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. It is considered that these items result in no harm to the character of this

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 Area of Established Character or the living conditions of nearby residents, over and above that of the approved school development.

1.13 The retention of the access ladders, cycle path and lay-by is considered to be acceptable.

REPORT TO 27 JUNE 2012 MEETING

1.1 The site is the new Bowden House School in Firle Road. Planning permission was granted on appeal for the new school on 9 November 2010. Construction of the new school, pursuant to that planning permission, was completed in May 2012 (the demolition of the older school building and construction of a path between the older car park and new school building are outstanding).

1.2 This application proposes a 'minor amendment' to three aspects of the development. These are:

1. Retention of three access ladders to the teaching block roof; 2. Retention of a widened pedestrian/cycle path from the main entrance into the site, adjacent to the access road, from 3m wide (as approved) to 3.25m (as built); 3. Retention of a delivery vehicle waiting area (effectively a lay-by) by adjacent to the access road within the site.

2. RELEVANT POLICIES

LDLP: – ST03 – Design, Form and Setting of Development

3. PLANNING HISTORY

LW/12/0397 - Amendment to planning approval LW/10/0053 for alteration to ventilation terminals on roof – Approved.

LW/10/0053 - Demolition of the existing Bowden House School and erection of a new school building with sports hall, new residential block and external store building including new vehicle & pedestrian access onto Firle Road, car parking and associated landscaping, multi-use games area within the curtilage of school grounds and associated amenity buildings/structures and retention of the existing bungalow for potential refurbishment as sports changing facilities – Refused but allowed on appeal

4. REPRESENTATIONS FROM STANDARD CONSULTEES

Main Town Or Parish Council – Strong objection on the grounds of much work having already been carried out and should be treated as a retrospective application. The visual appearance is different to the original plan.

5. REPRESENTATIONS FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS

5.1 Five objections received from local residents, on grounds that:

Access ladders • Are unsightly and can be seen against the skyline. • Do not harmonise with the surrounding residential properties. • Make the roof easily accessible to school pupils.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 • Are a potential safety hazard for the emergency services, who will have to retrieve school pupils who have gained access to the roof. • Are an invasion of privacy.

Pedestrian/cycle path • Is nearer the houses at 112 Firle Road and Bowden Rise, with increase in noise and disturbance and light aspect. • The cycle path should be removed. • Nobody comes to the school by bike.

Lay-by • London Borough of Tower Hamlets have sought to deceive residents and LDC by describing the lay-by as a 'grass reinforcement area', and legal action should be taken against LBTH for this deception. • Should be removed and area reinstated as grass meadow. • Is like a hard shoulder on a motorway.

6. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Within the context of this major school development, these (and the change proposed under LW/12/0397, which is also reported on this agenda) are considered to be minor changes to certain aspects of this development.

6.2 The applicant's agent has commented as follows:

Access ladders: "The building's post construction maintenance has been assessed as part of a wider building maintenance strategy and roof access is required to these areas to visually inspect and maintain the roof coverings, clear gutters/gullies and the ventilation systems. This access has also been combined with a horizontal man-safe fall restraint system...... The ladders are discreetly positioned facing into the main courtyard, away from residents, and only the safety handrails extend above the roofscape."

Pedestrian/Cycle way: "In accordance with the BREEAM 'Excellent' target set for each building, the combined pedestrian/cycle path adjacent to the main entrance has been increased in width from 3m to 3,25m to conform with the Building Research Establishment design criteria.”

Delivery Waiting Space: "To comply with the BREEAM requirements...... this (waiting area/lay-by) is intended to provide a waiting area for one delivery vehicle should the service yard already be in use."

6.3 It is regrettable that these changes have been incorporated into the construction, while not being shown on the originally approved plans. This approach cannot be condoned. However, it is not uncommon on a development of this relatively large scale for adjustments in the design of certain detailed features to take place as the development progresses. Proceeding with the changes, without planning authorisation, is at the applicant's own risk in case permission is subsequently refused. However, from the applicant's viewpoint, the alternative can be delay in the construction programme.

6.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), at Para 207, gives national planning advice on enforcement in cases of unauthorised development. It states that "Enforcement action is discretionary, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control." Therefore, just because there is a breach of planning control, it does not necessarily follow that permission should be refused

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 or that enforcement action should follow. It is necessary to consider whether any planning harm arises from the breach of planning control.

6.5 Substantial local objection has been raised to this application. It is fair to say that the Bowden House School development has been very unpopular with surrounding residents, and frequent contact has been made by some residents to the Planning Department about various aspects of the development during the course of its construction. Officers have investigated the issues raised and have responded accordingly.

6.6 Turning to the changes which are proposed to be retained, the access ladders are a safety feature when maintenance work is being carried out to the roof. On a roof of this relatively substantial size, it is considered that the additional visual impact is limited. Some residents have commented that the ladders would assist trespassing onto the roof by school pupils, but this point is rejected by the school, who have commented that pupils would have to already be on the roof to get to the ladders.

6.7 The pedestrian/cycle way adjacent to the access road has been increased in width by 0.25m (about 9") and this is considered to be barely discernible.

6.8 The lay-by was initially proposed to be in 'grasscrete', to provide a green finish, but has been hard surfaced to match the access road, following the applicant's concerns about dirt from the grasscrete being transferred to the road. The lay-by eats into the edge of an open area of meadow grass but only to a minor degree, as the meadow grass area itself is substantially retained. The lay-by is within the site and, it is considered, has a limited visual impact. Some residents have pointed out that the lay-by has been used for parking, but that is a matter for the school.

6.9 The widened pedestrian/cycle path and lay-by are features which contribute to the school development achieving 'Excellent' status under the BREEAM accreditation scheme. BREEAM is an acknowledged assessment method for rating buildings in terms of their sustainable design and performance, by testing a building against a set of benchmarks relating to, for example, energy and water use, the internal environment (health and wellbeing), ecology and accessibility. The achievement of a high sustainable design and performance of the development should clearly be encouraged. The pedestrian/cycle path and lay-by are small features, but they contribute to the overall BREEAM status of the building.

6.10 It is not considered that refusal of the application would be justified or would achieve any beneficial planning benefit to surrounding residents.

6.11 Approval is therefore recommended.

7. RECOMMENDATION

That planning permission be granted.

The application is subject to the following conditions:

1. This planning decision relates solely to the following plan(s):

PLAN TYPE DATE RECEIVED REFERENCE

Location Plan 30 April 2012 400001 REV F

Proposed Layout Plan 30 April 2012 010 REV O

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

Proposed Elevation(s) 30 April 2012 440502 REV N

Proposed Elevation(s) 30 April 2012 440503 REV N

Proposed Roof Plan 30 April 2012 420505 REV Q

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt

Summary of reasons for decision and any relevant development plan policies/proposal:

It is considered that the proposal meets the aims and objectives of Local Plan Policy and respects the character of the location, complying with Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan. The proposal is also considered to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 APPLICATION ITEM LW/12/0583 NUMBER: NUMBER: 2 APPLICANTS Mr D Campbell & Mrs PARISH / Peacehaven / NAME(S): L James WARD: Peacehaven West Planning Application for Extension and sub-division of existing PROPOSAL: dwelling into two x two bedroom semi-detached bungalows SITE ADDRESS: 254 Arundel Road West Peacehaven East Sussex BN10 7PG GRID REF: TQ 4001

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

1. SITE DESCRIPTION / PROPOSAL

1.1 The application site comprises a detached bungalow situated on a corner plot, fronting onto the northern side of Arundel Road West and bounding the eastern side of Phyllis Avenue. The site is within the planning boundary of Peacehaven as defined in the Lewes District Local Plan.

1.2 The application proposes an extension to the western side and rear of the bungalow and subdivision of the bungalow to form a pair of two, two bedroom chalet style bungalows. The proposed side extension would extend the bungalow to the west by 2 metres and would project beyond the rear elevation by approximately 3 metres. The application also proposes to extend at the rear of the bungalow on the eastern half of the dwelling. This extension would project into the rear garden by approximately 3 metres and would be built in line with the existing eastern elevation of the bungalow. It measures approximately 3.8 metres wide. The proposed rear extensions would have pitched roofs. The proposal also includes the provision of two pitched roof dormer windows at the rear. There are two rooflights proposed on the front elevation and one on the rear.

1.3 The extension will be built with finishes to match the existing building. The facing walls will comprise rendered blockwork and concrete interlocking roof tiles. The fenestration will also match existing white Upvc windows and doors. The boundary treatment comprises the erection of 1.8m high timber fencing as per the existing arrangement.

1.4 A new driveway and crossover is proposed, including parking for two vehicles which is adjacent to the eastern boundary of the application site for 254A Arundel Road West. An existing drive and parking for two vehicles which is accessed off Phyllis Avenue will be retained for the proposed dwelling adjacent to Phyllis Avenue (254). It is proposed to surface the hard areas of the curtilage with block paving/tarmac or shingle.

1.5 This application is being reported to the Planning Applications Committee because the applicant is an employee of Lewes District Council.

2. RELEVANT POLICIES

LDLP: – ST03 – Design, Form and Setting of Development

LDLP: – PT03 – Intensification and Infilling

3. PLANNING HISTORY

LW/11/0588 - Erection of a two bedroom detached bungalow - Refused

4. REPRESENTATIONS FROM STANDARD CONSULTEES

Environmental Health – No contaminated land comments.

ESCC Highways – Recommends conditions

Southern Gas Networks – No objection. Applicant is advised that hand dug trial holes should be carried out where the development will be in proximity to any gas mains.

5. REPRESENTATIONS FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS

5.1 None received.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

6. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 The main issues are whether the proposed development respects the character and appearance of the area in terms of plot width and depth compared to the generality of other plots in the area, whether the street scene is impaired, and whether the proposed dwellings are compatible in height, mass and detailing with existing adjacent dwellings in the area. This is all to be in accordance with relevant policies ST3 and PT3 of the Lewes District Local Plan.

6.2 The application has been the subject of pre application advice. The application has been designed following examples of semi detached developments which were granted planning permission under LW/11/1132 at 260 Arundel Road West and LW/11/1361 at 270 Arundel Road West. 260 and 270 Arundel Road West are situated to the west of the application site, on the same side of the road and within the adjacent two blocks of residential development.

6.3 This proposal would have similar plot width and depth to other sites in the locality. In terms of proportions and detailing, the proposed dwellings would also be comparable with those in the immediate locality. The proposal is retaining the existing bungalow with extensions and alterations to facilitate its subdivision. The ridge height of the proposed development would be as existing and a 1 m gap would be retained following the extension to be built along the western side of the bungalow.

6.4 The submitted plans illustrate that the area at the front of 254 Arundel Road (proposed western half of the application site) would be lawned and enclosed with a low brick wall along the boundary abutting Arundel Road West. This has been achieved by the necessity for one parking space for each dwelling given that the bungalows proposed each have only 2 bedrooms.

6.5 The proposed development would appear in keeping in the street scene and approximately two thirds of the frontage would be softened by areas of lawn serving each property.

6.6 In terms of impact on the living conditions of adjacent properties, the application site is situated on level ground and while there are dormer windows proposed in the rear elevation, these would be approximately 16 metres away from the rear boundary which flanks onto 51 Phyllis Avenue. It is considered that this would be a reasonable relationship between properties in a built up residential area such as this.

6.7 Overall, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and complies with the criteria of the above mentioned relevant Local Plan policies.

7. RECOMMENDATION

That permission be GRANTED.

The application is subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby approved shall be finished in external materials to match those used in the existing building.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development in keeping with the locality having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development described in Classes A-C, Part 1 of Schedule 2, other than hereby permitted, shall be undertaken unless the Local Planning Authority otherwise agrees in writing.

Reason: A more intensive development of the site would be likely to adversely affect the appearance and character of the area having regard to Policies ST3 and PT3 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

3. The new access shall be in the position shown on the submitted site plan [dated 22nd May 2012] and laid out and constructed in accordance with the attached HT407 form/diagram and all works undertaken shall be executed and completed by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of development of the new dwelling.

Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan.

4. The development shall not be occupied until parking areas have been provided for both existing and proposed dwellings in accordance with the approved plans and the areas shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of motor vehicles.

Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway in accordance with Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan.

5. This planning decision relates solely to the following plan(s):

PLAN TYPE DATE RECEIVED REFERENCE

Design & Access 8 June 2012 Statement

Location Plan 8 June 2012 1:1250

Proposed Floor Plan(s) 8 June 2012 GROUND FLOOR

Proposed Floor Plan(s) 8 June 2012 1ST FLOOR

Proposed Section(s) 8 June 2012 SIDE

Proposed Elevation(s) 29 June 2012 WEST

Proposed Elevation(s) 8 June 2012 FRONT

Proposed Block Plan 8 June 2012 1:500

Proposed Layout Plan 8 June 2012 1:200

Illustration 8 June 2012

Other Plan(s) 8 June 2012 SOUTHERN WATER

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt

INFORMATIVE(S)

1. The applicant should be made aware that the creation/alteration of this access will require the compliance with the Traffic Management Act 2004 and that the contractor will have to book road space with the County Council's Network Coordination team (0345 60 80 193)

2. The applicant's attention is drawn to the need for a Private Works Agreement (PWA) for the construction of the access. The applicant should contact ESCC on 0345 6080193 prior to commencement of development to complete the agreement and pay the necessary fee.

Summary of reasons for decision and any relevant development plan policies/proposal:

It is considered that the proposal meets the aims and objectives of Local Plan Policy and respects the character of the location, complying with Policies ST3 and PT3 of the Lewes District Local Plan. The proposal is also considered to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 APPLICATION ITEM LW/12/0579 NUMBER: NUMBER: 3 APPLICANTS PARISH / Peacehaven / Mr P Wingfield NAME(S): WARD: Peacehaven North Planning Application for Change of use from residential to PROPOSAL: residential and childcare for maximum of eight children SITE ADDRESS: 122 Heathy Brow Peacehaven East Sussex BN10 7SA GRID REF: TQ 4002

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

1. SITE DESCRIPTION / PROPOSAL

1.1 No.122 Heathy Brow is a detached residential bungalow located on the north-west corner of the junction of Heathy Brow with Downs Walk. The plot within which it stands is 31.5 metres wide and 22.0 metres deep. To the north of the bungalow is a free standing double garage with driveway parking in front. Altogether four on-site parking spaces are available.

1.2 It is proposed to change the use of the bungalow from wholly residential to mixed residential and childcare minding for a maximum of eight children.

2. RELEVANT POLICIES

LDLP: – ST03 – Design, Form and Setting of Development

3. PLANNING HISTORY

LW/10/0038 - Erection of a detached single storey annexe to the rear - Approved

4. REPRESENTATIONS FROM STANDARD CONSULTEES

Environmental Health – Have no comments to make

ESCC Highways – Does not wish to restrict grant of consent. The Authority notes that there are four on-site parking spaces (2 garage/2 driveway) that would allow parents to park off-road and suggests that an appointment system is arranged so that only one parent arrives at any given time.

Peacehaven Town Council – Recommend refusal on the grounds that there are no provisions for waste storage and its collection or a loading/unloading plan. The Council asks that ESCC children's services are consulted and that the staff are registered child minders. They also point out that no facilities are mentioned in the application and recommend finally that a sprinkler system should be fitted.

5. REPRESENTATIONS FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS

5.1 Four letters of objection have been received. These relate principally to highways issues associated with the proposed use, summarised as follows:-.

• The application site is at the junction of Downs Walk with Heathy Brow and is near to the brow of that hill. Despite having a 30mph speed limit it is possible to drive at speed along that highway where visibility due to the top of the hill is restricted whether vehicles approach from the west or from the east. The junction, due to poor visibility, is dangerous.

• Downs Walk has become a busy shortcut between Heathy Brow and Telscombe Road upon which parking creates a highway hazard.

• Vehicles dropping off or picking up children would constitute a highway hazard along both Heathy Brow and Downs Walk, whilst parking along that road would reduce it to a one lane highway.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 • The hours that are proposed for child minding could result in congestion because several parents might arrive at around the same time, again giving rise to highway problems.

• There is a doctor's surgery at nearby 10/11/12, Foxhill where parking on Heathy Brow results in the highway hazards already mentioned.

5.2 Concern on noise grounds is also raised.

5.3 A letter of support was received with the application from the adjacent householders at 124 Heathy Brow.

5.4 The applicant has written a letter of rebuttal concerning the objections received. He states that the proposal is not for a school, a nursery or for an after school club where fixed arrival/departure times apply. Children would be dropped off and collected at different times of the day. There is, furthermore, an assumption in the objections that all children would arrive by car. There is, for example a bus stop approximately 200 metres from the application site.

6. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 The application states that the proposal is for the minding of a maximum of eight children between the ages of 1 and 8 and between the hours of 07.00 and 19.00 hrs, Mondays to Fridays. The proposal would result in the employment of one part time child minder only; the main roles being undertaken by the current occupants of 122 Heathy Brow, the applicant (Mr Wingfield) and his partner.

6.2 Negotiations have resulted in revisions to the proposed duration of the use to between 07.30 to 18.30 hrs, Mondays to Fridays.

6.3 The principal concerns of this application are the impact on residential amenities as a result of noise and disturbance from the proposed use, and considerations in relation to the additional traffic generated and arrangements for dropping off/collection of children.

6.4 In terms of noise and disturbance, the proposed use has the potential to cause some detrimental impact on neighbours. Noise is likely to occur, particularly when the children use the garden when suitable weather prevails. The bungalow is reasonably spaced, 10.0 metres and 15.0 metres distant respectively, from neighbours 124 Heathy Brow and 1 Downs Walk and mature boundary hedging also separates the properties. Having regard to these factors it is considered unlikely that impact from noise would be serious, but this depends to an extent on how well the use is managed with regard to outdoor playtimes/activities. In view of the potentially detrimental impact, an option would be to grant a temporary planning permission in the first instance to give the development a “trial run”.

6.5 Objections (see above) have been received from the public, regarding the dropping off of children by car to the site, which objectors consider to be a danger to highway safety.

6.6 The issue is compounded by the fact that 122 Heathy Brow is on a junction and that visibility along that road is limited because near that junction is the high point (the brow) of a hill.

6.7 The East Sussex County Council as Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal as both Heathy Brow and Downs Walk are both of recent construction and conform to highway design criteria.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

6.8 Similarly, the Highway Authority has raised no objections on the issue of parking on the public highway. A maximum of 8 children would result in a maximum of 16 vehicular movements (plus 2 for the part time employee) over the course of the day. Although it is likely that the majority of these movements would be at the ends of the time periods stipulated, it cannot be known with precision what the likely traffic generated by the use would be, given that some children would be dropped off or collected on foot or by public transport or car sharing. Overall, it is considered that traffic generation would be at an acceptable level.

6.9 In the light of the above considerations it is concluded that the application can be supported, but that planning permission should be granted on a temporary basis in the first instance (a period of 12 months is considered appropriate) in order to give the opportunity for the impact of the use to be monitored and reviewed before granting a permanent planning permission.

7. RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the application is approved.

The application is subject to the following conditions:

1. The use hereby granted shall be discontinued on or before 31 August 2013.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to review the situation in the light of circumstances then pertaining, having regard to the potential impact of the use on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

2. Child minding shall be restricted on the premises to the hours of 07.30 hrs to 18.30 hrs, Mondays to Fridays and shall not be undertaken on Saturdays, Sundays or on Bank/Statutory Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenities of neighbours having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

3. This planning decision relates solely to the following plan(s):

PLAN TYPE DATE RECEIVED REFERENCE

Existing Block Plan 7 June 2012 1:500

Location Plan 7 June 2012 1:1250

Proposed Floor Plan(s) 7 June 2012 1:100

Photographs 7 June 2012 AERIAL VIEW

Planning Statement/Brief 7 June 2012

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 Summary of reasons for decision and any relevant development plan policies/proposal:

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 APPLICATION ITEM LW/12/0475 NUMBER: NUMBER: 4 APPLICANTS PARISH / Hamsey / Mr & Mrs R Smithson NAME(S): WARD: Barcombe & Hamsey PROPOSAL: Planning Application for Erection of detached dwelling SITE ADDRESS: Land At Cosy Dene Cooksbridge Road Cooksbridge East Sussex GRID REF: TQ 4013

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

1. SITE DESCRIPTION / PROPOSAL

1.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached dwelling and garage on land to the south of Cosy Dene, Cooksbridge Road, Cooksbridge. The site is a plot of land located within the planning boundary and also falling within an Area of Established Character (AEC), which "characterised by spacious plots with rich, mature vegetation and trees. The large houses are a mixture of styles and age and are well set back from the road".

1.2 The Cooksbridge Road is located to the east of the site, with open countryside to the west. The western boundary of the site marks the start of the South Downs National Park. Cooksbridge train station is located to the north, with a neighbouring dwelling, The Old Orchard, located to the south. Access to the site is taken from the Cooksbridge Road and is existing. The eastern boundary comprises of mature trees, with a 1.8m high close boarded fence along the southern boundary, including other trees. The western boundary is demarcated by an evergreen hedge. The donor dwelling is a large and recently extended detached dwelling, which also has a large detached garage. The development plot is currently the side garden of the donor dwelling.

1.3 During the course of the application, amended plans were received to reduce the size of the proposed dwelling, including design alterations, increasing the plot size, revising the siting of the dwelling and amending the access. The application is to be determined on the basis of these plans. The development plot would measure approximately 15m in width and between 36m-45m in depth, giving a site area of approximately 650 sqm. The proposed dwelling would be located 3m south of the donor dwelling and would be set further to the east and approximately 5m off of the southern boundary. The dwelling would occupy a central location within the plot, with the detached garage located to the east of the dwelling at the end of a new driveway.

1.4 The new dwelling would be an inverse T-shape, with a longer northern elevation. The dwelling would measure approximately 9.5m wide by 9.5m deep on the northern elevation and 7.5m deep on the southern elevation. The dwelling would have a pitched roof, with hipped projections on the western and eastern elevations, an overall ridge height of approximately 8.5m, with an eaves height of approximately 5m. The southern hipped roof slope is longer than the northern and almost a cat-slide, with an eaves height of approximately 3.5m. The dwelling would be constructed from stock brick with vertical tile, hanging and plain clay roof tiles. There would be no openings on the southern elevation. The unit would provide at ground floor: hall, study, bathroom, living room, dining room and kitchen/breakfast room. At first floor there would be four bedrooms, including two with en- suites and a bathroom.

1.5 The detached garage would be located 11m east of the dwelling. It would measure approximately 5.6m wide by 5.5m deep, by 2.2m to the eaves and to an overall ridge height of 4.4m with a pitched and hipped roof. It would be located approximately 3m north of the boundary with The Old Orchard. The garage would provide two parking spaces, with a double door. It would be constructed from brick and clay tiled roof.

2. RELEVANT POLICIES

LDLP: – ST03 – Design, Form and Setting of Development

LDLP: – H12 – Areas of Established Character

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 3. PLANNING HISTORY

LW/10/1465 - Erection of a two storey extension to north elevation - Approved

LW/03/0787 - Single storey detached garage - Approved

LW/99/0746 - Erection of a two storey rear addition - Approved

LW/99/0089 - Erection of a two storey rear addition - Approved

4. REPRESENTATIONS FROM STANDARD CONSULTEES

ESCC Highways – I have no objection in principle to the proposed development.

However, in order for highway conditions to be issued an amended plan is sought showing:-

1. The access widened to a minimum of 4.5 metres for 5 metres into the site together with 2 metres junction radii. This is required in order to cater for a two way flow of traffic.

2. The double garage lengthened to 6 metres and preferably widened to 6 metres. This is the current standard for a double garage as is in accordance with the national guidance document Manual for Streets.

Upon a satisfactory amended plan being received highway conditions would be issued.

Environmental Health – No contaminated land comments.

Hamsey Parish Council – No objection.

5. REPRESENTATIONS FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS

5.1 A total of three letters of objection have been received, all from the owners of The Old Orchard, to the south. The grounds of objections are summarised as:

- The proposal is contrary to Policy ST3 (c) and would not respect the amenities of the neighbouring site. The proposed dwelling is too close to the boundary and would result in overshadowing. - There would be a worsening of outlook from the neighbouring property and a loss of privacy. - The proposal would be contrary to Policy H12 and would undermine the established character of the area. - The dwelling would be squeezed on to the new plot and would be out of character and smaller than plots locally. - The proposal is overdevelopment and the dwelling is too large for the plot proposed. - Cosy Dene has been recently extended and this has a further impact on the amount of development on the plot. - If a garage is approved, it should be at least 2m from the neighbouring boundary. - The proposed development due to its proximity to the donor dwelling Cosy Dene, would create an unacceptable relationship and lead to severe overshadowing.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 6. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 The main considerations in determination of this application are: Impact on the Area of Established Character (AEC), Design, Form & Setting, Impact on Neighbouring Amenities, Impact on the South Downs National Park (SDNP) and Highway Considerations.

Impact on the AEC.

6.2 The AEC for the area is noted as being "characterised by spacious plots with rich, mature vegetation and trees. The large houses are a mixture of styles and age and are well set back from the road". Cosy Dene currently occupies a very large plot, with a total area of approximately 2,100 sqm. The sub-division of the site would leave the donor dwelling with a plot of approximately 1,450sqm and a development plot of approximately 650 sqm. Cosy Dene is a very large dwelling, with a large detached garage. The remaining plot is considered commensurate in size and still very large by normal standards. The development plot, whilst smaller, would nevertheless still be large and at least 15m wide. Both plots are large and considered to comply with the one of the key characteristics of the area.

6.3 As part of the proposal no boundary planting or trees would be removed. Conditions to ensure that these trees are protected during construction can be imposed. The site would not be readily visible from the public realm and mature vegetation would remain. This would accord with another key characteristic of the area. The dwelling would be set back approximately 31m from the roadside and thus would comply with the final characteristic of the AEC. The AEC also notes that there are a range of age and design of dwellings locally and thus there is no objection to the principle of the addition of a new dwelling or a new design.

6.4 The AEC is an important consideration in terms of the character of the area, with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) supporting policies which set out the defining characteristics of the area. It is considered that the proposed development complies with this, whilst also providing a new dwelling, within a planning boundary in a sustainable location, all aims advocated by the NPPF. There is a need to balance the important requirements of the character of the area, with the provision of new housing. It is considered that this proposal successfully balances these policy aims.

Design, Form & Setting.

6.5 The proposed dwelling has a relatively neutral appearance and incorporates materials which would tie in with the donor dwelling. Stock brick, clay hanging tiles and plain clay roof tiles are considered appropriate for the area. The design is cohesive and has been appropriately detailed with height and form being similar to the donor dwelling. There is no objection to raise to the design.

6.6 During the course of the application, amended plans were received which reduced the size of the dwelling, altered the roof shape, increased the plot size and altered the siting. The revised scheme has dealt with concerns raised by Officers regarding the plot width and also in terms of siting. Moving the dwelling further to the east, results in the dwelling not being set as far behind the neighbouring dwelling to the south, resulting in an improved relationship. The steep southern roofslope also reduces the overall bulk and mass of the dwelling and provides a better relationship with the dwelling to the south.

6.7 The separation between the new dwelling and the donor dwelling, Cosy Dene, is 3m. The new dwelling would be set forward of Cosy Dene, but this is no objectionable. Cosy Dene has a number of southern facing openings, which would be effected, in terms of

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 overshadowing and being enclosed. However these south facing windows are secondary and whilst there will be an impact, it would be on rooms which are served by other openings. It should also be noted that Cosy Dene is a large dwelling and so an impact on rooms at one side of the house, is unlikely to adversely affect future occupier's amenities given the size of the dwelling. Overall, the proposal is considered acceptable.

Impact on Neighbouring Amenities.

6.8 The neighbours to the south have raised various objections regarding the impact of the proposal on amenity, through over shadowing, loss of outlook and unacceptable relationship. Whilst the proposed dwelling is tall, it would be located approximately 9m from the conservatory extension at The Old Orchard. Whilst development will be closer than the donor dwelling at 9m it is considered an acceptable gap for a side-to-side relationship. The steeply pitched southern roof slope would further reduce the impact on the neighbouring property and amenity space. As the dwelling is located to the north of The Old Orchard, there would be no overshadowing and the roofslope means that there would only be a limited enclosing impact. From the neighbouring property it is likely that the pitched roofslope would be visible. As this would be pitching away and given the size of the plots, the impact would not be so severe to suggest that consent should be refused. It should also be noted that there is an existing 1.8m high close boarded boundary fence and 3 semi-mature boundary trees, dividing the neighbouring plots.

6.9 There are no southern facing windows on the proposed dwelling and therefore no overlooking, would occur. The Old Orchard is currently overlooked by a number of southern facing windows at Cosy Dene. This overlooking would now be reduced due to the location of the new dwelling. This would improve the privacy of the neighbouring property. Overall there are no objections to raise and the proposal would maintain a good level of amenity for existing neighbours.

Impact on the SDNP.

6.10 Whilst the site is outside the SDNP boundaries, it would nevertheless be visible from the SDNP. There are no public rights of way in the field behind and so the dwelling would only be visible in more distant views. The new dwelling would be seen within a line of development and would be far less obtrusive than the railway line to the north. It is within the planning boundary, and the relationship with the SDNP and wider countryside is considered acceptable. The proposal would conserve the natural beauty of the SDNP designation.

Highways.

6.11 During the course of the application, amended plans were received which detailed alterations to the width of the existing access. This was to ensure that the access was capable of taking two-way traffic movements. There is adequate turning space on site and each dwelling would retain double garages. The Highway Authority raise no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions.

Conclusion.

6.12 This is considered to be a well thought out proposal which would provide an additional dwelling, within a sustainable location within the planning boundary. Careful attention has been paid to ensure that the proposal complies with the AEC and does not seriously erode the defining characteristic of the area. The dwelling would be well screened from the public realm and has an acceptable design. There is an acceptable relationship with the neighbouring dwelling and any impact on amenity would not be so severe to

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 suggest that consent should be refused. Subject to a range of conditions, the proposal is considered acceptable.

7. RECOMMENDATION

The application is approved.

The application is subject to the following conditions:

1. Before the development hereby approved is commenced on site, details/samples of all external materials, surfacing materials, windows and doors, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and carried out in accordance with that consent.

2. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works, including all retained soft landscaping and boundary treatment, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To enhance the general appearance of the development having regard to Policies ST3 & ST11 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

3. No development shall take place until a plan detailing tree protection measures, methods and fencing, to protect all retained boundary trees, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The tree protection measures shall be undertaken in accordance with 'British Standard BS5837 - Trees in Relation to Construction - Recommendations' and shall be installed on site prior to works beginning and retained for the perpetuity of the developments construction.

Measures shall include details that no fires shall be lit within 10 metres of the nearest point of the canopy of any retained tree. No equipment, machinery or structure shall be attached to or supported by a retained tree. No mixing of cement or use of other contaminating materials or substances shall take place within the tree protection area.

Reason: In the interests of the long-term health of trees identified for retention, having regard to Policies ST3 & H12 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

4. No development shall take place, until details of the proposed surface water drainage designed to prevent the discharge of surface water from the proposed site onto the public highway and, similarly, to prevent the discharge of surface water from the highway onto the site, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Highway Authority, and thereafter undertaken on site.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

5. The development shall not be occupied until the reconstruction of the existing access has been completed in accordance with the specification set out on Form HT407 which is attached to and forms part of this permission

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway and having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

6. The development shall not be occupied until parking areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans or details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and the areas shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of motor vehicles

7. The development shall not be occupied until cycle parking areas have been provided in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the areas shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of cycles.

Reason: In order that the development site is accessible by non car modes and to meet the objectives of sustainable development and having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

8. The completed access shall have maximum gradients as agreed with Highway Construction Manager/Inspector on site.

Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles using the access and/or proceeding along the highway and having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

9. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the first occupation or in accordance with the programme approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To enhance the general appearance of the development having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development described in Part 1, Classes A - F of Schedule 2, other than hereby permitted, shall be undertaken unless the Local Planning Authority otherwise agrees in writing.

Reason: A more intensive development of the site would be likely to adversely affect the appearance and character of the area having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

11. Any construction and ground works in connection with this permission shall be restricted to the hours of 08:00 to 18:00 Mondays to Fridays and 08:30 to 13:00 on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

Reason: In the interest of the amenities of the adjoining residents having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

12. This planning decision relates solely to the following plan(s):

PLAN TYPE DATE RECEIVED REFERENCE

Proposed Elevation(s) 7 June 2012 213/A3/5

Proposed Section(s) 7 June 2012 213/A3/5

Proposed Elevation(s) 7 June 2012 213/A3/6

Proposed Floor Plan(s) 7 June 2012 213/A3/6

Proposed Elevation(s) 7 June 2012 213/A3/7

Proposed Floor Plan(s) 7 June 2012 213/A3/7

Location Plan 7 June 2012 213/A3/7

Design & Access 26 April 2012 Statement

Proposed Block Plan 16 July 2012 213/A3/6 A

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt

Summary of reasons for decision and any relevant development plan policies/proposal:

It is considered that the proposal meets the aims and objectives of Local Plan Policy and respects the character of the location, complying with Policies ST3 & H12 of the Lewes District Local Plan. The proposal is also considered to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 APPLICATION ITEM LW/12/0507 NUMBER: NUMBER: 5 APPLICANTS PARISH / Wivelsfield / Mr & Mrs N Midgley NAME(S): WARD: Chailey & Wivelsfield Planning Application for Installation of dormer windows as material PROPOSAL: amendment to existing planning approval LW/10/1579 (erection of detached house) Land Adjacent To Highview Nursery Lane Wivelsfield Green East SITE ADDRESS: Sussex GRID REF: TQ 3520

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

1. SITE DESCRIPTION / PROPOSAL

1.1 A material amendment to planning approval, LW/10/1579 (for the erection of a detached dwelling), is sought for the insertion of two additional dormer windows, one facing east and one facing north at this site to the south of Highview, Nursery Lane, Wivelsfield. The initial application was approved by the Committee on 16 March 2011 and a subsequent application LW/12/0162 for an eastern facing dormer, was withdrawn following concerns from Officers. The site falls within the planning boundary for Wivelsfield, although the area is semi-rural in character.

1.2 The approved dwelling has not yet been constructed, but comprised a chalet bungalow style property, with a habitable floor area of approximately 227 sq.m. and set partially into the ground to reduce its impact. The dwelling would have an overall depth of approximately 14.7m, width of approximately 13.4m and height of approximately 7.5m with a pitched and hipped roof. The eastern elevation would include a hipped projection and the western elevation would include a barn hipped projection. During the course of the original application, amended plans were received to reduce the number of openings at first floor, specifically on the eastern elevation which faced towards a near neighbour. The scheme was amended to remove one eastern facing dormer window towards the northern end of the eastern elevation, but retain a single dormer window towards the southern end of the eastern elevation.

1.3 The current application is seeking to install the dormer on the northern end of the east facing roofslope which was previously removed. The dormer would match the size and proportions of the approved dormer. It would have a hipped roof and would contain a double casement window. Under LW/12/162, the window would have been clear glazed and opening. Under the current proposal, the eastern facing window would be frosted and fixed shut. Light would then be provided through small triangular shaped glazing on the southern and northern sides of the dormer.

1.4 The proposal now also proposes a northern facing dormer, which would overlook the donor dwelling. This would be identical to the one proposed on the eastern elevation. It would serve a landing and would not have an obscure glazed window.

2. RELEVANT POLICIES

LDLP: – ST03 – Design, Form and Setting of Development

3. PLANNING HISTORY

LW/12/0162 - Material amendment to planning approval LW/10/1579 (erection of a detached house) for insertion of dormer window – Withdrawn

LW/10/1579 - Erection of a detached house - Approved

LW/10/0613 - Erection of a detached house - Refused

LW/02/0846 - Erection of five detached dwellings including garages -Approved

4. REPRESENTATIONS FROM STANDARD CONSULTEES

Main Town Or Parish Council – The Parish Council resolved to object to this application on the following grounds:

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 i. The inclusion of a dormer window is considered contrary to Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework, since it would not secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants.

ii. The Planning Committee had previously agreed to a velux window at this location in order to overcome objections of overlooking and loss of amenity and the Parish Council believes that any new Planning Decision should remain consistent and stand by what was previously agreed.

5. REPRESENTATIONS FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS

5.1 Two letters of objection received from local residents.

- The scheme should conform with the one already approved, where it was agreed that there would be no front facing dormer window. - There is still a concern about overlooking, if the windows were not fixed shut or obscure glazed. - A concern remains about the a sense of overlooking. - There would be clear glazing on the sides of the dormer, looking either way up and down the lane, but it is not stated if these would be fixed shut.

6. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 The main considerations in determination of this application are: Impact on neighbouring amenities to the east and Impact on neighbouring amenities to the north.

Impact on neighbouring amenities to the east.

6.2 The proposed dormer would now be obscure glazed and fixed shut. This can be controlled via condition.

6.3 The agent has stated the intention is to install a heavily frosted window on eastern facing dormer. A level 4 or 5 obscuration is considered appropriate and should be conditioned. Subject to this, there will be no impact on neighbouring amenities as it will not be possible to overlook the neighbouring garden. This had been the principal objection to LW/12/0162. A condition would be maintained in perpetuity and enforcement action taken if the glazing were ever altered. Clear glazed areas are important in the northern and southern sides of the dormer, which will allow natural light. These are very small and would only afford very limited views, looking up and down the lane. Overall, the proposal is considered acceptable and will result in no loss of amenities for neighbouring residents to the east.

Impact on neighbouring amenities to the north.

6.4 The proposed dormer, whilst only serving a landing, would directly overlook the amenity space of the donor dwelling to the north. The dormer is set just off of the boundary and this is considered an unacceptable relationship. Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) seeks to ensure that a good standard of amenity is secured for existing and future residents. Regardless of a lack of objection from residents to the north, as the site is owned by them, the relationship will still be unacceptable. It is considered that this relationship can be improved, through the imposition of a condition reflecting that imposed on the eastern facing dormer. Subject to this, there are no objections to raise.

Conclusion.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 6.5 It is concluded that, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions as recommended, the additional dormer windows are acceptable, both in design terms and in terms of impact on neighbouring properties.

7. RECOMMENDATION

The application is approved.

The application is subject to the following conditions:

1. Prior to the commencement of development on site, details of the level of obscuration for eastern and northern facing dormer windows, which should be at least level 4 obscuration, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter carried out in accordance with that consent.

Reason: To protect the privacy and residential amenity of neighbours having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

2. All glazing in the eastern and northern facing dormers hereby approved shall be in obscured glass and be permanently fixed shut and shall be maintained as such.

3. This planning decision relates solely to the following plan(s):

PLAN TYPE DATE RECEIVED REFERENCE

Design & Access 15 May 2012 2911/0027 Statement

Location Plan 15 May 2012 2911 0025

Proposed Block Plan 15 May 2012 2911 0026

Proposed Elevation(s) 15 May 2012 590/30 A

Proposed Floor Plan(s) 15 May 2012 590/31

Proposed Elevation(s) 15 May 2012 590/31

Proposed Roof Plan 15 May 2012 590/32

Proposed Elevation(s) 15 May 2012 590/33

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt

Summary of reasons for decision and any relevant development plan policies/proposal:

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 APPLICATION ITEM LW/12/0523 NUMBER: NUMBER: 6 APPLICANTS PARISH / Ringmer / Mr & Mrs S Christmas NAME(S): WARD: Ouse Valley & Ringmer Planning Application for Insertion of a dormer extension to existing PROPOSAL: catslide roof to side elevation SITE ADDRESS: Barley House 7A Gote Lane Ringmer East Sussex BN8 5HX GRID REF: TQ 4411

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

1. SITE DESCRIPTION / PROPOSAL

1.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a dormer to the side of Barley House, a detached property located in the countryside in Ringmer adjacent to the South Downs National Park (SDNP) to the rear. This application has to be presented to committee as the applicant is a member of staff.

1.2 The application proposes a dormer to the north-east elevation to form an en suite extension to bedroom 1. The dormer would measure 3.4m wide x 2.6m high overall with a hipped roof x 3.7m deep. The dormer would be positioned centrally within the catslide roof 1.3m down from the ridge and 1.3m up from eaves level and would be finished in tiles to match the existing. Two obscure glazed windows are proposed to the north-east elevation.

2. RELEVANT POLICIES

LDLP: – ST03 – Design, Form and Setting of Development

LDLP: – RES13 – All extensions

3. PLANNING HISTORY

LW/96/1637 - Extension of boundary fence - Approved

LW/84/0786 - Planning and Building Regulations Applications for erection of dwelling house and garage. Building Regulations Approved. Completed. Amended Plans Approved 19/02/1985. - Approved

LW/81/1964 - Renwal of Outline Application LW/78/0122 for the erection of one detached dwelling house and garage. - Approved

APPEAL/78/0123 - Outline Application for erection of two semi-detached dwelling houses and garages. - Appeal Withdrawn

LW/78/0123 - Outline Application for erection of two semi-detached dwelling houses and garages. - Refused

APPEAL/78/0122 - Outline Application for erection of one detached dwelling house and garage. - Allowed

LW/78/0122 - Outline Application for erection of one detached dwelling house and garage. - Refused

4. REPRESENTATIONS FROM STANDARD CONSULTEES

Main Town Or Parish Council – No objection

5. REPRESENTATIONS FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS

5.1 None

6. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 The dormer would be located well within the existing catslide roof, set down from the ridge and up from eaves level and would not be considered to dominate the roofscape or

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 be out of proportion with the existing dwelling. The neighbours house is located approximately 20m from the applicant property with a garage adjacent to the boundary. The distance between the properties and the use of obscure glazing to the windows would ensure that the amenities of these occupiers are protected.

6.2 The dormer would be visible in the streetscene and in views from the National Park to the rear, however these views are limited and are not considered to detract from the visual amenities of the area or the wider SDNP.

6.3 The proposal is considered acceptable.

7. RECOMMENDATION

That planning permission is granted.

The application is subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby approved shall be finished in external materials to match those used in the existing building.

2. All glazing in the north-east elevation of the dormer hereby approved shall be obscure glazed and permanently fixed shut, other than for the provision of fanlight openings and shall be maintained as such.

3. This planning decision relates solely to the following plan(s):

PLAN TYPE DATE RECEIVED REFERENCE

Design & Access 18 May 2012 Statement

Location Plan 18 May 2012

Proposed Roof Plan 21 May 2012 D.04

Proposed Layout Plan 21 May 2012 D.04

Proposed Elevation(s) 21 May 2012 D.05

Existing Elevation(s) 21 May 2012 D.05

Existing Floor Plan(s) 21 May 2012 D.02

Existing Elevation(s) 21 May 2012 D.02

Proposed Floor Plan(s) 21 May 2012 D.03

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 Proposed Elevation(s) 21 May 2012 D.03

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt

Summary of reasons for decision and any relevant development plan policies/proposal:

It is considered that the proposal meets the aims and objectives of Local Plan Policy and respects the character of the location, complying with Policies ST3 and RES13 of the Lewes District Local Plan. The proposal is also considered to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 APPLICATION ITEM LW/12/0577 NUMBER: NUMBER: 7 APPLICANTS PARISH / Ringmer / Mr B Richardson NAME(S): WARD: Ouse Valley & Ringmer Planning Application for Erection of a single storey extension to the PROPOSAL: rear SITE ADDRESS: 26 Christie Avenue Ringmer East Sussex BN8 5JT GRID REF: TQ 4412

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

1. SITE DESCRIPTION / PROPOSAL

1.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single storey rear extension at 26 Christie Avenue, a semi-detached property located within the planning boundary in Ringmer.

1.2 The proposed extension would measure 5.5m wide x 4m deep with an inset to the south-west corner, adjacent to the side boundary and a flat roof of 3m high. The building would be finished in brick to match the house with a felt roof and glazed double doors and a window to the rear elevation and a glazed door to the south-east side elevation. The extension would provide a dining room and en-suite/utility room.

2. RELEVANT POLICIES

LDLP: – ST03 – Design, Form and Setting of Development

LDLP: – RES13 – All extensions

3. PLANNING HISTORY

No relevant planning history

4. REPRESENTATIONS FROM STANDARD CONSULTEES

Main Town Or Parish Council – Recommendation: The Parish Council objects to this application as submitted as the proposal would be too large and tall having an overbearing impact on the adjoining dwelling, particularly given levels and relative orientation, & contrary to the aims of Policy RES13 of the Local Plan.

Officer response: The extension is of standard height for a flat roof single storey building and has been inset away from the adjoining property reducing any impact on these occupiers. The ground levels of this semi-detached pair where the extension is proposed are the same and it is only the gardens that step up to the rear. The proposal complies with the requirements of Policy RES13.

ESCC Archaeologist – The proposed development is situated within an Archaeological Notification Area defining an area of significant medieval pottery production. To date, five medieval pottery kilns have been recorded in the immediate vicinity, including one in the garden of the adjacent property. It is therefore highly likely that other contemporary and related features survive within the area of 26 Christie Avenue.

The applicant has not submitted a heritage statement as required by the National Planning Policy Framework, so detail regarding past and proposed impact is unclear, but archaeological potential is assumed to be high.

In the light of the potential for loss of heritage assets on this site resulting from development the area affected by the proposals should be the subject of a programme of archaeological works. This will enable any archaeological deposits and features, disturbed during the proposed works, to be adequately recorded. These recommendations are in line with the requirements given in the NPPF.

“141. Local planning authorities should make information about the significance of the historic environment gathered as part of plan-making or development management publicly accessible. They should also require developers to record and advance understanding of

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.”

Southern Gas Networks – Standard gas safety advice

5. REPRESENTATIONS FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS

5.1 None

6. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 The north-west boundary of the site adjoining the neighbouring property is currently screened by a 2m high fence with 0.5m trellis above. The proposed extension would be approximately 0.5m higher than the top of the fence as existing and set in 0.25m from this boundary. The south-west corner of the extension has been inset to ensure that it complies with the 60 degree line of sight from the adjoining property and the section adjacent to the boundary is reduced to 3m in depth. These measures have been taken to comply with policy and reduce any adverse impact on the residential amenities of the adjoining occupiers. The height of the roof at only 0.5m above the existing fence is considered acceptable and would not result in overshadowing or enclosing the adjoining property.

6.2 The existing garage adjacent to the south-east boundary forms screening at 2.4m high positioned 2.3m from the rear wall of the house. The proposed extension would adjoin the garage closing the gap between these two structures and replacing the brick boundary wall and gate to this boundary with the wall of the extension. The adjacent property is located approximately 5m from the side wall of the extension and separated from the application site by two garages. The distance between these properties and the height and location of the extension would ensure that the amenities of these occupiers would not be adversely affected by the development.

6.3 A new window to the south-east elevation at ground floor level, to serve the kitchen is also proposed; however this is permitted development and therefore cannot be considered in the determination of this application.

6.4 The extension would not be visible within the streetscene and would have no detrimental impact on its surroundings. The proposal is considered to accord with policy and is acceptable.

7. RECOMMENDATION

That planning permission is granted.

The application is subject to the following conditions:

1. No development shall take place until the developer has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work, in accordance with a Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation which has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.

Reason: To ensure that the archaeological and historical interest of the site is safeguarded and recorded to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

2. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the archaeological site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition [1] and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured.

Reason: To ensure that the archaeological and historical interest of the site is safeguarded and recorded to comply with the National Planning Policy Framework

3. The development hereby approved shall be finished in external materials to match those used in the existing building.

4. This planning decision relates solely to the following plan(s):

PLAN TYPE DATE RECEIVED REFERENCE

Planning Statement/Brief 7 June 2012

Location Plan 7 June 2012 1:1250

Proposed Block Plan 7 June 2012 1:500

Existing Floor Plan(s) 7 June 2012 01

Existing Elevation(s) 7 June 2012 02

Existing Elevation(s) 7 June 2012 03

Existing Elevation(s) 7 June 2012 04

Proposed Floor Plan(s) 7 June 2012 05

Proposed Elevation(s) 7 June 2012 06

Proposed Elevation(s) 7 June 2012 07

Proposed Elevation(s) 7 June 2012 08

Proposed Section(s) 7 June 2012 09

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt

Summary of reasons for decision and any relevant development plan policies/proposal:

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

Part B

Applications within the South Downs National Park

National Park Purposes:

The two statutory purposes of the South Downs National Park designations are:

 To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas;  To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas.

If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is also a duty to foster the economic and social well being of the local community in pursuit of these purposes. Government policy relating to national parks set out in PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and Circular 20/10 is that they have the highest status of protection in relation to natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage and their conservation and enhancement must, therefore, be given great weight in development control decisions. APPLICATION ITEM SDNP/12/00880/HOUS NUMBER: NUMBER: 8 APPLICANTS PARISH / Ditchling/Ditchling & Ms L Maiden NAME(S): WARD: Westmeston Section 73A Retrospective application for retention of a bicycle shed PROPOSAL: at front SITE ADDRESS: 11 The Twitten, Ditchling, Hassocks, East Sussex, BN6 8UJ GRID REF: TQ 3215

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

1. SITE DESCRIPTION / PROPOSAL

1.1 The application property is a mid terraced dwelling located on the eastern side of The Twitten in Ditchling. The Twitten is a pedestrian path, approximately 100m in length, linking Lewes Road in the south with East End Lane in the north. The six properties in the terrace have small front gardens which get progressively smaller at the northern end of the terrace. The front gardens have a simple metal railed boundary treatment to the Twitten.

1.2 The proposal is seeking retrospective permission to retain a simple timber cycle shed in the front garden.

2. RELEVANT POLICIES

LDLP: – ST3 – Design, Form and Setting of Development

LDLP: – H5 – Within or Affecting Conservation Areas

3. PLANNING HISTORY

LW/11/0278/NP – Erection of a garden room to replace existing shed – Approved

4. REPRESENTATIONS FROM STANDARD CONSULTEES

East Sussex County Archaeologist – No objection, conditions are not necessary.

Design And Conservation Officer – The bicycle store, while visible, is not considered to be overly prominent within The Twitten due to its relatively discreet location within the front garden and the vegetation that surrounds the boundary of the site acting as a modest screen. No objection is therefore raised to the proposal.

It should be noted that approval of this application should not lead to a precedent for allowing similar stores along the twitten because of the above circumstances. Any similar proposal along The Twitten would need to be considered on its own merits, with particular reference to its prominence.

Ditchling Parish Council – Ditchling Parish Council wishes to object to the application on the grounds that it is not in keeping with the open setting of the row of cottages within the Conservation Area; it has a detrimental effect on the street scene especially from the north of The Twitten; it is un-neighbourly to No 9.

5. REPRESENTATIONS FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS

5.1 No neighbour representations were received.

6. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 The shed measures 2m wide by 0.8m deep, with a pent roof with a maximum height of 1.47m high. It is currently light brown in colour. It is constructed from shiplap timber with a mineral felt roof. It is used for the storage of cycles. The shed is located at right angles to the dwelling with its rear wall parallel to the boundary with number 9, immediately to the north. The location in the front garden was chosen as there is no direct access to the small rear garden, other than going through the house.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 6.2 Walking north along the Twitten the shed is relatively unobtrusive and largely screened by existing vegetation. The structure is more visible when walking south where the rear of the shed is glimpsed against the existing boundary treatment and vegetation in the front garden of the adjacent dwelling.

6.3 The properties to the south in the terrace have more open front gardens, due largely to the location of the dwellings further back from the Twitten, which gives a feeling of spaciousness to the immediate area. It is not considered that either the spaciousness or the street scene is unduly prejudiced by the proposal, due to the size of the shed and the presence of existing vegetation along the boundary of the plot.

6.4 The roof of the shed is the same height as the existing boundary treatment with the neighbour to the north (number 9). As such it is not considered that the proposal is un- neighbourly or would prejudice residential amenity.

6.5 The shed is more visible walking south, where the rear wall is visible through the existing boundary treatment and vegetation. The visual impact could be lessened by simply staining the timber a suitable shade of green, which would help it to blend in with the existing vegetation.

6.6 On balance it is considered that the shed is relatively unobtrusive and does not impact detrimentally on the street scene, neighbours or the surrounding conservation area. As such the proposal is not considered to prejudice the two purposes of the SDNPA. A condition requiring the shed to be stained green would lessen the limited impact that the structure has from the north.

7. RECOMMENDATION

That planning permission be granted.

The application is subject to the following conditions

1. Within 28 days of the date of this permission, details of an alternative stain treatment for the timber shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and implemented in accordance with that approval, within 28 days.

Reason: To minimise the visual impact on the surroundings having regard to Policy H05 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)./ To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

This decision is based on the following submitted plans/documents:

Plan Type Reference Version Date on Plan Received No. 11.06.2012 Location Plan

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 Block Plans 1:50 11.06.2012

Photographs 11.06.2012

Design and 14.06.2012 Access Statement

Summary of reasons for decision and any relevant development plan policies/proposal:

It is considered that the proposal accords with the statutory purposes of the South Downs National Park designation and meets the aims and objectives of Local Plan Policy and respects the character of the location, complying with Policies ST3 and H05 of the Lewes District Local Plan. The proposal is also considered to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 APPLICATION ITEM SDNP/12/00184/FUL NUMBER: NUMBER: 9 APPLICANTS PARISH / Lewes CP/Lewes Jeary Developments NAME(S): WARD: Bridge Ward Demolition of existing commercial building and erection of replacement building comprising seven x ground floor B1 spaces PROPOSAL: with seven x two and three bedroom maisonettes over, together with an additional two storey B1 structure SITE ADDRESS: Falcon Wharf, Railway Lane, Lewes, East Sussex GRID REF: TQ 4110

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

1. SITE DESCRIPTION / PROPOSAL

1.1 The application site is located on the western side of the River Ouse, approximately 80m to the south of Cliffe Bridge and within the Conservation Area. The site is bounded by the River Ouse to the east, Railway Lane to the west, Vipers Wharf to the north, and Stricklands Warehouse, a grade II listed building, to the south. Greyfriars Court, a flatted development for the elderly, is located to the south west of the site on the western side of Railway Lane.

1.2 The site itself has a length of 38m on the river side and 40m onto Railway Lane. It is 18m wide at its northern end where it is attached to Vipers Wharf, and 21m at the southern end adjacent to Stricklands Warehouse. The site has a site coverage or approximately 760sq.m.

1.4 The surrounding buildings which vary in height from 3 storeys (Greyfriars Court) to 4/5 storeys (Stricklands, Vipers and Pannetts Building), are largely constructed from brick, with a predominant use of natural slate.

1.5 The building is currently in commercial use, providing an osteopath practise, 3 office suites, and accommodation for the St John’s Ambulance. The proposal is to demolish the existing building and to replace it with a development ranging in height from 2 to 5 storeys. The development will provide 7 ground floor commercial units and a two storey commercial unit at the southern end, providing a total commercial floorspace of 305sq.m. (This is a reduction of approximately 25% over the existing floorspace). The upper floors will provide 7 residential units, providing 2 x 2 bed, 2 x 3 bed and 3 x 4 bed flats and maisonettes. Ten car parking spaces will be provided to the front of the building, in a similar arrangement to that which currently exists. The redevelopment of the site will also allow the existing river wall to be upgraded and refurbished.

2. RELEVANT POLICIES

LDLP: – ST3 – Design, Form and Setting of Development)

LDLP: – H5 – Within or Affecting Conservation Areas

3. PLANNING HISTORY

SDNP/12/00185/CON – Demolition of existing commercial building and erection of replacement building comprising 7 No ground floor B1 spaces with 7 No 2 & 3 bedroom maisonettes over, together with an additional 2 storey B1 structure – Jointly reported on this agenda.

LW/08/0537 – New fire escape link & internal alterations – Approved

LW/08/1116 – Change of use of ground floor from office/day care to D1 – Approved

LW/86/2091 – Conversion of ground floor stores into offices – Approved

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 LW/80/2112 – Conversion of existing ground floor stores into offices – Approved

4. REPRESENTATIONS FROM STANDARD CONSULTEES

Environmental Health – Conditions recommended: - Universal condition for development on land affected by contamination - Verification report - Long-term monitoring - Unsuspected contamination - Noise from electricity sub-stations. - Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) - Wheel cleaning facility - Vehicle Loads - Hours of Construction

ESCC Highways – I have no objection to the proposed development and recommend highway conditions.

Summary It is noted that the existing use involves 411m² of B1 use. In addition to the B1 use there is an osteopath which appears to have 3 practioners and also deals with pilates and various other therapies. The site also provides for the St.Johns Ambulance office. Although no information is given on traffic generation given the existing/potential use of the site a strong highway objection would be difficult to justify in terms of traffic generation.

The East Sussex County Council's adopted parking standards suggests that this development proposal should be provided with 9 parking spaces for the flats and 10 spaces for the commercial element. However, the site is in zone 3 and is therefore expected to be provided with 50 -75 % of this standard thus 10 to 14 spaces. However, bearing in mind that the site abuts zone 2 whereby the spaces could be reduced further and the existing parking situation I am willing to accept the 9 spaces proposed. The applicant's attention is drawn to the parking informative below restricting parking permits for the residential element of this proposal.

I therefore recommend that any consent shall include the following attached conditions:-

1. The building shall not be occupied until any redundant sections of the forecourt access has been stopped up and the kerb reinstated in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway

2. Prior to demolition works commencing on site a Traffic Management Scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. This shall include the size of vehicles, routing of vehicles and hours of operation. Given the restrictions surrounding the site the hours of delivery/collection should avoid peak traffic flow times.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and for the benefit and convenience of the public at large.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 3. The development shall not be occupied until parking areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and the areas shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of motor vehicles.

Reason: To ensure the safety of persons and vehicles entering and leaving the access and proceeding along the highway.

4. The development shall not be occupied until cycle parking areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and the areas shall thereafter be retained for that use and shall not be used other than for the parking of cycles.

Reason: In order that the development site is accessible by non car modes and to meet the objectives of sustainable development.

INFORMATIVE: The applicant should be aware that in accordance with Article 23 of the Lewes Parking Orders dated 28 December 2007, residents of this development [residential element] are unlikely to be eligible for on street parking permits."

Design and Conservation Officer – The proposed scale and massing reflects the neighbouring buildings. Although its footprint is larger than its neighbours its height at the end units has been brought down, avoiding an overly bulky appearance that would compete for dominance with the neighbouring buildings. There are also numerous set backs which further help to break up the proposed building’s massing.

The fenestration facing the River Ouse partially reflects the solid to void relationship with the neighbouring properties in that the void, i.e. openings, are small. The bay windows loosely reference the loading bays found on the upper storeys of the existing warehouse buildings, without mimicking them precisely. Materials are vernacular and would therefore be in keeping with the buildings found on the River Ouse and the wider conservation area. The proposed modern character of the building would be read as a reinterpretation of the warehouse buildings located along the Ouse without resorting to a bad pastiche of the neighbouring buildings.

As a result of the above considerations the proposal is considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area.

No objection is raised to the proposal subject to the following conditions:

The works of demolition hereby permitted shall not be begun until documentary evidence is submitted to the Local Planning Authority showing that contracts have been entered into by the developer to ensure that building work is commenced in accordance with a scheme for which Planning Permission has been granted within a period of 6 months following commencement of demolition.

No development shall commence until full details of all external materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the works carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Prior to commencement of works details of the windows, doors, rooflights, balconies and other openings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the works carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 No new plumbing, pipes, soil stacks, rainwater goods, flues, vents, ductwork grilles, gas meter boxes, security alarms, lighting, cameras or other associated enabling works shall be attached to the external faces of the building other than those shown on the approved drawings or otherwise first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

No development shall begin on site until details of renewable technologies incorporated into the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and carried out in accordance with that consent before the dwellings are occupied.

No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works, including a detailed planting schedule for the landscaped buffer and detailing the planting of appropriate street trees to the front garden areas, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved prior to the occupation of the dwellings.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development described in Part 1 Classes A to G of Schedule 2, other than hereby permitted, shall be undertaken unless the Local Planning Authority otherwise agrees in writing.

Environment Agency – We consider that planning permission should only be granted to the proposed development as submitted if the following planning condition is imposed as set out below. Without this condition, the proposed development on this site poses an unacceptable risk to the environment and we would wish to object to the application.

Condition 1 (Finished floor levels) The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) dated March 2012 (TA/20/FalconWharf, Environmental Assessment Services Ltd) and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:

1. Finished habitable first floor levels are set no lower than 7.00 m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).

Reason: To reduce the impact of flooding on the proposed development and future occupants.

Condition 2 (river wall construction) The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Design and Access Statement dated April 2012 and the following mitigation measure detailed on Page 4:

1. That the existing river wall be repaired and raised to provide protection from the predicted 1 in 100 year flood event.

Reason: To reduce the impact of flooding on the proposed development and future occupants.

Informative

Any works in, under, over or within the channel of the River Ouse, or within 15 metres of the top of bank or wall, requires the prior written approval of the Agency under the Water Resources Act 1991 and our own Byelaws.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

Lewes Town Council – Members received a presentation from John Turner (Architect) and Paul Jeary (Applicant). The residential dwellings proposed would be 2 -4 storeys in 8 units. The proposal had a similar footprint to the existing building, and took cues from neighbours. The design included use of natural slate and timber and had evolved in light of pre-application discussions with the planning authority. Members expressed a general welcome for the overall appearance, and details such as intelligently-sited solar panels and high standards of insulation. There were various questions on aspects of parking provision; balcony and fenestration designs, and flood resilience. Two letters were received, one from a local resident expressing strong support and citing the appropriateness of the design and careful attention to details, and another on behalf of residents of Greyfriars Court, opposite the site, which outlined concerns such as overlooking; reduction in light; visual dominance, and inadequate parking/traffic problems.

Members acknowledged concerns of local residents but considered the plans to be an overall improvement to the area, and that fears may not be realised in practice. They agreed the view that the thoughtful design and detailing was to be welcomed, and considered that the development was sympathetic to neighbouring properties and should be supported.

5. OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 13 letters received objecting to the proposal on the grounds of impact on residential amenity through blocking of light and loss of views, lack of parking, danger to pedestrains, building too high, reduced sunlight, traffic congestion, overlooking, overbearing, increased noise, out of scale with this part of Lewes, significant change to the area.

5.2 5 letters of support - attractive contemporary replacement building, and a re-build of the river wall, better than the existing ugly building, sympathetic to the neighbouring buildings, not a weak imitation of the past, detailing is clean and competent, massing acceptable, good mix of workshops and living space, allows glimpse of the river.

5.3 Friends of Lewes - commend the good design of this application which they consider to be a good solution to the development of this site. The Society's one concern is the possible use of the roof terraces and consider a noise condition might be appropriate.

5.4 LCAAG - Group believes that breaking down the mass into gabled elements at right angles to the river is successful and to be admired. Scaling down at ends works well. Questioned location of balconies, bay windows on riverside might be too fussy

5.5 South Downs Society - welcome the design approach, but too much development on site and roof forms don't give a simple silhouette. The loss of commercial floorspace is regretted. Dwellings are considered suitable for family dwelling having no communal safe play provision, therefore recommend refusal due to over development, cluttered roof form, loss of commercial floorspace and lack of recreational space for family dwellings.

5.6 Chairman of Greyfriars Court Ltd - objects, the amended plans do nothing to address concerns over loss of privacy, un-neighbourliness and sheer bulk. Three storeys is quite enough. Elevation to the river is second rate and unworthy of this important site, the bay windows look stuck-on and would look better if carried up to the eaves and the pitched roof extended over them.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 6. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 In assessing the application it is considered that the key issues in the determination are: design; visual impact on the Conservation Area & wider surroundings: impact on residential amenity: traffic issues: and legal agreement.

Design

6.2 The buildings in the vicinity of the application site form a linear development of largely traditional warehouse architecture, facing onto the river, and in many instances built directly off the river wall. This form of architecture and layout has influenced the design of the current proposal.

6.3 The new building would be realigned with Vipers Wharf to the north and Stricklands Warehouse to the south. It will be built closer to the river wall, appearing to grow out of the wall itself in places. The existing building is physically attached to Vipers Wharf. The new development will separate the buildings, creating a new gap between the buildings, 2m at the front and 2.4m on the river side, which will serve to enhance the street scene and public realm by creating a visual break between the buildings and allowing further glimpses of the land and development on the eastern side of the river.

6.4 The new building has been designed to respect the scale of the neighbouring former warehouse buildings. The three central elements are of a similar scale with a strong gable appearance to the east and west, respecting the general forms of the neighbouring buildings. The north and south elements then step down with mono pitch roofs, creating subsidiary elements which help to respect the amenities of the adjacent occupiers.

6.5 Whilst the scale and form respect the neighbouring buildings, the design has reinterpreted the traditional warehouse buildings along the river, providing a building of contemporary appearance which successfully avoids becoming a pastiche of its neighbours. Both main elevations are heavily articulated, with the river elevation incorporating narrow projecting bays which add visual interest, allow views up and down the river from within the building, and emphasis the verticality of the building. To the front the facades incorporate large amounts of glazing with recessed balconies and terraces.

6.6 The building will be clad in a combination of vertical slate hanging and painted timber boarding. The projecting bays would be clad in lead with simple glass balustrade to the balconies. The pitch roof would be covered in slate. The materials palette is considered acceptable, giving the building an appearance that sits comfortably within its surroundings.

Visual Impact on the Conservation Area and wider surroundings

6.7 The existing building, despite being refurbished to upgrade the internal accommodation and the external appearance, is out of keeping with its surroundings, in its appearance, scale, and layout. It’s massing and appearance is out of keeping and fails to enhance the character of the surrounding area. This is more noticeable on the river side, where the piecemeal alteration and extension to the building seriously detracts from the appearance of this extremely visible riverside site and the warehouses that front the river.

6.8 The development has been designed to provide a traditional building form in keeping with its surroundings, which with its contemporary detailing, creates a sympathetic building of its time, and which will enhance this important riverside site, and visually enhance both the street scene and the riverside.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 6.9 The hard and soft landscaping surrounding the building and the laying out of formal car parking spaces along Railway Lane will serve to enhance the public realm in the vicinity of the building.

6.10 The site is located within the centre of the town. Therefore it is not considered that the proposal would prejudice either of the two purposes of the National Park. The replacement of the existing building with a well designed, contemporary building will serve to enhance the character of the immediate area and the setting of the adjacent listed building to the south.

Impact on residential amenity

6.11 There are three principal buildings in the immediate vicinity of the application site that could be directly affected by the development. To the north is Vipers Wharf, a 4 storey warehouse building with commercial use on the ground floor and 2 residential units above. To the south is Stricklands Warehouse, which has been converted into 2 residential units. To the west, directly opposite the development site, and bounded by Railway Lane and Court Road is Greyfriars Court, a flatted development of sheltered flats. The impact of the development needs to be considered against each of these properties.

6.12 The applicant has submitted a detailed Daylight and Sunlight Assessment with the application, as the proposed building would be significantly higher than the existing and could therefore affect both daylight and sunlight to existing windows. This has been carried out in accordance with the ‘Site Layout planning for daylight and sunlight. A guide to good practise’, produced by the British Research Establishment. In terms of daylight any loss greater than 20% of the daylight that is received before the development takes place is considered to result in a significant impact. In terms of sunlight, the British Standard BS8206 recommends that domestic windows should received >25% annual and >5% winter sunlight. (An assessment is made where a line, projecting at 25 degrees from the horizontal at a point 2m above floor level in line with the plane of the windows is obstructed by the new building). It is against these guidelines that the impact was assessed.

6.13 Stricklands Warehouse is approximately 14.2m high, and has 12 windows serving residential rooms on the north elevation, facing directly onto the application site. Because of the design of the new building and the dropped mono pitch roof at the southern end, the majority of the existing windows would be unaffected and do not require assessment. Two rooms on the first floor did require further assessment. One of these, serving a room described as a music room, did have a reduction in annual sunlight from 28% to 22%, which is below the guideline figure. However as this window faces north west, and is a dual aspect, the loss of direct sunlight would only occur late in the day during the middle of summer. It is therefore not considered that this reduction of sunlight would prejudice amenity to a level that would justify further amendments to the scheme or a refusal.

6.14 Vipers Wharf is located to the north of the development and currently is attached to the existing building. It has a ridge height of approximately 12.4m and 6 residential windows on its southern elevation which could be impacted on by the proposed development. The proposed building has been set 2 – 2.4m away from Vipers Wharf, and has been designed with a low mono pitch roof. This ensures that the development complies with the 25 degree outlook angle form the upper level windows. However a window and a glazed door required a detailed assessment. Both of these elements are already currently affected by an existing fire escape for the upper residential unit, whilst the door serves a room which has windows on the north east of the room.

6.15 The assessment indicated that, in terms of daylight, whilst there would be a loss of daylight of approximately 11% this was within the guideline figure. In terms of sunlight,

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 whilst there will be a reduction in sunlight, the window and door will still receive above the recommended minimum (at 43 and 31 % annual and 7 and 13% winter).

6.16 Only one window on Greyfriars Court was deemed to fail to comply with the 25 degree outlook angle and therefore required an assessment. This window was on the ground floor and had bars across it. In both instances (daylight and sunlight) the development was shown not to make the existing situation any worse than existing.

6.17 Therefore, whilst it is accepted that redeveloping the site to provide a building of greater mass and height than the existing would impact on daylight and sunlight to some degree on the adjacent buildings, the assessment carried out in accordance with established guide lines would indicate that the impact is within the established guide lines and therefore should not prejudice residential amenity to the degree that a refusal is justified.

6.18 The other amenity issued raised as part of the consultation process was noise. Balconies are located facing onto Railway Lane. These are relatively small, being only a maximum of 1.5m deep on the second floor with the third floor offering balconettes at 0.4m deep. It is therefore not considered that these would in themselves result in noise nuisance and thus prejudice residential amenity.

6.19 Units 3, 4 and 5 will each have a roof terrace, with a floorspace of approximately 24sq.m, located centrally and set back from both the front and rear elevations of the building. A further terrace closer to Vipers Wharf has been deleted from the scheme in order to prevent any potential nuisance. The balconies and terraces are relatively small and provide a small element of private external space for the future occupants. The use of these areas in association with the residential use of the properties, their location and the separation distance between the proposed building and the adjacent properties, should not result in excessive noise nuisance or overlooking.

Traffic

6.20 The development will provide 10 off street car parking spaces (increased from 9) set out across the forecourt in a similar manner to the current arrangement. They will be arranged in blocks of 3, 2 and 5 spaces, separated by wide landscaped strips with street trees. At the southern end space will be provided on the forecourt for cycle parking for visitors to the building whilst at the northern end an enclosed recycling store will be located. A secure cycle store for residents and occupiers of the business units will be located to the south of the building.

6.21 The highway authority have stated that given the likely traffic generation associated with the current use which includes 3 practicing osteopaths, other therapy uses, and the St John Ambulance office, and a reduction in the amount of commercial floorspace, it would be difficult to justify a strong highway objection. Whilst the level of parking is under that which they would normally require, they have had regard to the uses, both existing and proposed, the fact that the site abuts Zone 2 which requires less parking, and the parking situation locally including the proximity to the existing car park.

6.22 It is not considered that the proposal would lead to increased hazards on the highway. The reduction in the number of car parking spaces together with the improved layout of the spaces themselves will enhance the street scene without prejudicing amenity or the safety of pedestrians and other road users.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 6.23 The highway authority has requested a number of conditions to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with their requirements. They have also stated that future residential occupiers of the development will not be eligible for on street parking permits.

Legal Agreement

6.24 The nature of the development is such that the following financial contributions will be necessary - £130.55 towards recycling, £11,300 towards improved accessibility, and £26,167 towards casual and equipped play space. The applicant has stated in writing that they are willing to enter into a legal agreement to secure such contributions.

7. RECOMMENDATION

The proposed development will bring about a substantial improvement to the site and the wider surroundings, replacing a building which fails to respect the grain, scale and appearance of the surrounding buildings, with a building that enhances the conservation area and the townscape in this part of the town. It will achieve this without prejudicing residential amenity or highway safety, and provide a modern mixed use development.

It is therefore recommended that planning permission is granted subject to a legal agreement to secure the contributions mentioned above, and subject to conditions.

The application is subject to the following conditions

1. No development or demolition shall take place until a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved plan shall set out the arrangements for managing all environmental effects of the development during the demolition and construction period, including traffic (a workers travel plan and on-site parking), temporary site security fencing, artificial illumination, noise, vibration, dust, air pollution and odour, and shall be implemented in full throughout the duration of the construction works, unless a variation is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. It shall also include details of all signage on the approaches to the site, their wording and location, advising of the restricted delivery times, traffic routing to and from the site, holding areas for vehicles, and the use of banksman to control deliveries and traffic movements to and from the site

Reason: In the interests of amenity of the locality and local residents having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan.

2. No development shall take place within the area indicated (this would be the area of archaeological interest) until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has/have secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and carried out in accordance with that approval

Reason: To comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

3. Before the development hereby approved is commenced on site, details/samples of all external materials including all roofing and facing materials, glazing and materials for the balconies, fenestration, and materials for the riverside screen, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and carried out in accordance with that consent.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development in keeping with the locality having regard to Policies ST3 and H05 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

4. Before the development hereby approved is commenced on site, detailed plans to show the junction details between each the different materials, the eaves details, and details of the windows, doors, rooflights, balconies and other openings at a scale of at least 1:10 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and carried out in accordance with that consent.

Reason: To protect the character of the area having regard to Policy H05 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

5. No development shall begin on site until details of renewable technologies incorporated into the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and carried out in accordance with that consent before the dwellings are occupied.

6. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works with particular attention to the surfacing materials and landscaping to the front forecourt area have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved.

7. Before any air handling plant is used on the premises, it shall be enclosed with sound insulating material and mounted in a way which will minimise transmission of structure borne sound in accordance with a scheme to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to protect the amenity of residents having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

8. No new plumbing, pipes, soil stacks, rainwater goods, flues, vents, ductwork grilles, gas meter boxes, security alarms, lighting, cameras or other associated enabling works shall be attached to the external faces of the building other than those shown on the approved drawings or otherwise first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

9. The development permitted by this permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) dated March 2012 (TA/20/FalconWharf, Environmental Assessment Services Ltd) and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:1 – Finished habitable first floor levels are set no lower than 7.00m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 Reason: To reduce the impact of flooding on the proposed development and future occupants having regard to Policy ST3 and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

10. The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Design and Access Statement dated April 2012 and the following mitigation measure detailed on Page 4: 1 – That the existing river wall be repaired and raised to provide protection from the predicted 1 in 100 year flood event.

Reason: To reduce the impact of flooding on the proposed development and future occupants, having regard to Policy ST3 and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

11. The building shall not be occupied until any redundant sections of the forecourt access has been stopped up and the kerb reinstated in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

Reason: In order to protect the safety of other road users having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

12. The development shall not be occupied until the cycle parking and car parking spaces have been constructed and provided on site in accordance with the approved plans.

Reason: In the interests of and for the safety of persons and vehicles using premises and/or adjoining road, and to secure a satisfactory standard of development having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

13. Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority: 1. A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: • all previous uses • potential contaminants associated with those uses • a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors • potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. 2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 3. The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: In the interests of health & safety of the future occupiers of the site having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 14. Prior to occupation of any part of the permitted development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a “long-term monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the local planning authority.

15. If during development, contamination not previously identified, is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority, for an addendum to the Method Statement. This addendum to the Method Statement must detail how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and from the date of approval the addendum(s) shall form part of the Method Statement.

Reason: In the interest of health & safety of the future occupiers of the site having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

16. Reports on monitoring, maintenance and any contingency action carried out in accordance with a long term monitoring plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority as set out in that plan. On completion of the monitoring programme a final report demonstrating that all long term site remediation criteria have been met and documenting the decision to cease monitoring shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of health and safety of the future occupiers of the site having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

17. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the provisions of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)./ To comply with Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

This decision is based on the following submitted plans/documents:

Plan Type Reference Version Date on Plan Received No. TA 615 17.04.2012 Design and Access Statement

Justification or TA 615 17.04.2012 Heritage Statement

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

Sunlight/Daylight FEB 2012 17.04.2012 Assessment

Flood Risk MARCH 2012 17.04.2012 Assessment

Photographs ELEVS EX 17.04.2012 AND PROP

Location Plan TA 615/01 17.04.2012

Block Plans TA 615/01 17.04.2012

Survey TA 615/02 17.04.2012

Existing Elevations TA 615/03 17.04.2012

Sections TA 615/03 17.04.2012

Block Plans TA 615/05 17.04.2012

Planning Layout TA 615/06 17.04.2012

Proposed Floor TA 615/07 17.04.2012 Plans

Proposed Floor TA 615/08 17.04.2012 Plans

Proposed Floor TA 615/09 17.04.2012 Plans

Proposed Floor TA 615/10 17.04.2012 Plans

Proposed Floor TA 615/11 17.04.2012 Plans

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 Street Scene TA 615/12 17.04.2012

Proposed TA 615/13 17.04.2012 Elevations

Sections TA 615/13 17.04.2012

Proposed TA 615/14 17.04.2012 Elevations

Sections TA 615/15 17.04.2012

Proposed TA 615/16 17.04.2012 Elevations

Proposed TA 615/17 17.04.2012 Elevations

Sections 13695/1/01 17.04.2012

Planning Layout 13695/1/02 17.04.2012

Block Plans TA 615/05 19.06.2012 REV:A

Planning Layout TA 615/06 19.06.2012 REV:A

Proposed Floor TA 615/07 19.06.2012 Plans REV:B

Proposed Floor TA 615/08 19.06.2012 Plans REV:A

Proposed Floor TA 615/09 19.06.2012 Plans REV:B

Proposed Floor TA 615/10 19.06.2012 Plans REV:B

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 Proposed Floor TA 615/11 19.06.2012 Plans REV:A

Street Scene TA 615/12 19.06.2012 REV:B

Proposed TA 615/13 19.06.2012 Elevations REV:A

Sections TA 615/13 19.06.2012 REV:A

Proposed TA 615/14 19.06.2012 Elevations REV:A

Proposed TA 615/16 19.06.2012 Elevations REV:A

Proposed TA 615/17 19.06.2012 Elevations REV:A

Illustration FRONT ELEV 27.06.2012 (EXIST & PROP) REV:A

Illustration REAR ELEV 27.06.2012 (EXIST & PROP) REV:A

INFORMATIVE(S)

1. The applicant should be aware that in accordance with Article 23 of the Lewes Parking Orders dated 28 December 2007, residents of this development [residential element] are unlikely to be eligible for on street parking permits

2. Any works in, under, over or within the channel of the River Ouse, or within 15 metres of the top of bank or wall, requires the prior written approval of the Agency under the Water Resources Act 1991 and our own Byelaws

Summary of reasons for decision and any relevant development plan policies/proposal:

It is considered that the proposal accords with the statutory purposes of the South Downs National Park designation and meets the aims and objectives of Local Plan Policy and respects the character of the location, complying with Policies ST03 and H05 of the Lewes District Local Plan. The proposal is also considered to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 APPLICATION ITEM SDNP/12/00185/CON NUMBER: NUMBER: 10 APPLICANTS PARISH / Lewes CP/Lewes Jeary Developments NAME(S): WARD: Bridge Ward PROPOSAL: Demolition of commercial building SITE ADDRESS: Falcon Wharf, Railway Lane, Lewes, East Sussex GRID REF: TQ 4110

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

1. SITE DESCRIPTION / PROPOSAL

1.3 The site is occupied by a predominantly 2 storey building, built in the 1930’s and having been upgraded more recently. However, it is a long low building with a painted brick façade and a shallow pitch mansard roof over, which is unsympathetic to the area both in terms of its grain, scale and materials and thus seriously detracts from the character and visual quality of the wider area, especially the river frontage. The surrounding buildings which vary in height from 3 storeys (Greyfriars Court) to 4/5 storeys (Stricklands, Vipers and Pannetts Building), are largely constructed from brick, with a predominant use of natural slate.

1.4 This application is seeking consent to demolish the existing building. An application to replace it with a mixed development of commercial and residential use (see SDNP/12/00184) is also on this agenda.

2. RELEVANT POLICIES

LDLP: – ST3 – Design, Form and Setting of Development)

LDLP: – H5 – Within or Affecting Conservation Areas

3. PLANNING HISTORY

SDNP/12/00184/FUL – Demolition of existing commercial building and erection of replacement building comprising 7 No ground floor B1 space with 7 No 2 & 3 beedroom maisonettes over, together with an additional 2 storey B1 structure – Reported jointly on this agenda

LW/08/0537 – New fire escape link & internal alterations – Approved

LW/08/1116 – Change of use of ground floor from office/day care to D1 – Approved

LW/86/2091 – Conversion of ground floor stores into offices – Approved

LW/80/2112 – Conversion of existing ground floor stores into offices – Approved

4. REPRESENTATIONS FROM STANDARD CONSULTEES

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 compete for dominance with the neighbouring buildings. There are also numerous set backs which further help to break up the proposed building’s massing.

As a result of the above considerations the proposal is considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area.

No objection is raised to the proposal subject to the following conditions:

No new plumbing, pipes, soil stacks, rainwater goods, flues, vents, ductwork grilles, gas meter boxes, security alarms, lighting, cameras or other associated enabling works shall be attached to the external faces of the building other than those shown on the approved drawings or otherwise first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 Lewes Town Council – As SDNP/12/00184/FUL

Members received a presentation from John Turner (Architect) and Paul Jeary (Applicant). The residential dwellings proposed would be 2 -4 storeys in 8 units. The proposal had a similar footprint to the existing building, and took cues from neighbours. The design included use of natural slate and timber and had evolved in light of pre-application discussions with the planning authority. Members expressed a general welcome for the overall appearance, and details such as intelligently-sited solar panels and high standards of insulation. There were various questions on aspects of parking provision; balcony and fenestration designs, and flood resilience. Two letters were received, one from a local resident expressing strong support and citing the appropriateness of the design and careful attention to details, and another on behalf of residents of Greyfriars Court, opposite the site, which outlined concerns such as overlooking; reduction in light; visual dominance, and inadequate parking/traffic problems. Members acknowledged concerns of local residents but considered the plans to be an overall improvement to the area, and that fears may not be realised in practice. They agreed the view that the thoughtful design and detailing was to be welcomed, and considered that the development was sympathetic to neighbouring properties and should be supported.

5. OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 13 letters received objecting to the proposal on the grounds of impact on residential amenity through blocking of light and loss of views, lack of parking, danger to pedestrians, building too high, reduced sunlight, traffic congestion, overlooking, overbearing, increased noise, out of scale with this part of Lewes, significant change to the area.

Note: these comments are included as the representations included both application numbers. No specific comments were made in relation to the demolition of the existing building.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 6. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 In assessing the application it is considered that the key issues in the determination are the loss of the existing buildings and the impact on the Conservation Area.

6.2 The existing building, despite being refurbished to upgrade the internal accommodation and the external appearance, is out of keeping with its surroundings, in its appearance, scale, and layout. It’s massing and appearance is out of keeping and fails to enhance the character of the surrounding area. This is more noticeable on the river side, where the piecemeal alteration and extension to the building seriously detracts from the appearance of this extremely visible riverside site and the warehouses that front the river. It is not considered that the current building enhances the wider character of the conservation area or this important riverside site.

6.3 The replacement development has been designed to provide a traditional building form in keeping with its surroundings, which with its contemporary detailing, creates a sympathetic building of its time, and which will enhance this important riverside site, and visually enhance both the street scene and the riverside.

6.4 It is therefore recommended that conservation area consent is granted subject to conditions to secure a replacement development.

7. RECOMMENDATION

It is therefore recommended that Conservation Area Consent is granted subject to a legal agreement to secure the contributions mentioned above, and subject to conditions.

The application is subject to the following conditions

1. No demolition shall take place until a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved plan shall set out the arrangements for managing all environmental effects of the development during the demolition and construction period, including traffic (a workers travel plan and on-site parking), temporary site security fencing, artificial illumination, noise, vibration, dust, air pollution and odour, and shall be implemented in full throughout the duration of the construction works, unless a variation is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. It shall also include details of all signage on the approaches to the site, their wording and location, advising of the restricted delivery times, traffic routing to and from the site, holding areas for vehicles, and the use of banksman to control deliveries and traffic movements to and from the site.

Reason: In the interests of amenity of the locality and local residents having regard to Policy ST3 of the Lewes District Local Plan.

2. No demolition shall take place until contracts have been entered into for the redevelopment of the site, including a timetable for the implementation, and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 Reason: In order to protect the visual amenity and character of the area having regard to Policy ST3 and H05 of the Lewes District Local Plan and to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

This decision is based on the following submitted plans/documents:

Plan Type Reference Version Date on Plan Received No. TA 615 17.04.2012 Justification or Heritage Statement

Design and TA 615 17.04.2012 Access Statement

Sunlight/Daylight FEB 2012 17.04.2012 Assessment

Flood Risk MARCH 2012 17.04.2012 Assessment

Location Plan TA 615/01 17.04.2012

Block Plans TA 615/01 17.04.2012

Survey TA 615/02 17.04.2012

Existing Elevations TA 615/03 17.04.2012

Sections TA 615/03 17.04.2012

Block Plans TA 615/05 17.04.2012

Planning Layout TA 615/06 17.04.2012

Proposed Floor TA 615/07 17.04.2012 Plans

Proposed Floor TA 615/08 17.04.2012 Plans

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

Proposed Floor TA 615/09 17.04.2012 Plans

Proposed Floor TA 615/10 17.04.2012 Plans

Proposed Floor TA 615/11 17.04.2012 Plans

Street Scene TA 615/12 17.04.2012

Proposed TA 615/13 17.04.2012 Elevations

Sections TA 615/13 17.04.2012

Proposed TA 615/14 17.04.2012 Elevations

Sections TA 615/15 17.04.2012

Proposed TA 615/16 17.04.2012 Elevations

Proposed TA 615/17 17.04.2012 Elevations

Photographs EX AND 17.04.2012 PROP ELEVS

Sections 13695/1/01 17.04.2012

Planning Layout 13695/1/02 17.04.2012

Summary of reasons for decision and any relevant development plan policies/proposal:

It is considered that the proposal accords with the statutory purposes of the South Downs National Park designation and meets the aims and objectives of Local Plan Policy and respects the character of the location, complying with Policies ST03 and H05 of the Lewes District Local Plan. The proposal is also considered to comply with National Policy Guidance contained in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12

COMREP (Jan 11) PAC – 08/08/12 BACKGROUND PAPERS

Lewes District Local Plan 2003

Development Briefs (LDC) Planning Advice Notes (LDC) Supplementary Planning Guidance (LDC)

DCLG Circulars

National Planning Policy Framework

Consultation Replies

Letters of Objection/Representation

South Downs Coastal Group – Shoreline Management Plan

South Downs National Park Designation

AGENDA (May 09) PAC – DD/MM/YY