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 facilities to neighbouring properties; viability and sustainability; increased lighting and effect on dark skies; ecology and biodiversity issues (including Biodiversity Net Gain); the lack of Community Infrastructure Levy contribution; impingement on the buffer zone required to protect ancient woodland; the high volume of local opposition to the application; and the conflict with the intentions of Policy 3 of the Sedlescombe Neighbourhood Plan which envisaged (in agreement with Rother Policy officers during its development and subsequent adoption) very limited development of the site.

The Applicant responded to some of the concerns expressed and advised that PGL had been operating for over 75 years and were extremely experienced and had successfully delivered the proposed activities in the application at other locations.  All measures would be implemented to ensure that noise (management plan) and traffic movements were monitored appropriately to ensure that the neighbouring properties were not inconvenienced.  All activities would be fully supervised, with most evening events being held inside.  Sympathetic landscaping and acoustic screening (green fencing) would be applied to the buffer zone to protect and restore the ancient woodland / pastureland and site in general.  Appropriate materials would be used to clad and roof the existing and proposed buildings and no additional exterior lighting would be installed.  The site would enhance the local economy (use local suppliers [approx. 30-50% of goods]) and provide a variety of employment opportunities for local people.  PGL were keen to integrate into the local community and work with Sedlescombe Parish Council.  Outside of seasonal operation, the site could be used by the local community / other organisations as an alternative venue.  The Applicant advised that should planning permission be refused, PGL would continue to operate under the ‘extant’ planning permission already in place.  Alternative permissible activities would be offered namely orienteering, archery, team sports etc.  PGL’s mission was to provide team building and leadership experiences for young people.

Councillor J. Barnes moved the motion to REFUSE (Full Planning) and this was seconded by Councillor Prochak.  The motion was declared CARRIED (unanimous).

After a thorough debate, in weighing up all the issues identified above, Members were not convinced or satisfied that even with a stringent noise management plan in place that excessive noise would not be inflicted on the neighbouring properties and surrounding area.  Moreover, the development was considered major development in the AONB having regard to the nature, scale and setting of the development and its significant adverse impact on the AONB which, due to the significant use of the site and extent of operational development would cause harm to the character of the area and fail to enhance the landscape, scenic beauty or habitat of the High Weald AONB.  As the economic and social benefits of the development would not outweigh the environmental harm identified and because of the significant impact on the local community, the proposal was considered contrary to Policies OSS3, OSS4 (ii) and (iii), RA1 (i), RA2 (iii), (vii), (viii), RA3 (v) and EN1 (i),(vi),(vii) and EN5 (ii) (viii) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy, Policies DEC2, DEN1, DEN2, DEN4 (ii) (iii) (iv) and DEN7 of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan, Policy P3 of the Sedlescombe Neighbourhood Plan, Objectives W1, W2, S3, G2 and OQ4 of the High Weald AONB Management Plan 2019-2024, paragraphs 170(e), 172, 175 and 180(a) (b) of the National Planning Policy Framework, which when read together sought to protect the integrity of the landscape, scenic beauty of the AONB and biodiversity, and s82 and s85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which respectively established the purposes of AONB as the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and required that in exercising or performing any functions in relation to AONBs relevant authorities should have regard to their purposes for which these areas were designated.

Generally, the Planning Committee was supportive of what PGL wanted to achieve and recognised the benefits of such a development, but thought it was the right scheme in the wrong place.  It was out of keeping within the AONB, not only a landscape of great beauty but one with a very particular historic character.  While there was an educational use on this site, it was primarily residential and not oriented to outdoor vigorous physical activity, necessarily exciting and noisy and in any case very much larger in scale and the Planning Committee felt that their primary objective was to conserve the impact on the AONB and the biodiversity of the site and the amenity of neighbouring properties and agreed that this was not an appropriate location for this type of activity / scheme.  Therefore, the Planning Committee considered that the application should be refused.

REASONS FOR REFUSAL:

1.    The site lies within the High Weald AONB. The National Planning Policy Framework, at paragraph 172, requires that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB and the scale and extent of development should be limited, and planning permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest.

Whether a proposal is ‘major development’ in the context of paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework is a matter for the decision maker (having regard to footnote 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework). In this instance, the proposed development is major development in the AONB having regard to its nature, scale and setting and the significant adverse impacts of the development as set out below.

The nature of the development as an outside activity centre for young people includes a focus on constructed activity bases (including zip-wire, swings, water borne activities, climbing and abseiling towers), other field games and group activities, camping, and both indoor and outdoor evening activities (including disco) that have the potential to result in high levels of noise and disturbance in this relatively tranquil rural environment on a daily basis throughout the specified season and for sustained periods of time. It would also be a generator of traffic to a rural site, requiring significant alterations to a narrow rural lane and access to accommodate cars and larger vehicles, including vans and coaches.

The context for considering the scale of new development is that of a relatively small village (Sedlescombe) set within an essentially rural landscape. In relation to this, the scale of the use would be substantial, involving large numbers of people (young people, guests, teachers, staff, and parents/guardians) occupying the site. The scale of the proposed operational development would also be substantial involving large accommodation blocks, an ancillary building, a tenting village with permanent hard-standings, the creation of a lake, a substantial car/coach park, and activity bases - including tall structures, and a zip-wire extending down the valley. Cumulatively, the proposal would be of a significant scale in this part of the AONB.

Considering setting, the proposal would take place within a part of the landscape that is integral to the setting and charm of the village of Sedlescombe and it would erode the rural landscape setting of the village.

In terms of the proposed operational development, the scale and bulk of the proposed accommodation blocks would be substantial and intrusive in this rural setting. The proposed tenting area would incorporate a significant number of concrete bases that would be a permanent alteration and an intrusion within an existing area of grassland. The zip-wire would be prominent and visually intrusive within the open valley setting and other activity base structures because of their scale and height would be prominent in this location. In addition, their construction would require significant foundations to be installed. The proposed lake would also appear as a large artificial feature in this location, resulting in major and permanent disruptive change to landform. Individually and cumulatively the developments would be harmful to the character and appearance of the AONB.

The level and intensity of the proposed use of the site would also impact on the tranquillity of the area, which is a recognised key component characteristic of AONB designation. Moreover, artificial light associated with the development, together with noise and activity would impact on bio-diversity. The ecological value of the site, as wood pasture, parkland, and ancient woodland Priority Habitat as listed under the National Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, would also be eroded because of the development, including incursion and the lack of an appropriate ‘buffer zone’ adjacent to ancient woodland, having regard to Natural England and Forestry Commission Standing Advice.

The economic benefits of the development are recognised in terms of employment and the likely contribution to the national and local economy, as are the social benefits of the scheme – including the health, training, exercise, life experiences, social interaction, and recreational enjoyment, for young people; however, the high-quality environment of the High Weald AONB within and around Sedlescombe village is of considerable importance and this carries great weight.

Overall the development would result in the intensification of the use of the site and a substantial increase in the amount of additional built development within the landscape. This would result in a change in the nature and setting of the historic rural village of Sedlescombe and significant erosion of the landscape character of the AONB. Ultimately, with inadequate mitigation detailed, the development proposed would have a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and would not conserve or enhance the landscape and intrinsic scenic beauty of the AONB and the purposes for which the area has been designated. There is no assessment of how such a proposal can be accommodated outside of the designated area and, whilst there are some identified benefits of the proposal, they do not amount to exceptional circumstances necessary to justify major development within the AONB and outweigh the environmental harm identified.

Given the above, the development proposed would be contrary to Policies OSS3, OSS4 (iii), RA2 (iii), (vii), (viii), RA3 (v) and EN1 (i), (vi), (vii) and EN5 (ii) (viii) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy, Policies DEC2, DEN1, DEN2, DEN4 (ii) (iii) (iv) and DEN7 of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan, Policy P3 of the Sedlescombe Neighbourhood Plan, Objectives W1, W2, S3, G2 and OQ4 of the High Weald AONB Management Plan 2019-2024, paragraphs 170, 172 and 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which when read together seek to protect the integrity of the landscape, scenic beauty of the AONB and biodiversity, and s82 and s85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 which respectively establish the purposes of AONB as the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and require that in exercising or performing any functions in relation to AONBs relevant authorities shall have regard to their purposes for which these areas are designated.

2.    The proposed use of the site would result in unreasonable loss of residential amenity for the occupiers of residential properties in the vicinity of the site from the resultant increase in activity. This would include shouts, screams and raised voices resulting from large numbers of children partaking in outside activities within close proximity to existing residential properties on a daily basis and for sustained periods of time. Properties particularly affected would be South Lodge and Ashdown Cottage, and properties within the site (Oaklands Manor, individual dwellings comprising The Old Stables, and dwellings within Oaklands Park) and along Chapel Hill directly adjoining the site. The occupiers of West Lodge and Orchard Cottage adjacent to the site entrance would also experience unreasonable loss of residential amenity because of increased traffic generation arising from the proposed use and a change in the character of the traffic, which would involve large numbers of coaches. The nature of this impact would include noise, fumes, and visual intrusion from standing coaches at the entrance to the site unreasonably close to the front entrance of West Lodge and Orchard Cottage. The proposal is contrary to Policy OSS4 (ii) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy, Policy DEN7 of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan, and paragraphs 170 (e) and 180 (a) (b) of the National Planning Policy Framework. In addition to the local residential impacts, the overall increase in the spread and intensity of activity arising from the proposed use of the site would result in harmful change to character of the area as a whole that would impact on the village of Sedlescombe from across the valley, in conflict with Policy OSS4(iii) and RA1 (i) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.

NOTE:

1.    This decision notice relates to the following plans and details:

Location Plan 1:5000: Drawing No. 4174-MP-100 Rev D

Site Plan as Existing 1:1250: Drawing No. 4174-MP-110 Rev P3

Proposed Site Plan 1:1250: Drawing No. 4174-MP-200 Rev P23         

Proposed Village Centre 1:500: Drawing No. 4174-MP-201 Rev P19

Access Road Improvements: 1:1000: Drawing No. 4174-MP-251 Rev P9

Revised Junction Design (418.06654.00006.14.H005.2)

Proposed Site Plan 1:250: Drawing No. 4174-GA-200 Rev P9

Block One Ground Floor 1:100: Drawing No.4174-GA-220 Rev P11

Block One First Floor 1:100: Drawing No.4174-GA-221 Rev P10

Block One Elevations 1:100: Drawing No.4174-GA-222 Rev P11

Block One Site Sections 1:250: Drawing No.4174-GA-223 Rev P7

Block Two Floor Plans 1:100: Drawing No.4174-GA-225 Rev P7

Block Two Elevations 1:100: Drawing No.4174-GA-226 Rev P8

Block Two Site Sections 1:250: Drawing No.4174-GA-227 Rev P5

Proposed Staff Accommodation 1:50/100: Drawing No.4174-SA-200 Rev P1

Kitchen and Dining Hall Plan 1:100: Drawing No.4174-DK-200 Rev D

Kitchen and Dining Elevations 1:100: Drawing No.4174-DK-201 Rev B

Lake Sections (1 of 2) 1:250/100: Drawing No.4174-SP-200 Rev P8

Lake Sections (2 of 2) 1:250/100: Drawing No.4174-SP-201 Rev P8

Swiss Hall/Education Buildings: Proposed: 1:100: Drawing No. 4174-EB-200 Rev P2

A - Zip Wire 1:100: Drawing No.4174-AA-200 Rev        B

B - Climbing Wall 1:100/20: Drawing No.4174-AA-201 Rev A

C - Abseil Tower 1:50: Drawing No.4174-AA-202 Rev A

D - Linear Course 1:100: Drawing No.4174-AA-203 Rev A

E – Swing 1:100/20: Drawing No.4174-AA-204 Rev A

Activity Shelter 1:50/20: Drawing No.4174-AA-205 Rev P1

Landscaping Plan General Arrangement: Drawing No. 241/01B; and block landscaping Plans: Drawing Nos. 241/02A, 241/03A, 241/04A, 241/05A, 241/06A and 241/07A.

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 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).

(Councillor Vine-Hall declared a Personal interest in this matter in so far as he was Chairman of Sedlescombe Parish Council and confirmed that he had not attended any Parish Council meetings where the application had been discussed or expressed an opinion on the application and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct remained in the meeting during the consideration thereof).