Rother District CouncilAgenda Item: 6
Committee-Planning
Date-13 August 2009
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
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:-
Bexhill (All Wards)
Battle (Battle Town/Crowhurst/Darwell Wards)
Rye (Rye Ward)
Ashburnham, Catsfield, Crowhurst, Penhurst (Crowhurst Ward)
Brightling, Burwash, Dallington, Mountfield, Whatlington (Darwell Ward)
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)
Neighbouring Authorities
REFERENCEPAGEPARISHSITE ADDRESS
RR/2009/1394/P1BEXHILL RAVENSIDE RETAIL PARK –
BEXHILL MUNCH BOX
RR/2009/1398/P2BEXHILL 17 AND 17A DORSET ROAD SOUTH
RR/2009/1495/P8BEXHILL 9 WESTERN ROAD
RR/2009/1524/L 12BEXHILL THE OLD MILL
OLD MILL PARK
RR/2009/1555/P14BEXHILL BEXHILL SERVICE STATION
BARNHORN ROAD
RR/2009/1759/P16BEXHILL 85 PEARTREE LANE
RR/2009/1064/P18BATTLE HARRIER LANE –
LAND AT
RR/2009/1593/P22BATTLE BEECHES BROOK
TELHAM LANE
RR/2009/1629/P26BATTLE 86 DARVEL DOWN
RR/2009/1267/P28RYE 22A WINCHELSEA ROAD
RR/2009/1269/P33RYE 22A WINCHELSEA ROAD
RR/2009/1551/P37RYE RIVER CAFÉ
ST MARGARET’S TERRACE
RR/2009/1652/P41CROWHURST BADGERS END
STONEBRIDGE FARM
RR/2009/1594/P45BURWASH DAWES FARM
HIGH STREET
RR/2009/1654/P48NORTHIAM THE ELMS – LAND BEHIND
EWHURST LANE
RR/2009/1333/P51BODIAM BODIAM CASTLE
RR/2009/1613/P54HURST GREEN HAWKRIDGE
BURGH HILL
RR/2009/1505/P56BREDE PICKDICK
STUBB LANE
RR/2009/1507/L56BREDE PICKDICK
STUBB LANE
RR/2009/1489/P60WESTFIELD KENT STREET PUMPING STATION
KENT STREET
RR/2009/713/P64TICEHURST 2 CLARE HOUSE
CHURCH STREET
RR/2009/1463/P68EWHURST FORGE FARM
JUNCTION ROAD
RR/2009/1331/P73GUESTLING THE OLD CHAPEL
BUTCHERS LANE
--oo0oo—
1
RR/2009/1394/PBEXHILL RAVENSIDERETAILPARK – BEXHILL MUNCH BOX
STATIONING OF MOBILE CATERING VAN
Ms P Hui
Statutory 8 week date: 22 July 2009
SITEThis retrospective application relates to a mobile catering unit that occupies four car parking spaces in the north west corner of RavensideRetailPark, in the immediate vicinity of Wickes and Pets At Home.
HISTORY
None relevant.
PROPOSALPermission is sought to retain the unit, which sells food and non alcoholic beverages including jacket potatoes, sandwiches, burgers, sausages, chips, kebabs, hot and cold drinks and a selection of chocolate bars.
CONSULTATIONS
Head of Environmental Health:– No objection.
Planning Notice:– Two e-mails of objection with the following comments (summarised):
- No safety for customers and passing traffic. Who is responsible for the first accident?
- The smell from the unit is unpleasant and can be noticed from quite a distance.
- The unit does not face Wickes.
- The unit does not appear mobile but relatively fixed.
- The waste is merely discharged behind the unit and left – a potential fire/health risk.
- There are already a number of fast food restaurants and another mobile food outlet in the retail park.
- Rubbish from the existing food outlets is already a serious problem for the residents around Ravenside and this will add to that problem and be detrimental to the environment.
SUMMARYPolicy GD1 of the Local Plan applies in the determination of this application. The main issues to consider are impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residential properties and impact upon the character and appearance of the locality.
Policy GD1 of the Local Plan states that “All development should: (ii) be in keeping with and not unreasonably harm the amenities of adjoining properties; and (iv) respect and not detract from the character and appearance of the locality.”
RavensideRetailPark is a typical out of town shopping centre that contains a diverse mixture of shops, leisure facilities and fast food restaurants. I therefore do not consider the addition of the mobile catering unit to be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the locality.
I am also satisfied that, by virtue of its position within the retail park, the mobile catering unit does not unreasonably harm the amenities of adjoining residential properties in De La Warr Road, especially as these are some distance away (at least 50 metres) and at a higher ground level.
In terms of safety for customers and passing traffic, I am satisfied that the unit’s position off the main through road is acceptable. In my opinion the risk posed to customers and passing traffic is no different to any other part of the car park.
In addition, the Council’s Head of Environmental Health has not objected to the proposal.
Subject to a temporary three year grant of planning permission and a restriction on the hours of use I recommend supporting this application.
RECOMMENDATION:GRANT (FULL PLANNING)
- The mobile catering unit hereby permitted shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition on or before 22 July 2012 in accordance with a scheme of work submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: The mobile catering unit is not considered suitable for stationing on a permanent basis in this location but is permitted on a temporary basis to provide a service to customers in Ravenside Retail Park in accordance with Policy GD1 (i) of the Rother District Local Plan.
- The mobile catering unit shall not be open for customers outside the following hours:
- 0700 – 1800, Monday to Friday.
- 0800 – 1800, Saturdays.
- 0800 – 1800, Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality in accordance with Policy GD1 (ii) of the Rother District Local Plan.
REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The mobile catering unit is of an appropriate design and does not adversely affect the character and appearance of the locality or harm the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy GD1 (i), (ii) & (iv) of the Rother District Local Plan.
View application/correspondence
______
RR/2009/1398/PBEXHILL 17 AND 17A DORSET ROAD SOUTH
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF A BUILDING COMPRISING 9 APARTMENTS AND 1 DWELLING AND OPEN-SIDED GARAGE BLOCK FOR 4 CARS
Mr and Mrs M Dilks
Statutory 13 week date: 08 September 2009
SITE The site (32m x 34m) fronts the western side of Dorset Road South to the north of its junction with Cantelupe Road. It contains a 2½ storey property (no. 17 - originally a single dwelling but converted into flats in the early 1960s) and St Michaels Cottage (no. 17A), a single storey dwelling that is attached to the northern side of the aforementioned building. Supporting information states that the building is currently divided into 6 flats and 1 house. The properties on either side of the site are single detached bungalows (nos. 15 and 19). The rear of two properties in Bedford Avenue to the west (a bungalow, no.1; and a chalet bungalow, no.19) back onto the site. There is also a two storey apartment building 1-4 Albatross Court, although this does not share a common boundary.
The site is served by an existing vehicular access and there is provision for on-site parking, including a block of three garages.
HISTORY
A number of planning applications approved in the late 1950s and early 1960s permitted the sub-division of the building into flats.
RR/92/0082/PO/A demolition of existing buildings and re-development with 6 no flats and 8 parking spaces – Refused.
RR/2006/3466/PDemolition of existing building and erection of apartment building containing 12 flats including formation of new and alterations to existing vehicular access and 15 parking spaces – Refused for reasons (briefly) over development, out of scale, impact on neighbouring residential amenity, impact on highway safety.
RR/2007/2011/PDemolition of existing buildings and erection of an apartment building containing 9 flats including formation of new and alterations to existing vehicular access and 10 parking spaces – Refused – Appeal Dismissed.
PROPOSAL The application is a revised resubmission following the refusal of RR/2007/2011/P. Although a subsequent appeal against this refusal was dismissed, the Planning Inspector did not rule out the principle of the redevelopment of the site comprising the construction of flats.
The application is to demolish the existing properties and replace them with a block containing 9 no. apartments with an attached 2 bedroom house on its north side. The apartment block would consist of flats on three storeys, with the uppermost storey contained principally within the roof space. External materials are described as brickwork with areas of render and hanging tiles, and plain roof tiles.
The existing vehicular access would be realigned to provide a covered passage through the building and into a small parking courtyard at its rear. 4 no. covered parking spaces would be formed within a proposed single storey (brick and tile) garage building, which would be positioned alongside the side (southern) boundary of the site. A further 6 no. open spaces would be provided within the rear courtyard together with a larger car parking space at the front of the building for visitors or persons with disabilities. A separate enclosed area for refuse bins, recycling and the storage of cycles is proposed alongside the northern boundary.
CONSULTATIONS
Highway Authority:- (Summarised) – Recommends highway conditions.
Environment Agency:- No objection.
Southern Water Services:- (Summarised) – Requests that should this application receive planning approval, a condition (specified) should be attached to the consent requiring that the details of surface water disposal be submitted for the consideration and approval of the local planning authority.
Sussex Police:- (Summarised) – From a ‘Secure by Design’ point of view indicates that consideration should be given to installing access control at the entrance to the archway in the form of a gate or roller shutter.
Planning Notice:- 3 letters (general observations) have been received from local residents (19 and 24 Dorset Road South and 1 Bedford Avenue). Comments can be summarised as follows:-
- We strongly objected to the planning application submitted for this site last year and are pleased to see that most of our objections have been met
- Our only objection is the lack of parking spaces
- Additional parking spaces could be created within the site
- Other than concerns about parking, it is a very handsome design using the site well
- Section 2 of the supporting information is incorrect. We (1 Bedford Avenue) share almost all of the rear boundary with the application site; Albatross Court (flats) has no shared boundary with the application site.
- Section 5.2 of the same document refers to the site’s close relationship to two adjacent bungalows; there are in fact three adjacent properties (plan provided)
- I suggest that the two factual errors (above) need to be corrected before final consideration of the application is made
- Car parking layout at the rear seems a little odd and it would seem more simple to have one line of parking along the rear boundary. Existing layout may prove difficult to use
- Consideration should be given to a physical barrier to prevent cars being driven into the rear tree line and ensure that the trees are protected and retained
2 letters of objection (15 and 20 Dorset Road South) summarised:
- This small cul-de-sac has just absorbed a huge block of flats on the opposite corner and has blocked much of our view and I think that is more than enough for such a small over populated road
- Cars driving up the other side of my fragile fence would be very noisy and disruptive to my peace and quiet as well as polluting the atmosphere
- We have run out of road parking some time ago as many families have more than one car plus lorries and vans
- Over development
- Out of character with the area
- Concerned about the amount of extra water and sewerage from the proposed flats
- Concerned about the extra 10 wheelie bins and recycling boxes with the current fortnightly waste collections
- Loss of privacy (no.20): new building would have 16 windows and three balconies directly opposite our property
- Our health issues are such that all the extra noise and pollution would be harmful to us
SUMMARY This application is a revised resubmission following the refusal of planning permission and the subsequently dismissed appeal in respect of the previous application RR/2007/2011/P. The Planning Inspector’s comments contained within the appeal decision letter are a material consideration in the determination of this current application. A copy of the decision letter is contained within the separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 13 August 2009. Although the appeal was dismissed, the Inspector accepted the principle of residential flats on the site and also, considered that the density of development (9 units at that time) would not be unacceptably out of place in the area. The Inspector also considered that the proposed development would not “give rise to an increase in traffic or parking demand sufficient to unacceptably increase any existing problems.” The appeal was dismissed for the reasons that the particular development would result in loss of residential amenity for the occupiers of the two neighbouring dwellings numbers 15 and 19. Specifically:
- That the three storey building would have an oppressive and dominating effect on the amenities of the occupiers of no.19, and the three habitable room windows on the northern flank wall of the proposed building would increase the perception of being overlooked and reduce the privacy of that property
- The “substantial increase in noise, activity and disturbance” from traffic using the proposed access driveway, which was positioned directly alongside the boundary and private garden area of no.15.
The application now before you seeks to address the above mentioned concerns but moreover, proposes a fundamentally different design concept from that proposed in the previous appeal submission.
Regarding the relationship with number 19, the redesign has resulted in a reduction in the scale and massing of the proposed building at its northern end. This part of the development would now comprise the two storey house element of the proposal. A first floor bathroom window would be glazed in obscure glass. Other high level windows (two small dining room windows) would relate to two of the flats and would be set further back from the side boundary.
With respect to the relationship with number 15, the proposed access has now been centrally positioned within the site and would be formed via a passageway through the building. A new garage building (four cars) located against the southern boundary would provide an additional buffer between the parking courtyard and the garden to number 15. These measures would go some considerable way towards addressing the concerns about traffic impact on the occupiers of the neighbouring property. Consideration has also been given to matters of privacy/overlooking. In this respect the Inspector noted that no.15 was presently overlooked by a number of habitable room windows at first floor level. Being mindful of this, it is not considered that the two first floor windows (bathroom and kitchen) in the south elevation of the proposed building would result in increased loss of privacy.