Rother District Council Agenda Item: 6

Rother District Council Agenda Item: 6

Committee-Planning

Date-16 February 2006

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

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:-

Ashburnham, Catsfield, Crowhurst, Penhurst

Brightling, Burwash, Dallington, Mountfield, Whatlington

Battle

Bexhill (all wards)

Beckley, Northiam, Peasmarsh, Rye Foreign

Bodiam, Hurst Green, Salehurst & Robertsbridge

Brede, Udimore, Westfield

Camber, East Guldeford, Icklesham, Iden, Playden

Winchelsea, Etchingham, Ticehurst

Ewhurst, Sedlescombe

Fairlight, Guestling, Pett

Three Oaks, Rye

Neighbouring Authorities

REFERENCEPAGEPARISHSITE ADDRESS

RR/2004/3587/P 1CATSFIELD WYLANDS INTERNATIONAL

ANGLING CENTRE,

POWDERMILL LANE

RR/2005/2042/P 6CATSFIELD WYLANDS INTERNATIONAL

ANGLING CENTRE,

POWDERMILL LANE

RR/2005/3262/P 8BURWASH 25 HIGHFIELDS

RR/2006/278/P 9MOUNTFIELD OAKWOOD FARM,

POPPINGHOLE LANE,

ROBERTSBRIDGE

RR/2006/35/P10BATTLE 26 AND 26A MOUNT STREET

RR/2006/303/P12BATTLE 140 HASTINGS ROAD

RR/2005/2693/P14BEXHILL 3-19 CHANTRY AVENUE

RR/2005/3128/P21BEXHILL 37 ST LEONARDS ROAD,

THE ICE CUBE

RR/2005/3270/P25BEXHILL 163 BARNHORN ROAD,

ASHRIDGE COURT,

LITTLE COMMON

RR/2005/3399/P29BEXHILL 30 THE HIGHLANDS

RR/2005/3426/P32BEXHILL 9 DORSET ROAD SOUTH

RR/2005/3601/P35BEXHILL 13-15 COODEN DRIVE

RR/2005/3260/P39NORTHIAM HIGHLANDS – LAND ADJACENT,

DIXTER LANE

RR/2005/3296/P41NORTHIAM EGMONT FARM,

STATION ROAD

RR/2005/3312/P44SALEHURST/ COUNTRY CRAFTS SITE -

ROBERTSBRIDGE ADJ THE GEORGE,

GEORGE HILL

RR/2005/3143/P48BREDE THREE WENTS –

LAND AT,

POTTERY LANE

RR/2005/3324/P51UDIMORE THE OLD CHURCH HALL -

SITE OF

RR/2005/3316/P54CAMBER 14 THE SUTTONS,

SHIPMATES

RR/2006/156/P56CAMBER THE OLD PUTTING COURSE,

OLD LYDD ROAD

RR/2006/257/P59ICKLESHAM ATLAS STONE SITE,

HARBOUR ROAD

RR/2005/395/P61TICEHURST WOODLAND ENTERPRISE CENTRE,

HASTINGS ROAD

RR/2005/3472/P65TICEHURST MAPLEWOOD,

HORSEGROVE AVENUE

RR/2006/67/A67SEDLESCOMBE A21 - LAND AT

1

RR/2004/3587/PCATSFIELD WYLANDS INTERNATIONAL ANGLING

CENTRE, POWDERMILL LANE

CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO CARAVAN SITE FOR 25 TWIN UNIT TIMBER CLAD CARAVANS (TIMBER LODGES) AND TO CARAVAN SITE FOR TOURING CARAVANS

Mr D Bull

Statutory 13 week date:4 March 2005

SITE Wylands Angling Centre, on the south side of Powdermill Lane, extends to some 62 hectares (154 acres).

HISTORY (relevant)

RR/80/0511O/A pair of semi detached agricultural dwellings – Approved Conditional

RR/85/10173 static caravans – Refused

RR/85/2105Enlarge 2 lakes, creation of 2 further lakes and use for commercial coarse fishing – Approved Conditional

RR/88/2969O/A two detached agricultural dwellings – Withdrawn

RR/90/2305/PO/A 2 detached dwellings to replace existing cottages – Refused

– Appeal Dismissed

RR/91/1070Creation of competition lake – Approved

RR/91/1530/P175 caravans, service roads, access relation and treatment plant – Refused

RR/91/2136/PO/A 2 detached dwellings and retention of existing cottages for use as holiday cottages (9 months per year) – Refused – Appeal Dismissed

RR/93/2135/PO/A Erection of detached dwelling – Refused – Appeal Dismissed

RR/93/2145/PConversion of two cottages into one dwelling – Approved Conditionally

RR/94/947/PExtension to competition lake – Approved Conditional

RR/97/2554/PResiting of touring caravans and camping (35 caravans) – Refused

RR/97/2555/PO/A Erection of 50 fishermen’s cabins, facilities building, new

workshop/store, new dwelling and resiting of access – Refused

RR/98/2292/PO/A 15 fishermen’s cabins, facilities building and conversion of

two existing dwellings into one, also resiting of access – Approved Conditional

RR/2000/121/PResiting of access – Approved Conditional

RR/2001/2414/PC/U of land to clay pigeon range – Refused

RR/2003/1772/PSpreading spoil over land – Approved Conditional

RR/2004/3579/PO/A managers dwelling – Withdrawn

RR/2005/2042/PExtension to office building to form entrance porch (retrospective) - Not yet determined

RR/2005/1506/PReplacement of existing metal clad redundant buildings with a two storey club facilities building, including single storey café - Net yet determined

RR/2005/1509/PReplacement of existing redundant metal clad barn and workshops with double height barn and single storey workshops - Not yet determined

PROPOSAL This application proposes 25 twin unit timber lodges, in place of the 15 previously approved in outline, on the east side of the drive opposite the group of buildings. It is requested that external details be conditional. The units would be available for holiday use all year round but not for permanent residency. Actual sizes of lodges are not specified but under the Caravan Sites Legislation can be by definition 18.2m by 6.1m (60 ft by 20 ft). Additionally, it is proposed an area for touring caravans and tents of about 1 hectare (2 ¼ acres) on the east side of the access drive about midway along its length.

A comprehensive brief has been provided to support this application and RR/2005/1506/P and RR/2005/1509/P and a copy was attached as an appendix document to the 18 August 2005 planning report (copy in file in Members’ room).

CONSULTATIONS

Battle Town Council – No comment.

Catsfield Parish Council – (RR/2004/3587/P) – “This was a contentious application attracting 32 members of the public to the meeting and there was an overwhelming vote against it, concern being expressed that it would develop into a ‘fun’ site and that the planned screening would not be effective.

Parish Council would ask the Rother Planning Committee to consider the following points in discussing the application:

1.Any decision should involve the removal of the derelict farm buildings and any replacement buildings should serve the needs of the fisherman and the official running the site.

2.The bungalows should be restricted by a 106 agreement similar to that proposed for any new house on the site.

3.The twin units allowed on the basis that it involved the removal of the 9 lawful use caravans and extinguishing the right for them to be repositioned. Their use should be restricted to the letting to fisherman and their families, and on no account should they be sold.

4.Touring caravans. If the twin units are used as suggested above is there any requirement for any touring sites? If any are allowed they should be restricted in number and reserved totally for the fisherman and their families.

5.Neither the chalet site of any touring facilities be listed as tourist sites but only as extra facilities for fisherman and their families.

It is noted that:

The site could be an amenity for local people.

There would be potentially more trade for the local shop and the pub.

It would improve the site if the dilapidated building and 9 lawful use caravans were removed.

However, it was noted that:

There would be extra traffic on Powdermill Lane, which is already busy and dangerous, speeds are derestricted and there are no footpaths or pavements for walkers.

There is concern for light pollution children’s safety and raised noise levels.

The twin units being sold, they could become affordable housing. It seems there could be little control on this”.

Highway Authority:- No objection to RR/2004/3587/P subject to a condition requiring the provision of parking spaces as shown upon the submitted plan.

East Sussex County Council - Planning:- In response to the initial consultation the County Council raised an objection stating that:

“Conclusion

The Wylands Farm site has a long and complex planning history. However, a result of this has been that the planning issues surrounding its development have been established and a landscape framework suggesting an acceptable approach to development in this sensitive AONB location has been prepared. Yet despite this, the applicant has not supplied adequate information to justify this proposal in accordance with the policies of both the adopted Structure Plan and the emerging Rother District Local Plan.

The scale of development proposed in this AONB location is unacceptable as is the lack of consideration of landscape impacts, the need to mitigate those impacts and to provide appropriate environmental compensation for them. Consequently, I recommend that both applications (RR/2004/3587 and RR/2004/3579) should be refused.”

East Sussex County Council - Landscape Group:- Recommends Refusal - see attached APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 16 February 2006 for full response.

Environment Agency:- Objection subject to amendment and the imposition of conditions. The requested amendment is to ensure a minimum of 8m between the lake and any timber lodge and that there be no raising of levels in the areas that are 1m or less above water level.

Southern Water:- No objections.

Sussex Police:- No objection.

Director of Services - Environmental Health:- The timber lodges would be regarded as caravans and thus will require to be licensed. The ‘club house’ building must comply with food safety and health and safety legislation.

Rural Estates Surveyor:-

“5.Conclusion

i.I am of the opinion that the main use of the farm is non agricultural; it is a recreation and leisure use which has been established for some years and accords with Government rural policy advice.

ii.The proposed building will accommodate the necessary machinery to maintain the agricultural and rural and leisure uses of the property. The workshops will also be used for useful stores.

iii.I am of the opinion that the proposed replacement structure is reasonably necessary for the recreation and leisure uses for which the farm is now used.”

Planning Notice:- These applications (mostly RR/2004/3587/P) have generated considerable public interest. Letters from or on behalf of 13 properties close by opposing the applications have been received; the most comprehensive was attached as a separate appendix document to the 18 August 2005 report (copy in file in Members’ room).

In support of the proposals and on-going investment in the business 8 letters have been received and the applicant has provided a supporting petition with 156 signatories and further letters totalling a further 64 signatories including several local businesses.

SUMMARY Members are reminded of the grant of outline planning permission reference RR/98/2292/P in August 2003 and the Section 106 Planning Obligation entered into. The Planning Obligation is not in force because the planning permission has not been implemented. It is useful to repeat the content of that consent and agreement. The consent was for: ‘Outline: Erection of 15 fishermen’s cabins, facilities building, workshop/store, new dwelling and conversion of two existing dwellings into one, also resiting of access.’

The Legal Agreement covered the following, briefly:

i)No one person shall occupy the cabins, or any part, for more than 56 days per calendar year;

ii) The demolition of some agricultural buildings on the site and the extinguishment of rights to rebuild;

iii)Provide and implement a woodland planting and management plan;

iv)Tying the ownership of the land to the dwellings;

v)Limiting the occupation of the dwellings to an owner or employee for the operation of the Angling Centre or a dependant of such a person;

vi)Removal of permitted development rights for

a)Temporary buildings and uses (Part 4, Class B)

b)Caravan Sites within Part 5 of Schedule 2

c)Agricultural and forestry buildings (Parts 6 and 7)

d)Use by recreational organisations and placing of tents (Part 27 of Schedule 2). With the exception that a temporary marquee and associated temporary disabled toilets (Part 4, Clause B) may be placed within a defined area and an annual caravan rally by an exempt organisation for not exceeding 60 caravans for 4 weeks and up to 9 long weekend camps (Part 5, Class B and Part 27) may be held within a defined area.

The applicant’s supporting brief was attached as a separate appendix document to the 18 August 2005 planning report (copy in file in Members’ room). This sets out the overall proposals which can be summarised as follows:-

i)That the core business of the site would remain as an angling centre;

ii)To provide more self catering accommodation for both fishermen and their families or for holiday makers;

iii)To provide touring caravan capacity all year round for fishermen and their families;

iv)To permit organisations to hold caravan rallies on the land;

v)To provide improved visitor facilities by providing café and ancillary accommodation, exhibition room and club room;

vi)To replace 4 existing farm buildings with a single building providing storage, workshops and stores for the angling centre and its agricultural land and woodland.

It is my understanding that the applicant would be agreeable to constraining the use of the site by entering into a Section 106 Agreement to include:

i)The Certificate of Lawful Use for 9 caravans would be surrendered;

ii)The freehold or long leasehold disposal of lodges separate from other lodges or separate from a core land holding would be prevented;

iii)The limitation of caravan rallies as set out within the previous agreement.

The main issues raised by this proposal are:

i)Whether the various elements of the proposals need to be at this site in the AONB;

ii)Whether the proposal has an acceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the AONB.

The Council has, in the past, approved the development of the site as a coarse fishing venue and, in return for accepting a reasonable level of ancillary facilities, has required the curtailment of permitted development rights and visual improvements by the removal of dilapidated buildings and new landscaping proposals. The current proposals represent a considerable intensification of use including provision of accommodation and touring caravan provision for use by any holidaymaker. This is relevant to the first issue; is Wylands a site where Members would wish to see established a holiday facility open to any visitor? The applicant could be asked if he is agreeable to limiting the number of units by means of a Section 106 Obligation; it is however apparent that the lodges and caravan provision are requested for all year round availability. The supporting statement indicates that planning conditions could be attached to ensure that the lodges were only occupied for holiday purposes and not as the occupier’s sole or main residence. This would, in my view, be very difficult for the Council to enforce.

In order for the consideration of these applications to be informed within the applicant’s intentions for the whole site the applicant’s agent has provided a ‘vision statement’. A copy of the vision statement has been placed in a file in the Members’ room. Within the introduction to the statement it is said:-

“However, the applicant wishes to broaden the appeal of the business by:

• Providing more self-catering accommodation for fishermen and their families and for holidaymakers, to stay on site. The existing fishermen’s lodges are insufficient to meet this need, and are not of a quality suitable to attract families

• To provide facilities for fishermen and their families to bring their own touring caravans to the park, at any time of the year
• To provide facilities for angling and other organisations to hold caravan rallies on the property
• To improve the existing snack bar facilities
• To restore/rebuild the agricultural buildings to provide amenities and interests for persons visiting the property.”

The statement also sets out a list of the equipment needed to maintain the agricultural land and woodland, viz:

“A local farmer still comes onto the unit and grass land is cut and is bailed and sold to other agricultural units.

There are over 50 acres of woodland. The woodland is mainly chestnut trees on a 15 to 20 year cycle. The woodland is coppiced and maintained. At the moment a lot of dumped equipment and fly-tipping material is being removed from the woodland.

The lakes themselves require general upkeep with cleaning dredging and general maintenance being required on a routine basis.

The equipment required for all this work is extensive and is as follows:

• Tractors
• 4 x 4 vehicles
• Quads
• 5 mowers/grass cutters
• Hi-mack
• Topper
• 360 digger for spillways
• Bailer
• Log cutters
• Chainsaws
• Bandsaws
• Trailers”

The final section of the ‘Vision Statement’ and its conclusion is attached as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 16 February 2006 for ease of reference.

The applicant’s Landscape Consultant has responded to the East Sussex County Council Landscape Group’s comments with amended proposals for mitigating landscaping. This has been copied to East Sussex County Council and their comments are awaited.