RM

DECISION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)

The Planning Committee had visited the site which was for the erection of a detached 3-bedroom bungalow, a detached outbuilding and double garage together with associated hardstanding, plus a turning area for access on to the B2087.  The proposed property related to a parcel of land on the south side of Union Street, which would be enclosed by road-fronted dwellings to the north, dwellings to the east and an established tree-line along the southern boundary.  Access would be via an existing point between two dwellings.  The site was adjacent to, but outside the development boundary as defined in the Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan.  It was noted that the site had a history of refused planning applications for new dwellings in the 1960s and 70s.  The officer’s opinion was that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact, significant benefits would be realised should the application be granted full planning permission and contributed towards the Council’s housing supply shortfall.

The Planning Committee heard from one spokesperson representing those objecting to the scheme, a representative of Ticehurst Parish Council who were not supportive of the scheme and the Applicant’s Agent, as well as one of the local Ward Members.  Consideration was also given to the comments made by the statutory and non-statutory bodies as detailed within the report.

Members asked a series of questions in relation to several issues, these included: ownership of the land (covenants); access rights of the access road; narrowness of the existing access particularly for emergency vehicles; highway safety issues particularly increased traffic movements on a multiple speed limit road, which had minimal footpaths; sustainability / green credentials of the development; damage to the boundary trees; outside the development boundary; potential of increased backland development; limited amenities within the area and limited public transport services; privacy for the neighbouring properties; visual splay and landscaping; impact on the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); and potential harm / creation of an artificial hard edge to the village.

After deliberation, the Planning Committee felt that due to the proposed development’s scale this would cause harm to the High Weald AONB contrary to Policies OSS4 and EN1 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies DEN1 and DEN2 of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.  It was situated outside the development boundary and was not accessible to local amenities.  It was inappropriate development within the countryside contrary to Policies OSS2, RA2, RA3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.  Therefore, the Planning Committee resolved to refuse full planning permission.

Councillor J. Barnes moved the motion to REFUSE (Full Planning) and this was seconded by Councillor Drayson.  The motion was declared CARRIED (8 for / 4 against).

REASON FOR REFUSAL:

1.    The proposed development is situated outside the development boundary and is not accessible located to access services and facilities.  As such it is inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to Policies OSS2, RA2 R3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.  The proposed development due to its scale would result in harm to the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty contrary to Policies OSS4 and EN1 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies DEN1 and DEN2 of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.

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 refuse planning permission for the reasons set out above.