Rother District Council Agenda Item: 8

Rother District Council Agenda Item: 8

Committee-Planning

Date-17 April 2008

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:-

Ashburnham, Catsfield, Crowhurst, Penhurst (Crowhurst Ward)

Brightling, Burwash, Dallington, Mountfield, Whatlington (Darwell Ward)

Battle (Battle Town/Crowhurst/Darwell Wards)

Bexhill (All Wards)

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)

Rye (Rye Ward)

Neighbouring Authorities

REFERENCEPAGEPARISHSITE ADDRESS

RR/2008/328/L1BURWASH 66 SHRUB LANE

SQUARE FARM HOUSE

RR/2007/1896/P2BATTLE BLACKFRIARS –

LAND AT

HASTINGS ROAD

RR/2008/112/P6BEXHILL RAVENSIDE RETAIL PARK –

UNIT 7B

DE LA WARR ROAD

RR/2008/381/P10BEXHILL 5 AND 7 MARINA

RR/2008/393/H10BEXHILL 5 AND 7 MARINA

RR/2008/618/CM14BEXHILL PEBSHAM LANDFILL

FRESHFIELDS

BEXHILL ROAD

RR/2008/542/P16BECKLEY POPLARS –

LAND ADJ

MAIN STREET

RR/2008/568/P18NORTHIAM HIGHFIELDS

MAIN STREET

RR/2007/2167/O21SALEHURST/ BUGSELL PARK

ROBERTSBRIDGE BUGSELL LANE

ROBERTSBRIDGE

RR/2008/343/P22CAMBER RYE GOLF CLUB

NEW LYDD ROAD

RR/2007/3600/P24TICEHURST THE RECREATION GROUND

RR/2008/28/P28TICEHURST 19 OLD WARDSDOWN

RR/2008/171/L30TICEHURST 2 CLARE HOUSE

CHURCH STREET

RR/2008/210/P31TICEHURST HOLBEAM WOOD OASTS

WALLCROUCH

RR/2008/211/L31TICEHURST HOLBEAM WOOD OASTS

WALLCROUCH

RR/2008/517/P35TICEHURST FORGE YARD –

LAND AT

LYMDEN LANE

--oo0oo--

1

RR/2008/328/LBURWASH 66 SHRUB LANE, SQUARE FARM HOUSE

RECOVER NORTH FACING AND EAST FACING ROOF SLOPES WITH NEW HANDMADE CLAY TILES ON SOUTH WEST BATTENS ON VAPOUR PERMEABLE FELT.

Mr Gullick

Statutory 8 week date: 02 April 2008

This application has been added to the Committee site inspection list.

SITE The two storey detached Grade II Listed dwelling lies with the development boundary of Burwash as defined in Policy DS3 contained within Rother District Local Plan and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It is set on the eastern side of Shrub Lane some 12m back from the highway. The land to the north slopes away from the site accommodating Wealden View. The subject roof slopes are clearly visible from both the highway and countryside to the north the proposed use of the tiles.

HISTORY

RR/2005/851/P Erection of replacement garage with room over with external access stair including two roof Velux conservation type roof lights – Approved

RR/2006/2751/L Replace reclaimed roof tiles with new roof tiles – Refused

PROPOSAL The application seeks to replace the existing roof tiles on the rear elevations of the dwelling with a new hand made clay roof tile on vapour permeable roof felt.

CONSULTATIONS

Parish Council:- “We do not support this application. The roof should be retained in reclaimed Sussex peg tiles. It is believed that this is the third oldest dwelling in Shrub Lane.”

Planning Notice:- No comments received to date.

SUMMARY This property has been subject to a previously refused application for the retiling of the rear elevation roof slopes (RR/2006/275/L). Due to the proposed Babylon ‘Antique’ roof tiles being considered out of character with the existing building, the application was not supported. The proposed tiles were used in the construction of the replacement double garage (RR/2005/851/P) set within the curtilage of the dwelling. Within the latest submission, the agent has stated there is a difficulty in sourcing the required number of quality used peg tiles. However, it has also been stated between 10% and 20% of the existing tiles can be reused. The Conservation Officer concurs with the agents view that insufficient reclaimed tiles are available and advised: ‘Conservation best practice advises against the use of externally sourced reclaimed roof tiles for large areas of work, since there is not a large enough supply of such materials coming onto the market’. On balance I am basing my recommendation on the view that there is a dwindling legitimate supply of quality used peg tiles and also such tiles do have a serviceable life span. Members will be able to assess both tiles on site.

RECOMMENDATION: GRANT (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT)

1.CD1F. The work to which this consent relates shall be begun before the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which this consent is granted.

Reason: In accordance with section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2.Babylon ‘Antique’ roof tiles only are to be used to cover the roof slopes hereby approved and retained in that condition thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the special architectural and historic character of the Listed Building in accordance with Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan and Policies S1(m) & EN23 of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011.

REASONS FOR GRANTING PERMISSION: The proposed replacement roof tiles are of an appropriate size, colour and texture and will not adversely affect the character of the area, Listed Building or the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore complies with Policy S1(m) of the East Sussex and Brighton & Hove Structure Plan 1991-2011 and Policy GD1(viii) of the Rother District Local Plan.

View application/correspondence

______

RR/2007/1896/PBATTLE BLACKFRIARS – LAND AT, HASTINGS ROAD

OUTLINE: ERECTION OF UP TO 245 DWELLINGS; CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SPINE ROAD FROM THE SPINNEY (HASTINGS ROAD) TO HARRIER LANE; CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESS ROADS, FOOTPATHS, SERVICES, FOUL AND SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING TWO DRAINAGE BASINS; PROVISION OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE/WILDLIFE ECO-PARK; PROVISION OF LAND FOR A PRIMARY SCHOOL; CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA AND ALL ANCILLARY WORKS.

Countryside Properties Plc

Statutory 16 week date: 22 October 2007

This application was considered at this Committee on 6 December 2007 when it was resolved to delegate authority to the Head of Planning to grant outline planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation to secure the following:

a)Affordable housing 40%

b)Financial contributions

c)A footpath link to the railway station

d)Off site highway works

e)The provision and future maintenance of the play areas/open space

f)A construction phasing strategy

g)The submission of a residential travel plan

h)The arrangements for future maintenance of the SUDS drainage installation

i)The ring fencing of the school site

j)To secure necessary habitat mitigation measures

The purpose of this report is to advise Members of those areas that have been agreed, those that require further consideration and those where agreement has not been reached that need decisions/arbitration.

The following matters have been agreed:

1.£6,100 – Household waste and recycling (ESCC)

2.£5,900 – Rights of Way (ESCC)

3.Preparation of a Travel Plan

4.A contribution of £100,000 towards the A21/Marley Lane junction improvement (RDC)

5.A contribution of £25,000 towards the provision of a pedestrian link to the station (RDC) subject to confirmation from the District Valuer

6.A sum of money for open space maintenance (clarification of amount required)

7.There will be 40% affordable housing

8.Traffic calming for Harrier Lane (£45,000)

9.Highway/Accessibility contributions (ESCC) minus the £100,000 at 4 above

The following matters remain to be settled:-

1)The tenure split of the affordable housing

2)The housing mix for the affordable housing

3)The level of education contributions requested by ESCC

4)The level of library contributions requested by ESCC

Taking each of these in turn:

1)Head of Housing has requested that 75% of the affordable housing be rented through a social landlord with the remainder 25% shared equity properties. Countryside Properties seek a 50:50 split, a position supported by Battle Town Council. It is my understanding that the applicants may be providing further information based upon viability to justify their assessment.

2)Head of Housing has asked for the affordable housing to comprise:

24 – 1 bed; 27 – 2 bed; 26 – 3 bed; 16 – 4 bed; and 5 – 5 bed units.

The applicants (based upon the last layout and breakdown) are proposing:

9 – 1 bed; 48 – 2 bed; 23 – 3 bed; 16 – 4 bed; and 2 – 5 bed units.

The primary difficulty in negotiations is the number of 5 bed units being sought as Countryside Properties are only proposing to build seven across the whole site.

3)Education contributions are the matters furthest from agreement. East Sussex County Council has requested £188,000 plus land for pre-school facility and £471,100 towards improvement of existing primary school. The applicant’s argument in support of £94,000 for pre-school and risk contribution for primary school is attached to this report as a separate APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 April 2008. I do not believe that the difference in positions will close significantly by negotiation.

4)East Sussex County Council are requesting a further £62,500 (245 dwellings x £255 per unit). The applicant’s agent challenges this as follows:

“ESCC’s Development Contributions SPG (2003) identifies Battle Library as ‘suffering from insufficient working areas and a lack of storage space’. We understand that it is on the back of this statement that ESCC are seeking a contribution towards libraries, although it does appear that there is a current deficiency with the Battle Library, even without the Blackfriars development, suggesting that the deficiency is not caused by the development and thereforeany obligation should be viewed as contrary to Planning Obligations Circular 05/05.

It is unclear from ESCC’s latest letter dated 14 February as to how the contributions sought will be spent on Battle Library and what works are planned in relation to increasing the floorspace of the building.

The SPG also quotes contributions towards main libraries of £170 per dwelling and major community libraries at £120 per dwelling. Battle Library is a major community library and therefore we would expect the contribution per dwelling to be £120 and not the £255 being sought. The SPG then goes on to explain that ‘the per dwelling cost for contributions towards strategic community libraries is calculated by multiplying the overall cost per squaremetre (£2,415) [in 2003] by the floorspace required per new dwelling (0.05m2), plus land. The floorspace requirement is based on a standard of 23m2 of floorspace per 1,000 population’. This explanation suggests that an increase in population (brought about by new development) introduces the requirement for bigger library space, however, we are not aware of any proposals to extend Battle Library, and therefore, it remains unclear as to whether the contribution sought is fully justified.

We therefore consider that there is no clear justification for the contribution being sought and would urge your Council to not accept this when reporting back to your members at the April Committee.”

A copy of the County Council’s request for contributions based upon their Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) is attached to this report as an APPENDIX DOCUMENT relating to this Committee 17 April 2008. Members will be aware that this Authority has not adopted the ESCC document (SPG).

To aid Members in their deliberations I should also repeat the Local Plan policy for the Blackfriars site viz:

Policy BT2 Land at Blackfriars, Battle, as defined on the Proposals Map, is allocated for housing, education and open space purposes, to be brought forward through a comprehensive scheme.

Two areas, totalling approximately 7.3 hectares, would be allocated for residential use, providing at least 220 dwellings (40% of which would be affordable). Other land between the two areas for residential development is allocated for a single form entry primary school and to provide a large area of open space. The development will be accessed by a new spine road, from the south from Hastings Road, off The Spinney, and from the north via Harrier Lane off Marley Lane. A Transport Assessment will be required.

Developer contributions will be required towards both primary and secondary school provision and to provide for a children’s play area on land adjacent to the housing allocation. In addition, developer contributions will be required to secure the provision of the spine road and other accessibility improvements. The pedestrian link across the railway is subject to further detailed examination of its viability and, if necessary, developer contributions for its provision will be required.

The final paragraph relates to the matters currently under discussion (contributions) and it is important that the Council’s decision is in accordance with policy. BT2 requires primary and secondary contributions, the providing Authority (ESCC) seek the former, confirm the latter is unnecessary and introduces pre-school reference by both contributions and site reference.

I believe that this Authority needs to express its needs and preferences in a way that will assist in delivering this development. In my assessment I see the following as a reasonable solution to the ‘impasse’.

a)Affordable housing: that the position set out by the Head of Housing be supported unless it is clearly demonstrated by the applicants that viability issues, supported by appropriate costings, demonstrate that the development cannot proceed on this basis.

b)That the East Sussex Highways (LSAIC) contribution be required, calculated in accord with current multipliers, minus the £100,000 payable to Rother District Council for the Marley Lane/A21 junction improvement.

c)That the school site be reserved for future school/community uses and the contribution of £94,000 offered by the applicants, the argument for which is well made. In the absence of a reference to pre-school in the policy BT2 and the non adoption of the SPG by Rother, this is I believe a reasonable compromise.

d)No contribution is requested or required in respect of secondary school provision.

e)The argument over primary school contributions stems from the SPG and the fact that it requires school places in temporary classrooms to be disregarded when the school capacity is considered. In the case of Battle and Langton 120 of the available spaces are in temporary classrooms. It is on this basis that ESCC request £470,100. However, the advice contained in Circular 05/2005 (Planning Obligations) states:

“B9.Within these categories of acceptable obligations, what is sought must also be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development and reasonable in all other respects. For example, developers may reasonably be expected to pay for or contribute to the cost of all, or that part of, additional infrastructure provision which would not have been necessary but for their development. The effect of the infrastructure investment may be to confer some wider benefit on the community but payments should be directly related in scale to the impact which the proposed development will make. Planning obligations should not be used solely to resolve existing deficiencies in infrastructure provision or to secure contributions to the achievement of wider planning objectives that are not necessary to allow consent to be given for a particular development.” (My underlining).

Members will have their own views as to whether the ESCC’s request is reasonable. I am not convinced since temporary classrooms have been used at the school for many years without the County Council addressing the issue. Even now I have not been provided with any detail of any scheme proposed or being considered to resolve this. I do not believe that an adequate case has been made by the County Council.

f)As to the library contribution, again this is based on the SPG and again no information is provided by the County Council as to how this would be invested in Battle. I am unsure as to how the existing library, built not that long ago on the ESCC-owned former Market site, could be enlarged satisfactorily. If Members perceive a justification for a contribution the contributions as set out above by the applicant’s agent is a reasonable basis for arriving at a figure with justification.