|
Planning
Applications
Application
No. WD/2008/1996/F
Location:
Little Dolloways, Howbourne Lane, Buxted
Description:
Variation/Removal of conditions 4 and 5 of planning permission
WD/1999/1418/F to use holiday accommodation as permanent
residential accommodation
Applicant:
Messrs T D & D C and Mrs E F Fears
Agent:
Messrs T D & D C and Mrs E F Fears
No objection
Application
No. WD/2008/1958/F
Location:
Grove Farmhouse, Howbourne Lane, Buxted
Description:
Demolition of fire damaged property and construction of
replacement dwelling
Applicant:
Marten Developments Ltd
Agent: Mike
Hill – Architectural Services
Object.
Although the
Parish Council accepts the principle of a replacement dwelling,
the submitted proposals are not in keeping with the character of
the locality, do not have regard to the appearance and general
design of the original building and cause an unnecessary and
unpleasant overdevelopment of the site. The proposed would also
result in a dwelling in a unique setting which is situated in
the close proximity of historic buildings and within the Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty with no valuable property character
and one which would not enhance the natural beauty of the
landscape. It is therefore considered that the proposal is
contrary to policies GD2, NE5 and DC16 of the Non Statutory
Wealden Local Plan and policies DC19, EN6 and GD2 of the Adopted
Wealden Local Plan.
Application
No. WD/2008/2120/F
Location:
Land at Temple Grove, Herons Ghyll, Nr Crowborough
Description:
Creation of underground car park
Applicant:
Temple Grove House Ltd
Agent:
Kember Loudon Williams Ltd
No objection
Application
No. WD/2008/2160/F
Location:
Woodbrook Cottage, Etchingwood, Buxted
Description:
Removal of double garage at side, erection of two storey side
extension and single storey garden room
Applicant:
Mr W Marshall
Agent: RDT
Design Associates
No objection
Application
No. WD/2008/2229/F
Location:
Under Barton, High Street, Buxted
Description:
To replace the existing caravan which is used for storage with
detached single storey timber framed building. Caravan has been
in this position for over 30 years
Applicant:
Mr D Garland
Agent: Mr R
B Howell
No
objection.
However, the Parish Council would seek a conditional removal
of the existing caravan as part any granting of planning
permission.
Application
No. WD/2008/2304/F
Location:
The Barn, Newnham Park Vineyard, Chillies Lane, Crowborough
Description:
Change of use of part of building to dwelling
Applicant:
Newnham Park Vineyards
Agent: Mr
Angus Farquhar
It was
resolved to request the assistance of the planning consultant to
the Parish Council who would advise the Committee how best to
respond to the consultation given the previous planning refusal
for a dwelling in this location contained a caveat which could
be satisfied. A consultation response would therefore be sent
via the Clerk to the Parish Council following consultation and
approval by the Chairman of the Planning Committee.
The Council objects to this application. The proposal is
for unacceptable onward of
development of the existing structure. With the exception
regrettably of WD/1992/9002/ENF
which was upheld by the Planning Inspector, the numerous
variations for conversion of this
structure – the majority for some kind of residential
incarnation – whole or various parts –
have quite correctly been refused by WDC and upheld by the
Planning Inspector at the
invariable appeals that the owners then embark on.
We can see no fundamental reason on any planning grounds for the
conversion of any part
of the structure for residential use to be allowed. It is not
appropriate development, has been
refused in the past and the policies have not changed.
Noting the applicants’ reasons for this latest residential
request we do not consider that any
legitimate case could be made for 24-7 presence by someone
living in a new house in the
AONB to detect and react to a) frost damage or b) mildew. Indeed
within their accompanying
report, the agricultural vintner winemaker and viticultural
advisory colleague of the applicant
suggests daily observations would lead to actions to
light heaters or spray crops, but there
is no suggestion of rousing workers in the middle of the night.
He also notes that a single
worker would need some additional support during any such crisis
reaction, so presumably
someone off site would still be needed for rapid response. With
simple technology indeed
there are options to advise off-site staff to come to work for
example if there was an
overnight temperature drop alert - a PDA or other computer
device could automatically link
to thermometers. That currently one person comes and goes to the
site on average 4 times
a day does not in any way justify the need for a house there –
most agricultural concerns
require personnel to visit fields and barbs a number of times a
day but they do not then need
to live in them.
With regard to the need for security presence to prevent the
theft of grapes or bottles
however comes the nub of the question. Should there be a 24-7
presence because thieves
would steal wine which it is alleged is expensive to insure if
there is no on-site presence at
night. The question is how much more expensive and is this a
reason to contravene planning
policies against a new home being developed here – something it
is important to note that
the applicants have been trying to achieve for various reasons
for the last 8 plus years. How
is this risk any different to break-ins on business premises or
industrial sites such as the
Tonbridge money store not so far distant? Should there be an
on-site live-in worker in a new
house with every business venture? What a precedent this could
open particularly in
sensitive and highly desirable locations for a house in the AONB.
Surely if security is
concern then it will be cheaper to store wine securely somewhere
else than build a house.
The proposal is contrary to the policies of PPS7, the Wealden
Local Plan and Brighton &
Hove Structure Plan in respect of its siting within the High
Weald AONB outside of any
development boundary within the adopted Wealden Development Plan
and Non Statutory
Local Plan, in an area where strict control and restraint is
exercised over the provision of
new residential development. The primary objective of the AONB
designation is conservation
of the natural beauty of the landscape. The siting, bulk and
design of the existing structure is
both insensitive and obtrusive in this area of the AONB and the
proposed conversion makes
it more so and neither maintains or enhances the environment.
Building in the open
countryside, away from existing settlements or from areas
allocated for development, should
be strictly controlled. In areas statutorily designated for
their landscape – as the area
concerned is – policies give greater priority to restraint.
It has been fundamentally clear from the outset and wholly
apparent in this latest application
that this is a case of abuse of the Planning system through the
construction of an alleged
new agricultural building with the benefit of permitted
development rights with the intention of
early conversion to another use. We urge careful and considered
appraisal of PPS7 Annex A
2.
We remain concerned as to the reality and viability of the
alleged business ventures that the
applicants contend require a residential redevelopment of the
existing structure on the site.
With regard to matters such as disclosure of business viability,
we refer to the cogent points
made by Clifford Dann surveyor, acting for neighbours to the
site and posted on WDC’s
planning web site. From a financial perspective we draw
attention to the fact that Newnham
Park Ltd is a dormant company and refer you to the information
from Companies House
provided with this Council’s observations. This indicates that
the ‘thriving’ vineyard not only
makes no money but it has no assets, no vines and no machinery.
It pays no bills, no
transport cost, no bottles, no insurance etc. With regard to the
other venture that the
applicants note in their supposed business case, Country Game
Ltd was formed on 28/7/08
– see information provided from Companies House with these
observations. This could
hardly be considered a long trading history for a viable
business venture.
Finally with regard to the design - given that the existing
structure is supposed to be a barn –
even if there was any fundamental reason or policies permitting
development of a house
from the existing structure - then we would draw attention to
the guidance for conversion of
barns and agricultural buildings so cogently made in the Wealden
Design Guide. This
application in no way respects the fact that the structure that
is partly erected is in fact
supposed to be an agricultural barn – the amount of fenestration
in the proposed plans for
example is excessive and wholly out of character for ‘a barn
conversion’.
We can see no fundamental reason for this application to be
approved and refer back to our
previous objections and to WDC’s previous objection to
WD/2007/1692.
Enforcement query
We have been advised that a large mobile home was seen being
transported to the site in
the last few months. Is WDC aware and does this have permission?
Application
No. WD/2008/2209/MRM
Location:
Former Grampian County Food site, Crowborough Road, Five Ash
Down
Description:
Reserved Matters application for layout, design, appearance,
scale, landscaping of development approved under
WD/2007/1075/MAO
Applicant:
Ward Homes
Agent:
Stiles Harold Williams
Object.
Following four plus years of community involvement, a reserved
matters application has been submitted that does not meet
community aspirations and needs – nor the key tenets of the
appeal approval.
In granting
planning permission the appeal Inspector conditioned that:
“Unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority, the
details of reserved matters submitted in compliance with
conditions 1) and 2) of this permission shall be in general
conformity with the scheme shown on drawing Pl.02. The
development hereby shall not exceed 140 dwellings in total and
shall provide at least 2.2 ha of open space which shall include
a ‘village green’, landscape buffers and children’s play
spaces”.
It is the
belief of the Parish Council that the reserved matters
application submitted has not been in “general conformity” as
quoted above nor does it meet the Inspector’s aim of delivering
a ‘mix
of houses which would better address shortcomings in the
existing supply of housing in the district’.
The Parish Council’s specific objections are:
Village Green:
Is in the wrong
position and should be re-located between the new development
and existing Five Ash Down village as requested by parishioners
and the Parish Council, and as previously visioned at outline
planning permission stage. Four years of community engagement
have led to the siting of the village green and there is a depth
of feeling that if this development is to be embraced into the
village then it needs to be part of the village from the
outset. The new village green location does not support the
objective of integration of the site with the remaining village.
The developer’s planning statement is misleading – at no time
was the community expecting green space for formal sports use –
the long negotiations over the 4 plus years were for simply an
open village green area that could be used by the community as
it wished to see it used – it developed on by the local
community. At no time was an area of scrub trees anticipated.
The new
location of the village green is too close to the A26 and poorly
positioned for parents to feel comfortable allowing young
children to play there. It would also effectively face the backs
and be open to the gardens of the existing properties fronting
onto the A26, creating a security risk for those properties. A
village green should act as a secure safe overlooked space.
While the area in front of the trees may be overlooked the area
behind is not and thus creates a new security risk for abutting
houses.
In its position
on the previous approved outline scheme it was well overlooked.
A simple redesign of the scheme would allow for the existing
properties to safely and securely back onto gardens of new
properties on the estate with the green area kept on the one
green area of the site .
The community
of Five Ash Down enjoyed free use of the old sports pitch with
permission of the Mayhew factory until recent years and the
purchase of the site by Grampian. Instead the developers propose
to build on the one green open space which the Inspector clearly
highlighted and welcomed in his appeal decision.
One of the
balancing ponds is located in a dangerous position close to the
LEAP play area and would have to be securely fenced off – and
regularly cleaned to ensure no build up of any rubbish. Another
is close to a LAP for toddler use, see below). Whilst a
balancing pond could offer a potential environmental amenity for
wildlife it should not be forgotten that such an area of still
water is also likely to encourage mosquito and gnat breeding
adjacent to open recreational space and children playing. It
also encroaches into the useable “village green” space taking
away valuable amenity space for the community.
The trees
retained are of relatively little merit (in the category of only
desirable to keep rather than essential) as noted in the tree
survey and these also reduce the openness and useable space.
They also allow for gathering of groups in a relatively hidden
and sheltered environment which is unlikely to be welcomed by
residents or the police.
The funds
allocated with the Planning Obligation were suitable for
maintaining an open green space of at least 2.2 ha.
Unfortunately, Buxted Parish Council does not consider this to
be an adequate amount of money to insure and maintain the
proposed village green if it contains the play equipment and
trees both of which will require annual surveying for insurance
purposes and maintaining. Who is to maintain and insure the
balancing pond? Therefore, if the green remains in this position
with the balancing ponds to the rear and numerous trees on the
site and with such a large LEAP area it would effectively be an
estate area not a village green and Buxted Parish Council could
be minded not to take on ownership on completion of development
as it would not necessarily follow the best practice to take
ownership only for the broader public interest.
The LAP
location adjacent to the cycle path is even less overlooked than
either the LAP at the north end of the site, or the LEAP, and
thus is less protected from vandalism and provides a potential
magnate for rubbish thrown by users of the pedestrian and cycle
path through and out of the site. This LAP is also situated
adjacent to a balancing pond which poses a risk for young
children.
The planning
layout gives no indication of the existence of the track at the
southern edge of the site which is a right of way to Bevingford
Farm and is understood not to be part of the land holding of the
development. If this green area is being included as part of
the 2.2 ha of open space, this open space will need to be
allocated elsewhere on the site. We are concerned that there
appears to still be an issue with the ownership and right of way
on the pedestrian and cycle link –as noted from the letters from
the landowners to WDC which are now posted on the web site.
Housing
Views and heights:
The houses on
the eastern boundary are three storey houses on the highest
ridge of the site with no screening. With no topography
drawings, the Parish Council does not know what the impact on
the view into the eastern boundary of the site will be. The
woodland walk as shown in the layout drawings at outline stage
was specifically designed to also move houses back from the
exposed ridge and create screening. The Parish Council consider
that the few roadscape visuals, axonometric illustrations and
plans do little to give a proper impression of the sheer impact
of such a development at the highest point in Five Ash Down –
remembering it doubles the extent of the village in the
landscape, and is visible from across the valley and from the
AONB.
Types & sizes:
This
development also doubles the number of homes of the existing
village. According to the Wealden District Council housing
register there are 23 households on the waiting list with direct
connections to Buxted Parish, with half of those being families
and a third being retired couples. The Parish Council considers
that 11 two bedroom houses falls short of the required amount,
compared to the allocated estimated 20 to 22 two bedroom flats.
Young families require houses with gardens and retired elderly
couples would in our experience downsize to flats that are more
central to urban facilities and not to a rural site with very
limited facilities within a reasonable walking distance. Elderly
people wishing to remain locally look toward smaller houses with
small outside garden space. Flats in such a rural location are
unsustainable. The size and shapes of the rooms of the
affordable two bedroom flats are considered to be unusable,
inflexible and impractical (=not fit for purpose) due to the
poor layout and triangular room shapes creating a scheme which
is less sustainable.
It is noted that the design of some of the 3 storey 4 bedroom homes is
such that an entire floor is designated to one bedroom –
providing square footage for a house much bigger than 4
bedrooms. One of the inspector’s reasons for upholding the
appeal for 140 homes was that it enable a greater proportion of
smaller homes ie to quote the appeal notice para 13 delivering a
‘mix
of houses which would better address shortcomings in the
existing supply of housing in the district’. The site as planned
does not do this.
Energy:
Huge
disappointment to Parish members to see no renewable energy
measures within the site. At the very minimum the houses should
have functioning chimney flues so that biomass energy and
woodburning stoves would be easy to choose – they provide a
selling point for larger homes and can heat a whole house in
smaller homes – saving money and reducing the carbon footprint.
Given the focus of Wealden on wood as a core of its economy and
a renewable energy source this is a serious oversight. There is
also no central recycling area. Five Ash Down does not contain
a recycling facility at present, so the opportunity to provide
one could have been taken. There is also no water harvesting to
allow use in dry weather for irrigation of the proposed
landscaped communal spaces.
Bus Stops and Turning Circle:
East Sussex
County Council have informed Buxted Parish Council that a
turning circle in the entrance to the site would be viewed
sympathetically, especially as East Sussex County Council are
currently carrying out a comprehensive review of bus services in
the county which could introduce more local bus services to this
area. We would seek such a turning circle to be provided for in
the masterplan, even if implemented by operators later. The
siting of the bus stops on the A26 remains a concern and is
considered to be dangerous especially if children and the
elderly are required to cross the A26 to catch a bus north.
Layout and Integration with Barchester Healthcare:
There has been
no evidence of thought in the proposals to integrate the houses
to the north of the site with Barchester Healthcare. The a
layout as shown with the rear of the back gardens against the
boundary of the healthcare site will create a clear divide
between the two developments, in the same way as not placing the
village green between the estate and existing Five Ash Down
village creates a divide. The Parish Council is disappointed to
note that the housing which backs onto the service area of the
Barchester Healthcare facility has been allocated for affordable
units. This marginalises those most in need of quality housing
in Wealden. Moreover the team at Barchester designed their
development around earlier plans to minimise the impact of their
service area on the residential development as previous layouts
indicated parking courtyards – Ward Homes have decided to
redesign their residential development without consultation with
Barchester or due respect with what they knew was planned.
Lighting:
The Parish
Council understands there is a requirement by Highways for
lighting at the junction with the A26 and the site entrance and
that 7 x 8m poles with Urbis Sapphire lanterns with high
performance optics. We take their professional guidance that
this will fulfil safety requirements without destroying the dark
skies of this area. No other part of Five Ash Down has lighting.
We reiterate our wish for there to be no lighting on the site
and that ambient lights from the houses in the form of porch
lights kept low level. Lighting of the pedestrian cycle link
needs to be detailed and agreed and should be suitable low level
– ideally ’on demand’ so that it does not pose constant light
pollution or use up energy wastefully.
Connections through the site for pedestrians:
There appears
to be no easy access through the site to the main entrance to
the bus stops. Residents who live in the houses at the north
eastern end of the site have to walk through most of the estate
to reach the main entrance.
Summary conclusion:
It is the above points that clearly show how the proposed layout
does not comply with the “general conformity with the scheme
shown on drawing Pl.02” stated by the Inspector, and if approved
this tabled proposal would result in the whole community being
poorly served by this development. It is a once in a lifetime
opportunity to provide good design layouts and integrate this
scheme with the existing village that should not be lost. This
estate will double the size of the village of Five Ash Down – it
should be designed to integrate and fit with it providing a
sustainable and integrated addition to the existing community –
the proposal as it is shown will not.
|
