RM

DECISION: REFUSE (PLANNING PERMISSION)

The Planning Committee had visited the site which was a resubmission of a previously refused application to erect a new single storey 3-bedroomed bungalow accessed via a new driveway off Lower Waites Lane.  The site formed part of the rear garden of Bairnsbourne, was located outside but adjacent to the development boundary for Fairlight Cove and the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, as well as 14.7m outside the coastal zone buffer as identified within the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.  It was also located within the Fairlight and Pett Level Drainage Area.  The officer’s opinion was that the amended scheme had overcome previous reasons for refusal, that there would be no harm to the stability or drainage or protected species of the area, parking and turning provision had been provided, and it would not cause harm to the character of the local area or the neighbouring amenities.

The Planning Committee heard from two spokespersons representing those objecting to the scheme, a representative on behalf of Fairlight Parish Council that objected to the scheme, the Applicant’s Agent who identified that the Applicants had submitted the application as they wanted to downsize and remain in the village, a representative from LEAP Environment, 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: stability and longevity of the site / property particularly in relation of the cliff edge and erosion; risk / impact to neighbouring properties particularly during construction; drainage (water run-off) / land slippage; location and volume of the attenuation / storage tanks, including the length of time they reached maximum capacity and how much weight they would impose; insufficient ‘desktop’ survey with no in ground analysis; access (single track road with no passing spaces) and limited (tight) parking provision; removal of trees and vegetation; position, appearance and design of the new dwelling (faced the neighbouring property); choice of materials and shallow foundations proposed; potential insurance issues; outside the development boundary; and located near a steep bank and stream.

After deliberation, the Planning Committee felt that the desktop ‘Preliminary Land Stability and Cliff Assessment’ completed by LEAP was insufficient and therefore could not demonstrate the potential adverse effect on the stability of the existing sea cliff, plus the harm it would cause to flooding in the area which would be detrimental to the cliff / sea erosion and neighbouring land, which was contrary to Policy EN7 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy, Policies DEN5 and DEN6 of the Development and Site Allocations Plan.  It was considered an inappropriate development within the location particularly regarding the closeness to the coastal zone buffer and cliff edge.  Therefore, the Planning Committee resolved to refuse full planning permission.

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

REASON FOR REFUSAL:

1.          Notwithstanding the additional submitted information with regard to drainage and land stability issues, the desk top assessment and proposed drainage details are not of sufficient detail and not supported by ground investigation to conclusively demonstrate that the proposed development would not cause further harm to flooding in the area nor impacting on land stability and thus detrimental to local cliff erosion and neighbouring land. The site is within an area known for poor drainage, is within 3m of a stream to the northwest and approximately 15m at the closest point to the coastal protection zone for the cliff face at Fairlight Cove. Development in this area needs to be carefully controlled and any risk mitigated. Full details of drainage have not yet been provided, yet to be assessed by a drainage specialist/engineer, and those details are thus not able to be factored into the considerations of flood risk and land stability. As such the development is contrary to Policies DEN6 and DEN5 of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan (2019), Policy EN7 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and paragraphs 161 and 167 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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 reasonfor the refusal, approval has not been possible.

(Councillor Grohne declared a Personal Interest in this matter in so far as he was the Ward Member for Southern Rother and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct remained in the meeting during the consideration thereof).

(Councillor Mier declared a Prejudicial Interest in this matter in so far as that as there could be an appearance of bias due to his previous associations and dealing with this matter, he vacated the Chair and left the room during the consideration thereof).