Planning Committee Minutes January 2010

1 - Emma Logan, applicant for WD/2009/2486/F

Cllr. Crowe declared a personal interest in respect of planning application WD/2009/2651/F Ringles Cross Cottage, Ringles Cross by virtue of having an employee who is a friend of the applicant and the tenant of the application property being the child of the employee.

Application No. WD/2009/2455/F

Location: The Millstones, Five Ash Down

Description: Side and rear extension to first floor bedrooms and single storey rear extension.  New single garage and store

Applicant: Mr S Butterfield

Agent: Mr J Butterfield

Objection – recommend refusal. The extension as proposed, which is a 40% increase in footprint, would have a negative and unacceptable impact on the neighbouring property, New Lodge, by virtue of its size and massing which would result in the extended property being imposing and visually over dominant causing a loss privacy and more significantly a loss of light to the north side of the New Lodge.

Whilst the Parish Council does not object to the erection of a garage, the siting as proposed is considered inappropriate due it being situated so close to the frontage of the property boundary. Other dwellings along this stretch of road have the benefit of garages, but all are situated further back into the front gardens to maintain an acceptable building line and to ensure access to and from the driveways is not obscured (please see attached photographs). This stretch of the A26 is difficult to access and good visibility is paramount, The Parish Council would therefore request that the garage be re-sited aligning it with others nearby. Although not a planning consideration, it has also been brought to the attention of the Parish Council that a covenant exists which may prevent the erection of any structure so close to the frontage of the site. Finally it is also understood that there used to be a grass verge between the pavement and the fence line of Millstones which has been recently subsumed into the curtilage of the property with the erection of criss-cross fencing (as shown in the photographs) – whether this means the public highway has been taken into the curtilage ought to be checked by ESCC.

Application No. WD/2009/2492/F

Location: Pinewood, Station Road, Buxted

Description: Demolition of redundant garage workshop and construction of one dwelling house.

Applicant: Ms R Miller

Agent: WAS Chartered Architects

Objection – Recommend Refusal. Although the ridge height of the proposed dwelling has been reduced, the Parish Council would reiterate previous objections to a dwelling of this size on this site. A four bedroom property would not meet the stated need for smaller homes in the village and would instead create an over development of the site causing an overlooking of the adjacent properties. The size, massing, scale proportions and design of the dwelling are not considered compatible with the size of the site and character of its surroundings. Given that the proposal is for a four bedroom chalet bungalow, there has been inadequate consideration given to both the space around the dwelling and the number of allocated parking places. Other than the two spaces provided, any further parking would have to be on Station Road (A272) which would be obstructive on such a busy road through the centre of the village and would also inevitably impact on the visibility splays of others using the access track and nearby track to the parish allotments.

The Parish Council would also be concerned at where construction materials/skips etc would be kept during construction. If WDC were minded to approve this application then a condition should be included requiring details to be submitted and approved which would ensure good practice measures for site working in order to mitigate potential impacts from construction/construction vehicles/materials on surrounding properties, the access track and the adjacent A272 Station Road given the site is so close to the main road through the village.

Water run off from the site and a suitable soak away system is also a concern due to the widely recognised flooding issues in the area.

As stated previously, the Parish Council do not object to a smaller dwelling on this site, but the proposals as submitted are still considered too large and over dominant for this plot.

Application No. WD/2009/2627/F

Location: Subiaco, Ringles Cross, Uckfield

Description: Rooms in roof and raising of roof pitch

Applicant: Mrs J Crowhurst

Agent: Larkins & Pollington

Objection. Subiaco is a small bungalow in a small site with very little scope for increasing the property by extending the footprint. However, raising the ridge height and creating a dormer window which would result in a 50% increase in living space as proposed it is however not considered appropriate due to the lay of the land. The windows as shown would result in an unfortunate overlooking of the neighbouring properties to the rear resulting in a loss of privacy. If however, the Planning Authority are minded to approve the application, it is requested that the rear windows be obscured glazed to ensure no loss of privacy.

Application No. WD/2009/2651/F

Location: Ringles Cross Cottage, Ringles Cross, Uckfield

Description: Proposed change of use of existing retail storage & commercial accommodation to residential accommodation. Demolition of existing external store & erection of single storey entrance porch.

Applicant: Mr Hartfield

Agent: 3-D Architecture

No objection. However, the Parish Council would draw the officer’s attention to the implementation of a previous application WD/2009/0843/F which required the applicant to provide detailed proposals for the planning of a native hedge or shrubs for screening the fence along the road frontages of the site before the installation of the fence. The Parish Council therefore requests confirmation that these landscaping proposals have been submitted in accordance with condition 2 as the fence is in situ.

With approval of the Chairman, the following item was considered as Urgent Business in order to comply with WDC consultation deadlines having got lost in its original delivery from WDC.

Application No. WD/2009/2486/F

Location: Eden Cottage, Framfield Road, Buxted

Description: Two storey side extension and associated alterations to domestic dwelling house.

Applicant: Mr S Logan

Agent: John Tadman BD & S Associates

No objection – recommend approval

The Committee discussed the recently submitted planning application WD/2009/2515/MAJ for the erection of an agricultural building for free range hens at Five Chimneys Farm, Hadlow Down.  Although the site is situated within the parish of Hadlow Down, it lies adjoining the parish boundary and is therefore of some concern to parish residents who back onto the site. Members discussed the history of the site and how an application for a further 16,000 free range chickens, taking the total number at the site to 35,000 would seriously impact on the nature of the AONB and the surrounding ancient woodland.  The Clerk was asked to respond to the planning application on behalf of Buxted Parish Council.

Subsequent to the meeting, it was agreed that the following response to the application be sent to WDC and a copy sent to Hadlow Down Parish Council and the professional surveyors representing the adjoining owners:

“Given the application site is within a short distance from the Buxted parish boundary with Buxted residents backing onto it, the Parish Council felt is appropriate to comment on the proposal.

Although it is recognised that planning policies should support rural businesses, it is considered that a further free range poultry house in this location would have a serious and detrimental impact on the landscape of the sensitive nature of the AONB as well as a potential detrimental impact on neighbours.

The original poultry house which it is understood now houses 7,000 chickens is situated in a far more visually discreet area of the farm to the east of the applicants’ own home thus having less impact on the surrounding area.  In an application in 2006 for an additional house for 9000 chickens at the proposed new site, resulted in serious objections being raised by various parties including the High Weald AONB Unit and within WDC that this additional development on this new site would be detrimental to the AONB as well as being much more impactful on the countryside as well as potentially having a negative effect on neighbouring properties. That planning application was refused by WDC. However in 2008, against officer recommendation and with serious objections including from the High Weald AONB Unit, a further planning permission was granted for a second poultry house to contain 12,000 chickens which is situated in this far more visually intrusive area which the applicant bought and has taken into the curtilage of their land holding. This was surprising and rather disappointing given the previous refusal. To date, this has not been constructed and therefore the impact of this building cannot yet be measured.  To now be considering a further poultry house for 16,000 chickens on what is well recognised as a sensitive site cannot possibly be supported.

The impact of a further poultry shed in this location would have the effect of an industrial sized development which would directly impact on the neighbouring properties and traditional historic field boundaries and have a detrimental impact on the character and integrity of the High Weald landscape in direct conflict with policies put in place to protect the AONB.

Furthermore, the impact that 28,000 free range chickens on this site will have on the ‘range’ area around the poultry houses has not been assessed.  Releasing the chickens in such close vicinity of ancient woodland will undoubtedly have adverse effects.

The Parish Council would request if an assessment has been submitted to show how a development of this size and scale will affect the surrounding countryside and ancient woodland in the AONB?

In conclusion, Buxted Parish Council considers that the proposed application, if approved, would have a significantly detrimental affect on the AONB and ancient woodland surrounding the site, contrary to policies GD2, NE5, BE1 and DC3 of the NSLP and PPS7 and should be refused.”

Date: