To authorise the Chairman to sign the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 10 March 2022 as a correct record of the proceedings.

The Chairman was authorised to sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 March 2022 as a correct record of the proceedings.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors B.J. Drayson – Chairman to the Council and S.J. Errington.

It was noted that Councillor H.L. Timpe was present as a substitute for Councillor S.J. Errington and Councillor J. Barnes was present as a substitute for the current Conservative vacancy on the Committee.

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:

Gray                Agenda Item 7 – Personal and Prejudicial Interest as her husband was a member of and her step brother-in-law was the Manager of Gullivers Bowls Club.

Madeley          Agenda Item 7 – Personal and Prejudicial Interest as her grandfather was one of the three philanthropists who created Gullivers Bowls Club in 1952 and since 2006 she had been Chairman of Gullivers Action Group.

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 Director – Place and Climate Change 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 Director – Place and Climate Change 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 FULL PLANNING PERMISSION

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 drawings:

6729/100/1/C dated November 2021
6729/100/2/C dated November 2021
2355/SU-01 dated September 2005
6729/8/D dated May 2021
6729/9/C dated May 2021
6729/10/C dated May 2021
6729/7/C dated May 2021
6729/100/LBP/B dated June 202
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper

planning.

3.    No above ground works shall commence until details of the following have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details: 

a)    1:10 scale drawings of proposed details including gable pediment projection to bowls pavilion; fenestration and eaves details for housing and bowls club buildings, and porches, rooflights and clocktower to housing. The houses shall be constructed in accordance with the architectural details shown on approved Drawing No. 6729/8/D unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

b)    Samples of the materials to be used in the construction of all external faces of the buildings (housing and bowls club buildings). 

c)    The proposed site levels and finished floor levels of all buildings in relation to existing site levels, and to adjacent highways and properties.

Reason: To ensure a high building appearance and architectural quality, which reflects the character of the town, in accordance with Policy EN3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework. 

4.    Notwithstanding the details on the approved Layout Drawing No. 6729/7/C, no above ground works shall commence until the following public realm and hard landscaping details have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall thereafter be carried out as approved and in accordance with an agreed implementation programme.

a)    Boundary treatments and any other means of enclosure (fences, railings and walls) indicating the locations, type, design, height, and materials of such. This shall include the provision of a brick garden wall to the southern rear garden boundary of Plot 08. 

b)    Hard surfacing materials (including road surfaces, parking spaces and other areas of hardstandings). 

c)    Minor artefacts and structures (e.g. bins, sheds, bike and refuse stores).

Reason: To ensure the creation of a high-quality public realm, design quality, and landscape setting, in accordance with Policy EN3 and EN1 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy. 

5.    No above ground works shall commence until the following soft landscaping details have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall thereafter be carried out as approved and in accordance with an agreed implementation programme. 

a)    Indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land including details of those to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL21/106.

DECISION: REFUSE (PLANNING PERMISSION)

REASON FOR REFUSAL:

1.   Having regard to Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, it is considered that the proposed scheme does not demonstrate how it will sustain and enhance the significance of the designated heritage asset (the conservation area), the proposed UPVC does not reflect the materials or proportionality of the original fitments, the proposal is in clear public view and slimlite double glazing is not proposed, and as such would be contrary to Policies BX2 and EN2 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy, Policy DHG9 of the Development and Site Allocation Plan. In relation to the National Planning Policy Framework, the proposal fails to satisfy paragraph 7,8, 130, 194, 200 and 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

NOTE:

1.     This refusal relates to the proposal as shown on the following plans:

Location Block Plan, Drawing No. 7159 / LBP, dated February 2022

Existing Layout, Drawing No. 7159 / EX, dated January 2022

Proposed Layout, Drawing No. 7159 / 1, dated January 2022

Technical Details, Drawing No. 7159 / 2, dated January 2022

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 identifying matters of concern with the proposal and determining the application within a timely manner, clearly setting out the reason for refusal, thereby allowing the Applicant the opportunity to consider the harm caused and whether or not it can be remedied as part of a revised scheme.

RM

DECISION: APPROVE (FULL PLANNING)

Members had visited the site which was a proposal to replace existing dormers and extensions with two new continuous first floor dormers, plus a single storey front and rear replacement extension with proposed glazed infill and internal alterations on a detached chalet style bungalow.  The application was a resubmission of a previous application, which was withdrawn following advice that it would be recommended for refusal, due to the adverse impact on the visual amenity of the streetscene and locality.  The only difference from the previous application was that a green roof replaced a roof terrace.  The Council’s Development Site and Allocations Plan (DaSA) adopted in 2019 concluded that the property was outside the development boundary and High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The officer’s opinion had not altered from the previous application and the recommendation was for refusal.

The Planning Committee heard from the Applicant’s architect who advised that his company specialised in renovation / retrofit schemes and outlined the low-carbon modernised plans for the property.  Members also heard from the local Ward Member and comments were noted from Fairlight Parish Council, as well as the Sussex Newt Officer who had no objection to the application.  

After deliberation and initial concerns that the design looked top-heavy, the Planning Committee felt that the proposal did meet the requirements of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and the DaSA.  They felt the design would significantly improve the property, was not offensive, was ecologically sound and would not have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the streetscene and locality.  It was also considered that it would not be visible from the Fire Hills Country Park.  Therefore, the Planning Committee granted full planning permission subject to the inclusion of relevant standard conditions (delegated to officers to consider).

Councillor Mier moved the motion to APPROVE (Full Planning) and this was seconded by Councillor Prochak.  The motion was declared CARRIED (8 for / 5 against).

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 Nos. BB_PL_110 Rev B, BB_PL_111 Rev C, BB-PL_0120 Rev C and BB_PL_0121 Rev C dated 24 January 2022.

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

3.     The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby approved shall match in materials, colour and texture those used in the existing building unless an alternative finish is first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In accordance with Policy OSS4 (iii) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policy HG9(ii) of the Rother Development and  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL21/108.

DECISION: REFUSE FULL PLANNING PERMISSION

REASONS FOR REFUSAL:

1.   The application site falls within Pett Level which does not have a defined settlement boundary within the recently adopted Development and Site Allocations. For the purposes of planning policy, the appeal site therefore lies within the open countryside. The proposal does not support local agriculture, economic or tourists needs nor maintains or improves rural character and does not constitute any special circumstances. Therefore, it is contrary to Policies RA2, RA3, OSS3 and T3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy which seek to protect the countryside from inappropriate development and locate new residential development where there is good access to facilities and services.

2.   The proposed detached 2-storey dwelling and detached double garage due to its height and scale would be visually intrusive and would represent an incongruous addition to the site which is out of character and detracts from this countryside location. The development would therefore conflict with Policies OSS4, EN1 and EN3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy, Policy DHG9.

NOTE:

1.     The refusal relates to the following plans:

          Site Location Plan, dated 9.10.20

OV/DB/MR/RATIO/04 Comparison Land to Building Ratio of Application Site & Neighbouring Plots, dated 19.1.21

OV/DB/MR/02 Proposed Site Layout, dated 19.1.21

OV/DB/MR/01 Proposed Elevations/ Floor plans, dated 9.10.20

OV/DB/MR/03 Proposed Garage, dated 9.10.20

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 identifying matters of concern with the proposal and discussing those with the Applicant. However, the issues are so fundamental to the proposal that it has not been possible to negotiate a satisfactory way forward and due to the harm which has been clearly identified within the reason(s) for the refusal, approval has not been possible.

(Not subject to the Rother District Council Public Speaking Scheme at Planning Committee – the application has already been determined)

The Planning Committee considered the report of the Director – Place and Climate Change which detailed the proposed deed of variation to a Section 106 agreement regarding residential development of 20 houses, associated parking and landscaping (Application No. RR/2019/2194/P).

The developer Optivo had acquired the site located on the eastern side of Hurst Green to the rear of properties fronting the A21, was seeking to build it out with 100% affordable housing (comprising 14 shared ownership and six affordable rented) and sought a deed of variation to the existing Section 106 agreement.  It was noted that there would be financial implications for the Council associated with the loss of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payments which could amount to approximately £259,400.

After a detailed discussion, receiving advice, clarity and legal reassurances from the Head of Housing and Community, Planning Policy Manager and Planning Lawyer, the Planning Committee approved in principle the changes to the deed of variation and agreed that delegated authority be granted to the Director – Place and Climate Change to agree the final terms, as outlined in paragraph 6.3 of the report.

RESOLVED: That the principle changes for the deed of variation be approved and delegated authority be granted to the Director – Place and Climate Change to agree the final terms, as follows:

i.      reference to the agreed mix of affordable housing in side letter dated 19 November 2021;

ii.    removal of the reference to Rural and Designated Protection Area;

iii.   removal of the local connection restrictions for the Shared Ownership units to comply with Homes England grant funding requirements;

iv.   amendments/clarification to the Mortgagee in Possession clauses to meet lender’s requirements;

v.    reference to the recent approved Non-Material Amendment approval RR/2021/2558/MA.

vi.   naming Optivo as the registered provider; and

vii.  amendments to allow Optivo to manage the Open Space rather than a private management company.

Consideration was given to the report of the Development Manager which detailed proposed changes to the Council’s Scheme of Delegation and establishment of a Planning Consultation Group (PCG).

The proposed amendments would allow non-Major scheme applications to be considered by a PCG to consider the most appropriate means of determination, instead of being presented at Planning Committee (PC).  Applications would be those submitted by officers, elected Members or their relatives of said officers or Members, as well as Council-owned land applications.  This was considered cost effective and would allow the PC to concentrate on more complex and controversial applications. 

It was proposed that the membership of the PCG consist of the Chair of Planning (or Vice-Chair in their stead), two other Members to be chosen by rota, the Development Manager or (Area Team Leader(s) in their stead) and where appropriate the case officer(s) in a presentational capacity.  Meetings would be held on the Monday prior to the submission deadline of committee reports for each Committee cycle; additional meetings might also be required.  A list of the applications and outcome of the PCG’s decisions would be reported to the next scheduled meeting of the PC.

The PCG would consider whether applications be presented at PC or dealt with under delegated powers, with no other decision-making purpose.  The quorum would be three and the Chair would have a casting vote where there was difference of opinion or abstention. 

It was noted that these amendments did not impinge on the existing call-in rights of Members.

After discussion, Members agreed not to approve the establishment of a PCG and therefore no further action would be taken on this matter. 

RESOLVED: That the establishment of a Planning Consultation Group not be approved and therefore no further action be taken on this matter.

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.

Members requested that “Appeals Pending” information be added to future reports.

RESOLVED: That:

1)    the report be noted; and

2)    “Appeals Pending” information be added to future reports.

Tuesday 24 May 2022 at 9:00am departing from the Town Hall, Bexhill.

The next site inspection was scheduled to be held on Tuesday 24 May 2022 at 9:00am departing from the Town Hall, Bexhill.