Application Number

www.lewes.gov.uk Agenda Item No: 7 Committee: Planning Applications Date: 8 August 2012 Department: Planning & Environmental Services Subject: Planning Applications Ditchling, Hamsey, Lewes, Peacehaven, Ringmer, Wards Affected: Seaford & Wivelsfield To consider reports on the following planning Purpose of Report: applications NB: Section 2 of each report identifies policies which have a particular relevance to the application in question. Other more general policies may be of equal or greater importance. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication general policies are not specifically identified in Section 2. The fact that a policy is not specifically referred to in this section does not mean that it has not been taken into consideration or that it is of less weight than the policies which are referred to. Contact Officer for this Agenda – Mr M Stallard AGENDA (May 09) PAC – DD/MM/YY PLANNING APPLICATIONS COMMITTEE 8 August 2012 INDEX TO PLANNING APPLICATIONS Item Parish & Applicant(s) Site Page No. Application No. Name Address No. Bowden House School, Seaford London Borough of 1 Firle Road, Seaford, 4 LW/12/0477 Tower Hamlets East Sussex BN25 2JB 254 Arundel Road West Peacehaven Mr D Campbell & 2 Peacehaven East 11 LW/12/0583 Mrs L James Sussex BN10 7PG 122 Heathy Brow Peacehaven 3 Mr P Wingfield Peacehaven East 16 LW/12/0579 Sussex BN10 7SA Land At Cosy Dene 4 Hamsey Mr & Mrs R Cooksbridge Road 21 LW/12/0475 Smithson Cooksbridge East Sussex Land Adjacent To Wivelsfield Highview Nursery Lane 5 Mr & Mrs N Midgley 29 LW/12/0507 Wivelsfield Green East Sussex Barley House 7A Gote 6 Ringmer Mr & Mrs S Lane Ringmer East 33 LW/12/0523 Christmas Sussex BN8 5HX 26 Christie Avenue Ringmer 7 Mr B Richardson Ringmer East Sussex 37 LW/12/0577 BN8 5JT Ditchling 11 The Twitten, 8 SDNP/12/00880/ Ms L Maiden Ditchling, Hassocks, 42 HOUS East Sussex, BN6 8UJ Lewes Falcon Wharf, Railway 9 SDNP/12/00184/ Jeary Developments Lane, Lewes, East 46 FUL Sussex Lewes Falcon Wharf, Railway 10 SDNP/12/00185/ Jeary Developments Lane, Lewes, East 62 CON Sussex ^ES; AGENDA (May 09) PAC – DD/MM/YY Part A Applications outside the South Downs National Park APPLICATION ITEM LW/12/0477 NUMBER: NUMBER: 1 APPLICANTS London Borough of PARISH / Seaford / NAME(S): Tower Hamlets WARD: Seaford North Amendment to planning application LW/10/0053 to add three access ladders to the teaching building roof, widen the entrance PROPOSAL: path to provide for a pedestrian/cycle path adjacent to the main entrance and a lay-by adjacent to the site entrance for a delivery vehicle waiting area Bowden House School, Firle Road, Seaford, East Sussex BN25 SITE ADDRESS: 2JB GRID REF: TQ 4800 COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 1. SITE DESCRIPTION / PROPOSAL Introduction 1.1 This application was reported to the Planning Applications Committee on 27 June 2012, when consideration was deferred "for clarification of the following: accurate footway and cycle path dimensions, surfacing of lay-by, position of lamp posts and bund, justification of cycle path, signage of lay-by and parking, explanation of ladders and associated safety mechanism." Up to date advice on the application is set out below, following which the report to the 27 June 2012 meeting is reproduced for information. Access ladders 1.2 The applicant's architect has explained that the 'Construction Design and Management' (CDM) Regulations 2007 requires designers to identify and eliminate or reduce hazards. In connection with the 'Cleaning and Maintenance' Strategy for the building, a fixed ladder access combined with a man-safe fall restraint latch way system was chosen, to eliminate the need to work with cumbersome unfixed ladders at height, to reduce the risk of incorrect set up and avoid manual installation of unfixed ladders on wet surfaces after rain. This system was approved by the CDM Co-Coordinator. The architect points out that this solution would not have necessarily been finalised at the planning application stage. Officer’s comment: 1.3 In planning terms, the access ladders (and roof rail) are considered to be insignificant additions to the building. The ladders are barely visible, located facing into the courtyard of the building on inward rather than outward facing elevations. The rail on the roof extends above the roof surface, but is not a dominant feature on this relatively substantial roof. The nearest house in Bowden Rise, which backs onto the site, is about 65m away. In these circumstances, it is not considered that refusal of the ladders and rail could be reasonably justified in planning terms, or substantiated on appeal. Cycle path 1.4 The applicant's architect has advised that the footpath/cycle way design is required under the BREEAM requirement TRA 4 'Pedestrian/Cyclist Safety', which is a contractual requirement of the applicant. The practical application is to provide a safe pedestrian/cycle route from the site entrance to the designated cycle parking areas which have been provided within the school premises. The users could include existing and future needs of staff, students, visitors and the public (when community use is being made of the school facilities out of teaching hours). Although the cycle path has meant the buffer zone has been reduced in width (to accommodate pedestrian/cycle separation), there has been no decrease in the height of the bund. The lamp-posts are lower than conventional street lighting, and are fitted with directional diffusers which concentrate the light away from the residential properties. Officer’s comment: 1.5 Compliance with BREEAM, whereby the development is accredited a quality status in terms of sustainability, is not a planning requirement. However, this Council would normally support such accreditation, including the provision of segregated cycle paths within new developments. The NPPF (Para 35) states that new developments should, “exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes” and designed where practical to COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 “create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians”. 1.6 The provision of the cycle path has meant that this part of the buffer zone has been reduced in width from 10m (as approved) to 8.5m. This part of the buffer zone is between the side of 112 Firle Road and the entrance road into the site. Behind the houses in Bowden Rise, the buffer zone widens to 12m, as approved. There is a bund within the buffer zone which complies with the approved height of 2.2m (behind Bowden Rise) and 1.6m (at the side of 112 Firle Road). The bund has been landscaped, and is taking on a vegetated appearance following the summer weather. Three lamp-posts are positioned to illuminate the entrance road over a distance of about 45m, which are each 4m high (lower than conventional street lighting). 1.7 The point has been raised by objectors that the cycle path has meant that noise and disturbance from use of the path has been brought closer to the neighbouring houses. However, it is hard to see how widening the surfaced path increases noise and disturbance over and above that which would arise anyway if laid out as originally approved, as there remains a 8.5m wide buffer zone adjacent to 112 Firle Road, with a landscaped bund to the approved height. There are few windows in the side of 112 Firle Road which face the school premises, the main windows being to the front and back of the house. The school is residential for pupils from Monday-Friday, and is not occupied by pupils at weekends. The entrance road (carriageway) itself is 12m from the site boundary, as approved, and therefore no additional vehicle noise results from the implemented arrangement. The lighting, similarly, is not considered to have any undue impact on residential amenity. 1.8 It is considered that the inclusion of the cycle path results in no additional harm or impact to nearby residents, and its retention is considered to be acceptable. Lay By 1.9 The applicant's architect has advised that the lay-by material, which is tarmac to match the entrance road, was changed from grasscrete (as initially proposed by the applicant) to avoid issues of mud within the site and on the public highway, particularly while the grasscrete was 'bedding' in. In response to concerns about the lay-by being used for parking, a 'no parking' sign can be painted into the lay-by if required. Officers comment: 1.10 The lay-by itself is unauthorised, but was included when the BREEAM requirements were being assessed, in order to provide a waiting area for one delivery vehicle should the service yard already be in use. The lay-by, therefore, has a purpose which would normally be welcomed in planning terms if congestion within the site is to be avoided when two service vehicles coincide, or alternatively, a service vehicle has to wait in Firle Road if the service yard area is obstructed. 1.11 As raised at the 27 June 2012 meeting, the lay-by has been used for parking. The Highway Authority has raised no objections to the lay-by, and has commented that parking within it may reduce the likelihood of parking taking place in nearby residential roads, which has been a ground for complaint. 1.12 Overall, the access ladders, cycle path and lay-by are considered to be minor differences from the development allowed on appeal. Each has been provided for, it is considered, on sound reasoning. It is not considered that any of these items would have resulted in refusal of the school development on appeal, had they been included in the original scheme.

Load more