Rother District Council Agenda Item: 7
Committee - Planning
Date - 21 June 2007
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:-
Ashburnham, Catsfield, Crowhurst, Penhurst (Crowhurst Ward)
Brightling, Burwash, Dallington, Mountfield, Whatlington (Darwell Ward)
Battle (Battle Town/Crowhurst/Darwell Wards)
Bexhill (All Wards)
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)
Rye (Rye Ward)
Neighbouring Authorities
REFERENCE PAGE PARISH SITE ADDRESS
RR/2007/1347/P 1 CATSFIELD WEST BEAM COTTAGE
CHURCH ROAD
RR/2007/1349/L 1 CATSFIELD WEST BEAM COTTAGES
CHURCH ROAD
RR/2007/1273/P 3 BURWASH PAYGATE COTTAGE
HIGH STREET
RR/2007/511/P 4 MOUNTFIELD HOATH FARM
RR/2007/431/P 8 BATTLE HAROLD TERRACE –
LAND AT
RR/2007/1018/P 10 BATTLE COLENZO
MARLEY LANE
RR/2007/1238/P 12 BATTLE CHAIN LANE –
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
MAST ON LAND ADJ
(FORMERLY WATCH OAK)
RR/2007/1330/P 14 BATTLE THE OLD RECTORY
EATENDEN LANE
RR/2006/3369/P 16 BEXHILL 6 THE COVERT
RR/2007/696/P 19 BEXHILL 146 PEARTREE LANE
RR/2007/1119/P 21 BEXHILL 107 COODEN DRIVE
ST MICHAELS REST HOME
RR/2007/1127/P 24 BEXHILL 23A SUTHERLAND AVENUE
RR/2007/1178/P 25 BEXHILL 1-4 CRANLEIGH CLOSE
RR/2007/1206/P 30 BEXHILL 67 EASTERGATE
RR/2007/1255/P 32 BEXHILL 9 DORSET ROAD SOUTH
RR/2007/1397/P 37 BEXHILL 6 KITES NEST WALK –
PLOT ADJ TO
RR/2007/1461/P 39 BEXHILL 3 KITES NEST WALK –
LAND ADJ
RR/2007/652/P 42 BECKLEY SWALLOWTAIL HILL FARM
HOBBS LANE
RR/2007/1138/P 43 BECKLEY GLASSEYE FARM
FURNACE LANE
RR/2007/1280/P 46 BECKLEY AZTEC HOUSE
MAIN STREET
RR/2007/638/P 49 NORTHIAM NEWENDEN BRIDGE
RIVERBANK ADJ
RYE ROAD
RR/2007/1334/P 53 RYE FOREIGN THANETS FARMHOUSE
IDEN ROAD
RR/2007/611/P 55 BREDE ARCHALVIC
NORTHIAM ROAD
BROAD OAK
RR/2007/822/P 59 CAMBER 139 LYDD ROAD
RR/2007/1303/P 60 IDEN THE BELL INN – LAND ADJ
MAIN STREET
RR/2007/778/P 61 TICEHURST KEEPERS COTTAGE
HASTINGS ROAD
RR/2007/779/L 61 TICEHURST KEEPERS COTTAGE
HASTINGS ROAD
RR/2007/1092/P 63 TICEHURST 2 BROOM HOUSE –
LAND REAR OF
OLD WARDS DOWN
FLIMWELL
--oo0oo--
4
RR/2007/1347/P CATSFIELD WEST BEAM COTTAGE, CHURCH ROAD
ERECTION OF DETACHED WORKSHOP AND DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING
Mr and Mrs Hammick
Statutory 8 week date: 16 July 2007
RR/2007/1349/L CATSFIELD WEST BEAM COTTAGES, CHURCH ROAD
ERECTION OF DETACHED WORKSHOP AND DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS
Mr and Mrs Hammick
Statutory 8 week date: 03 July 2007
SITE West Beam Cottage is one of a semi-detached pair of grade II listed cottages situated adjacent to the road at Henley Down. The property was a single extended cottage but now benefits from a Lawful Development Certificate for use as two dwellings.
HISTORY
A/62/530 Extension – Approved
RR/86/0255 Formation of parking and turning area – Approved Conditional
RR/2006/2662/O Use of West Beam as two separate dwellings – Approved
PROPOSAL It is proposed to demolish an existing private workshop attached to the rear of the existing roadside garage and to erect a replacement single storey workshop/studio in the same location.
The existing workshop is of no historic merit and is partially below the natural ground level of the rear garden. The new workshop/studio building would be similarly ‘cut in’ to the garden and would be slightly larger. The new building would also be flat roofed but incorporating solar energy collectors. The walls would be clad with timber weatherboarding including the replacement of the existing plastic shiplap to the present garage building. The roadside hedging and trees are intended to be retained.
CONSULTATIONS
Parish Council:- No objection.
Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.
Planning Notice:- No representations received.
SUMMARY The buildings to be demolished are of no particular merit, they date from the 1960s and I have no concerns about the removal of the old workshop.
Similarly, the level/profile of the new workshop compares with the existing structure but with a marked improvement in material specification and design without significantly adding to the visibility of the building from the public highway. The new building would not materially change the relationship with the listed cottage.
It is intended that the workshop/studio would be used by the applicant, an artist and teacher, for working from home. I am seeking clarification from the applicant’s agent but it is not believed that it is intended to use the building for general public access/exhibition purposes. The proposal is to source local materials including oak and sweet chestnut with high insulation properties to produce a low energy building. The roof would be pre-paternated zinc sheeting.
I am satisfied that the proposal would have a generally neutral effect upon the setting of the Listed Building; there is the positive benefit of the replacement of plastic cladding with timber on the existing garage/store.
I expect to make the
RECOMMENDATIONS:
RR/2007/1347/P: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)
1. CD1A (Standard time limit).
2. The workshop/studio hereby approved shall be used in association with West Beam Cottage only as an artist’s workshop/studio only, and for no habitable accommodation or other purpose without the prior grant of planning permission.
Reason: As CD8H.
3. CD9H (External materials) – Insert A – Details/samples; Insert B – Proposed building
Reason: As CD9G – Insert a.
4. CD4Q (Tree/Hedge retention) – Insert A – a and b; Insert B – a.
Reason: Insert b and d.
REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed replacement workshop will not adversely affect the character of the area, the amenities of adjoining properties or the setting of the listed dwelling and therefore complies with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policies GD1(ii)(iv)(v)(viii) and (xii) of the Rother District Local Plan.
View application/correspondence
RR/2007/1349/L: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)
1. CD1F (Standard time limit).
2. CD9H (External materials) – Insert A – Details/samples; Insert B – Proposed building
Reason: As CD9G – Insert a.
REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed development achieves improvement to the external appearance of the existing garage and the replacement workshop is considered to be of an appropriate design and specification within the curtilage of the listed dwelling. The workshop is considered to relate satisfactorily with the listed dwelling and to have a neutral effect upon its setting. The development is therefore considered to be in compliance with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.
View application/correspondence
______
RR/2007/1273/P BURWASH PAYGATE COTTAGE, HIGH STREET
FORMATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS ONTO SPRING LANE AND CAR PARKING FOR TWO CARS
Mr and Mrs M ffinch Mitchell
Statutory 8 week date: 25 July 2007
SITE Paygate Cottage is a Grade II Listed Building located on the corner of High Street and Spring Lane just outside the development boundary for Burwash and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
HISTORY
A/54/346 Proposed garage and access – Approved.
PROPOSAL This proposal is for a new entrance onto Spring Lane for car parking (two cars) with the ground to be levelled with roadstone and compressed and finished with 10mm pea shingle.
CONSULTATIONS
Parish Council:- Any comments will be reported.
Highway Authority:- Comments awaited.
Planning Notice:- Any representations will be reported.
SUMMARY The property occupies a corner position with an existing access and garage to the rear which allows parking for one car. It is now proposed to create a new vehicular access onto Spring Lane with car parking for two cars. The land to the rear slopes away and therefore the proposed car parking will not be visible from the highway.
The development will be set back some 10 metres from the listed building and I therefore consider the proposed car parking will not have any detrimental impact on the character of the listed building, its setting, AONB location, or the amenities of any neighbouring properties.
I am awaiting the comments of the Highway Authority in regard to any highway issues. However, if they have no objections to the proposal I will make the following recommendation with a controlling condition to retain the hedge on the western boundary.
RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (SUBJECT TO CONSULTED RESPONSES)
1. CD1A (Standard time limited condition).
2. CD4Q (Hedge retention). Insert b. Insert b (the western).
Reason: Insert b - amend to add “and the setting of the listed building.”
3. Highway conditions as may be recommended.
REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The formation of a new vehicular access and car parking for two cars is an appropriate development for the site and does not adversely affect the character of the area, the listed building, its AONB setting or the amenities of any neighbouring properties and therefore complies with Policy GD1(ii)(iv)(v)(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.
View application/correspondence
______
RR/2007/511/P MOUNTFIELD HOATH FARM
CHANGE OF USE OF REDUNDANT AGRICULTURAL BUILDINGS TO B1 USE.
Mrs Fraser
Statutory 8 week date: 6 June 2007
SITE The group of seven farm buildings are set outside any development boundary as defined within Policy DS3 of the Rother District Local Plan and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site is set some 400m west of the junction of the A2100 and has three dwellings some 80m to the east while a cluster of four dwellings are within 80m to the west.
HISTORY
RR/2007/506/P Create new access into Hoath Farm Yard from Church Lane – Approved.
PROPOSAL The scheme seeks to change the use of four redundant agricultural buildings to allow B1 operations to be carried out in them.
CONSULTATIONS
Parish Council: The Parish Council does not object to this proposal in principle if it improves the site and condition of buildings. It is also concerned with the adverse impact that the residents may have from light pollution, traffic, sewerage, hours of work, etc… It does, however, consider 13 units to be excessive.
Highway Authority: “If this proposal is to be served by the existing access then I recommend that consent be refused for the following reasons:
The proposal would lead to increased traffic hazards on the UC6413 by reason of the inadequate visibility at the existing access.
The existing access has substandard visibility and existing hazards would be increased be the additional slowing, stopping, turning and reversing traffic which would be created.
However, if this proposal is to be served by the proposed new access, granted permission under RR/2007/506/P, then I would not wish to restrict the grant of consent but any consent should include a recommended condition.”
Environment Agency: Raise no objection subject to the imposition of conditions.
Southern Water: No comments received to date.
Director of Services – Environmental Health Officer: Raise no objection subject to the imposition of conditions and informative notes.
Director of Services – Building Control Manager: I would advise that I have no adverse comments in respect of structural matters.
Planning Notice: 10 letters of representation have been received (one anonymous) raising the following issues:
· Increase in noise and traffic
· Noise at weekends and evenings
· Impact on quality of life
· Precedent
· Impact upon wildlife & the need for surveys
· Highway safety issues
· Vehicle pollution
· Light pollution
· Impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Building
SUMMARY The site benefits from planning permission for a new access to the highway under RR/2007/506/P, which requires the stopping up of the existing site access due to it presenting a danger to users of both the access and highway alike. The proposed development clearly shows the outline of four buildings and 13 parking spaces, which will leave two buildings within the group in use as agricultural storage buildings. While being mindful the site benefits from permission to change the access position the application I opine the application would not succeed if it were to use the existing substandard access point. Therefore the application is to be considered in conjunction with RR/2007/506/P. From a structural survey report contained within this submission and from a visual inspection it appears the buildings could be utilised for such a purpose, subject to restrictive conditions. The proposal does not conflict with adopted plan polices controlling such development or the provisions of Sections 17, 18 and 30 contained within Planning Policy Statement 7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas which support careful reuse/ development of farm buildings. As the site lies within the AONB, careful consideration has to be given to the setting in which the buildings will be used. Therefore the buildings will need renovation and adaptation to fulfil the needs of future commercial occupiers and the countryside setting alike. To this end the appearance of the buildings will be subject to conditions in order to protect the rural setting and the setting of the Listed farmhouse immediately to the west of the current access track. Objections have been received from local residents concerned about the potential impact upon the highways, their level of amenity and the impact upon the AONB/ rural area and wildlife. To this, I consider the principle of changing the use of this group of buildings acceptable subject to the imposition of conditions, which would control potential impact. The issues raised by both objectors and the Parish Council have been considered, I am of the opinion while the change of use will to some degree alter the appearance of the farm buildings, the effect on the character of the farm buildings will be carefully controlled by conditions. Similarly, the use the premises and amenity effects can be the subject of suitable limiting conditions.