-
Agenda item
Land rear of 23 Martineau Lane (HS/FA/20/00884)
(R Fellows, Senior Planning Officer)
Minutes:
Proposal
Erection of a two to three storey detached dwelling (revision to HS/FA/17/00468) (part-retrospective).
Application No
HS/FA/20/00884
Conservation Area
No
Listed Building
No
Public Consultation
Yes – 46 objections and petition received
The Senior Planning Officer presented the application for the erection of a two to three-storey detached dwelling (revision to HS/FA/17/00468) (part-retrospective).
The property has been built and the works completed prior to the application. The applicant is seeking to regulate the property as built, with amendments to the previously approved scheme.
Two late representations have been received, with no new issues raised.
The councillors were shown photos, plans and drawings of the building and surrounding grounds and the approved plans compared to the current application. The property is on the edge of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and the modification to the previous scheme changes the layout with a small area falling into the AONB.
The main modification to the previous application is the change of the ground level to accommodate vehicle access. Following that, the applicant added steps on both sides of the building. There are two additional windows, one at the front elevation and one to the side, to compensate for the large areas of exposed brickwork created by the land level change. Even though the bulk of the house has not changed, the function of the space on the lower ground floor changed into a games room (previously foundation space). A small area of the hardened surface has been added outside to allow vehicle access to the building.
The application was recommended for approval by the Senior Planning Officer.
The lead petitioner, Mr Coombes was present and spoke against the application. He stated that the residents were concerned when the developer ignored the refusal of the variation to the original application and continued the works. The developer changed the landscape (removing the bank on the side of the property) and introduced new external details – steps instead of a disabled access and windows. Mr Coombes stated that residents were concerned about the encroachment into the AONB and that the works were carried out without a prior stability report of the slope. Mr Coombes stated that there were flooding risks, damage to the AONB and trees removed. He stated that one of the conditions of the previous permission stated that the height of the fence pillars should be reduced to 600mm, which hasn’t been done.
Mr Coombes confirmed that the residents were happy with the original, approved application. They are concerned about the unauthorised changes to the landscape without consideration of the environment and the AONB.
Mr Polito, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application. He stated that the application is a retrospective amendment to the previously granted planning permission. He explained that the changes have been made following consultation with the Planning Department. Mr Polito explained that the changes are not significant and do not harm the character and appearance of the area or the relationship of the building with the adjoining protected land.
Councillors asked if during the consultation the applicant was advised that it is acceptable to take the part of the AONB area into the property land. Mr Polito explained that this request is part of the new proposal. The previous application was refused on the grounds of the building’s relationship to the adjoining landscape. In the current application, there is less brickwork exposed and additional planting.
Councillors asked why the initial plans didn’t include enough space for the vehicle parking. Mr Polito explained that when the building was built it became clear that it would not be possible to drive to the side without hitting the bank. The applicant provided vehicle swept analysis to demonstrate the problem and justify the modification.
The Committee queried why engineering works took place without approval and why the parking space wasn’t considered in the initial application. Planning Officers confirmed that the engineering works that were part of the land level changes included in the current retrospective application. The Planning Officer stated that the current application was supported with additional reports and evidence justifying the changes made by the applicant. To mitigate the impact on the AONB the 2m hard fence was replaced with post and rail fence and soft landscaping.
Councillor Foster proposed a motion, seconded by Councillor Patmore, to refuse the application.
RESOLVED (by 8 votes for, 1 vote against, and 1 abstention) that planning permission is refused for the following reasons.
Reason
The proposal re-contours the visual appearance of the land and would significantly increase the scale of the dwelling and proportions of the north elevation as to detract from the visual appearance of the area and would therefore fail to comply with Policy DM1 of Hastings Development Management Plan which requires development to take into account protecting and enhancing local character and it would fail to comply with Policy EN7 of Hastings Planning Strategy to protect and enhance the inherent visual qualities and distinctive character of the AONB landscape.
Note to the Applicant
You are advised:
- 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 80 of the National Planning Police Framework.
Supporting documents:
- MAP_HS-FA-20-00884 Land rear of 23 Martineau Lane, item 257a PDF 259 KB
- HS-FA-20-00884 Land rear of 23 Martineau Lane, item 257a PDF 109 KB
-
My council
Contact
Got a question about democratic services?
Content
The content on this page is the responsibility of our Democratic Services team.