Venue: Council Chamber, Town Hall, Bexhill-on-Sea
Contact: Julie Hollands
To authorise the Chairman to sign the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 15 July 2021 as a correct record of the proceedings.
Apologies for Absence and Substitutes
It was noted that Councillors J. Barnes and R.B. Thomas were present as substitutes for Councillors G.C. Curtis and S.M. Prochak, MBE respectively.
Disclosure of Interest
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:
Errington Agenda Item 7 – Personal Interest as she was on the Bellway Opposition Action Group’s mailing list.
Thomas Agenda Item 7 – Personal Interest as he was on the Bellway Opposition Action Group’s mailing list.
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.
DECISION: GRANT (RESERVED MATTERS) including agreement of the Appropriate Assessment
1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and details:
022004-BEL-SL-01/C Presentation Planning Layout
022004-BEL-SL-02/C Supporting Planning Layout
022004-BEL-SL-03/C Storey Heights Layout
022004-BEL-SL-04/C Tenure Layout
022004-BEL-SL-05/C Unit Type Layout
022004-BEL-SL-06 Location Plan
022004-BEL-SL-LEV01/A Finished Floor and Ridge Levels
PA-2B-2S-CB-E1/A The Parkman – Elevations – Country Vernacular – Brick
PA-2B-2S-P1/A The Parkman – Floor Plans
CS-3B-2S-CB-E1 The Coppersmith – Elevations – Country Vernacular – Brick
CS-3B-2S-CB-E2 The Coppersmith – Elevations – Country Vernacular – Brick
CS-3B-2S-CT-E1/A The Coppersmith (H) – Elevations – Country Vernacular – Tile
CS-3B-2S-P1/A The Coppersmith – Floor Plans
FM-3B-2S-CB-E1/A The Framer – Elevations – Country Vernacular – Brick
FM-3B-2S-CT-E1/B The Framer (H) – Elevations – Country Vernacular – Tile
FM-3B-2S-P1 The Framer – Floor Plans
FM-3B-2S-CB-E3 The Framer (H) – Elevations – Country Vernacular – Brick
FM-3B-2S-CB-E4 The Framer (H) – Elevations – Country Vernacular – Brick
FM-3B-2S-P2 The Framer (H) – Floor Plans
BU-3B-2S-CB-E1/A The Butler – Elevations – Country Vernacular – Brick
BU-3B-2S-P1/A The Butler – Floor Plans
AR-4B-2S-CB-E2/A The Arkwright (H) – Elevations – Country Vernacular – Brick
AR-4B-2S-CB-E3 The Arkwright (H) – Elevations – Country Vernacular – Brick
AR-4B-2S-CT-E1/A The Arkwright (H) – Elevations – Country Vernacular – Tile
AR-4B-2S-P3 A3/A The Arkwright (H) – Floor Plans
FC-4B-2S-CB-E1 The Falconer – Elevations – Country Vernacular – Brick
FC-4B-2S-CT-E1 The Falconer – Elevations – Country Vernacular – Tile
FC-4B-2S-P1/A The Falconer – Floor Plans
022004-GAR04/A Garage Type 04 Plan and Elevations
022004-GAR05/A Garage Type 05 Plan and Elevations
022004-GAR06/A Garage Type 06 Plan and Elevations
022004-GAR07/A Garage Type 07 Plan and Elevations
022004-BEL-SL-SS01/B Streetscene 01
022004-BEL-SL-SS02/B Streetscene 02
022004-BEL-SL-SS03/B Streetscene 03
022004-BEL-SL-SS04/A Streetscene 04
022004-BEL-SL-SS05/A Streetscene 05
022004-BEL-SL-SS06/A Streetscene 06
022004-BEL-SL-SS07 Streetscene 07
022004-BEL-SL-SS08 Streetscene 08
2916-PP-01 rev P5 Planting Proposals Northern Open Space
2916-PP-02 rev P6 Planting Proposals
2916-PP-03 rev P6 Planting Proposals
2916-PP-04 rev P6 Planting Proposals
2916-PP-05 rev P6 Planting Proposals
2916-PP-06 rev P5 Planting Proposals
2916-PP-07 rev P6 Planting Proposals
2916-DT-01 rev P1 Typical Landscape Details: Soil Profiles and Tree Pit Details in soft landscape
2919-DT-02 rev P1 Typical Landscape Details: Double staked Tree adjacent Main Street
2916-DT-02 rev P1 Typical Landscape Details: Double staked Tree adjacent Main Street
2916-DT-04 rev P1 Typical Landscape Details: Tree Pit in Hard Landscape with tree grill and timber bollards
2916-LA-01 rev P6 General Arrangement Plans Northern Open Space
2916-LA-02 rev P6 General Arrangements Plan
2916-LA-03 rev P6 General Arrangements Plan
2916-LA-04 rev P6 General Arrangements Plan
2916-LA-05 rev P7 General Arrangements Plan
2916-LA-06 rev P6 General Arrangements Plan
2916-LA-07 rev P6 General Arrangements Plan
2916-LA-08 rev P5 Illustrative Landscape Masterplan
2916-LA-09 rev P1 Acoustic Fence
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
2. The details required pursuant to outline planning permission Condition 17 shall include:
a) A method statement for groundwater protection during construction of the sustainable drainage system (SuDs) basins to prevent groundwater impact during construction. ... view the full minutes text for item PL21/28.
DECISION: GRANT (PLANNING PERMISSION) DELEGATED (SECTION 106 TO SECURE 2.2 AFFORDABLE HOUSES AND RELEVANT STANDARD CONDITIONS)
This application was a resubmission of Application No. RR/2020/1798/P which had been appealed against for non-determination. In May 2021, the Planning Committee had resolved not to defend the appeal, which was against officer recommendation. It was noted that some updated plans (site layout, street elevations, proposed site plan and phasing plan) had been submitted and that Environmental Health had advised the need for an air quality assessment and noise survey relating to the properties adjacent to the A265. It was also noted that the Lead Local Flood Authority had retained their previous objection and requested that infiltration testing be submitted upfront.
The proposal was for the demolition of an existing building (former nursing home) and redevelopment of the site to provide 12 residential units (block of four flats, 3-terraced houses, one pair of semi-detached houses, a detached and two self-build detached houses), car parking, cycle and refuse facilities and associated works on a vacant brownfield site. Members were advised that the proposed dwellings would not contribute towards the residual housing needs of the village of Burwash, as there was no requirement for new dwellings in Burwash Common as identified in the Council’s Rother Local Plan Core Strategy. Application concerns related to design issues (density), large parking area, harm to the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, living conditions of future occupiers with some of the proposed units, unjustified loss of a community facility, as well as affordable housing not being secured. Prior to submission, the Applicant had sought pre-application advice, had carried out extensive consultation with the local community which had resulted in a reduction of dwellings and car parking, as well as design changes.
Members heard from the Applicant and the Applicant’s Agent and local Ward Member who advised that a local action group ‘Save Our Fields’ had submitted no objections to the site. It was noted that, in principle, Burwash Parish Council was in favour of the site being developed but expressed concerns about density, as well as the reservations outlined by Rother District Council which had not been addressed.
After full consideration of the proposals, officers’ concerns, information and comments from the statutory and non-statutory bodies, the Planning Committee felt that a Nursing Home facility was not required within this location, development on the brownfield site outweighed the loss of the community facility, replaced a building that was an “eyesore” and that housing was much needed within the village. The Planning Committee requested that delegated authority be given to officers to apply relevant standard conditions (relating to Time limit for commencement of development; Approved plans; Materials; Plans of architectural detailing; Hard and soft landscaping; Archaeology – pre-commencement – Applicant’s agreement required; Noise survey to include mitigation for noise from traffic; Contaminated land; Construction management plan; Hours of delivery during construction phase; Highways – access improvements, visibility, parking, turning and a travel plan statement; Electric charge points; Tree protection ... view the full minutes text for item PL21/29.
DECISION: NOT TO DEFEND THE APPEAL AGAINST NON-DETERMINATION ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE PLANNING APPLICATION WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED DELEGATED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND A SECTION 106 LEGAL AGREEMENT TO SECURE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
As the Planning Committee had approved granting planning permission for Application No. RR/2021/1608/P – Former Ashwood Nursing Home, it was agreed that it would not be necessary to defend the appeal against non-determination.
Councillor J. Barnes moved the motion to NOT DEFEND and this was seconded by Councillor Madeley. The motion was declared CARRIED (unanimous).
DECISION: GRANT (FULL PLANNING)
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:
Drawing No. 4826.LP dated February 2021
Drawing No. 4826.SP dated February 2021
Drawing No. 4826.1A dated 17/06/21
Drawing No. 4826.2A dated 17/06/21
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3. No above ground development shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that the development preserves the visual amenities of the area in accordance with Policies OSS4 (iii) and EN3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.
4. The development shall not be occupied until the cycle parking area has been provided in accordance with approved Drawing No. 4826.1A dated 17/06/21 and the area shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of cycles.
Reason: In order that the development site is accessible by non-car modes and to meet the objectives of sustainable development in accordance with Policy TR3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) and Policy DHG7 (ii) of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.
5. The flats hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the refuse and recycling areas have been laid out within the site in accordance with Drawing No. 4826.1A dated 17/06/21. Thereafter, these areas shall be used for the storage and collection of waste only.
Reason: To ensure sufficient bin storage and collection points are provided for the flats and in the interests of visual amenity, having regard to Policy OSS4 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policy DHG7 (iii) of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.
6. Prior to the first occupation or use of the bathrooms serving flats 7 and 8, the side windows at third floor level within the eastern and western elevations, as indicated on the approved Drawing Nos. 4826.1A dated 17/06/21 and 4826.2A dated 17/06/21 shall be glazed with obscure glass of obscurity level equivalent to scale 5 on the Pilkington Glass Scale and shall thereafter be retained in that condition.
Reason: To preclude direct overlooking of No. 41 Ninfield Road and No. 33 Ninfield Road (Sussex House) thereby preserving the privacy and residential amenities of those properties in accordance with Policy OSS4 (ii) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.
7. Prior to the first occupation or use of the bathrooms serving flats 7 and 8, the side windows at third floor level within the eastern and ... view the full minutes text for item PL21/31.
Concern was expressed regarding the award of costs to the Appellant against Rother District Council (RDC) in relation to the Spindlewood Drive – Land off, Bexhill (Application RR/2017/1705/P) appeal which had been allowed. It was felt that the Appeal Inspector had understated the importance of the Pevensey Levels Site of Special Scientific Interest, Area of Conservation and Ramsar and the high bar set by the Habitats Regulations and it was asked whether representations could be made to the Planning Inspectorate by the Council regarding this, particularly as it was felt that a Public Inquiry had been forced on the Council by the Planning Inspectorate. Members were advised that the decision had been forwarded to the Council’s Legal Department and Barrister for their advice; comments were awaited. It was understood that full costs had been awarded to the Appellant against RDC because the Council had not provided sufficient scientific evidence that the Pevensey Levels would be harmed as a result of the development. RDC would be scrutinising the costs claimed by the Appellant.
RESOLVED: That the report be noted.
To note the date and time for future Site Inspections
Tuesday 7 September 2021 at 9:00am departing from the Town Hall, Bexhill.