Submission to Rother District Council Land near Batemans
Application No RR/2013/2196/P
Rother District Council has received an application to build five houses on the far field in this picture. The field is in the crucial gap between Burwash and Burwash Weald. The applicant at page 5 of his application submits the development units will ‘lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting and have a beneficial impact on this area of AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty)’.
The writers of this submission believe no one anywhere can accept this statement. They believe this area is an exceptionally important Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty not only for its breath-taking intrinsic beauty but also because the field where the development is proposed adjoins National Trust land which has provided great enjoyment to millions of people over the years.
They trust that Rother District Council will protect all Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, for those who live in the locality and those who visit these areas, enabling future generations to enjoy them as people do today. Once these areas are built on, they are destroyed forever.
Submissions to Rother District Council
1 Residents in Burwash have formed the ‘Burwash: Save our fields from concrete’ group to save the countryside and present their arguments against this application to Rother District Council, Burwash Parish Council and the wider community. The group is not against development and is supportive of affordable housing but expects such housing not to conflict with the need to preserve AONB and to be situated in a suitable place.
Introduction
2 Lord Justice Sedley, a Court of Appeal judge, in his introduction to ‘Costing the Earth’, which lays down how courts should approach the environment, said, ‘The despoliation of the environment is arguably the gravest of all the problems we are going to hand on to our children and grandchildren. They will not thank us – particularly those of us who work in the administration of justice – for having done too little about it at a time when action and prevention were feasible.’
Summary of the application
3 The applicant, who it appears may not be the owner of the land, seeks to build five housing units in an area of Burwash which has been designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. He seeks to justify the building of the units on two grounds: first it is the replacement of agricultural buildings and second there is a need for affordable housing.
Summary of the objections
4 The objections in outline are:
a) The development is in one of the most exceptionally beautiful areas of Sussex which must be protected at all costs. It is in a protected AONB zone. It joins land owned by the National Trust surrounding Bateman’s.
b) The development is situated right in the middle of the land which divides Burwash from Burwash Weald. This is contrary to the High Weald AONB Management objective S2, and Rother’s policy of maintaining open landscape between villages (Policy EN1(v)), see para 11.
c) Building new houses in the middle of the countryside is not permitted except in extremely limited circumstances. Those conditions are not met.
d) If the development was built it would create a death trap where traffic from the site meets the A265, see para 7.
5 A more detailed statement of our objections based on a more extensive examination of the planning documents is likely to follow.
The destruction of part of an AONB
6 The major objection is that it would destroy part of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This argument is developed in the paragraphs where comment is made on the application. The application follows the submission.
Access
7 The second most important objection is perhaps that the site will never satisfy the requirement of safe access onto the main road. The stretch of road is notorious for people speeding after they have been through the speed-restricted Burwash and Burwash Weald.
8 Vehicles travelling westwards face a bend hidden by trees and the overgrown hedge of the applicant’s field. The view road users have is very restricted just before the entrance to the field.
9 The photograph shows the view from just after Rye Green Lane. The trees on the left are the boundary between the National Trust land and the applicant’s land. The left is South and the right is North. The farmer who cuts the hedge on the left says it is too dangerous to cut the hedge with one vehicle. He has to use two vehicles with flashing lights to slow the traffic down. It is understood the poor access would fail the planning rules. If the development is constructed people will be killed.
Analysis of the Design and access statement
10 The document does not have paragraph numbers. The document follows this submission. Paragraph numbers have been added.
Para 2 (see page 11 of this document)
11 This paragraph in the application is not a fair summary and overlooks that there is a series of houses between Burwash village and Orchards. There is then a significant gap between Orchards and Ghyll’s farm. There is then Ghyll’s farm and Judins and the start of Burwash Weald. The AONB Management Plan makes clear that planning authorities must ensure that settlements (such as Burwash and Burwash Weald) remain separate and there should be no suburbanisation of the countryside. This important planning aspect is in the Rother District Plan at para 4.56. It says, ‘The separation of settlements to protect their individual character and setting is regarded as of strategic importance, in accordance with Structure Plan Policy S1. The gaps between certain towns and villages have for long been identified as vulnerable to development pressures. Policy EN1 also emphasises the need to protect the distinctive settlement pattern of the High Weald area.
12 Interestingly the applicant’s aerial Google map illustrates the size and importance of this gap between the two settlements. Surprisingly all the named buildings and the title Burwash which have been added to the plan are in the wrong place. Also the area is described as Cooper’s Hill, which is elsewhere.
13 The applicant relies on a horse shelter and shed to evade planning restrictions for building outside built-up areas. The shelter and shed can be seen in the aerial view with the corrugated iron roof showing up as a thin white structure.
14 The statement that the buildings are well placed is the opposite of the true position.
Para 3-4 and para 6-9
15 Reference is made to the hedge having not been maintained for some years and being in a poor state. It can be inferred that far from being a factor for development it is a deliberate policy to ignore the needs of the community and road users in the hope that it might assist a planning application. The suggestion that the next farm is well screened from the development is false. The buildings are described as agricultural. A true description is they are low-level corrugated iron horse sheds and a horse store that relates just to the field and is not part of farm building in the normal use of the phase as the building is not for any other purpose than this field. They are not buildings built to last. It is claimed the buildings are in a dangerous state. This hardly reflects well on those who have looked after the property but in fact the buildings are not in a dangerous state. It is ironic that the agent for the owner claims that the buildings have an adverse impact on the local visual amenity and are an eyesore when first that is the fault of the owner(s) and second they have far less impact than five houses with two storeys and roof areas. The current buildings are hardly visible from the entrance and the new buildings are likely to be four times higher. The applicant provides helpful photographs of the building.
Paras 10-12 Planning (see page 12 of this document)
16 This is a highly selective extract from the document. The sentiments in para 11 are for the rural communities and were never designed as a coach and horses to enable building of houses in open countryside. In para 12 there is reference to the Local Plan but no reference to the provisions within that plan. The Parish Council adopted the Local Action Plan in 2009 and it says on page 13, ‘Work with developers and planning authorities to ensure new development proposals meet the needs identified by local people as guidelines relating to Burwash being within a conservation area.’ It is submitted the local plan was careful to protect the beauty around Burwash.
Paras 13-14 (see page 13 of this document)
17 Paragraph 13 refers to ‘where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting’. The planning statement relates to oast houses, historic industrial buildings, certain barns and brick-built structures. It was never designed to enable developments to replace corrugated iron horse sheds. The word ‘re-use’ is important. This is only available where a building is retained and converted, for example where a mill or oast house is converted. Removing the whole structure and replacing it with a new structure is outside this tightly drawn exception. The second requirement is that the re-use of the building has to ‘enhance’ the immediate setting. No one, except the applicant, could suggest that the erection of some suburban houses in the middle of spectacular open countryside could ‘lead to the enhancement to the immediate setting. Para 14 refers to brownfield sites which this site is not. In any event, Rother is proposing clear rules which would prohibit speculative development of corrugated iron sheds.
Affordable housing
18 In para 15 there is an attempt to rely on the emerging Rother Core Strategy document. The application refers to six provisos that need to be met but declines to list them. It is easy to see why that decision was taken. Our comments are in red. Three sub-paragraphs are referred to but only two listed. One is listed as a) whereas it is i). The full list of provisos is:
Policy LHN3: Rural Exception Sites
In exceptional circumstances, planning permission may be granted for small site residential development outside development boundaries in order to meet a local need for affordable housing in rural areas. Such development will be permitted where the following requirements are met:-
Exceptional circumstances are required. None are suggested. None exist.
i. It helps to meet a proven local housing need for affordable housing in the village/parish, as demonstrated in an up-to-date assessment of local housing need;
This proviso is not met as the housing is not affordable housing and no assessment has been undertaken.
ii. It is of a size, tenure, mix and cost appropriate to the assessed local housing need;
Neither the size, the tenure, the mix is appropriate. It may be the cost of providing utility services is not appropriate. No costings have been done.
iii. It is well related to an existing settlement and its services, including access to public transport;
The scheme is not well-related to either Burwash or Burwash Weald. The scheme is not well related to the Burwash services. The scheme is not well-related to access to public transport.
iv. The development is supported or initiated by the Parish Council;
It is not supported by the Parish Council and it is hoped it never will be. It is hard to imagine it ever could be.
v. The local planning authority is satisfied that the identified local housing need cannot be met within the settlement development boundary; and
No such determination has been made. There are schemes in Burwash and there is no evidence put forward to suggest they cannot be met.
vi. The development does not significantly harm the character of the rural area, settlement or the landscape, and meets other normal local planning and highway authority criteria, in line with other Council policies.
This condition ‘does not significantly harm the character of the rural area’, cannot be met as the scheme would have a severe impact on the character of the rural area. The damage is typified by the picture on the front of this submission. It is not likely to meet local planning criteria.
In particular it is not compatible with the character and setting of the village (a breach of OSS1). There is no infrastructure and services available (there is no mains drainage or public footpath) (a breach of OSS3). The new development will not be sited in close proximity to key village facilities (breach of RA1). The plans fail to comply with the landscape and historic environment stewardship policies (breach of EN1 and EN2). Because of problems with access, see para 7 it will undoubtable fails highway authority planning safety rules.
In all cases, planning permission will be subject to a legal agreement to ensure that the accommodation remains available to meet local housing needs in perpetuity, and that people with the greatest local connection are given highest priority in both initial and future occupancy.
This condition cannot be met as the development is not suitable for affordable housing see above.
19 Existing planning rules enshrined in Rother’s 2006 Local Plan (page 39 HG2) make it clear that residential development outside development boundaries is prohibited save in exceptional circumstances, planning permission may be granted for residential development outside development boundaries in order to meet a local housing need among those people unable to compete in the normal housing market. Proposals for development will be considered in the context of the following (our comments again are in red):
‘(i) There should be clear evidence of an unsatisfied housing need in the town/village or parish that cannot be met through normal market mechanisms;
There is no such evidence.
(ii) The proposed development should be of a size, cost and type appropriate to those people in local housing need established in (i) above;