RR/2009/308/P€¦ · Web viewB/67/653 Use as palmistry kiosk. Approved. B/69/24 Use of building...

Rother District Council Agenda Item: 6

Committee - Planning

Date - 12 August 2010

Report of - Director of Services

Subject - Planning Applications

Head of Service: Tim Hickling

Planning Committee Procedures

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

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

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

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

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

Delegated ApplicationsIn certain circumstances the Planning Committee will indicate that it is only prepared to grant or refuse planning permission if, or unless certain amendments to a proposal are undertaken or subject to completion of outstanding consultations. In these circumstances the Head of Planning can be delegated authority to issue the decision of the Planning Committee once the requirements of the Committee have been

1

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

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

satisfactorily complied with. A delegated decision does not mean that planning permission or refusal will automatically be issued. If there are consultation objections, difficulties, or negotiations are not satisfactorily concluded, then the application will have to be reported back to the Planning Committee or reported via the internal only electronic Notified D system as a means of providing further information for elected Members. This delegation also allows the Head of Planning to negotiate and amend applications, conditions, reasons for refusal and notes commensurate with the instructions of the Committee. Any applications which are considered prior to the expiry of the consultation reply period are automatically delegated for a decision.

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

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

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

REFERENCE PAGE PARISH SITE ADDRESS

RR/2010/962/P 2 BEXHILL 37 The HighlandsLennox Lodge

9/13/433 2 BEXHILL 37 The HighlandsLennox Lodge

RR/2010/1567/L 8 BEXHILL King George V ColonnadeWest Parade

RR/2010/1617/C 12 BEXHILL Bexhill to Hastings Railway Line – Parallel to – Between Glyne Gap, Bexhill and Cinque Ports Way, St Leonards on Sea

RR/2010/1669/P 16 BEXHILL Oldlands, Maple Walk

2

RR/2010/1725/P 25 BEXHILL 52 Collington Avenue

RR/2010/1746/P 34 BEXHILL Gorringes, Terminus Road

RR/2009/2689/P & 39 RYE 8-26 Fishmarket RoadRR/2009/2690/H

RR/2010/1574/P 51 RYE Rye PotteryWish Ward (The Old Brewery)

RR/2010/1636/P 57 BURWASH Holton Farm HouseSpring Lane

RR/2010/1735/P 61 BURWASH NewlandsHeathfield RoadBurwash Weald

RR/2010/1187/P 68 BECKLEY Abbey LodgeHorseshoe Lane

RR/2010/1419/P 74 PEASMARSH Peasmarsh Bowls ClubThe Maltings

RR/2009/2875/P 78 CAMBER White Sand – Phase 5 and 7

RR/2010/1465/P 93 CAMBER 19 The SuttonsLong Burton

RR/2010/1552/P 102 TICEHURST Land opposite Upper PlattsPashley Road

--oo0oo--

3

Planning Committee 12 August 2010

RR/2010/962/P BEXHILL 37 The Highlands, Lennox Lodge

Construction of single storey 2-bedroom front extension

9/13/433 BEXHILL 37 The Highlands, Lennox Lodge

Removal of S106 imposed during previous planning permissions which has never been implemented

Applicant: Mr G HaddowAgent: GSL Design PartnershipCase Officer: Mr R T Scott (Tel: 01424 787610)

(Email: [email protected])Ward Member: Councillor J J Carroll and Councillor R WheelerReason for Committee consideration: Head of Planning referral in view of local concerns and consideration of the Section 106 AgreementStatutory 8 week date: 16 June 2010 (RR/2010/962/P); 5 July 2010 (9/13/433)

These applications have been added to the Committee site inspection list.

1.0 POLICIES

1.1 Policies GD1(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

2.0 SITE

2.1 This property is set in an elevated position on the north-west side of the junction of The Highlands and Clinch Green Avenue.

2.2 It is currently used as a residential care facility for the elderly and has 27 residents.

3.0 HISTORY (Relevant)

3.1 RR/83/0714 Change of use of dwelling to nursing/convalescent/rest home – Refused – Appeal Allowed

RR/84/1882 Alteration and extension to rest home – Approved

2

RR/85/2496 Single storey extension – Approved

RR/86/1988 Conversion of roof space to proprietor’s or staff flat – Approved

RR/93/2089/P Change of use and alteration to convert proprietor’s flat to residents’ rooms – Approved with S106 Agreement

RR/2003/677/P Revised proposal for two storey extension at front and side – Approved

RR/2003/3140/P Erection of two storey extension at rear to provide 4 additional bedrooms – Approved

RR/2004/941/P Revised plan for RR/2003/3140/P – Approved

RR/2005/741/P Amendment of 2004/941/P to provide 2 additional bedrooms – Approved

RR/2006/596/P Revised proposals – Approved

RR/2008/2563/P Erection of single storey front extension – Approved

RR/2008/3396/P Amendments to approved extension (RR/2003/677/P) – Approved

RR/2009/774/P Erection of ground and first floor extension at rear - Approved

4.0 PROPOSAL

4.1 The planning application RR/2010/962/P is a revised scheme for the approval previously granted under RR/2008/2563/P and provides 2 additional bedrooms. The design and detailing of the proposal is very similar to the approved extension with small changes to the footprint of the extension. As a result of this extension which has commenced on site, together with the completion of approved works at the rear, the number of residents will increase from 27 to 30.

4.2 The Section 106 Agreement on the site was completed in February 1995 with previous owners of the site and replaced a previous 1988 Section 52 Agreement. The current agreement restricts the number of bed spaces to be provided on the site to 20 and required the installation of a new staircase for new residents’ accommodation on the second floor.

4.3 The application 9/13/433 seeks to discharge the legal agreement on the basis that a number of planning consents have since been granted which increase the number of bed spaces on site. The agreement is therefore considered to

3

be redundant and is inhibiting the owner’s ability to raise finance on the value of the property.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Planning Notice: Objections have been received from 4 addresses in The Highlands which can be summarised as relating to the following points: Volume of traffic increased and vehicles travel at excessive speeds

even at unsocial hours. Clinch Green Avenue is used as a parking area for workers – car park

is not used Pine trees have a TPO Damage to verge of adjacent properties Road has changed in character from quiet residential area as a result

of the busy business use Development should be restricted to 20 bed spaces in accordance with

the Section 106 13th application to extend the property in the last 8 years Recently completed extensions at rear have impacted on adjacent

properties Time to stop over development How has number of residents been allowed to exceed the restriction of

20 in the Section 106? Unadopted section of The Highlands is in poor condition and this will

not be helped by further traffic from the site Volume of traffic excessive given the residential nature of the road and

no footpaths All traffic should be via Clinch Green Avenue

6.0 APPRAISAL

6.1 This application is a minor revision of the single storey front extension approved in November 2008 (RR/2008/2563/P). The alterations are not significant and the principle of the development is established. The design and appearance is satisfactory in relation to the existing property and will not have an adverse impact on the protected trees.

6.2 At present the car parking area is not fully utilised and it is appropriate to ensure that this is laid out in accordance with the submitted plans and retained available for use.

6.3 The S106 Agreement was made with a previous owner of the site and did not come to light when subsequent applications were considered. The use of a S106 is not necessary to control the number of bed spaces at the premises as this would be more appropriately controlled by planning condition if required. Appeal decisions have indicated that legal agreements are not necessary where planning conditions could be used. In this case I consider the agreement serves no useful purpose. Any issue in relation to further

4

development of the site and its implications for traffic generation would be considered when a future application is determined.

7.0 SUMMARY

7.1 The proposed revision to the existing consent is satisfactory and the increase in number of residents from 27 to 30 will not have a significant impact on the area.

7.2 The S106 Agreement serves no useful purpose and any future application for enlargement of the premises will be considered on its merits.

APPLICATION NO. RR/2010/962/P:

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)

CONDITIONS

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.Reason: In accordance with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

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

3. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing Nos. 08.13.1B and 08.13.3.Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, as advised in the CLG guidance ‘Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions’.

4. The car parking shown on drawing no. 08.13.3 shall be laid out prior to the occupation of the new bedrooms hereby approved and maintained as car parking space thereafter.Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed single storey extension is of an appropriate design and position and will not adversely affect the character of the area or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policies GD1(ii) & (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

5

View application/correspondence

APPLICATION NO. 9/13/433:

RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE EXISTING SECTION 106 AGREEMENT BE DISCHARGED


6

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=913433

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr2010962p

Planning Committee 12 August 2010 ___________________________________________________________________

RR/2010/1567/L BEXHILL King George V Colonnade, West Parade

Introduction of balustrade to provide guarding to existing stairs from Metropole Lawn to Promenade level

___________________________________________________________________

Applicant: Rother District CouncilAgent: HTA Architects.Case Officer: Mr A S Rowland (Tel: 01424 787612)

(Email: [email protected])Ward Member: Councillor Mr M D Ensor and Councillor Mrs J M

HughesReason for Committee consideration: Head of Planning referral - Council application.Statutory 8 week date: 17 August 2010___________________________________________________________________

1.0 POLICIES

1.1 Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan applies in considering any impacts of the proposal upon the character and amenities of the listed building and surrounding area. PPS5 provides the relevant guidance.

___________________________________________________________________

2.0 SITE

2.1 The Colonnade, constructed in 1911 to commemorate the coronation of King George V, is located on Bexhill seafront immediately to the south of the De Le Warr Pavilion, a grade I listed building. The Colonnade was originally designed as a sheltered venue from which to enjoy the open-air beachfront concerts and performances but its role was somewhat deminished 25 years later with the arrival of the Pavilion behind it. The Colonnade is set below the Pavilion forming part of the Promenade running along the shoreline. It is located within the town centre conservation area and forms an important visual aspect to the setting of the listed Pavilion. The Colonnade has been listed in its own right at grade II.

___________________________________________________________________

3.0 HISTORY

B/65/577 Erection of enclosure to form an amusement arcade. Refused.

B/67/653 Use as palmistry kiosk. Approved.

B/69/24 Use of building for sub aqua diving school. Approved.

8

B/69/108 Ground floor for public entertainment & erection of glass screen and ice cream kiosk (later refused by ESCC). Refused.

RR/76/0747 Use of semi-circular area for children’s amusements. Approved conditional.

RR/85/0438 Upgrading of existing kiosks. Erection of new kiosk and landscaping to form new refreshment and children’s play area. Approved conditional.

RR/85/0983 Use of premises for the storage and hire of windsurfing boards and office use. Approved conditional.

RR/89/1150/P Upgrading of existing kiosks. Erection of new kiosk and landscaping to form new refreshments and play area. Approved conditional.

RR/89/2316/P Upgrading of existing kiosks. Erection of new kiosk and landscaping to form new refreshments/children’s play area. Approved conditional.

RR/89/3123/P Refurbishment of colonnade to include enclosing of remaining portion of covered crescent to form sun lounge. Approved conditional.

RR/2008/1871/3R Enlargement of existing structure to form additional A3 units. Approved conditional

RR/2009/2835/L & Redevelopment of the Colonnade to provide a mix ofRR/2009/2834/3R flexible A3 restaurant/café space and A1 retail space

together with updated accommodation for the coastal officer – Approved conditional.

4.0 PROPOSAL

4.1 This application is for two 6.9m lengths of balustrade upper terrace level to protect the substantial drop down to the promenade level at each end of the east and west wings of the colonnade where the existing steps are situated.

4.2 The submitted details indicate an open design of two stainless steel horizontal bars between uprights spaced 1.38mm apart supporting a 45mm diameter stainless steel handrail.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 English Heritage: Comments not yet received.

9

5.2 Planning Notice: Any comments received will be reported.

6.0 APPRAISAL

6.1 The need for the balustrade arises from the Building Regulations and is clearly necessary to guard against the situation where people could fall from the upper level down to the promenade.

6.2 I believe that in this location, within the wider view from the De La Warr Pavilion and terrace it is essential that the balustrade should not draw attention to itself and it should reflect the simple horizontal emphasis of the pavilion. It is also desirable to achieve continuity of design and a uniformity of style with the associated development of the colonnade and the re-developed Rowing Club.

6.3 The submitted design does have a simple horizontal emphasis but it is different from that being suggested under conditions attached to the Rowing Club re-development where structural glass and stainless steel is proposed. I have discussed this with the architects and I anticipate receipt of revised plans shortly; these are expected to satisfy the objectives set out at 6.2 above and comply with policy GD1 and PPS5 guidance.

6.4 The application is for Listed Building Consent and since the Council is the applicant the decision has to be made by Government Office.

7.0 SUMMARY

7.1 The balustrade is necessary for clear safety reasons.

7.2 The proposal is judged to have an acceptable relationship with the De La Warr Pavilion and subject to receipt of amended plans is considered to be appropriate both in relation to the listed buildings and the re-developed Rowing Club.

7.3 The application must be referred to Government Office for a decision.

RECOMMENDATION: REFER TO GOVERNMENT OFFICE FOR DECISION


10

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20101567l


RR/2010/1617/C BEXHILL Bexhill to Hastings Railway Line – Parallel to - Between Glyne Gap, Bexhill and Cinque Ports Way, St Leonards on Sea

Construction of a shared footway/cycleway comprising a path and ramped structure

Applicant: East Sussex County CouncilCase Officer: Mr R Wilson (Tel: 01424 787616)

(Email: [email protected])Reason for Committee consideration: Council owned land involvedLast date for decision: 16 July 2010

1.0 POLICIES

1.1 Although outside the District Policies DS1, BX1(x) and TR2 of the Local Plan are supportive.

2.0 SITE

2.1 The application relates to the St Leonards Seafront from Glyne Gap in the west to Combe Haven to the east.

2.2 Although the application relates to land wholly within Hastings Borough it does involve land in the ownership of Rother District Council at Glyne Gap.

3.0 PROPOSAL

3.1 East Sussex County Council, together with Sustrans, Hastings Borough Council and Rother District Council, has developed proposals for an off-road pedestrian and cycle route between Bexhill and Hastings. This project forms part of Sustrans’ national Connect2 initiative that was successful in bidding for £50m funding from the Big Lottery Fund’s Living Landmarks Competition.

3.2 The scheme is for a surfaced off-road cycleway and the route along the seafront rising over the headland at Glyne Gap is the favoured of 4 options considered.

3.3 The cycleway will be constructed with two types of surfacing. On the cliff section a Type A material overlaid with fibre-deck is proposed. Timber edging will be provided. On the beach sections, the Environment Agency sea defence sections and the section past the beach huts a flexible grid product is proposed; ‘Netpave 50’ in-filled with a graded 0-14mm shingle stone sourced

12

from the locality with the permission of the Environment Agency. No edging is required with the Netpave product.

3.4 The section of the path to enable path users to access and egress the cliff section from the east requires a ramped structure. The design for this structure consists of gabions filled with local stone (Kentish Ragstone), to support a platform on which the cliff top path will be continued to carry path users from the cliff to beach level. On the ramped retaining wall section a 1.4m wooden post and rail fence is proposed to prevent path users from falling from this narrow elevated section of the route.

3.5 Access points to the route will be from the existing cycle/pedestrian routes; pedestrian and cycle routes from Bexhill over Galley Hill and from Hastings would connect to the new route. At the Bexhill end, the new route is accessible from the A259 Bexhill Road, the Ravenside Retail Park and residential properties via the tunnel at Glyne Gap. There is an existing shared cycle and pedestrian route through the tunnel. This route is free from motorised traffic.

___________________________________________________________________

4.0 CONSULTATIONS

4.1 Director of Services – Head of Amenities: No objection.___________________________________________________________________

5.0 APPRAISAL

5.1 The application is within the Hastings Borough area and Rother District Council as an adjoining local authority has been consulted by the County Council, who are acting as both developer and planning authority. The scheme involves a small area of District Council owned land at Glyne Gap.

5.2 At present, apart from the railway, the only transport corridor along the coastal strip is the A259 Bexhill Road. This forms part of the trunk road route along the south coast, and is a single carriageway with poor width and alignment carrying 32,000 vehicles per day. The Bexhill to Hastings Pedestrian and Cycle route would form a key missing link in the National Cycle Network Route 2 (NCN2), running along the south coast of England. This will be an attractive addition to the network as it will be one of the few sections where it will be possible to ride so close to the sea but away from the traffic.

5.3 Locally the scheme links with the existing cycle path to Galley Hill within the District area.

___________________________________________________________________

6.0 SUMMARY

6.1As part of the strategic national cycle network and for the benefit of linking the two towns, taking cyclists off Bexhill Road, the scheme is a positive feature.

13

RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE COUNTY COUNCIL BE ADVISED THAT ROTHER DISTRICT COUNCIL, AS AN ADJOINING LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY, SUPPORT THE PROPOSAL


14

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20101617c


RR/2010/1669/P BEXHILL Oldlands, Maple Walk

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of two detached dwellings – both fronting Maple Walk

Applicant: Mr N BlackwellAgent: Lewis and Co PlanningCase Officer: Mr Worsley (Tel: 01424 787618)

(Email: [email protected])Ward Member: Councillor P R Douart and Councillor Mrs J P Gadd Reason for Committee consideration: Member referral: Councillor Mrs J P Gadd Statutory 8 week date: 27 August 2010

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

1.0 POLICIES

1.1 The following Rother District Local Plan policies are relevant:DS1 Development principles.DS3 Proposals within development boundaries.GD1 General development criteria.

2.0 SITE

2.1 The application site is located to the west of Maple Walk, approximately 50 metres north of the junction with Clavering Walk. A detached two storey dwelling and associated garage currently occupy the 0.28 hectare site.

3.0 HISTORY

3.1 RR/78/2372 Outline: erection of detached bungalow and garage – refused.

RR/85/2420 Outline application for erection of detached dwelling with garage and access.

RR/2005/791/P Two storey side and rear extension.

RR/2005/1828/P Erection of two storey side and rear extension.

16

RR/2005/1865/P Outline: demolition of existing dwelling and erection of new detached dwelling.

RR/2006/1511/P Outline: demolition of existing dwelling and erection of new detached dwelling.

4.0 PROPOSAL

4.1 Permission is sought to erect two detached two storey dwellings, both with attached double garages and associated accesses, in place of the existing dwelling which is to be demolished. The proposed properties would be of the same scale and design, but handed. Plot widths at the frontage would be approximately 16.5 metres. The dwellings would both have footprints of approximately 195 square metres, a floor area of around 322 square metres, a height of up to 8.7 metres and be set back from the road frontage by approximately 6.5 metres. A mock Tudor design is proposed which includes a square shaped feature, measuring 21.4 square metres, on the front elevation that is around 0.7 metres taller than the ridge height of the main two storey part of the dwelling. Materials consist of plain clay roof tiles, plain clay tile hanging to the first floor of the main part of the dwelling, Tudor style timber and render cladding to the first floors of the square shaped features and brick to the ground floor elevations. The existing gated vehicular accesses to the north and south of the frontage would be retained to serve the new dwellings as would the fir trees along the frontage.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Southern Water Services: Any comments received will be reported.

5.2 South East Water: Any comments received will be reported.

5.3 Environment Agency: Any comments received will be reported.

5.4 Highway Authority: Any comments received will be reported.

5.5 Tree Officer: Any comments received will be reported.

5.6 Planning Notice: 2 e-mails and two letters of objection received containing the following comments (summarised): Majority of plots in Maple Walk and especially on the eastern side are

widely spaced. Proposal not suitable for the location. Although much mention is made about the space between the proposal

and adjoining properties there is minimal space between the two houses proposed.

Clay ground in this area is not suitable for soakaways. Over development. Existing house in perfectly good condition.

17

Two identical houses are proposed just 2 metres apart thus looking almost semi detached.

Out of keeping with neighbouring properties. Mock Tudor design out of keeping with the semi rural location. Tower features with lantern lights atop, which reminds one of “footballers’

houses” which will alter the character of the road. Large surrounding properties were built in the 1920s, not mid 20th century. There will be a 176% increase in foot print from the existing house. Clauses 13 and 16 of PPS3 are relevant as the proposal does not comply

with the guidance recommendations in terms of inappropriateness, character, scale or density, nor does it integrate with or complement the neighbouring buildings.

Came to live in this area for peace and quiet in later years. Noise, dirt and disruption. Sewage and other systems already overloaded. Local school, surgery and dentist’s are full. Previous refusal on site for as single replacement dwelling because of its

mass, bulk, scale, siting and it being detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring property.

A scaled down application for a single dwelling (expired) was contentious but granted on appeal with a reduced footprint of 272 sq. metres. This was considered to be the maximum size the site could accommodate.

EG H&R Average Build lists a large 2 storey house as 221 sq. metres gross floor area. Those proposed are stated as 322 sq. metres each.

The current scheme is larger on three counts: 2 dwellings now proposed, larger footprints and larger floor areas.

Site is shown as 0.22 hectares with an existing density of just under 5 dwellings per hectare, equating to 0.20 hectares per dwelling. The proposal increases the density to nearly 10 dwellings per hectare.

Not enough space proposed for future maintenance. Constructed too close to Brackendene and Southfields. Loss of privacy to Brackendene and Southfields – north and south

elevation side windows proposed that would overlook both properties and gardens.

Overlooking from proposed balconies and potential noise nuisance. Applicant is attempting to use space in neighbouring gardens to lend

space to the proposed cramped development. Proposed development infringes upon neighbouring land. Wish to know the exact depth the dwellings will be set back from the front

boundary – minimum of 6.5 metres is stated. Planning notice dated 2 July 2010 was attached to Oldlands on 17 July

2010 and is valid until 3 August 2010, allowing less than the statutory 28 days. Therefore wish to have extra time to comment.

Trees have previously been removed. Application form is blank and unsigned from the applicant.

___________________________________________________________________

18

6.0 APPRAISAL

6.1 Procedural Matters

6.1.1 Representation received from a local resident claims that the pink site notice was displayed outside the application site on the 17 July 2010 which allowed them less than the statutory number of days to comment. Photographic evidence proves that the site notice was displayed outside of the application site on the 12 July 2010 at 16.40. It informs interested parties that they have until the 3 August 2010 to make representations. It is evident that the local planning authority has publicised the application via a pink notice at the frontage of the application site to enable it to be present for not less than 21 days and therefore is fulfilling its statutory duty with regards to publicity to date.

6.2 History of Site

6.2.1 In 2006 outline planning permission was granted to replace the existing dwelling on a one for one basis. The property approved was relatively large and positioned close to the frontage of the site. This application followed an outline application in 2005 to replace the existing dwelling on a one for one basis but to be set towards the rear of the site. It was refused because it was considered to be out of character with the locality and would adversely impact on neighbours’ amenities.

6.2.2 A proposal to erect a dwelling and associated access drive to the rear of the existing property was refused in 1978 because of its backland nature, inadequate access, impact on neighbours’ amenities and that the development was likely to aggravate existing drainage difficulties in the locality.

6.2.3 In 1986 a proposal to erect a detached dwelling to the south of the existing dwelling was dismissed at appeal. The inspector reporting commented: ‘…I am of the opinion that your proposal would be out of character with the pattern of large houses on substantial plots in the immediate vicinity of your property. I agree with the council that the existing open character and retention of trees and mature shrubs in this locality should be retained and that the building of a dwelling on your appeal site would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area by virtue of the closing of the gap between your house and Southfields and the inevitability of the loss of trees and shrubs if permission were to be granted. I also consider that the Council’s concern about precedent is a valid one and if infilling were to result in the gardens of property such as ‘Brockendene’ and Southfield the attractive character of the area would be adversely affected…’

6.2.4 Whilst the inspector’s comments are noted, the decision was made 24 years ago. The application also differed to the current scheme in that the existing house was to be retained, a small dwelling was proposed and the two plots created were of differing sizes.

19

6.3 Character and Appearance of Locality

6.3.1 Maple Walk has a varied character in terms of the scale and design of properties, plot sizes and the position of dwellings within the sites. At the southern end of the road, on its western side, there are three relatively large sites including Southfield, Oldlands and Brackendene. The two storey dwellings occupying these sites are large, well spaced and located near to the site frontages. Immediately to the north of these properties, still on the western side of the road, are smaller plots with site frontage widths as little as 13.5 metres. Properties on these sites include Kuringai, a detached chalet bungalow; Broadlands, a detached two storey dwelling; and Midway, a detached two storey dwelling. All three are also located close to the site frontages. On the eastern side of the road there are examples of properties being set back from site frontages. Sites are generally between 17-20 metres in width at their frontages and a mixture of bungalows and chalets occupy them. Frontages to properties in this road are treated with a mixture of low walls, fences, trees and shrubs. Some are relatively open and some are well screened.

6.4 Impact of Proposal on the Character and Appearance of the Locality

6.4.1 The two plots created would have similar widths at their frontages to other sites in Maple Walk at approximately 16.5 metres. Their areas would also be comparable. Broadlands, which is just three plots to the north of the application site, is a two storey dwelling that extends almost the width of the plot and has a site area less than both plots proposed. Due to the mix in plot sizes and widths within the locality the two plots proposed are considered acceptable. In relation to the building line, both properties would be positioned approximately 6.5 metres from the road frontage which is in keeping with the majority of other properties within the street. The design of the properties, whilst different in appearance to other dwellings in the area, should not be harmful to the character and appearance of the locality due to the variation in designs of properties.

6.5 Impact of the Proposal on the Amenities of Neighbouring Properties

6.5.1 The proposed dwellings have been designed so that the double garages are located next to the boundaries shared with both existing neighbouring properties Southfield and Brackendene. This results in the southern side elevation of the two storey element of ‘House B’ being set away a minimum of 5 metres from the shared boundary with Southfield and the northern elevation of the two storey element of ‘House A’ being set away approximately 6.5 metres from the shared boundary with Brackendene. Due to this separation the proposed dwellings should not appear overbearing on the occupants of the neighbouring properties.

6.5.2 In terms of overlooking, side windows and the rear balcony areas proposed need to be considered. The first floor north side elevation windows proposed in ‘House A’ would serve an en-suite and a landing area which would have a 2 metre wide void behind. The en-suite window could be obscurely glazed.

20

Neither window should offer the opportunity for the occupants to directly overlook the neighbouring property Brackendene to an unacceptable extent. The first floor south side elevation windows proposed in ‘House B’ would serve an en-suite, landing and a bedroom. The en-suite could be obscurely glazed. However, the distance between the proposed and neighbouring property, together with existing mature vegetation screening, should mean that direct overlooking to an unacceptable extent is very unlikely.

6.5.3 Both first floor rear balconies proposed would measure approximately 1 metre in depth and 4.3 metres in width and would be accessed through bedrooms. They would both be positioned centrally on the rear elevations and therefore be set away from the northern boundary on ‘House A’ by approximately 5 metres and from the southern boundary on ‘House B’ by approximately 6.5 metres. Due to the distance from the boundary and screening provided by existing vegetation, unacceptable levels of direct overlooking are unlikely to be created.

6.5.4 With regard to the impact of the two dwellings on each other, the balconies would be set away from the shared boundaries by approximately 6 metres and will create a mutual level of overlooking. First floor windows that face the neighbouring site could all be obscurely glazed as they will serve dressing rooms and an en-suite. Both the balconies and windows are considered to have an acceptable impact on the amenities of the neighbouring property.

6.6 Highway Issues Including Parking

6.6.1 A minimum of two off road parking spaces within the garages for each new property are proposed. Adequate space also appears available to the front of the dwellings to provide a turning space.

7.0 SUMMARY

7.1 In view of the mixed character of Maple Walk, in terms of plot sizes and property designs, and the acceptable impact on neighbouring properties amenities, the proposal to replace a single dwelling with two is considered acceptable in this instance and unlikely to detract from the character and appearance of the locality.


CONDITIONS

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: In accordance with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

21

2. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwellings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To preserve the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policy GD1 (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. The garages hereby approved shall be used for the garaging of private vehicles, domestic and garden storage and domestic workshop purposes only, and for no habitable accommodation or other purpose including any other purpose in Class C3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.Reason: To provide adequate on site parking facilities that do not prejudice the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety along the highway and to accord with Policies GD1(i) & (iii) and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. No development in respect of the dwellings hereby approved shall commence until details for the hard and soft landscaping of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall include indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land including details of those to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development, a planting plan with schedule of plants/trees, noting species, plant sizes and positions and details of the positions, design, height, material and type of boundary treatment to be erected.Reason: To safeguard the characteristics of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1 (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. No development shall take place until details of storage facilities for refuse and a collection point have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.Reason: To safeguard the characteristics of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1 (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

6. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:Drawing no. 138.100, date stamped 2 July 2010;Drawing no. 138.101, date stamped 2 July 2010;Drawing no. 138.102, date stamped 2 July 2010;Drawing no. 138.103, date stamped 2 July 2010; andDrawing no. 138.104, date stamped 2 July 2010.Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, as advised in the CLG guidance ‘Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions’.

22

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed dwellings are considered to be acceptable as the plot sizes and scale and design of the buildings are in keeping with development in the locality and neighbouring properties amenities will not be adversely affected. As such the proposal complies with Policies DS1, DS3 and GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.


23



RR/2010/1725/P BEXHILL 52 Collington Avenue

Proposed residential development of 12 no. Flats, new vehicular access, parking and external amenities including landscaping. Application for revision to previously approved scheme RR/2010/442/P.

Applicant: Steed Construction LtdAgent: Michael D Hall Building Design Services LtdCase Officer: Mr M Cathcart (Tel: 01424 787613)

(Email: [email protected])Parish: BEXHILLWard Member: Councillor C F Starnes and Councillor Ms G P

WheelerReason for Committee consideration: Head of Planning in view of planning history and Committee consideration of previous applicationsStatutory 13 week date: 7 October 2010

1.0 POLICIES

1.1 The following Rother District Local Plan policies are relevant:

DS1 Development principles.DS3 Proposals within development boundaries.GD1 General development criteria.

2.0 SITE

2.1 The application relates to a vacant plot approximately 28m wide x 73m deep fronting the northern side of Collington Avenue. A large detached house which stood on the site has been demolished. The Tudor Court and Brampton Court development of flats occupy the land to the east of the plot, and a detached two storey house (no. 54) immediately to the west of the proposed plot occupies the corner site at the junction with Walton Park. Other similar style two storey houses in Walton Park have rear gardens which back onto the application site.

3.0 HISTORY

3.1 RR/2004/3179/P Demolition of existing dwelling and redevelopment of site with 12 flats in two blocks with additional landscaping and alteration to an existing access – Refused.

25

RR/2005/839/P Demolition of existing dwelling. Erection of 10 flats in two blocks with alteration to existing access and formation of parking area plus additional landscaping – Refused.

RR/2005/3243/P O/A Demolition of existing dwelling and redevelopment of site with 10 flats in two blocks with additional landscaping and alterations to an existing access – Refused – Appeal Allowed.

RR/2006/1643/P Outline: Demolition of existing dwelling and redevelopment of site with 8 flats in one block and 8 garages, with additional landscaping and alteration to an existing access - Refused.

RR/2007/2464/DA Demolition of building at 52 Collington Avenue – Details Approved.

RR/2007/3254/P Construction of 12 flats including formation of new vehicular access and alteration to existing vehicular and pedestrian accesses with provision of 17 parking spaces – Approved.

RR/2010/442/P Proposed residential development of 12 no. flats, new vehicular access, parking and external amenities including landscaping. Application for revisions to previously approved scheme RR/2007/3254/P.

4.0 PROPOSAL

4.1 Planning permission RR/2010/442/P (above) was approved by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 20 May 2010. This current application is for revisions to the approved scheme. The approved development consists of two blocks of flats in tandem (Block A at the back and Block B at the front). The proposed revisions concern the finished floor level of Block A and the finished ground level of its adjacent parking area. The previously approved scheme involved a very significant amount of land excavation, particularly in the rear part of the site; the current application seeks to substantially reduce the amount of excavation, road haulage and landfill necessary for the development to proceed. The proposal is, therefore, to raise the level of Block A by 1175mm (46”) over that currently approved and similarly, the finished level of the area of the approved car park to the front of this block would be raised to suit. There would, of course, be a corresponding increase in the overall ridge and eaves height of Block A. The excavation and finished floor level to Block B at the front of the site would be unchanged. A Design and Access Statement has been provided with the application, which can be viewed on the website.

26

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Highway Authority: Any comments will be reported.

5.2 Environment Agency: No objection in principle.

5.3 Southern Water Services Ltd: Any comments will be reported.

5.4 Planning Notice: Any comments will be reported.

6.0 APPRAISAL

6.1 Background

6.1.1 The site is within the development boundary of Bexhill. Outline planning permission for the erection of two blocks of flats was originally granted on appeal in 2005. Following on from this appeal decision, Members granted a full planning permission in 2008 and more recently, approved a revised application at the May meeting this year (RR/2010/442/P). The principle of development has therefore been established. The application now before you is for the same development with the revision that less ground would be excavated. As a consequence of this, Block A at the back would be further out of the ground and therefore correspondingly higher than under the earlier permission.

6.2 Issue

6.2.1 The principal issue for consideration is the impact of Block A on the living conditions of the adjacent properties, and particularly, no.2 Walton Park.

6.3 Assessment

6.3.1 The current proposal would result in a significant decrease in the volume of excavated material that will need to be removed from the site. Supporting information states that an estimate of the current proposed excavation tonnage shows an overall bulk removal for the 2007 approved scheme of 3180m3, which would equate to 265 no. 20 ton lorry loads to be removed from site; the current proposal, the subject of this application, would result in a reduction of approximately 110 lorry loads requiring the removal of 1860m3, equating to 155 no. 20 ton lorry loads. This is still a substantial amount of spoil to be removed but significantly less than under the present scheme. Supporting information also states that, whilst there would clearly be cost savings, a major consideration has to be the ecological impact that such excavations will have, not only in terms of material to landfill sites but also the road haulage effect on the local environment and infrastructure.

6.3.2 Whilst there are clearly planning merits in reducing the amount of excavated spoil, the proposal will effectively increase the height and bulk of Block A relative to existing properties. The impact of this on existing properties needs

27

to be assessed in respect of overshadowing, overlooking and oppressive outlook to determine whether there are justifiable planning reasons for setting Block A down to its presently approved level.

6.3.3 Block A would be sited immediately behind the rear garden of no. 2 Walton Park and any assessment of impact needs to take particular account of this dwelling.

6.4 Overlooking

6.4.1 The drawings show the side elevation to the proposed Block A, which faces the rear of no. 2 Walton Park to have one ground floor window and one Velux rooflight. These are serving bathrooms, not principal rooms, and the side window is indicated as being obscure glass. The other side of the proposed Block A would be adjacent to the Tudor Court Garages and not a residential property. It is not therefore considered that there would be any material impact on no. 2 Walton Park or any other property from overlooking.

6.5 Overlooking and loss of outlook

6.5.1 A factor in the assessment of both of these matters is the height and mass of the proposed Block A. In this respect, it is noted that Block A would still be set down lower than the rear garden of no. 2 Walton Park. Furthermore, the height of Block A is shown on the drawings to drop down to 1½ storeys adjacent to no. 2 Walton Park. Taking into account the height of the development, the distance from existing properties and relative ground levels, it is not considered that the revised increase in levels would have a material impact in terms of outlook.

6.5.2 Section drawings across the site have been provided, which include reference to the BRE Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight Good Practice Guide, and the information indicates that the proposed revision to the ground level of Block A would not impact in terms of loss of light. Furthermore, from the evidence provided it is not considered that there would be any material impact in terms of overshadowing. Other existing properties would have a similar satisfactory relationship with Block A and would not be materially affected. Subject to consideration of any further representations that may be received before the expiry of the consultation and notification period it is considered that the application can be supported.

7.0 SUMMARY

7.1 Planning permission has previously been granted for the erection of flats on the site. The proposed Block A and the adjacent parking area would not have an adverse material impact on the residential amenities of existing residential properties as a consequence of the proposed revisions to the finished ground level of Block A and the adjacent parking area. In other respects, the proposed development is in accordance with the existing extant planning permission RR/2010/442/P.

28

___________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD)___________________________________________________________________

CONDITIONS


2. This permission is granted as an alternative to those granted under application no. RR/2007/3254/P on 18 February 2008 and RR/2010/442/P on 20 May 2010, to the intent that one permission only shall be implemented.Reason: To ensure that the development of the site is carried out wholly in accordance with a specific planning consent and to accord with Policies DS1 and GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development reflects the character and appearance of the locality and to preserve the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policy GD1 (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of foul and surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning authority and none of the residential flats shall be occupied until the drainage works to serve the development have been provided in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and to prevent water pollution in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. The finished floor levels of the buildings shall be in accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.Reason: To ensure that the development is set down at a low level so as to reduce any impact on neighbouring properties and the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policies GD1(ii) & (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

6. No building shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site for 17 number of cars to be parked in accordance with the approved plan drawing no. 3970.9 date stamped 8 July 2010. The parking areas shall be retained in that use thereafter.

29

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

7. The altered access shall be in the position shown on the approved plan drawing no. 3970.9 date stamped 8 July 2010 and laid out and constructed in accordance with the attached HT407 diagram and all works undertaken shall be executed and completed by the developer prior to the occupation of the buildings for residential purposes.Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

8. Prior to the commencement of development details for the stopping up of the existing western access shown on the approved plan (drawing no. 3970.9 date stamped 8 July 2010) together with the reinstatement of the kerb, footway and verge shall be submitted for the consideration and approval of the local planning authority. The buildings shall not be occupied for residential purposes until the access has been closed in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

9. No building shall be occupied until a turning space for vehicles has been provided and constructed in accordance with the approved plan drawing no. 3970.9 date stamped 8 July 2010. The turning space shall be retained in that use thereafter.Reason: To ensure that the proposed development does not prejudice the free flow of traffic or conditions of general safety along the highway in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

10. During any form of earthworks and/or excavations that are carried out as part of the development, suitable vehicle wheel washing equipment shall be provided within the site. Reason: To prevent contamination and damage to the adjacent roads; in the interest of highway safety and for the benefit and convenience of the public at large.

11. Details of improvements to the existing bus stop and waiting facilities on Collington Avenue in front of the development site shall be submitted for the consideration and approval of the local planning authority, and the improvements shall be carried out by the developer in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the development for residential purposes. Alternatively, prior to occupation the applicants (or developer) shall have entered into a Section 106 planning obligation with the County Council as Highway Authority to secure the above mentioned improvements.

Reason: To achieve a sustainable transport system in accordance with Policy TR2 of the Rother District Local Plan.

30

12. The boundary treatment as set out on the approved plan drawing no. 3970.9 date stamped 8 July 2010 shall be completed before the buildings are occupied.Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development and to safeguard the characteristics of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

13. Before occupation of the buildings hereby permitted commences, the refuse

and recycling storage and collection point facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans, drawing no. 3970.9 date stamped 8 July 2010), and thereafter retained, with all bins and containers available for use, maintained and replaced as need be.Reason: To protect the residential amenities of the locality, to safeguard the visual amenities of the locality, and in the interests of providing a sustainable development, all in accordance with Policy GD1(ii), (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and PPS1, paragraph 20.

14. No works or development shall take place until full details of the proposed times of planting, have been approved in writing by the local planning authority, and all tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the details set out on the approved plan drawing no. 3970.9 date stamped 8 July 2010 and at those times. Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development and to safeguard the characteristics of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1 (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

15. If within a period of five years from the date of the planting of any tree that tree, or any tree planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies, [or becomes, in the opinion of the local planning authority, seriously damaged or defective] another tree of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be planted at the same place, unless the local planning authority gives its written consent to any variation.Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development and to safeguard the characteristics of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1 (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

16. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:drawing no. 3970.9, date stamped 8 July 2010;drawing no. 3970.10, date stamped 8 July 2010;drawing no. 3970.11, date stamped 8 July 2010;drawing no. 3970.12, date stamped 8 July 2010;drawing no. 3970.13, date stamped 8 July 2010;drawing no. 3970.14, date stamped 8 July 2010; anddrawing no. 3970.15, date stamped 8 July 2010.Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, as advised in the CLG guidance ‘Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions’.

31

Notes: (i) To give effect to the highway conditions relating to the public highway you

should contact the Transport and Environment Department of East Sussex County Council at Sidley Depot, Ninfield Road, Bexhill, TN39 5AA (telephone 01424 220022) prior to the commencement of work and enter into a private works agreement between yourself and the County Council.

(ii) A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (telephone 01962 858688), or www.southernwater.co.uk.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: Planning permission has previously been granted for the erection of flats on the site. The proposed Block A and the adjacent parking area would not have an adverse material impact on the residential amenities of existing residential properties as a consequence of the proposed revisions to the finished ground level of Block A and the adjacent parking area. In other respects, the proposed development is in accordance with the existing extant planning permission RR/2010/442/P. The details of the development are acceptable in all other respects having regard to Rother District Local Plan Policies DS1 and GD1.


32


http://www.southernwater.co.uk/


RR/2010/1746/P BEXHILL Gorringes, Terminus Road

Change of use from auction rooms (Sui generis) to A1 retail for sales of antiques

Applicant: Dyer CommercialAgent: Dyer CommercialCase Officer: Mr J McSweeney (Tel: 01424 787617)

(Email: [email protected])Ward Member: Councillor C F Starnes and Councillor Ms G P

WheelerReason for Committee consideration: Head of Planning referral - Council own the land. Statutory 8 week date: 6 September 2010

1.0 POLICIES

1.1 Rother District Local Plan Policies apply and in particular GD1(General development criteria), EM14 and EM15 (Shopping).

2.0 SITE

2.1 The application premises relates to the Gorringes Antiques Auction building, (formerly the Old West Station buildings), which front the north side of Terminus Road at the southern end of the Beeching Road industrial estate.

3.0 HISTORY

3.1 RR/77/1913 Change of use from scenery store into auction salerooms – Approved.

RR/94/0514/AD Externally illuminated sign – Approved conditional.

4.0 PROPOSAL

4.1This application seeks permission for the change of use of the premises from auction rooms (Sui generis) to A1 retail for sales of antiques.

34

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Highway Authority: Do not consider that the proposed change of use will have any effect on the existing situation, taking into account the existing permitted use.

5.2 Planning Notice: Any comments will be reported.

6.0 APPRAISAL

6.1 Issues for consideration

6.1.1 The site is set outside the shopping area for Bexhill as defined within the Rother District Local Plan; Government advice and the Local Plan seek in the first instance to focus any new shopping or related commercial development within these defined areas to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres. Therefore the main issues to consider are the acceptability of a retail premises in this locality, the impact upon amenities of the area, and highway implications including sufficient parking provision.

6.2 Acceptability of retail premises outside a defined shopping area

6.2.1 Local Plan Policy EM14 states, Further significant retail development will only be permitted outside town centres or district centres, as defined on the Proposals Map, where a quantitative and qualitative need for the development is demonstrated and the location is justified, having regard to other provisions made in the Plan and the sequential test in PPS6. Further shopping Policy EM15 states, Proposals for new or improved small-scale retail development within town and village development boundaries will be permitted where it is of a scale related to the local neighbourhood, conveniently located to existing facilities and meets the site considerations of Policy GD1.

6.2.2 The net tradable area of the premises of 537m² cannot be considered as a small-scale retail development; however, in this instance the past use of the premises and the proposed specialist niche retail use need to be taken into consideration.

6.2.3 In terms of the separation from the defined shopping area an unrestrictive retail use would not be supported as this would be contrary to the Local Plan Policy EM14. However, given the previous use of the premises as an antiques auction room – which attracted customers to the site to purchase items – the proposed specialist niche retail use (antiques sales) is not that dissimilar to the current use and is one which could be supported within this edge of town site.

6.3 Impact upon amenities of area

6.3.1 The site forms part of the Beeching Road estate area and therefore the immediate neighbours are industrial/commercial and as such the proposed

35

change of use is unlikely to cause any detriment to them. The traffic movements associated with the proposed use are unlikely to be significantly higher than those for the current auction and thus will not impact upon the amenities of the wider area.

6.4 Highway impact

6.4.1 The Highway Authority has been consulted and does not consider that the proposed change of use will have any effect on the existing situation; there is no reason to disagree with this opinion.

7.0 SUMMARY

7.1 Given the existing use of the premises as an auction room and the proposed specialist niche retail use(selling of antiques); the change of use outside of the defined shopping area subject to a restrictive condition is acceptable in this instance. The change of use will not cause demonstrable harm to local amenities and the traffic movements associated with the use will not be significantly higher than at present.

7.2 The proposal therefore complies with Policies GD1(ii),(iii) & (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

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

CONDITIONS


2. The premises shall be used for the sales of antiques only and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class A1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).Reason: The site is set outside the defined shopping area for Bexhill where a retail premises of this size would require further assessment in accordance with Policies GD1 & EM14 of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: ‘promap’, date stamped 12 July 2010.Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, as advised in the CLG guidance ‘Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions’.

36

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: Given the existing use of the premises as an auction room and the proposed specialist niche retail use(selling of antiques); the change of use outside of the defined shopping area subject to a restrictive condition is acceptable in this instance. The change of use will not cause demonstrable harm to local amenities and the traffic movements associated with the use will not be significantly higher than at present. The proposal therefore complies with Policies GD1(ii),(iii) & (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.


37



RR/2009/2689/P & RYE 8-26 Fishmarket RoadRR/2009/2690/H

Demolition of existing terrace to enable ground stabilisation and construction of 8 three bedroomed replacement dwellings.

Applicant: Mr J HugginsAgent: Richard Daniels AssociatesCase Officer: Mr R T Scott (Tel: 01424 787610)

(Email: [email protected])Parish: RYEWard Member: Councillor Mrs S I Holmes and Councillor Mr D W E

Russell Reason for Committee consideration: Referred by Head of Planning – local importance and land stabilisation issues

These applications were delegated for approval at Planning Committee on 21 January 2010 subject to submission of a satisfactory stabilisation scheme/method statement and amended plans showing the inclusion of chimneys. Amended details have now been received.

1.0 POLICIES

1.1 Rother District Local Plan:

Policy RY1 - Proposals for development and change in Rye should be compatible with and, wherever practicable, contribute positively to the following objectives:-(i) to maintain the small market town residential and employment

functions together with its character;(ii) to protect the unique historic Citadel and its landscape setting,

particularly the levels surrounding the Citadel;

Policy GD1 - All development should meet the following criteria:(i) it meets the needs of future occupiers, including providing appropriate

amenities and the provision of appropriate means of access for disabled users;

(ii) it is in keeping with and does not unreasonably harm the amenities of adjoining properties;

(iii) it provides for adequate and safe access by all relevant modes of transport, appropriate parking provision, in accordance with Policy TR3 and does not result in unacceptable traffic or transport conditions;

39

(iv) it respects and does not detract from the character and appearance of the locality; … and

(viii) it does not prejudice the character, appearance or setting of heritage features, notably scheduled ancient monuments and sites of archaeological importance, listed buildings, conservation areas, registered historic parks and gardens, the registered battlefield at Battle, or other buildings and spaces of historic importance;

Policy HG1 – Affordable Housing Provision. The proposed development is below the threshold of 15 dwellings for Rye.

Policy HG4 - New housing developments will be permitted where their layout and design provides sustainable residential environments, including by demonstrating the following principles:(i) creation of a strong sense of place that relates well to the existing

street pattern;(ii) provision of linkages to existing development, especially to local

services;(iii) priority to pedestrians in highway design and ready access to bus

services;(iv) respect for the context of the development including, where

appropriate, for local vernacular building designs, styles, traditional forms of construction and materials;

(v) provision of new community facilities appropriate to securing sustainable development, wherever practicable, and with good links to the areas they serve;

(vi) subject to any over-riding environmental considerations, making 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;

(vii) a strong landscape framework formulated at the outset, making best use of existing landscape features;

(viii) in larger housing developments, a layout that is both coherent and creates identifiable individual housing areas by making good use of trees and hedgerows, open spaces, natural features, road networks, dwelling layouts and design;

(ix) suitable provision is made for public open space, including play space in accordance with Policy CF4;

(x) the visual and amenity impact of parked cars is minimised, while still providing adequate provision in accordance with Policy TR3;

(xi) informal surveillance of open areas and transport corridors is encouraged.

1.2 Planning Policy Guidance:

PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment.PPG14 – Development on Unstable Land.

40

2.0 SITE

2.1 The application relates to an existing brick and slate 2 storey terrace of 10 dwellings fronting onto Fishmarket Road. The site lies within the Rye Conservation Area and is within the development boundary. The existing cottages have no vehicular access or parking and front the edge of the highway, A259. All properties are in a derelict condition and are uninhabited because of problems with landslip and land stabilisation.


3.1 RR/2006/1307/H Demolition of house – Refused.

3.2 Section 215 Notice (2006) – Unity site and condition of houses. This notice was complied with.

4.0 PROPOSAL

4.1 The demolition of all properties to enable ground stabilisation works to take place at the rear and rebuilding a terrace of 8 no. brick and slate dwellings. The properties will be set on the edge of the pavement and be of similar mass and style to the existing dwellings. The provision of a dormer for each on the frontage allows the provision of a 3 bedroomed unit. Bin and cycle storage is provided at the rear. No vehicular access or parking is provided. Revised drawings are submitted showing a gabion basket retaining wall at the rear of the site. A Method Statement and Risk Assessment are submitted together with a full engineer’s report.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Town Council: Support approval subject to the period between demolition and ground stabilisation being as short as in practicable (as determined by the local planning authority) and the original/existing name stone for the terrace being removed and reincorporated into the development.

5.2 Environment Agency:- No objection.

5.3 Highways Agency:- “The proposal is to demolish ten existing terrace houses, undertake ground stabilisation works and construct eight three bedroom houses. The existing accesses on to the A259 will be maintained and the parking provision will be unchanged. The site is located within Rye town centre, adjacent to the A259.

It is understood that the proposed ground stabilisation works will be undertaken on land behind the properties in question. Every effort should be made to ensure that the impact of HGVs on the A259 is minimised during the stabilisation phase. A Construction Management Plan (CMP) should also be

41

submitted detailing, amongst other things, the likely number of daily HGV movements associated with the development during stabilisation and construction. Martin Wright ([email protected]) in the Dorking area team should also be made aware once plans have been finalised.

Given that the proposal will not have a material impact on the operation of the A259 and that the parking provision and access arrangements will be unchanged, the HA do not wish to object to the above application.”

5.4 ESCC – County Archaeologist: “The proposed development is situated within an archaeologically sensitive area defining the historic Cinque Port Town of Rye. The site lies outside the town wall and adjacent to the eastern port area of the town. 18th century paintings record a number of buildings in this area, buildings presumably relate to quayside activity. The current terrace of houses appears on early 19th century historic maps and as such is of archaeological interest. A record of them will be required before their demolition.

In the light of the potential archaeological significance of this site, it is my opinion that the area affected by the proposals should be the subject of a programme of archaeological works. This will enable any archaeological deposits and features, disturbed during the proposed works, to be adequately recorded. These recommendations are in line with the advice given in PPG16 (the Government’s Advice on Archaeology and Planning).

I would therefore ask that the following condition be applied to any planning permissions that is granted in respect of this application:No demolition or development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, including a timetable for the investigation, which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.(Reason: The development is likely to disturb remains of archaeological interest.)

It is expected that the written scheme of investigation will confirm the action to be taken and accord with the relevant portions of the East Sussex County Council document Recommended Standard Conditions for Archaeological Fieldwork, Recording and Post-Excavation in East Sussex (Development Control) (2008) including Annex B.”

5.5 Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board: No objection.

5.6 Southern Water: No objection but request condition re foul and surface water disposal.

5.7 Director of Services- Head of Housing: Supports the scheme and states: “The application relates to the demolition of the existing terrace to enable ground stabilisation and the construction of 8 x 3 bedroom replacement

42

mailto:[email protected]

dwellings. The scheme will achieve code level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH).

Although this site is under the threshold, in planning policy terms, for the requirement of affordable housing, we would ask that the applicants notify Housing Services at the earliest opportunity if it is their intention to sell the dwellings to an RSL for the provision of affordable housing. Achieving code level 3 is a mandatory requirement for affordable housing but the applicants need to be aware that in addition to this all affordable homes must be built to full lifetime homes standards and meet the design standards of the HCA and Rother District Council - further guidance is provided in the RSL Development Brochure and Affordable Housing SPD which is available for viewing on the Housing and Planning websites (www.rother.qov.uk). If this is their intention then pre-determining an RSL at this stage will enable all parties to plan more effectively the provision of affordable housing and reduce delays. If the relevant parties are not engaged at the outset there is no guarantee that the development will be suited to meet RSL requirements. If the applicants wish to consider this option then an initial discussion with Housing Services will confirm the affordable housing requirements as they apply to the site and will allow for many issues to be explored and resolved on this complex site.

For an affordable housing scheme the applicant will be required to enter into a S106 Agreement with the Council and RSL and we shall require the nominations agreement to secure the provision of 100% affordable housing and nominations rights on 100% of the first lets and 75% of all re-Iets thereafter. The Housing Service shall also require 1 dwelling to be wheelchair accessible (although we will review this requirement if this is not feasible on this site) and the applicants will need to ensure they work closely with the Council and the RSL to ensure this is deliverable and that households requiring this type of accommodation are identified early and the properties can be appropriately adapted to meet their needs within the design and build of the home.

The Housing Service is mindful of the protracted history to this site including the applicant's endeavours to resolve the problems of the site all of which have proved unsuccessful. The Council has a duty to ensure that these severely derelict properties that have an adverse effect on the area are brought back into use and for Planning to notify Housing of any delays to the re-development of the site. We expect the applicants to progress RR/2009/2689/P as a matter of priority within an agreed timeframe.”

5.8 Director of Services – Building Control Manager: “...would advise that in the matter of unstable land based upon the scheme drawings submitted that this would not be covered directly by Building Regulations as the proposed retaining wall will not form any part of the houses. The houses of course must comply with Part A – Structure in relation to loading and ground movement and to that extent the foundations of the houses should not compromise the retaining wall foundations.

Whilst a letter from BSF is included within the application, due to the history of the site it would be recommended that a method statement be provided in

.

43

relation to the construction of the Griblock retaining wall whilst ensuring the stability of the bank (which is acknowledged is stable in its own right).

The construction of the houses will be dealt with as part of any Building Regulations application.”

5.9 Rye Conservation Society: No objection subject to use of natural slates. Demolition to proceed only on condition that housing construction is to follow.

5.10 Planning Notice : No representations received.

6.0 APPRAISAL

6.1 Character and appearance of the Rye Conservation Area

6.1.1 The site is in a prominent position in the Rye Conservation Area and the terrace made a positive contribution to the character of the area. However following the Closing Order on the properties, their now derelict appearance is having a harmful impact on the area. Whilst the advice in PPG15 is in favour of retaining buildings which make a contribution to the Conservation Area it is acknowledged that because of their condition and the need to achieve stability of the site demolition and rebuilding will be required. The proposed scheme is respectful in character and design to the Conservation Area and can be supported in respect of the replacement dwellings. Appropriate conditions can secure detail of materials and retention of name stone as requested by the Town Council.

6.2 Impact on neighbouring properties

6.2.1 The scheme is similar in mass and design to the existing terrace and I consider there will be no adverse impact on the residential amenities of adjoining properties.

6.3 Access and parking

6.3.1 As at present the proposal does not include provision for vehicular access and parking and no objection is raised by the Highways Agency. I agree that it is necessary to approve a Construction Management Plan to minimise disruption of the A259 trunk road.

6.4 Unstable land

6.4.1 The applicant’s consulting engineer has submitted a revised statement in respect of the slope stability and proposals to stabilise the site, which concludes:

“ConclusionsThe demolition of the existing buildings has no bearing upon the stability of the existing slope as the buildings fall outside the zone of influence of the possible slip circle. However, the outline method statement for the demolition

44

and reconstruction of the proposed properties takes full account of the possible effects and slopes stability.

Gabion retaining walls required to facilitate the construction of the proposed houses and provide amenity space to the rear of the units have been designed with suitable factors of safety for the known ground conditions and the outline method statement for the construction, the design of the retaining walls takes full account of the overall slope stability and allows for a piecemeal construction sequence which enables localised temporary slope stability protection to be installed during the construction

There is no evidence to suggest that the reported catastrophic landslips following the 1988 landslip have occurred following the reported remedial works to the upper slope despite high rainfall patterns. There is no evidence that the reported slope movements have had any significant impact upon the land or building at Clifton Place.

The lower hollow block retaining wall has failed in rotation due to the inadequate stem design and the condition of the upper hollow block retaining wall appears unchanged from plate 7 and photograph 2 of the 1996 Contest Melbourne Weeks Risk Assessment.

We conclude therefore that:

The existing terrace can be demolished without affecting the stability of the slope, a garden retaining wall can be designed and constructed to retain the existing slope and protect the proposed buildings based upon the available site investigation information and topographical surveys.”

6.4.2 It is necessary to ensure that a satisfactory scheme can be carried out to stabilise the site which is environmentally acceptable and will not prejudice the stability of the site. This scheme follows further discussions and reassessment of the scheme proposals. It will be necessary to ensure that if consent is granted that the proposal is carried out as soon as possible, and to this extent no works on demolition of the buildings should take place until a contract is let for an approved scheme for stabilisation of the site and rebuilding the dwellings. The applicant will be advised of the Head of Housing’s comments to assist in the development of the site.

7.0 SUMMARY

7.1 The current condition of the houses on the site is having a negative impact on the character of the Conservation Area and the application proposes a satisfactory form of redevelopment. Before granting consent for demolition and redevelopment it is necessary to be satisfied that a scheme can be achieved for stabilisation of the site, agree a Method Statement of how this will be achieved and that the details will be fully carried out. The revised details now submitted appear satisfactory and subject to further consultation on technical details I can support the scheme.

45

RECOMMENDATION:

RR/2009/2689/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)

CONDITIONS


2. Before any demolition of the dwellings in accordance with the approved plans, a contract for the rebuilding of the dwellings shall be let, requiring completion within 12 months of the date of demolition, and a copy of the contract and any drawings in it, shall be submitted to the local planning authority. The contract shall thereafter be executed in accordance with the aforesaid time scale unless agreed otherwise in writing by the local planning authority.Reason: To ensure the character and appearance of the Rye Conservation Area is preserved in accordance with Policy GD1(vii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. No demolition of the dwellings or commencement of the proposed development shall take place until a scheme for stabilisation of the land including a method statement for construction, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The approved land stabilisation shall be carried out prior to the commencement of the dwellings.Reason: To ensure the character and appearance of the Rye Conservation Area is preserved in accordance with Policy GD1(vii) of the Rother District Local Plan and to provide for proper development of the site.

4. Prior to the commencement of development a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted and approved by the local planning authority, which shall include details of the demolition and construction works and daily HGV movements to and from the site. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan.Reason: In the interests of road safety and free flow of traffic on the A259 trunk road in accordance with Policies GD1(iii) and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. No demolition or development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation, including a timetable for the investigation, which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.Reason: The development is likely to disturb remains of archaeological interest.

46

6. No development shall commence until a scheme for the provision of foul and surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning authority and none of the dwellings shall be occupied until the drainage works to serve the development have been provided in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure the satisfactory drainage of the site and to prevent water pollution in accordance with Policy GD1(x) of the Rother District Local Plan.

7. Before occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted commences, the refuse and recycling storage and collection point facilities shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans, drawing no 07169/10, date stamped 23 November 2009 and thereafter retained, with all bins and containers available for use, maintained and replaced as need be.Reason: In the interests of providing a sustainable development in accordance with Policy GD1 (ii) & (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan and PPS1, paragraph 20.

8. No development shall take place until samples of all materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwellings hereby permitted, including the use of natural slates for the roof, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development reflects the character and appearance of the Rye Conservation Area in accordance with Policies GD1 (iv) & (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

9. Before commencement of the development hereby approved, details of all new joinery, including windows and doors, at a scale of 1:10 elevations with full size sections through cills, frames and opening lights, including glazing bars, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and only those approved details shall be employed within the development and thereafter retained. The details shall include the use of timber doors and windows.Reason: To safeguard the historic fabric and architectural character of the Rye Conservation Area in accordance with Policy GD1 (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

10. The existing name stone on the existing terrace shall be salvaged and reincorporated into the new terrace in accordance with details to be submitted and approved by the local planning authority.Reason: To preserve the historic character of the area in accordance with Policy GD1 (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

11. Details of any proposed hoarding or fencing during the construction period shall be submitted to and subject to the approval of the local planning authority, and any hoarding or fencing shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure the character of Rye Conservations Area is preserved in accordance with Policies GD1(viii) and RY1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

47

12. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted and amended approved plans:Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning.

13. In relation to the stabilisation works, a Category 3 check with calculations made available to the reviewer is required to be carried out prior to the commencement of any demolition work.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed redevelopment of the site will preserve the character and appearance of Rye Conservation Area and is in accordance with Policies GD1(viii) and RY1 of the Rother District Local Plan. Appropriate conditions will secure the development of the site to ensure the land will be stabilised during and after construction of the new dwellings.


RECOMMENDATION:

RR/2009/2690/H: GRANT (CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT)

CONDITIONS


2. Before any demolition of the dwellings in accordance with the approved plans, a contract for the rebuilding of the dwellings shall be let, requiring completion within 12 months of the date of demolition, and a copy of the contract and any drawings in it, shall be submitted to the local planning authority. The contract shall thereafter be executed in accordance with the aforesaid time scale unless agreed otherwise in writing by the local planning authority.Reason: To ensure the character and appearance of the Rye Conservation Area is preserved in accordance with Policy GD1(vii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. No demolition of the dwellings or commencement of the proposed development shall take place until a scheme for stabilisation of the land including a method statement for construction, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The approved land stabilisation shall be carried out prior to the commencement of the dwellings.Reason: To ensure the character and appearance of the Rye Conservation Area is preserved in accordance with Policy GD1(vii) of the Rother District Local Plan and to provide for proper development of the site.

48


4. In relation to the stabilisation works, a Category 3 check with calculations made available to the reviewer is required to be carried out prior to the commencement of any demolition work.

REASONS FOR GRANTING CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT: An appropriate form of redevelopment of the site is proposed under application RR/2009/2689/P. Appropriate conditions are included to secure development of the site which will be in character and appearance of the Rye Conservation Area in accordance with Policies GD1(viii) and RY1 of the Rother District Local Plan.


49

http://www.planning.rother.gov.uk/WAM/pas/findCaseFile.do?appNumber=rr20092690h


RR/2010/1574/P RYE Rye Pottery, Wish Ward (The Old Brewery)

Replace extant planning permission RR/2007/1960/P – for the change of use and conversion of pottery into five dwellings and two garages

Applicant: Mr and Mrs T ColeAgent: Mr C McGrathCase Officer: Mr E Corke (Tel: 01424 787609)

(Email: [email protected])Parish: RYEWard Member: Councillor Mrs S I Holmes and Councillor D W E

Russell Reason for Committee consideration: Requested by Councillor Mrs S I Holmes Statutory 8 week date: 18 August 2010

This application has been added to the site inspection list.

1.0 POLICIES

1.1 Policies GD1 (General Development Considerations) and EM2 (Employment Developments) of the Rother District Local Plan apply in the determination of this application.

2.0 SITE

2.1 The scheme relates to an old three storey grade II listed “warehouse”, which was erected in 1802 as a brewery. The Strand Quay area, which lies within the Rye Conservation Area, is one of high density mixed use with a strong tourist focus. The building is still partly occupied by Rye Pottery; in use now only as a showroom. The remainder of the building is vacant.

3.0 RELATED HISTORY

3.1 RR/87/0580/P Change of use of ground floor into four shops and construction of 4 maisonettes on 1st and 2nd floors – Approved conditional – 11 November 1987.

3.2 RR/87/0580/L Change of use of ground floor into four shops & construction of 4 maisonettes on 1st and 2nd floors – Listed building consent granted – 11 November 1987.

51

3.3 RR/92/1815/P Change of use of ground floor to 4 shops and formation of 4 maisonettes on first & second floors – Approved conditional – 16 February 1993.

3.4 RR/92/1816/L Change of use of ground floor to 4 shops and formation of 4 maisonettes on 1st and 2nd floors – Listed building consent granted – 16 February 1993.

3.5 RR/2002/1754/P Change of use and conversion of pottery into five dwellings and two garages – Approved conditional – 25 October 2002.

3.6 RR/2002/1755/L Conversion of pottery into five dwellings and two garages – Listed building consent granted – 25 October 2002.

3.7 RR/2007/1960/P Change of use and conversion of pottery into five dwellings and two garages – Approved conditional – 31 October 2007.

3.8 RR/2007/1961/L Conversion of existing building into five dwellings and two garages – Listed building consent granted – 31 October 2007.

4.0 PROPOSAL

4.1 This is an application to extend the time limit for implementation of the existing 2007 permission (application ref: RR/2007/1960/P).

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Town Council : Supports an approval.

5.2 Highway Authority : Awaiting comments.

5.3 Planning Notice : Rye Conservation Society objects for the following reason: “We are concerned at the loss of employment potential. Also the provision of further housing in Rye over the planning requirement. We suggest that small workshop/craft units similar to those found locally would be an acceptable alternative.”

6.0 APPRAISAL

6.1This is an application to extend the time limit for implementation of the existing 2007 permission (application ref: RR/2007/1960/P). The drawings remain as they were at that time. The change in legislation allows the application in this form but the local planning authority is able to consider the scheme in the light

52

of current circumstances or any changes to policy since the first decision. In this respect there have been no changes in the circumstances surrounding this application, and no changes to Local Plan policy.

7.0 SUMMARY

7.1 As the circumstances surrounding this application have not changed since permission in 2007 there is no reason for the local planning authority to take a contrary view on this application to extend the time limit for commencement. Subject to satisfactory comments from the Highway Authority planning permission should be granted.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO SATISFACTORY COMMENTS FROM THE HIGHWAY AUTHORITY)

CONDITIONS:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.Reason: In accordance with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: 202029/5B, date stamped 23 June 2010; and 202029/6B, date stamped 23 June 2010.Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

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

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

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

(c) A site investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of analysis, risk assessment to any

53

receptors and a proposed remediation strategy shall be submitted to the local planning authority. The local planning authority shall approve such remedial works as required prior to any remediation commencing on site. The works shall be of such a nature so as to render harmless the identified contamination given the proposed end-use of the site and surrounding environment (including any controlled waters).

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

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

Reason: In order to avoid risks to health or the environment in accordance with Policy GD1 (xiii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. Before commencement of the alterations hereby approved, details of all new joinery, including windows, doors and partitions, at a scale of 1:10 elevations with full size sections through cills, frames and opening lights, including glazing bars and mullions and showing the relationship to the existing structure, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and only those approved details shall be employed within the development and thereafter retained.Reason: To ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the architectural and historic character of the listed building in accordance with Policy GD1 (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. Before commencement of any external building works/alterations or repairs as hereby approved, details of all rainwater goods and other external pipework, (to be of cast metal and painted black), drawn to a scale of 1:5, indicating section sizes and profiles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such goods and pipes shall be completed and retained in accordance with the approved details only.Reason: To ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the architectural and historic character of the listed building in accordance with Policy GD1 (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

6. No works shall be carried out until the following details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the works thereafter shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details:

54

(a) 1:50 scale survey drawings for all existing timber framing to wall and roofs including studs and rafters showing which are to be retained, replaced, removed or repaired and including methods of repair where applicable. In this respect no timbers are to be cut to facilitate ground floor access into dwellings 1 and 2.

(b) 1:50 scale survey drawings showing all areas of brickwork or other masonry which is proposed to repair, demolish and/or rebuild, including methods of repair where applicable.

(c) 1:20 scale plan sections and elevations of all proposed new internal first floor structures, floor supporting structures, and internal partitions, including details of their relationship to historic structure, and junctions with historic fabric.

(d) 1:10 scale section through all external walls (masonry or timber framed), where it is proposed to alter the existing details to achieve better insulation and/or weatherproofing or for other purposes.

(e) 1:20 scale elevational drawings indicating proposed areas of brick or stone walling where it is proposed to carry out re-pointing works.

(f) 1:10 scale drawings illustrating proposed eaves and ridge detailing, indicating the provision of eaves and ridge level ventilation and the specification of any roofing felt and insulation where proposed.

(g) a fully detailed schedule, including drawings to a scale of 1:5 and annotated photographs, for each and every window it is proposed to repair, restore or replace, including methods of repair where applicable. In this respect the windows in the north west elevation shall be retained and repaired.

(h) details of all proposed external flues and vents, including their method of fixing and interface with the existing structure.

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

(j) A full schedule of repairs to the fabric of the building and including the external louvers.

Reason: To ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the architectural and historic character of the listed building in accordance with Policy GD1 (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed change of use is acceptable in this area of mixed uses and is of an appropriate design. The conversion works would contribute to preserving and enhancing the character of the Conservation Area & listed building and would not harm the amenities of adjoining properties. The development therefore complies with GD1 (i), (ii), (iv) & (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan. In reaching this decision the local planning authority has also had regard to the previous permissions and the extant permission from 2007 and considered Policy EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan. View application/correspondence

55


Xxx

Xxx

56


RR/2010/1636/P BURWASH Holton Farm House, Spring Lane

Removal of single storey rear extension. New two storey rear extension and porch to front entrance. Provision of in curtilage parking space with turning area and alteration to vehicular access.

Applicant: Mr D Vereker Agent: Mr Noel WellsCase Officer: Mr A S Rowland (Tel: 01424 787612)

(Email:[email protected])Parish: BURWASHWard Member: Councillor Mrs W M Miers and Councillor D W L M

Vereker Reason for Committee consideration: Applicant is Council Member.Statutory 8 week date: 25 August 2010


1.0 POLICIES

1.1 Policies HG8 and GD1 of the local plan apply in respect of maintaining the character of the existing dwelling and surrounding area, protecting the residential amenity of neighbours, maintaining highway safety and maintaining the landscape character and quality of the High Weald AONB.

2.0 SITE

2.1 Holton Farmhouse is a period cottage located outside any development boundary and within the High Weald AONB. It is situated on the west side of Spring Lane to the south of the old farmyard with its converted barn. The cottage is two storey to the front with a catslide roof down to the low single storey at the rear. There is an existing attached outhouse to the rear. The whole is built of brick under a clay tiled roof. The cottage is set back from the road behind a substantial hedge, with planting to the gardens. There is a brick wall to the north side with the old yard. An unmade track, shown as Holton Lane runs along the boundary to the south side. This track is also the route of a public footpath and bridleway.

57

3.0 HISTORY

3.1 None for the cottage.

4.0 PROPOSAL

4.1 This application has three elements:a) front porch;b) two-storey rear extension to replace a single storey extension; andc) creation of parking and turning facilities within the site.

4.2 The front porch is of simple design built of brick under a hip tiled roof, with materials to match existing and proportions to reflect those of the existing cottage. The rear extension is to have a slightly larger footprint than the existing single storey. It will provide a garden room to the ground floor with an additional bedroom with en-suite above. It will be constructed of brick to the ground floor with tile hanging above. The joinery details are simple and to match the style and proportions of the front fenestration. It will have a hipped roof with extended low eaves, tying back into the catslide, below the existing ridge height.

4.3 At present vehicle parking seems to occur within the adjacent former farmyard to the north side of the dwelling, although this is now in separate ownership. The proposed parking/turning area is to be located to the south side within part of the rear garden. Direct access is already available via the existing track, Holton Lane and thus there are no alterations at the junction with Spring Lane. A small section of hedge would be removed adjacent the house and replaced by a 3m wide field gate. The area for parking/turning is to be block paved.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Parish Council: Supports approval.

5.2 Highway Authority: “Having looked at the submitted application in more detail, I can confirm that the proposed access will be onto Private Land. On the basis that there are no changes proposed to the existing highway network, I would not wish to comment further on the application. I would however, wish for our Rights of Way Team to comment regarding the existing footpath that exists adjacent to the site.”

5.3 Planning Notice: no comments received.

6.0 APPRAISAL

6.1 The proposed extensions and parking area have been designed and detailed to blend with the existing building and are located so as to maintain the public

58

views of the property. The rear, front and side boundaries are well planted with hedges, trees and shrubs, screening the site from the road and from the public footpath/bridleway. Screening is such that the site is not easily visible from any long views either.

6.2 The extensions do maintain the character of the existing period cottage and remain subservient to it. As such the criteria of policy HG8 is upheld. Policy criteria within Policy GD1 are also considered to have been applied. The proposals do not impact upon the residents of The Stone Barn to the north, the character of the area and landscape quality of the AONB is maintained and there is considered to be little change to the existing highway situation.

7.0 SUMMARY

7.1 The proposals within this application are considered to comply with local plan policies and will not harm the residential or visual amenities of the area.


CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3

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

2. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the porch and extension hereby permitted shall match in materials, colour and texture those used in the existing building.Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the existing building and the visual amenities of the surrounding area in accordance with Policies GD1 (iv) & (v) and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.

3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawings no. 507.01 and 507.05, date stamped 30 June 2010.Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, as advised in the CLG guidance ‘Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions’.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is considered to be of an appropriate size, design and detail and will not adversely affect the character of the area or amenities of adjacent properties and is therefore in accordance with Policy GD1 and HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan.


59



RR/2010/1735/P BURWASH Newlands, Heathfield Road, Burwash Weald

Erection of three detached houses with garages and alteration to existing vehicular access.

Applicant: Mr G PennellsAgent: CLM PlanningCase Officer: Mr A S Rowland (Tel: 01424 787612)

(Email: [email protected])Parish: BURWASHWard Member: Councillor Mrs W M Miers and Councillor D W L M

Vereker Reason for Committee consideration: Head of Planning referral - Previous planning history of site.Statutory 8 week date: 3 September 2010

1.0 POLICIES

1.1 The site lies within the Development Boundary of Burwash Weald; development proposals need to be assessed against policy GD1 of the Local Plan.

2.0 SITE

2.1 This application relates to an area of land at the rear of properties known as ‘Stromlo’, ‘Mockbeggar’, ‘Timberlea’, ‘Lynwood’, ‘Briar Cottage’ and ‘Newlands’ on the north side of Heathfield Road between Burwash Weald and Burwash Common. The land, apparently used as nursery gardens in the past, measures about 0.3 hectares and generally falls from north to south. Access is via a track between Briar Cottage and Newlands; it is the vehicular access used by Newlands.

3.0 HISTORY

3.1 RR/2008/1963/P Erection of 4 detached dwellings. Creation of new vehicular access – Refused 14/8/2008

3.2 RR/2008/3460/P Erection of 2 new detached chalet bungalows and alterations of vehicular access – Refused 19/2/2009

61

4.0 PROPOSAL

4.1 Full planning permission is sought for the erection of three dwellings with garages and alteration of the vehicular access. A supporting statement prepared by the applicant’s agent is appended as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 12 August 2010.

4.2 It is proposed to acquire a strip of land adjacent to the access to enable the access to be widened to 5m for the first 10m and thereby permitting the access drive to the new dwellings to be moved slightly further from the side wall of the dwelling Newlands.

4.3 Three individually designed 2 storey houses each having 4 bedrooms with a ground floor study that would double as a fifth bedroom. Each dwelling would be provided with a detached garage; 2 double garages and a triple. Two new parking spaces are indicated for ‘Newlands’.

4.4 The site has boundary trees and these would be retained. A small Norway Spruce would be removed together with several Lawson Cyprus at the eastern end of the group behind ‘Briar Cottage’. An arboricultural report accompanies the application; this recommends protective fencing and ground protection areas for the construction period.

________________________________________________________________

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Parish Council: Comments awaited.

5.2 Highway Authority: Comments awaited.

5.3 Environment Agency: Comments awaited.

5.4 Southern Water: Comments awaited.

5.5 Tree Officer: Comments awaited.

5.6 Planning Notice: No comments received to date.________________________________________________________________

6.0 APPRAISAL

6.1 There have been two previous applications for residential development in the recent past; both were refused following inspection of the site by members. (RR/2008/1963/P & RR/2008/3460/P) The most recent cited the following reason:

‘The proposed development represents an undesirable form of development. The use of the proposed access by vehicles, the residential activity within the development and the physical scale and positioning of the proposed dwellings

62

would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the neighbouring dwellings. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the requirements of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(i), (ii), (iv) & (v) of the Rother District Local Plan’

6.2 The first submission RR/2008/1963/P also attracted a highway reason for refusal but this was not recommended on the second application. The current application has sought to address the concerns previously identified by increasing the width available for the access, increasing the separation between the existing and proposed dwellings, by careful siting of the garages to themselves perform a privacy screen and to facilitate an improved access drive alignment. It is my understanding that the applicant has discussed the proposal with the owners of the frontage properties prior to submission.

6.3 The separation distances between existing and proposed dwellings is now satisfactory and I now find the suggested layout to be appropriate for the site and its relationship with adjacent dwellings. The level of parking provision meets this Council’s expected standard. Concerns previously aired by residents about surface water run off appear to have been resolved by a combination of gravel drives, porous block paving and the use of ‘Acco’ drains where necessary.

6.4 I do not anticipate objections being raised by the Highway Authority given that they did not object to the previous application.

6.5 The proposed external materials specified within the application include stock bricks, clay tiles, weather boarding; these are appropriate within the AONB.

6.6 It is necessary for the Council to ensure that development does not impact adversely upon the character and appearance of the AONB. I do not believe the proposal would be a landscape feature from land to the north of the site and I am satisfied that it would only be glimpsed through the access point from the A265. Longer views from the south may reveal the development but it would be in the context of other development close by and against a background of the northern boundary trees.

6.7 Outstanding consultee responses will be reported to your meeting. I have requested that the applicant’s agent provides an amended plan indicating suitable provision for the storage of waste/recycling bins and for their collection.

________________________________________________________________

7.0 SUMMARY

7.1 The site is within the development boundary wherein residential development is considered to be acceptable.

7.2 The proposed layout satisfies policy GD1 of the local plan in that it respects the amenities of existing property owners, proposes a design that responds

63

appropriately to the surrounding development and respects the character and appearance of the High Weald AONB.

________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF STATUTORY CONSULTATION PERIOD)________________________________________________________________

CONDITIONS


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

3. The finished ground floor levels of the buildings hereby approved in relation to existing and proposed site levels, the adjacent highway and adjacent properties, together with details of levels of all accesses, to include pathways, driveways, steps and ramps, shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawing no. [………] date stamped [………] Reason: To ensure the satisfactory development of the site in accordance with Policy GD1 (i) of the Rother District Local Plan.

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

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

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

(c) The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until

64

http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144456#P155_24970%23P155_24970

http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144456#P154_24623%23P154_24623

all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written consent of the local planning authority.

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

(e) The ground protection areas identified upon plan no J40.47/02 dated 15.6.2010 shall be protected for the duration of the construction period in accord with Para’s 9.1 to 9.3 inclusive of the submitted Arboricultural Implications Assessment.

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

5. No development shall take place on any part of the site until the soft landscaping details [for that part of the site] have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, which shall include: (a) planting plans;(b) written specifications (including cultivation and other operations

associated with plant and grass establishment)(c) schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed

numbers/densities where appropriate(d) implementation programme.Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development in accordance with Policy GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

6. Before occupation of the buildings hereby permitted commences, details of the siting and form of bins for the storage and recycling of refuse within the site (internally or externally), and a collection point, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the approved details shall be implemented and thereafter continued, with all bins and containers available for use, maintained and replaced as need be.Reason: To safeguard the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policies GD1(ii), (iv) & (v) of the Rother District Local Plan and PPS1, paragraph 20.

7. The garages hereby approved shall be used for to safeguard the visual amenities of the locality and domestic and garden storage only, and for no habitable accommodation or other purpose including any other purpose in Class C3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order.Reason: To provide adequate on site parking facilities that do not prejudice the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety along the highway and to protect the amenities of the local area, in accordance with Policies GD1 (i), (iii) and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan.

8. Highway conditions as may be recommended by the Highway Authority.

65

9. The revised vehicular access shall be constructed to base course level in accordance with the details and conditions of this planning permission prior to commencement of construction of any of the dwellings or garages hereby approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To ensure the provision of a safe access for construction vehicles and traffic that does not prejudice the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety along the highway, in accordance with Policies GD1(iii) and TR3.

10. The boundary fencing to the southern boundary of the site, indicated upon the approved plan reference 1001/1 dated 9.7.2010 shall be erected prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted.Reason: To safeguard the residential amenities of the neighbouring dwellings in accord with policy GD1(ii) of the Rother Local Plan.

11. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or other openings (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be inserted into the south elevation or roof slope.Reason: To preclude overlooking and thereby protect the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy GD1 (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

12. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:drawing no. (..........), date stamped (..........)Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, as advised in the CLG guidance ‘Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions’.

Notes:(i) This permission includes condition(s) requiring the submission of details prior

to the commencement of development. Following close consideration in the courts, it is now well established that if the permission contains conditions requiring further details to be submitted to the Council or other matters to take place prior to development commencing and these conditions have not been complied with, the development is unlawful and does not have planning permission. You are therefore strongly advised to ensure that all such conditions have been complied with before the development is commenced.

(ii) The applicant is reminded of the need to provide storage facilities and a collection point within the site for both refuse and recycling containers.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is considered to be of an appropriate design, scale and form that relates satisfactorily with neighbouring dwellings and trees on the site. The use proposed is considered to be acceptable in an established residential area. The development therefore complies with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan).


66



RR/2010/1187/P BECKLEY Abbey Lodge, Horseshoe Lane

Adaptation and alteration of building pursuant to planning permission RR/2005/1670/P, for use as a granny annexe

Applicant: Mrs H EverestAgent: Michael Smith Designers in Architecture LimitedCase Officer: Mr R Wilson (Tel: 01424 787616)

(Email: [email protected])Parish: BECKLEYWard Member: Councillor M Mooney and Councillor R E ParrenReason for Committee consideration: Member referral – Councillor R ParrenStatutory 8 week date: 10 August 2010


1.0 POLICIES

1.1 Policies DS1 and GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan apply.

2.0 SITE

2.1 The property lies on the west side of Horseshoe Lane in a relatively isolated countryside location. The site is occupied by a detached single storey bungalow and the detached outbuilding subject to this application.

2.2 The site lies well beyond any development boundary – Beckley village is about 1.5 km to the north - and is within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

3.0 HISTORY

3.1 RR/2005/1670/P Repair and re-roof existing outbuilding for use as personal family gymnasium – Granted.

RR/2007/458/P Variation of condition 2 of RR/2005/1670/P to allow use as short term holiday let – Withdrawn.

68

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

RR/2008/3568/P Variation of condition 2 of RR/2005/1670/P to allow use as short term holiday let – Withdrawn

ENF/BEC/2006/471 Enforcement notice served – building without planning permission

4.0 PROPOSAL

4.1 The scheme is to use the existing building as a granny annexe rather than as a gymnasium as originally intended and, at the same time, to alter the roof as constructed to the low profile approved in 2005. Externally alterations that have already been undertaken are to remain: on the south side new openings to give light to the living room, bedroom, utility room and kitchen/diner of the proposed granny annexe.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Parish Council: Unanimous support for refusal. No planning policy to support this application. The proposed alteration of roof pitch is insignificant.

5.2 Planning Notice: Two objections: Additional traffic Overloading of sanitary outlets Would condone and legalise actions taken in bad faith over last four years Would circumvent enforcement action

________________________________________________________________

6.0 APPRAISAL

6.1 Planning permission was granted in 2005 for the repair and re-roofing of an existing outbuilding for use as a personal/family gymnasium. Subsequently works were undertaken to the building not in accordance with the original permission. The building was converted to living accommodation with a significant number of windows and doors not shown on the original plan. In addition the roof had been raised. An application for the alterations undertaken and the use of the building as a holiday let was refused and subsequently dismissed on appeal. Other applications for a holiday let use were also refused.

6.2 The building is unauthorised and is subject to an enforcement notice requiring the demolition of the building and the removal of all resultant materials from the land.

69

6.3 The issue now is the alteration of the building to lower the roof to the position as approved in 2005, whilst retaining additional openings to the east (front) as built, and on the south side as built. In terms of use it is now intended to use the building as a ‘granny annexe’.

6.4 The principle issue is whether, as modified to something close to the position agreed in 2005, the use of the building as a ‘granny annexe’ is acceptable as opposed to its use as a gymnasium.

6.5 Physically, if the roof is reduced then the only changes are additional openings in the walls. As the site is enclosed, with high gates on the road frontage, the changes are not significant in terms of the character of the area. No neighbouring properties are affected by the openings which face into the applicant’s site.

6.6 Whether as a gymnasium – as originally intended – or as a granny annexe the uses would be ancillary to the main use of the site as a single annexe.

6.7 Ordinarily – and certainly with new builds – I would expect a ‘granny annexe’ to be much closer or attached to the main property. In this case the building is about 50 metres away from the principal dwelling and arguably it will be used quite separately, albeit by older relatives. Nevertheless its conversion originally as an ancillary residential building has been accepted.

6.8 The appeal inspector in 2008 was strong in her rejection of the holiday let although arguing against this also on the basis of the more significant conversion works that had taken place. She stated:“An upper floor was added and two staircases put in to provide three bedrooms, two bathrooms, kitchen and lounge and it was occupied for a time by the appellant as her home before being let as holiday accommodation. In my view, these cannot be seen as other than substantial construction works.The Government has confirmed nationally designated areas including AONBs as having the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty where the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and countryside should be given great weight in planning policies and development control decisions. To permit significant alterations to existing buildings and then for them to be converted into holiday accommodation does not accord with those objectives. The appeal building is clearly visible from Horseshoe Lane and from the public footpath that crosses the adjoining field. With its steeply pitched roof, high eaves, rooflights and French windows in the flank wall facing the road, it has a much more suburban and domestic appearance than the original building which looked like the subordinate outbuilding it was. The changes from the original building to what is now seen on site do not accord with the spirit or the provisions of SP policy S10(b) and LP policy EM3 and it is not a feature that conserves the landscape quality and character of the AONB, contrary to national policy and SP policies EN2 and EN3.”

6.9 It may be considered reasonable therefore, if the building is altered such as to use only the ground floor as a ‘granny annexe’, to accept an alternative

70

ancillary use. However given the local planning authority‘s consistent strong opposition to any sort of holiday or other residential use then it would be prudent to limit the use as shown on the submitted plans with no active use of the roof space.

7.0 SUMMARY

7.1 The building in its current state is wholly unauthorised and the Council has strongly opposed its continuation in its altered state for any purpose.

7.2Use of the building as a ‘granny annexe’ ancillary to the main property would not in itself be unacceptable in policy terms and as altered the building would not cause any demonstrable harm either to the character of the area or neighbours.


CONDITIONS


2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:drawing no. (..........), date stamped (..........)Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, as advised in the CLG guidance ‘Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions’.

3. The building shall not be used as a ‘granny annexe’ until such time as the roof alterations have taken place to modify the roof to the form approved by planning permission RR/2005/1670/P.Reason: To ensure that no continuation of the use takes place until the height of the building has been reduced having regard to the character of the rural area and Policies GD1(iv) & (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. The building shall be used only as a ‘granny annexe’ as a building ancillary to the main dwelling and ancillary to the use of the site as a single dwelling.Reason: To define the extent of the use having regard to the rural location of the property and Policies GD1(iv) & (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. The development shall be undertaken only in accordance with the room layouts and with the fenestration shown on Drawing PL30-03A and the roof void shall be used only for storage purposes and not for any active habitable use.

71

Reason: The use as a ‘granny annexe’ ancillary to the main property is accepted on the basis of the limited floorspace having regard to the restrictions on new development in the countryside and Policies GD1(ii), (iv) & (v) of the Rother District Local Plan

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The building previously existing on the site had permission to be altered and used as a gymnasium ancillary to the main dwelling. Use as a granny annexe – dependent on the height of the unauthorised roof alterations being rectified – would be an appropriate ancillary use which would not be in conflict with the provisions of the Rother District Local Plan, in particular Policy GD1.


72



RR/2010/1419/P PEASMARSH Peasmarsh Bowls Club, The Maltings

Erection of timber shed to be used for changing facilities.

Applicant: Peasmarsh Parish CouncilAgent: Mr Grey MetcalfCase Officer: Mr J McSweeney (Tel: 01424 787617)

(Email: [email protected])Parish: PEASMARSHWard Member: Councillor M Mooney and Councillor R E Parren Reason for Committee consideration: Council owned landStatutory 8 week date: 6 September 2010

1.0 POLICIES

1.1 Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan apply and in particular GD1(ii),(iv) & (v).

2.0 SITE

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

3.0 HISTORY

3.1 RR/91/0359/P Relocation of children’s play area and provision of new football pitch – Approved Conditional.

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

RR/1999/2949/P Construction of car park for 16 no. vehicular spaces access to bowls club and erection of low fence – Approved Conditional.

RR/2005/376/P Construction of disabled toilet block and cess pit – Approved Conditional.

74

4.0 PROPOSAL

4.1 The application seeks permission for the erection of a timber shed to be used for changing facilities.

4.2 The agent states, “The members of the Peasmarsh Bowls Club have been given an 8’ x 12’ timber shed which they wish to erect beside the green for use of as a changing room. The shed will be placed to the right of the existing sheds at the back of the green and be accessed from an extension to the path which runs between the sheds and the bowling green. The shed is clad in shiplap boarding beneath a felt roof.”

________________________________________________________________

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Parish Council : Any comments will be reported.

5.2 Planning Notice: Any comments will be reported.________________________________________________________________

6.0 APPRAISAL


6.1.1 This is a well established bowling green, which currently has four modest detached buildings in the north east corner of the site. The main issues to consider are design and visual impact upon the area, and impact upon neighbouring amenities.

6.2 Impact upon amenities of neighbouring properties

6.2.1 Although the site abuts the rear gardens of residential properties in The Old Hop Gardens, the proposed siting of the shed is sufficient distance away to prevent it from causing demonstrable harm to their amenities.

6.3 Design and visual impact upon the area

6.3.1 The proposed timber shed is modest in scale, strained green and will be sited adjacent to existing buildings on the site against a mature backdrop of trees and shrubs. As such it will not appear unduly intrusive upon this rural location.

________________________________________________________________

7.0 SUMMARY

7.1 The proposed modest strained green timber shed will not be adversely detrimental to the appearance of the locality, and is to be sited sufficient distance away from neighbouring properties to preserve their residential amenities.

75

7.2 As such this proposal meets the objectives of Policy GD1(ii),(iv) & (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.

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

CONDITIONS


2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: drawing entitled ‘Plan’, date stamped 12 July 2010.Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, as advised in the CLG guidance ‘Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions’.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed shed is modest in scale and sited where it will have minimal impact upon the appearance and character of the locality while being sufficient distance away from neighbouring residential properties to preserve their amenities. As such the proposal meets the objectives of Policy GD1(ii), (iv) & (v) of the Rother District Local Plan.


76



RR/2009/2875/P CAMBER White Sand – Phase 5 and 7

Re-plan of part of approved planning layout for phases 5-7. Approved layout is for 83 dwellings, 31 are to be built as approved and the balance area of 52 dwellings, not being built, forms this re-plan. Therefore this application is for 71 dwellings on the balance of the phase and will provide an uplift in 19 dwellings from that approved under reference RR/2006/3279/P. The proposed total number of units on completion will be 102 flats and houses, parking and associated infrastructure.

Applicant: Ward Homes Agent: Simon Cooper Associates LtdCase Officer: Mr R T Scott (Tel: 01424 787610)

(Email: [email protected])Parish: CAMBERWard Member: Councillor P N Osborne and Councillor C N RamusReason for Committee consideration: Head of Planning referral – Major application and previous planning historyStatutory 13 week date: 28 July 2010

This application was deferred at your last meeting to allow further negotiations in respect of overall density/car parking provision/bin storage and location of affordable housing. Further details in respect of car parking and bin storage/collection have been received and negotiations are continuing regarding the detailing of affordable housing provision. An additional 7 car parking spaces are proposed and the 8 affordable housing units agreed at the last Committee will be split into two groups of 4 units.

1.0 POLICIES

1.1 National Policies - PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development.- PPS3 Housing.- PPS9 Biodiversity.- PPG13 Transport.- PPS25 Development and Flood Risk.

1.2 Local Plan Policies - Rother District Local Plan: GD1 General Development Criteria. HG1 Affordable Housing. HG3 and HG4 Housing Mix and Layout. Affordable Housing SPD.

78

2.0 SITE

2.1 This application relates to the remaining undeveloped area of White Sand residential development on the north western side of Camber. The site the subject of the resubmission is approx. 1.3ha and is bounded to the east by Pontins and to the north by open grassland which is designated SSSI. The SSSI is part of the Dungeness Special Area of Conservation and Dungeness to Pett Level Special Protection Area. Part of the site is covered by spoil from the adjacent development and contractor’s area.


3.1 RR/93/07364/P O/A Residential development and access and provision of public open space – Approved (with S106 Agreement).

RR/2002/2374/P Erection of 170 residential units pursuant to O/A RR/93/0736/P – Approved.

RR/2004/1987/P Revision of approved development plots 67-81 for 12 flats to be replaced with 10 cottages and 6 flats above carports – Approved.

RR/2004/3414/P Area of open space and formation of ponds and environment for newts – Approved

RR/2005/307/P Residential development for 178 units and associated garage and car parking and access road – Approved.

RR/2006/3279/P Revised proposal to amend unit types and number of units from 178 to 180 – Approved.

RR/2006/3305/P Variation of condition 14 on RR/2005/302/P to allow surface water to be discharged into adjacent drainage ditch – Approved.

RR/2006/3310/P Variation of condition 15 on RR/2005/307/P so that drainage works to each phase are constructed prior to dwellings in that phase being occupied – Approved.

4.0 PROPOSAL

4.1 This proposal is a re-plan of the remaining phase of residential development at White Sand to meet the current economic climate. As a result in the

79

change in dwelling types and inclusion of smaller units, the number of dwellings on this remaining phase has increased by 19 from 52 approved to the current 71 proposed. The density equates to approx 52 units per ha.

4.2 The submission is supported by a comprehensive Design and Access Statement, Flood Risk Assessment, Affordable Housing Statement and draft Section 106 Agreement and summary of ecological Works.

4.3 40% of the increase in units (equating to 8 units) are proposed as affordable units, to be offered on a discount to market value with equity gifted to the RSL to provide for the future, with nomination rights reserved by the local planning authority. The details of the proposed Section 106 Planning Obligation to secure appropriate provision are under discussion.

4.4 A total of 113 parking spaces are proposed by garages, integral parking and car parking in courts/on street which equates to just over 1.5 spaces per dwelling.

4.5 The development has been designed to give 3 distinct character areas: central square, fishing village and Mews with buildings ranging from single storey to 3 storey. The design theme and materials has been carried through from the existing development on the site although the central square introduces rather more formal brick and render 2½-3 storey buildings. The size of unit varies from 2 bedrooms apartments and 2, 3 and 4 bedroomed houses.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Parish Council: No comments received.

5.2 Highway Authority: “I do not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to a variation within the signed section 106 agreement to include a LSAIC for the additional 10 dwelling units within this scheme. In accordance with the current calculations, this amounts to £1,400 per 1-2 bed dwellings and £2,460 for 3-4 bed dwellings. It is intended that these monies would be put towards the Camber traffic calming scheme along New Lydd Road which has a total cost of 50k. It would be beneficial and relevant to allocate the funding towards this scheme or any other scheme that highway authority consider relevant in the Camber area.

Appropriate conditions should be included for car and cycle parking, and on-site turning.

1. The development shall not be occupied until car and cycle parking area[s] [has/have] been provided in accordance with the approved plans or details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the area[s] shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of motor vehicles.

80

Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway.

2. The development shall not be occupied until a turning space for vehicles has been provided and constructed in accordance with the [approved plans or details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority] and the turning space shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used for any other purpose.Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway.”

5.3 Southern Water: “Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the public sewer to be made by the applicant or developer.We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following informative is attached to the consent:‘A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester SO23 9EH (tel 01962 858688), or www.southernwater.co.uk’.There are sewers that are under a section 104 adoption located on this parcel of land, the developer should be aware of the location before any construction is implemented on site.”

5.4 Environment Agency: “We have no objections to the proposal as long as the following 2 conditions are imposed on any planning permission granted.

Flood RiskCondition one: The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) 2309/2.3, prepared by GTA Civils Ltd, dated September 2009 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA: Finished floor levels are set no lower than those indicated on GTA Drawing No. 2309/351.Reason: To minimise the risk of internal flooding

Land ContaminationCondition two: If during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site, then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the LPA, details of how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.Reason: To ensure that any risks relating to contamination discovered during development are dealt with appropriately as required under PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control.

DrainageAll surface and foul water must be discharged to main sewer as stated on the application form.

81


Fuel/Chemical StorageWhere it is proposed to store more than 200 litres (45 gallon drum = 205 litres) of any type of oil on site it must be stored in accordance with the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001. Drums and barrels can be kept in drip trays if the drip tray is capable of retaining 25% of the total capacity of all oil stored.

Care should be taken during and after construction to ensure that all fuels, oils and any other potentially contaminating materials should be stored (for example in bunded areas secured from public access) so as to prevent accidental/ unauthorised discharge to ground. The areas for storage should not drain to any surface water system.”

5.4 Natural England: “Thank you for your letter dated 28 April 2010 consulting Natural England on the above application.

Statutory Nature Conservation Sites We have checked our records and based on the information provided, we can confirm that the application site is adjacent to habitats which form part of the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This SSSI is part of the Dungeness Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Dungeness to Pett Level Special Protection Area (SPA). This reply gives our advice on the requirements of Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010. Natural England considers that the application, as submitted, should not adversely affect the interest features of Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Site of Special Scientific Interest. Given the proximity of the proposal site to the SSSI and the associated potential for damage as a result of storage or disposal of materials, and operation of machinery or plant within the SSSI, should the Council be minded to grant permission, we advise that the following informative is appended to any consent:

The applicant is advised that should storage, access or encroachment within the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Site of Special Scientific Interest be found to occur as a result of the proposals during or after the works, this will be considered an offence under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) whereby the applicant may be liable on summary conviction to a maximum fine of £20,000 or on conviction on indictment to an unlimited fine.

Protected Species The information supplied as part of the application includes details of the location and populations of the following protected species, together with an assessment of the likely impacts.

Species Protection legislation Great Crested Newts

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations

82

Paragraph 98 of ODPM Circular 06/20051 states that ‘The presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat.’ Paragraph 99 also states that ‘It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before the planning permission is granted otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision.’

Relevant legislation Details of the legislation relevant to this application are included in Annex One appended to this letter. Natural England’s comments relating to each species are provided in the following section(s).

Great crested newts The survey information provided by the applicants indicates that great crested newts (GCN) are present within ponds within 500 metres of the application site. The proposals set out in the application, however, appear sufficient to mitigate any potential impacts on GCN populations. Therefore, subject to the condition listed below, Natural England is satisfied that these proposals should not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of GCN at a favourable conservation status in their natural range (as defined in Regulation 53 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010).

Prior to the commencement of any works which may affect Great Crested Newts or their habitat, a detailed mitigation strategy shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works shall then proceed in accordance with the approved strategy with any amendments agreed in writing.

Also to reinforce the deadlines for undertaking the 10 year management plan (2007) which covers the wildlife area and other retained semi-natural habitats that link to it.

Where a development affects great crested newts, their breeding sites or their places used for shelter or protection, work may need to be conducted under a Regulation 53(2)(e)2 overriding public interest licence. These licences are administered by the Wildlife Management and Licensing Unit of Natural England who can be contacted on 0845 601 4523 for further information on the licensing process.

Summary and conclusions Based on the information provided, Natural England has no comments to make at present regarding protected species subject to the conditions described above.

Natural England would be grateful if the Council were to inform us as to how our advice has been incorporated into the decision made when determining this application. We would be happy to comment further should be need arise.

83

In the meantime, if you have queries regarding any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact me.”

5.5 Director of Services – Head of Housing: “The Housing Service wishes to clarify the following:-

The Affordable Housing Statement provided by Solution 106 Ltd states that the Council’s Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) provides for a maximum requirement of 30% affordable housing throughout the District. This is incorrect. Under section 7.9 of the SPD and in accordance with the Rother’s Local Plan Policy HG1, 40% affordable housing is required.

Planning application RR/2009/2875/P refers to the “uplift in dwellings from 61 to 71” and we assume this should be the “uplift in dwellings from 61 to 75”. We expect planning to notify the Housing Service if this is incorrect.

Affordable Housing We would draw the applicant’s attention to section 6.4 of the SPD where our assessment ensures that the requirement to provide affordable housing is not being avoided or reduced. Whilst we acknowledge that the application is based on an increase of units from that approved under RR/2006/3279/P, it nevertheless constitutes a new application and therefore Policy HG1 applies. We shall therefore expect the applicant to provide 40% affordable housing of the total amount being provided (i.e. 30 affordable units). Given that Camber and Rother as whole experience major issues in terms of housing affordability (as highlighted in the applicants Affordable Housing Statement also) the Housing Market Assessment of Hastings and Rother 2006 actually recommends a target of achieving 50% of affordable housing on development sites. Our quota of 40% can therefore easily be justified on the basis of housing need (see below).

Viability The starting point remains that developers will be expected to deliver affordable housing at 40%. While there may be identifiable exceptional site /development costs, as a matter of principle, these matters should be taken into account in the cost of securing land for housing development. If therefore the applicant’s wish to make representations that the development is not viable (see section 7.10 of the SPD) due to the 40% requirement then we would expect this to be pursued on the basis of an ‘open book’, with all financial details and valuations subject to scrutiny. For its part the Council will ensure these costs etc are treated with the utmost security and confidence.

If the Council is satisfied that there is a case for considering the viability of the site, we will instruct an independent expert to assess the figures, costs and findings. The Council will then produce its own assessment relevant to viability issues including land prices, grant funding, property prices, build costs and local incomes.

84

If, after exploring this, the development is found not viable, the Council will consider all possible options to assist including: raising the proportion of intermediate housing, reducing the overall requirement for affordable housing, agreeing additional grant funding if required or relaxing one or more of the other Section 106 requirements affecting the development.

This approach would be on condition that the Section 106 agreement includes the consideration of “future proofing” the agreement to enable future re-appraisals of schemes and further affordable housing/planning contributions if the viability of the scheme is improved and agreeing time bound conditions to the start of the development to ensure the development proceeds at the appropriate time.

Affordable Housing MixReferring once again to the applicants Affordable Housing Statement, we do not agree that all affordable housing units should be offered as shared equity. Buyers of shared equity homes generally have incomes (£33,680 average) closer to those of households buying in the open market (£38,900 average) than those of shared owners (£25,832). With a shared ownership product we would expect an initial equity share offered by an RSL to be in region of 25%-40%. Tenants can increase their equity share in tranches up to 100% home ownership. This tenure is considerably more affordable than shared equity where buyers have to purchase a minimum 70% of the market value of a home and therefore need a higher income. The distinction between open market and shared equity is too small for it to attract Rother’s target market that requires a truly affordable intermediate product. For this reason the Housing Service requires intermediate products to be provided on a shared ownership basis. The tenure split of the proposed mix is provided below.

We are pleased to note that the parish council is generally supportive of the proposals. That said statutory housing powers remain with the District Council and it is therefore the Housing Service’s responsibility to determine the exact requirement of number/type/tenure of affordable units.

In order to meet the need currently on our housing register and those who have not registered yet with the Council, we would recommend providing a balance of larger properties for families and smaller two bedroom units, to keep younger people in the area. Two bedroom properties are preferred, as these are more sustainable in meeting single client’s and couple’s future requirements, not just their immediate need.

By assessing the (below) need on our Housing register and taking account of the present housing situation with housing in Camber, it is evident that there is a need for larger affordable homes within Camber. We would therefore recommend the following mix of affordable housing on this site:

85

Current housing stock (all at 2001 census for parish of Camber)Detached Semi-

detached

Terraced Flat/ Maisonet

te

Caravan/ Temp Structure

Camber 39% 22% 16% 22% 1%

Current social housing stock (general needs)1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4 + bed Sheltered

Camber 5 26 19 0 0

Current housing register demand for rented and shared ownership properties by bedroom size. 03/06/2010

Average mix of affordable housing required:

1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4+ bed30 Affordable Units

6 11 8 5

We would recommend the following tenure: 6 x 1 bed (6 x rented) 11 x 2 bed (8 x rented, 3 x shared ownership) 8 x 3 bed (7 x rented, 1 x shared ownership) 5 x 4 bed+ (5 x rented)

Delivery of Affordable HousingWe expect the applicants to work with the architects, Housing Services, Planners and an agreed RSL partner at the earliest possible stage to ensure that this mix is deliverable.

To enable all parties to plan more effectively the provision of affordable housing in conjunction with the market element of the site, Housing Services strongly advises the applicant to involve the Housing Service and RSL partners as soon as possible – a full list of our RSL partners is provided in the RSL Development Brochure which is available for viewing under ‘Housing Documents’ on the Housing website (www.rother.gov.uk). For a non-

Camber 1 bed 2 bed 3 bed 4+ bed

Rent 58 40 18 4

Shared Ownership

8 10 4 1

Total 66 50 22 5

86

preferred RSL to be considered, they must be a registered provider with the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) and regulated by the Tenant Services Authority.

Housing Services requires the affordable units to be ‘pepper potted’ throughout the development to ensure a stable community i.e. for the affordable housing to be mixed in with the market housing. Pepper potting affordable housing in this way positively addresses PPS3 aim of creating mixed and balanced communities. Successfully integrating the affordable rented and shared ownership units provides a sustainable, balanced and mixed community which brings many social and economic benefits. Small clusters of affordable units (no more than 5 units & 10 for flats) dispersed throughout the development will be considered but Housing Services must be satisfied this is within the context of an acceptable spread and not restricted to certain sections of the site. For further guidance, the applicant needs to refer to the Council’s Affordable Housing SPD.

All homes must be built to lifetime homes standards and will have to achieve level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes as a minimum and achieve at least 14 positive answers to the 20 Building for Life (BfL) Questions. There is also the desire corporately to always achieve Secure by Design. All affordable homes must meet the design standards of the Homes and Communities Agency and Rother District Council – further guidance is provided in the RSL Development Brochure which is available for viewing under ‘Housing Documents’ on the Housing website (www.rother.gov.uk).

In accordance with the Council’s Affordable Housing SPD, Housing require all homes to be built to full lifetime homes standards with 10% of the affordable homes to be provided as full wheelchair housing (3 units). This requirement is due the shortage of disabled adapted accommodation in the District (only 2.6% of Rother’s total social housing stock is wheelchair accessible Housing Corporation data at 31/03/07), the Council spent approximately £1million on Disabled Facilities Grants during 2008-09. The Housing Services requires the wheelchair accessible units to be adapted to meet the specific need of applicants identified by Housing Services as having a limiting long-term illness/disability and meet the specification set out in Affordable Housing Wheelchair Site Brief which is available for viewing under ‘Housing Documents’ on the Housing website (www.rother.gov.uk).

We would ask that Planning notify Housing Services at the earliest opportunity of any subsequent alterations to the application so that we can review whether there has been a change to the mix.”

5.6 Planning Notice: 17 letters of objection have been received from residents at White Sand. Their opposition can be summarised as relating to the following points:- Overdevelopment resulting in increase in traffic with inadequate car

parking. Density and design more urban and out of keeping with the existing

development.

87

Use of red brick out of character with existing materials. Buildings large and out of scale with existing development. Does not continue high standard of design, material and ambience of

existing development. Detailed design and materials do not reflect high standard in existing

development. Regeneration of Camber depends on high standard of design. Inclusion of affordable houses contrary to information given by developers. Landscaping and detailing different from built development No communication from developer. No suitable infrastructure for such high density development in Camber. Loss of small closes and cul-de-sacs and feel of a seaside village.

6.0 APPRAISAL

6.1 Affordable Housing

6.1.1 As submitted this is a full application and would therefore be subject to Policy HG3 which requires the provision of 40% affordable housing on the development. The Head of Housing has set out this position and following further information on viability and discussion at your last meeting it was agreed 40% provision on the uplift of 19 units would be sought, i.e. 8 units. A draft Section 106 Agreement is submitted to cover the affordable housing and this is under discussion.

6.1.2 It should be noted that this phase also provides a wider mix of smaller units than the previously approved development on the site.

6.2 Flood Risk issues

6.2.1 The original scheme was the subject of a Flood Risk Assessment and this has been updated in respect of the current phase. The Environment Agency have no objection subject to conditions which relate to finished floor levels and contaminated land.

6.3 Highway Matters

6.3.1 Whilst noting the concerns raised by local residents on the access and parking matters, the Highway Authority raise no objection on these matters. The car parking provision follows the same basis as the existing development and is satisfactory. The Highway Authority have requested an LSAIC contribution for the increase in number of units on the site representing £1,400 per 1-2 bed dwellings and £2,460 for 3-4 bed dwellings which would be secured by variation of the existing Section 106 Agreement.

6.4 Impact on the SSSI and SPA/SAC

6.4.1 As part of the original development a 5m planted buffer zone was secured between the site and the adjoining SSSI by the existing Section 106

88

Agreement. In addition the area originally allocated for a football pitch was approved as an informal open area and wildlife habitat area (RR/2004/3414/P), community facilities being located elsewhere in Camber. This has now been laid out on site with provision of ponds. Natural England have no objection subject to an informative to prevent storage, access or encroachment into the SSSI and a condition requiring a mitigation strategy in respect of Great Crested Newts.

6.5 Density and Character – Impact on Residential Amenities

6.5.1 The proposal represents an increase in 19 units over the approved development on this phase. The mix has changed and the layout includes a more formal square in the centre of the site. The development is high density but does not impact directly on the amenities of adjoining residents in White Sand. There will be an increase in traffic on Baker Way and White Sand Drive but I do not consider this to markedly change from the likely traffic generated from the permitted scheme. No objection is raised by the Highway Authority.

6.5.2 The design and materials follow generally from the principle of the approved scheme. Amendments were made to the details of the flats surrounding the central square to better reflect the existing design and I am now satisfied that the design and materials are acceptable for the site.

7.0 SUMMARY

7.1This application represents the re-plan of the already approved development on this part of the site. The amendments made to the application can now be supported.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (S106 PLANNING OBLIGATION RE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HIGHWAY CONTRIBUTIONS, IF APPROPRIATE.________________________________________________________________

CONDITIONS


2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans – schedule of plans as submitted and amended.Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of proper planning as advised in CLG Guidance document ‘Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions’ 2009.

89

3. The development shall not be occupied until car and cycle parking area[s] have been provided in accordance with the approved plans or details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the area[s] shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of motor vehicles.Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway and in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

4. The development shall not be occupied until a turning space for vehicles has been provided and constructed in accordance with the [approved plans or details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority] and the turning space shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used for any other purpose.Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway and in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) 2309/2.3, prepared by GTA Civils Ltd, dated September 2009 and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:Finished floor levels are set no lower than those indicated on GTA Drawing No. 2309/351.Reason: To minimise the risk of internal flooding and in accordance with Policy GD1(xv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

6. If during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site, then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the LPA) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the LPA, details of how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.Reason: To ensure that any risks relating to contamination discovered during development are dealt with appropriately as required under PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control.

7. Prior to the commencement of any works which may affect Great Crested Newts or their habitat, a detailed mitigation strategy shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works shall then proceed in accordance with the approved strategy with any amendments agreed in writing.

8. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the local planning authority. Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development in accordance with Policy GD1of the Rother District Local Plan.

9. No dwelling shall be occupied until the boundary walls and fences shown on the approved plans have been constructed in relation to that specific built plot. They shall thereafter be retained in accordance with the approved details.

90

Reason: To enhance the appearance of the development and to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan.

10. Details of the highway works relating to the construction of estate roads shall be submitted to the local planning authority prior to commencement of development and be approved by the local planning authority or as advised by the Highway Authority, and carried out in accordance with the approved plans.Reason: In the interests of road safety and to accord with the requirements of the Director of Transport and Environment of East Sussex in accordance with Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

Notes:1. A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required

in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester SO23 9EH (tel 01962 858688), or www.southernwater.co.uk’.There are sewers that are under a section 104 adoption located on this parcel of land, the developer should be aware of the location before any construction is implemented on site.

2. The applicant is advised that should storage, access or encroachment within the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Site of Special Scientific Interest be found to occur as a result of the proposals during or after the works, this will be considered an offence under Section 28 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) whereby the applicant may be liable on summary conviction to a maximum fine of £20,000 or on conviction on indictment to an unlimited fine.

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

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development is on land subject to an existing planning permission for residential development and the proposed increase in density and variation in dwelling types and design is satisfactory and in accordance with Policies HG3 and HG4 of the Rother District Local Plan. Provision has been made for affordable housing on the site on the uplift in the number of dwellings in accordance with Policy HG1 of the Rother District Local Plan. Floor levels of the proposed dwellings will be set in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment and will meet the requirements of Policy GD1(xv) of the Rother District Local Plan and PPS25. The development will not have an adverse impact on the adjacent SSSI and SPA/SAC subject to an appropriate condition and informative attached to the permission. There will be no adverse impact on the residential amenities of adjoining residential properties and the design and layout of this phase of the development will be acceptable.


91




RR/2010/1465/P CAMBER 19 The Suttons, Long Burton

Demolition of existing single storey dwelling and replacement with new two storey dwelling with a study located on the roof. Erection of a new double garage.

Applicant: Mr Michael GradonAgent: Hazle McCormack Young LLPCase Officer: Mr J McSweeney (Tel: 01424 787617)

(Email: [email protected])Parish: CAMBERWard Member: Councillor P N Osborne and Councillor C N RamusReason for Committee consideration: Member referral – Councillor C N Ramus Statutory 8 week date: 4 August 2010

This matter is included in the list of site inspections.

1.0 POLICIES

1.1 Rother District Local Plan Policies apply and in particular GD1(General Development criteria) and specially (ii), (iv) & (xv).

2.0 SITE

2.1 The detached flat roofed bungalow lies to the south side of The Suttons, which is an unmade road and abuts the public beach. It is flanked by an extended 2 storey house to the west and a vacant plot to the east. The site lies within the development boundary for Camber as defined within the Rother District Local Plan, and is adjoined to the south by the Dungeness, Romney Marshes and Rye Bay SSSI.

3.0 HISTORY

3.1 RR/2003/3219/P Outline: Erection of 4 bedroom 2 storey house and demolition of existing bungalow – Approved.

RR/2007/757/P Renewal of outline application RR/2003/3219/P for the erection of a 2 storey dwelling and demolition of existing bungalow – Approved conditional.

93

4.0 PROPOSAL

4.1 This application seeks permission for the demolition of existing single storey dwelling and replacement with new 2 storey dwelling with a study located on the roof and the erection of a new double garage.

4.2 The agent states, “The proposal is for a new 2 storey dwelling of approximately 275m² and garage to replace the existing bungalow and garage on site. There has previously been a outline consent on the site for a 2 storey replacement dwelling of approx 492m². The design has been based around providing a 4 bedroom family home which maximises and celebrates the sea view and distant view to Fairlight. And that provides a degree of shelter and privacy to the owner. The proposal is for a sustainable and contemporary building in the best traditions of English ‘seaside’ modernism…The design is intended to make the most of unique beach front site providing large areas of glazing on the south side to maximise views and series of terraced areas enclosed by the 2 wings of the dwelling. The flat roof to the majority of the building ensures that the volume of the dwelling is kept compact and visually this helps maintain a similar height to that of the neighbours. A simple robust finish of off-white render is proposed for the external walls with panels of timber matching the timber used on the terraced areas.”

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Parish Council : Any comments will be reported.

5.2 Environment Agency : Have no objection to the proposal so long as the attached condition is imposed on any permission granted.

5.3 Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board : No objection.

5.4 Planning Notice : 2 letters of objection concerned with the following: Building appears to come out further towards the sea than the building

next to it and is considerably higher. Interferes with the sea views. Intrusive to my privacy. Roof terrace would allow views from above and noise could interfere with

current peace and enjoyment. Huge development from a low bungalow. Does not seem to have adequate parking for its size. Over shadowed.

A letter from the agent in response to the points raised, summarised below: An outline planning consent was granted on this site for a replacement

dwelling of over 5,000 sq ft (493m²) excluding a separate garage. The proposal in this application is approximately 3,500 sq ft (325m²) including the garage. The outline consent also indicated a building with a maximum

94

height of between 9m and 10m. The proposed house is 9.4m at its highest point.

The proposed building does not come any further forward towards the sea than no. 21. The proposal also respects (and stays behind) the notional line between nos. 20 and 17. The proposed height at the parapet level is below the roof height of both no. 20 and the proposed new house at no. 16 (which has planning consent). Only the study roof is higher, but this set back from the front of the building to reduce its impact.

First floor terrace is enclosed on either side. Window on the proposed eastern elevation, would have obscured glass to

prevent overlooking to neighbouring properties. The proposed roof terrace would be limited to the front side only. Double garage is proposed in addition to manoeuvring space. Roof terrace and study has been designed not to overlook the property at

94 Lydd Road.________________________________________________________________

6.0 APPRAISAL


6.1.1 The site lies within the development boundary for Camber as defined within the Rother District Local Plan, for sites within defined development boundaries, there is a presumption that infilling, redevelopment and changes of use will be acceptable, subject to consideration against other policies in the Local Plan. The mains issues to consider are the design and scale of the replacement dwelling in the context of the character of the locality; the impact upon neighbours’ amenities; and flood issues.

6.2 Background

6.2.1 The principle of a replacement two storey dwelling on this site has been considered acceptable by the grant of previous permissions RR/2003/3219/P and RR/2007/757/P.

6.3 Character of locality

6.3.1 The Suttons is a linear development of properties running along the ridge at the top of the public beach consisting of a mix of dwellings varying in size and architectural styles and of different ages: there are several recent replacements.

6.3.2 Replacement dwellings and extensions in The Suttons have been unique in design and character and these varying styles have now become a characteristic of this part of Camber. The design of this proposal seeks to further enhance and define this unique character in accordance with Government advice contained in Planning Policy Statement 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1), paragraph 33. “Good design ensures attractive usable, durable and adaptable places and is a key element in achieving sustainable development. Good design is indivisible from good

95

planning.” and paragraph 34…”Good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted.”

6.3.3 The site is inside the development boundary and there would be no justification to necessarily seek a replacement dwelling of a comparable size to that existing. The proposed size and mass is comparable to those in the immediate vicinity and would sit comfortably in the site while providing adequate amenity space.

6.4 Effect on adjoining residents

6.4.1 The principal issue therefore is how the replacement dwelling relates to its immediate neighbours.

6.4.2 In comparison to the previous bungalow the new house will be wider, deeper and higher and it will inevitably have a much greater impact on adjoining residents. However, this is not in itself a reason for refusal: very many replacement dwellings have the same effect. The issue is whether those impacts are unreasonable in terms of, for example, the more overbearing nature of the house, loss of light, or overlooking.

6.4.3 The impact of this replacement dwelling will be greatest to no. 20 (Seascape) on the west side, as the replacement house will be nearer that boundary with the overall height of the house is taller and the depth of the house is greater. Nevertheless the design recognises the potential impact upon this property and ensure that there is no direct overlooking into their windows or private space. No. 20 has a first floor window in the facing gable end (east elevation) and although light and views will be obscured to this window, this room has a further window in the south elevation. Overall the relationship between the two dwellings is not dissimilar to others found in The Suttons and is not unreasonable to facing residents.

6.4.4 The relationship of the new house with No. 17 (Seaview) is less pronounced given the distance of some 14m afforded to the property by the adjacent vacant plot. Openings in the east elevation of the new house have been kept to a minimum seeking to preserve the amenities of properties to the east, however, the introduction of a roof terrace would allow direct views from above over their property and subsequently this point of concern has been raised with the agent. The applicant is willing to amend this detail to further preserve the amenities of properties to the east.

6.4.5 Residential properties that access onto Lydd Road are set at a lower level than the application site and to this degree the replacement dwelling being taller in height will be viewed from these properties. However, given the orientation (to the west) of these properties, the proposal is sufficient distance to prevent any direct impact upon their residential amenities.

96

6.5 Flood issues

6.5.1 The site lies within Flood Risk Zone 3. The Council’s Sequential Test advice included in the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment states in relation to Camber (east):“51. It is concluded that at eastern Camber any planning application received for the redevelopment of Previously Developed Land or for ‘infill’ will require an Exception Test and will be informed by the Level 2 SFRA.”

6.5.2 This site as a replacement dwelling is defined within PPS3 Annexe B as previously developed land. PPS25 sets out the terms of the Exception Test which if a site for a more vulnerable use (e.g. housing) is to be passed:(a) “It must be demonstrated that the development provides wider

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

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

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

6.5.3 The Flood Risk Assessment, which accompanies this application, concludes that: “Development will comprise a single residential dwelling with sleeping accommodation at ground floor level. This will be raised to a level of 7.2m AOD to provide a 700mm freeboard above the 1 in 1000 yr + cc tidal flood level. The first floor of the development will provide safe refuge in the event of a flood affecting the site, however it is expected that the site and The Suttons would not become inundated even during extreme events. Drainage at the site has been designed to be flood proof (with double sealed manholes to prevent flood water inundation) and sustainable (with the use of soakaways and greywater re-use within the building) and is considered to be in accordance with PPS25. The residual risk of flooding at the site is considered to be low, and mitigation measures have been included within the site design to minimise the effects of an extreme event. The Exception Test is therefore considered to be passed and development at the site is considered safe of flood risk, and is in accordance with PPS25.”

6.5.4 Applying the 3 tests of PPS25 (above): First, the continued development of Camber on appropriate existing developed sites can be considered as providing sustainability benefits to the community. The village has a range of facilities and the site lies within the development boundary. Second, in terms of PPS25 the development is on previously developed land. On the third issue the Environment Agency states, “We have no objection to the proposal so long as the following condition is imposed on any permission granted.

97

Flood Risk Condition: The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) dated June 2010, ref 10466 rev F1 prepared by Campbell Reith, and the following mitigation measures as detailed within the FRA:(i) Provision of suitable shuttering to ground floor windows and doors on the south elevation, as suggested in paragraph 7.1.14. (ii) Finished floor levels are set no lower than 7.2m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).

7.0 SUMMARY

7.1 The replacement house whilst taller and bulkier than the existing bungalow, is not over large for the site within the development boundary. It is of an acceptable design in an area which is characterised by individual unique properties. Subject to amendments to the roof terrace it will not cause demonstrable harm to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (AMENDED PLANS SHOWING APPROPRIATE AMENDMENTS TO THE PROPOSED ROOF TERRACE).

CONDITIONS


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

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or other openings (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be inserted into the building.Reason: To preclude overlooking and thereby protect the residential amenities of the neighbouring occupiers in accordance with Policy GD1 (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

98

4. At the time of construction and prior to the first occupation or use of the dwelling hereby approved, the master bedroom window at first floor level within the east elevation, as indicated on the approved drawing no’s. 1450 020 P1 and 1450 010 P1, date stamped 9 June 2010, shall be glazed with obscure glass of obscurity level equivalent to scale 5 on the Pilkington Glass Scale and shall thereafter be retained in that condition. Reason: To preserve the residential amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1 (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification), no extensions, alterations and installations, as defined within classes A, B, C & D of Part 1 of the Schedule 2 of the order, shall be carried out on the site otherwise than in accordance with a planning permission granted by the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that the satisfactory appearance of the development and locality is maintained in accordance with Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.– Urban

6. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) dated June 2010, ref 10466 rev F1 prepared by Campbell Reith, and the following mitigation measures as detailed within the FRA: (i) Details of shuttering to ground floor windows and doors on the south

elevation to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority, and installed on the building prior to its first occupation and thereafter retained in an unaltered state.

(ii) The finished floor levels of the building set no lower than 7.2m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).

Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future occupants in accordance with Policy GD1(xv) of the Rother District Local Plan.

7. The garage hereby approved shall be used for garaging of private vehicles only, and for no habitable accommodation or other purpose including any other purpose in Class C3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that Order.Reason: To provide adequate on site parking facilities that do not prejudice the free flow of traffic and conditions of general safety along the highway and to protect the amenities of the local area, in accordance with Policies GD1 (i), (iii) and TR3 of the Rother District Local Plan.

8. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: drawing no’s. 1450 001 P1, 1450 010 P1, 1450 011 P1, 1450 012 P1, 1450 005 P1, 1450 015 P1, and 1450 020 P1, date stamped 9 June 2010.Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning, as advised in the CLG guidance ‘Greater Flexibility for Planning Permissions’.

99

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The site lies within the development boundary where there is a presumption in favour of development. The modern contemporary design is acceptable in terms of the mixed character of the area, and subject to the amendments being made to the roof terrace the building will not adversely affect the amenities of adjoining residents. The proposal complies with Policy GD1(ii),(iii),(iv) & (xv) of the Rother District Local Plan.


100



RR/2010/1552/P TICEHURST Land opposite Upper Platts, Pashley Road

Proposal for the development of an exception site to residential use with 14 houses (Two x 1 Bed, Six x 2 Bed, Five x 3 Bed and One x 4 Bed) and associated landscaping works.

Applicant: Hastoe Housing Association.Agent: M Pickup.Case Officer: Mr A S Rowland (Tel: 01424 787612)

(Email: [email protected])Parish: TICEHURSTWard Member: Councillor R V Elliston and Councillor I G F Jenkins.Reason for Committee consideration: Head of Planning referralStatutory 13 week date: 17 September 2010


1.0 POLICIES

1.1 The application relates to a proposal for the provision of affordable housing in a rural location, outside of a recognised development boundary.

1.2 Policy HG10 addresses the issue of the provision of dwellings within the countryside. Ordinarily dwellings outside of development boundaries will be refused. However, there are special exceptions, with part (iv) of this policy allowing housing within the countryside for local people unable to compete in the local housing market, subject to the criteria in Policy HG2.

1.2.1 Policy HG2 states:‘In exceptional circumstances, planning permission may be granted for residential development outside development boundaries in order to meet a local housing need among those people unable to compete in the normal housing market. Proposals for development will be considered in the context of the following:(i) There should be clear evidence of an unsatisfied housing need in the

town/village or parish that cannot be met through normal market mechanisms;

(ii) The proposed development should be of a size, cost and type appropriate to those people in local housing need established in (i) above;

(iii) Any proposal should ensure that occupation can be controlled through appropriate legal agreements to meet the local housing needs of those

102

people unable to compete in the normal housing market in the town/village or parish both now and in the future;

(iv) The proposed development should be well located within or adjacent to an existing settlement and be of an appropriate scale and character in keeping with existing development in the locality and normally provide good access to local facilities, e.g. shops and schools;

(v) The proposed development should not be intrusive in the landscape and should be in keeping with the character of the surrounding development and locality;

(vi) The proposed development should meet normal local planning and highway authority criteria for access, parking, retention of trees, landscaping and impact on neighbouring properties;

(vii) A legal agreement will be required to secure the above objectives.’

1.3 Other relevant policies include HG3 (housing mix); HG4 (layout and design); GD1 (general development considerations); and DS1 (general development principles). Rother’s affordable housing Supplementary Planning Document is also relevant.

2.0 SITE

2.1 The site the subject of this application lies on the south side of Pashley Road (B2099) opposite Upper Platts. The land is agricultural; it falls towards the south, the roadside boundary is hedged and a public footpath runs down the south west side beyond which is an area of ancient woodland. Immediately to the east lies the Bewl/Darwell pipe lines transferring water between the two reservoirs.

3.0 HISTORY

3.1 A/52/239 O/A Erection of dwelling house - Refused – Appeal Dismissed.

3.2 A/57/444 O/A Residential Development – Refused.

3.3 RR/2004/542/P (Part) Water transfer pipeline from Bewl Water to Darwell reservoir – Approved Conditional

3.4 RR/2009/2887/P Proposal for the development of an exception site of 14 dwellings. – Refused.

4.0 PROPOSAL

4.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the construction of 14 two storey dwellings arranged round a new cul-de-sac. It is proposed that 10 properties would be semi-detached, one detached together with a short

103

terrace of three. The mix of dwellings would be as described within the heading of this report.

4.2 The properties would be of traditional appearance with external materials specified as Ashdown Cottage Mix stock bricks, plain clay roof tiles with as yet unspecified hanging tiles, areas of ‘Ivory’ render feature in varying quantity also. The designs and materials generally reflect the variety within the village as a whole.

4.3 The proposal is for 14 dwellings which equates to 21 dwellings per hectare. This is below the density identified within policy HG4; the minimum density formerly set out in PPS3 has now been deleted.

4.4 The dwellings are designed to be energy efficient and to achieve a minimum of Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. Each property would incorporate solar panels and provision is made for refuse/recycling bins with storage within each plot and easy access to frontage collection.

4.5 The application is accompanied by an extensive supporting statement, details of village services together with a plan showing the proximity of the site to the services. A baseline ecological assessment of the road side hedge is also provided. All of these supporting documents can be viewed via the website. The Design and Access Statement, which incorporates background information and the applicant’s arguments addressing the previous refusal and the actions taken to liaise with the Highway Authority is attached to the report as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 12 August 2010.

4.6 This application differs from the original submission in that the access position has been revised following discussions with the highway authority; this has necessitated a revision of the layout, the applicant’s agent has sought to minimise the landscape impact as part of the revision. Additionally the application includes provision to extend a footway from the new access westwards towards the village to link with the nearest existing path.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Parish Council : Object to Proposal.1) ‘Site is on a prominent ridge in the AONB.2) Site can be seen from miles around – generally against the principle of an

exception site which should not be intrusive on the landscape Policy HG2.3) The road remains dangerous – a serious accident occurred there this

week and there was one fatality a few years ago.4) There is no definite commitment to alterations in traffic flow, speed or

access to and from the site. ESCC send buses/taxis to collect school children along this road because it is too dangerous to walk. The site remains remote from village facilities.

104

5) The proposal is to remove the old hedge line in this area would increase traffic speed as visibility would improve, and the important role that the hedge plays in combating the prevailing wind and snow would be lost.

6) The local action plan is against more development in the village – which a recent survey has confirmed – copy available.

7) Preferred sites that were dismissed by Hastoe Housing Association as unsuitable have now been identified for potential development in the SHLAA plans produced by Rother.

8) Part of the hedge line to be removed belongs to a neighbour who has not been consulted and would not agree to itsr removal.

9) The Council requests for other sites to be re-examined have been repeatedly dismissed.

10)The site does not have local approval with residents, nor Councillors – a basic requirement of an exception site.’

5.2 Southern Water Services : Any comments will be reported.

5.3 Environment Agency : No objection subject to the imposition of a drainage condition requiring the submission of foul drainage details.

5.4 Highway Authority:

‘Visibility from the proposed Access:

At present, the proposal includes the upgrading of an existing access point off of Pashley Road within the existing 40mph speed limit. Therefore visibility splays of 2.4m x 120m would need to be provided in either direction.

Following a recent site visit it is evident that in order to achieve this, the applicant would be required to trim back / remove the existing mature hedge line that exists. This will involve the removal of in excess of 100m of hedge to the east, and the vast majority of trees / shrubbery to the west. The applicant should be aware that this will have an impact on the appearance of Pashley Road and may be contrary to Rother District Council’s Planning Policy.

While the applicant has demonstrated that they believe visibility splays of 2.4m x 120m can be achieved to the west, I remain concerned that these visibility splays will cross over some third party land.

I have attached a plan that indicates my concerns. Without this ‘area of concern’ being in control of the applicant I am unsure as to how visibility splays of 2.4m x 120m could be provided.

The Access Point and Internal Road Layout:

Prior to the submission of this application, the applicant was in discussion with this department regarding the proposed access. Whilst details had not been formally agreed, there were previous concerns regarding the junction alignment and in particular, larger vehicles turning into the site from an eastern direction.

105

I would also wish to express concerns regarding the proposed internal road layout. I am unsure whether vehicles using the ‘Traffic Calming’ measure would have adequate forward visibility in order to use this feature safely and effectively. In order to address these concerns I would wish for a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit to be carried out for the access into the site and the internal road alignment.

Proposed Footway Link / Speed Limit Traffic Regulation Order (TRO):

As part of this application, it is proposed that the applicant would use reasonable endeavours to pursue a TRO (with other measures), to reduce the existing 40mph speed limit along Pashley Road. This would be done in connection with the Highway Authority and Parish Council.

The applicant has also proposed that a footpath be provided from the site to join the existing footpath, located approximately 100m west of the site. This could be secured through a relevant Section 278 Legal Agreement and details of this link could be provided at a later stage.

However, whilst I welcome the implementation of both proposals in principle, I feel it is fundamental that the concerns regarding visibility splays and the access / internal road alignment are overcome before this application can be considered acceptable by this highway authority.’

5.5 Footpaths Officer (ESCC) : (Rights of Way) No objection subject to access to the public footpath being maintained at all times.

5.6 High Weald Officer : ‘…The proposed development site does not appear to affect any of the components of natural beauty identified by the High Weald AONB Management Plan 2004.The design and layout of the site should seek to enhance the AONB and reflect local character. The design is quite ‘modern’ or ‘urban ’in style and form and not in keeping with a rural location. Significantly the level of hard engineering, particularly the traffic calming and paving surfaces, has a sub-urbanizing effect that is out of character with this location.In terms of occupancy it is not clear if the development is for general housing waiting list occupancy or whether any local controls on letting are to be used. In particular a local connection qualification may be desirable to meet local needs. Additionally a letting qualification for local land based workers (based on the local key worker definition being developed for the Rother LDF) would support land management and the conservation of the AONB. If this were the case, the design and layout could be amended to reflect the needs of such tenants including additional storage, parking for vehicles, trailers and materials.The test for development in the AONB is whether it conserves and enhances the landscape. This proposal contributes very little to the AONB while introducing new ‘urban’ style built form into an undeveloped location that may have negative impacts upon the character of the High Weald.’

106

5.7 Director of Services – Housing: ‘The housing service supported planning application RR/2009/2887/P which was refused permission for the two reasons stated on the decision notice dated 29 th January 2010. It is the decision of Hastoe Housing Association to submit the proposed revised application as we understand it seeks to deal with these reasons for refusal.The proposed housing and design and general layout of this new application remains similar to that proposed previously and therefore our comments remain as per the previous application. The most significant change in the revised scheme relates to new proposed access arrangements and traffic calming measures, the inclusion of a western footpath link and the proposal to strengthen and increase the amount of planting along the eastern and southern boundaries of the site.Because the revised application provides affordable housing on the same basis as the original application the housing service remains supportive of the scheme and stands by its comments made in relation to the original application which can be applied to this revised application.’

5.8 Planning Notice: At the time of preparing this report a total of 171 letters of objection have been received together with 2 giving general observations. The matters raised are: This proposal has been rejected previously and that decision should be

respected. The proposal will be seriously damaging to the landscape of the AONB. The loss of hedgerow is deplored. Ticehurst has taken a disproportionate amount of affordable housing over

the past few years. Greenfield/green belt site. Outside development boundary. A local resident was knocked off her bicycle on this road very recently. Does not adjoin village boundary. Out of keeping with other development within the locality. Lack of amenities this end of the village. Lack of amenities within village to support the housing. Suburban appearance in rural area. Elevated site on ridge – visible from Sheepstreet Lane. Precedent for similar development within the countryside. Ancient woodland opposite site. Inadequate infrastructure. Impact on natural habitats for plant and wildlife. Dangerous access for cars – blind spot. Limited public transport. Increase in traffic would be dangerous – the safety implications of the

proposal have not been properly assessed. Regional Strategies have been abolished, local opinion should prevail. Increase in congestion. The ecological study is a desk top one – should insist upon full EIA. Existing parking issues within village. Insufficient parking in village already – more houses will make matters

worse. Insufficient information about whether the proposed access is safe.

107

Rother should insist on dwellings reaching sustainable code level 6 Lack of interest given to local opinion. Other more suitable sites available, including within the village

development boundary, e.g. Warren Coaches site. Increase in pollution. Views of village and countryside will be spoilt. Limited employment opportunities and little prospect of more in present

economic circumstances. Public footpath adjoins site. Loss of farm land. Unsustainable development. Contrary to planning policy, including the criteria for exception sites Lack of evidence backing the claims of the developer that there is a

demand for the housing by the local community. Ticehurst has already provided a considerable number of affordable

houses over the years. Housing needs survey requires updating . Housing needs survey identified one bedroom accommodation to be

lacking in Ticehurst, with 42% of people requiring affordable homes being single; the application makes no attempt to address this.

Criteria set out in Policy HG2 of the Local Plan not met. At what point does the planning procedure determine when this need

cannot be met through ‘normal market mechanisms’?

Additionally a petition with fifty four signatories has been received objecting to the application.

________________________________________________________________

6.0 APPRAISAL

6.1 Background to proposal

6.1.1 The site is situated outside of the development boundary of the village of Ticehurst as set out by Policy DS3 and the proposals map in an area where Policy DS4 requires existing uses shall remain unchanged unless there is specific provision in other policies. Policy HG10 sets out exceptions to Policy DS4 saying that new dwellings will be refused unless:

“... (iv) is housing for local people unable to compete in the local housing market, subject to criteria in Policy HG2...”

Policy HG2 is set out in full above but the essential requirements are:

(i) Demonstrable local need(ii) The development proposed should meet the identified need in terms of

size cost and type(iii) The occupancy must be controlled by legal agreement(iv) The development should be well located to existing village, appropriate

in scale and normally provide good access to services(v) Not intrusive in landscape and otherwise meet normal planning criteria.

108

6.1.2 A very similar application to this submission, recommended for approval by Officers, was considered at the January 2010 Planning Committee where, following a site inspection, members refused planning permission for the following reasons:

1) The proposed development of affordable housing is on a prominent ridge top site within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and will have an impact on the local landscape. The proposal as an exception site under Policy HG2 of the Rother District Local Plan has not been brought forward with local support to demonstrate that an exception to normal restrictive policies for housing in the countryside can be accepted. In addition the site is not well connected to the existing village and its facilities by virtue of the lack of footpath connections.

2) The proposed access at its junction with Pashley Road (B2099) has substandard visibility and existing hazards would be increased by the additional slowing, stopping, turning and reversing traffic which would be created and be contrary to Policy GD1(iii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

6.1.3 The current application is presented by the applicant in an endeavour to address the reasons for refusal. I believe it is appropriate to consider each reason carefully in the context of the new submission.

Reason 1: It is a statement of fact that the site is on a ridge within the AONB that is the nature of many of the AONB villages; development on these ridges is visible in the landscape. There is woodland to the south of the development that would afford some screening and additional landscaping is proposed to offer mitigation. Clearly, the designation of the AONB is not intended to mean that no development may occur but the Council has a statutory duty to ensure that it is conserved and enhanced. I am mindful that the AONB unit is more critical of the current proposal in this respect than of the original application.Exception sites should be brought forward with local support. It is understood that the applicant believed this was apparent with the first application since the Parish Council were asked if they wished to participate in a project for delivery of affordable housing for local people. With that positive indication a housing needs survey was undertaken, this indicated an unmet need for people with the necessary local qualification. A site finding exercise, including visiting potential sites was undertaken with the Parish. It is at the application stage that consideration has to be given to public opinion; the application publicity generated considerable local opposition. The current application has resulted in more correspondence from objectors than previously. Notwithstanding that there are clearly local people that are in need of affordable housing local support has not been demonstrated.

As to the connectivity with the village the new application does include reference to the provision of a footpath link which can be secured by legal agreement. The applicant has also provided a plan upon which the positions of local facilities and services have been marked. It is my view that the distance to facilities is not so much an issue as the absence of a surfaced footway and the need to cross the road to access the school. In respect of the

109

latter issue my support for the earlier application had regard to being able to secure a reduction of the speed limit to 30mph and traffic calming measures; there is no certainty with the current application that this can be delivered.

Reason 2: The first application attracted a recommendation of refusal from the Highway Authority on the basis that the applicant’s indication of traffic calming and reduction in speed limit should not be assumed to be deliverable; hence the proposal was judged to be deficient in its achievable visibility splays for a road with a 40mph speed limit. In reaction to this the applicant has had meetings with the Highway Authority resulting in a revised layout repositioning the access point to the western end of the frontage. However, the Highway Authority’s comments at 5.4 above clearly indicate that the revised proposals still fail to attract a favourable recommendation.

6.1.4 The suggested new layout does raise a concern. In considering the first application is was envisaged that there would be a ‘gateway’ entrance to the village to calm traffic and enable a speed limit of 30mph to be introduced; in these circumstances the required visibility splay at the new access enabled a large part of the frontage hedge to be retained. The current proposal is presented on the assumption that the 40mph visibility spay can be provided with the reduction to 30mph being an aspiration. I find this unacceptable in that it requires the removal of a much greater length of hedge being removed and trees to the west being cut back or removed. A new hedge would be planted but there is no doubt in my mind that the removal of the existing hedge along most/all of the site frontage would fail to conserve and enhance the AONB. Moreover, whilst the ecological investigation concludes that the hedge does not satisfy the criteria set out in the Hedgerow Regulations to be classified as important, it does confirm that it has moderate ecological value.

6.1.5 The revised layout for the access needs to be the subject of a safety audit but it does, together with the proposed realigned road, raise a concern. Vehicles entering the site at night may be a distraction/source of confusion as they will be travelling east close to the south side of the main road. Headlights may cause dazzle following the removal of the hedge and prior to the establishment of a new hedge. This could add to traffic hazards on the B2099 which is widely criticised as dangerous now by objectors. Indeed, an accident did occur recently involving a vehicle and a local resident on a bicycle.

6.1.6 In the event that this application could be supported in principle I would wish to have further discussions with the applicant to try to address the concern expressed by the AONB unit, with which I concur, regarding the rather urban style of the development. I am of course mindful of the design advice within PPS1, PPS 3 (para 16) and publications such as ‘Manual for Streets’, Cabe’s ‘By Design’ and English Heritage’s ‘Affordable Rural Housing and the Historic Environment’.

________________________________________________________________

110

7.0 SUMMARY

7.1 This is the re-submission of a previously refused application. It is considered that the new planning application has failed to address the previously given reasons for refusal (RR/2009/2887/P) to any material degree. Indeed in attempting to do so I find the scheme to be less desirable from both local landscape and highway safety perspectives.

7.2 The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal has been brought forward with significant local support. Additionally, concern is expressed that the design of the layout requires re-consideration from both a highway safety point of view and in terms of its appropriateness, having regard to the open rural character of this part of the AONB.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)

REASONS FOR REFUSAL

1. The proposed development of affordable housing is on a prominent ridge top site within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and will have an impact on the local landscape. The proposal as an exception site under Policy HG2 of the Rother District Local Plan has not been brought forward with local support (para 10.2 of Affordable Housing SPD Oct 2006) to demonstrate that an exception to normal restrictive policies for housing in the countryside can be accepted. In addition the site is not well related to the existing village and its facilities.

2. It has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the necessary 2.4m by 120m visibility splay can be achieved within land under the control of the applicant or the highway authority. Moreover, it is considered that in the absence of a stage one safety audit it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not add to existing traffic hazards as a result of stopping, slowing, turning and manoeuvring traffic at the junction with the B2099 Pashley Road. The proposal is therefore judged to be contrary to Rother Local Plan policy GD1(iii).

3. The proposed layout, design and road alignment fails to respond satisfactorily to the siting of the development within the High Weald AONB, specifically the character and form of the scheme is considered to be unduly urban in character having regard to the rural setting of the site and is consequently contrary to advice contained within PPS1 (Paras 13 (iv), 33 and 34).


--oo0oo--

111


RR/2009/308/P€¦ · Web viewB/67/653 Use as palmistry kiosk. Approved. B/69/24 Use of building...

Documents

Transcript of RR/2009/308/P€¦ · Web viewB/67/653 Use as palmistry kiosk. Approved. B/69/24 Use of building...