RR/2003/2601/PCROWHURST 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 LANDSLIP
Mr and Mrs Sargent
This application was deferred at your last meeting to await the applicant’s reply to my request for his comments upon the “Ground Stability Assessment Walkover survey Report” produced by the Council’s consultant. An extract from the “Report” is included in my summary. Any reply received will be reported to Members at the meeting.
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.
HISTORY
RR/1999/9/RO/A Erection of two dwellings with garage/parking spaces – Approved
RR/2000/1988/POne 5 bed house with detached double garage – Approved
RR/2000/2071/POne 5 bed house with integral garage – Approved.
RR/2001/1810/PConstruction 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.
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”.
CONSULTATIONS
Parish 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.
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)
RR/2003/3547/PBURWASH DUDWELL ST MARY CARE HOME,
22 DEC 2003ETCHINGHAM ROAD
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF 32 BED EXTENSION AND ASSOCIATED WORKS
Barchester Healthcare Ltd
SITE Dudwell St Mary, the former convent, is situated on the south side of the A265 to the west of Borders Lane and is in use as a nursing home.
HISTORY
RR/93/0155/PChange of use of convent to nursing home and alteration to access – Approved Conditional.
RR/94/0403/PAccess to Borders Lane to orchard and septic tank – Approved Conditional.
RR/2000/1918/POutline Application – 32 bed extension to nursing home, associated service areas, office and conversion of existing service areas into bedrooms – Approved Conditional.
PROPOSAL This application relates to the submission of Reserved Matters for a 32 bed addition to the care home following the grant of outline planning permission under reference RR/2000/1918/P (dated 7th November 2002), A two storey detached addition is proposed, to the east of the main building, constructed of brick with tile hanging and a plain tile roof. The accommodation comprises 32 en-suite bedrooms, kitchen, 2 dining rooms, 3 lounges, stores, offices and staff facilities.
The siting of the building is contained within the area of the existing coach house and the walled garden. In terms of floor area the building exceeds the existing care home.
CONSULTATIONS
Parish Council :- Support Refusal – “We appreciate the need for extra residential care. We consider this proposal to be over development.”
Highway Authority:- Recommends any consent shall include the following condition – “Adequate turning facilities for vehicles shall be provided outside the limits of the highway and thereafter permanently retained.”
Environment Agency :- No comment.
Southern Water:- Environment Agency should be consulted. The Council should satisfy itself on the adequacy of soakaways for surface water disposal.
South East Water:- Mains water supply may need upgrading at developers expense to maintain service levels.
Planning Notice:- No representations received.
SUMMARY The reserved matters submitted for consideration are siting, design, means of access and external appearance. The siting is within 3m of the existing building and broadly as indicated by the outline proposal, albeit larger. The means of access is existing and satisfactory, additional car parking is shown to meet your parking standards. No objection is raised by the Highway Authority.
The design is of traditional materials with the use of projecting gables and bays to break up the mass of what is a substantial building. At this stage, no details of the actual external materials have been provided beyond the specification of bricks and plain tiles.
The outline application was referred to GOSE as a departure and was considered acceptable in the countryside, the outline specified 32 bedrooms and thus a substantial building was anticipated. For these reasons I could not substantiate the Parish Council’s recommendation of refusal. Similarly, whilst I have advised the applicant’s agent of the comments of South East Water, it is not now possible to secure off site works to the supply pipe. If this was to be achieved this should have been received at the outline stage. South East Water did not respond to the outline application consultation.
RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE (RESERVED MATTERS – SITING, DESIGN AND MEANS OF ACCESS)
- CN10A (Highway Conditions)
- CN13A (Landscaping scheme)
- CN13B (Supplementation of landscaping scheme)
- CN7B (External Materials)
- The premises shall be used in conjunction with the existing nursing home, Dudwell St. Mary and for no other purpose including any other purpose in Class C3 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking or re-enacting that order.
Reason: To ensure an appropriate use of the property/site and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.
- Details of foul and 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, ensure satisfactory drainage of the site and accord with Policy EN11 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.
- No floodlighting or external lighting of the site shall take place without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority and such details for approval shall include methods of shielding the light source from outside of the site and the lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and to accord with Policy S1 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.
RR/2004/230/PBURWASH ADMIRAL HOUSE - SITE OPPOSITE, HIGH
10 FEB 2004 STREET
ERECTION OF A TERRACE OF FOUR STARTER COTTAGES WITH ALTERATION TO EXISTING ACCESS
Mr M Wyatt
SITE This site lies on the north side of the A265 opposite Admiral House (formerly The Admiral Vernon PH) adjacent to the small public car park. The telephone exchange lies to the north of the site and it is just outside of the Conservation Area.
HISTORY (Relevant)
RR/90/0559/P C/U of vacant land to a private car park - Approved Conditional.
PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a terrace of four three bedroomed two storey houses. The submitted plans indicate facing brick at ground floor, white weatherboarding above and a tiled roof. No car parking is proposed.
CONSULTATIONS
Parish Council:- Support refusal.
Highway Authority:- Recommends that consent be refused.
Environment Agency:- No objection.
Director of Services - Environmental Health:- Little space available for soakaways. The small Council owned car park is already heavily used. If approved a contaminated land conditions is recommended.
Director of Transport & Environment - County Archaeologist:- No archaeological recommendation to make.
Southern Water:- Comments awaited.
Planning Notice:- I have received a copy of a petition sent to the Parish Council, with 64 signatories and at the time of writing this report 21 individual letters of objection had been received. The main objections being i) over-development; ii) lack of car parking; iii) proposed dwellings are not starter homes; iv) public car park is already over-subscribed; v) public transport is poor.
SUMMARY The site is within the Development Boundary of the village and therefore should be considered appropriate for development. However, I concur with the Parish Council and the weight of public opinion. In my view it is essential that any development makes appropriate provision for car parking; the public car park is well used during the day and already full at night, public transport is poor. Four dwellings on the site is an over-development (equivalent to 83 dwellings per hectare) to the extent that it is probably not possible to use soakaways for surface water as these must be at least 5m from any building. The site adjoins the Conservation Area boundary and I have to say that I do not believe the proposed design is adequate for such a location at the entrance to the village. Moreover, the submitted plans show a retaining wall around the north, west and eastern sides of the site with the whole development elevated to near to road level. The rear of the site would be raised 1.7m making the development very dominant and further limiting the use of soakaways. The elevations are bland and the single span roof is too deep. I believe that all existing foliage on the site would be removed.
RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)
1.The site is too restricted to satisfactorily accommodate the proposal which, if permitted, would be out of character with and detrimental to the appearance of the area contrary to policies GD1(i), (iii), (v), (vi) and (viii) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).
2.The design and external appearance of the building would if permitted be out of character and detrimental to the appearance of the locality adjacent to the Burwash Conservation Area. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to 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.
3.The proposal does not provide for car parking facilities within the site; this would result in additional congestion on the public highway causing interference with the free flow and safety of traffic on the A265 (Major Distributor Route).
RR/2004/279/PBURWASH GRAND TURZEL CARAVAN SITE, FONTRIDGE
11 FEB 2004 LANE
ERECTION OF 3 DETACHED DWELLINGS AND GARAGES, INCLUDING ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING ACCESS, CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ROAD AND ASSOCIATED WORKS
Silver Homes
SITE This application relates to approx 1.4 ha of land to the north of Fontridge Lane. It is set back from the road and is accessed off the private access track to Grand Turzel Farm. It is currently occupied by a number of caravans and other structures. The application relates to a major part but not all of the land on which caravans are stationed.
HISTORY
RR/1999/2914/PErection of four houses, garage, associated works and alteration to access - Refused.
RR/2000/801/OLawful use of land as caravan site with ancillary structures - Approved - Use for 8 caravans.
RR/2001/1077/OLawful use as a caravan site for both permanent and touring caravans - Appeal against non-determination allowed for 8 caravans.
RR/2001/2045/PErection of 3 houses, garages and associated works with alteration to access - Recommended for Refusal - Withdrawn.
RR/2002/2895/OLawful use of land as a caravan site for 9 caravans - Refused -Appeal Allowed.
RR/2003/1640/OLawful use of land as caravan site for 9 caravans - Not Determined - Appeal Allowed.
A copy of the Inspector’s decision is attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 18 March 2004.
PROPOSAL This is a full application for the erection of 3 detached 5 bed houses of traditional design. The existing wooded frontage to the site will be retained and the layout is informal with the dwellings set in large curtilages. Reference is made to the uncertainty on the numbers that may be lawfully stationed on site, and that there is every prospect the number will substantially exceed the figure of 9 established by the latest appeal. The agent says this is a special case and that the benefits are clear, providing a low-key use and the removal of the caravan use. Traffic flow will be reduced.