAL Approval is sought for the recladding of the building and the formation of two new openings in the rear elevation.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council – Support approval.Environment Agency – Comments that they don’t need to be consulted on this proposal.Planning Notice - Two letters of objection from the owner/occupier of a neighbouring property (Ferry Cottage). The first which was circulated at the December Committee is an objection generally on the grounds of: not clear what the purpose of the openings is but it appears to be for multiple occupancy and general commercial business from a proliferation of individual units; also appears to be plans to turn the loading bay on the south west corner into a freezer cold store; Ferry Cottage (Grade II listed) is just 11m from the building and concerned about proximity to industrial activity; when the building was converted to a fish processing factory in 1995 concerns were met by restricting activity to the river frontage and creating a buffer zone 6m deep between the northern boundary wall and the factory (RR/94/0355/P condition 9); the current application rides roughshed over these provisions and puts Ferry Cottage in the middle of a traffic roundabout; the main single exit (Rock Channel East) is already heavily trafficked and the new proposal will encourage more traffic on unmade roads without pavements, lighting or drainage.The second letter adds that further information has been received to the effect that: the south west side facing their house is to be used as a loading dock for a further fish processing plant with enlarged facilities for lorries receiving and despatching fish – further adverse impact on residential amenities at all hours and within 11m of bedrooms – even Town Council deceived by disingenuous description. Rye Conservation Society had no objection in their original comments but has made further comments following their receipt of a letter from the owner/occupier of Ferry Cottage. They wish to endorse his objections generally on the grounds of: loss of amenity to his property, urge that any new opening not be made in the side of the building facing Ferry Cottage; general amenities of Ferry Cottage be held in consideration when plans involving additional traffic movement are proposed.

SUMMARY This substantial building is located on the eastern edge of the town at Rock Channel. The scheme involves the redecoration of the ground floor blockwork and the cladding of the upper floor (light green plastic coated steel at present) with dark stained weather board. Two new access doors are shown in the rear north-west elevation. The site is just outside the boundary of the Conservation Area but adjoins the Town Salts which form an important part of the setting of the ancient town. The proposed alterations, in particular the redecoration and recladding , will enhance the appearance of the building and I can see no objection from the planning aspect. At the same time however, the precise position with regard to the ownership of the building is not clear and this point has been taken up with the agent. Provided this aspect is satisfactorily resolved it will be my

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7G Amended ‘No development…of all external colour finishes and the

development shall be carried out using the approved colour finishes’.

78

(Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and to accord with the provisions of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011).

RR/2003/3430/P RYE STRAND COACHWORKS, ST MARGARETS TERRACE11 DEC 2003 OUTLINE: REDEVELOPMENT OF MOTOR WORKSHOPS AS

TERRACE OF FOUR RIVERSIDE HOUSES WITH IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING MOORINGS AND ADDITIONAL PARKING WITH ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING ACCESSMiss Alison Riches

This application has been included in your list of site inspections for 20 January 2004.

SITE The proposal relates to the existing long standing single storey motor workshop premises on the west side of the access road to Rock Channel. The site has a frontage of 4.75m to that road with a minimum depth of about 19m at its northern end near St Margarets Terrace. Just to the north of the workshop is a block of 3 garages. The rear boundary of the site is set by the River Tillinghams mean high water mark. The site is within the Rye Development boundary but outside the boundary of the Conservation Area.

HISTORYR/69/89 Installation of WC and washroom – Permitted DevelopmentRR/77/0856 Extension to car repair workshop – ApprovedRR/87/0444 Replacement of workshop with pair of semi-detached dwellings

and two garages served by widened private road – RefusedRR/82/2098 Demolition of 3 lock up garages and erection of 2 tonne propane

gas storage vessel with high chain link fence around – ApprovedRR/2003/3446/P Change of use from motor workshop to yacht clubhouse and café

with improvements to existing moorings and additional car parking including alterations to an existing access – Current application

PROPOSAL Outline consent is sought for the redevelopment of the site with a terrace of four 3 storey height dwellings. Living accommodation is shown on the first and second floors and within the roof space and garage and storage space at ground floor level. Externally the plans indicate dark red brickwork to the ground floor walls with black stained weatherboard above and a red clay plain tiled roof. Seven car parking spaces are shown on the land to the north for visitors/boat owners. In a supporting letter dated 21 November 2003 it states “The site has been used as Motor Workshop and Moorings since the 1930’s and since the 1960’s by Ian Addy who retired this year. My Client has been in discussion with the Environment Agency regarding redevelopment of the site in the light of their plans for flood defence improvements, which it is anticipated will not be completed until 2007.In the meantime a temporary use as a Yacht Clubhouse and Café is proposed and a planning application for this use is enclosed under separate cover.With regard to the residential redevelopment, the Environment Agency’s Engineers have indicated that a flood defence constructed integrally at the new building will be acceptable. The Environment Agency has separately approved improvements to the moorings on the site, entailing removal of individual posts and beams and the construction of a new decked area, providing moorings for 10 boats.

79

In view of the fact that flood defence plans are at an early stage, outline application is made to establish the principal of housing redevelopment.An indicative scheme is submitted showing four three bedroom houses with a ground floor entered on the lower inland side utilised as garage, cloakroom and utility areas only, a first floor set 7.5 metres above Ordnance datum providing living room, kitchen an study areas and second floor and attic bedroom and bathroom accommodation.Black stained weatherboarding and fibre cement slates are proposed in order to be sympathetic to the Warehouse style in this area of the Town.In accordance with PPG3 High Density Development is proposed for this brownfield site.It is noted that Policy RY3 of the Revised Deposit of your Council’s Local Plan also provides for high density housing in this area and for improvements to take advantage of the waterside. It is submitted that the moorings and decked area provide an opportunity to take full economic advantage of the water front as well as enhancing the appearance of the area.The indicative plans provide parking to serve the Houses and Moorings. with regard to a Riverside Walk the Environment Agency consent for moorings improvements was conditional upon restricted access to the deck with lockable gates.It is recognised that any consent will be subject to revised details upon finalisation of the flood defence design and that any consent will not be able to be implemented before the flood scheme completion in 2007”.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council – Support refusal “RN8A Overdevelopment, RN8B Restricted site, RN8D restricted site, RN8F out of character”..Highway Authority – “Access to the site is from an unadopted road (St Margarets Terrace) and in turn accessed via the A259 Trunk Road and therefore the Highways Agency needs to be consulted on this Application”.Highways Agency – Comments awaited.Environment Agency – “…would wish to place a HOLDING OBJECTION to the proposal as submitted, for the following reason(s):Development ControlAt present the site is inappropriately defended in that the current standard of defence is less than that recommended in PPG25.In view of this the Agency would be obliged to object to residential development on the site due t the associated risk to life and damage to property should extreme tidal conditions be experienced. To date the highest recorded tide level in Rye is 5.030m above Ordnance Datum Newly.However, as your Council is aware the Agency is currently promoting a scheme to raise the standard of defence to 1 in 200 and both applicant and agent are aware of this, although an exact date for start and completion in this area is not at present available,The current building and adjoining garages form an integral part of the river defences on this site and it is possible that a similar design format could be adopted for new development, subject to comprehensive safeguarding factors.Any new development would have to incorporate sufficient design allowances to ensure the Agency’s ability to improve the defences is not compromised and this would have to be based upon future tide level design horizons.Whilst the Agency may not object to the principle of residential development on this site, any such development would have to be appropriately defended, not obstruct the Agency’s ability to maintain the defences (including access) and to ensure that all living accommodation is at an acceptable level.

80

It is suggested that the applicants architect and the Agencies design consultants liase further on this issue and reach a formal agreements int erms if ribver tidal defence design and until such agreement is reached a holding objection should be maintained to the current, application.In addition we draw your attention that any works whatsoever between the lower water mark and a line 15 metres landward if the river tidal defence would require the prior consent of the Environment Agency under the Agency’s own bylaws.ContaminationThe previous use of this site 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 contamination that might reasonably be expected given those uses and other relevant information.If the desktop study identified 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 Local Planning Authority before being carried out.Any visibly contaminated or odorous material encountered on the site during development work must be investigated. The Planning authority must be informed immediately of the nature and degree of contamination present.Decision NoticePlease 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 – Comment awaited.Director of Services – Environmental Health – “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 detail the history of the site’s uses and 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

81

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 – Written representations from the owner/occupiers of two neighbouring properties (37 South Undercliff and 19 Watchbell Street) objecting generally on the grounds of:gross overdevelopment; restricted site; buildings of this size and scale are out of character; building would obstruct the view of Rye from the approach road from Winchelsea; sub-urbanisation of an area of Rye clearly visible from the look out area at the end of Watchbell Street; appears to be premature to be using revised Rother Deposit Local Plan (Policy RY3) as supporting application particularly in respect of ‘high density’ element; dwellings would be twice as high as current building; no other buildings of similar height nearby; long from the upper end of Strand Quay will change from a ‘horizontal’ one of buildings and sky merging without a tall building in the centre; redevelopment of Rock Channel following three lines would result in river being turned into a ‘canyon’ of buildings; present open appearance including two mature trees would most likely be masked by proposed building. Rye Conservation Society object on the grounds of overdevelopment. They state further that the applicant has not tile to the northern end of the site and therefore no space for the parking; applicant states Environment Agency are agreeable to flood wall being incorporated into rear wall of houses but this is inconsistent with their byelaws.

SUMMARY The property comprises land forming part of the tidal flood bank on the west side of the unadopted road serving St Margarets Terrace and the Rock Channel area and backing onto the River Tillingham. It contains long standing motor workshop premises and a block of 3 lock up garages and is the subject of an enforcement investigation into unauthorised works comprising the erection of timber decking and the formation of moorings. Approval is sought to redevelop the site with a terrace of four dwellings, improvements to moorings, additional parking and alterations to an access. The Environment Agency have made a holding objection on the basis the site is inappropriately defended in that the current standard of defence is less than that recommended in PPG25. the site is within the development boundary but the relevant policy in the Revised Deposit of the Local Plan (RY3) sets out that detailed proposals will be formulated through comprehensive development brief. The application site is a crucial part of the RY3 policy area close to where the main access is likely to be and occupies a prominent position on the water frontage. The future of the Rock Channel area will be a major part of the forthcoming Local Plan Public Inquiry and it would be premature to approve a scheme which could prejudice the comprehensive scheme. Further it is considered that the proposed development would be an overdevelopment of this restricted site. Policy RY1(ii) is also relevant which requires proposals for development and change in Rye to be compatible with the objective of protecting the

82

unique historic citadel and its landscape setting particularly the levels surrounding the citadel. I am investigating the position with regard to the point raised by the Rye Conservation Society regarding the ownership of the northern end of the site and it is hoped to have the applicants response available at the meeting. Providing this aspect is satisfactorily resolved it will be my:

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 Policies GD1 and RY1 of the Plan in that the scale, density, form and character of the development would not be compatible with the adjacent surrounding area.

2. 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 is premature and conflicts with Policy RY3 of the Plan in that it does not form part of a comprehensive scheme for the development of the land between South Undercliff and Rock Channel and to the south of Rock Channel as defined in the plan.

3. The proposal would introduce additional dwellings into a tidal flood risk area which would not ensure that safety of the occupiers of the accommodation in accordance with the provision of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, Policy DS1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) and Government Advice set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG25 ‘Development and Flood Risk’.

4. Any objection as may be raised by the Highways Agency.

RR/2003/3446/P RYE STRAND COACHWORKS, ST MARGARETS TERRACE12 DEC 2003 CHANGE OF USE FROM MOTOR WORKSHOP TO YACHT

CLUBHOUSE AND CAFÉ WITH IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING MOORINGS AND ADDITIONAL CAR PARKING INCLUDING ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING ACCESSMiss A Riches

This application has been included in your list of site inspections for 20 January 2004.

SITE The proposal relates to the existing long standing single storey motor workshop premises on the west side of the access road to Rock Channel. The site has a frontage of 4.75m to that road with a minimum depth of about 19m at its northern end near St Margarets Terrace. Just to the north of the workshop is a block of 3 garages. The rear boundary of the site is set by the River Tillingham’s mean high water mark. The site is within the Rye Development boundary but outside the boundary of the Conservation Area.

HISTORYR/69/89 Installation of WC and washroom - Permitted DevelopmentRR/77/0856 Extension to car repair workshop - Approved.RR/82/2098 Demolition of 3 lock up garages and erection of 2 tonne capacity

propane gas storage vessel with high chain link fence around - Approved.

83

RR/87/0444 Replacement of workshop with pair of semi-detached dwellings and two garages served by widened private road - Refused.

RR/2003/3430/P O/A redevelopment of motor workshops as terrace of four riverside houses with improvements to existing moorings and additional parking with alteration to an existing access - Current application.

PROPOSAL Approval is sought for the change of use of the motor workshop to yacht clubhouse and café with improvements to the existing moorings and additional car parking including alterations to an existing access. In a supporting letter it states “The site has been used as a Motor Workshop and moorings since the 1930s and since the 1960s by Ian Addy who retired this year. My Client has been in discussion with the Environment Agency regarding redevelopment of the site in the light of their plans for flood defence improvements. An outline application for riverside houses and moorings is enclosed under separate cover.In the meantime my Client wishes to make use of the site on a temporary basis and proposes a Yacht Clubhouse and Café to include a Club Dining Room, Lounge, Kitchen Area, Cloakroom and WC for boat owners and a public Café. Disabled access is provided at the site via the cloakroom. Parking spaces 4, 5, 6 and 7 are existing. Additional spaces 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are proposed adjoining the private road.Individual mooring posts and beams have been removed and improved moorings for ten boats including a decked access area are under construction having received Environment Agency approval and inspection.”

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- Support approval subject to: “The Planning Officer obtaining verification of land ownership and consulting with both HORAC and the Environment Agency; approval of the Highways Agency and Environment Agency.”Highway Authority:- “Access to the site is from an unadopted road (St Margarets Terrace) and in turn access via the A259 Trunk Road and therefore the Highways Agency needs to be consulted on this application.”Highways Agency:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- “The Agency would have no objection in principle to the application and we have been in detailed discussions with the applicant and agent regarding possible future uses for the site.Development ControlAny works whatsoever in, over or under the channel of the River Rother or on its banks, the tidal wall/embankment or within 15 metres of the landward toe of the tidal defences would require the prior land drainage consent of this Agency under Section 109 of the Water Resources Act 1991 and/or Byelaws.To date the Agency has consented to the construction of moorings, revetment works and riverside decking in an attempt to improve both the visual aspect of the site and to improve bank stability, together with a number of new moorings.However as your Council (and the applicant and agent) are aware, the Agency is currently promoting a scheme to increase the standard of protection afforded by the River Rother tidal defences in and around Rye.At present the existing building on site forms an integral part of the tidal defences and it is essential that the integrity of the defence is not compromised in any way, together with the ability of the Agency to gain unimpeded access to the site for maintenance and or improvements. The applicant and agent are fully aware of these issues and the

84

future proposals to upgrade the defences. The Agency does not consider the change of use to negatively impact upon our proposals which may not take place for some time.Finally we would draw to your attention the current risk of flooding to the site, should very extreme tidal conditions be experienced or a breach of the defences occur. However, as there is no residential aspect to the application, the Agency would again raise no objection to the proposals.ContaminationThe previous use of this site 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 desk top 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 Local Planning Authority 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.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.”Director of Services - Environmental Health:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- A letter of objection has been received from the Rye & District Sea Cadets generally on the grounds of - cars parked as indicated will seriously obstruct the right of way which is the only feasible access to their headquarters - they regularly use a minibus and vehicles towing canoe and boat trailers which cannot negotiate Shipyard Lane (the only other access) - headquarters is used twice a week and at weekends by up to 30 boys and girls aged 12 to 18 - believe not all the site is owned by the applicant - parking spaces 1, 2 and 3 lie partly within the Right of Way, spaces 8 to 12 are outside the area purchased.Rye Conservation Society objects to the scheme commenting “Over development of the site. Provision should be made for a public footpath/cycle track along this side of the St Margaret’s Terrace roadway leading to the Rock Channel Housing estate in accordance with the objectives of the Local Plan. The proposed car park encroaches onto the public right of way and detracts from local amenities, endangering pedestrian safety on this busy road.” They state further that the applicant has no title to the northern end of the site and parking spaces 1, 2 and 3 and 8 to 12 lie outside the curtilage of the site. Spaces 1, 2 and 3 obstruct the public right of way. The other spaces go direct onto the right of way with no room to turn vehicles.

SUMMARY The property comprises land forming part of the tidal flood bank on the west side of the unadopted road serving St Margarets Terrace and the Rock Channel area and backing onto the River Tillingham. It contains long standing motor workshop premises and a block of 3 lock up garages and is the subject of an enforcement investigation into unauthorised works comprising the erection of timber decking and the formation of moorings. Approval is sought for the change of use of the workshop to a yacht clubhouse for boat access and a public café with improvement to the existing moorings and additional car parking (9 spaces in addition to the 3 garages). The

85

change of use is required on a temporary basis pending future redevelopment which they have been in discussion with the Environment Agency with in the light of their plans for flood defence improvements. The Environment Agency’s comments are that they have no objection in principle and the applicant is fully aware that the existing building forms an integral part of the tidal defences and that it is essential that their integrity is not compromised. To date they have consented to the construction of moorings, revetment works and riverside decking and they do not consider the change of use to negatively impact upon their proposals which may not take place for some time. The site is within the Rye development boundary and covered by Policy RY3 of the Local Plan which requires development in this locality to be formulated by a comprehensive development brief. This brief is to provide for commercial uses that complement the town’s tourism and marine functions. Against this background so as not to prejudice future development of the area any planning permission would need to be time limited in my view for no more than a five year period. I have taken up the position with regard to the ownership of the northern end of the site within the application and it is hoped to have his response available at the meeting. Provided this aspect is satisfactorily resolved and no objection is raised by the Highways Agency or from the Environmental Health aspect I am minded to grant a temporary consent.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN14B(b) (Time limited permission - use - 5 years).2. CN14N (Contaminated land - desk top study)3. CN10L amended ’The altered access and additional car parking spaces shall be

laid out and constructed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works.’(Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the site proceeding along the access road and to accord with the provisions of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.)

4. CN12G Amended as may be required by Director of Services - Environment. (Hours of use).

5. CN12I Amended as may be required by Director of Services - Environment. (Noise levels).

-o0o-

86