DECISION: REFUSE (FULL PLANNING)

REASONS FOR REFUSAL:

1.         The application site is located in the development boundary for Winchelsea Beach, as defined in the Rother District Local Plan 2006. However, Winchelsea Beach is not considered to be an appropriate or sustainable location to retain a development boundary in the emerging Development and Site Allocations Local Plan, which is at an advanced stage of preparation.  As such, the proposed development would be at odds with, and harmfully undermine, the spatial strategy for Winchelsea Beach, in conflict with Policy OSS3 (i) of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy 2014.

2.         The application site is located in an area where the degree of accessibility to employment, essential services and facilities by modes of transport other than the private car would be limited. As such, occupiers of the proposed dwellings would be reliant on the private car for transport, which is the least sustainable mode of transport. The site is therefore not a sustainable location for new dwellings and the proposal would not support the transition to a low carbon future, in conflict with Policies OSS3 (v & x) and TR3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy 2014, and the social & environmental objectives of sustainable development, as set out in paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3.         The application site is located within Flood Zone 3, which is defined as having a high probability of flooding from the sea in the Planning Practice Guidance. New development should not be permitted here unless – applying the Sequential Test – it has been demonstrated that it is not possible for the development to be located in a zone with a lower risk of flooding. The Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application has failed to apply the Sequential Test and so there is uncertainty as to whether development in this area at highest risk of flooding could be avoided. As such, the proposal conflicts with Policy EN7 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy 2014 and paragraphs 155 and 158 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek to avoid development in areas at highest risk of flooding.

4.         The application site lies at the southern end of Winchelsea Beach village in an area of loose-knit and low profile development with mature hedges on both sides of the road. As such, this section of the village is semi-rural in character and appearance. The proposal would result in the removal of existing hedging and trees and would introduce five two-storey dwellings of significant height and bulk onto the site with limited separation between the houses and with individual vehicular accesses onto Pett Level Road. This combination of factors would result in a denser frontage of built development along this section of Pett Level Road, which would be prominent in the street scene and highly visible from the nearby sea wall to the south-east. In terms of their design, the proposed two-storey dwellings are of considerable size and with their flat roofs would appear overtly box-like. The buildings would appear particularly cumbersome and their size and bulk, together with their prominent and exposed siting, would make them dominant features in the surrounding area, at odds with the adjacent chalet-style dwellings, which are discrete and nestle into the existing landscape. The proposed development would have a harmful urbanising effect on the semi-rural character and appearance of area, in conflict with Policies OSS3 (vi), OSS4 (iii), RA1 (i), EN1 (v) & EN3 of the Rother Local Plan Core Strategy 2014, and paragraphs 122 & 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

NOTE:

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

Drawing No. BA1814.01 (Site Location Plan & Block Plan), dated February 2018.

Drawing No. BA1814.16PR1 (Proposed plans – HOUSE TYPE A), dated September 2018.

Drawing No. BA1814.17 (Proposed Elevations – HOUSE TYPE A), dated September 2018.

Drawing No. BA1814.18PR1 (Proposed plans – HOUSE TYPE B), dated September 2018.

Drawing No. BA1814.20 (Proposed Elevations – HOUSE TYPE B), dated August   2018.

Drawing No. BA1814.23 (Proposed Street Scene), dated September 2018.

Drawing No. BA1814.24 Revision D (Proposed Block Plan – Showing First Floor Plans), dated June 2019.

Drawing No. BA1814.25 Revision D (Proposed Block Plan – Showing Roof Plans), dated June 2019.

Drawing No. BA1814.26 (Proposed Street Scene), dated October 2018.

Drawing No. BA1814.27 (Proposed Materials Elevations), dated October 2018.

Drawing No. BA1814.28 Revision A (Proposed Block Plan – Leisure Plan), dated Feb 2019.

Drawing No. BA1814.29 Revision A (Proposed Block Plan – Leisure Plan), dated Feb 2019.

Drawing No. BA1814.30 Revision B (Proposed Block Plan – Foul Drainage), dated June 2019.

Drawing No. BA1814.31 Revision B (Proposed Block Plan – Construction Plan), dated June 2019.

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, 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.

(Councillor Mier declared a personal interest in this matter in so far as he was a Member of the Romney Marsh Internal Drainage Board who made comments on the application and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct remained in the room during the consideration thereof).

(Councillor Prochak declared a personal interest in this matter in so far as she was a Member of the Romney Marsh Internal Drainage Board who made comments on the application and in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct remained in the room during the consideration thereof).