RR/2001/163/PASHBURNHAM CORNER HOUSE FARM – LAND AT,

23 JAN 2001BROWNBREAD STREET

FORMATION OF TWO PONDS AND PROVISION OF SCREENING TO EXISTING GATE

R D Winfield

This application was considered at the August 2001 meeting of the Committee when it was resolved to delegate authority to grant planning permission upon receipt of amended plans addressing the Environment Agency’s concerns about the inadequacies of the dam and overflow. Whilst, the applicants agent has advised on several occasions that discussions are in hand to resolve the matter no appropriate plans have been received.

SITE This application relates to O.S. Parcel Nos. 4847, 5158, 3848 and 4057 on the west side of the C412 Brownbread Street opposite the junction of the UC6122.

HISTORY

None

PROPOSAL Planning permission is sought retrospectively for the formation of two small ponds and for the erection of a close boarded gate about 1.8m high at the vehicular access.

CONSULTATIONS

Parish Council:- Support a Refusal “The Parish Council’s comments are based firstly on the fact that the existing close-boarded gate of considerable height has replaced a wooden field gate. The new gate has deprived both local and 1066 walkers of an exceptionally attractive and interesting view. The Parish Council would like to suggest that a new gate is erected that does not obscure the view.

The Parish Council further feels that the environmental agency should be consulted regarding the stability of the retaining embankments that have been created to assist the formation of the new ponds.

The development of these ponds has completely altered the vista across this attractive valley in this area of outstanding natural beauty.”

Environment Agency:- “The Agency would have OBJECTED to this proposal as submitted on the following grounds:

The proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of ecological value of a headwater stream.From a large study carried out by the Agency’s Biology Team in 1998/9, headwater streams were found to support many macro-invertebrates whose distribution was strongly associated or restricted to such streams, approximately 30 of which were of high conservation value. From this it was estimated that headwater streams contributed over 20% to the overall species pool of the catchment. Construction of a lake as proposed would result in the loss of this important habitat.

The proposed works would require consent under the Land Drainage Act 1991 from this Agency. An impoundment licence may also be required. No details of measures to pass flood flows and confirmation of the structural integrity of the structures have been provided. From information available it would not appear that the design would comply with what would be regarded as good practice. Your Council’s own engineers should also be consulted on this, particularly with respect to the structural integrity.”

Director of Environmental Health:- No objection.

Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY I have been advised that the gate has been reduced in height to that at which planning permission is not required. I shall take measurements to check this prior to your meeting.

I am concerned that this application does not appear to be progressing and I am anxious that the four year period appropriate to operational development is getting closer. The Environment Agency have suggested that if the Council is minded to grant planning permission and a condition requiring further details should be imposed. I favour this approach as it would safeguard the Council’s position and if not complied with the breach of condition notice procedure would be available, The necessary modifications to the embankment and the overflow are not extensive but they are important and need to be addressed.

RECOMMENDATION GRANT (FULL PLANNING)

1.Detailed plans of remedial works to the embankment construction and pond overflow provision shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The remedial works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details within 6 months of the date of this planning permission.

Reason: To comply with design guidance contained within CIRJA Document 161 ‘Small Embankment Reservoirs’ to prevent any increased risk of flooding and erosion downstream and in accordance with Policy GD1 (iv) and (vi) of the Rother District Local Plan: Revised Deposit (November 2003).

RR/2003/2601/PCROWHURST BADGERS HOLT AND THE OAKS – LAND TO

10 SEP 2003REAR 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 meeting in November 2003 for independent consultants advice regarding the position of the bored pile wall and the implications in respect of surface water and ground water flows in the area. An initial “Ground Stability Assessment Walkover Survey Report” has now been received and I have included an extract in my summary to this report.

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/2003/1848/PBATTLE 19 HIGH STREET - REAR OF, CLEMENTS CAR

30 JUN 2003 PARK

PROPOSED TWO STOREY DEVELOPMENT FOR PURPOSE OF BATTLE CRICKET CLUB ON FIRST FLOOR AND 3 NO. SHOP UNITS ON GROUND FLOOR

Mr R Clements

This application was considered at the November meeting of the Committee when it was resolved to delegate authority to grant planning permission subject to receipt of amended plans and consultation responses.

I have received amended plans and I have publicised them, any responses will be reported at the meeting.

SITE The site is the south western end of ‘Clements’ car park off the south west side of the High Street. The area of the site measures 14 metres at its narrowest point by 22m and is currently used for car parking; there is a poor specimen of a Lebanon Cedar within the site.

HISTORY

The site in part has been the subject of previous planning applications relating to the building at the frontage but not relating to this site specifically.

PROPOSAL Full planning permission is sought for the erection of a two storey ‘L’ shaped building of brick and clay roofing tiles. On the ground floor would be three shop units and a storeroom above changing rooms, shower and WC facilities, a locker room, lounge bar, store and kitchen are indicated. The lounge bar would have a terrace/balcony overlooking the cricket square cantilevered over land at the rear owned by the Town Council.

The submitted plan indicates the removal of Cedar tree and trees obstructing views to the cricket pitch without the site.

CONSULTATIONS

Town Council – Comments upon amended proposal awaited.

Highway Authority – Does not wish to restrict grant of consent ”although this authority is concerned over the lack of on-site parking being provided for the development and that the proposed building would also remove some existing private parking spaces, it is considered that there are insufficient highway grounds to justify a recommendation or refusal for this proposal.”

Environment Agency – No objection. Contaminated land condition required.

Southern Water – No objection. Foul/surface water drainage condition needed. No surface water to be discharged to foul sewer.

Director of Services - Sports Development Officer – Supports facility. Design needs to cater for disabled access. Upper floor should be conditioned to recreational/community purposes. Not clear if parking spaces are being made available. Substantial tree loss and root damage will result.

Director of Transport & Environment - County Archaeologist: Recommends an archaeological condition.

Sussex Police – Security advice given to applicant’s agent.

Planning Notice:- 3 letters of objection received (to original scheme) -

  • removal of trees/and part of wall between Tills Yard and footpath by George Mews
  • its use could bring about litter/noise/pollution/smell
  • blocks view - due to height of roof - deprivation of light to 1 George Mews (prefer flat roof) - thatched roof would be best
  • worried about late use of the bar facilities - noise from music
  • restrict maintenance to 1 George Mews (development along party wall)
  • artificial lighting - going into garden of 1 George Mews from 1st level of development
  • emergency services access - feel it is limited by development
  • invades privacy
  • increased traffic

SUMMARY The application is accompanied by an appraisal of the Cedar Tree that is proposed to be removed. It is in poor condition, misshapen and has limited prospects for survival. It’s removal should, I believe be accepted.

It is my view that development in this area at the rear of the High Street is supportable subject to matters of access, form, layout and design. It is important in considering this proposal to have in mind the wider possible schemes for adjoining land and to achieve good pedestrian routes.

The amended plan now submitted is a significant improvement over earlier schemes and results from a productive meeting with the architects and the applicants. The form of the building has been broken down into smaller elements creating relief to the previously expansive areas of walling and a pleasing arrangement of smaller roofs.

I shall need to consider consultation responses and I am awaiting a statement from the applicants concerning their intended use of the bar facility. However, I expect to make the

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING) DELEGATED (CONSULTATION RESPONSES)

1.CN7B (External materials)

2.CN3A (Archaeological watching brief)

3.CN9K (Floor levels – amended)

4.CN12L (No floodlighting)

5.CN12G (Hours of use – amended)

6.CN12Q (Use limitation)

7.CN8C (Foul and surface water details)

N8A (Rights of access)

N8B (Rights of access)

RR/2003/2074/PBATTLE FARR MEGGS FARM, KANE HYTHE ROAD

29 JUL 2003 POLE BARN FOR HAY, STRAW AND GENERAL FARM STORAGE

Mr M R J Nye

SITE This site is approximately 4 hectares of pasture situated on the east side of Kane Hythe Road.

HISTORY

RR/1999/894/PErection of barn for straw and hay - Approved Conditional

RR/2002/2198/PPolytunnel (retrospective) for keeping sheep during lambing - Approved Conditional (Temp)

PROPOSAL Planning permission is sought for an agricultural building constructed of timber clad box profile steel sheeting sited at the rear of the land adjacent to the polytunnel which is to be removed shortly. The building would measure 18.2m by 7.6m and is an alternative to the building approved under reference RR/1999/894/P.

CONSULTEES

Town Council:- The Council could see no justification for this unattractive structure in the countryside in relation to the small area of land which it would serve.

Planning Notice:- No representations received.

SUMMARY The applicant commenced the construction of a barn on the land but it did not accord with the approved plan under reference RR/1999/894/P. The current application has been submitted for the design of building under construction. I should point out that the applicant appears not to have continued construction work since being advised of the need for a further planning permission in June 2003.