This application was subject to public speaking.

Members had visited the site which was situated within Cliff End, Pett Level and covered a substantial part of the garden of Warren Cottage.  Warren Cottage would be retained with a significantly reduced garden.  The site was currently within the adopted 2006 Local Plan Development Boundary however, in the current proposals contained within the Development and Site Allocations Local Plan, Pett Level was set to lose its development boundary.  A public footpath ran along the south-eastern boundary and several trees along the proposed access and site perimeter were covered by Tree Preservation Orders.

The proposal was for the erection of two chalet style dwellings with detached garages and a raised driveway on the line of the current access between the private lane to ‘The Thatch’ and the adjoining property ‘Greenbank’.  Consideration was given to updated information received which was circulated to Members prior to the meeting.

Members heard from the spokesperson representing those people objecting to the scheme and the local Ward Member.  Members asked a series of questions in relation to a number of issues.  These included: the design of the properties on ‘backland’ site; inconsistent format (regimented layout); impact on a small rural location; destruction of trees; and, in particular, drainage concerns.

The Committee considered the comments submitted by statutory bodies who had no objection to the scheme subject to relevant conditions and Pett Parish Council who had raised a number of concerns including narrowness of access, visibility of the site from a designated public footpath and impact on local wildlife.  The discussion focused on the poor design, layout and effect on the rural setting.  Particular consideration was also given to Policies OSS4 and EN3 of the Core Strategy, as well as paragraph 127 parts b) and c) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Councillor Mrs Barnes moved the motion to refuse (full planning) and this was seconded by Councillor Mrs Earl-Williams.  The motion was declared CARRIED (9 for / 3 against).

In weighing up all the issues identified above, including drainage concerns, Members considered that the overall impact of the scheme would cause harm and was out of character for the following reasons: residential overdevelopment on ‘backland’ site due to poor design; plot sizes which were smaller than the neighbouring properties; inconsistent parallel and regimented layout of the two units; loss of established trees; and insufficient detail regarding the drainage system which could result in surface water flooding issues.  Therefore, the Committee considered that the application should be refused.

DECISION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)

REASONS FOR REFUSAL:

1.               The proposal would result in the overdevelopment of a ‘backland’ site, out of character with the surrounding area as a result of: the poor design of the houses which, by mimicking each other, fail to respond to the varied and eclectic mix of housing designs between plots in the local area; the parallel and regimented layout of the houses side-by-side which fails to reflect the more informal layout and positioning of development in the immediate locality; the plot sizes which are comparatively small when compared with development in the immediate locality; and the loss of established trees which would undermine the site’s secluded and wooded character.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies OSS4 (iii) and (v) and EN3 of the Rother District Local Plan Core Strategy and paragraph 127 (b) and (c) of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.               The drainage proposals for the site are insufficiently detailed and would result in increased risk of surface water flooding in the locality.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies SRM2 (iii) and EN7 (iii) of the Rother District Local Plan Core Strategy and Policy DEN5 of the emerging Development and Site Allocations Local Plan.

NOTE:

1.               This refusal of planning permission relates to the following drawings:

Drg. 4117 – 330 Site Location and Block Plans

Drg. 4117 – 331 Topographical Survey

Drg. 4117 – 332E Proposed Site Layout Plan

Drg. 4117 – 333C Proposed Visibility Splay

Drg. 4117 – 340B Plot 1 Proposed Plans, Section and Elevations

Drg. 4117 – 341B Plot 2 Proposed Plans, Section and Elevations

Drg. 4117 – 343C Indicative Existing Site Sections

Drg. 4117 – 344E Indicative Proposed Site Sections

Drg. 4117 – 345B Indicative Existing Access Drive Sections

Drg. 4117 – 346D Indicative Proposed Access Drive Sections

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK:  In accordance with the requirements of the 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 reasons 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.