Land at Church Street, Hastings
Development of site to provide a terrace of 4 dwellings and 2 detached dwelling.
7 letters of objection received; 1 petition
of objection received and 1 letter of support received.
The Senior Planning Officer, Mrs Meppem, presented this application for Development of site to provide a terrace of 4 dwellings and 2 detached dwelling at Land at Church Street, Hastings.
Members were informed of several updates to the report:-
• A further consultation response received from Southern Water. Their comments have not changed.
• One further objection letter received
Members were shown plans, photographs and elevations of the application site.
Don Wise, petitioner, was present, he said he agreed with the recommendation to refuse the application. He said neither the applicant, Council or HMLR have provided a formulated plan or evidence upon reasonable request in more than 40 days to substantiate ownership claims made in this application effected by lease area of land. He referred to correspondence reference: HS/FA/18/00110EME it is written ‘please note that in accordance with the Councils planning protocol no documents for the committee will be accepted less than 3 working days before meeting. Documents not previously submitted will not be allowed to be circulated at the meeting’. He said that as no formulated evidence has therefore been presented in respect of this application and ownership of land. During the term of this serving of public consultation of planning has been expressed, then this application would not seem to meet the criteria of an application to be heard by the Planning Committee.
Martin Hull, of Kember Loudon Williams Ltd; applicant, spoke in support of the application. He referred to the points raised in the committee report summary: With regard to Human Rights, housing is a human right and here housing is critically needed. He said the site is on the footprint of the former terrace that was Church Street which was demolished in the 1970’s. It is an L shaped building, which gives light and /shade to south. On the north side there are a series of car ports for every building which allows light to come through the large windows. The planting will be replaced with four habitat sites: woodland; hedge, 200m of native hedging and damp woodland floor type which is in rain gardens and domestic gardens. He said the ecology value of the vegetation is low and that one third of the street area is planted (888msq). Each garden is over 50sqm which is an accepted national standard (the 10m standard in the local plan relates particularly to 21m separation on buildings from the living room to the eaves of the building in Speckled Wood, which is just over 21m). In terms of drainage, he said the paved area has been minimised by efficient layout and porous paved areas. Some of the paved area has been reduced by replacing cars in carports underneath each of the dwellings which means they can be easily retro fitted for electric cars. He said the rain gardens have been designed along the frontage of the terrace. Rain gardens aren’t just for tenuation into the ground they are for slowing up flow of water going into the drains and Southern water have not provide an objection, but have said it can be conditioned. There is a badger set at one end of street where there is a turning T. An armoured tunnel has been put in, however, the badgers are more likely to exit by front which is why that area has been left open and they are using the south side of the wall through Speckled Wood. The NPPF refers to high quality building, this development uses lifetime homes as a checklist for features so they are of quality and have light airy rooms. .
Councillor Charman said she had noted that on the public website the map showed 5 units and the officers report referred to 6 units. The Planning Services Manager confirmed the report was incorrect and should refer to 6 units.
Councillor Charman, Ward Councillor for Tressell, spoke in support of the recommendation to refuse the application, she said it is important that the site is developed because it is in the Local Plan. She said she wanted to see something complementary which fits in well with Clifton Road; the woodland entry and protects the badgers and is maintained. She said they have enough unadopted Roads in Tressell Ward. The County Council will not adopt a highway if there is not a footway included. A footway is important when you consider the amount of dogs, bikes, families etc that will be using Speckled Wood. Furthermore, double lines are not enforceable and there will be no maintenance and no lights. Car ports, she said, may be used for storage and not vehicles which will further congest the roads. Cycling has not been properly considered and there is no turning arrangements for services. This type of paving is not acceptable to the Highways Authority. She said height and positioning of the development is of concern and is noted as visibly overbearing in the report. She suggested that three to four houses of quality would suit this site with proper gardens. Plot 6 has insufficient detail and does not comply with Policy DM1. She said she supported refusal and hoped for a more sympathetic development in the future.
The Senior Planning Officer said they were not disputing there is a need for housing across the Borough, the site is allocated however, development should be appropriate for the site and in this instance it is not. Regarding landscaping, she said it is a sensitive site leading though to woodland. The terrace of properties is set 2m back from the highway and she did not feel it was of a sufficient distance to allow appropriate soft landscaping. Moving the houses further back into site would have a detrimental impact on the already small gardens. Regarding sustainable design, she said rain gardens were welcome, however insufficient information was provided and they were not able to fully assess the proposals. With reference to the badger tunnel, she said they could not reasonably request it be maintained, there is nothing to stop a resident making alterations to their garden. She said it was acknowledged within the Ecology report that the badgers may not use the tunnel, however no alternate proposal has been put forward to secure a route along the back of the properties. Regarding shared surface, she said the Highways Authority would be supportive of shared space where appropriate, but advice from the Department of Transport recommends shared spaces are not taken forward at this time.
Councillor Davies proposed a motion to refuse the application. This was seconded by Councillor Roberts.
RESOLVED – (Unanimously) that the Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons:
The proposed development, by virtue of the site layout, design, scale and massing would result in an overly dominant and incongruous development that is out of keeping with the established character of the area. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Polices DM1 of the Hastings Development Management Plan, Policy SC1 of the Hastings Planning Strategy and Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
The proposed development by virtue of its height, mass, proximity to its boundaries and having regard to variations in land level, would result in a dominating form of development that would detrimentally affect the residential amenities of the properties in Speckled Wood to the rear in terms of loss of outlook and overshadowing, the proposal therefore fails to comply with Policy DM3 of the Hastings Development Management Plan 2015.
The development fails to provide sufficient external amenity space for Plots 2-5 and as such is contrary to Policy DM3 of the Hastings Development Management Plan 2015.
Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed infiltrations system can be accommodated on site and as a result, formal assessment of the proposal by the Lead Flood Risk Authority has not been possible. The proposal therefore fails to provide adequate information to ensure all material considerations are taken into account, and is considered contrary to Policy DM6 of the Hastings Development Management Plan 2015 and Policy SC7 of the Hastings Planning Strategy 2014.
The proposed mitigation measures included within the Ecological Report are not considered sufficiently robust to ensure the functionality and continued usability of the proposed Badger tunnel for the lifetime of the consent as required by Paragraph 127(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposed development is therefore contrary to paragraph 175 of the National Planning Policy Frameworks along with Policy EN3 of the Hastings Planning Strategy 2014.
Insufficient soft landscaping is provided to balance the extent of hard landscaping and built form proposed. As such the proposed development is considered to be contrary to Policy DM1 of the Hastings Development Management Plan 2015 and Paragraphs 127 and 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Note to the Applicant
Statement of positive engagement: In dealing with this application Hastings Borough Council has actively sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner, in accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Councillor Scott left the Committee meeting during consideration of the next item and did not take part in the voting.
- MAP_Land at Church Street - HS_FA_18_00110_, item 75d PDF 406 KB
- Land at Church Street -HS-FA-18-00110, item 75d PDF 154 KB