Commercial unit at Beals Barn Gardens, Cousley Wood, Wadhurst

What was proposed

The application proposed replacing part of an existing glasshouse and a smaller rear glasshouse with a commercial building for specified Class E uses.

“Executive Summary This application seeks approval for the removal of a glasshouse and smaller one to the rear associated with the existing horticultural use of the site and replacement with a new building on the same footprint as the larger glasshouse for purposes falling within Class E(c) and E(g)(i)(ii). The site is a commercial site with a lawful horticultural use and has been used as such since at least 2007.”

“Whilst the site is not within a village business area, the site has an established commercial/business use and saved policy BS9 is permissive of proposals for the expansion, redevelopment or intensification of existing business sites, providing there would be no harmful impact on the landscape or character of the open countryside, and would not detract from the rural environmental qualities by virtue of the use of the site of traffic generation The proposed Class E Uses…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is an established horticultural business outside a development boundary and within the High Weald National Landscape.

“Site and Surroundings The site is accessed from Bewl Bridge Lane. The access serves the existing horticultural business and a dwelling (both owned by the applicant) and Wisketts Barn a dwelling with a detached holiday let (outside of the applicant’s ownership). The site slopes to Bewl Water which is located to the south. The wider site consists of polytunnels, glasshouses and gardens associated with the horticultural business.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, finding the proposal compatible with policy and unlikely to harm the landscape, neighbours, parking or traffic.

“It would have been preferable if an end user for the site had already been found, however it has been made clear within this submission that the new commercial building falling within Use Class E(c) and E(g)(i)(ii) would provide a new business and employment opportunity on an already established commercial site which is supported by local and national policy.”

“Due to the small-scale nature of the proposal, it would not generate a significant increase in traffic movements along Bewlbridge Lane. East Sussex Highways Guidance for Parking at Non-Residential Development requires there to be three parking spaces for the new commercial use. The submitted block plan shows that three existing parking will be provided - this is secured by condition 9.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected, while highways provided no comments and the biodiversity officer raised no objection after clarification.

“Consultation Responses The following consultation responses and representations have been received. These responses are summarised. Full versions of the consultation responses and representations are available on the case file available on the Council’s website (link above). Statutory Consultees Wadhurst Parish Council Amended plans consultation Objection – further additional points to the below; • In reducing light spill the appearance is adversely impacted.”

“ESCC Highways Authority • Falls below threshold - no comments provided. Non-Statutory Consultees WDC Biodiversity Officer Further consultation - verbal comments No objection - Following confirmation by the agent via email that no tree planting is proposed within the red line and this was an error in the PEA, no further action/clarity on this matter is required.”

Officer report

Objections from neighbours

Three objections from two households raised concerns about design, business viability, windows, parking, drainage, traffic and possible future residential use.

“Representations The application has attracted 3 representations of objection from 2 different households, raising the following material planning considerations: Initial consultation Two neighbour objections were received raising the following; • Building would be out of keeping. • The site has been gradually converted to residential. • This is a replacement of the existing structure not a conversion. • Doesn’t meet conversion policies.”

“Amended plans consultation One neighbour objection was received which raised further additional points: • Class E(g)(i) would be inappropriate for replacement greenhouse. • Reduction in windows strengthens concerns with the lack of natural light for proposed use. • The applicant has previously obtained permission for a nearby building (2007) showing negligible windows and shortly afterwards (2011) applied for retrospective permission for larger windows.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two speakers spoke against the application, one speaker spoke in favour, and the local ward member spoke about it.

The committee vote

Members voted on a refusal motion, which was defeated after the chair used a casting vote against it.

“A motion was proposed by Councillor Everitt, seconded by Councillor Glynn White to approve inline with officers recommendation. This motion was not brought to a vote…”

“Recorded Vote: Councillors Everitt, Glynn White, Redman and (Chair) Alison Wilson voted against the motion.The Chair Alison Wilson had the casting vote.”

Minutes

The final decision

Full planning permission was granted subject to the report’s conditions and informatives, with the materials condition amended to secure appropriate materials including green cladding.

“That Full planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives outlined in the report, and amendment of the materials condition (condition 3), to secure details of appropriate materials, including the use of green cladding.”

Minutes