Rother District Council Agenda Item: 6
Committee - Planning
Date - 19 March 2009
Report of - Director of Services
Subject - Planning Applications
Planning Committee Procedures
Planning Conditions, Reasons for Refusal and Notes
Conditions, reasons for refusal and notes are primarily presented in coded number form within the report. The codes are set out in full in the Council’s Planning Conditions, Reasons for Refusal and Decisions Notice Notes Document.
Background Papers
These are planning applications, forms and plans as presented in the Agenda. Correspondence between the applicant, agents, consultees and other representatives in respect of the application. Previous planning applications and correspondence where relevant, reports to Committee, decision notices and appeal decisions which are specifically referred to in the reports. Planning applications can be viewed on the planning website www.planning.rother.gov.uk.
Planning Committee Reports
If you are viewing the electronic copy of the Planning Applications report to Planning Committee then you can access individual reported applications by clicking on the link (View application/correspondence) at the end of each report.
Consultations
Relevant consultation replies which have been received after the report has been printed and before the Committee meeting will normally be reported orally in a summary form.
Late Representations and Requests for Deferment
Any representations and requests for deferment in respect of planning applications on the Planning Committee agenda must be received by the Head of Planning in writing by 9am on the Wednesday before the meeting at the latest. The Council will not entertain a request for deferment unless it is supported by a full statement containing valid reasons for the request.
Delegated Applications
In certain circumstances the Planning Committee will indicate that it is only prepared to grant or refuse planning permission if, or unless certain amendments to a proposal are undertaken or subject to completion of outstanding consultations. In these circumstances the Head of Planning can be delegated authority to issue the decision of the Planning Committee once the requirements of the Committee have been satisfactorily complied with. A delegated decision does not mean that planning permission or refusal will automatically be issued. If there are consultation objections, difficulties, or negotiations are not satisfactorily concluded, then the application will have to be reported back to the Planning Committee or reported via the internal only electronic Notified D system as a means of providing further information for elected Members. This delegation also allows the Head of Planning to negotiate and amend applications, conditions, reasons for refusal and notes commensurate with the instructions of the Committee. Any applications which are considered prior to the expiry of the consultation reply period are automatically delegated for a decision.
The Council does not allow the recording or photographing of its proceedings.
Order of Presentation
The report on planning applications is presented in the following order as shown below:-
Bexhill (All Wards)
Battle (Battle Town/Crowhurst/Darwell Wards)
Rye (Rye Ward)
Ashburnham, Catsfield, Crowhurst, Penhurst (Crowhurst Ward)
Brightling, Burwash, Dallington, Mountfield, Whatlington (Darwell Ward)
Beckley, Northiam, Peasmarsh, Rye Foreign (Rother Levels Ward)
Bodiam, Hurst Green, Salehurst & Robertsbridge (Salehurst Ward)
Brede, Udimore, Westfield (Brede Valley Ward)
Camber, East Guldeford, Icklesham, Iden, Playden (Eastern Rother Ward)
Ticehurst, Etchingham (Ticehurst and Etchingham Ward)
Ewhurst, Sedlescombe (Ewhurst and Sedlescombe Ward)
Fairlight, Guestling, Pett (Marsham Ward)
Neighbouring Authorities
REFERENCE PAGE PARISH SITE ADDRESS
RR/2009/226/P 1 BEXHILL 207 COODEN DRIVE
RR/2009/387/P 6 BEXHILL THE DEVONSHIRE ARMS
DEVONSHIRE SQUARE
RR/2009/62/P 8 BATTLE DOCTOR'S COTTAGE –
LAND AT
DARWELL HILL
RR/2009/419/P 13 RYE FERRY ROAD AND
CYPRUS PLACE –
LAND ADJACENT
RR/2009/420/P 16 RYE FERRY ROAD AND
CYPRUS PLACE –
LAND ADJACENT
RR/2008/1030/P 20 PENHURST MANOR HOUSE
RR/2008/1261/L 20 PENHURST MANOR HOUSE
RR/2009/379/P 24 BRIGHTLING OLD STONESDOWN
FARMHOUSE
BATTLE ROAD
RR/2009/15/P 25 BURWASH DAWES FARM
RR/2007/3413/P 27 BECKLEY HERON LEA
HOBBS LANE
RR/2008/3568/P 32 BECKLEY ABBEY LODGE
HORSESHOE LANE
RR/2009/136/P 37 BECKLEY EASTLANDS FARM –
BARNS AT
STODDARDS LANE
RR/2009/297/P 43 BECKLEY RAYNEHURST
WHITEBREAD LANE
RR/2009/187/P 46 NORTHIAM THE OLD BUILDERS YARD
MAIN STREET
RR/2009/188/H 46 NORTHIAM THE OLD BUILDERS YARD
MAIN STREET
RR/2009/429/P 50 NORTHIAM GREAT DIXTER HOUSE
RR/2009/430/L 50 NORTHIAM GREAT DIXTER HOUSE
DIXTER ROAD
RR/2009/434/L 53 NORTHIAM THE GREAT BARN –
GREAT DIXTER HOUSE AND
GARDENS
DIXTER ROAD
RR/2009/436/P 55 NORTHIAM GREAT DIXTER HOUSE
DIXTER ROAD
RR/2009/438/P 56 NORTHIAM GREAT DIXTER FARM
DIXTER ROAD
RR/2009/442/P 60 NORTHIAM 47/54 DIXTER ROAD
RR/2009/99/P 64 CAMBER 16 THE SUTTONS
THE PILOT
RR/2009/189/L 67 TICEHURST SHOVERS GREEN HOUSE
SHOVERS GREEN
RR/2009/190/P 67 TICEHURST SHOVERS GREEN HOUSE
SHOVERS GREEN
RR/2009/312/P 69 TICEHURST CHERRY TREE NURSERY
THE MOUNT
RR/2009/107/P 74 ETCHINGHAM GREENBANKS
HIGH STREET
RR/2009/162/P 81 SEDLESCOMBE SPRINGFIELD COTTAGE
BREDE LANE
RR/2008/3343/P 84 FAIRLIGHT MOON COTTAGE –
FIELD AT
HUMPHREYS FARM
FRIARS HILL
GUESTLING/FAIRLIGHT
RR/2008/3382/P 87 FAIRLIGHT 87 BATTERY HILL
--oo0oo--
1
R/2009/226/P BEXHILL 207 COODEN DRIVE
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND OUTBUILDING. ERECTION OF 6 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS TOGETHER WITH PARKING.
Mr F Forte
Statutory 8 week date: 18 March 2009
SITE 207 Cooden Drive is a two-storey dwelling, of castellated design with a large single storey extension to the rear, over the swimming pool located on the southern side of Cooden Drive. The site slopes up from the road at the front with lawns sweeping down to the beach at the rear. The area to the rear of the building is within the Cooden Cliffs Site of Nature Conservation Interest (SNCI), ref. CR23. The former nursing home of “Three Chimneys” to the east has now been redeveloped with two and three storey apartment blocks set at a considerably lower ground level. The single and two-storey dwelling of no.217 Cooden Drive lies to the west at a higher ground level. The site is located within the development boundary for Bexhill and is characterised by a mix of residential dwellings comprising flats but mostly larger detached houses and smaller semi-detached houses.
HISTORY
RR/80/2196 Outline: Two dwellings with garages and parking spaces. Land at 203 Cooden Drive - Approved Conditional.
RR/81/0503 Approval of reserved matters to erect house and double garage - Approved Conditional.
RR/83/1536 Erection of 2m high boundary wall and double garage served by new vehicular access - Approved Conditional.
RR/83/2378 Formation of covered way and rebuilding of boundary wall - Approved Conditional.
RR/95/1358/P Enclosure of first floor balcony - Approved Conditional.
RR/2000/1469/P Renewal of permission for enclosure to first floor balcony - Approved Conditional.
RR/2003/630/P Enclosure of existing swimming pool and extension to kitchen - Approved Conditional.
RR/2006/1693/P Outline application for the demolition of existing house and garage and construction of eight flats with parking spaces and alteration to existing vehicular access - Refused.
RR/2007/800/P Erection of three residential units including roof dormer windows with provision of six parking spaces - Withdrawn.
RR/2007/1788/P Erection of three residential units including roof dormer windows with provision of six parking spaces - Withdrawn.
RR/2008/9/P Demolition of swimming pool building. Erection of single storey extension, two storey rear extension and extension to roof. internal alterations to form self-contained accommodation - Refused.
RR/2008/1471/P Demolition of swimming pool structure. Extensions and alterations to include self-contained integral unit. Approved conditional.
RR/2008/3331/P Erection of first floor balcony to rear south elevation (retrospective application) - Approved Conditional.
RR/2008/3384/P Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuilding. Erection of 6 residential apartments together with parking - Withdrawn.
PROPOSAL This application proposes the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement with a block of 6 flats, (5 x 3 beds and 1 x 2 beds), of the same design as those now constructed to the east, Cooden Heights, (formerly Three Chimneys Nursing Home). It is proposed to lower the existing ground level substantially, almost to that of the adjacent flats. The new building would be three storey and to the same depth as the adjacent flats but deeper than the dwelling at 217 Cooden Drive. The height is comparable to the existing dwelling. The building is set off the side boundaries by between 1 and 4m to the flats (giving a minimum space between the buildings of 3m) and by 1.8 and 5m to 217 Cooden Drive, (giving a minimum space between the buildings of 5.2m). The proposed footprint is in effect a cross, having a wider central section. The projection to the front is narrower than existing while those to the rear are slightly wider but some 9m shorter than the existing swimming pool enclosure. The rear projection on the west side (to 217 Cooden Drive) is 4.3m shorter at second floor level. The existing access is to be reused with the provision of 10 parking bays as well as a refuse enclosure. The height of the front and east side walls are to be reduced with hedge planting to the front boundary behind the wall.
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority:- Raises no objections subject to the imposition of conditions. It is noted that the proposals require between 10 and 13 spaces in this location to comply with parking standards and thus the standard is achieved. The existing access is to be reused.
Southern Water:- Initial investigations indicate that foul sewage disposal can be provided but consent is required to connect to the public sewer. While reference is made to the use of SUDS systems for surface water drainage, there are no details and it may not be the best method for this site. As such details as specified in the response from Southern Water should be submitted and agreed prior to any construction works commencing.
South East Water:- Comments awaited.
Environment Agency: The site overlies a minor aquifer, as such the developers should adopt all appropriate pollution control measures, both underground and on the surface, to ensure that the integrity of the aquatic environment, both groundwater and surface water, is assured.
Planning Notice:- 5 objections have been received on the following grounds:
· There is no material difference to that withdrawn in January.
· This part of Cooden Drive is characterised by large detached houses and this proposal is out of character.
· The adjacent development replacing an institutional type building is not a reason to perpetuate this type of proposal and further erode the character of the area.
· It would set a precedent.
· It will increase traffic and highway hazards.
· A lack of parking spaces will give rise to an increase in on-street parking.
· More flats are not needed as some of the existing ones are still unoccupied.
· Overlooking will result in a loss of privacy.
· Will add to flooding problems.
SUMMARY This site lies within the development boundary for Bexhill where redevelopment may be considered, subject to compliance with policy criteria as set out in Policy GD1 of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1 and S6 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011. The adjacent sites to the east have been redeveloped with planning permission with a scheme for flats and two houses. The adjacent plots lent themselves to redevelopment and were considered capable of accommodating blocks of flats, in some form, without overt detriment to the neighbours or street scene. The development was designed to be lower at the side boundaries reflecting the lower two-storey scale of adjacent dwellings.
Planning permission was previously refused to redevelop this dwelling house with flats, RR/2006/1693/P for a variety of reasons including:
· Disruption to the domestic scale of this part of Cooden Drive, with a proposal that was out of character and failed to enhance or protect the local environment.
· The mass and scale would be larger and dominant, therefore adversely impacting upon the street scene.
· There would be a loss of amenity for neighbouring residential occupiers by loss of privacy and intrusion resulting from increased activity on the site, and a dominant and overbearing outlook resulting from the size and mass of the resultant new building.
· Could set a precedent for similar proposals in the vicinity of the site that would result in an incremental and harmful change to the existing character and appearance of the locality.
· The proposal did not provide adequate foul and surface water drainage.
Planning permission for the detailed redevelopment of the adjacent site was granted after this refusal and the site is now developed. This has given rise to a change in planning circumstances and to the character and appearance of the street scene in this vicinity. The application site is now considered to be capable of some redevelopment but regard should be had to the previous comments and concerns and to the detailed scheme now presented.
The proposed new building is to be constructed at a lower ground level, comparable to the adjacent apartments and a whole floor lower than the chalet bungalow at 217 Cooden Drive. This application differs from that withdrawn in January with a reduction in the roof mass and lowering of the eaves to the sides and the removal of part of the rear projection at second floor level. As such the street scene illustrated on drawing no. 81053/07B indicates that the eaves and ridge height remain comparable to both the existing building and the neighbours on either side. With regard to building width, the proposed apartment block is only 0.6m wider than the dwelling at 217 Cooden Drive while being considerably narrower than the new development to the east. It is thus considered to represent a gentle scaling down between the two types of dwelling at this point.
The depth in relation to 217 Cooden Drive was raised as a concern, with regard to the second floor, which would be at first floor level with No.217. The flat to this side has therefore been reduced to a 2 x bedroom unit and the depth of the building reduced by 4.3m on this side. A larger balcony is retained but this would be required to retain an opaque privacy screen to its side elevation. No.217 has a single storey flat roof rear extension of 5m to this side (not indicated on the plans), which is slightly deeper than the first floor element now proposed. With the presence of privacy screens and the staggered rear line of the proposed building projecting beyond the rear of neighbouring dwellings to the west, there should be no issues of overlooking or loss of privacy such as to justify a refusal on this ground.
The objections raised by occupiers not adjoining the site are noted. As advised, the proposal complies with highway requirements and is considered to fit within the existing street scene with regard to the height and massing of the building. There are no side windows and the rear elevation is designed and located such as to minimise any impacts upon the amenities of neighbours. Cooden Drive contains a variety of dwelling types and sizes although it is acknowledged to contain larger detached properties from this point to the west. The existing two-storey castellated house is uncharacteristic of this section of the road. Dwellings to the west on the seaward side are characterised by their design as bungalow/chalet bungalows, while the two storey houses to the north side of the road increase in size until they become the large blocks of flat roofed flats at Westbourne Court. The proposed new building is located at a junction between changes in the type of dwellings and as such is not considered to be out of character and would thus fit within the street scene. This proposal is, however, reliant upon the excavation of the site, which would be inappropriate among the dwellings to the west and thus unlikely to set a precedent. As is usual any future proposals would be judged on their individual merits at that time.