RR/2001/163/P ASHBURNHAM CORNER HOUSE FARM – LAND AT, 23 JAN 2001 BROWNBREAD STREET

FORMATION OF TWO PONDS AND PROVISION OF SCREENING TO EXISTING GATER D Winfield

This application was considered at the August 2001 meeting of the Committee when it was resolved to delegate authority to grant planning permission upon receipt of amended plans addressing the Environment Agency’s concerns about the inadequacies of the dam and overflow. Whilst, the applicants agent has advised on several occasions that discussions are in hand to resolve the matter no appropriate plans have been received.

SITE This application relates to O.S. Parcel Nos. 4847, 5158, 3848 and 4057 on the west side of the C412 Brownbread Street opposite the junction of the UC6122.

HISTORYNone

PROPOSAL Planning permission is sought retrospectively for the formation of two small ponds and for the erection of a close boarded gate about 1.8m high at the vehicular access.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support a Refusal “The Parish Council’s comments are based firstly on the fact that the existing close-boarded gate of considerable height has replaced a wooden field gate. The new gate has deprived both local and 1066 walkers of an exceptionally attractive and interesting view. The Parish Council would like to suggest that a new gate is erected that does not obscure the view.The Parish Council further feels that the environmental agency should be consulted regarding the stability of the retaining embankments that have been created to assist the formation of the new ponds.The development of these ponds has completely altered the vista across this attractive valley in this area of outstanding natural beauty.”Environment Agency:- “The Agency would have OBJECTED to this proposal as submitted on the following grounds:The proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of ecological value of a headwater stream.From a large study carried out by the Agency’s Biology Team in 1998/9, headwater streams were found to support many macro-invertebrates whose distribution was strongly associated or restricted to such streams, approximately 30 of which were of high conservation value. From this it was estimated that headwater streams contributed over 20% to the overall species pool of the catchment. Construction of a lake as proposed would result in the loss of this important habitat.The proposed works would require consent under the Land Drainage Act 1991 from this Agency. An impoundment licence may also be required. No details of measures to pass flood flows and confirmation of the structural integrity of the structures have been provided. From information available it would not appear that the design would comply with what would be regarded as good practice. Your Council’s own engineers should also be consulted on this, particularly with respect to the structural integrity.”Director of Environmental Health:- No objection.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

1

SUMMARY I have been advised that the gate has been reduced in height to that at which planning permission is not required. I shall take measurements to check this prior to your meeting.I am concerned that this application does not appear to be progressing and I am anxious that the four year period appropriate to operational development is getting closer. The Environment Agency have suggested that if the Council is minded to grant planning permission and a condition requiring further details should be imposed. I favour this approach as it would safeguard the Council’s position and if not complied with the breach of condition notice procedure would be available, The necessary modifications to the embankment and the overflow are not extensive but they are important and need to be addressed.

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. Detailed plans of remedial works to the embankment construction and pond

overflow provision shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The remedial works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within 6 months of the date of this planning permission.Reason: To comply with design guidance contained within CIRJA Document 161 ‘Small Embankment Reservoirs’ to prevent any increased risk of flooding and erosion downstream and in accordance with Policy GD1 (iv) and (vi) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2003/2601/P CROWHURST BADGERS HOLT AND THE OAKS – LAND TO 10 SEP 2003 REAR OF, STATION ROAD

CONSTRUCTION OF CONTIGUOUS BORED PILE WALL TO STABILISE REAR GARDEN AREAS AGAINST LANDSLIPMr and Mrs Sargent

This application was deferred at your meeting in November 2003 for independent consultants advice regarding the position of the bored pile wall and the implications in respect of surface water and ground water flows in the area. An initial “Ground Stability Assessment Walkover Survey Report” has now been received and I have included an extract in my summary to this report.

SITE This application relates to the woodland areas (currently cleared) at the rear of two new houses erected at the northern end of Station Road and lying to the west of the station car park. The rear gardens of those houses are retained by a 45m long gabion wall that has a visible height above ground level of 5m. The woodland at the bottom of the gabion wall is in the ownership of the two houses.

HISTORYRR/1999/9/R O/A Erection of two dwellings with garage/parking spaces –

ApprovedRR/2000/1988/P One 5 bed house with detached double garage – ApprovedRR/2000/2071/P One 5 bed house with integral garage – Approved.RR/2001/1810/P Construction of gabion wall to reinstate stability of rear embankment – Delegated to approve subject to Section 106 for retention and future management of the woodland and submission of details of supplementary planting. This has not been entered into because it will contain a clause requiring the planting to be undertaken within a specified time period. However, this cannot be undertaken until the pile wall has been constructed.

2

PROPOSAL It is proposed to drive a 45m long contiguous pile wall into the ground approx 15m from the foot of the gabion wall. The piles would be 6m in length, 300mm in diameter with 400mm spacings. These would be capped by a 300mm x 300mm concrete beam which is not intended to project above finished ground level. In a letter accompanying the application, the Applicant’s Engineer advises:“It is of course essential that, to avoid any further slippage of the sloping rear garden and possible destabilisation of the upslope wall, the piling works are undertaken as a matter of urgency. Indeed, if at all possible, the piling should be undertaken before the current very dry weather breaks – that is this would benefit construction and also minimise the risk of further slippage which is directly linked to rainfall/groundwater levels within the slope”.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support an approval with the following comments:“1. There should be no further development considered between the curtilage and

the property banking, as it is outside of the development boundary, which has already been moved once.

2. The wall should be deep enough to prevent slippage of the land owned by the neighbours at ‘The Haven’.

3. Construction times should be limited to minimise noise and nuisance to neighbours”.

Environment Agency – Has no objection on the assumption that the adjacent watercourse will be unaffected by the proposed works and advise that the Council’s own Technical Services Department should be satisfied with regard to the structural integrity of the wall design.Director of Services – Amenities - Has advised me that it would be the Applicant and his Engineer who would be responsible for the structural integrity of the wall and not the Local Planning Authority. Works should not obstruct railway culvert which discharges onto the site.Chief Building Control Officer – Has no adverse comments.Planning Notice – 1 letter from ‘The Haven’ – has no objection in principle but wished several points, believed to be relevant and important, to be noted. These relate to 1: inaccurate plan of Section 106 and Tree Preservation Order lines, 2: outside village development boundary, 3: request a condition restricting construction working hours, 4: am concerned that project will not be successful and want assurance from Rother that proposed wall would not slip upon my land which is only 2m distant.

SUMMARY Members will recall visiting the site prior to the November meeting when you commissioned advice from a Geotechnical Engineer. They have carried out a walkover survey and provided a report containing the following comments:-“The survey has enabled a visual assessment of the overall stability of the Site to be made, and the most appropriate practicable form of ground investigation to be determined. The intrusive investigation will aim to provide data on the soil profile and ground conditions. The findings will help verify the form and depth of the instability, and the potential risks that it may pose. It will also incorporate an assessment of the soils at the specific site of the proposed retaining structure, to provide key parameters needed for its design. … It would be helpful to be able to view details of the wall construction, specification of the backfill (including details of the preparatory earthworks and inclusion of any reinforcement), and also determine the nature of the underlying strata. Calculations could then easily be undertaken to assess its overall stability.

3

Given its apparent good condition it is most probable that the wall is extended to found onto relatively competent strata that may either be the Ashdown ‘Beds’ Member or the Wadhurst Clay (and possibly the sand in Wadhurst Clay Member). An appropriately constructed wall will be adequately stable against sliding/overturning even if the soils (and passive resistance) in front of the toe are lost by landslip, erosion or excavation for example.Despite this there remains some danger that unstable ground may prograde back towards the wall. In such an instance, the wall could potentially be undermined where the land falls away to a significant depth immediately in front of the toe. Currently this does not seem to be an immediate risk. However, it is recommended that a good understanding of the soil profile beneath and immediately in front of the toe of the wall will be needed to help verify this.The stability of the lower area of the garden is at immediate risk, and evidence of ongoing downslope movement has been observed. Key to improving stability will be the reduction in groundwater pressure/level by the provision of improved drainage. This would be further improved where the lower garden is planted, once the trees have had the opportunity to establish.It is recognised that some improvements in drainage have been completed. Although full details of depth and layout of the new drainage has not been made available for our inspection it is understood from the house owner that it comprises a single trench drain across the Site.It is judged that the single drain across the Site only is unlikely to be entirely effective. The provision of additional drains perpendicularly down the slope, which will enable the water level in the ground to be drawn down to the level of the brook, will significantly improve the stability of the ground. The drains should enable the groundwater to be positively channelled into the stream (partly across the narrow strip of land beyond the western boundary). Perpendicular drains are recommended for ease of construction rather than diagonal ‘herringbone’ drains. Diagonal drains do not offer any significant advantage in drainage improvement. There is the probability that where drainage is provided and vegetation is able to become established, there may be no need for a large scale retaining structure to be built at the toe of the slope. This will partly depend on the susceptibility of the lower garden land to continue to fail, potentially beneath the toe of the gabion wall. This risk can be assessed by the proposed investigation. In any case, whether or not the new wall is built, the improvements in drainage would be needed.”I have therefore written to the Applicant requesting his comments upon the report particularly because “There is the probability that where drainage is provided and vegetation is able to become established, there may be no need for a large scale retaining structure to be built at the toe of the slope.”

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (APPLICANTS’ REPLY)

4

RR/2003/1848/P BATTLE 19 HIGH STREET - REAR OF, CLEMENTS CAR 30 JUN 2003 PARK

PROPOSED TWO STOREY DEVELOPMENT FOR PURPOSE OF BATTLE CRICKET CLUB ON FIRST FLOOR AND 3 NO. SHOP UNITS ON GROUND FLOORMr R Clements

This application was considered at the November meeting of the Committee when it was resolved to delegate authority to grant planning permission subject to receipt of amended plans and consultation responses.

I have received amended plans and I have publicised them, any responses will be reported at the meeting.

SITE The site is the south western end of ‘Clements’ car park off the south west side of the High Street. The area of the site measures 14 metres at its narrowest point by 22m and is currently used for car parking; there is a poor specimen of a Lebanon Cedar within the site.

HISTORY The site in part has been the subject of previous planning applications relating to the building at the frontage but not relating to this site specifically.

PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a two storey ‘L’ shaped building of brick and clay roofing tiles. On the ground floor would be three shop units and a storeroom above changing rooms, shower and WC facilities, a locker room, lounge bar, store and kitchen are indicated. The lounge bar would have a terrace/balcony overlooking the cricket square cantilevered over land at the rear owned by the Town Council.The submitted plan indicates the removal of Cedar tree and trees obstructing views to the cricket pitch without the site.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council – Comments upon amended proposal awaited.Highway Authority – Does not wish to restrict grant of consent ”although this authority is concerned over the lack of on-site parking being provided for the development and that the proposed building would also remove some existing private parking spaces, it is considered that there are insufficient highway grounds to justify a recommendation or refusal for this proposal.”Environment Agency – No objection. Contaminated land condition required.Southern Water – No objection. Foul/surface water drainage condition needed. No surface water to be discharged to foul sewer.Director of Services - Sports Development Officer – Supports facility. Design needs to cater for disabled access. Upper floor should be conditioned to recreational/community purposes. Not clear if parking spaces are being made available. Substantial tree loss and root damage will result.Director of Transport & Environment - County Archaeologist: Recommends an archaeological condition.Sussex Police – Security advice given to applicant’s agent.Planning Notice:- 3 letters of objection received (to original scheme) - removal of trees/and part of wall between Tills Yard and footpath by George

Mews5

its use could bring about litter/noise/pollution/smell blocks view - due to height of roof - deprivation of light to 1 George Mews (prefer

flat roof) - thatched roof would be best worried about late use of the bar facilities - noise from music restrict maintenance to 1 George Mews (development along party wall) artificial lighting - going into garden of 1 George Mews from 1st level of

development emergency services access - feel it is limited by development invades privacy increased traffic

SUMMARY The application is accompanied by an appraisal of the Cedar Tree that is proposed to be removed. It is in poor condition, misshapen and has limited prospects for survival. It’s removal should, I believe be accepted.It is my view that development in this area at the rear of the High Street is supportable subject to matters of access, form, layout and design. It is important in considering this proposal to have in mind the wider possible schemes for adjoining land and to achieve good pedestrian routes.The amended plan now submitted is a significant improvement over earlier schemes and results from a productive meeting with the architects and the applicants. The form of the building has been broken down into smaller elements creating relief to the previously expansive areas of walling and a pleasing arrangement of smaller roofs.I shall need to consider consultation responses and I am awaiting a statement from the applicants concerning their intended use of the bar facility. However, I expect to make the

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (CONSULTATION RESPONSES)1. CN7B (External materials)2. CN3A (Archaeological watching brief)3. CN9K (Floor levels – amended)4. CN12L (No floodlighting)5. CN12G (Hours of use – amended)6. CN12Q (Use limitation)7. CN8C (Foul and surface water details)N8A (Rights of access)N8B (Rights of access)

RR/2003/2074/P BATTLE FARR MEGGS FARM, KANE HYTHE ROAD29 JUL 2003 POLE BARN FOR HAY, STRAW AND GENERAL FARM

STORAGEMr M R J Nye

SITE This site is approximately 4 hectares of pasture situated on the east side of Kane Hythe Road.

HISTORYRR/1999/894/P Erection of barn for straw and hay - Approved ConditionalRR/2002/2198/P Polytunnel (retrospective) for keeping sheep during lambing -

Approved Conditional (Temp)

6

PROPOSAL Planning permission is sought for an agricultural building constructed of timber clad box profile steel sheeting sited at the rear of the land adjacent to the polytunnel which is to be removed shortly. The building would measure 18.2m by 7.6m and is an alternative to the building approved under reference RR/1999/894/P.

CONSULTEESTown Council:- The Council could see no justification for this unattractive structure in the countryside in relation to the small area of land which it would serve.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY The applicant commenced the construction of a barn on the land but it did not accord with the approved plan under reference RR/1999/894/P. The current application has been submitted for the design of building under construction. I should point out that the applicant appears not to have continued construction work since being advised of the need for a further planning permission in June 2003.The applicant keeps sheep and the Rural Estates Surveyor supported the need for covered storage on the site in 1999. The situation remains the same today and it would, in my view, be appropriate to grant planning permission as an alternative to the previous consent (RR/1999/894/P). The proposed design is a simple pole barn clad with steel sheet with the roof covered with the same material as a mono pitch. It is a simple, functional storage building that, subject to later agreement of the colour of the cladding, could in my view be accepted.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN14J (Alternative permission to RR/1999/894/P).2. The external walls and roof of the building shall not be clad until the colour, type

and profile of the sheeting material have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.Reason: RC2.

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

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

This application was deferred at your last meeting for a site inspection. The applicants agent has advised me verbally that arrangements will be made to peg out both the proposed building and the previously approved covered riding school (RR/84/2249/P).

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

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

RR/2001/893/P - Approved Conditional7

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

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

SUMMARY Beauport Riding Stables has woodland to the north and a private dwelling (Sawmill Cottage) to the west. However, Beauport Park Hotel and Golf Course are both close by and given this and the close proximity of the Hastings Borough boundary I believe that the equestrian use of the site, within the AONB is appropriate. It is however essential that if the principle of a covered school building is accepted the Council must be satisfied that the landscape impact is satisfactory.The applicant has already cleared and roughly levelled the proposed site of the building. I note that the majority of screening trees are rather spindly specimens outside of the applicants ownership; if these were removed the building would be open to the AONB.I have received further supporting information from the applicant’s agent following my query into the size of the building proposed. Whilst an explanation is provided regarding the space requirements it is equally now apparent that the applicant is wishing to facilitate the accommodation of competitions. The design is centred around an international dressage arena and the additional areas necessary for such competitions. The applicant also points out the nearest indoor facilities for indoor carriage driving are 25 and 45 miles away. The design also incorporates a spectator viewing area.A further letter from the applicant explains:“The proposed building will allow us the scope to manage our current business as well as the additional business that we are turning away.The additional capacity will enable use to increase teaching staff and expand our teacher-training program. We are currently only training two staff. This new facility should allow an increase of at least 100-150%.Competitions will normally take place 1 or 2 times per month initially, increasing hopefully to a maximum of 4 times a month during the period October – April when indoor riding is at greater demand. This would take place afternoons and evenings.Competitors normally travel up to 2-3 hours – approximately 100 mile radius to attend. It would be very unusual for an overnight stay. If they choose to stay, they sleep in their adapted horseboxes or would use the facilities of the adjoining Hotel.

8

Competitions would normally consist of 405 classes each with a maximum of 15-20 competitors – most competitors enter 2 or 3 classes. Competitors normally arrange shared transport and often ride more that 1 horse. We would expect 30-40 vehicles to arrive at an event. These vehicles would be a combination of 4x4’s with trailers and lorry type boxes. We can currently offer parking for approximately 15-20 vehicles. We are also able to offer additional stabling should this be required and we are keen to promote stabling offered by other local yards.Spectators would normally consist of owners and trainers of each horse and the under cover spectator area exceeds the area actually required. The area below for horse warm-up and storage of equipment dictates the size of the upper floor indicated. It would be unusual to expect more than this number of spectators”.The applicant estimates up to 40 vehicles at an event; I rather suspect that this is a low estimate but in any event these vehicles are expected to be either towing a horse box or a lorry type horsebox. In both cases two normal car spaces would be needed for each, a conservative estimate of 80 spaces.I have written to the Highway Authority for any further comments they may wish to make in respect of the information now supplied. I am however, concerned that further tree felling will be necessary to accommodate the likely demand for car parking. This would be to the detriment of the AONB and the amenities of Sawmill Cottage. I am also anxious that the site lies within the Beauport Park a local site of Nature Conservation Interest. I am inclined to the conclusion that the proposal could generate significant additional traffic and impact adversely upon the character of the AONB. I expect to make the

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

policies EN1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies DS1(vi) and GD1(v) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) indicate that development will be carefully controlled to protect the character area. It is considered that the proposal does not meet this objective, and it would have a harmful effect on the rural character of the area.

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

RR/2003/3236/P BATTLE 41 NORTH TRADE ROAD, ALMONRY OAST 20 NOV 2003 HOUSE

ERECTION OF FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION, REMOVAL OF UPVC WINDOWS AND DOORS AND REPLACE WITH TIMBER CONSERVATORY REBUILT IN TIMBER AND GLASSMr & Mrs Soan

SITE Lower Almonry Oast is a converted oasthouse off the south side of North Trade Road, between Asten Fields and Tollgates approached via an unmade track.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/77/1215 Conversion of oast and barn to dwelling – Approved conditionalRR/2002/1347/P First floor extension and alterations – RefusedRR/2002/2623/P First floor extension and alterations – Refused

PROPOSAL Planning permission is sought for a first floor extension over the existing low pitched slate covered catslide on the south side of the building to rebuild the

9

existing conservatory. Additionally plastic window frames would be replaced using timber casements.Plain clay roof tiles are indicated for the extension roof with the external walls clad with black weatherboarding. These conservation rooflights are shown within the extension roof.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council – No objection.Planning Notice – 3 letters of objection (6, 8 and 10 Claverham Way) i) property is a converted oast in the AONB, ii) a substantial extension contrary to Structure and Local Plan policy, iii) would make the oast intrusive in the countryside, iv) out of character, v) was consent ever given for the conservatory?, vi) existing catslide roof blends with the oast, the proposal will contrast, vii) views of the Abbey will be lost, viii) the use of traditional materials is not reason to over-ride policy objections, ix) too dominant, x) additional noise and activity.

SUMMARY This property lies outside of the development boundary of the town within the AONB and it is a converted oasthouse. The present appearance of the building is, I have to say, poor by today’s expectations for a conversion. I have located the plans for the original conversion and it clear that the work was undertaken as approved; a conservatory has been added as permitted development.Two applications for similar extensions have been refused previously (RR/2002/1347/P & RR/2002/2623/P). The current application differs in that the ridge and eaves height have been reduced and conservation type roof windows included in place of windows.Your Local Plan policy for extensions to dwellings formed by conversion of former agricultural buildings is as follows:“In countryside locations, particular care will be given to ensure that the extension or alteration is not intrusive in the landscape, particularly in the High Weald AONB. Extensions or alterations to properties that have previously been converted to residential use will only be permitted exceptionally where it is demonstrated that they will not adversely affect its character or appearance as a rural building”.The proposed extension is a significant addition that would alter the appearance of the dwelling considerably, it would also make the building more obvious in the landscape. The applicant is essentially seeking the acceptance of their proposal as a package giving improvements to the appearance of the oast which I have previously acknowledged as poor.A supporting statement has been provided by the applicants which is attached to this Committee report as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT.In balancing the benefits of the scheme I should say that the existing catslide roof is not a continuous sweep if clay tiles normally associated with a catlside; the Lower part of the roofslope is a low pitched slate roof with two inset dormers.I would have to say that the proposal results in an improvement to the building but I do not believe that the benefit is so great as to ‘exceptionally’ grant permission as required by Policy HG8. The conservatory would be rebuilt but remains a damaging feature; the side (east) elevation should be improved. In any event the resultant form of the building is not one generally associated with an oast.I acknowledge that there are elements of the application that would, if permitted, improve the appearance of the building, However on balance policies intended to safeguard the appearance and character of the AONB and such buildings within it should in my view prevail. The effect of the proposal would be to change the form of the building and to increase its effect upon the landscape.

10

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The site lies within the High Weald AONB where Policies EN1, EN2 and EN3 of

the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 (v) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) indicate that development will be carefully controlled to protect the character of the area. It is considered that the proposal does not meet this objective and it would have a harmful effect on the character of the area.

2. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not adversely affect the character or appearance of the oasthouse as required by Policy HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2003/3359/P BATTLE IVY COTTAGE, BATTLE HILL03 DEC 2003 PROPOSED TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO SIDE TO FORM

CAR PARKING WITH BEDROOM ENSUITE TO FIRST FLOORMr M Manktelow

SITE Ivy Cottage is a white rendered and painted roadside detached house at the foot of Battle Hill adjacent to the railway. The property is not Listed and it lies outside of the Conservation Area.

HISTORYRR/92/1710/P New access with off road parking - Approved Conditional

PROPOSAL An extension is proposed on the southern end of the building over the existing parking area comprising a bedroom with ensuite above a covered parking area open front and back. The submitted plan also indicates a single storey rear addition (2m by 2.2m) accessed from the rear garden to provide a bathroom for the disabled. Matching materials are specified.

CONSULTEESTown Council:- “In its current form the Council feels that Ivy Cottage is a pleasant building and is therefore opposed to the proposals which it feels would spoil its character and appearance.”Highway Authority:- Does not wish to restrict the grant of consent.Network Rail:- Request an informative to the applicant drawing attention to their comments.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

COMMENT In principle an extension should be achievable to provide the accommodation that the applicant seeks. However I concur with the Town Council in their design concerns. The submitted design results in an elongated elevation to the detriment of the proportions of the existing property. This is a particular concern with a roadside property so close to the Conservation Area.I have written to the applicant’s agent suggesting that he reconsider the design and submit amended plans. As submitted I shall make the

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposed extension would if permitted be out of character with the building

and detrimental to the appearance of the locality adjacent to the Battle Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to

11

Policies GD1(iv) and (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) and Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

2. The Local Planning Authority has considered the advice contained in PPG15 and has concluded that the design and appearance of the proposed extension would adversely affect the setting of the Battle Conservation Area.

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

TWO DETACHED DWELLINGS SERVED BY NEW VEHICULAR ACCESSMr & Mrs Bond

This application was deferred at the January meeting of the Committee for the submission of amended plans and a site inspection.

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

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

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

– Withdrawn

PROPOSAL This application is for full planning permission for the erection of two detached two storey houses each with detached double garages at the rear served by a shared central access. The houses would be of a 5 bedroomed design of brick with tile hanging to the first floor front elevation under a plain concrete tile roof.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council – Comments awaited.Highway Authority – Comments awaited.Environment Agency – Comments awaited.Southern Water – Comments awaited.Planning Notice – No comments yet received upon amended plans.

SUMMARY The site is within the development boundary as is some land to the north; as a matter of principle residential redevelopment is acceptable in my view. The majority of dwellings in Virgins Lane are detached with a mixture of houses and bungalows. I believe two detached houses to be appropriate for this site and the amended design shows greater respect for the adjacent property owners amenities. The resiting of the double garages to the rear of the site is a significant improvement

12

and in my view the proposal is now acceptable subject to conditions and consultation responses.I expect to make the

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7B (External materials a, b, and c)2. CN10A (Highway Conditions as may be recommended by the Highway

Authority.3. At the time of development and before it is occupied the approved garages shall

be constructed in accordance with the approved plans.Reason RC14

4. CN13F (Tree/shrub planting)5. CN9I (Boundary Walls and Fences)6. The permitted dwellings shall be constructed in accordance with the approved

floor levels unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.(Reason: RC14)

RR/2004/5/P BATTLE DENE HOUSE, MARLEY LANE09 JAN 2004 ERECTION OF BOUNDARY FENCE ALONG FRONTAGE TO

ENHANCE PRIVACY AND SECURITY AND LESSEN TRAFFIC NUISANCE (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Mr and Mrs J Edwards

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

SITE Dene House lies on the north side of Marley Lane at the ‘S’ bends at Rutherfords entrance.

HISTORYNone relevant to this proposal.

PROPOSAL Planning permission is requested retrospectively for the erection of a 1.8m high close boarded fence along roughly 60 metres of the property frontage. A similar fence about 35 metres long has been erected along part of the side boundary with the access track leading to Marley Cottages.An apologetic and explanatory letter from the applicant is attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 February 2004.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council:- “The council objects to these proposals which it feels have a significant impact in this rural area.”Highway Authority:- “As this is a retrospective application it has been necessary to consult with the Local Area High Manager, in respect of any possible encroachment onto the public highway. A full response will be sent following receipt of their comments in due course.”Planning Notice:- 1 letter of objection (The Bowlings) - i) an eye-sore; ii) out of character with AONB; iii) if permitted to remain it should be stained dark green.

SUMMARY The property is in a prominent and rural location and in my view illustrates how damaging 1.8m solid timber fencing can be to the natural appearance of the countryside. Members will inspect the site and note that on the roadside of the fence a

13

small area of both new planting and retained hedging is in place. If the fence is to be retained I believe it should be stained dark green and further planting undertaken in front of the fence. However, as submitted and currently erected I shall make the

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

Policies S1, EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 indicate that development will be carefully controlled to protect the character and quality of the area. It is considered that the fence is urban in character and presents a visually ‘hard-edge’ to the land. The development does not preserve the natural beauty of the landscape. The proposal to introduce planting has been noted, however it is not considered that this would make the development acceptable in terms of its impact on the visual amenities of the rural area.

RR/2003/2651/P BEXHILL 38 LITTLE COMMON ROAD15 SEP 2003 WIDENING OF THE SOUTHERN END OF THE PRIVATE

ACCESS ROAD TO ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING CROSSOVER AND DROPPED KERB TO LITTLE COMMON ROADMr and Mrs P Dryden

This application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 9 October 2003. It was resolved that authority be delegated to the Head of Planning to grant planning permission subject to conditions; no adverse observations being received during the remainder of the consultation period; and the views of the Highways Agency.

SITE This is an existing right of way (public footpath), which is also used by vehicles gaining access to other nearby residential properties off Little Common Road, A259.

HISTORYB/64/467/P Outline: Application for bungalow on land south of Hurchington

bungalow – Refused.RR/2003/1034/P Outline: Demolish existing bungalow, erect two storey detached

single storey bungalows and alter existing access – Refused.

PROPOSAL The proposed development consists of increasing the width of this track by cutting back the bank on the east and west sides for a distance of 10m from the public footpath. Also, a new stepped retaining wall up to 750mm high from ground level would be constructed along the west side of the bank.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- Highways Agency shall be consultedHighways Agency:- Revised proposals shown on drawing no. 1057/01a are acceptable; any consent granted should include a condition that the works should be in accordance with this drawing. Fish eye mirror referred to is not on plan; it should not be on or adjacent to highway land.East Sussex County Council:- No objection – If public footpath is in any way likely to be affected during construction, ESCC should be contactedThe Ramblers Association:- Any comments will be reportedPlanning Notice:- 6 letters of objection: Has affected public right of way

14

Widening lane for traffic will be a danger to walkers May affect adjacent fence and necessitate a retaining wall Contrary to policies of Local Plan What is application intending to achieve This would allow more traffic up the lane – increased highway hazards Public Footpath signs should be re-displayed Why no retaining wall for no. 40

SUMMARY Some initial work has commenced on this development. From the information provided, I take the view that the proposed development is unlikely to have an adverse affect on the character of the area or on neighbouring amenities. I cannot see any planning reason to withhold grant of consent. Since receiving the comments of the Highway Agency, as above, I now take the view that the development is acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) 1. Details of the type, and colour of facing bricks for the new retaining wall shall be

submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority within 1 month from the date of this permission and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: RC14.

2. The development hereby approved shall be constructed precisely in accordance with drawing no. 1057/01A date stamped 06.01.04. Reason: RC14 and in the interests of highway safety.

3. In the event that it is necessary to install a fish eye mirror on the lane subject of this application full details of the siting of the mirror shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and any such mirror shall be sited in accordance with the approved details. Reason: RC14

Note:(i) The applicant’s attention is drawn to the letter from Director of Transport &

Environment – Rights of Way officer dated 22 September 2003 and the letter from the Highway Agency dated 22 January 2004.

(ii) N6A

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

PROPERTY TO CREATE ROOMS IN THE ROOFMr K D Booker

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

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

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

garages and combined vehicular access – approved conditional.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to raise the existing height of the roof eves and to insert two side dormer windows to create rooms in the roof. 

15

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice – No representations received.

SUMMARY Members inspected the site prior to the last Planning Committee and authority was delegated to the Head of Planning to refuse planning permission unless satisfactory amended plans were received. Preliminary plans have been received which propose a roof design that is more sympathetic to the locality, which raises the existing height of the eves by approximately 1m, with new roof, with two dormer windows inserted in the side of the roof to accommodate the stairs and a bathroom. The increase in height and addition of new windows will not have an increased adverse affect on the residential amenities of the adjoining dwellings No 132 and 134a Ninfield Road. The dwelling to the rear of the site in Watermill Close is built on a higher level and has a 3m high hedge on its boundary, therefore I do not consider that their amenities will be adversely affected. This suggested amendments appear an acceptable design and size for the locality therefore I could support this proposal subject to the receipt of full amended plan. The applicant has suggested a garage in the front garden which in my view is not acceptable.

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO RECEIVING ACCURATE PLANS/DELETION OF FREESTANDING GARAGE)1. CN7C (Matching external materials)2. CN5Ea (Restriction of alterations/additions)

RR/2003/3425/P BEXHILL 20 ELLERSLIE LANE, BISHOPSWELL17 SEP 2003 OUTLINE: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOUSE AND

OUTBUILDING, ERECTION OF 2 NO. FOUR BEDROOM HOUSES WITH INTEGRAL GARAGES INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW PRIVATE ROAD AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESSMr and Mrs L Denman

The Planning Committee inspected this site, when considering the previously refused application on this site, RR/2003/2695/P.

SITE This is a detached dwelling house located on the east side of Ellerslie Lane. The mature trees along the road frontage of this site are now the subjects of a Tree Preservation Order.

HISTORYB/59/287 Outline: Residential development - Refused.B/67/507 Roads and sewers - Approved.B/68/599 Formation of six building plots - Approved Conditional.RR/2003/2695/P Outline: demolition of existing house and outbuilding, erection of

three 3/4 bedroom houses with integral garages including formation of a new vehicular access and construction of a new private road - Refused

16

PROPOSAL This is a revised application following the refusal of RR/2003/2695/P, above. The submitted drawing illustrates the 2 dwellings again divided into approximately equal plot sizes; siting is one of the matters reserved for subsequent approval. The illustrative drawing also shows vehicular access into the formation of a new vehicular access off Ellerslie Lane.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- Any comments will be reportedSouthern Water:- No comments to make on this applicationEnvironment Agency:- No objections in principle but recommends conditions and informative notes if approvedPlanning Notice:- 3 letters of objection: Siting of dwellings should respect the adjoining dwellings Any new dwellings should be in keeping and character with surrounding

dwellings If approved, no windows on the north elevation Entrance to site needs careful planning Construction work should be carried out with the minimum disturbance to

neighbouring amenities

SUMMARY This application will be considered against the relevant development plan policies, and in particular policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). As a revised scheme, I consider the proposed use of the existing vehicular access to be acceptable, as it is unlikely to adversely affect the TPO frontage trees. Also, I take the view that the reduction from 3 to 2 dwellings would result in a less cramped form of development, and less impact on the adjoining properties either side. I now consider this scheme to be acceptable in principle.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING)1. The siting of the dwellings as shown on the approved plan is not approved.

Reason: RC14 and for the avoidance of doubt.

RR/2003/3442/P BEXHILL GREYSTUD, WHYDOWN ROAD12 DEC 2003 INSTALLATION OF FLOODLIGHTING AROUND OUTDOOR

ARENAMrs Wendy Staples

I have added this application to the Committee Site Inspection list.

SITE Greystud is an approved non DIY livery of which the riding arena is a part. The arena is located on the north west side of the site, opposite the domestic parking area. The area is constructed on a ‘cut and fill’ basis in the hill on which it is sited.

HISTORY (relevant)RR/2001/1829/P Construction of riding arena comprising of a stonebase, land drains

and equestrian sand and rubber mix surface with medium soft wood post and rail fence - Approved Conditional

RR/2002/1691/P Use of stables, hay barn and arena without complying with conditions to restrict to private use only. Replacement of field shelter, stationing of caravan - Approved Conditional.

17

PROPOSAL The proposed development is for the erection of 6 x 6m poles, fixed at the arena level, around the arena. The applicant has provided the following details of the development: “Further to my previous letter and our telephone conversation, please find below further details as discussed.Mounting Height - the recommendations for mounting height for this type of lighting installation is 10m however due to the location of the site and its exposed location, the nature of the type of exercise that the horses are to undertake, i.e. not competition, it was decided to lower the lighting levels required and therefore allow a lower mounting height. The lighting cannot be any lower than the proposed 6m for the following reasons.1. The lighting needs to be fairly uniform across the site to prevent shadowing and

stripes across the area. This would unnerve the horses and cause erratic behaviour.

2. A lower mounting height would cause the lighting to be in direct line of sight of the rider causing discomfort glare and creating a hazardous situation for rider and horse.

Level of Lighting - the level of lighting chosen is greatly reduced from that recommended by CIBSE guidance for lighting of sand schools, it was decided to vary the lighting as this area is not to be used for competition and the lighting is not competing with any adjacent light source, therefore any lighting installed will be brighter by comparison.Spill Lighting - the Troika Floodlight that has been specified is the latest in a generation of floodlighting units designed specifically to light sports arenas; with control of the light source the unit uses very high quality optics and if required a spill shield or “lux guillotine” can be fitted to cut off all light at the edge of the arena. This would be done after the lighting installed and commissioned.Sky Glow - sky glow is caused by light being emitted above the horizontal by the fitting or light reflected back from the lit surface. As the troika fitting is a flat glass projector this will not be the cause of any sky glow and the lighting has been designed to a lower level therefore there will be little light reflected back from the surface.Obtrusive Light/Glare - this is mainly caused by being able to view the lamp and the light being emitted by the fitting. As the troika is a flat glass floodlight this situation will not occur unless stood below the fitting looking up.”In further support and clarification, the supplier of the proposed lighting has provided the following information: (please type as highlighted on attached letter from Thorn)

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice:- Any comments will be reported.

SUMMARY The site is within a countryside location and the introduction of floodlighting is therefore a very sensitive issue. The applicant’s agents have provided documentation to show that the impact of the lighting will be minimised by the measures indicated in the letter above. However I consider that the introduction of lighting on this scale for a private facility in the countryside will on balance be detrimental to the rural character of the area.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The site lies within the countryside, where Policies S1 and EN14 of the East

Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) indicate that development will be controlled to protect the rural character of the area. It is

18

considered that the proposal does not meet this objective and would have a harmful effect by the introduction of light pollution detrimental to the character of the area.

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

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

This application was inspected by the Planning Committee on Tuesday, 20 January 2004. The application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on Thursday, 22 January 2004 when it was resolved that a decision be deferred for further negotiations regarding the existing mature cedar tree and the number of plots on this site.

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

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

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

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- No objection, subject to agreement on access and on site parking in accordance with the County Councils adopted standards at detail stage.Estates and Valuation Officer:- The proposed arrangement for vehicular access to Plots 1 and 2 is difficult. The land in front of (i.e. to the east of) Plot No. 2 and part of the land in front of Plot No. 1 is held by the Council under the 99 year lease of Gillham Wood. Any vehicular access through the leased area would require the consent of both the freeholder and the Council in its capacity as owner of the long leasehold interest, and would contravene an existing lease covenant.Planning Notice:- Sussex Wildlife Trust – No adverse affect from bungalows Concern as to whether any new vehicular access would adversely affect the

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

9 letters of objection from ‘Tanglewood and No.12 Gillham Wood Avenue; 37, 39, 41 Kewhurst Avenue; 6, 12, 14, 15 Gillham Wood Road:

Over dominant and intrusive on rear of my property Outlook and aspect from living room will be spoilt Would cause loss of privacy Would de value property Back land development

19

Would blight other properties in the location Cause difficulties for access for emergency vehicles Development would adversely affect wildlife Emergency vehicles may have to gain access through the wood causing

damage Development will overshadow tennis court at the end of 14 Gillham Wood Road. Loss of outlook and aspect This plot should not be developed as it will spoil the natural surroundings of the

woodland. Increased traffic will adversely affect neighbouring amenities Proposed access not sufficient enough for emergency vehicles Will lead to increased parking on the road

Danger to pedestrians Out of character Will lead to surface water disposal problems/flooding

SUMMARY In considering this application, regard needs to be had to the refusal of planning permission for a single dwelling on this land under RR/83/0988. This application was refused on the grounds that the development would have extended the built up nature of Gillham Wood Avenue into Gillham Wood; and that it would have set an undesirable precedent for similar development of the land opposite.However, taking into account the current advice in PPG3, the main issues with this application are: What affect the development would have on a mature tree within the site. Clarification with regard to the vehicular access Whether the site is suitable for one or two dwellingsThe Agent has submitted a site plan at 1:500 scale, which clarifies site access details. I have since received detailed comments regarding the mature tree and consider it is worthy of retention. In my view the erection of a single bungalow on the site could be supported, provided it is sited to allow the future growth potential of the existing tree.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO THE APPLICATION BEING AMENDED TO A SINGLE DWELLING ON A SINGLE PLOT)1. No trees shall be wilfully damaged or destroyed or uprooted, felled, lopped or

topped without the previous written consent of the Local Planning Authority within 5 years of the completion of the permitted development. Any trees removed without such consent or dying or being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased before the end of that period shall be replaced with trees of such size and species as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the locality and to accord with Policies S1, S5 and S6 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991 - 2011.

2. The dwelling hereby permitted shall be single storey only, and notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting this order), no balconies, dormer windows or other accommodation shall be provided at first floor level.Reason: To ensure appropriate development of the site and prevent overlooking of neighbours and to accord with the requirements of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003)

20

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

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

5. All existing trees on site which are to be retained shall be protected by the erection of fencing during the course of building works to accord with BS 5837 and no storage of building materials or operational development shall take place therein.Reason: To protect and prevent damage to as large an area of the adjacent trees as possible and to accord with the requirements of policies S1, EN2 and of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and Policies ST1, CNE3 and CNE4 of the Initial Deposit of the Rother District Local Plan.

RR/2003/3540/P BEXHILL GATELANDS DRIVE – LAND OFF6 JAN 2004 ERECTION OF PROPOSED CHALET BUNGALOW WITH

GARAGE INCLUDING FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS.K McGuiness Esq

SITE The irregularly shaped site adjoins the southern boundary of Gatelands Drive, the eastern boundary of 7 Gatelands Drive and the northern boundary of Link Cottage and part of the Land owned by the school. The site contains trees which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order.

HISTORYRR/86/0369 Outline: Residential development of eight dwellings with

garages/parking spaces served by new road from Gatelands Drive - Approved

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to erect a chalet bungalow with garage including the formation of a new vehicular access.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority – Do not wish to restrict the grant of consent.Southern Water – Do not wish to comment.Planning Notice – Two letters of objection have been received raising concern regarding potential overlooking, loss of light, impact upon trees/ habitat, badger foraging area.

21

SUMMARY The proposed dwelling is set within the largest part of the site, currently a substantial lawned area, while the garage and drive are set within an area containing preserved trees. The proposed development will require the felling of preserved trees which are clearly visible from the public viewpoint, despite the claim by the agent that no trees will be felled. The proposed design would not be sympathetic to the neighbouring dwelling (number 7) in terms of scale. The main concerns raised as a result of this proposed development are the relationship between the proposed dwelling and the neighbouring properties and the potential loss of trees. The existing dwelling (Link Cottage), to the south of the site, has five windows fronting onto the site which will be unduly affected in terms of overlooking and the dwelling being overbearing. It is considered there is little opportunity to safeguard the amenity of the occupiers of Link Cottage, due to the north elevation of the property forming part of the boundary line. The site formed part of the Gatelands Drive development (approved in 1986) and was to be landscaped open area for general amenity. In view of the fact over time the plot has been enclosed and retained within the curtilage of Woodgate Place, the site may have the potential for residential development, though not in isolation. It is considered the overall negative impact the proposed chalet bungalow would have upon the neighbouring dwellings, streetscene and preserved trees is unacceptable and as such I am unable to support the application.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The development of the site in the manner proposed would be detrimental to the

amenities of neighbouring residential properties and as such the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

2. The proposed development by reason of its siting would result in the loss of trees which are the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. The loss of these trees is considered unacceptable because of the harmful impact upon the visual amenity and character of the area. The proposal conflicts with Policy GD1(vi) contained within the Rother District Revised Deposit Local Plan, 2003 and Policy EN1 contained within the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan,1991-2011.

RR/2003/3541/P BEXHILL WOODGATE LODGE - LAND ADJOINING, 12 DEC 2003 GUNTERS LANE

ERECTION OF CHALET BUNGALOW WITH GARAGE INCLUDING FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESSMr K McGuinness

SITE The site adjoins the southern boundary of 14 and 14a Gunters Lane, the eastern boundary of Woodgate Lodge and the western boundary of 40 Gatelands Drive. This site (formerly part of Woodgate Place) is set back from Gunters Lane some 23m. The site contains trees which are subject to a Tree Preservation Order.

HISTORYRR/93/0574/P Outline: Erection of a bungalow and garage served by improved

access arrangements – Approved.

22

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to erect a chalet bungalow with garage including the formation of a new vehicular access.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- Recommends consent be refused as the proposal would result in intensification of use of the existing access to a narrow and poorly aligned section of Gunters Lane, where visibility is substandard and existing hazards would be increased by the additional slowing, stopping and turning traffic which would be created.Southern Water:- Do not wish to comment on this application.Planning Notice:- No comments received to date.

SUMMARY The site has been subject of a previous application for the erection of a bungalow and garage with vehicular access. The site measures some 0.04ha and indicates the site accessed from the driveway to the school. It is considered that whilst the residential development of this particular site is acceptable, the main concerns are the access arrangement on to the school drive and Gunters Lane. The previous application showed the access to this plot provided off Old Farm Road and not the drive to the school. In light of no notable change occurring in the immediate vicinity of the plot, since the previous application was approved, it is considered the access to the plot should be made Old Farm Road. Potential overlooking from the first floor side windows can be dealt with by way of a restrictive condition. The mass and bulk of the proposed building is considered acceptable in terms of its relationship to the neighbouring buildings. The agent has confirmed no trees will be felled as a result of this proposal. However, the trees are subject to a Tree Preservation Order and as such information will be required as to their protection during and after construction.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO AN AMENDED PLAN FOR SITE ACCESS OFF OLD FARM ROAD)1. CN10D (Vehicular access restriction) - insert ‘Old Farm Road’.2. Development shall not begin until details of the proposed access to the site have

been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the dwelling shall not be occupied until the access has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

3. CN5D (Obscure glaze windows) – insert ‘at first floor level within the flank walls’. 4. CN13C (Tree retention).5. CN13K (Tree Protection).6. Development shall not begin until a full tree survey has been carried out on all

preserved trees within the site in accordance with BS 5837.Reason: To ensure satisfactory development of the site.

7. CN13H (Amenity open space) – no fences.8. CN9 I (Walling/fencing – Non estate development) – insert: (a) ‘dwelling’.9. Prior to occupation of the bungalow hereby permitted a fence shall be erected

along the southern boundary of the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and there shall be no pedestrian or vehicular access to the land from Woodgate Place. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site.

23

RR/2004/31/P BEXHILL ROCKHOUSE BANK FARM, NORMANS BAY08 JAN 2004 RELOCATION OF ANIMAL SHELTER AND FEED STORE AND

BRICK PAVED ACCESS DRIVE (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Mr P Snowball

SITE Rockhouse Bank Farm is a relatively recent replacement dwelling located to the north of Normans Bay on the Hooe Level which forms part of an SSSI and Ramsar site. The site fronts the northern side of the unclassified road (7106) that links Cooden with Pevensey.

HISTORY (relevant)RR/2002/2594/P Construction of animal shelter and feed store - refused on the

grounds (briefly) - not demonstrated that the building is reasonably necessary for agriculture within the unit and contrary to countryside protection policies.

RR/2003/1886/P Erection of animal shelter and feed store - Approved.

PROPOSAL The application is a revised re-submission of application RR/2003/1886/P above. The development has been carried out but not in accordance with the approved plan (amended plan - drawing no. 02-020-2A date stamped 28 August 2003). The building has been erected in the position shown on the originally submitted plan (37m back from the existing buildings) and not in the approved position (9m from the back of the buildings). A letter from the Agent provided with this application includes the following explanation:-“The previous planning permission granted for the barn RR/2003/1886/P was the subject of negotiations in respect of the siting of the barn and, due to a clerical error, the barn was erected in accordance with one of nos. 3 drawings prepared for it, but not the approved location. Our client proceeded in good faith, particularly as he was mindful that the barn housing farm livestock should not be too close to habitable dwellings. You will recall that the outbuildings were granted planning permission for human occupation on appeal in May 2003.We explained to our client that it was not your policy to issue stamped approved drawings with planning permissions and, although the decision notice refers to an amendment, it also refers to ‘located at the rear of the buildings’, and that contributed to some extent to the confusion.You will observe that we have included the access driveway to the building within this application, and we do sincerely trust that you will be able to favourably accept the proposal in order that the building as constructed can remain in this location, and that will avoid the problem of close proximity between animals and humans on the site.”The details of the size, design and external appearance of the building (15m x 6m x 2.4m to eaves, 5.5m to ridge) put forward in this revised application are the same as that previously approved under RR/2003/1886/P. As stated in the Agents’ supporting letter, this revised application also seeks planning permission for an access driveway to the building from the front part of the site.

CONSULTATIONSEnvironment Agency:- No objection in principle.English Nature:- No objection in principle. The letter includes the following comments:-“As mentioned in previous correspondence as this application is for permission to erect a structure, English Nature would expect to consent the stocking levels through specific

24

liaison with the landowner, Mr Snowball (as required under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).Again as mentioned in previous comments on this application, the main principle of erecting a shelter on the Pevensey Levels is most likely to be a landscape issue. English Nature’s role is to provide advice on the impacts of proposals on nature conservation.We would add however that development proposals such as this within designated sites should be of a size strictly limited to the exact requirements of the development, and not exceed this.”Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY The previous application (RR/2003/1886/P) was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 14 August 2003. It was resolved that authority be delegated to the Planning Officer to grant planning permission, subject to conditions and to consideration of amended plans showing revisions to the siting of the proposed building. The building is a rather large and stark structure and Members considered that in the elevated position shown on the original plan it would appear both isolated and prominent in the countryside. The Committee requested an amended plan showing the structure re-sited closer to the existing farmhouse and so that the development ‘reads’ as being part of the traditional farm complex comprising farmhouse and outbuildings. Planning permission was granted on the basis of the amended plan. Whilst Members should consider this new application on its individual planning merits, unless you are persuaded that, after all, the site chosen by the applicant has resulted in no significant harm to the landscape and the argument put forward by the Agent (separating the livestock from the residential accommodation) carries sufficient weight, a refusal of planning permission would be justified. The application is also for a new driveway that has been created. This has been constructed from new brick pavers and extends from the forecourt of the dwelling, 70 metres or so, to the aforementioned barn. I am not satisfied that this is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within the holding and moreover, the choice of materials (brick pavers - comprising a red section and yellow section) are very suburban in character and out of keeping with the rural area.Finally, on a separate matter, I am aware that the building that has been erected on the site does not accord with the approved plan. There is particular concern that the building has not been designed for agricultural purposes. Alterations include: the building has been built with an internal stair and a first floor within the roof space (containing plaster board walls and a Velux roof light), power points and lighting on the ground floor and first floor, the eaves level of the building has been increased in height and the whole of the ground floor incorporates an inner skin of blockwork walls.No livestock/animals are evident on site. In the event that Members are minded to refuse planning permission, the matter would be passed to the planning enforcement section for further investigations.

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The site is within the countryside, outside any town or village Development

Boundary indicated on the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). Whilst the Local Planning Authority has no objection to the agricultural development in principle, as demonstrated by the granting of planning permission RR/2003/1886/P, the re-siting of the building in a location other than that previously approved, has resulted in a form of development that is isolated from the existing complex of buildings and visually prominent in the landscape. The development has resulted in harm to the character and

25

appearance of the countryside and is contrary to Policies S1(a) and (f) and E1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies DS1(vi) and (ix), and GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

2. It has not been demonstrated that the access driveway that has been constructed is reasonably necessary for the purposes of agricultural within the holding and as such, constitutes unnecessary development in the countryside. The materials used and the resultant appearance of the track is very domestic and suburban in character and out of keeping within the rural area. The development has resulted in harm to the character and appearance of the countryside and is contrary to Policies S1(a) and (f) and E1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies DS1(vi) and (ix), and GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2004/50/P BEXHILL 8-10 LONDON ROAD – LAND AT20 JAN 2004 OUTLINE: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND

ERECTION OF 16 APARTMENTS AND FLATS WITH CAR PARKING AND ACCESS ROAD INCLUDING FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESSThe Lawrence and Bungay Partnership

SITE This irregular shaped site fronts the east side of London Road and adjoins the northern boundary of the British Legion Club. The site is currently occupied by two Edwardian period buildings currently used as offices. A central drive between the buildings provides access to a car parking area at the rear. The site includes a small area of land at the rear currently belonging to the Council.

HISTORYRR/77/0780 (No. 10) Change of use from part residential and part office use to

wholly office use – Deemed grantedRR/82/1912 (No. 8 & Application in principle for change of use from residential Part 10) to office use and use of rear garden for car parking –

Deemed grantedRR/1999/953/P (No. 10) Change of use to A2 use – Approved

PROPOSAL The application is accompanied by a layout plan showing a single frontage building with central archway to a parking area at the rear. Also submitted for guidance are steet scene sketches. These show the outline of the proposed buildings sharing a similar height to those opposite and adjoining the north side of the site. Parking provision would be at a ratio of 1 car space per unit. The density of the proposed development would be 133 dwellings per hectare. This is well above the minimum 30-50 dwellings per hectare recommended by the Government in PPG3. A supporting statement from the Agent CCM dated 3 February 2004 is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this meeting 19 February 2004.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority – No objection subject to agreement on access and turning at detail stage.Environment Agency – Comments awaited.

26

Southern Water Services – There are no objections to disposal of foul water to the main sewer. The Council’s Building Control officers or engineers should be satisfied with the proposal to discharge surface water to soakaways.Director of Services – Estates – Has no objection.Director of Services – Environmental Health – Comments awaited.Director of Services – Housing – The Strategic Housing service would require a minimum of 40% affordable homes (6 flats).Director of Services – Regeneration – Comments awaited.Planning Notice – Comments awaited.

SUMMARY With regard to the proposed development itself, I consider it feasible to erect a block of flats in the form indicated on the submitted indicative plans. Furthermore, the Applicants have agreed to enter into a Section 106 Obligation to secure the provision of an element of affordable housing. An issue in this case would be the loss of office accommodation.The site falls within the Office Area shown on the Bexhill Town Centre map contained in the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) where the following applies:“Policy BX6 Within Bexhill Town Centre, in the Office Area as shown on the Proposals Map, favourable consideration will be given to Class A2(a) and (b) and Class B1 (a) uses on all floors and to appropriate redevelopment proposals for such uses, subject to the other policies of this Plan.The loss of office uses, through conversion or redevelopment, will only be permitted where it is demonstrated that there is no prospect of a continued use”.The following extract from the supporting statement summarises the applicant’s case:“Clearly, there is balance between the use of 8 and 10 London Road as commercial offices and the redevelopment of the site for residential use including the provision of social housing. I believe it is the case that there is no realistic possibility of this site providing long term commercial offices, bearing in mind the physical condition and internal arrangements of the buildings; the fact that only one building has ever been in commercial use; the expected reduction in the number of users; the rise in electronic home working and the unrealistic expectation of a new commercial office building on this site. On the other hand the residential redevelopment of this site will provide small housing units for first time buyers and an element of much needed affordable housing for Bexhill”.Having regard to the supporting information I take the view that there appears little possibility of the buildings providing long term office potential and on balance can support residential redevelopment.

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING)1. CN13A (Landscaping scheme)2. CN13B (Implementation of landscaping scheme)3, CN9D amended ‘The detailed plans shall provide for a minimum of 1 car space

per unit and such car parking provision…’ (Car parking provision – flats).4. CN9I Amended by deleting ‘Before any development takes place’ and inserting

‘before the flats are first occupied’ (Walling/fencing)N12A Section 106 Obligation – Affordable Housing)

27

RR/2004/52/P BEXHILL FOURWAYS, NINFIELD ROAD12 Jan 2004 OUTLINE: ERECTION OF A TWO BEDROOM BUNGALOW AND

A THREE BEDROOM HOUSE AND THE CONVERSION OF FOURWAYS INTO TWO SEMI-DETACHED TWO BEDROOM COTTAGES WITH ANCILLARY GARAGING. CLOSURE OF EXISTING AND FORMATION OF NEW ACCESS ONTO NINFIELD ROADMr D Bennet

This application has been included on the Site Inspection List.

SITE This site is located on the north west corner of the junction of St Mary’s Lane and Ninfield Road; it is also opposite Freezeland Lane east of the site. It is located near to the south-eastern end of the residential Estate, Thorne Crescent. While the site was shown as being within the development boundary of the ‘The Thorne’ in the Initial Deposit Rother District Local Plan; this part of the development boundary has been removed in the revised Inset Map No.1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). The site is therefore now a countryside location for Local Plan purposes. Many mature and semi-mature trees surround the site. The site falls from northeast to southwest.

HISTORYRR/83/1045 Extension to form study – Approved conditionalRR/85/0060 Outline: Erect detached dwelling/garage served by existing

vehicular access – Appeal Allowed (Appended)RR/2003/2213/P Outline: Erection of detached single storey dwelling and alteration

to existing access - Withdrawn

PROPOSAL The proposed development consists of the conversion of the existing detached dwelling ‘Fourways’, into to two 2 bed semi-detached cottages. Also, it is proposed to erect a two-bed bungalow in the northern corner of the site, and a three-bed house in the southwest corner. The existing vehicular access to the site would be closed up, and a new access to the site would be formed via a new access off Ninfield Road at the northwest corner of the site. The illustrative drawing shows visibility splays for the new access, new planting/landscaping, and existing trees. The agent has submitted substantial supporting documentation, including a tree survey. See APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 February 2004.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: “There is no objection in principle to this outline planning application. However, the Highway Authority would wish for the following requirements to be satisfactorily met at any detailed stage.Places Streets and Movement published in September 1998 recommends appropriate visibility splays for an access serving this type of development dependant on traffic speeds on the major road. In this instance the recommended visibility splays are 2.4m x 90m in both directions. The sight line should be measured tangentially along the nearside channel line of the major road. The complete area enclosed by the visibility splay must be formed of grass or hard surface and allow unobstructed visibility at a height of 600,m above carriageway level. The Highway Authority is concerned that the required visibility splay to the north-west falls within land that is not under the control of the applicant and therefore does not appear to be achievable.

28

The County Council has identified a highway safety improvement at the junction of St Mary’s Lane and Ninfield Road (A269). The identified improvement requires land presently in the Applicants control to be formed as public highway. As a contribution towards the identified junction improvement, the Highway Authority wishes for the land forming the required visibility splays to be dedicated as highway.The Highway Authority wishes for the existing access to be closed off as indicated on the submitted plan, drawing no. 483.01.B and the kerb and verge reinstated in accordance with details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.The maximum number of on-site parking spaces this development proposal attracts is 9 on accordance with the East Sussex County Council’s adopted parking standards.The Highway Authority wishes to see the road within the site that is not offered for adoption laid out and constructed to standards at, or at least close to adoptable standards. The Highway Authority therefore requires a turning area in accordance with the details set out in Figure 6 of the Manual for Estate Road (MFER) to be provided.The Highway Authority wishes to be re-consulted on this application following the applicant’s response to the following comments”.Southern Water: “Foul SewerageSouthern Water would have no objection to the discharge of foul sewerage from the development to the public foul sewer.Surface water disposalThe Applicant states that surface water disposal would be by means of the existing system. It is known how the existing premises drains surface water. (There may be a separate surface water system draining to a watercourse or there may be soakaways).There are no public surface water sewers in the vicinity of this site. No surface water should be discharged to the public foul sewer.Surface water from all new development will need to discharge to soakaways of effective at this location or to a local land drainage watercourse. Your Council’s own technical staff should comment on the effectiveness of soakaways and the adequacy of the local land drainage system.I should be grateful if any full planning permission granted could be made subject to a planning condition requiring that development shall not commence until details of the proposed means of foul and surface eater disposal have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water Services”.Environment Agency: - “The Agency has no objections, in principle to the proposed development but recommends that if planning permission is granted the following planning conditions are imposed:Planning ConditionsPrior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through trapped gullies to BS 5911:1982 with an overall capacity compatible with the site being drained.Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.General InformativesAll surface water from roofs shall be piped direct to an approved surface water system using sealed down pipes. Open gullies should not be used.Care should be taken during site works to ensure that all fuels, lubrication 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 applicant has been sent a form, which they can use to request pollution prevention information from the Agency.

29

In order for the Agency to monitor its effectiveness in influencing the determination of planning applications, a copy of the decision notice for this application would be appreciated”. Planning Notice: 9 letters of objection

Will cause traffic hazards Dangerous road conditions will be exacerbated Outside development boundary Adverse impact on ‘High Spinney’: loss of privacy, loss of light, overshadowing,

will adversely affect Human Rights. Photos of site, accident reports available. Will cause problems to existing drainage

1 letter of support for proposal for improved highway safety measures

SUMMARY I have taken account of the supporting documentation of the agent, and the concerns raised in the above objections. I take the view that notwithstanding the years that this site was included within the development boundary of The Thorne, the site is now outside the development boundary, as given above. The relevant and current plan is the ‘Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003)’. I have taken account of the allowed appeal under RR/85/0060 (now ‘High Spinney’ adjoining the north side of the site), when this site was again outside the Development boundary of Bexhill. However, not withstanding the allowing of this single detached dwelling, I take the view that this site maintains a rural presence in this countryside location with farmland, woodland and open fields around most of the site. The proposed development would introduce a small but distinct urbanisation, out of character with this exiting single countryside house, and out of character with its immediate surroundings of single detached houses, and farm buildings. Such development is likely to set an undesirable precedent for further similar development in the locality. Members will be able to more fully consider this application upon their inspection of the site. However, I cannot support this application and anticipate making the following:

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING)1. The site is within the countryside outside Bexhill Development Boundary as

defined in the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). Policies S1, S10 and S11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and HG10, DS3 and DS4 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) contain a strong presumption against residential development unless it meets one of the exceptions described in the plans. The proposed dwellings are not required for the needs of agriculture or forestry and it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that it is essential for the running of an enterprise upon which there is clear evidence of a firm intention and ability to develop that has been planned on a sound financial basis. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to these policies.

2. The proposed development will introduce a form and degree of urbanisation into this countryside setting which would be out of character with and detrimental to the rural nature of this site and its surroundings. Such development is likely to set an undesirable precedent for further similar development in the vicinity. This would be in conflict with policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 and DS3 and DS4 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

30

RR/2004/54/P BEXHILL 54 COLLINGTON LANE WEST - LAND AT12 JAN 2004 OUTLINE: ERECTION OF DETACHED DWELLING AND

GARAGEMr L Harmer

SITE The application site forms part of the vehicular drive and side garden land of the semi-detached chalet bungalow. The site is on the north side of Collington Lane West, and backs onto the rear gardens of The Mead.

HISTORY B/55/475 Outline: To erect a dwelling house - ApprovedB/72/1486 2 detached bungalows on site and rear garden land - RefusedB/72/1487 Detached bungalow on land comprising part of the rear garden -

RefusedRR/92/1628 Outline: Erection of detached bungalow and garage - Refused - Appeal

DismissedRR/97/1204/P Outline: Erection of detached bungalow and garage – RefusedRR/97/2343/P Outline: Demolish garage. erection of new garage, and bungalow

with integral garage and alteration to access – Refused

PROPOSAL The agent has submitted the following supporting comments regarding this application.“You will see that the rear garden area is extensive and it is proposed to site a new dwelling to the rear, in common with other similar previous developments nearby.In particular, No.50 has been similarly sited along with the nearby Lakelands Drive development.I would also like to point out the recent approval (granted on appeal) for 45 Cranston Avenue, Bexhill. This is in a very similar situation and the Inspector comments on previous nearby developments which have set a precedent, see paragraphs 5, 6 & 10 in particular of the Appeal Decision (a copy of which is enclosed).In view of this I trust that the planning committee will feel able to approve the proposal as the precedent has clearly been set.”An illustrative drawing shows the new dwelling sited opposite ‘Copthall’ adjoining the western boundary of the site. Also, a new detached double garage forward of the proposed dwelling, and a new single garage for no.54. Access to the site would be via the existing shared access and up a new drive to be formed.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority: “The Highway Authority does not wish to restrict grant of Consent subject to the observations below:Subject to agreement on access and the provision of adequate on site parking and turning space at any detail stage.”Planning Notice: 5 letters of objection: Previous applications refused for my father, if this is approved if this is approved

then it would be unfair and unjust. Reasons for refusal of past applications remain Appeal inspectors comment have not been overcome A badger set at the far end of the site Would cause difficulties for emergency vehicles Dwelling would be unacceptable compared to previous refusals for bungalows Would harm a mature and important tree

31

Back land development Road safety hazards Would cause serious harm to neighbouring residents as given by past appeal

inspector Allowed appeal at 45 Cranston Avenue bears no relation to this site

SUMMARY I have taken account of the supporting information provided by the agent. In refusing Outline planning permission for a bungalow under RR/97/2343/P, it was on the basis of a long and established history of refusals’ for similar development on this site. In dismissing the appeal for RR/92/1629/P in 1993, the Department of the Environment Inspector made the following points:“ I accept that the limitation to a single storey would minimise the extent to which these properties would be overshadowed or overlooked, and I also recognise the existing and proposed fencing and screening could be used to reduce the impact of the proposed bungalow. Nevertheless it would still be visible from adjoining properties, and the occupiers of Treetops in particular, and indeed of the proposed bungalow itself, would be likely to feel hemmed in by development on all sides. I also consider that, because of the proximity of the proposed bungalow, the occupiers of adjoining properties would be likely to be affected by noise and general disturbance to a significant extent. Because of the size and shape of the appeal site, I do not consider that it would be possible to overcome these problems by moving the proposed bungalow to another position.I have concluded that disturbance from the use of this combined access, together with the effects of the proximity of the proposed bungalow to other properties, would be likely to cause serious harm to the living conditions of adjoining residents”.The circumstances surrounding the site have (in the main) remained unchanged. Notwithstanding the differences between the proposed development and the previously refused applications, the principle of developing this site for a residential plot has been consistently refused since 1972. I have considered this development against the relevant development plan policies, and remain of the view that this is unacceptable development that would cause demonstrable harm to neighbouring amenities

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING) 1. The sub-division of the property in the manner proposed is a form piecemeal

development that would be out of character with and detrimental to the existing pattern and layout of development and would result in loss of amenity and privacy on neighbouring residents. It could also set a precedent for similar undesirable development of other properties in the vicinity. Such development would be contrary to the requirements of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011, and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003)

2. The proposed development would be contrary to Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) in that it would result in an undesirable element of backland development without a proper road frontage served by an inadequate means of access; which would not only have a detrimental affect on the amenities of adjoining properties but would also make difficulties so far as services, refuse collection and deliveries are concerned.

32

RR/2004/94/P BEXHILL ST BRIDGETS, ST JOHNS ROAD22 JAN 2004 DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF 24

NEW DWELLINGS WITH CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ROAD AND ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING ACCESSMr H Rafati

SITE This former County Council residential care home site is located on the south east side of St John’s Road. The former buildings are currently being demolished and comprised a substantial two storey frontage building with a long two storey wing extending from the rear. Outline planning permission RR/2002/815/P was granted in April 2003 to redevelop the site with 18 flats and 5 houses. The permission contained several conditions including the following:-“9. The site shall be developed in accordance with the development principles

shown on drawing number 551 02 03 and shall relate to the construction of 5 houses and 18 flats.”

HISTORYRR/95/1369/P Demolition of existing home for the aged and erection of 8 no. 2

bed flats and a 20 place day centre - Approved.RR/2002/815/P O/A Demolition of former home for the elderly and erection of 18

flats and 5 houses - Approved.

PROPOSAL This full planning application differs from the previous outline planning permission in that it proposes 24 dwelling units made up of 19 flats and 5 houses. In other respects the layout and siting of the buildings is almost the same as that shown on the approved outline plan.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- Does not wish to restrict grant of Consent subject to receipt of amended plans and a financial contribution for off-site improvements to bus waiting facilities/or pedestrian facilities in the area.Environment Agency:- Has no objection in principle but recommend conditions to control surface water drainage and type of any infill material in order to prevent flooding and pollution.Southern Water:- Comments awaited.Director of Services – Head of Housing:- Comments awaited.Sussex Police:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY I expect to support the proposal in principle. However the relationship of the existing trees to the development and whether the site can accommodate an additional unit are the issues which need resolving. I am awaiting consultation replies

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD/COMMENTS FROM OUTSTANDING CONSULTEES/AMENDED PLAN AND RECONSULTATION WITH HIGHWAY AUTHORITY)1. CN7G (Schedule of materials).2. CN13A (Landscaping scheme)3. CN13B (Implementation of landscaping scheme)4. CN9H (Walling/fencing - housing estates) amended by deleting “Before any

development takes place.”33

5. No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage works shall be completed in accordance with the details and timetable agreed.Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

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

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

8. Details of construction including finish material, of the proposed parking spaces shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The parking spaces shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.Reason: To ensure that the root systems of existing trees and hedgerows on the site are not harmed by the proposed development and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

9. As recommended by the Highway Authority (e.g. parking provision, access, construction of estates road etc)

RR/2004/180/P BEXHILL 5 THE SHRUBLANDS16 SEP 2003 REVISED PROPOSALS TO ERECT A TWO BEDROOM

EXTENSION APPROVED UNDER RR/2004/180/PMr & Mrs Ullah

The Planning Committee inspected this site when determining the previous refused scheme under RR/2003/2671/P. SITE This is a detached bungalow located on the east side of The Shrublands. It is adjacent to a green amenity area and residential parking area.

HISTORYRR/81/1588 Porch to back door – Approved conditionalRR/83/1047 O/A: Erection of dwelling and garage with vehicular access –

RefusedRR/86/1699 O/A: Erection of bungalow with garage and vehicular access – RR/2003/2671/P Erection of two-bedroom extension with garage/workshops, with

formation of new vehicular access - Refused

34

PROPOSAL This is a revised scheme following the refusal of RR/2003/2671/P; in the summary of my report to the Planning Committee for the refused development I said: “ I have taken account of the above objections, however I consider the principle of an appropriate size extension on the north side of this bungalow to be acceptable. Having said that, I am of the opinion that the proposed extension is too wide and disproportionate in size both in relation to the bungalow. I have had discussions with the agent regarding this and suggested the applicant consider reducing the width of the extension to move it further away from the northern boundary fence. This would help to minimise the visual impact of the development on the neighbouring amenities and on the general open character of this corner of The Shrublands”. This revised scheme has been significantly reduced in width by approximately 2m. The proposed development now consists of the erection of a single storey extension to the north side of this bungalow. It would measure 5m wide x 9.5m deep and finished in matching external materials, with a pitched roof surrounding a flat central roof section. The existing garage would be retained. The extension would provide 2 bedrooms and 2 WCs.

CONSULTATIONSPlanning Notice: 7 letters of objection

Too large Unsightly design Question need for development Poor design layout More problems if further on street car parking Garage in front of building line Overdevelopment Out of character Appearance would be out of character Grounds for refusal on last application still stand Would set undesirable precedent for similar development in the area Would be out of proportion detrimental to open character of the area Contrary to development plan policy and RDC Planning handbook Conifers should not get too high

SUMMARY I have taken account of the above objections, however I take the view that this revised scheme has overcome the reasons for refusal for RR/2003/2671/P, and is acceptable and without detrimental impact either on neighbouring amenities, or on the character of the area.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7C (Matching external materials)N1B amended plan date stamped 30th Jan 2004

35

RR/2004/215/P BEXHILL 3 KITES NEST WALK, LITTLE COMMON27 JAN 2004 OUTLINE: ERECTION OF NEW DWELLING AND ALTERATION

TO AN EXISTING ACCESSWellson & Partners Ltd

This site was inspected by the Planning Committee prior to their refusal of RR/2003/0302/P.

SITE This site is located adjacent to the west side garden area of No.3 Kites Nest Walk, and to the rear of 62 Barnhorn Road.

HISTORYRR/87/0070 Outline: Block of 10 flats, 10 garages, 10 parking spaces and new

access road – Appeal Allowed.RR/88/0829 Block of 12 flats, 12 garages, 7 parking spaces and new road –

Appeal Dismissed.RR/89/2988/P New access road off Barnhorn Road pursuant to outline

RR/87/0070 – Approved.RR/90/2463/P Erection of 10 flats, 10 garages and parking spaces and access

road pursuant to RR/87/0070 - Approved.RR/92/1563/P Erection of two detached chalet bungalows and terrace of five town

houses with garage accommodation and access – Appeal Dismissed.

RR/93/1785/P Erection of 2 three bed roomed chalet bungalows and 4 three bed roomed houses with garage accommodation and parking – Approved.

RR/2002/2124/P Outline: erection of detached dwelling and alteration to existing access - Refused.

RR/2003/0302/P Outline: erection of detached dwelling and garage, demolish existing garage and construction of extended access road to provide a new access - Refused

PROPOSAL This is a revised proposal following the refusal of both RR/2002/2124/P and later RR/2003/0302/P for similar development proposals. The agent has submitted substantial supporting documentation for this scheme (see APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 February 2004). This development is for the erection of a new dwelling and attached garage; although the application form states that design and external appearance are not reserved matters’, there are no elevations’ or other details provided with this application. Access to the site would be via the turning point of the existing access road, which would be extended; this would necessitate the demolition of the existing detached garage that currently serves No.3.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority:- Any comments will be reported.Highways Agency:- Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice:- Any comments will be reported.

36

SUMMARY Notwithstanding the agent’s supporting documents the site and surroundings remain materially unchanged. I maintain my view that the proposed development represents piecemeal, back land development, which would not be served by a proper road frontage; the extended access road as shown on the submitted plan does not constitute a proper road frontage. Also, it likely to have an adverse impact on the neighbouring amenities, including loss of privacy, in particular to the occupiers’ of 62 Barnhorn Road. I remain of the view that the proposed development would be in conflict with policy S1, of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991–2011, and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). If allowed it would set an undesirable development for similar development in the vicinity. I would therefore make the following:

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD AND HIGHWAY AGENCY COMMENTS)1. The proposal represents an undesirable element of backland development

without proper road frontage and is served by an inadequate means of access, which would not only have a detrimental effect on the amenities of adjoining properties but would also create difficulties so far as services, refuse collection and deliveries are concerned. It is likely to set an undesirable precedent for similar development in the vicinity and for these reasons it would be in conflict with Policy S1, of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991–2011, and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003)

2. The sub-division of the property in the manner proposed would be out of character with and detrimental to existing development and would result in loss of amenity and privacy to neighbouring residents; it could also set a precedent for similar undesirable development of other properties in the vicinity. The proposed development would therefore be in conflict with Policy S1, of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991–2011, and Policies H10 (iv) and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003)

RR/2004/223/P BEXHILL 203 COODEN DRIVE28 JAN 2004 OUTLINE: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING AND

GARAGES AND ERECTION OF 14 FLATS WITH GARAGES AND PARKINGS Bestley

This application has been added to the Site Inspection List.

SITE This site is an existing nursing home located on the on the southern side of Cooden Drive.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/88/2708 Outline application for the erection of 2 storey block of 16 warden

care flats with 31 parking spaces - Refused - Appeal Dismissed.RR/90/0701/P Outline: erection of 2 storey block of 12 warden care flats linked to

existing nursing home - Withdrawn.RR/91/1951/P Outline: 2 storey extension providing 16 additional bed spaces,

new day rooms and lift - Approved Conditional.

37

RR/92/1865/P 2 storey extension providing new bedrooms, day room, lift & bathrooms pursuant to outline permission RR/91/1951 - Approved Conditional.

RR/97/519/P Renewal of outline planning permission RR/91/1951/P for 2 storey extension providing 16 bed spaces and new dayrooms - approved Conditional.

RR/2000/203/P Renewal of outline planning permission RR/91/1951/P for two storey extension providing 16 bed spaces and new dayrooms - Approved Conditional.

RR/2003/966/P Outline: erection of two-storey block of eight flats with car parking spaces and new vehicular access - Approved

RR/2003/971/P Renewal of outline planning permission RR/91/1951/P for two storey extension providing sixteen bed spaces and new dayrooms - Approved.

PROPOSAL This is an outline proposal for the demolition of ‘Three Chimneys’ and the erection of a pair of linked buildings for 14 flats. Also, the existing front car parking area would be replaced with new garage blocks on the east and west sides. The development of the flats would be on approximately the same footprint as the existing building.

CONSULTEESHighway Authority: - Any comments will be reportedSouthern Water: - Any comments will be reportedEnvironment Agency: - No objections in principle, but if planning permission is granted recommends a condition re surface water drainage.South East Water: - Any comments will be reportedPlanning Notice: - Any comments will be reported

SUMMARY The principle of some form of substantial development on this site has been previously established with the approval of previous applications for a two-storey extension to the ‘Three Chimneys’ nursing home, providing sixteen bed spaces and new day rooms on the west side of the Nursing home. Also, approval was granted on this same garden land for a two-storey block of 8 flats under RR/2003/966/P. Although an appeal in 1988 was dismissed RR/88/2708/P, for a two-storey block of flats an alternative form of development for a two-storey building may be appropriate, as with RR/2003/966/P. However, any such development should ensure an appropriate relationship with neighbouring properties, and the character of the area. The illustrative plans would not in my view achieve this. Subject to no adverse comments from outstanding consultees, and consideration of all the detailed matters under a reserved matters application, I anticipate making the following:

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO NO ADVERSE COMMENTS FROM OUTSTANDING CONSULTEES AND EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD/AMENDED ILLUSTRATIVE PLANS)1. The siting and design and parking layout of the new development, is not

approved. Reason: RC3, RC11, RC12, RC13 and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

38

2. No development shall commence until full details of the finished floor level for the new building to a fixed datum level have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: RC3.

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

4. At the time of development and before it is occupied, garage or parking spaces shall be provided and laid out within the site to the approval of the Local Planning Authority and maintained in that use thereafter.Reason: In the interests of road safety and to ensure adequate car parking provision.

5. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through trapped gullies to BS 5911:1982 with an overall capacity compatible with the site being drained. Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters.

6. Only clean, uncontaminated rock, subsoil, brick rubble, crushed concrete and ceramic shall be permitted as infill material. Reason: To prevent pollution of controlled waters.

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

THE EXISTING DWELLINGMr and Mrs A Chuck

RR/2003/3290/L BECKLEY CROOKED COTTAGE, CLAY HILL08 DEC 2003 ERECTION OF A TWO STOREY EXTENSION TO THE

WESTERN ELEVATION OF THE EXISTING DWELLINGMr and Mrs A Chuck

Consideration of these applications was deferred at your January meeting to enable an inspection of the site to be made by the Planning Committee.

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

HISTORYN/A

PROPOSAL Consent is sought for a two storey addition extending some 3.5m forward of the west elevation and providing a study and dining room at ground floor level and an additional bedroom and bathroom at first floor level. The new external walls to be in

39

timber weatherboarding, brickwork and render and the roof in thatch to match the present appearance of the property.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Support a refusal commenting “They feel this is too large an extension for a listed building and it should remain as it is”..Planning Notice:- Written representations from the owner/occupiers of the two adjacent bungalows (Clay Hill Cottage and Lowerspringwood) generally on the grounds of:- first floor bedroom window will overlook living room of Clay Hill Cottage and extension will result in a significant loss of natural light - additional parking that may be required could not be accommodated by off-street parking resulting in increased traffic hazards - loss of quality of life - Crooked Cottage is at the entrance of a narrow trackway shared by 2 other properties which is a public right of way with a footpath to Clayhill Farm - trackway must be kept clear at all times for emergency vehicles - highway authority erected 2 bollards to avoid problems in the past - Crooked Cottage has no private drive and only a hardstanding for one car - most of the holiday lets come in 4 x 4s taking up too much room - understand there must be fire doors and kitchen inspections if 8 people stay here and should be a no smoking rule because of thatch - business rates - damage to trackway especially in winter months - concern about drainage from heavy machinery to Lowerspringwood, which goes back to 1537 and has no foundation and is on the edge of the trackway - loss of peace and quiet to elderly residents - does not want thatched two storey extension towering above single storey cottage, the neighbour at Clayhill Cottage has requested that Members view the proposal from his property when they carry out their site inspection. The agent has responded on the neighbours representations generally to the effect that: window serving bedroom 1 on northern elevation will be below the existing dense hedge line and would not overlook the living room of Clayhill Cottage; even if hedge were not there the window would not compromise privacy of Clayhill Cottage; extension could not reduce natural light to Clayhill Cottage and there is a significant distance between the two structures; the sun shines directly on south elevation of Clayhill Cottage and could not be obscured even in the winter by Crooked Cottage or its extension; property is not in multi occupation and construction of the new extension is irrelevant to clients parking requirements; objection from Lowerspringwood appears to be traffic related and not pertinent; clients would however be happy to review a regime of access for contractors vehicles if approval granted; also they would like to remove one of the garden sheds adjacent to their drive entrance which would facilitate further off lane parking which would be mutually beneficial to them and their neighbour.

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

RECOMMENDATIONS:

40

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

materials).

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

materials).

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

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

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

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

These applications were deferred at your last meeting for site inspection. At the meeting, Members determined that no affordable housing would be required on either development.

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

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

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

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

PROPOSAL The two schemes propose similar frontage development comprising two dwelling units and a garage workshop with a central access through the buildings to the land at the rear. The proposals for the land at the rear are similar in concept but differ in that RR/2003/3182/P shows housing backing onto the northern boundary and RR/2003/3180/P backing onto the southern boundary. Supporting letters from Urban Design dated 29 October 2003, 4 December 2003 and 4 February 2004 are contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this meeting 19 February 2004.

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

has been made to sell the Business as a going concern).41

2. Loss of established village house, which appears still in good order and repair.

3. Proposed development is outside village envelope.4. Despite assurances of the agreement of the Highways Dept. this

Council are still concerned at the likely volume of traffic using exit on to A28.

5. Restricted access to new properties.”.Highway Authority:- Recommends conditions and includes the following comments upon proposed parking provision:“The maximum number of on-site parking spaces that application number RR/2003/3180 attracts is 31 in accordance with East Sussex County Council’s adopted parking standards. The submitted Drawing No. LGA/0307/0306 indicates that 26 car parking spaces are to be provided. The maximum number of car parking spaces application number RR/2003/3182 attracts is 26 spaces. The submitted Drawing No.LGA/0307/0305 indicates that 23 car parking spaces are to be provided. Additional information recently made available to the Highway Authority suggests than an additional 2 car parking spaces are available inside the workshop building, for garage and vehicle repair use.Although the on-site car parking provision is slightly below the County Council’s maximum car parking standard, the Highway Authority does not consider the shortfall in car parking spaces to sufficiently compromise highway safety, to support a recommendation for refusal in this instance. However, the Highway Authority advises that a minimum of 1 long term cycle parking space be provided for each residential dwelling unit without a garage or shed”. Southern Water:- Has no objection.Director of Services - Environmental Health:- Recommends condition regarding 1) contaminated land, 2) hours of use, 3) sound insulation scheme for garage workshop, 4) odour control equipment, 5) sound insulation of odour control equipment, 6) transmission of sound and/or odour vibration from plant and machinery, 7) boundary noise levels, 8) vehicle movements (workshop), 9) no industrial activity outside the proposed workshop.Director of Services - Regeneration:- Support this mixed use as it is proposed to retain the existing workshop business within the scheme. However, the commercial element of the scheme should be developed prior to the residential element, so as to ensure the continued provision for employment at the site.Sussex Police:- Do not identify any unnecessary crime risks.Director of Services - Housing:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- Has no objection but recommend several conditions regarding contaminated land, drainage and infill material.Planning Notice:- 3 letters of objection - utterly inappropriate; loss of viable commercial premises; increased traffic and noise pollution; overlooking and loss of privacy; thought we were living in a Conservation Area and protected from this sort of haphazard sprawl; threat to abundant wildlife; will do nothing to help provide affordable housing in village which is virtually non-existent; the office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s website speaks explicitly of the need for a mix of housing, the provision of housing for local people and the need for the Local Planning Authority to ensure these objectives are met; could have negative effect on the village; destruction of trees and fallow land; increased hazard to traffic and pedestrians on A28 from higher volume of traffic accessing the site and parking in Main Street; properties probably too expensive for existing villagers; overcrowding of cramped backfill site with minimal amenity space; loss of property values.

42

SUMMARY The garage no longer provides petrol sales but is, in part, currently an employment creating use. The proposal therefore needs to be judged against Policy E5 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003), the latter of which states:- “Proposals to change the use of existing buildings or redevelop sites currently or last in employment creating use will be resisted unless it is demonstrated that there is no prospect of its continued use for business purposes or that it would perpetuate serious harm to residential amenities.”In this case, it is intended to replace the workshop. In the supporting letter, the Applicants state:-“The fuel operation has been forced to close as it was losing money through supermarket competition, having been subsidised for some years by the workshop operation. The objective is to ensure that the workshop remains a viable business with modern up to date facilities unencumbered by the failing business. …Ensuring continuity of employment for his employees.”In view of the similar sized replacement workshop, I take the view that the proposal would not be contrary to the above Policy and should not therefore be resisted on this ground. With regard to the form and scale of the two schemes, it is my opinion that a frontage development similar to that shown on the submitted plans would be acceptable. With regard to the “mews” type development of the land at the rear, there is no precedent for this form of development. The proposal therefore needs to be judged on its own merit and against Policy HG4 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). This supports new housing developments where their layout and design provide sustainable residential environments, and demonstrate a number of key principles. These include “(vi) a mix of dwelling types and sizes, (vii) subject to any overriding environmental considerations the best use of land by achieving an overall net density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare, (xi) the visual and amenity impact of parked cars while still providing adequate provision”. Both schemes are designed for local retired persons and include a mix of flats and houses with small private gardens and a larger landscaped communal garden. The gross site densities of the two schemes (39 and 48 dwellings per ha) exceed the minimum 30. Net densities are higher. The Highway Authority have advised that they do not consider the slight shortfall in car parking spaces sufficient to compromise highway safety or justify a reason for refusal. The remaining issue therefore is whether or not either of the schemes contain “any overriding environmental considerations”. It is my opinion that, of the two schemes only RR/2003/3182/P for 8 dwellings should be supported. This scheme is less densely developed has more open space at the rear, less parking and will have a lesser impact upon the amenities of the area.

RECOMMENDATIONSRR/2003/3180/P GRANT (OUTLINE PLANNING)1. The new workshop shall be erected and capable of being brought into use

before the residential development is commenced, unless an alternative timescale has been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.Reason: To ensure that the existing employment generating use on site is retained in accordance with Policy E5 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

2. Contaminated land (desk study)3. Hours of use (as recommended by Director of Services – Environmental Health).

43

4. Sound insulation scheme for building (as recommended by Director of Services – Environmental Health)

5. Odour control equipment (as recommended by Director of Services – Environmental Health)

6. Sound insulation of odour control equipment (as recommended by Director of Services – Environmental Health)

7. Sound insulation scheme for plant and machinery (as recommended by Director of Services – Environmental Health)

8. Boundary noise levels (as recommended by Director of Services – Environmental Health)

9. Hours of vehicle movements (as recommended by Director of Services – Environmental Health)

10. No industrial activity outside building (as recommended by Director of Services – Environmental Health)

11. There shall be no discharge of foul or contaminated drainage from the site into either the groundwater or any surface waters whether direct or via soakaways. No soakaway shall be constructed in contaminated ground. No percolation tests should be carried out in land suspected of being contaminated.Reason: To prevent pollution of groundwater and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

12. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer ir soakaways system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings for the workshop shall be passed through interceptors with an overall capacity compatible with the site being drained. If drainage in the new development site is to be from areas upon which there are potentially polluting activities, then a discharge consent maybe required.

13. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is multiple tankage, the compound should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the largest tank or the combined capacity of interconnected tanks plus 10%. All filling points, vents gauges and sight glasses must be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse land or underground strata. Associated pipework should be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.

14. No material shall be deposited at the site other than clean, uncontaminated naturally occurring excavated material, brick and concrete rubble only.Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment.

15. CN9A (Road construction details)16. Visibility splays of 4.5m x 90m shall be provided in each direction at the junction

of the site access with the A28 to the approval of the Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. These visibility splays need to be indicated in the submitted plans at detailed stage.Reason: In the interests of highway safety

17. The access shall be in the position shown on the submitted plan (drawing no. LGA/0307/0305) and laid out and constructed in accordance with the East Sussex County Council Manual for Estate Roads (MFER)Reason: To ensure safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway.

44

18. A minimum vertical clearance of 5.030m must be provided and maintained over the estate road throughout the duration of the on-site works, and shall thereafter be retained.Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access.

19. Before house building commences the estate road shall be completed to base course level, together with the surface water and main services to the approval of the Planning Authority, in consultation with the Highway Authority.Reason: In the interests of highway safety and for the benefit and convenience of the public at large.

20. The proposed development shall not be occupied or brought into use until car parking areas have been provided in accordance with the submitted details, and the car parking areas shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles.Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway.

21. The access shall not be used until a turning space for vehicles has been provided and constructed in accordance with the submitted details, 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.

22. During any form of earthworks and/or excavations carried out as part of the development, suitable wheel washing equipment should be provided within the site, to the approval of the Planning Authority, to prevent contamination and damage to the adjacent road.Reason: In the interests of highway safety and for the benefit and convenience of the public at large.

23. At any detailed stage a transport assessment shall be submitted identifying those transport improvements necessary to serve the accessibility needs of the new development to be secured by means of a Section 106 Agreement with the County Council as Highway Authority.Reason: In the interests of highway safety and for the benefit and convenience of the public at large.

Notes:(i) The applicants attention is drawn to the comments of the Highway Authority and

contained in their letter dated 22 January 2004, copy enclosed.(ii) The development comprises 500m2 or more. The applicant is therefore advised

to seek advice on energy efficiency from ‘Action Energy’ on 0800 58 57 94 (www.actionenergy.org.uk).

RR/2003/3182/P REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING)1. By virtue of its high density, the proposal would constitute overdevelopment of

the land which, if permitted, would be out of character with and detrimental to the amenities of the locality. For this reason, the development would be contrary to Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). The adverse impact would also be an “over-riding environmental consideration” contrary to Policy HG4 (vii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

45

46

RR/2003/3396/P NORTHIAM AVARDS COTTAGE, EWHURST LANE,8 DEC 2003 PROPOSED EXTENSION

Mr & Mrs Davey

This application has been included on the Committee Site Inspection List.

SITE The site is located on the south east side of Ewhurst Lane.

HISTORYRR/78/0364 Erection of sectional garage – Approved conditional.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to erect a two storey extension to the rear of the dwelling to create a new lounge and bedroom, and a single storey extension to the side of the dwelling to provide a porch and study. CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support approval. Planning Notice – 3 letters of objection and 1 report from a consultant employed by the residents of Hodges Cottage, concerned with the following:Goes against a key element of Rother District Council general guidance on house extension “extensions should always respect the privacy and amenities enjoyed by the occupants of adjoining properties”. Only dwelling in Ewhurst Lane to significantly stick out beyond the building line of the properties in the immediate vicinity. Will spoil the view from our rear garden. Avards Cottage is one property of 6 almost identical small homes, each currently enjoys uninterrupted daylight and views from both front and rear aspect, this desirable amenity obtained only because the houses are arranged precisely next to one another without protrusion into the line of its neighbour. The proposed development would not enhance the architectural integrity of these modest dwellings and would certainly damage the amenity of light and vista enjoyed for more than half a century since these cottages were built. Roof height of the side extension would reduce the already limited light into our side kitchen window. The outbuilding proposed to be demolished is attached to an outbuilding in our garden with a party wall. Concerned about access for maintenance to the proposed side extension that is built up to our property line (Hodges Cottage). Will have a view of unbroken brick wall and roof tiles. The neighbours from Hodges Cottage have employed a consultant Mr Grace, who has submitted a report with regard to loss of light and the development being contrary to PPG1 and Policy HG8, a copy of this report is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT.1 letter from the applicant in response to the neighbours objections. The occupants of Pelham Cottage have had an extension that is the same volume as our proposal. The occupants of Greenacres have recently gained planning approval for an extension which would break the ’pre-existing building line’ to the rear of the property that they claim as a legitimate objection to the above application. In the report by Mr Grace, he states that the volume of our property would be doubled and that the majority of floor space would be contained within extensions, these are both incorrect. The roof height of the side extension will not restrict the light into the side kitchen window of Hodges Cottage, it has been designed to adhere to Rother District Council Policy regarding the notional 45-degree line, as has the rear extension. The side extension will not be built right up to the boundary, a new fence will be constructed on the boundary.

47

SUMMARY The insertion of a new window into the proposed new dining room will not face directly into the windows of any of the neighbouring dwellings, and thus I have no objection with it. The side extension, which will replace an existing old lean-to, will not have any adverse impact upon the neighbouring dwellings, especially with regard to loss of light to their kitchen window, due to the fact that the roofline does not encroach in front of the line drawn down from the existing dormer to their window. The rear two storey extension is of an appropriate design and size as not to be detrimental to the appearance of the dwelling. The rear extension will obscure views from neighbouring gardens, however, loss of view is not a material planning consideration. The position of the rear extension within the site, prevents significant loss of light to the windows of neighbouring properties, because it complies with the 45 degree guide, which is based upon a recommend British Standard Code of Practice. Due to the points above I do not consider that the neighbouring residential amenities will be adversely affected to a significant degree to warrant a refusal. Members will be able to assess the impact of the proposal on the adjoining properties on site. RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. CN7C (Matching external materials)2. CN5E a) (Restriction of alterations/additions)

RR/2004/70/P NORTHIAM MOUNT PLEASANT – SITE ADJ, DIXTER LANE13 JAN 2004 ERECTION OF ONE DETACHED DWELLING AND GARAGE

PURSUANT TO RR/2002/2041/PCarpenter Construction Ltd

SITE This plot stands on the south-east side of Dixter Lane and comprises garden land formerly attached to the adjacent weatherboard and slate two storey house to the south-west (Weights Wood Cottage previously Mount Pleasant). Immediately to the north east of the plot is a single storey brick and slate bungalow (Springfield Cottage) and to the rear are modern bungalows on the Monks Way estate. The plot itself has a frontage of some 32m and a depth of about 12m and the shared vehicular access (shared with Wrights Wood Cottage) is at the south west end of the frontage. A large oak tree near the rear boundary is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order. The site is within the Northiam development boundary and the High Weald AONB.

HISTORYRR/84/0911 O/A Erection of bungalow with garage/parking space served by a

new vehicular access – Refused.RR/2000/878/P O/A erection of detached bungalow in garden of existing house to

include altered shared vehicular access and a pair of semi-detached single garages – Withdrawn

RR/2002/2041/P O/A Demolition of existing garages and sheds. Construction of one detached bungalow and garage and new garage for existing cottage using shared access – Approved.

PROPOSAL Approval is sought for the development of the site with an ‘L’ shaped 4/5 bedroom bungalow sited at the north eastern end of the plot and a detached 2 bay car port in the south East Corner. The existing shared access at the south-west end of the

48

plot would be utilised and the protected oak tree is shown retained with a brick wall/seat constructed round the trunk.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support a refusal for the following reasons:“1. Original OPP was not supported as it felt any development here would be

detrimental to the area.2. Proposal is completely difference to Outline Permission and the ‘Bungalow’ has

now become a 2 storey 4 bedroomed house which will not ‘maintain the appearance of the locality’ in accordance with the structure plan.

3. Plans show that roots of the Oak Tree (on which there is a Tree Preservation Order) will be damaged, or will affect the building foundations.

4. This development will be detrimental to the area, and have an adverse effect upon neighbouring properties, to the rear, due to its floor coverage, height and proximity to other houses

Council are also concerned that clearance works appears to have already started and no protection has been given to the oak tree. (Although we understand permission has been given for the Crown to be lifted).Highway Authority – Recommends appropriate highway conditions.Planning Notice – Written representations have been received from the owner/occupiers of an adjacent bungalow to the rear (13 Monks Way) objecting generally on the grounds of: large excavator has arrived on site suggesting development will commence without waiting for approval; narrowness of plot means any building sited as shown would cause a serious loss of privacy not least because the plot is substantially higher; outline approval was for a bungalow and this is a house which would be much taller; new residents might be able to see directly down into our bedroom from their first floor west facing dormer window (a distance of less than 20m).

SUMMARY This plot has a frontage of some 32m and a depth of 12m and is within the built –up frontage on the south side of Dixter Lane. Outline consent was granted in March 2003 for the development of the site with a detached bungalow and garage and a new garage for the existing cottage using a shared access (ref. RR/2002/2041/P). The proposal now is clearly not a bungalow and whilst I would not rule out completely some first floor accommodation within the roof space I do have reservations regarding the impact on the residential amenities of the adjacent bungalows to the north east and south east. My tree adviser has also expressed concern that size and location of the dwelling will be a source of conflict with the protected oak tree and the proposed seat around the base of the tree would be unacceptable.These points have been taken up with the applicant and the proposal will need to be amended top seek full planning permission as it stands however, I would recommend a refusal.

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

Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) it is considered that the proposal conflicts with Policy GD1 of the Plan in that the scale and form of the development would not be compatible with the adjacent surrounding area. In particular the development would unreasonably harm the amenities of adjoining single storey dwellings.

2. The proposed development by virtue of its size and siting would result in a threat to the continued well being of the existing oak tree which is the subject of a Tree

49

Preservation Order. The proposal would therefore conflict with the provisions of Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

3. The site lies within the High Weald AONB where Policies S1 (j), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 indicate that development will be carefully controlled to protect the character of the area. It is considered that the proposal does not meet this objective and it would cause harm to the rural character of the area.Reason: Non essential development AONB – Structure Plan.

RR/2004/144/P NORTHIAM BLUE CROSS NORTHIAM EQUINE AND SMALL 21 JAN 2004 ANIMALS CENTRE, ST FRANCIS FIELDS, MAIN STREET

ERECTION OF EXTENSION TO FORM AN EQUINE VETERINARY CENTRE WITH PART CHANGE OF USE OF PADDOCK TO CAR PARKSCinque Ports Veterinary Associates

SITE The proposal relates to the existing Blue Cross Animal Welfare premises which are located off the east side of Main Street in the centre of Northiam. Vehicular access is gained via a private drive which joins Main Street (A28) immediately north of the Crown and Thistle public house. The site is just outside the development boundary and the boundary of the Conservation Area.

HISTORYA/69/528 O/A dwelling house – ApprovedA/70/120 Bungalow – ApprovedA/71/506 Cattery etc – ApprovedRR/76/1808 Horse loose box – ApprovedRR/84/0783 Stable block extension to create 3 loose boxes and one garage –

ApprovedRR/86/1770 Field shelter for Blue Cross horses – ApprovedRR/86/2099 Pitched roof to staff bungalow – ApprovedRR/89/2040 Block of 6 loose boxes and one store – ApprovedRR/93/0806 Manege – ApprovedRR/94/1285 Conversion of staff bungalow to two staff units – ApprovedRR/94/2119/P 4 bay carport and attached tack room – ApprovedRR/96/0894/P Erection of two field shelters and corral provision of winter exercise

area – Approved

PROPOSAL The plans show the demolition of a garage at the northern end of the range of buildings and the erection of a purpose built single storey extension (10.84m x 10.84m) to provide equine veterinary facilities. Part of the adjacent paddock to the west would be utilised for vehicular parking and turning space. In a supporting letter the agent states:“On behalf of my clients, Cinque Ports Veterinary Associates, I apply for planning permission for the above.My clients currently operate five veterinary centres in East Sussex and Kent. The Practice wishes to offer an improved equine service by providing diagnostic and treatment facilities in a specialist equine veterinary centre, to form the full time base for one veterinary surgeon and one Surgery/Office Assistant.While much of the Veterinary Surgeon’s work would remain outside the Centre in field visits. It is anticipated that one or two cases per day may need to attend at the Centre.

50

The proposal involves demolishing the Workshop at the existing Blue Cross building, converting three loose boxes and constructing an extension to accommodate the treatment area. Although this needs a high ceiling to accommodate hoisting equipment to move anaesthetised horses, the roof of the building remains subordinate visually to the existing oast house roundel. The materials proposed are plain tiles and painted blockwork to match the existing building on site.Blue Cross visitor and staff parking is currently located next to the proposed extension. Two new parking areas are proposed within the present front horse paddock, one for Blue Cross visitors, the other for the Veterinary Centre. Mixed hedgerow screen planting is proposed within a double post and rail fence around the new parking areas. Demolition of a field shelter will be needed to allow access from the drive. Part of the new parking area is allocated as a trot-up track and lunge circle for diagnosis of lameness.The remainder if the front paddock will be retained as horse grazing.With regard to traffic movements it is anticipated that the staff arrivals and departures, the Veterinary Surgeon’s field visits and the anticipated one or two client’s visits per day will amount to one or two movements per hour, of which only one or two per day will be horse boxes”.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support an approval and comments that they ‘consider this amenity will benefit the village and provide much needed employment. In addition to enhancing facilities of the Blue Cross Centre, we do not feel there will be a problem with the small increase in traffic movements.The site is sufficiently isolated and, with the proposed fencing and screening, will not be detrimental to surrounding properties”.Highway Authority – Comments awaited.Environment Agency – Comments awaited.Southern Water Services – Comments awaited.Director of Services – Environmental Health – Comments awaited.Planning Notice – No representations received.

SUMMARY These are the long established Blue Cross Animal Welfare premises in the centre of the village. The proposed extension would provide purpose built equine veterinary facilities for the Cinque Ports Veterinary Associates who wish to provide diagnostic and treatment facilities in a specialist centre. They currently operate five veterinary centres in East Sussex and Kent and whilst much of their work would remain outside in field visits they anticipate that one or two cases per day may need to attend this facility. Part of the adjacent paddock will be used for parking and turning areas with part of the new parking area allocated as a trot-up track and lunge circle. The design of the new building is in keeping with the rest of the animal welfare complex and new indigenous planting (field maple, hawthorn, holly, birch) is shown to screen the car parking area. The comments of the Environmental Health Officer, Highway Authority and the Environment Agency are awaited and I have sort clarification from the Agent as to the number of trees to be removed. From the planning viewpoint, having regard to the long established use, I am minded to support an approval.

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. Any conditions as may be required by the Environmental Health Officer.2. Any highway conditions as may be required by the Highway Authority.3. CN13F (Tree/shrub planting)4. CN13B (Implementation of landscaping scheme)

51

5. CN12L (Floodlighting)6. Details of the proposed surfacing and drainage for the car parking areas shall be

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

RR/2004/188/P NORTHIAM SPINDLEWOOD, STATION ROAD23 JAN 2004 ERECTION OF CONSERVATORY TO REPLACE EXISTING

(RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Mr W Mewett

 SITE Spindlewood is a detached bungalow on the south east side of Station Road two plots down from the Ghyllside Road junction.

HISTORYRR/2002/2141/P Alterations and extension to provide 3 bedrooms and bathroom in

roof, larger living room and garage – Approved conditional.RR/2003/3220/P Addition of dormer to rear elevation and side door to garage –

Refused.

PROPOSAL This is a retrospective application for the erection of a new conservatory to replace existing.  CONSULTATIONSParish Council – “Support a refusal.Reason for 2 and 3,1. This is the SECOND Retrospective application regarding this property.2. Further overdevelopment (to add to existing building work in excess of Planning

Permission).3. This proposed conservatory does not occupy the same area as demolished one,

therefore it is not a retention of existing structure (completely different footings).4. When added to other recent development, this shows a complete lack of

consideration for neighbours and will be very intrusive.Despite a visit, by Rother Planning Officers, when only the foundations, of this proposal had been completed the applicant has continued to build despite having been made aware of the need for planning permission,The applicant has consistently flouted Planning Regulations, abused laid down procedures and ignored the advice and instructions of the Planning Officers, therefore this Parish Council will oppose any further development until such time as previous planning authorisations are adhered to.Northiam Parish Council, therefore strongly recommend that this application be refused”.Planning Notice – No representations received.

SUMMARY At present the conservatory is under construction. The plans submitted indicate the doors from the conservatory to the garden will be on the rear south east elevation, however, it has been constructed on the north east elevation, amended plans have been requested. The Parish Councils comments have been noted, however, a decision must be made on the merits of this application and not based on the past history of the site. Because of the position of the conservatory in the middle of the plot I do not consider that it will cause any detrimental impact on the neighbouring properties 

52

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (AMENDED PLANS)

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

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

This application was considered by the Planning Committee at its meeting on Thursday, 22 January 2004 when it was resolved that a decision be deferred for further information/amended plans. The requested information/plans would cover the following: A traffic assessment (as required by Highways Agency) Landscaped ‘buffer zone’ within the site Design/external surface treatment of the proposed building Relocate wash-down bay away from neighbour Design amendments previously agreed with occupiers of ‘Foxhole Farm’ and

‘Corner Cottage’ Details of boundary fencing I am awaiting a response from the Council’s Environmental Health Section on

your client’s request that no hours of use condition be imposed on any planning permission.

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

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

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

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

PROPOSAL The application proposal is the demolition of the existing buildings and structures on the site and the redevelopment of the site by the formation of a haulage yard and the erection of workshops and offices. The applicant presently operates a haulage yard from a site at Ashes Wood, Bodiam. It is intended to transfer all operations to the Hurst Green site. I understand tha an application for a mixed residential/commercial use is likely to be submitted in the near future. With respect to

53

the Ashes Wood site. The development of the (Hurst Green) application site is shown on the submitted plans as follows:- The formation of parking bays for 30 no. articulated vehicles- A new workshop building located in the rear part of the site (maximum footprint

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

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

single point of entry/egress with the A21A supporting letter has been submitted by an agent acting for the applicant. Copies of this were circulated around the table at your last meeting. Members’ attention was drawn to page 2 ‘The Development Proposal’ where it stated:“The application does not propose any time restrictions because the applicant would not be able to operate his business in a viable manner if times of arrival and departure were controlled. Therefore the application is submitted on the basis of no time controls.”In the planning report, Members will see that the Director of Services has requested that the standard hours of use condition be imposed on any consent (8.00 a.m. - 6.00p.m., no Saturday afternoons, Sundays or Bank Holidays). Clearly this would be at odds with the unrestricted operating times requested by the applicant. I have sent a copy of the agent’s supporting statement to the Director of Services - Environment and asked for further comments on the proposed operating times. Further details are awaited from the agent on the other principal points of concern raised in the report.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support an approval – “3-1 plus 1 Abstention, lively debate, concern over unsocial hours, restricted night access and non-obtrusive lighting required. Road access a concern but positive over employment issues”.Highways Agency – “Having considered the Applicant’s method of operation, I am content that the proposal will not generate any more traffic movements than the previous maximum permitted use did. However, the type of traffic will be different and principally associated with heavy, slow moving vehicles. The architect’s plan referred to in Kember Loudon Williams Ltd’s letter dated 12 January, showing HGVs’ ability to turn into/out of the site is awaited, since the effect on the free flow of traffic on the A21 Trunk Road is of great importance to us.The Applicant will no doubt be aware of the public consultation that has taken place in respect of a new route (referred to as “Consultation Route”) for this section of the A21 and will be aware that whilst access it not precluded from the site, the alignment of the resulting service road is unlikely to be suitable for the significant numbers of heavy vehicles that this proposal will generate onto it. Other schemes are currently under consideration which also may affect access to the site. I am however, unable at this stage to say which scheme, if any, will be selected or when it will be implemented.”Environment Agency – No objection subject to conditions dealing with (i) land contamination, (ii) surface water disposal.

54

Southern Water Services – No objections.Sussex Police – Do not identify any unnecessary crime risks with the proposal.Director of Services – Regeneration – Comments awaited.Director of Services – Environmental Health – No objection subject to conditions on the following:(i) land contamination(ii) standard hours of use condition(iii) boundary noise levels (to be provided)(iv) scheme for soundproofing the building(v) scheme for the suitable treatment of all plant and machinery against the

transmission of sound and/or vibrationFurther comments are awaited from the Director of Services - Environmental Health on the applicant’s request that the business should be allowed to operate without a condition imposing time restrictions.Planning Notice – 3 letters of support (Corner Cottage, Four Hedges and Foxhole Farm):- We approve of this commercial use of the site; would provide employment which

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

that soakaways would be effective55

- Existing foul water system has not been used for 5 years. In the past this proved inadequate. Required emptying every two weeks. The existing system is located in the position of the proposed diesel tanks

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

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

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

despite the application form requesting this information

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

rural economy(ii) The highway implications(iii) The need to conserve the AONB(iv) The need to protect existing residential amenity. With respect to (i) Policy EM2 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) and Policy E5 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 recognises the need to retain sites currently, or last in, employment generating use. Members have previously refused residential development on this site on the basis that it should be retained for commercial purposes. In this respect the application is consistent with the principles of the aforementioned policies.Whilst the development proposal involves the transfer of a business use from one site within the District to another – rather than the setting up of a new business – the application indicates that some new/additional employment is likely to occur as a consequence of the development and this is put in the region of 13 no. new posts.With respect to (ii) a positive benefit of the proposal is that it would allow the applicant’s haulage vehicles to gain immediate access to the trunk road as opposed to negotiating narrow country lanes – as is the case with operations from the existing Ashes Wood site. It is noted that the Highways Agency has confirmed that a full traffic assessment would not now be required and there is no objection in principle to the application on highway grounds.Regarding (iii) the need to safeguard the AONB: I have two principal concerns. The first is the fact that no new landscaping/planting to screen the development is proposed in the application, or indeed, could be achieved with the submitted site layout. Haulage vehicle parking bays are shown positioned hard-against the site boundaries. Although there is some existing hedge/tree vegetation on the site boundaries, no provision is contained in the application to address how this would be protected or the implications of any new boundary fencing that is likely to be required. It is considered that a ‘buffer zone’ of additional screen planting at the boundaries of the site would be desirable.The second of my concerns is the design and external appearance of the proposed new building. It is considered that amore sympathetic surface treatment of the building would lessen its visual impact and intrusion within the AONB.With regard to (iv), I note that letters of support, as well as objection, have been received from local residents. Views expressed, both for and against, need to be given due consideration. The site has a long history of commercial use and consequently its established character, its developed nature, and the activity associated with its existing

56

permitted use are material considerations. Accordingly, any impact has to be assessed with respect to the established level of residential amenity based upon the existing permitted use of the site. The Director of Services – Environmental Health has been consulted on the application and would have no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. One of the conditions requested, however, is the standard hours of use condition (8.00am – 6.00pm weekdays; 8.00am to 1.00pm Saturdays; no permitted use on Sundays or Bank Holidays) which I understand would not be acceptable to the applicant who is seeking to operate the business without a time restriction on hours of use. Further comments have been requested from the Director of Services - Environmental Health. A further matter that needs to be addressed is the proposed siting of the washdown area close to the boundary with Orchard Cottage. I am concerned that this would result in harm to neighbouring amenity (noise, wastewater run-off, contaminants etc). Finally, I understand that the applicant has agreed to submit amended plans to address the concerns raised by the occupiers of Foxhole Farm and Corner Cottage. These are awaited. Whilst I am able to support the proposal in principle, further information is required in order that the full impact of the development can be fully considered. In the circumstances I must make the

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (FURTHER INFORMATION AND AMENDED PLANS)

RR/2004/164/P HURST GREEN POOKS FIELD FARM, LONDON ROAD29 JAN 2004 OUTLINE: ERECTION OF DETACHED CHALET BUNGALOW

FOR USE AS FARM HOUSEMr and Mrs G Browne

SITE The application relates to agricultural land to the eastern side of the A21 trunk road and to the north of Ashdene Garage Service Station. The site was inspected by the Planning Committee on 9 September 2003 in connection with application RR/2003/244/P.

HISTORYRR/80/1231 Agricultural dwelling on land to north of application side, adj

‘Wincot’ (for same applicant) – RefusedRR/84/1256 Vehicular access to Pooks Field – ApprovedRR/87/2387 Agricultural dwelling Pooks Field – RefusedRR/88/2148 Erection of agricultural dwelling with garage – RefusedRR/89/3205/P O/A: Erection of detached two storey agricultural dwelling with

garage – RefusedRR/2003/164/P O/A Detached chalet bungalow as farmhouse for Pooks Field

holding - Withdrawn

PROPOSAL The application is a resubmission of RR/2003/1244/P above. As before the application is in outline only. A site plan submitted with the application indicates a footprint for the proposed chalet bungalow measuring approximately 9m x 9m. Illustrative drawings of the proposed development show a three/four bedroom chalet bungalow. Planning permission for the proposed dwelling is being sought on agricultural grounds.The application indicates that the area of the holding amounts to just over 18 hectares owned and a further 101 hectares or so, rented. The agricultural activity comprises mainly sheep (264 sheep put to ram) and cattle. Whilst no supporting letter has been

57

provided with this new application, I previously reported the supporting comments with application RR/2003/1244/P as follows:“I have lived in Hurst Green all my life, starting work with my father farming the area in 1971.Since 1984 after purchasing Pooks Fields of 15 acres I have since increased ownership to some 45 acres and farming locally between 200-300 acres sheep, arable, potatoes and cattle, the main enterprises. Living in rented accommodation 1 mile from the holding especially at lambing time proves very difficult. To continue farming effectively living on the holding is essential. Travelling to and from the holding during the night make life very difficult and not least expensive in fuel cost and security”…”The rented house we live in does not afford security. As the holding has grown and living the distance away, several break-ins and thefts have not helped.We need to live on the holding to give better welfare to the stock, make management easier and give us a permanent home in our village”.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Highways Agency:- Comments awaited.Environment Agency:- Comments awaited.Rural Estates Surveyor:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- 1 letter of support from the occupier of 1 Marlpit Cottages: Support the planning application Applicant has a mixed farm, farming traditionally as his family have done in Hurst

Green for some 50 years, enhancing the AONB I live in Merriments Lane opposite Buckhurst Farm where you gave planning

permission for a dwelling where intensive farming was carried out in order to gain planning consent

This intensive farming destroyed our lifestyle Hope you will look favourably on more traditional farming

SUMMARY The proposed residential plot is within the countryside (AONB) where new dwellings are not permitted under planning policies unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that a dwelling is essential to the running of an enterprise which must be in a countryside location. The applicant’s justification for the proposed dwelling is made on agricultural grounds. In respect of the previous application (RR/2003/1244/P), a letter was submitted originating from a company known as ‘Astero Establishment’ requiring re-possession in (or around) January 2004 of the dwelling presently occupied by the applicant - No.2 Stonehouse Cottages, Merriments Lane. No further information has been provided with the new application In respect of this. Comments received from the Rural Estates Surveyor acknowledged the applicants’ genuineness in terms of his agricultural enterprise but in terms of the ‘agricultural financial viability test’ required under Planning Policy Guidance Note 7, he commented as follows:-“The financial details provided do suggest that the financial requirements of Paragraph I10 are just about satisfied. The additional land referred to in my appraisal dated 14 August will increase the labour requirements, boost the livestock carrying capacity and provide additional income which should tip the scales to satisfy the requirements of Paragraph I10. I must make a point however that the figures provided by the applicant do refer to the financial year ending 30 June 1997. It is a requirement contained in Paragraph I5 to produce a three years account and I consider that these should be the recent past three years.”

58

I am awaiting the report of the Rural Estates Surveyor in respect of the new application and in circumstances I must make the

RECOMMENDATION: DEFER (OUTLINE PLANNING) (TO AWAIT THE REPORT OF THE RURAL ESTATES SURVEYOR)RR/2004/9/P SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE 2 STATION ROAD, SNUG 21 JAN 2004 COTTAGE, ROBERTSBRIDGE

ERECTION OF CONSERVATORY TO REAR (RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION)Mrs S Bridges

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

SITE The development relates to an end of terrace cottage (listed within grade II) fronting onto Station Road.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/97/1048/L Repair of fire damaged cottages - ApprovedRR/1999/2483/L To demolish flat roofed porch and replace it with lean-to

conservatory to rear of premises - Approved.RR/2002/1597/L Erection of conservatory and revised position of vent pipe

(retrospective application) - Refused - Appeal Allowed.

PROPOSAL The application is retrospective. The background to this matter is that on 8 December 1999 listed building consent was granted for the demolition of an existing flat roofed porch and replacement with a lean-to conservatory to the rear of this cottage. Some time after this a complaint was received from the occupier of the neighbouring property (Postage Stamp Cottage) indicating that the conservatory had not been built in accordance with the approved plans and the matter has been investigated by the Planning Enforcement Section. A retrospective listed building consent application for the conservatory, as built, was refused by this Local Planning Authority on 7 November 2002. A subsequent appeal against the refusal was allowed. The conservatory (and the repositioned vent pipe) now have listed building consent. The site was inspected by Members of the Planning Committee in October 2002.Prior to considering whether planning permission was necessary, investigations were undertaken as to whether the path to the south of the property was a public highway. This was an important consideration as it is one of the requirements that for development to be permitted by Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, the extension should not be within 20 metres from the highway or closer to the highway than that part of the original dwelling nearest to the highway.Information was sought from East Sussex County Council (the Highway Authority) who indicated at that time that the path was not a public highway. This matter has now been checked again and it appears that the County Council gave this Authority incorrect information and the path is in fact a public highway. Under the circumstances, the conservatory is not permitted development and planning permission should have been obtained for its erection.The application before you is the retrospective planning application. A background letter from the Agent has been submitted with the application, a copy of which is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT to this Committee 19 February 2004.

59

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- Comments awaited.Planning Notice:- 2 letters of objection have been received from the occupier of the neighbouring property (Postage Stamp Cottage). This seeks to counter a number of the points made in the Agent’s supporting letter, particularly in respect of the size of the conservatory, the boundary position, and the position of the soil stack pipe. The letter from the neighbour also questions the accuracy of the dimensions of the conservatory as shown on the submitted plan. It also describes other alterations which are said to have taken place without listed building consent (viz Plan shows original back door and surrounding elevation preserved. They are demolished. Also, the plans show an unaltered bedroom. Here the eastern half of the ceiling has been demolished and steps fixed centrally to an access. The development has resulted in loss of outlook from the rear of Postage Stamp Cottage.) A copy of the neighbour’s letter is also contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 February 2004.

SUMMARY This is a retrospective application for a conservatory/extension, which has been added to the rear of a small terraced cottage (listed within Grade II). A retrospective application for listed building consent was allowed on appeal on 9 July 2003 following this Authority’s refusal of consent. The Inspector comments:-“…I conclude that the amended scheme has caused no harm to the special historic or architectural interest of the listed building and has thus complied with the policies summarised above.”The appeal decision has therefore addressed matters of design, external appearance and effect on the listed building. The application now before Members is a planning application and the principal issue for consideration is the impact of the development on neighbouring residential amenity. In this respect Members’ attention is drawn to the two letters of objection provided by the neighbour (the occupier of Postage Stamp Cottage) and reproduced in the APPENDIX.The neighbour’s objection letter specifically refers to loss of open outlook from the rear of the property.The neighbour’s rear garden/patio is small and enclosed by 2 metre high fences. It is also south facing. The window referred to in the objection letter is a window on the stairway and not to a principal room. Being mindful of the above I do not consider that the expanse, or area, of the solid side wall of the conservatory that is visible above the boundary fence is so significant, so as to result in any material loss of outlook, or result in, an oppressive outlook, from the neighbour’s property.It is not considered that a refusal of planning permission on the grounds that the development has resulted in loss of residential amenity of the occupier of the neighbouring cottage would be justified.The depth of the conservatory has been checked on site in response to the neighbour’s concern. This was found to be 2.35 metres as opposed to 1.78 metres indicated on the plan. I have referred this to the agent and requested an amended plan. I do not consider that it would be necessary to re-advertise any amended plan in view of the fact that the application is retrospective and the development under consideration is ‘as built’ and can be assessed on site.Finally, the neighbour has also raised the matter of the applicant’s vent pipe and maintains that this has been attached to her property. The applicant disagrees with this claim (as set out in the grounds of appeal in respect of application RR/2002/1597/L). This matter was put before the Appeal Inspector who stated “I further note that the Applicant disputes that the vent pipe is attached to the neighbouring cottage, however

60

this matter of property ownership is not for me to determined.” It is also the case that an issue of property ownership is not a matter for the Local Planning Authority.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (FURTHER INFORMATION FROM AGENT IN RESPECT OF DIMENSION AND/OR AMENDED PLAN)N1B (Amended plan).N8B (Rights of access/entry).

RR/2004/58/P SALEHURST/ROBERTSBRIDGE 13-21 HIGH STREET – 12 JAN 2004 REAR OF, ROBERTSBRIDGE

ERECTION OF FIVE TOWN HOUSESMr G Watkins

SITE A vacant site with an established Lawful Use for use as a car park to the rear of properties in the High Street and bounded to the north and west by Darwell Stream flood bank. The site area is approximately 0.2 hectares/0.5 acres. It lies within the Robertsbridge Conservation Area and within the Development Boundary as identified on the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) proposals map.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/87/2656 O/A Proposed development of sheltered housing unit –

withdrawn.RR/91/0108/P Residential development 11 two bedroomed houses and 12 one

bedroom flats – Withdrawn.RR/92/0107/P O/A 23 shletered accommodation units plus wardens cottage, car

parking and access road – Refused – Appeal Dismissed.RR/95/308/P O/A 17 sheltered retirement dwellings, car parking provision,

construct new access off High Street – Refused – Appeal dismissed.

RR/96/2283/O Lawful use of land for car parking – Approved.RR/1999/1215/P Development of three detached two storey dwellings with double

garages including provision of 18 car parking spaces for existing High Street properties and extension of existing access road – Refused – appeal allowed in respect of condition 9 – Archaeological watching brief.

RR/1999/1514/P Development of three detached two storey dwellings with double garages including provision of 18 car parking spaces for existing High Street properties and extension of existing access road – Approved.

RR/2002/721/P Flood defence works in and around Robertsbridge comprising of earth embankments, brick faced or timber walls and flood gates or demountable flood dams – Approved.

RR/2002/1672/P Variation of condition 2, 4 and 6 of RR/2002/721/P to allow construction of parts of the development prior to the submission of details for other parts – Approved

PROPOSAL The construction of 5 no. houses (one block of three and one block of two). The application is in full and the plans show a 3 storey development with garages/storage areas on the ground floor and residential accommodation above. The

61

dwellings incorporate balconies and external stairways to the living accommodation from ground floor level. The existing parking area serving a number of properties in High Street is retained and the access to the development would be via the existing car park access between nos. 11 and 13 High Street.

CONSULTEESParish Council – Comments awaited.Highway Authority – Does not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to further details and amendments in respect of the visibility splays with High Street and satisfactory surface water drainage details. The Authority is concerned that the existing surface water sewer has insufficient capacity to accept any additional discharge. The Authority would wish to be reconsulted on the scheme following the applicants response to these points.Environment Agency – No objection to the proposal but would like to offer the following advice:“The site is located in an area known to be at risk from flooding, however, the site is currently defended to the 1 in 100 year standard. The site is still vulnerable to surface water flooding and the Agency would still recommend that a pumped surface water disposal system is considered. The Agency would wish to confirm that these development proposals are seen as a significant improvement in terms of design to the existing permission for the development of 3 houses on the site”. A full copy of the Environment Agency’s comments are contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT to this Committee 19 February 2004.Southern Water Services – Comments awaited.Director of Transport & Environment – County Archaeologist – Comments awaited.Director of Services – Head of Housing – Requires the provision of a minimum of 40% affordable housing.Planning Notice – 3 letters/emails of objection (11,20 and 23 High Street)- The development is on the flood plain- The access is a narrow twitten. This is too narrow for accommodate the

development. Would create problems for emergency vehicles reaching the site- The place for an entrance to this site is on a blind bend and this would be even

closer to the flood bund- Question whether the existing sewer system is adequate to cope with additional

development- Would generate further traffic. Adequate car parking provision is presently a

problem in Robertsbridge- We were previously given assurance by a spokesman from DEFRA that they

would firmly oppose anymore planning applications for building on the flood plain- The Parish Council have stated that no more than 3 properties should be built on

a particular site (according to the local plan).- Concerned about surface water run off. No. 11 High Street has been flooded

twice since the main flood and both times from water run-off from the High Street- The style and character of the proposed properties is totally out of character with

the surrounding buildings- Would result in both loss of privacy and outlook in respect of our property (no. 11

High Street)- Would devalue our property- Strongly believe that a more thoughtful and sympathetic development is possible

SUMMARY There is an extant planning permission for the erection of 3 no. detached two storey dwellings on this site.

62

Following the granting of planning permission a restriction was put on the site by the Environment Agency under its own legislation that effectively prevents the development going ahead. The Environment Agency as agents for the Rother Drainage Board refused consent for works on the site pending the full consultants report on the Robertsbridge floods and the implementation of a scheme if viable.The developers have since been in consultation with the Environment Agency and with a view towards addressing the concerns raised are seeking planning permission for this alternative three storey scheme which sets all the living accommodation at second and third floor level above ground floor garaging and storage areas. I have no objection, in principle, to this form of development on the site, being mindful of the need to protect neighbouring residential amenity as well as the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The form of development is predominantly 2 ½ storey in respect of the elevation facing the rear of properties flanking High Street. The roof eaves level is lowered on this elevation with the upper most accommodation principally contained within the roof area. I have some concerns about the detailed design on the properties (including the ground floor garages), the use of external materials and the proposed surfacing of the hard landscaping. I have been in discussion with the applicant’s Agent on these matters (without prejudice) and I am awaiting an amended plan. I have also advised the Agent of the concerns raised by the Highway Authority and asked for a response. The Environment Agency has confirmed that there is now no objection to the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (FURTHER DETAILS AND AMENDED PLANS)1. CN7B (External materials (a) roofing tiles, (b) hanging tiles and (c) facing bricks).2. CN9K (Floor levels)3. CN8C (Foul and surface water drainage)4. Prior to the commencement of development or at such a time as shall be agreed

in writing with the Local Planning Authority, a scheme for the laying out of the whole site, including details of any walls, fences or other means of enclosure, driveways, parking areas and any other areas of hard landscaping (including the surface thereof). The scheme, as approved shall be implemented before the development is occupied for residential purposes, unless otherwise agreed in writing.

5. CN14J (Alternative permission to RR/1999/1215/P and RR/1999/1514/P).6. Conditions as may be required by Highway Authority.7. Conditions as may be required by County Archaeologist.8. The ground floor of the properties shall be retained as garages and storage

areas as shown on the approved plan and at no time in the future shall be occupied as living accommodation.

9. CN8G (Bunded tanks)Notes:N1B Amended plans(i) A public foul sewer crosses the application site the approximate position of which

is shown on the attached plan. The exact position of the public sewer must be determined on site by the applicant before the layout and landscaping of the proposed development are finalised. No new building or new tree planting should be located over or within 3 metres of the public sewer. Access to the public sewer must be retained both during and after the construction period.

(ii) The Environment Agency has indicated that due to the low lying nature of the area, the site may experience drainage problems, including flooding during prolonged periods of heavy rainfall

63

RR/2003/3083/P UDIMORE THE KING’S HEAD, RYE ROAD26 NOV 2003 OUTLINE: ERECTION OF TWO STOREY EXTENSION AT REAR

OF PREMISES WITH CLOSURE OF AN EXISTING ACCESSMr & Mrs Jones

This site has been added to your list for inspection.

SITE The Kings Head Public House currently comprises an ‘L’ shaped range of traditional single and two storey buildings adjoining the south side of the B2089. The 1929 edition of the Ordnance Survey map and old photographs supplied by the applicant show an additional single storey detached building abutting the highway that was demolished, probably in the 1960’s although precisely when is not known.Three previous outline applications for a new bungalow on land adjoining the west side of the pub were refused on grounds of non-essential dwelling in the countryside and substandard access. An outline application to erect a single storey building for four motel units occupying the site of the former building however, was granted in 1981 (RR/81/0152) but not implemented.

HISTORYRR/80/1343 Outline: Bungalow with garage – RefusedRR/81/0152 Outline: Addition to provide four motel units – ApprovedRR/85/1923 Outline: Dwelling with garage served by new vehicular access –

RefusedRR/98/2098/P Outline: Erection of one detached dwelling with parking spaces

served by a new access on site of former building – Refused

PROPOSAL Although submitted as an outline application, it is accompanied by a sketch plan showing the applicants intentions. This has been amended and shows an 18m (formerly 22.5m) long two storey wing attached to the rear of the public house. This would include new owners accommodation, storage and free the existing accommodation in the public house for tourism (eg. B&B). An accompanying letter states: “Further to our meeting last Friday Mr & Mrs Jones have instructed me to submit the attached revised sketch plan for your information.As we discussed I agree with your comments on the design considerations, however, it has proved to be impossible to incorporate a suitable functional solution which will enable Mr & Mrs Jones to carry on their projected business requirements whilst at the same time constricting the design to suit 16 Century building parameters.I have done my best to meet your requirements, which I believe would be desirable to blend in with the surrounding environment, and we have removed the garage at this stage to assist in this aim.With regard to the roof slopes I have shown them to be the same as the existing on the end accommodation, this has been possible by incorporating sloping ceilings, but as the connecting block requires to be wider that the original main part of the building the pitch to this has been left but as this is the same as that of the earlier extension it is felt that it would be less noticeable, particularly as there is another roof of this pitch already on the site.

64

Unfortunately the building still goes beyond the ideal building line on the side of the building but we feel that with suitable careful landscaping this can be overcome and that this revised solution would be more of a satisfactory scale to blend in with the site.Hopefully the attached revised proposals will produce an adequate solution, and that this will meet your requirements for approval”.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council - Support an approval but would like to know more about the intended use.Highway Authority - “The Highway Authority does not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to the observations below:There is no highway objection to this proposal in principle.However, it is noted that the application also includes the closure of an existing access to the Rye Road (B2089) which is welcomed by this Authority. In the event of your Committee being minded to approved this application it is requested that the Applicant is made aware of the need to contact the Local Area Highway Manager on 01424 220022 prior to any commencement of works adjacent to the public highway”.Environment Agency - Has no objection.Director of Services – Environment - Has no objection and does not see the need to attach any conditions.Southern Water - Has no objection.Planning Notice - 1 letter from local resident – 1. Is it contrary to policies regarding – essential to needs of agriculture and forestry; AONB; Conservation Area; no additional traffic hazard. 2. Village does not have a centre; Plough Inn closed year or so ago due to lack of passing trade; Kings Head trades on most days well below potential; tourism is centred in Rye, Hastings and Bexhill. 3. Difficult to understand what the business plans are; how would this impact upon a new village hall? 4. Cannot envisage how the business can or would support extensions of such significant dimensions; we oppose any application on the scale submitted.1 letter of support from Tourism south East – There is a strong market for good quality, reasonably priced accommodation in most parts of the region. Proposed extension will enable rooms in the older, more characterful part of the public house to be used by guests; we are keen to encourage this type of development where it helps to retain the public house.

SUMMARY Following the last refusal, the Applicant’s were advised that there may be scope to provide some additional residential accommodation by means of an appropriately designed extension to the public house. This application is an attempt to obtain outline planning permission for such an extension.Notwithstanding the reduction in proposed size negotiated with the Applicants, I remain of the opinion that the extension is too large and out of proportion with the scale of the existing building. In terms of design, whilst significantly improved from the original, there are elements (eg. width of gable ends and angles of roof pitch) that remain out of keeping. The view is taken that the proposal is detrimental to the character of the building which is located in the High Weald AONB. Members will view the site before determining the application

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING)1. Although submitted as an outline application, it is accompanied by a Preliminary

Sketch Plan showing the Applicant’s intention and therefore considered part of the application. This shows an extension the size of which would in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, be disproportionately large and out of scale with

65

the size of the existing building. Furthermore, the elements of design would be out of keeping with the existing building. For these reasons, the proposed development would be out of keeping with and detrimental to the character of the existing building and of the area and be contrary to Policy S1(b) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(iv) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

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

RR/2004/100/P ICKLESHAM RYEVIEW – LAND AT, THE STRAND, 16 JAN 04 WINCHELSEA

OUTLINE: ERECTION OF 2 BED BRICK CHALET/BUNGALOW TO SHARE JOINT ACCESS WITH RYEVIEWMr & Mrs Robinson

I have added this site to your list for inspection.

SITE Rye View is a chalet bungalow occupying backland at the rear of the houses that front the north side of ‘The Strand’ (A259) trunk road. A single vehicle width access and drive serving the property is located between ‘Thirteen Springs’ and ‘Sunny Side’. The site is adjoined on its north side by the ‘River Brede’ and is shown on the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) as being within the Development Boundary of Winchelsea, the High Weald AONB and the Floodplain.

HISTORYNone

PROPOSAL It is proposed to erect a 2 bedroom chalet bungalow on part of the garden adjoining the east side of ‘Rye View’. The plot would be 11.5m wide x 25m deep. Access would be shared with Rye View. A copy supporting letter dated 8 February 2004 received from the Applicant (by email) is contained in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this meeting 19 February 2004.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – “Support refusal on the grounds that this development would be setting a precedent for backland development in a totally unsuitable area. The property would be very close to the riverbank and there is concern due to this area being on a floodplain. There is restricted access on to and off the site – this part of the A259 is particularly dangerous due to the camber of the road.This property would have an adverse affect on the neighbouring properties and compromise their privacy.We are aware that there have been letters of concern regarding this application and ask that Rother District Council consider these as in the usual manner”

66

Highways Agency – “Having visited the site, I note that the existing access is approximately 3.5 metres wide where it passes between the front gardens of the adjacent properties. It would need to be at least 4.5 metres in width to perform a shared access function. However, the access as existing is already substandard. The available visibility to the left on exit is only some 54 metres (and should be at least 70 metres in this unlit 30mph zone) and the approach driveway gradient up to the A259 trunk road appears to be about 1 in 5 and should be no steeper than 1 in 25.Since this proposal will increase the traffic on this substandard access, the Highways Agency recommends that thi application is refused on grounds of highway safety”.Highway Authority – Access to the site is from A259 Trunk Road and therefore the Highways Agency needs to be consulted on this application.Environment Agency (Drainage/Flooding) – Comments awaited.Environment Agency (Landfill) – Comments awaited.County Archaeologist – Comments awaited.Planning Notice – 8 letters of objection: overlooking; obstruction of view; loss of light; loss of peace and tranquillity; unacceptable extra traffic and occupants at end of garden; dangerous shared access; extra traffic using narrow access close to my property and access door; previous application in area refused by Environment Agency; loss of amenity; precedent for further development along boundary with SSSI; should be restricted to 2 parking spaces only; loss of privacy; devaluation; risk of increased flooding; additional water pipes to existing system; pollution from extra traffic; wildlife will be diminished; problems with visibility; width of drive does not allow two vehicles to pass; many accidents over years; access already serves three householders.

SUMMARY At the time of writing this report I have not received comments from the Environment Agency. It is my opinion that on this site their comments will be material particularly as the proposal is for a new dwelling in the floodplain. In order to avoid any danger to life from flooding and/or increase to the risk of flooding elsewhere, I would expect the Environment Agency to at least recommend that there should be no living accommodation at ground level. This is likely to require the erection of a dwelling significantly higher than ‘Rye View’ which is unlikely to be in keeping with the character of the area or avoid causing detriment to adjoining amenity. The Highways Agency recommends that the application be refused on the grounds of highway safety. As submitted, therefore, I would not expect to support the proposal for reasons similar to those set out below.

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (COMMENTS FROM OUTSTANDING CONSULTEES)1. No flood risk assessment has been submitted with the application and it has not

been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the development would not increase the flood risk to people and property on the site and in the surrounding area and would not be contrary to Government Advice contained in PPG25 and to Policy S1(h) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy DS1 (xi) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

2. RN7A (Increased traffic).3. RN7C (Restricted access)

RR/2002/2666/P SEDLESCOMBE 3 COACH HOUSE, HURST LANE, 5 NOV 2002 ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO FORM

67

DINING ROOM AND UTILITY ROOM AREA Mr & Mrs Garner

On 19 December 2003 planning permission was granted for the erection of a single storey extension to form a dining room and utility room (RR/2002/2666/P). The development has not been carried out wholly in accordance with the approved plan and is the subject of an objection from the occupier of the neighbouring property. Following planning enforcement investigations an amended plan has been submitted and the applicant seeks retrospective permission for the amendments. The amendments relate to the fenestration and are as follows:1. Velux roof light to the side elevation2. Brickwork below the new bay window (this was previously shown to be

supported by brackets)3. The new window to the utility room is marginally deeper (lower cill).With respect to (2) and (3) these changes are not material and would normally be dealt with under delegated powers as a minor amendment to the existing planning permission.The neighbour (the occupier of no. 2 Schoolmasters House) objected to the original planning application on the grounds of overlooking. This occupier has been notified of the amended plan and has submitted a further letter of objection. The letter is reproduced in full in the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT to this Committee 19 February 2004. A principal ground of objection is the rooflight that has been inserted (1), which again, raises the issue of overlooking.In Members’ assessment of this amended plan proposal it is necessary to be mindful of the nature of ‘permitted development rights’. Unlike in the case of flats (such as Great Sanders House), provision is contained within the General Permitted Development Order 1995 to allow the occupiers of dwelling houses to carry out certain developments without the need to apply for planning permission. This would include the insertion of a window in a dwellinghouse, or in this case, a rooflight. Therefore, whilst in granting a planning permission there is a requirement upon an applicant to carry out a development in accordance with the approved plans, upon completion of the approved development there is nothing to stop a property owner inserting a new window/rooflight under permitted development rights. The difference is that in this case the property owner has inserted the rooflight in the course of implementing the works for the extension. Therefore, whilst members could insist that the rooflight be removed and the development carried out in accordance with the approved plan, the applicant could put it back again afterwards. To insist upon this would have clear financial implications for the applicant whilst, in the long-run, not necessarily achieving the removal of the roof light – if indeed, that was considered to be a desirable objective. In considering planning appeals, Inspectors are mindful of ‘permitted development rights’ and to pursue such a planning authority open to a claim of unreasonable behaviour. A letter received from the applicant is also contained within the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT.

RECOMMENDATION APPROVE (AMENDED PLAN)

RR/2003/3056/P SEDLESCOMBE PESTALOZZI INTERNATIONAL VILLAGE, 6 JAN 2004 LAND TO SOUTH OF ACCESS ROAD

DEPOSIT OF SPOIL ON NEARBY LAND ARISING FROM EXTENSION OF SEDLESCOMBE SPORTSFIELD CAR PARK,

68

PIPING SHORT STRETCH OF DITCH AT EDGE OF NEW CAR PARK AREASedlescombe Parish Council

SITE The site is located within the grounds of the Pestalozzi children’s village. Under planning application ref. RR/2003/1988/P permission was granted, inter alia, for an extension to the car park serving the nearby sports fields. This has not commenced. The development would entail the removal and redeposition of a certain amount of spoil from the raised ground around the existing car park.

HISTORYRR/2003/1988/P To replace existing pavilion, construct new groundsman’s store,

create access and two detached disabled parking bays and to extend existing parking – Approved.

PROPOSAL The proposal is to deposit the spoil on an area of pasture land within the grounds of the Pestalozzi village a little distance to the south east of the car park and on the opposite side of the access track. It is also proposed to pipe-in two short stretches of open drainage ditch.

CONSULTEESParish Council – Parish Council application therefore no comment.Environment Agency – Comments awaited.Director of Services – No objection in the context of surface water drainage. Please would you advise where the spoil has come from and is not ‘clean’?Planning Notice – No comments received.

COMMENT The spoil would be transferred from another part of the site and I have no reason to believe that it would not be ‘clean’. The spoil would be deposited in a hollow and the plans show the surface to be levelled off to provide a natural appearance with the contours of the land. The development would not, therefore, have a detrimental impact in landscape terms. The proposed development in respect of the drainage ditch is relatively minor in nature and subject to any comments from the Environment Agency, I hope to make the

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING)1. Unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority the

deposited spoil shall comprise a surface level of top soil and shall be seeded upon completion of the works or during the planting season immediately following the development.

N1A Amended plan dated November 2003.

RR/2003/3563/P SEDLESCOMBE HIGHFIELD PLANTATION - ADJOINING 07 JAN 2004 SPILSTEAD FARM, STREAM LANE, SEDLESCOMBE/

WHATLINGTONUSE OF LAND FOR PARKING, TAKE-OFF AND LANDING OF LIGHT HELICOPTERMr I Casselden

69

SITE Highfield Plantation is a rectangular area of land extending to some 2.5 hectares to the east of the A21 trunk road. It is approximately 0.5 Km south of the junction of Stream Lane with the A21. It is part of Spilstead Farm and whilst the application site (edged red) relates to Highfield Plantation, the remainder of Spilstead Farm is shown as edged blue on the submitted drawings. At the northern end of Spilstead Farm to the east of a surfaced access is a group of farm buildings with an adjacent hardstanding. The remainder of Spilstead Farm comprises undulating farmland which is mainly down to grass. The village of Sedlescombe lies to the east, and there are small enclaves of development in the vicinity. Two public footpaths cross Spilstead Farm and one runs alongside the eastern boundary. One of these footpaths runs in an east-west direction at the southern end of Highfield Plantation.

HISTORY Although this application relates to Highfield Plantation, the application envisages adherence to the flight protocol that is applicable to Spilstead Farm. It would therefore appear appropriate to set out the history of Spilstead Farm:

It is understood that flying activities on the land commenced during the early 1980s. On 23 January 1986 permission was granted for the storage of aircraft in the existing building (RR/85/1990). This was the subject of a number of conditions, including a restriction of the number of aircraft that could be stored or flown to or from the site; personal and temporary restrictions; limitation on the number of days flights could take place to 28 in any calendar year. At the same time enforcement action was authorised in respect of the use of an agricultural building for storage of aircraft and the use of the land for the taking off and landing of aircraft.On 20 November 1986 further enforcement action was authorised in respect of a breach of conditions in respect of RR/85/1990. Enforcement Notices were issued on 25 March 1987. A Local Public Inquiry opened in October 1987 but this was adjourned by the Inspector. As a result a further application was submitted.RR/87/2798 was a permission granted for the storage of aircraft in the barn, subject to conditions.On 27 June 1988 permission was granted for the use of the land for the taking off and landing of light aircraft for recreational purposes (RR/88/0988). Conditions included a temporary period of one year, maximum 6 movements a day and 50 days use a year.On 19 October 1988 an appeal was determined against conditions imposed on RR/87/2798. This deleted the conditions restricting the number of planes and the personal condition. The temporary condition was extended to two years.On 7 August 1989 permission was granted for the renewal of RR/88/0988 under reference RR/89/0622. Conditions included a limitation on the use to one year; up to 12 take-offs a day; 600 movements a year.On 8 October 1990, permission was granted for a renewal of RR/89/0622 and for a variation of conditions (RR/90/1791). This was temporary, expiring on 8 October 1993.RR/90/2228 granted permission for the continued use of the agricultural barn for storage. This was the subject of a number of conditions which were deleted by an appeal decision dated 13 June 1991.An application was referred to Full Council for permanent permission for flying. It was withdrawn on 3 February 1994 (RR/93/1855).On 16 June 1994 application RR/94/663 was refused for the use of the land as an airstrip. This was the subject of a Public Inquiry, the result of which was that the appeal was allowed with a number of conditions. These included a temporary period for 3 years, and limitations on the yearly number of flights to 850; a weekly total of 35 and a daily maximum of 15. In addition, to control landing and take-off routes a flight protocol was imposed.

70

On 11 August 1994 permission was refused for an underground fuel storage tank (RR/94/1262/P). An appeal against this was allowed on 22 March 1995.On 19 January 1999 permission was granted for the continued use of Spilstead Farm as an airstrip (RR/98/1323/P). The permission was the subject of a number of conditions and a flight protocol. It was temporary for a period of 10 years. Conditions 2 and 3 state:

“2. The airstrip shall only be used by the Beech F33C registered G-COLA and other single-engine fixed wing aircraft with a registered maximum permitted take-off weight not exceeding 1250 kilos with a noise certification level not exceeding 67dBA.Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the locality.

3. The airstrip shall not be used by helicopters, jets, or microlight craft.Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the locality.”

These conditions do not apply to Highfield Plantation as it was not part of the application site.On 9 October 2003 application RR/2003/2175/P for the retention of use without complying with conditions 2 and 3 on planning permission RR/98/1323/P to enable one specified helicopter to use the airstrip was refused.

PROPOSAL The application is to use Highfield Plantation for the parking, take-off and landing of a light helicopter. The application is accompanied by supporting information which is reproduced as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 19 February 2004. In summary this proposes that the helicopter will be started and run up at the parking location; will lift and hover to the mid point of the runway of Spilstead Airfield; and depart adopting the flight profile used by fixed wing aircraft. Alternatively to lift and depart initially to the south east (between the A21 and the line of the existing runway) until joining the existing flight profile. The existing flight protocol applicable to Spilstead Farm which was put in place in respect of RR/98/1323/P will be adopted. There would be a maximum of 2 take-offs in any one day, 6 in any one week and 150 in any one calendar year.

CONSULTATIONSSedlescombe Parish Council:- “Supports refusal of the above mentioned planning application for the following reasons:Amenities of the locality need protection. On the occasions that planning permission was granted for flying from the nearby Spilstead Farm airstrip, in 1995 and 1998, it was decided by a Planning Inspector and Rother District Council that the conditions restricting use to the Beech and small single-engine fixed wing aircraft were necessary ‘in the interests of the amenities of the locality’. Highfield Plantation is very close to the Spilstead Airstrip, nothing has changed in the locality and the amenities still need to be safeguarded. A helicopter would introduce unacceptable intrusion into the lives of people living in the locality.No reason for a different view being taken. This is a very similar application to RR/2003/2175/P that was refused by Rother on 9 October 2003 apart, that is, from it being an additional use and not a replacement for the Beech as previously proposed. Both reasons for refusal used on that occasion are appropriate to this application. At that time it was stated ‘The Local Planning Authority can see no reason for a different view being taken now’ when referring to the conditions that excluded use by helicopters imposed by the Planning Inspector (RR/94/663) and Rother (RR/98/1323/P). As

71

nothing has changed in the last three months, the Local Planning Authority has no reasons for taking a different view now.Actions of the applicant. A letter of objection was sent to Application RR/2003/2175/P from residents of Vale Road, Battle, who are neighbours of the applicant and were subjected to much disturbance during the time he was flying in and out of the land at the rear of their properties. The letter states that although the applicant pretends to be ‘sensitive’ (as in a Battle Observer report) to the noise nuisance to nearby residents, he is actually oblivious to those he annoys in seeking to get his own way. The Parish Council has seen a copy of the very detailed diary that was kept at Vale Road and it illustrates the extreme disturbance that was experienced. Mr Cassleden is quoted in the local paper last week as wanting a bit of give and take but for the residents of Sedlescombe and Whatlington it would be all give with no positive benefit.Breaches of protocol and the Air Navigation Order. The adopted protocol whereby pilots are required to avoid flying in the flight avoidance zones centres upon Sedlescombe and Whatlington villages has partially been successful. However, there have been breaches of the protocol that have caused annoyance to residents. It is suggested that there will continue to be breaches because the Air Navigation Order requires pilots to operate only within the limits of a particular plane, the limits of the pilot’s skill, weather conditions and those forecast and, therefore, there is usually an excuse for straying into the flight avoidance zones. From information received from residents of Vale Road, Battle, the applicant often ignored the protocol he was supposed to abide by and flew on routes that were not agreed and at times that he said he would not, ie Sundays.PPG24 (Planning and noise) makes several relevant statements as follows:-

Siting of noisy activities. ‘…new development, involving noisy activities should, if possible be sited away from noise-sensitive land uses…’ (housing is a noise-sensitive land use). The Parish Council considers it is possible for a helicopter to use other sites away from the villages.

Mitigation of noise nuisance. ‘…local planning authorities should consider whether it is practicable to control or reduce noise levels, or to mitigate the impact of noise, through the use of conditions or planning obligations.’ The existing planning conditions for Spilstead Airstrip attempt to control noise levels by restricting use to the quieter types of aircraft.

Degree of certainty. ‘Development plans should give developers and local communities a degree of certainty about the areas in which particular types of development will be acceptable and those in which special measures may be required in order to mitigate the impact of noise.’ The Parish Council suggests that the 10-year planning permission granted in 1998 was also meant to give local communities a degree of certainty about what was and was not acceptable at Spilstead Farm. It is noted that one objector was concerned about the airstrip before moving to Sedlescombe but was assured by the Planning Department that the conditions restricted the use of the airstrip to exclude helicopters. This must also follow for adjacent land.

Unacceptable degree of disturbance. ‘…local planning authorities must ensure that development does not cause an unacceptable degree of disturbance. They should also bear in mind that a subsequent intensification or change of use may result in greater intrusion and they may wish to consider the use of appropriate conditions.’ Planning permission was granted in 1995 for Spilstead Airstrip following an inquiry where the problem of disturbance of the locality was fully discussed. The level of use was agreed following much deliberation and it was agreed that it would not be appropriate to allow helicopters, jets or microlights to fly in and out of that site. In 1998, an application for more permanent permission

72

attempted to increase the number of flights and to allow some types of microlights. In 2003, further intensification of use was proposed by allowing use by Mr Cassleden’s helicopter. Each subsequent application seeks to increase the amount of intrusion into the lives of those living in the locality. Now in 2004, a slightly different site is being tried and the existing intrusion into people’s lives by the noise from the A21 is being used to support the case for even more noise.

Special characteristics of helicopter noise. ‘Helicopter noise has different characteristics from that from fixed wing aircraft and is often regarded as more intrusive or more annoying by the general public. The noise exposure categories should be applied with caution…’ It is suggested by the Parish Council that it was the different characteristics of the noise from helicopters that led the Inspector to restrict the use of the Spilstead airstrip as he did in 1995 and was continued in 1998 by Rother District Council.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. ‘Special consideration should also be given to development which would affect the quiet enjoyment of the National Parks, the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Heritage Coasts.’ Highfield Plantation lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Parish Council suggests that the sound of helicopters warming up, taking off, landing and running down would adversely affect the quiet enjoyment of the AONB. The Vale Road diary shows that the warming up and running down noise while the helicopter was on the ground lasted for varying amounts of time, around 5-8 minutes normally, and when there was trouble starting the helicopter on 14/02/2001, it back-fired and set dogs barking and lasted for 18 minutes.

Countryside Stewardship. The flight path of the helicopter would be over a newly-designated Countryside Stewardship area at Beanford Farm, Sedlescombe, disturbing the wildlife that is being conserved by other careful methods.”Battle Town Council:- “The Town Council wrote to you on 8 October 2003 to register its concerns about the implications of using the Spilstead Farm airstrip for helicopter landing and take-off.Those concerns related partly to safety but also the potential for disturbance, particularly from noise. The Town Council believes that those considerations apply equally to this latest application and it therefore supports objections based on such concerns.”Whatlington Parish Council:- “The council is totally against the above application as are our parishioners and this is shown by the many letters of objection you have received. Over one hundred letters were also sent last year objecting to Mr Casselden’s previous application for the same use on virtually the same area i.e. Spilstead Farm and its environs.In 1995 following the public enquiry the Inspector in order to stop any nuisance to local residents banned the use of this area for helicopters. This was upheld by yourselves in 1998 and again in 2003 and with all logic must be upheld again.We would quote RC12. To safeguard the amenities of the locality

RC17. To ensure the appropriate use of the siteRC22. To protect the amenities of occupiers of nearby premises.

We can see no justification in enlarging the existing temporary airfield.We urge the Planning Officer and planning committee to refuse this application.”Highways Agency:- Comments awaited.InterRoute:- Comments awaited.Director of Services - Head of Environmental Health:- Comments awaited.National Air Traffic Services:- The proposed development has been examined from a technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with safeguarding criteria.Highway Authority;- Does not wish to restrict the grant of consent.

73

Planning Notice:- 53 letters of objection (summary): was refused by the Planning Committee only three months ago and the reasons

for refusal still stand fear close proximity to A21 will distract drivers causing accidents will cause excessive noise over Sedlescombe and other surrounding villages

and properties at the Public Inquiry a few years ago the Inspector categorically stated that no

helicopters should be allowed to fly; we urge the Council to support the findings of that Inquiry and refuse this application

not in keeping with an AONB yet again our environment is threatened by an application from someone who

does not live in the village if this use is allowed will have two airstrips within almost the same field understand have been many complaints from applicant’s neighbours in North

Trade Road about the noise - now wishes to move it to our village in draft protocol it states ‘pilots’ - are we to assume that the intention is for more

than one pilot to use this helipad if permission is granted, how can you refuse others who also apply noise from airstrip is at the moment bearable because of the consideration

shown by the current operator and the limited number of movements will cause distress to farm animals helicopters fly low and slowly and the noise is frightening to children, animals

and the elderly and is an invasion of privacy will add to air pollution why should another application be considered by you - has only been three

months since the last refusal feel that the applicant will just continue to submit planning applications until

people are so fed up with writing letters of objection that one day his application will slip through

if permission is granted for one helicopter it will not be long before others are applying as well

this time there is no suggestion that the helicopter would be a replacement for the noisy Beech aircraft

the outcome of the 1995 Public Inquiry was fair to the users of the airstrip whilst safeguarding the interests of local residents. This was achieved largely by adherence to condition 2 of the report which limited the maximum permitted take-off weights and noise levels and condition 3 which excluded helicopters, jets or microlights. This second application for a helicopter does not differ from the previous apart from the use of a different name for what is essentially the same site. If granted would allow aircraft of any type to use the airstrip thus negating the Inspector’s conditions. Urge the Council to refuse the application

If allowed would give rise to the need for additional facilities to service the helicopter

SUMMARY I consider that there are two main issues to consider in this instance. They are the effect on the character of the High Weald AONB and the effect of any increased noise on the amenities of residents in the vicinity. Before considering these issues I consider it would be useful to examine some of the relevant local and national policies. Policy S1 of the County Structure Plan contains a number of criteria against which all development proposals will be judged. It includes S1(b) - the need to minimise the impact on the environment, including residential areas; and S1(j) - according with the objectives of AONB designation. Policy S10 states that in the countryside agriculture

74

and woodland will remain the main land use and development and change in the countryside will be strictly controlled. It also states that proposals for new development in the countryside will be required to demonstrate that a countryside location is necessary and a town or village location would not be suitable. Policy EN2 relates to AONBs and states that conserving and enhancing the landscape quality and character will be the primary objective which will be achieved by a number of means including the careful control of development. Policy EN3 states that in order to protect the quiet enjoyment of AONBs development within them will be limited to that derived from the character and qualities of the countryside having regard to the social and economic well being of the area. Development involving change or damage to their character and qualities, including significant increases in noise and/or intrusion from traffic or other activity … will not be permitted. Policy DS1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) continues this theme and states that development will avoid prejudicing the AONB. Policy GD1 requires all development to be in keeping with an not unreasonably harm the amenities of adjoining properties as well as being compatible with the conservation of the natural beauty of the AONB. Planning Policy Guidance Note 7 (The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Social and Economic Development) states in paragraph 4.7 that the primary purpose of AONB designation is the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape. Paragraph 4.8 states that in all cases the environmental effects of new proposals will be a major consideration, although it will be appropriate to have regard to the economic and social well being of the area. Planning Policy Guidance Note 13 (Transport) states the following in paragraph 5 of Annex B:“… the role of small airports and airfields in serving business, recreational, training and emergency services needs. As demand for commercial air transport grows, this General Aviation (GA) may find access to larger airports increasingly restricted. GA operators will therefore have to look to smaller airfields to provide facilities. In formulating their plan policies and proposals, and in determining planning applications, local authorities should take account of the economic, environmental, and social impacts of GA on local and regional economies.”With regard to noise Planning Policy Guidance Note 24 (Planning and Noise) contains advice specifically relating to helicopters. It makes the point that helicopter noise has different characteristics from fixed wing aircraft, and is often regarded as more intrusive or more annoying by the general public. It also states that planning applications should be accompanied by information about the proposed take off/landing flight paths and air traffic routes where appropriate.With regard to the impact on the AONB, the Inspector concluded in 1995 that the use of the airstrip had no adverse effect on the landscape or character of the AONB. In the absence of harm to the landscape his overall conclusion on harm to the AONB depended on the assessment of noise and the effect on quiet enjoyment. This very much follows the current policies that were quoted earlier. It would be useful to quote paragraphs 18 and 19 of the Inspector’s decision:“18. I observed from different properties, several take-offs and flights, in the noisiest

aircraft based at Spilstead (a Beech R33C). It followed the ‘correct’ flight path: south, followed at a suitable altitude by a wide turn to the south-east or south-west round to a northerly bearing. Consequently there was no overflying and the only noise I was exposed to was warming-up, take-off, climbing, and turning. Cruising was too distant to be significant and landing is relatively quiet anyway. I found that the take-offs were noisy for the properties nearest to the airstrip, in the northern part of Sedlescombe, but that the peak noise only lasted for seconds. It was also not remotely like the noise of a jet or a heavy aircraft. For the more

75

distant properties there was an audible, but not particularly loud, drone lasting for 2-3 minutes after take-off.

19. The skies of East Sussex are evidently very busy because I was directly overflown during my site visit by a number of non-Spilstead aircraft, including military. I took particular note of light aircraft cruising directly over Sedlescombe at a relatively low altitude. If that were a frequent occurrence at weekends, I would consider the disturbance unacceptable. I heard evidence that the flights from the airstrip that I observed on my visit were far from typical and that Spilstead aircraft do frequently overfly at low altitudes.”

The Inspector concluded that if rules relating to flight paths and overflying were observed and overhead activity controlled, the noise of a relatively small maximum number of daily take-offs, even at weekends when residents are entitled to enjoy peace and quiet in their gardens, would not cause unacceptable disturbance. He saw no difficulty about a condition limiting the use to light aircraft and excluding jets, helicopters and microlights. The question to be addressed now is whether the proposal would adversely affect the AONB and its quiet enjoyment and the enjoyment of the amenities of residents in the area. This proposal differs from that recently refused under reference RR/2003/2175/P in that it involves an area outside, but adjacent to, the area granted permission as an airstrip. It is envisaged that the helicopter would warm up at Highfield Plantation and then follow the flight protocol to take off. In terms of the impact of the flying of the helicopter I do not therefore see that there can be any difference between this and the recently refused application. Another difference is that the movements by the helicopter would be in addition to those using Spilstead Farm. The take-offs at the farm are limited by conditions on RR/98/1323/P to a maximum of 15 a day, 35 a week and 750 a year. Those envisaged in the current application are a maximum number of take-offs of 2 a day, 6 in any week and 150 in any calendar year. This would increase the maximum total number of take-offs to 17 a day, 41 a week and 900 in a calendar year. The total number of potential movements i.e. take-offs and landings would of course be double. Furthermore application RR/2003/2175/P envisaged the use being for one year whereas no such suggestion is made in this case. I therefore consider that the impact on the AONB and the amenities of nearby residents would be affected to a greater extent than was the case when RR/98/1323/P was being considered. Given these factors, together with the decision to refuse RR/2003/2175/P, I will make the following:

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The Inspector who allowed the appeal for the use of the adjoining land as an

airstrip in respect of RR/94/663 imposed a number of conditions including one excluding the use of helicopters. This was also one of the conditions imposed on RR/98/1323/P when permission was granted for the continued use of the land as an airstrip for a further 10 years. The Local Planning Authority can see no reason for a different view being taken now. It is considered that the use of the land by a helicopter would introduce an unacceptable level of noise that would adversely affect the amenities of residents in the vicinity and be contrary to Policy S1(b) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

2. The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty where development will be limited to that derived from the character and qualities of the countryside and conserving and enhancing landscape quality will be a primary objective. The increase in noise generated by the use of a helicopter will not accord with this objective and be contrary to Policies S1(j), S10, EN2 and EN3 of

76

East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy DS1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). It will also be contrary to the advice in PPG7 in that the primary purpose of AONB designation is the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape and that the environmental effects of a new proposal will be a major consideration.

3. Any reasons arising from consultee responses.

RR/2003/2982/P FAIRLIGHT WHITE LODGE, SEA ROAD21 OCT 2003 DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE AND ERECTION OF NEW

TWO BEDROOM BUNGALOWMr G Rees

SITE The existing bungalow ‘White Lodge’ occupies an ‘L’ shaped plot at the junction of the unmade Cliff Way and Sea Road. The ‘L’ shaped curtilage includes land at the rear of ‘Red Lodge’ fronting Cliff Way upon which currently stands a flat roofed single garage. It is proposed to separate this 15m wide (frontage) x 23m deep plot from White Lodge and erect the proposed bungalow. Three previous applications for similar developments have been refused on this plot and the last two dismissed on appeal.

HISTORYRR/89/685/P Outline: Erection of bungalow – RefusedRR/90/1385/P Outline: Erection of bungalow served by new vehicular access –

Refused (Appeal dismissed)RR/2002/1858/P Outline: Demolition of garage and erection of chalet bungalow –

Refused (Appeal dismissed)

PROPOSAL To erect an ‘L’ shaped two bedroom bungalow on the site. This would have half brick/render elevations and traditional plain tiles roof. Two on-site parking spaces are proposed.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council - Considers that this application is over development of the site and recommends refusal. Careful consideration should be given to the problems with drainage and the cliffs in the area.Highway Authority - Does not wish to restrict grant of Consent commenting that, although the proposed dwelling will have access onto Cliff Way, this does not form part of the adopted highway and therefore highway conditions have not been issued in this instance.Environment Agency - Has no objection subject to permeability test being carried out to demonstrate that suitable subsoil and adequate land are available for the soakaways and only uncontaminated roof water being discharged direct to soakaways via a sealed drainage system.Director of Services – Head of Amenities – “The proposed property is behind the estimated 100 year erosion line (Halcrows) but is close to the fault line (Fairlight Cove Fault).Surface water drainage is a problem at Fairlight (high ground water levels) and soakaways on this small site may cause problems”.Southern Water – Following concerns about possible problems with the use of soakaways, Southern Water were asked to comment upon the possible disposing of surface water into the existing foul sewerage system. The following is a copy of their response:

77

“The developer is now proposing a means of surface water disposal, different from that indicated on the application. As such Southern Water would wish to amend its response to the application.Foul SewerageThere are no objections to the proposed method of foul sewage disposal.Surface Water SewerageThere is not adequate capacity in the existing foul sewerage system for additional surface water flows. Until such time as adequate sewerage is provided within the existing sewerage system the development would be considered premature. The proposed discharge would exacerbate existing downstream flooding, unless alternative means of surface water disposal were proposed.There is an existing watercourse close to the site and it would be preferable for surface water to discharge to the local land drainage system. The exact rate of discharge would be the subject of a discharge consent application. Off site surface water sewerage could be requisitioned under the terms of the Water Industry Act, if the proposed sewer were to serve the existing and proposed dwellings.In view of local concerns with regards to surface water disposal, it would be preferable if the developer put forward proposals for surface water disposal for consideration along with the main substance of the application, prior to the granting of consent for the development”.Planning Notice - Letters of objection from “Fiddlers Dream” and “Witsend”: - application states no felling of trees but 5 out of 10 fir trees have already been felled; would have six properties against our boundaries; would be an over dominant building form on Cliff Way and the front of our property; ground is at least 2m higher than ours and will overlook directly into our front bedroom/lounge windows, impede our privacy and block some light; the side and rear elevation will have windows overlooking our property, not on building line; would be in our view; devaluation; overdevelopment and harmful to local character; objection would not be so profuse if set back alongside Fiddlers Dream; damage to Cliff Way which is in poor condition; lorries will impede traffic and cause congestion; soakaways would not be advisable given existing problems with landslip and erosion; will be a drain on local electricity supplies; is not advisable to build more properties so close to cliffs; additional traffic hazard in Cliff Way which is single track; blot on our landscape; property would look directly into the front of our house; nowhere for vehicles to turn.Fairlight Residents Association object on following grounds:a) New building will add extra weight near to the cliff edgeb) Will overload existing sewersc) It is planned to drain surface water into a soakaway

SUMMARY The last outline application RR/2002/1858/P for a chalet bungalow was refused for reasons that included: - unacceptable impact upon the safe and free movement of traffic in the locality- out of character with and detrimental to the amenities of the locality - restricted depth- precedent- cumulative effect on the safe and free movement of traffic in the area.

In his decision letter the Inspector did not uphold the Council’s reason for refusal on traffic impact grounds and took the view that vehicle traffic generated by an additional dwelling would be low; that provision could be made for vehicle parking within the site; that Cliff Way was wide enough to allow pedestrians to stand aside and that inconveniences to local residents would at the most be minor.

78

With regard to local character he took the view that, whilst its depth of 22.5m was significantly less than other plots in the locality that was not a decisive factor. More important would be the size of the dwelling proposed and the implications for space needed to prevent a cramped appearance or an undue sense of enclosure on Cliff Way, to retain and enhance boundary planting and to safeguard neighbours’ amenities. In his opinion, permission for a three-bedroom chalet bungalow would lead to an expectation of a certain scale of development and he was not satisfied that such a development could be accommodated without harm to the character and appearance of the locality.With regard to local amenity and impact upon Fiddlers Dream, he took the view that a dwelling in this forward position need not be detrimental to their outlook; light or privacy provided any detailed proposal took account of the sites constraints. He took a similar view upon its likely impact upon the amenities of “Red Lodge” and “White Lodge”.His dismissal on appeal was therefore based solely on being unsatisfied that a three-bedroom chalet bungalow could be accommodated on the site without being over-development and causing harm to local character and amenity.The current application is therefore an attempt to develop the site in accordance with the Inspector’s opinions. The submitted plans show a single storey bungalow with no first floor level windows and existing boundary planting retained. Although a single story dwelling overcomes the potential to overlook adjoining properties the footprint size occupies a large area of the plot with very little distance between boundaries. In particular the depth of the rear garden would only be 3.5m and would be overshadowed by trees in the rear garden of White Lodge. It is my opinion that this would give a cramped appearance and undue sense of enclosure on Cliff Way, which the Inspector felt should be avoided. On the other hand reducing the size of the footprint would increase the potential for overlooking from first floor level window. I therefore share the Inspector’s view that “Achieving one element has the potential of conflicting with another” and conclude that the plot is probably too small. As submitted therefore, the proposal is not supported.

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)1. The proposal would involve the development of a site which, is too restricted in

size to satisfactorily accommodate the proposal, would have a cramped appearance and would be out of keeping with the established character of the area. For this reason the development would be contrary to Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

2. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that surface water from the proposed development can be satisfactorily disposed of. In the absence of such details the development could be contrary to Policy S1 (h) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1 (x) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2003/3098/P FAIRLIGHT WINDOVER, SEA ROAD05 NOV 2003 CONVERSION AND IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING GARAGE

BLOCK TO PROVIDE ANCILLARY LIVING ACCOMMODATIONMiss C Eason

SITE ‘Windover’ is a detached house on the south side of Sea Road with a rear garden that extends to the cliff edge.

79

HISTORYRR/2001/531/P Erection of a first floor extension and improvements - ApprovedRR/2002/2558/P Erection of extension to existing balcony and additional balcony

(Retrospective application) - Approved

PROPOSAL This application relates to an existing double garage adjoining the north east side of “Windover”. This currently has rendered elevations and a shallow pitched corrugated roof. Attached to the rear is a storeroom. This also has rendered elevations and a much shallower pitched roof (almost flat) covered with felt. It is proposed to divide the building internally to provide ancillary living accommodation. This would comprise two bedrooms, sitting room and bathroom. It is proposed to overboard the existing structure with timber cladding to match the house (brown stained) and to cover it with a new (similar pitch) roof finished with slates to match the existing house. The new roof would be extended over the former rear storeroom.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council:- No comments received.Director of Services - Head of Amenities:- Has provided a plan extract showing the estimated loss of cliff at this location, which should not affect the proposed works.Planning Notice:- Fairlight Residents Association comment that “We are concerned because this building will cause extra weight near to the cliff edge, it will add extra load on an already limited sewage system and we object to any surface water drainage that is not put into mains drains.”

SUMMARY The proposed use and alterations are unlikely to have any impact upon surrounding character and amenity. Although two garage spaces would be lost there would still remain two forecourt parking spaces. It would be appropriate however to impose a condition to prevent the ancillary accommodation being used as a separate dwelling. The alterations are unlikely to increase the amount of surface water run of from the building and the Director of Services - Amenities has raised no objection regarding its impact upon cliff erosion. In these circumstances therefore the proposal is supported.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (S106 OBLIGATION)1. The ancillary living accommodation hereby permitted shall only be used for

residential accommodation in association with the existing dwelling and shall not be used as a separate dwelling unit.Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the land in accordance with Policy S1 of the SP and Policy GD1 of the RDLP.

N12A (Section 106 Obligation - not to be occupied as separate dwelling unit)

RR/2004/8/P FAIRLIGHT PINEHURST – LAND REAR OF, BROADWAY6 JAN 2004 ERECTION OF A SPLIT LEVEL DWELLING AND GARAGE WITH

ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING ACCESS PURSUANT TO RR/2001/128/PMr A Wright

This application has been included on the site inspection list.80

SITE This is a detached bungalow located to the North East of Broadway and is served by a driveway alongside The Heathers which also goes to The Whare. The site forms a steep slope away from Pinehurst some 35m to the south.

HISTORYRR/2001/128/P – Outline: Erection of split level dwelling with garage – Refused – Appeal allowed – Approval of reserved matters.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to erect a split level dwelling and garage with alterations to an existing access pursuant to RR/2001/128/P.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Any comments will be reported.Highway Authority – Raise no objection subject to conditions.Southern Water – Any comments will be reported.Planning Notice – One letter of objection has been received in which concerns are raised at the course of a proposed sewer pipe running across their land for which they will not give right of easement. Comments from Councillor Patten – The essential reasons for my disquiet are:1. Orchard will have to be largely destroyed to build new house. 2. Foul/surface water will be discharged to next door’s sewer? Uphill – but anyway

not satisfactory.3. Access to the main road will not be appropriate.4. There are TPO’s I believe on the oak trees and the fir tree at the end of the

driveway. As it is getting impossible to grow mature trees on that end of Fairlight because of the problem with cliff erosion it is important to honour these protection orders.

SUMMARY The proposed dwelling will not be visible from the driveway (some 60m to the south) due to the topography and the position of the chalet bungalow (Pinehurst) near the driveway. The site has been cleared and secured as a separate plot of land. The outline application (RR/2001/128/P) was allowed on appeal with conditions attached. The design of the dwelling is in accordance with condition 6 of the Planning Inspectors report, requiring the dwelling to be split-level. The site is secluded and with the use of obscure glass in the side elevation windows, potential overlooking issues are reduced. The size and design of the dwelling does not represent a scheme which is out of keeping with the area. It is considered the scheme does not present undue detriment to the neighbouring properties. The agent has indicated the access drive is to be widened in accordance with the comments made by the Highway Authority within the original application (RR/2001/128/P). While trees in this area are subject to a tree preservation order, no trees are present within the area indicated for the driveway. The two mature trees at the site entrance are not within the applicants’ control. The principle of development has been established by the appeal decision. The issue of the foul and surface water drainage will need to be resolved.

RECOMMENDATION APPROVE (RESERVED MATTERS) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO THE SUBMISSION OF DETAILS OF FOUL & SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE)1. Development shall not begin until details of the widening of the access to the

private drive at its junction with the highway (Broadway) have been approved in

81

writing by the Local Planning Authority; and the dwelling is not occupied until that widening has been undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), no clear glazing shall be installed in windows/dormer windows constructed in the eastern or western elevations of the proposed dwelling without prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

RR/2003/3050/P GUESTLING IVYHOUSE NURSERIES - LAND ADJ, 09 JAN 2004 IVYHOUSE LANE

TEMPORARY STABLE BLOCK FOR 3 HORSES AND TWO PADDOCKSMr O’Hara

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

SITE The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and outside any village development boundary. This is an area of land formerly part of Adams Fruit Farm/Ivyhouse Nurseries, which is accessed via a track leading from Ivyhouse Lane. The area within the applicants control measures some 8.95ha while the area specified for the paddocks is 0.16ha. The site slopes from north-west to south-east from a ridge to a wooded area leaving the area exposed and highly visible to the surrounding countryside and across the valley to Rye Road.

HISTORYNo planning history on this specific site.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to erect a temporary stable block to include a tack room.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Support approvalHastings Borough Council – Raise no objectionEnvironment Agency – Raise no objection subject to conditions.Director of Services – Head of Environmental Health – Raise no objection subject to condition.Planning Notice – Two letters of objection have been received raising concern over the traffic generation, noise and associated works which have already commenced.

SUMMARY The application is retrospective due to the erection of the paddock fencing and stable building. The stables stand on a concrete base, which has itself been recently constructed and served by an access road of hardcore. The position of the stables has been altered to stand by the coniferous tree line towards the western boundary, due to the initial position being set further into the field and therefore more conspicuous. However, the stables are considered to be constructed as a permanent feature of the area and not as described within the application. Whilst it is accepted the use of the land for the keeping of horses is not unduly detrimental to the visual amenity of the surrounding countryside, the cumulative impact of the stables and the unauthorised development is considered detrimental to the visual amenity of the area and is prominent from the opposite side of the valley. Councillors will be able to assess on site the potential impact of the proposal upon the objectors’ current level of amenity, and the AONB.

82

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

Policies S1(j); EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and DS1(vi) of the Rother District Revised Deposit Local Plan, 2003, indicates that development will be carefully controlled to protect the character of the area. It is considered that the building now erected is not a temporary building due to the construction methods employed to and together with other unauthorised development carried out on site will have a cumulative impact which will be detrimental to the character and appearance of the High Weald AONB.

RR/2003/3338/P GUESTLING FOXHOLE FARM – LAND AT REAR,20 JAN 2004 CHOWNS HILL

REMOVAL OF EXISTING MOBILE HOME AND RELOCATION OF MOBILE HOME USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSESMr P Pearson

SITE Foxhole Farm is situated on the northwest side of Chowns Hill with an access serving the site adjoining Hurstwood Farmhouse. The caravan, which is already stationed on the land adjoining an access track some 400 metres to the north west of the junction with Chowns Hill. It is in the countryside outside any town or village within the High Weald AONB.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/2001/880/P Form access track to paddock (part retrospective) – ApprovedRR/2002/337/P Relax condition 2 of planning permission RR/2001/880/P replace

roadstone with wooden chippings and amended plan showing cross sections of new ground levels - Approved

9/10/2003 Enforcement Action authorised in respect of the caravan

PROPOSAL This application is to retain a mobile home on the eastern side of a field which extends to just under2 hectares at the end of the track approved under RR/2001/880/P. It is adjacent to a hedgerow that marks the north eastern boundary of the site. The application states that the mobile home replaced an earlier one that has been located in a more central position in the field. In a supporting letter the applicants’ agent states that:“The existing mobile home, that is still on site, has been therefore many years and certainly since 1990. It has been used regularly and continuously for that period but it has suffered recently from vandals and it now is in a poor condition and beyond repair. Our client has decided to replace it with a sound unit and felt that it should be located clear of the woodland to prevent future vandalism as it would be more visible to both our client and his neighbours.You will recall that planning permission has been granted to our client for the access track that serves the mobile home and we understand that, when the permission was granted, it was explained to you that the access was fairly elderly but the track was in poor condition and not only did it need substantial repair but it would also be extended to serve the mobile home site.Our client has had an interest in this land for many years and therefore is aware of the recent history of the site and has also been advised by others regarding the status and use of the site. The mobile home is to be used on a similar manner as the one that has been on site for many years, that is in regular and continuous domestic occupation.

83

The existing mobile home utilises an earth closet for sanitary accommodation, but this is now considered unsatisfactory and the replacement mobile home will be connected to a new septic tank. With regard to the affidavits submitted these show the mobile home has been in continuous use for more than 10 years”.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority – Does not wish to restrict grant of consent.Environment Agency – Comments awaited.Director of Services – Head of Health – Comments awaited.Planning Notice – No representations received.

SUMMARY The site is in the countryside outside any town or village where there is a strong presumption against additional residential development. It is also within the AONB. I have noted the agents comments regarding the evidence submitted in the affidavits, but these do not demonstrate continuous occupation of the caravan for residential purposes over the 10 year period. In any event a Certificate of Lawfulness has not been granted on this site and I therefore consider it should be determined solely on its planning merits. I shall therefore make the following:

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (EXPIRY OF CONSULTATION PERIOD).1. The site is within the countryside outside any town or village as defined in the

Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003). Policies S1 and S10 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and HG10 and HG5 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) contain a strong presumption against residential development unless it meets one of the exceptions described in the plans. None of these apply and the development proposed is contrary to these policies.

2. The site lies within the High Weald AONB where Policies S1(j), EN2 and EN3 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and DS1 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003) indicate that development will be carefully controlled to protect the character of the area. It is considered that the proposal does not meet this objective, and it would cause harm to the rural character of the area.

RR/2004/195/P GUESTLING THE OLD STABLES, CHAPEL LANE26 JAN 04 DEMOLITION OF WORKSHOP, ERECTION OF DETACHED

DWELLING WITH ALTERATION TO EXISTING ACCESS AND FORMATION OF PARKING SPACESP J Adams Developments Ltd

SITE The site lies within the village development boundary and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site forms a narrow strip of land to the south of Chapel Lane containing two buildings (timber and corrugated iron). The buildings were last used for car repairs (RR/91/2355/P) and previously it appears the site may have been used as a builders yard. The buildings are currently vacant.

HISTORYRR/85/1553 Outline: Erection of new house with garage served by new vehicular access – Refused.

84

RR/88/2412 – Outline: Demolish existing garage shed. Erect dwelling with garage/ parking space served by new access – Refused.RR/2002/1232/P – Demolition of dilapidated barn/ workshop and erection of two storey, three bedroom detached dwelling with detached garaging and associated landscaping and formation of new access. – Refused.RR/2002/3054/P – Demolition of existing workshop & erection of single dwelling house and carport. – Refused – Appeal dismissed.

PROPOSAL This application seeks permission to demolish an existing workshop and erect a detached dwelling with alteration to existing access and formation of parking spaces. A supporting statement has been included as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT to this report together with the previous appeal decision.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – Any comments received will be reported.Highway Authority – Do not wish to restrict the grant of consent.Environment Agency –No comments received to date.National Grid – Comments awaited.Planning Notice – Any comments received will be reported.

SUMMARY This proposal is a smaller scheme than has previously been refused under RR/2002/1232/P & RR/2002/3054/P in terms of floor area and mass. The proposed dwelling has a footprint measuring some 15.5m². However, while the proposed two storey dwelling stands on a very constrained site (some 9.1m deep narrowing to a point at the north western end) the reduction in size of the dwelling is better suited to the site conditions. Off road parking has been allocated without unduly compromising the external amenity space for the dwelling. The previously refused proposal was dismissed on appeal; the Inspector did not oppose the principle of development but suggested that a more imaginative design was called for. This design has subsequently been submitted and as such it is considered the dwelling sits more satisfactory on the site and would be in character with the area. The views of National Grid are awaited in respect of the power line and adjacent pylon.

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO SATISFACTORY CONSULTATION RESPONSES)1. CN7B(a)(c) (External materials)2. The dwelling hereby approved shall have open eaves and as such the fascia and

soffitt boards are not approved. Reason: To maintain the characteristics of the locality.

3. CN5E a, b, c (Restriction of alteration)

RR/2004/34/P PETT 2 LUNSFORD COTTAGES, PETT ROAD8 JAN 2004 PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR EXTENSION TO HOUSE AND

GARAGER Williams & J Cox

This application has been added to the list of Committee site inspection for the 17 February 2004.

SITE Substantial semi-detached two storey brick and stone cottage on a deep (35m approx) building line in the built-up frontage on the north side of Pett Road. This

85

property comprises the eastern half of the pair and a detached garage stands just to the south-east. The site is within the Pett Level development boundary.

HISTORYA/59/453 Combined vehicular accesses – ApprovedA/60/93 Garages and porches at nos. 1 & 2 and boxroom at no.1 –

ApprovedA/92/2055 Erection of two storey extension attached to existing two storey

house; also single garage/workshop – RefusedRR/93/0900/P Proposed two storey extension and garage – ApprovedRR/2003/58/P Ground floor extension to main dwelling – Refused

PROPOSAL Approval is sought for a conservatory addition (brick plinth and glazed timber frame above) extending the full width of the house and 4m from the flank wall and the addition of a small extension to the west side of the kitchen extension at the rear in matching masonry and thatch to provide a pantry. The detached garage would be enlarged in weatherboard clad walls and tiled roof to provide a studio/pottery and toilet in addition to space for a single car.

CONSULTATIONSParish Council – “Support refusal on the grounds that the conservatory is out of keeping and is too large for the property it is attached to, it is felt by Members to be an over development of the site – it is in conflict with the south facing elevation – it touches the eves of the cottage. There is a substantial amount of deflective light from the glass. The annex and toilets overload the cesspool/sewage system that is currently in place – there is no public sewer. Do not understand the reason behind the removal of the present garage to build a new studio when it is possible to tack on to the structure that is already there. We are aware of objections from neighbouring properties”.Director of Services – Head of Environmental Health – Comments awaited.Planning Notice – Written representations from the owner/occupier of 2 neighbouring properties (Lunsford Farm Cottage and Little Buds, Pett Road) objecting generally on the grounds of: application is misleading in that it says that surface and foul water will disposal of to a public sewer and there is none at this end of Pett; drainage at present is via a soakaway on his land; this is an easement granted many years ago before mains water came to Pett in 1953; now it is already grossly overloaded causing a hazard to both human and animal health; proposed extension can only make matters worse; only reasonable solution would be for all water to go to a sealed tank in the garden and suggest this be made a condition of any consent; neighbour at Little Buds is not objecting to the extension as such; the neighbour at Lunsford Farm Cottage considers the rear extension is very attractive and the large area of glass would ruin the appearance of the cottages as a whole particularly where the ridge of the conservatory meets the eaves of the thatch; there would also be considerable reflected glare to the neighbouring cottage which is at right angles to the extension.

SUMMARY This two storey thatched property stands on the north side of Pett Road and was substantially enlarged in the early 1990’s by a two storey addition extending 4.5m from its flank wall and 1.85m to the rear (RR/93/0900/P). More recently a proposed to add an irregular shaped single storey addition with a flat turf/sedum roof extending about 8.3m from the flank wall and providing additional living accommodation (living room, bedroom, teenage room) was refused (RR/2003/58/P). The proposal now seeks to replace a small conservatory addition on the east flank wall with a larger structure extending across the full width of the house (up to eaves level) and some 4m

86

to the rear. The existing detailed garage (5.8m x 2.8m) would be enlarged (10.8m x 3.5m) to provide studio/pottery accommodation and a toilet as well as garage space for a single car.In principle I can see no planning objection to the pantry extension or the enlargement of the garage but I do have strong reservations about the scale and form of the conservatory indicated. A smaller lean-to structure would I feel be acceptable and this points has been taken to with the agent together with the points of concern raised by Parish Council and the neighbour about drainage. Provided these aspects are satisfactorily resolved and an appropriately revised drawing is received for the conservatory extension I am minded to support an approval.

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (AMENDED PLANS)1. CN6B (Amended – The enlarged garage building shall be used for private

domestic purposes only and shall not be used in connection with any trade or business or as a separate unit of living accommodation. (Domestic use building)

N1A (Amended plans)

RR/2002/2998/P RYE RYE CRICKET SALTS – SOUTH EAST, CORNER OF13 DEC 2002 SKATE BOARD PARK

R V Fooks

SITE This application was presented to the March 2003 Planning Committee when it was delegated for approval subject to amended siting and consideration of highway safety measures within the Cricket Salts, though not in the proposed location. An alternative location was suggested (south east corner by Monkbretton Bridge) and the applicant has now submitted sufficient details to amend the application. The amended position is a level site partially screened by trees along the boundary of the access track to the east and south. Beyond the track is a small commercial development. A post and rail fence is set on the southern boundary of the playing fields safeguarding the users from the A259 trunk road. No pedestrian crossing point of the trunk road exists within the immediate vicinity of the proposed site.

HISTORYNone

PROPOSAL This planning application has been submitted to erect a facility for the recreational use specifically by those people using skateboards and BMX style bicycles. The amended design would result in the concrete base measuring some 419.9m² and equipment some 1.25m high (not including the railing height). No access paths, roads or drainage have been proposed.

CONSULTATIONSTown Council – Re-consultations have been carried out on the new site. Director of Services – Head of Amenities – No comments received to date. Planning Notice – Two letters of objection have been received in which the following points were raised as cause for concern:

Flooding Schools use the site for summer cricket & rounders Fear of crime Access and highway safety issues (A259)

87

Public opinion represented by local press Electricity points located on opposite side of A259 Screening issues relating to cricket matches Additional public facilities

SUMMARY It is considered the proposed ‘skate board park’, in terms of its physical mass, scale and presence, would not be unduly detrimentally upon the general character of the site. It is considered the facility would have a neutral impact upon the Conservation Area due to its proposed position and the screen of trees, which are set around the boundary.The area of public open space is for the use by the community & general public for more formal recreational purposes such as cricket and as such the proposed facility does represent a means of formal recreation.

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO COMMENTS FROM CONSULTEES) 1. CN12L (Floodlighting control)

RR/2003/542/P RYE CENTRAL GARAGE, CINQUE PORTS STREET18 FEB 2003 CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING CONSISTING OF

OFFICES, LIBRARY, COLLEGE SPACE AND THREE 1 BEDROOM FLATS WITH ALTERATION TO AN EXISTING ACCESSThe Rye Partnership

At your meeting in April 2003 authority was delegated to the Head of Planning to refuse planning permission unless satisfactory amended plans are submitted. The site has been added to your Inspection list.

SITE Central Garage stands on the northern side of Cinque Ports Street and backs onto Meryon Court. It has a frontage of about 22m and depth of about 27m, with the major part of the plot formerly being covered by a two storey flat roofed building with a workshop at the rear constructed in brick with asbestos sheet roof. Building on the site has been demolished and the site is vacant.

HISTORY (Relevant)RR/85/705 Extension and alteration to form a dwelling above existing garage -

Approved.RR/90/2069/H Demolition of buildings - Approved.RR/90/1952/P Redevelopment comprising 3 shops, 3 maisonettes, 5 flats, 11

parking spaces - Approved.RR/95/807/P )Renewal of RR/90/1952/P )RR/95/810/H ) RR/90/2069/H ) - Approved.RR/2000/1821/H )Renewal of permission RR/90/1952/P and RR/90/2069/H RR/2000/1803/P ) - Approved.RR/2003/544/H Demolition of unlisted buildings in a Conservation Area for

redevelopment including library, offices, college space and flats - Approved.

88

PROPOSAL Revised plans have been submitted and readvertised. The Agents state that they are submitted after extensive public consultation by the Rye Partnership and consultation with CABE.The elevations have been redesigned and have adopted a traditional design for the Cinque Ports Street frontage with a 3 storey building and 2 storey building at the rear. The ground floor will provide an area of 95m2 office space for Rother Homes and library space, including a one stop shop of approx 333m2. The first floor will provide a space of 152m2 for Rother Homes on the frontage with an area of 240m2 at the rear for Hastings College of Arts and Technology The second floor provides three 1bed flats.I have requested details of materials finishes and rear side elevations and roof plan.

CONSULTATIONSHighway Authority – Comments awaitedTown Council – Comments awaitedSouthern Water – Re-iterate their previous comments “Foul SewerageThere is adequate capacity within the foul sewer system at manhole no. 9406 to accommodate the foul only flow from the proposed development.Surface Water DisposalThe applicant should be advised to carry out site investigations to establish whether impermeable area from the existing site is connected to the combined sewerage system. If so, a surface water discharge from the proposed development, not exceeding the current discharge rate to the surface water system, and similarly connected may be permitted.Flows in excess of the existing discharge rate must be attenuated and stored on site prior to discharge in the public sewer.I should be grateful if any full planning permission granted could be made subject to a planning condition requiring that development shall not commence until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water disposal have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water Services”.Environment Agency – Has no objection subject to conditions regarding contaminated land.Director of Services – Head of Environmental Health – Recommends a contaminated land condition.Sussex Police – Comments awaited.County Archaeologist – Comments awaited.CABE – Comments awaited.Planning Notice – 5 letters received which can be summarised as relating to the following matters:- plans no more acceptable than originals- banal and characterless architectural statement- more space should be provided for a proper library with book space- atrocious modern building – existing FE centre is an attractive and suitable place

and could be retained and restored - unsuitable location for library - access for pedestrians difficult- no loading bay- inadequate space allocated for library, does not appear to be space for children’s

reading area, reference library, computer area or facility for video tape loans- little architectural meritRye Conservation Society/Friends of Rye Library – “We are writing on behalf of the Rye Conservation Society and the Friends of Rye Library to express our extreme

89

disappointment that the drawings received by the Council on 12 January 2004 shown no material change to those publicised in July 2003, to which there was considerable opposition.Our objections are as follows:1. This should be a building of landmark quality – see Prime Ministers statement

Better Public Building 2001.2. The plans as shown represent a considerable waste of space, do not take

account of current energy and ‘green’ practice and are ill conceived (see attached notes). With improved plans the proposed elevation would need to be redesigned.

3. The Friends of Rye Library are equally disconcerted since the plans do not appear to have changed since they were first discussed. Moreover the space allocated to the library is very small and inadequate by comparison with that available in small towns with similar catchment areas.

There has been consistent public opposition to this scheme since its inception. Both organisations have several hundred members who feel strongly that their objections should be recognised.We urge you to refuse planning permission for these inadequate proposals and that you should ask the applicants to submit a scheme which is worthy of Rye”.Notes are attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT to this report.Rye Conservation Society object “With little discernible change from the previous plans the proposals remains totally unacceptable to us”.

SUMMARY The building mass is similar to that approved under RR/2000/1803/P and the principle of the development on this site can be supported. The main issue is the design of the building on the important Cinque Ports Street frontage. The revised proposals could not be called imaginative but the architects have adopted a safe option to produce a traditional elevation which will produce an acceptable infill on the road frontage. The development will have a neutral impact on the Conservation area. The other issue that concerns Rye Conservation Society and Friends of Rye Library is the design, size and space of the proposed new library. This is not directly a planning matter and will be for the provider of the library space to determine how much space should be provided and the facilities that will be included.The archaeology of the site and impact in the Town Wall has been dealt with as part of the previous consent.I have requested further details of materials and missing elevations/roof plan. the window details as shown are not satisfactory but can be controlled by a planning condition. Subject to the receipt and consideration of outstanding consultee responses and further information I will be able to support the proposal.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (CONSULTATION RESPONSES/FURTHER INFORMATION)1. The development must begin not later than the expiration of five years beginning

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

2. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a fully detailed schedule of all external materials indicating types, colours and finishes of bricks and tiles to be used in respect of each dwelling and the development shall be carried out using the approved materials.

90

(Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the locality and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011). (CN7G)

3. Before any development takes place details of the reinstatement of the footpath along the frontage of the site and forecourt treatment shall be submitted to and be subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority and the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the development being brought into use.(Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the land and to accord with Policies S1(j) & (m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011).

4. The existing brick wall at the rear of the site shall be retained and not lowered in height. (Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the land and to accord with Policies S1(j) & (m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011).

5. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority fully detailed plans of the windows and doors proposed and such windows and doors shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans before the building is first occupied for residential purposes.(Reason: To maintain the character of the building and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011).

6. Archaeological condition if required.7. Before any development takes place details of the proposed library/office fronts

shall be submitted to and be subject to the approval of the Local Planning Authority and the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.(Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the land and to accord with Policies S1(j) & (m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011).

8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 25 of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this Order), no satellite shall be installed on the building unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.(Reason: To maintain the character of the Conservation Area and to accord with Policies S1 (j) & (m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011).

9. The roofs shall be covered with a hand made plain clay tile with hog back ridge and bonnet hip tile fittings.(Reason: To maintain the character of the Conservation Area and to accord with Policies S1 (j) & (m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011).

10. All windows shall be constructed in painted timber and retained as timber construction thereafter.(Reason: To maintain the character of the Conservation Area and to accord with Policies S1 (j) & (m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011).

11. Before any constructional work is commenced, a schedule of floor levels for the development of the site, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and subject to their approval. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

91

(Reason: To provide for the proper development of the site and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011). (CN9K)

12. Contaminated Land as per memo from Steve Mills13. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or

soakaway system, all surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through trapped gullies to BS5911:1982 with an overall capacity compatible with the site being drained.Reason: To prevent pollution of the water environment and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

-o0o-

92