RM

DECISION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)

The Planning Committee had visited the site which sought to convert and extend an existing shed to provide a modest 1-bedroom dwelling for occupation by the Applicant who was a Romany Gypsy, as well as the removal of three metal storage containers and additional landscape planting.  The site, a former vineyard, was located to the northeast side of Pashley Road and accessed via a shared private unmade drive, which served several houses.  The site consisted of an area of hardstanding containing a concrete block building / shed with a corrugated roof and three storage containers.  A public footpath ran along the northern boundary within the site which was separated by a fence.  The site contained hedges and trees with views eastwards.  The site was located outside the development boundary for Ticehurst, as detailed in the adopted Neighbourhood Plan and was within the countryside of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). 

The officer’s report outlined the Applicant’s Gypsy and Traveller (G&T) status, personal history, health issues, traffic movements, and referenced details of the Lisa Smith Judgement (protected characteristics under the Equalities Act 2010) which was considered relevant to this application.  The accommodation needs and potential shortfall in supply of compliant and non-compliant Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, identified in the East Sussex Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessment (2022) within Rother were considered material considerations.  The officer’s opinion was that there would be limited harm to the AONB and that significant weight should be attributed to the Applicant’s personal circumstances, as well as the uncertainty of deliverable allocated G&T sites within the district.

The Planning Committee heard from two spokespersons representing those objecting to the scheme, a representative on behalf of Ticehurst Parish Council that objected the scheme and the Applicant’s Agent, who advised that the Applicant was willing to change some of the application details e.g. materials used etc. if required, 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: G&T status of the Applicant; conversion of a derelict garage; choice of materials and pitched roof; design (substandard) out of keeping with the neighbouring properties; highway safety issues particularly increased traffic movements on a multiple speed limit road, which had minimal footpaths; access entrance on a bend; outside the development boundary; highly visible, particularly from the public footpath; limited amenities within the area and limited public transport services; impact on the High Weald AONB; new permanent dwelling in the countryside (if approved could set precedent for future new build applications in the countryside); site not included within the Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan; current enforcement proceedings on the site; and local people being disadvantaged.

After deliberation, the Planning Committee felt that the new extended building would be visually intrusive in a rural, countryside setting which would cause considerable harm to the character and appearance of the High Weald AONB, contrary to Policies OSS4(iii), RA2 (viii), RA3 (v), EN1 (i) (v) and LHN6 (ii) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy, Policies DEN1 and DEN2 of the Development and Site Allocations Plan, R1 of the Ticehurst Neighbourhood Plan, paragraphs 174 and 176 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy H, paragraph 25 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.  The site was situated outside of the development boundary and was not accessible to local amenities or public transport.  It was an inappropriate development within the countryside.  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 Ganly.  The motion was declared CARRIED (7 for / 6 against).

REASONS FOR REFUSAL:

1.          The development represents a visual intrusion of a new extended building, vehicles and other external domestic paraphernalia in a rural, countryside setting outside any defined development boundary, which considerably harms the character and appearance of the High Weald AONB, contrary to Policies OSS4 (iii), RA2 (viii), RA3 (v), EN1 (i) (v) and LHN6 (ii) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy, Policies DEN1 and DEN2 of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan, paragraphs 174 and 176 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy H, paragraph 25 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

2.          The site lies within an unsustainable countryside location where occupiers of the development are highly reliant on private motor vehicles and are not able to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling to access local services and facilities. The development is contrary to Policies PC1, OSS3 (v), SRM1 (vii), LHN6 (iii) and TR3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework which seek to minimise the need to travel and to support the transition to a low carbon future.

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.