To authorise the Chairman to sign the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 18 February 2021 as a correct record of the proceedings.

The Chairman was authorised to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 February 2021 at a later date as a correct record of the proceedings.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor G.C. Curtis.

It was noted that Councillor J. Barnes was present as substitute for Councillor Curtis.

The Head of Service Strategy and Planning to advise Members of those planning applications on the agenda which have been withdrawn.

The Development Manager advised that Application No. RR/2019/2618/P – Galley Hill – Foreshore which had been deferred by the Planning Committee at the meeting held on 18 February 2021 had been withdrawn by the Applicant who would be considering further consultation prior to any resubmission.

To receive any disclosure by Members of personal and disclosable pecuniary interests in matters on the agenda, the nature of any interest and whether the Member regards the personal interest as prejudicial under the terms of the Code of Conduct.  Members are reminded of the need to repeat their declaration immediately prior to the commencement of the item in question.

Declarations of interest were made by Councillors in the Minutes as indicated below:

Mier                 Agenda Item 8 – Personal Interest as he was the Council’s appointed representative on the Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board.

Prochak          Agenda Items 7 and 8 – Personal Interest in so far as her husband was Chairman of the local Campaign to Protect Rural England who made comments on the applications.

Agenda Items 10 – Personal and Prejudicial Interest in so far as she was a personal acquaintance of the Applicant.

Vine-Hall       Agenda Item 7 – Personal Interest as he was Chairman of Sedlescombe Parish Council.

Outline planning permissions are granted subject to approval by the Council of reserved matters before any development is commenced, which are layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping.  Unless otherwise stated, every planning permission or outline planning permission is granted subject to the development beginning within three years from the date of the permission.  In regard to outline permissions, reserved matters application for approval must be made within three years from the date of the grant of outline permission; and the development to which the permission relates must begin no later than whichever is the later of the following dates: the expiration of three years from the date of the grant of outline permission or, the expiration of two years from the final approval of the reserved matters, or in the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such matters to be approved.

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 Service Strategy and Planning can be given 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.  This delegation also allows the Head of Service Strategy and 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.

RESOLVED: That the Planning Applications be determined as detailed below.

RM

DECISION: REFUSE(FULL PLANNING)

The 55-hectare site lay to the south of Sedlescombe village and was formerly occupied by the Pestalozzi International Village Trust.  The new owners were PGL, a private company who specialised in residential and day activity holidays for children.  The site currently comprised of undulating pastureland and ancient woodland, accommodation and educational buildings, as well as infrastructure from the previous occupier and separate private residential properties.  The land was outside of the Development Boundary for Sedlescombe as identified in the ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plan and was within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

The proposal was for change of use of the site to a residential training and educational activity centre, together with operational development including kitchen and accommodation extensions, new accommodation blocks, tent area, car/coach parking and passing places, access improvements, outdoor activity structures, new activity pond and living acoustic fencing, as well as tree planting.  Consideration was given to all statutory, non-statutory and third-party representations.  It was noted that additional information had been received from an objector which was circulated to Members prior to the meeting.

Members heard from spokespersons representing those objecting to the scheme, a representative of Sedlescombe Parish Council who also objected, the Applicant and the Applicant’s Agent, both local Ward Members and Planning Officers.  The Planning Committee also considered, in some detail, the comments submitted by and heard from a representative of the High Weald AONB Unit who had also objected.

The Planning Committee asked a series of questions and discussed matters in relation to several issues.  These included: harm to the setting of the historic village of Sedlescombe; whether the application was considered to be ‘major development’ in the AONB; increased built development and the significant increase in floorspace and the addition of large activity structures and a large lake; increased activity and use of the site; concern regarding the ‘extant’ 2008 planning permission (reference RR/2007/397/P), what that entailed and its use as a ‘fallback position’; the nature and scale of the business in comparison to the size of the village; increased numbers accommodated on site (factoring in young people, guests teachers, staff and parents / guardians); seasonal operation and proposed hours of use (8 hours per day, 7 days per week); increased noise (particularly from younger children [ages 5-11] who were PGL’s core client) and how the Applicant would manage noise levels across the whole of the site; increased noise from elevated activities; harm to ancient woodland and fauna / flora surrounding the site and proximity of some of the activity centres to protected areas against Natural England guidance; inadequate mitigation measures, including adequacy of a willow hedge to soundproof / screen site; location and size of the lake (which was inappropriately referred to by the Applicant as a pond and was  approximately 40% larger than an Olympic sized swimming pool) and significant change to the landform; limited use of local amenities; increased traffic to the site and through the village; impacts of coach parking  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL20/93.

RM

DECISION: REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING)

The site comprised of 3.2 hectares of land currently in agricultural use on the edge of Fairlight Cove lying on the south side of Pett Level Road and was within the edge of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) (Fairlight Cove village was not within the AONB) and was partly within a Site of Special Scientific Interest Impact Risk Zone.  The site was a single open field which gently sloped from the north and abutted existing residential gardens along the northern, western and southern boundaries (on Pett Level Road, Waites Lane and The Broadway).  Access to the site was proposed via the adjacent field to the east and access to the field was in the top north east corner.  The remainder of the site was vegetated with fields and hedging.  The land was allocated in the Council’s Development and Site Allocations Plan 2019 (DaSA) and was within the development boundary of Fairlight Cove.

The proposal was for outline permission with approval of access sought only; all other matters were reserved.  After consultation, the Applicant had amended the proposal for ‘up to’ 43 dwellings, with new access from Pett Level Road, as well as removal of the proposed doctor’s surgery.  Members were advised that the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) had confirmed that a surgery was no longer required at this location, but the CCG had not provided evidence in written form which Members would have been entitled to expect in order to make a final decision.  The Applicant had confirmed provision for affordable housing, self-build plots, housing suitable for older people and submitted a variety of documents to support the application including Design & Access Statement and Transport Assessment / Statement, flood risk, drainage strategy, ecological surveys etc.  Consideration was given to all statutory, non-statutory, third-party representations and it was noted that two further objections had been received which reiterated comments already detailed within the report.

Members heard from a spokesperson representing those objecting to the scheme, a representative of Fairlight Parish Council who also objected, the Applicant’s Agent, a local Ward Member and Planning Officers.  Members asked a series of questions in relation to several issues.  These included: impact of the housing on the appearance and setting of Fairlight and impact on the landscape character of the AONB; whether development was major development in the AONB; overdevelopment of the site (including the increased number of dwellings from 30 [as stated in the DaSA] to 43 [mixture of units]); site was visible from the surrounding area and would create a hard edge to the village / poor transition into open countryside; loss of an intended doctor’s surgery with insufficient justification; foul and surface water drainage / disposal issues; contaminated drainage flowing into the nearby Ramsar site and matters relating to Appropriate Assessment (which Natural England had advised was not required); lack of direct pedestrian footpath / access or linkage to the village – cut off from / no integration  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL20/94.

DECISION: GRANT (RESERVED MATTERS), including adoption of the Appropriate Assessment and details submitted under Conditions 8, 9 (apart from maintenance and management of the Sustainable Drainage System) 11, 12 and 14.

CONDITIONS:

1.    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and details:

4377 - LP Site Location Plan

J0027708 110 Rev 13 - Illustrative Masterplan

J0027708 112 Rev 4 - Street Scenes

J0027708 113 Rev 6 - Site Levels Plan – Sheet 1

J0027708 114 Rev 7 - Site Levels Plan – Sheet 2

J0027708 115 Rev 1 - Roof Plan

J0027708 201 Rev 2 - House Type 1 (Brick) Plot 15 Elevations Floor Plans

J0027708 202 Rev 3 - House Type 1 (Tile Hanging) Plot 2 Elevations Floor Plans

J0027708 203 Rev 2 - House Type 2 (Tile Hanging) Plots 11 & 12 Elevations Floor Plans

J0027708 204 Rev 2 - House Type 2B (Brick) Plots 10 & 13 Elevations Floor Plans

J0027708 205 Rev 2 -House Type 3D (Tile Hanging) Plots 26 & 27 Elevations Floor Plans

J0027708 206 Rev 3- House Type 3D (Tile Hanging) Plots 22 & 23 Elevations Floor Plans

J0027708 207 Rev 2 - House Type 3A (Brick) Plots 24 & 25 Elevations Floor Plans

J0027708 208 Rev 2 - House Type 3A (Tile Hanging) Plots 17 & 18 Elevations Floor Plans

J0027708 209 Rev 2 - House Type 4 (Tile Hanging) Plot 3 Elevations Floor Plans

J0027708 210 Rev 2 - House Type 4 (Cladding) Plots 14 & 16 Elevations Floor Plans

J0027708 211 Rev 2 - House Type 5 (Cladding) Plots 19 & 28 Elevations Floor Plans

J0027708 212 Rev 2 - House Type 5 (Cladding) Plot 20 Elevations Floor Plans

J0027708 213 Rev 2 - House Type 6 (Cladding) Plots 21 & 29 Elevations Floor Plans

J0027708 214 Rev 4 - House Type Gateway Villa 1 (Brick and Render) Plots 4-6 Elevations Floor Plans

J0027708 215 Rev 2 - House Type Gateway Villa 2 (Brick and Render) Plots 7-9 Elevations Floor Plans

J0027708 216 Rev 3 - House Type 3A (Tile Hanging) Plot 1 Elevations Floor Plans

PLG/1629/20C - Soft Landscape Proposals and Enclosures

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2.    No development above ground shall begin until a glazing and ventilation scheme to protect the dwellings on plots 1-13 against noise from Barnhorn Road (A259) has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the dwellings shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme prior to their occupation. The scheme shall be based on the submitted Site Noise Assessment-Final Report-2109W-SEC-00002-06, dated July 2020, and shall include details of trickle ventilation alongside an overheating assessment.

Reason: To preserve the residential amenities of the occupiers having regard to Policy OSS4 (i) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policy DEN7 of the Rother Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.

3.   No development above ground shall take place until details of the sound power level of the pumping station  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL20/95.

RM

DECISION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)

The proposal was for a conservatory on the front elevation of the dwelling.  The property was located within the countryside and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Members heard from the Applicant who outlined the history of the property, neighbouring property and surrounding area, as well as the two local Ward Members who were present at the meeting and were in favour of supporting approval of the application.  It was also noted that Battle Town Council supported the application.

The Planning Committee discussed the acceptability of the proposal and in weighing up all the issues considered that the conservatory would not be an incongruous addition within the street scene, as it was not visible from the road, would not affect the setting of the adjacent Listed Building and therefore would not have an adverse impact on the landscape, character of scenic beauty in the High Weald AONB.  Therefore, the Planning Committee approved granting full planning.

Councillor Mrs Barnes moved the motion to APPROVE (Full Planning) and this was seconded by Councillor Harmer.  The motion was declared CARRIED (11 for / 1 abstain).

CONDITIONS:

1.    The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2.    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and details:

Drawing No. 6723 / LBP, Location and Block Plan dated November 2020;

Drawing No. 6723 / 1 / A, Proposed Floor Plan and Elevations dated November 2020.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK: In accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 38) and with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

(Councillor Prochak declared a Personal and Prejudicial Interest in so far as she was a personal acquaintance of the Applicant and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct left the meeting during the consideration thereof).

DECISION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)

CONDITIONS:

1.    The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2.    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Site Location Plan, Block Plan, Floorplan and Description of Proposal document which were submitted with the application.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

3.    The planning use of Unit 12 of The Colonnade will revert to Class E(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) (or any order revoking or re-enacting this order with or without modification), when the use as a virtual reality flying experience, hereby approved, ceases.

Reason: To protect the Bexhill Town Centre and Bexhill Cultural Area and enable proper consideration of future proposals in accordance with Policies BEX12 and BEX15 of the Rother Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK: In accordance with the requirements of the Framework (paragraph 38) and with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

‘That where decisions of the Planning Committee vary from an officer recommendation the decision notice will not be issued until it agrees with the draft minutes approved by the Chairman.  Alignment of the two documents will take place within two clear working days of the receipt of the draft minutes. Should any issue be unresolved at the end of those two days it will be referred to the Head of Paid Service for final resolution’.

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 12 consideration was given to the following Motion for Council; it was moved by Councillor Vine-Hall and seconded by Councillor J. Barnes that:

“Where decisions of the Planning Committee vary from an officer recommendation the decision notice will not be issued until it agrees with the draft minutes approved by the Chairman.  Alignment of the two documents will take place within two clear working days of the receipt of the draft minutes.  Should any issue be unresolved at the end of those two days it will be referred to the Head of Paid Service for final resolution.”

RESOLVED: That the Motion on being put was declared CARRIED.

Members noted the report on the current status of 11 undetermined Major Planning Applications.  Six were subject to a Section 106 obligation/completion, one was subject to shared access resolution, one was ongoing subject to discussions regarding the Habitat Regulations Assessment, one was awaiting amended submissions, two had been amended and re-advertised.

The Development Manager updated the Committee on resource issues within the Planning Department.  A recruitment exercise had been undertaken with two successful appointments made, however there remained a national shortage of planning officers.  Investigations were currently underway to enlist additional resources to assist with the backlog of outstanding and new major planning applications.  Legal agreement was awaited, and it was anticipated that these arrangements would be place by mid-April.  Members were reminded that a Local Government Association Peer Review was underway of the planning process at the Council.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

Consideration was given to the report of the Head of Strategy and Planning on the planning statistics for the quarter October to December 2020 which included a summary of planning statistics for 2020/21.

Members noted the increase in Local Land Charge Searches received, this was attributed to the relaxation in Stamp Duty charges.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

Members noted the report on Appeals that had been started, allowed or dismissed since the Committee’s last meeting, together with the list of forthcoming Hearings and Inquiries. 

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

Tuesday 13 April 2021 at 8:30am departing from the Town Hall, Bexhill - TBC.

Due to the current national pandemic situation, site inspections would only be held, if necessary.  The next site inspection was scheduled to be held on Tuesday 13 April 2021 at 8:30am departing from the Town Hall, Bexhill.  Members would be notified should site inspections be held.