EAST WITTERING & BRACKLESHAM PARISH COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE
HELD ON 2 MARCH 2009 IN THE PARISH COUNCIL OFFICE, WITTERING WALK
PRESENT: Planning Committee Members
Councillors: Cllr. G. Breeze (Chairman)
Cllr. C. Munday (Vice Chairman)
Cllr. R. Lowe
Cllr. B. Lambert
IN ATTENDANCE: Mrs. J. Griffith
Mrs. L. Wright
APOLOGIES: District Councillor Graeme Barratt
District Councillor Peter Clementson
P09.15 Declarations of Interest. None.
P09.16 Minutes of the last meeting.
The minutes of the meeting held on 9 February 2009 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
P09.17 Matters Arising from the last meeting.
The Committee maintained their OBJECTION to the following application:
EWB/08/013467/FUL St Martin’s, West Bracklesham Drive, Bracklesham. Demolition of bungalow and erection of 2 no. houses. Re-design of Plot 2 – changes to roof design, minor increase in ridge height and fenestration changes. Amendments to Planning Permission EWB/07/02504/FUL
Objection: The Committee objects to the increase in height of this building which intrudes into the skyline and is overbearing to the adjacent properties. The Parish Council has previously stated (EWB/07/02504/FUL) that this development must not exceed height of adjacent properties. It is disappointed that once again this is an example of the complete disregard shown to planning conditions.
P09.18 Public Questions. None.
P09.19 New Planning Applications.
The Committee had NO OBJECTION to the following application:
P09.19.1 EWB/09/00360/DOM Mr Paul Jarman. 4 Garden Avenue Bracklesham. Loft extension to a bungalow.
P09.19.2 EWB/09/00320/FUL Mr Mark Longland. 31 Shore Road EW. Erection of 1 no. two storey two bed house.
P09.19.3 EWB/09/00564/DOM Natalie Scollick And Julie Bonninga. 14 And 15 Kimbridge Park EW. Change of use and alteration of roof space including front and rear dormers.
The Committee had NO OBJECTION BUT COMMENTED on the following application:
P09.19.4 EWB/09/00453/PLD Mr Brady 3 Canute Close Bracklesham. Change of use from garage to habitable accommodation. Comment: The Committee is concerned about the lack of any road parking if garages are converted on this estate with its narrow roads.
The Committee STRONGLY OBJECTED to the following application:
P09.19.5 EWB/09/00286/FUL Mr S Green Stubcroft Farm Stubcroft Lane EW. Adaptation and conversion of existing building to provide shower block and camping sales area.
1. This building is still subject to an Enforcement Order requiring its demolition and removal of rubbish from the site as agreed by the Inspector at appeal and the Council insists on compliance.
2. This Committee questions the validity of this application to convert a building which has no planning permission and is subject to a demolition notice.
3. The size, design and construction are substantially those of a house. In this regard the location is in an area where well established statutorily adopted planning policies seek to protect the countryside and rural character of its landscape, in the main restricting development to what is necessary for agriculture. The building could easily be converted to permanent residential accommodation either by the current or any new owner of Stubcroft Farm. The Design and Access statement states that this application and the original (EW 08/02786/ FUL) is that the building bulk has been reduced. We do not consider that the height and bulk has been significantly reduced.
4. The building is within the curtilage of the family home and not within the curtilage of the campsite.
5. There is great concern over the height of the water table in the area and adjacent areas are often subject to flooding. The Committee questions the ability of the sanitation to cope with the enormous volume of waste water generated from the existing large campsite and this further proposed tourist accommodation.
6. The building is over large and incongruous to the surrounding area.
7. This application does not fall within but is contrary to Policy T3 of the Development Plan as mentioned in the Agent’s Planning and Design and Access Statement, which on page 3 states:-
“Within the rural area the provision of tourist accommodation and facilities will only be permitted provided that:
(1) they involve the redevelopment of existing sites for existing uses; the reuse of existing buildings or extension of existing facilities or
(2) they are small in scale and do not include the provision of new major built facilities such as theme parks or holiday centres”.
This application falls outside that statement in that the building cannot be classed as an existing building because it does not have planning approval and is subject to a demolition order.
The statement continues:-
Proposals should not cause adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape as a result of development, ancillary works or curtilages created and, where appropriate, there should be no conflict with the policy for the conversion of buildings in the rural area (re14) or that for major institutions in the rural area (re15);
This application does have an adverse effect the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape as a result of development, as we have already stated in our point 3 above.
This development by virtue of its size is more akin to a house than a shower block and camping sales area. The building is also outside the curtilage of the existing campsite.
The Committee also draws attention to the following points:
a. The Planning Inspector stated that in its present form, he could not see any way in which the building could be usefully converted without drastic reduction in size.
b. Special attention should be paid to the Inspector’s report, in particular clauses: 18, 41, 47 and 57.
Extract from Access and Design statement
“Within the rural area the provision of tourist accommodation and facilities will only be permitted provided that:
(1) they involve the redevelopment of existing sites for existing uses; the reuse of existing buildings or extension of existing facilities or (2) they are small in scale and do not include the provision of new major built facilities such as theme parks or holiday centres. Proposals should not cause adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape as a result of development, ancillary works or curtilages created and, where appropriate, there should be no conflict with the policy for the conversion of buildings in the rural area (re14) or that for major institutions in the rural area (re15);
Where planning permission is given for the development of tourist accommodation within the rural area, permission will not be given for its subsequent use or conversion to permanent residential accommodation.
Permission will only be granted for tourist facilities in the rural area providing that they are related to the character and use of the countryside.”
Criterion (1) is complied with since it is the extension of existing facilities. Criterion (2) is complied with since the proposal is small in scale.
The proposed design of the building uses a local vernacular style. It is therefore in line with the second section of Policy T3.
Finally there would be no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside.
Paragraph 16 of PPS7 specifically relates to development in the open countryside, rather than on the edges of settlements. It begins by stating that “local planning authorities should (i) support development that delivers diverse and sustainable farming enterprises; (ii) support other countryside-
P09.20 The Clerk provided an updated list of decisions regarding planning applications.
P09.21 Enforcement Enquiries – updates.
P09.21.1 EWB/04/00367/CONCOM Stubcroft Farm, Stubcroft Lane, E. Wittering – unauthorised building.
Cllr. Lambert attended the public enquiry on 21 June 07 as representative of the Council and reported that the enquiry had received late paperwork from Mr. Green therefore the Planning Inspector decided to reconvene the enquiry on a date to be arranged in either August/September. The Committee was advised that a new date has been set as 13/14 September.
10.9.07 Mr. Lambert confirmed that he would attend the public enquiry.
5.10.07 Inquiry held on 13,14 and 20 Sep 07 – awaiting decision from Planning Inspectorate (anything between 4-10 weeks).
18.12.07 Committee advised that the decision can take up to a year.
21.1.08 Appeal dismissed. Enforcement notice EW/22 upheld, compliance by 4.4.08.
03.03.08 Awaiting compliance.
14.04.08 Compliance check carried out – building still in situ. Prosecution process commenced for non-compliance with enforcement notice.
10.06.08 Awaiting court date.
30.6.08 Court hearing 2.7.08.
28.7.08 Court allowed further time for applicant to submit planning application. CDC awaiting application form.
18.08.08 Committee to ask why these were not dealt with as separate applications.
10.11.08 Committee asked the Clerk to write to Mr. Carvell (Head of Development and Building Control, CDC) expressing its view that the judge’s recent decision to allow a planning application is questionable and undermines the decision of the Planning Inspector at the public enquiry. The Parish Council asks whether this decision is legitimate or whether CDC legal department can appeal against such a decision.
24.11.08 Application EWB/08/02786/FUL refused by CDC. Awaiting further information from CDC.
9.02.09 Application EWB/08/04938/FUL awaiting decision.
P09.21.2 EWB/08/00100/CONMHC. Westerlies, Bracklesham Lane, Bracklesham. Mobile home in rear garden.
6.05.08 CDC to make site visit.
10.06.08 Site visit carried out and Planning Contravention Notice to be issued.
30.6.08 Awaiting return of PCN.
10.11.08 Compliance check carried out. Consideration now being given to enforcement action on usage of mobile home.
9.02.09 Enforcement Notice awaiting authorisation before issuing.
P09.21.3 Farthings, Bracklesham Lane. Committee queried that car bodywork repairs and paint spraying were taking place at this property without planning consent.
10.11.08 CDC advised no case has been formally recorded on this matter. Clerk to forward copy of previous advisory emails to CDC.
9.02.09 CDC still has no details.
P09.21.4 Longacre, Bracklesham Lane. Clerk to ask CDC what the situation is regarding this alleged breach in planning permission and that the Parish Council be kept informed of the situation.
9.02.09 Contravention notice issued
P09.21.5 Garages behind 76 Stocks Lane. Following residents’ concern, the Clerk to ask CDC to
investigate whether this area is being used for commercial activity and requires planning permission.
9.02.09 CDC has no record of this. Clerk resent emails.
P09.21.6 Plot 2, St Martins, West Bracklesham Drive. Clerk asked to investigate whether the new brick wall over 1m high outside this property needs planning permission.
9.02.09 CDC has no record of this. Clerk resent emails.
P09.21.7 Shoreside Cottage, Shoreside Walk. Clerk asked to investigate whether the large external chimney requires planning permission.
P09.21.8 ‘The Galleon’, Shore Road. Clerk asked to investigate whether resuming the use as a café and the extension of the hairdressers needs change of use permission.
9.02.09 Neither ‘The Galleon’ nor ‘Shore Cuts’ require change of use permission.
P09.21.9 Blakes, 7A New Parade. Clerk asked to investigate whether the sale of coffee from a machine including a ‘free’ biscuit is contrary to planning permission.
