RR/2003/3235/PCATSFIELD REDCOAT ORCHARD
20 NOV 2003 REMOVAL OF AGRICULTURAL OCCUPANCY RESTRICTION CONDITION IMPOSED ON RR/86/2078
D M Gowland
This application was deferred at the last meeting of the Committee to await the comments of the Rural Estates Surveyor.
SITE Redcoat Orchard lies on the north east side of the B2204 roughly opposite the Old Hunt Stables. The house was built in the late 1980s.
HISTORY (Relevant)
RR/86/2078O/A dwelling in connection with fruit orchards - Refused - Appeal Allowed.
RR/88/0623Erection of farmhouse pursuant to outline permission RR/86/2078 - Approved Conditional.
PROPOSAL This application seeks the removal of the agricultural occupancy restriction imposed upon the property which reads as follows:-
“The occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted shall be limited to a person solely or mainly employed, or last employed, in the locality in agriculture as defined in Section 290 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, and in forestry or a dependant of such a person residing with him or her, or a widow or widower of such a person.”
CONSULTATIONS
Parish Council:- No objection but would strongly support tying the land to the house by Section 106 Agreement.
Director of Resources - Legal Services Manager:- The applicant has conducted a fairly thorough appraisal of demand with perhaps the exception of retired agricultural workers.
Rural Estates Surveyor:-
“Conclusion
i.The details provided by the applicant’s agent do in my opinion represent a realistic assessment of the need for such dwellings in the locality.
ii.I think that the assessment provides sufficient evidence of a lack of demand for such dwellings and that in this case it would be appropriate to remove the Agricultural Occupancy Condition.”
Planning Notice:- 4 letters - i) would object to any development of the land for building or commercial purposes; ii) a prospective purchaser has tried to buy the property but applicant has not responded to a written offer of £420,000.
SUMMARY This application seeks the removal of the agricultural occupancy condition imposed upon the property. The applicant’s agent has followed the normally accepted practice of advertising the property, at a suitably reduced valuation, since January of this year. The marketing process has included advertisements in the ‘Farmers Weekly’ and ‘The Fruit Grower’ and a direct mailing exercise to local farmers and landowners with reply paid envelopes. From the marketing exercise the applicant’s agent has concluded that there is no demand for the property with the agricultural occupancy restriction. However, I have received a letter from a prospective purchaser stating that they would like to purchase and that an offer of £370,000 in June 2003 received no response. An improved offer of £420,000 in writing made in November has also not received a response.
I have noted acknowledgement within the applicant’s presentation of the interest expressed above; this appears to have been discounted because the interested party had property to sell and required planning permission for development of the site. I do not believe that to discount the enquiry for these reasons is acceptable. It is not surprising that a prospective purchaser has property to sell and it is my understanding that the development proposed involves the erection of polytunnels which may be possible by way of a farm notification depending upon their size.
I have therefore written to the applicant’s agent suggesting that the potential buyer needs to be seriously considered; I have requested further information in this regard.
Whilst the prospect of a purchaser that satisfies the agricultural occupancy restriction exists I can only conclude that an absence of demand has not been demonstrated. Subject to the applicant’s agents’ response to this issue I expect to make the
RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)
1.In considering the request for the removal of the agricultural occupancy condition the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that no demand exists for agricultural workers’ dwellings in the locality. Under the circumstances the Local Planning Authority having taken account of Government advice, particularly that contained in Annexe I of Planning Policy Guidance No.7, considers that the agricultural occupancy condition should be retained in order to maintain the overall stock of agricultural dwellings within the rural area.
RR/2003/2553/PCROWHURST 11 AND 13 FOREWOOD RISE - REAR OF
04 SEP 2003 ERECTION OF THREE NEW DWELLINGS
Rother Homes
This application was first reported to your October 2003 meeting when it was deferred. It has been deferred at your subsequent two meetings, the last being to allow further negotiations in respect of the housing mix proposed and for consultation with English Nature regarding the adjacent SSSI. Your suggestion that there is a need for 1 bed flats in the area has been put to the Applicants, as has the requirement, if approved, to enter into a Section 106 Planning Obligation on grounds that it would be an ‘exceptions site’.
SITE This 0.9 ha site currently comprises the parking area for the Forewood Rise former Council housing estate and contains 6 prefabricated concrete flat roofed garages and 14 parking spaces. The site is located behind nos. 11 to 14 (four 2-storey flats). Access is via a single vehicle width driveway between nos.13/14 and 15 Forewood Rise and off the turning circle at the western end of the estate road.
HISTORY
None.
PROPOSAL The proposed development would take the form of three terraced dwellings backing onto the western boundary with an open field. The southern end three bedroom dwelling would be two storey. The middle and northern end dwellings would be single storey with a bedroom and WC in the roofspace and single dormer windows in the front (east) roof elevations. The existing six garages would be demolished. A total of 11 parking spaces would be provided. Five of these would be within the frontages of the dwellings. The remaining six would adjoin the 1.8m high boundary fence with no.15. The dwelling would be constructed using traditional brick and tile materials in keeping with existing adjoining development.
CONSULTATIONS
Parish Council:- Recommends approval – “There is already a parking problem on the estate which will be exacerbated by the withdrawal of the rented garages on the application site. There will be an increased traffic flow to and from the new development, and the planning department is asked to give consideration to:
1.a)requesting that the plans be amended to use some of the ‘p’ areas on the proposal to provide 3 or 4 replacement rented garages for the existing residents; and/or
b)redesign the present ‘roundabout’ area to provide additional car parking spaces to the front of the estate, retaining the existing tree and a small grassed area if possible.
2.The actual site size should be checked as it is not believed to be the area indicated on the plans.
3.There have been problems with the foul water system on the estate. The viability of an additional demand on the present sewer system needs to be thoroughly checked.
4.Residents who back on the existing garages which are to be demolished would like assurances that a fence will be erected without delay in order to maintain their privacy.
5.It is noted that the proposal is outside of the development stop lines.
6.Access by footpath into Fore Wood, which has existed for over 50 years, should be maintained”.
Highway Authority:- Wishes to withdraw its objection commenting that:
“The Highway Authority generally seeks to resist development proposals that result in the substantial removal of existing resident off-road parking and could cause additional hazards associated with increased levels of on-street parking.
In this instance however, the Applicant has demonstrated that usage of the off-road parking is at a low level and it would be difficult for this Authority to defend a recommendation of refusal in an appeal situation.”
Environment Agency:- Has no objection but advise that English Nature should be consulted because the site is adjacent to Fore Wood SSSI.
Southern Water:- Do not wish to make any comments.
Sussex Police:- Do not identify any unnecessary crime risk.
Director of Services - Housing:- Support the proposal.
Director of Services - Estates:- Has no objection.
English Nature:- “English Nature have no objection provided none of the houses or garage footprints are within the SSSI boundary and that no construction materials and equipment are stored on or within the boundary.”
Planning Notice:- No comments received.
SUMMARY In view of the Highway Authority’s withdrawal of its objection to the loss of resident off-road parking, a refusal of planning permission on highway grounds would not be justified.
The following reply has been received from the Development Manager of Horizon Housing Group:
“With regard to housing mix please note the following:
Forewood Rise consists in total of 27 dwellings of which 14 (all houses) have previously been sold under the Right To Buy. That leaves only 3 houses and 10 flats for rent. All the flats are two bedroomed but can if necessary be under occupied to provide single person accommodation. The balance of accommodation in Forewood Rise is therefore already skewed towards single persons, couples or smaller families.
The latest housing needs information that I have from Rother District Council (August 2003) indicates the following:
registrations for 1 bedroomed accommodation in Crowhurst – 27
registrations for 2 bedroomed accommodation in Crowhurst – 22
registrations for 3 bedroomed accommodation in Crowhurst – 31
The evidence would suggest that in order to provide a balance of rented accommodation in Forewood Rise, that we include at least one three bedroomed unit, which of course, we have. We have also included two cottage style bungalows which provide versatile accommodation capable of being used by individuals, or couples, or small families, and we feel this in an appropriate mix.
If the planners have a problem with the 3 bedroomed unit being adjacent to the flats at 11-14 Forewood Rise, it would be possible to reverse the terrace so that the three bedroomed house is on the far side and that the two chalet bungalows are nearest to the flats.
With regard to entering into a Section 106, we would of course be quite happy to do this”.
In view of their above response I consider the housing mix proposed acceptable. It is my opinion that the two-storey height 3 bedroomed dwelling adjoining the rear of flats 11-14 Forewood Rise, would be at a sufficient distance (between 13-18m) to ensure that their amenities would not be significantly affected. It is my opinion therefore that the scheme should be supported as submitted.
RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (S106 – AFFORDABLE HOUSING)
1.CN7B a), b) and c) (External materials)
2.CN12S Amended “parking of the vehicles of the occupiers of the dwellings hereby approved, existing dwellings in Forewood Rise and visitors thereto” (Parking provision)
3.CN13F Amended by deleting ‘Before any development takes place’ (Tree/Shrub planting)
N12A(S106 Obligation)
RR/2003/3270/PWHATLINGTON SPRINGFIELD, WHATLINGTON ROAD
05 DEC 2003USE OF LAND AS RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGE
R Vallier
This site was inspected by members of Planning Committee on 15 July 2003 in connection with application RR/2003/1225/P.
SITE Springfield is a detached dwelling in a countryside location, set within the loosely knit ribbon of residential properties fronting the south eastern side of Whatlington Road. The site formerly comprised an agricultural nursery and one large glasshouse remains within approximately 2.8 hectares of land.
HISTORY
RR/2001/1585/PExtension to dwelling – Withdrawn.
RR/2001/2411/PErection of extension – Refused.
RR/2002/1588/PErection of extension – Refused.
RR/2002/2759/PExtension to dwelling – Approved.
RR/2003/1225/PReplacement pond and patio – Refused.
RR/2003/2591/PFormation of replacement pond and patio - Refused.
PROPOSAL The application is for the change of use of an area of former nursery/agricultural land to the rear of the dwelling (approximately 95m x 50m) to residential garden curtilage. A formal ornamental pond with a paved surround (9.3m x 14m) has been constructed on this land. This has been the subject of planning enforcement investigations and two recently refused retrospective planning applications. These applications were refused principally on the basis that the land fell outside the authorised residential curtilage and no application for the change of use of the land itself had been put forward.
CONSULTATIONS
Parish Council - No comments received.
Planning Notice – 1 letter of objection from the occupier of ‘Freshfields’. On the grounds that, we would be concerned about any future plans for buildings on the land. Would prefer the six foot fence to be taken down and the land left as agriculture. (Note: this appears to relate to the land to the south-west of the dwelling which is not part of the application site)..
SUMMARY
The application now before you differs from the previous applications RR/2003/1225/P and RR/2003/2591/P in that it now proposes the change of use of the land containing the newly constructed pond and patio to garden.
It is an application for an extension of the curtilage of the existing dwelling in the countryside and as such, needs to be assessed against Policy HG9 of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003):
‘Extensions of the curtilages of existing dwellings in the countryside will not normally be permitted unless the extension:
(i)is modest in area, and the change of use and associated domestic paraphernalia does not harm the rural character of the area; and
(ii)is to a natural boundary or is a logical rounding off’.
With respect to (ii) of the policy, the extent of the residential curtilage to the rear of the dwelling is presently not clearly defined by physical boundaries on the ground. The field that it is proposed to include within the residential curtilage, on the other hand, is bounded by hedgerows. The proposed development would result in a larger curtilage, but with a clear demarcation line between garden and open-countryside. Regarding (i), whilst the proposal would not positively enhance the appearance of the countryside, the application site is not prominent in the wider landscape and the visual impact of the development would be limited.
The field to the south west of the dwelling, within the applicant’s ownership and shown edged blue in the application, does not form part of the development site and would remain outside the curtilage. In the event that planning permission is granted for the change of use of the application site to residential garden curtilage, the pond and patio that have been constructed on the land would be permitted development. In such circumstances, however, Members may consider that a condition taking away permitted development rights for further structures would be appropriate.
RECOMMENDATIONGRANT(FULL PLANNING)
- Notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting this Order), no caravan, building, structure or erection of any kind shall be placed on the land shown outlined in red on the submitted site location plan unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development of the land and to protect the character and appearance of the countryside.
RR/2003/1585/OBATTLE NETHERFIELD PLACE, NETHERFIELD ROAD
16 JUN 2003 LAWFUL RETENTION OF NINETEEN 2.96M HIGH LIGHTING COLUMNS INCORPORATING 7 WATTAGE BULBS ALONG RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY
Mr and Mrs M Rudland
RR/2003/2931/PBATTLE NETHERFIELD PLACE, NETHERFIELD ROAD
14 OCT 2003 RETENTION OF 4 NON-ILLUMINATED LIGHTING COLUMNS AND 15 ILLUMINATED LIGHTING COLUMNS ALONG DRIVEWAY SERVING NETHERFIELD PLACE
Mr and Mrs M Rudland
Arrangements have been made for Members to make an evening inspection of this site at 6.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 14 January 2004.
SITE Netherfield Place, now occupied as a single house, lies on the south side of Netherfield Road and is accessed there from via a long driveway.
HISTORY (Relevant)
RR/2001/324C/U of Hotel to dwelling - Approved Conditional
RR/2002/1032/PErection of lighting columns, gates and walls (retrospective) - Refused
RR/2002/2591/PEntrance gates, walls, piers and two lights (retrospective) - Approved Conditional
RR/2002/3017/PErection of lighting columns along drive - Refused
RR/2003/401/OConstruction of swimming pool - LDC Refused
RR/2003/1889/PConstruction of swimming pool - Approved Conditional
PROPOSAL Application RR/2003/1585/O seeks a Lawful Development Certificate for the retention of 19 lighting columns along the access drive on the basis that they are permitted development within the residential curtilage. Application RR/2003/2931/P is submitted without prejudice to the Lawful Development Certificate submission, for planning permission to retain the lighting columns but with 4 of the 19 being non-illuminated; the non-illuminated lamp standards being four of the first six along the first part of the drive from the entrance gates.
CONSULTATIONS
Town Council:- “The Council has always opposed any lighting at this property and continues to feel that this principle should be adhered to. Notwithstanding the discussion relating to the definition of the curtilage of the property it is therefore opposed to the two illuminated lighting columns.”
Director of Resources - Legal Services Manager:- “…Accordingly, I need you to investigate what the land either side of the access track is used for. If, as the photograph supplied with the application suggests, it is just fields, I think that it would be unlikely to comprise residential curtilage and therefore the Certificate should be refused except in relation to all but the nearest 2-4 standards.”
Planning Notice:- 1 letter of support - i) lights are an amenity; ii) no effect on any other property; iii) additional security.
3 letters of objection - i) cause of light pollution; ii) inappropriate in AONB; iii) unnecessary and unsympathetic; iv) visible in autumn, winter and spring from Netherfield Down and surrounding hills.
SUMMARY Early in 2002 entrance gates and flank walls surmounted by lights together with 19 lighting columns along the length of the entrance drive were installed without the necessary planning permission. An application to retain the installation was refused (RR/2002/1032/P and RR/2002/3017/P) but the entrance gates, piers and flank walls together with the lamps on top were approved under reference RR/2002/2591/P.
The application for a Certificate of Lawful Use (RR/2003/1585/O) seeks to establish that all 19 lamp standards are within the residential curtilage of the property; if this could be established the lamps would be permitted development by reason of being less than 3 metres high. Legal advice is that whilst some of the lamps close to the dwelling may well be permitted, from the application plan it is noted that the track continues for a considerable distance before the public road is reached. However, it is important to consider the function of the land and it is clear to me that the initial part of the driveway runs through land which is not in use domestically and the drive serves not only the dwelling but the applicant’s whole landholding, some of which is grazed. I do not accept that the lamp standards are permitted development.