RM

DECISION: APPROVE (FULL PLANNING) SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS DELEGATED TO OFFICERS

 

Members had visited the site where full planning permission was sought for the erection of a new detached carbon negative live/work dwelling with a ground floor design studio, including landscaping (tree/hedge removal and replanting) with biodiversity enhancements.  The development had been specifically promoted by the applicant as a design of exceptional quality to meet the requirements of Paragraph 84 (e) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  It was described as a modern interpretation of a High Weald vernacular building. The existing storage building and access track would be removed, a new access point on Hawkhurst Road and an attenuation pond installed in the southwest corner of the field.  The site was located within the countryside and the High Weald National Landscape, which is designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and was outside the development boundary. 

 

The officer’s opinion was that the design was not bespoke architecture, specific to its place and thus not exceptional design quality.  There were concerns over elements of the landscaping, domestication of the site and the creation of a new access and associated earthworks.  In conclusion, the proposal would not meet the exceptional requirements of paragraph 84 (e) of the NPPF, would be harmful to the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB, contrary to Policy EN1(i) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy, Policies DEN1 and DEN2 of the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan and Paragraph 182 of the NPPF and Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.  It would be a creation of a new unjustified dwelling in the countryside, contrary to the spatial strategy for Sedlescombe and the district as a whole and the location of the site being unsustainable.

 

The Monitoring Officer reminded Members of the rules on bias and predetermination. The Planning Committee heard from two objectors to the application.  Members  also heard from Dr Feltwell and the Applicant in support of the application. The Planning Committee heard from the Clerk to Sedlescombe Parish Council.   The local Ward Members, Councillor Coupar spoke in support of the application and Councillor Maynard spoke against the application.  Councillors Kirby-Green, Thomas and Mier spoke as Members of the Council who were not Members of the Planning Committee.  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: impact on and protection of the AONB; whether the modular system construction of the proposed dwelling could be replicated on many other sites across the AONB countryside; the similarity of the design to dwellings recently granted permission in Bexhill; whether the ecological benefits could be achieved without the construction of the building; whether pre-application advice had been sought from the Council (High Weald AONB Unit only); suitable or unsuitable location for development; access; highway safety, particularly with increased traffic movements on a busy high speed road; business usage of the property; whether the site was considered to be isolated in terms of paragraph 84 of the NPPF; design and materials proposed (not traditional); and if the development could lead to an increased number of these types of properties within the AONB.

 

Councillor Stanger said that, on balance, the carbon and sustainable features of the scheme far outweighed the potential harm to the AONB. As the High Weald AONB Unit, Conservation Officer and other statutory consultees had not raised any objections, it was in his view that the scheme did meet a truly outstanding standard of design and therefore met the requirements of paragraph 84 (e) of the NPPF.

 

Councillor Stanger moved the motion to, notwithstanding the officer’s recommendation, GRANT planning permission subject to conditions to be determined by officers, based on the positive environmental factors and that the exceptional landscape and design meet the requirements of paragraph 84 (e) of the NPPF.  This was seconded by Councillor Mrs Cook.

 

In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 17.5(a) a vote by roll call for the substantive Motion was taken.

 

FOR the Motion (6): C.A. Bayliss, T.J.C. Byrne, Mrs V Cook, K.M. Field, C. Pearce and J. Stanger.      

 

AGAINST the Motion (6): J. Barnes (MBE), C.A. Creaser, B.J. Drayson, N. Gordon, T.O. Grohne and A. Rathbone Ariel.

 

ABSTENTION (0)

 

The Chair exercised his casting vote against the Motion and the Motion on being put was declared LOST.

 

Members debated whether or not the dwelling was in fact isolated and it was confirmed by the Council’s Legal Representative that this was a matter for their judgement, having regard to the relationship between the proposed dwelling and the nearest settlement, and if Members did not consider this to be the case, paragraph 84 (e) of the NPPF would not apply.

 

Members gave consideration to Paragraph 11 (d) of the NPPF, as read out by the Council’s Legal Representative, which stated that for decision-taking where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless i) the application of policies in the NPPF that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. The most important policies in the Council’s development plan were out of date, as the 5-year housing land supply requirement was not met. Members also gave consideration to whether the innovative design, which promoted high levels of sustainability, should be given significant weight.

 

Councillor Bayliss moved the motion to, notwithstanding the officer advice and recommendation, GRANT planning permission on the basis that this is an innovative design, not an isolated development and the benefits outweigh any potential harm to the High Weald National Landscape, therefore the Committee consider that this is a sustainable development under Paragraph 11 (d) of the NPPF. This was seconded by Councillor Stanger. The motion was declared CARRIED (8 for / 3 against / 1 abstention).

 

CONDITIONS:

 

1.      The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

 

2.      The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and details:

-     General location plan Drawing no. 7095/LBP dated March 2022

-     Section plan Drawing no. 7095/100 dated May 2022

-     Site layout plan Drawing no. GHA-BEC-LS-001 revision C dated 10/02/22

-     Elevation Drawing no. WA2E revision A dated 3.3.22

-     Floorplan - Drawing no. WA2P revision B dated 24.3.22

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

 

3.      No development shall commence, until the tree protection measures have been provided in accordance with The Mayhew Consultancy Ltd Arboricultural Report (AR/110922 dated March 2022) save for any tree removal, the creation of the pond or biodiversity installations. The tree protection measures shall be retained for the duration of the development and until all machinery, equipment and building materials have been removed from the site.

Reason: To protect the health of the retained trees on the site and to preserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the High Weald National Landscape in accordance with Policies EN1 and EN5 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policies DEN1 and DEN2 of the Rother Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.

 

4.      The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved document ‘project specification for an archaeological evaluation’ as prepared by Thames Valley Archaeological Services dated 17 August 2022.

Reason: To ensure that the archaeological and historical interest of the site is safeguarded and recorded to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework and in accordance with Policy EN2 (vi) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.

 

5.      The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Dormice Method Statement as prepared by Wildlife Matters dated 1 February 2023

Reason: To protect species identified in the ecological surveys from adverse impacts during construction and to avoid an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended, and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, as amended, and to accord with Policy EN5 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policy DEN4 of the Rother Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.

 

6.      The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved EDS prepared by Wildlife Matters updated 6 June 2023 and all features shall be retained in that manner thereafter.

Reason: To provide a net gain for biodiversity as required by Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and Policy EN5 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policy DEN4 of the Rother Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.

 

7.      No development, save for any tree work and removal of the existing driveway/and building, shall commence until the vehicular access serving the development has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, drawing no. GHA-BEC-LS-001 revision C dated 10/02/22 and drawing no. 7095/100 dated May 2022.

Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with Policy CO6 (ii) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.

 

8.      The development shall be carried out and managed thereafter in accordance with the approved Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) prepared by Wildlife Matters dated 1 February 2023.

Reason: Biological communities are constantly changing and require positive management to maintain their conservation value. The implementation of a LEMP will ensure the long-term management of habitats, species and other biodiversity features in accordance with Policy EN5 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policy DEN4 of the Rother Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.

 

9.      All ecological measures and/or works shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in Response to Environment Team Comments (Wildlife Matters Consulting Unit, 08/06/22) with respect to the protection of badgers and Reasonable Avoidance Measures (Wildlife Matters Consulting Unit, 25/05/22) with respect to the protection of great crested newts and reptiles as already submitted with the planning application and agreed in principle with the local planning authority prior to determination.

Reason: To ensure that the measures considered necessary as part of the ecological impact assessment are carried out as specified, as required by Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, and Policy EN5 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policy DEN4 of the Rother Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.

 

10.    The access shall not be used until visibility splays of 2.4m by 160m are provided in both directions and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with Policy CO6 (ii) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.

 

11.    The development shall not be occupied until a parking area has been provided in accordance with the site layout drawing no. GHA-BEC-LS-001 revision C dated 10/02/22 and shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of motor vehicles.

Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with Policies CO6 (ii) and TR4 (i) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.

 

12.    The proposed parking spaces shall measure at least 2.5m by 5m (add an extra 50cm where spaces abut walls). Reason: To provide adequate space for the parking of vehicles and to ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with Policies CO6 (ii) and TR4 (i) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.

 

13.    The development shall not be occupied until a cycle parking area has been provided and the area shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of cycles.

Reason: In order that the development site is accessible by non-car modes and to meet the objectives of sustainable development in accordance with Policies PC1 and TR3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.

 

14.    The gate shall be positioned at least 5.5m back from the edge of the highway and shall not open outwards in order that a vehicle may wait clear of the highway whilst the gate is being operated.

Reason: To ensure that the use of the highway by persons and vehicles is not obstructed by waiting vehicles in accordance with Policy CO6 (ii) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy.

 

15.    The dwelling hereby approved shall meet the requirement of no more than 110 litres/person/day water efficiency set out in Part G of Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2010 (as amended) for water usage. The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until evidence has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority to demonstrate that the dwelling has been constructed to achieve water consumption of no more than 110 litres per person per day.

Reason: To ensure that the dwelling is built to acceptable water efficiency standards in line with sustainability objectives and in accordance with Policy SRM2 (v) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policy DRM1 of the Rother Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.

 

16.    The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until it has been constructed in accordance with Part M4(2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings) of Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2010 (as amended) for access to and use of buildings, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority. Reason: To ensure that an acceptable standard of access is provided to the dwelling in accordance with Policy OSS4 (i) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Policy DHG4 of the Rother Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.

 

17.    The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in complete accordance with the Sustainable Construction/Low Energy Principles including appended statement (Appendix 2) of the Design and Access Statement (by Greenhayes Planning Ltd). Certification by a suitable qualified assessor to show the dwelling achieves rating of 117A under the Standard Assessment Procedure, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to occupation and shall be maintained thereafter.

Reason: Given the special circumstances of the innovative design and to ensure that the development achieves the high levels of sustainability, in line with Policies PC1 and SRM1 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy and Paragraph 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

(Councillor J. Barnes declared an Other Registerable Interest in this matter in so far as he was the Chair of Etchingham Parish Council which made representations against the application but he had not personally taken part or voted when the Parish Council considered the application and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct remained in the room during the consideration thereof).

 

(Councillor Coupar declared an Other Registerable Interest in this matter in so far as she was a Member of Sedlescombe Parish Council and in accordance with the Member’s Code of Conduct remained in the room during the consideration thereof).

 

Councillor Creaser declared an Other Registerable Interest in this matter in so far as the Applicant was known to her but did not a close personal relationship with and in accordance with the Member’s Code of Conduct remained in the room during the consideration thereof).

 

(Councillors Bayliss, Byrne, Cook, Drayson, Field and Mier each declared an Other Registerable Interest in this matter in so far as the Applicant was previously a Member of the Rother Alliance, but they did not have a close, personal relationship and in accordance with the Member’s Code of Conduct remained in the room during the consideration thereof).

 

(Councillor Ganly declared a Non-Registerable Interest in this matter in so far as that as there could be an appearance of pre-determination / bias due to his previous dealings with this matter, and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct left the room during the consideration thereof).