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 with the local community; village not a defined service village and had limited facilities (including no school); ecology and biodiversity impact; inconsistent buffer surrounding the site; lack of amenities; sustainability and viability; urbanisation of the area, including loss of green verges to accommodate public transport; and increased traffic to and from the site and along Battery Hill (road safety issues).

The Planning Committee expressed concern regarding increased traffic that would be generated by the development and removal of the doctor’s surgery from the scheme, as well as the density of the development which would create a hard edge to the village, poorly transitioning into the open countryside.  The discussion focused particularly on the existing foul water and surface water drainage / disposal issues, which the Planning Committee felt had not been fully addressed by the Applicant or utility company, as there were known drainage issues within Fairlight, as well as lack of amenities and pedestrian footpath / access or linkage to the village.

Councillor Mier moved the motion to REFUSE (OUTLINE PLANNING) and this was seconded by Councillor Norton.  The motion was declared CARRIED (unanimous).

In weighing up all the issues identified above, Members considered that the overall impact, including density of the scheme would cause harm to the landscape of the High Weald AONB and would be out of character and out of context with the wider character of the village of Fairlight Cove. The proposal was also inconsistent with the requirements of Policy FAC2 and included a number of deficiencies resulting in the proposal being considered an unsustainable form of development. The proposal was contrary to Paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies PC1, OSS3, OOS4, RA1, SRM2, CO2, CO6, LHN1, EN1, EN3, EN5 and TR3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies FAC2, DEN1, DEN2, DEN4 and EN7 of the DaSA Local Plan.  Therefore, the Committee considered that the application should be refused.

REASONS FOR REFUSAL:

1.    The proposed development, although in outline, is accompanied by a detailed illustrative site layout plan, which indicates the need for a dense housing layout with two-storey buildings in order to accommodate up to 43 dwellings within the developable part of the site. The density and type of development required would be uncharacteristic of Fairlight Cove village and result in a hard urban edge, failing to appropriately transition from the built-up area to the open countryside, out of character with and harmful to the landscape character and scenic beauty of the High Weald AONB. These impacts are made cumulatively worse by the comparatively smaller provision of amenity and buffer landscaping when compared with the ‘Detail Map’ accompanying Policy FAC2 of the DaSA Local Plan and by the proposals for improved footways on Pett Level Road which would result in the urbanisation of the lane out of character with the rural landscape and context within the High Weald AONB. The proposal is contrary to Policies OSS4(iii) (v), RA1, EN1 and EN3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy, Policies DEN1 and DEN2 of the DaSA Local Plan, and paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.    The proposed development represents a significant departure from Policy FAC2 of the DaSA Local Plan as follows:

·         The proposed number of units, up to 43, represents a 43% increase over the 30 expected to be delivered within the policy allocation with no reasonable justification for the increase and resultant landscape harm identified (as set out in reason for refusal No.1 above). As such, the proposed increase in unit numbers is considered to represent an overdevelopment of the site.

·         There is no serviced plot for a doctor’s surgery provided and it is premature to omit this at this time with no detailed justification for its removal and no assessment of alternative community uses provided.

·         Landscape planting around the boundaries of the site is not indicated to be provided to the same extent as set out in the ‘Detail Map’ accompanying the policy allocation.

·         It has not been demonstrated that the development can connect to the existing sewerage system in an acceptable manner. There are known capacity issues with foul and surface water drainage within Fairlight Cove village and, without sufficient detail to the contrary or an adequate response from Southern Water about resolution of existing problems and how any new development could be successfully integrated into the existing network, the development is considered to be premature in respect of drainage provision.

Furthermore the proposal is considered to be poorly realised insomuch as:

·         it causes harm to the character of the AONB as set out in reason for refusal No.1 above;

·         it would create a development that is ‘severed’ and insufficiently integrated with Fairlight Cove village, which would likely result in a lack of social and community cohesion;

·         Fairlight Cove is not a defined service village and does not have sufficient shops and services, including schools, to accommodate a development of this size;

·         the unresolved drainage matters mean that there is insufficient information about the impacts, or lack thereof, on the Dungeness, Romney Marsh and Rye Bay Ramsar;

·         the total number of units and the amount of affordable housing proposed would be more than that residually required to be provided in Fairlight Cove village; and

·         the proposed pedestrian links to Fairlight Cove village – which include a route around the village edge and across a busy rural road in order to connect to existing pedestrian footpaths – is not considered to be safe or sustainable.

Given the above, the proposal is considered to represent an unsustainable form of development where the application of policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (namely paragraph 172) provide a clear reason for refusing the development and the proposal, because of its inconsistence with Policy FAC2 and its poor detailing, otherwise results in adverse impacts which significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole, including but not limited to paragraphs 91 and 92. The proposal is contrary to Policies PC1, OSS3, OSS4, RA1, SRM2, CO2, CO6, EN1, EN3, EN5, EN6, EN7 and TR3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies FAC2, DEN1, DEN2, DEN4, DEN5 and DEN7 of the DaSA Local Plan.

NOTE:

1.    This decision notice relates to the following set of plans and documents:

No. 101466-SK Drawing No: PL-03D dated 25/02/21

Drawing -008 rev B dated 18/12/2020

Drawing No. Sk12 Rev E – Sketch Layout Western Field Only

Drawing No. PL-10 Rev C – Illustrative Open Space Areas

Drawing No. Sk14 Rev C – Proposed Dwelling Breakdown

Design & Access Statement

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 clearly setting out the reason(s) 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.

(Councillor Mier declared a Personal interest in this matter in so far as he was the Council’s appointed representative on the Romney Marshes Area Internal Drainage Board and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct remained in the meeting during the consideration thereof).

(Councillor Prochak declared a Personal interest in this matter in so far as her husband was Chairman of the local Campaign to Protect Rural England who made comments on the application and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct remained in the meeting during the consideration thereof).