Planning » Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

LW/16/0695 | The creation of ponds (part retrospective) and the provision of associated buildings with a supervisory dwelling to service a fish farm producing caviar. Planning permission for the dwelling (only) sought initially for three years in order to demonstrate enterprise viability | Land South Of Chiltington House Chiltington Lane East Chiltington East Sussex
  • Total Consulted: 14
  • Consultees Responded: 11

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 14|1|2|

The Woodland Trust

Consultation Date: Fri 19 Aug 2016

South East Water

Consultation Date: Fri 19 Aug 2016

St John (Without) Parish Meeting

Consultation Date: Fri 19 Aug 2016

ESCC Highways

Comment Date: Wed 02 Nov 2016

The application attracts a recommendation for refusal for the following reasons

1. The proposed access at its junction with Chiltington Lane [C6] would have substandard visibility and layout and hazards would be introduced by the slowing, stopping, turning and reversing traffic which would be created.

2. The proposal does not provide for adequate turning facilities within the site and reversing vehicles to or from the site onto the public highway would cause hazards to be introduced] by the interference with the free flow and safety of traffic on the C6 [Chiltington Lane].

Employees are stated on the planning application form as 1full time and 2 part time. Although the Transport Statement states 2 full time staff it is assumed that this is meant to be full time equivalent.

The previous planning application for similar use stated that vehicle trips would be generated by the fish arriving from Germany. However, this current application does give any details on how the fish arrive.
The previous application also stated that there would be 1 feed delivery by HGV's every month whereas this current application states only 2 deliveries per year - as this figure is significantly different I would wish to see clarification on this point.

Furthermore, the application states that adequate on site turning is to be provided for delivery vehicles, however, no vehicle tracking has been provided.
The access is shown to be 6 metres wide with 4 metres junction radii- however, I am not convinced that this layout is acceptable in order to accommodate a large/HGV delivery vehicle - tracking at the junction of the access with the C6 [Chiltington Lane] is therefore also required for the correct size vehicles.

Whilst a speed survey has been carried out the survey does not state exactly where the speed were taken or what the weather conditions were. This information is required to ensure the speeds were taken close to the proposed access point. Although the recorded speeds indicate that the visibility should be in 2.4m x 43m the applicant has not demonstrated that the actual visibility splays for both vehicular egress and forward visibility can actually be achieved within the applicants control or the limits of the highway. It would seem that the existing boundary hedge is to remain with just some trimming back. This would not be sufficient as the hedge would need to be cut down or preferably re-sited further back into the site.


This HT401 is issued in response to amended plans nos. PJC-0620-001 revision M; 5567/101A and 2.02H and additional information received direct from the agent. The applicant has addressed the highway concerns and confirmed two employees only along with the size and frequency of deliveries twice a year by a 8.5m long van. My recommendation for refusal given on HT401 dated 5th October 2016 is therefore withdrawn and I recommend that any consent shall include the following attached conditions (conditions attached to draft decision notice).

Chailey Parish Council

Comment Date: Tue 08 Nov 2016

The above application was considered at a meeting of the Planning & Environs Committee of Chailey Parish Council held on 20th September 2016. The following comments are made:

o the Council is concerned about the ability of the fish farm to prevent at all times harmful discharges into or other effects on the Roman Winterbourne and other local watercourses. All possible precautions needed to be put in place in the event that the fish farm is built;

o the Council is concerned about the effect of heavy traffic on quiet, narrow country lanes adjacent to the site and on roads generally in the vicinity. This concern extends not only to the construction phase (where it appears that heavy construction machinery will need to be moved in and out of the site) but also to when the farm is in production;

o the Council is concerned about the nature of the temporary building which, for all practical purposes, is a permanent structure. Councillors were unclear why such an elaborate structure was required when it was possible that it would have to be removed and

o the Council is concerned at what will happen should the fish farm turn out not to be a viable enterprise. If the application is approved as made, the only obligation will be the removal of the temporary dwelling. Councillors considered it important that, should the farm fail, the owner(s) of the farm and the owner(s) of the land (if different) should be obliged to return the site to its present agricultural state. Councillors considered that this could be achieved by permission being granted on a temporary basis only (for perhaps 3 years) over the whole site.

Environment Agency

Comment Date: Fri 07 Oct 2016

Thank you for the email regarding the proposed fish farm at Chiltington House, East Sussex.

We provided a response on the previous application, LPA ref. LW/16/01860 (dated 12 April 2016).

Our position is maintained: In line with our risk-based approach to considering planning applications, we have not reviewed the proposals in detail and we have no comments to make.

As noted in our previous letter in April, the development may require Environmental Permits from us. A licence may be needed for an abstraction from the watercourse, and a discharge consent for disposal of surface water or foul/ trade effluent to the watercourse or ground.

If required, the risks from the operation of the fish farm and proposed environmental management will be considered by the Environment Agency under our regulatory regimes. Planning permission is no guarantee of being granted an environmental permit. It is the operator's responsibility to contact us to discuss their proposals and any permitting requirements, and ensure these are consistent with their planning submission.

With regards to flood risk, the Flood Map for Planning does not indicate a high probability of fluvial flooding at the site, which is located in Flood Zone 1. Any increased risk of flooding from surface water is a matter for East Sussex County Council, as Lead Local Flood Authority, to comment on.

Southern Water Plc

Comment Date: Tue 08 Nov 2016

The EA should be consulted regarding septic tank drainage.

In terms of SUDS, need to ensure system is maintained long term, condition to specify responsibilities for management and timetable for implementation, and management plan for the lifetime for the development including adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

Hamsey Parish Council

Comment Date: Tue 08 Nov 2016

Hamsey Parish object to the current proposal. The council felt the original application for this site was in opposition to Lewes Core Strategy Policy 10 and feel the present application also requires careful consideration against this sustainability policy and the effect on the natural environment at this site. The parish council has concerns regarding the proposal to abstract large quantities of water from a seasonal stream and the effect this may have on Brown trout and Sea trout which spawn in the river Bevern, which flows through Hamsey parish.

The parish council also note concerns raised by the Ouse and Adur Rivers Trust regarding the likelihood of waste products entering the stream during wetter periods when the ponds are likely to
overflow back into the stream, which could cause high phosphate levels and other damaging pollution. The application goes against core policy EN3 in the Hamsey neighbourhood plan which states:
Developments should protect and enhance existing local ecological corridors, landscape features and habitats such as trees, watercourses, all ancient trees and all hedgerows. Development proposals that result in materially adverse impacts will not be supported.

Whilst acknowledging that the application site is not within Hamsey parish, they have a high concern for the possible risk to the watercourse as raised by OART, which does enter the parish after passing through the site.

The parish council also expresses concern that should permission be granted for a home on the site, this could set an unwanted precedent for building in the countryside. They do not feel there is any justification for anyone to be on the site overnight and feel the buildings to be unnecessarily large. Concern is also expressed regarding the permanent buildings and what might be abandoned on the site after 3 years should this experimental venture fail.

Hamsey parish council responded to the earlier application for this site because of concerns regarding the access road, which emerges on to the busy A275 in Hamsey parish. Chiltington Lane, which becomes Beechwood Lane after its junction with Wickham Lane, is a narrow country lane used by residents, walkers, cyclists and horse riders. It is, unfortunately, also used as a 'rat run' by impatient motorists unwilling to wait at the level crossing in Cooksbridge, choosing instead to cut down Beechwood Lane, into Chiltington Lane and up Wickhams Lane to re-join the A275. The junction between Wickham Lane and the A275, in Hamsey parish, is particularly unsafe being on a steep incline and a bend. The transport report with the application, states that traffic movements will be fish food twice per year by HGV and between November to April transport of caviar twice per month. It is stated that the site will not be open to the public but as this is proposed to be a' show site' one must assume clients and customers may be encouraged to visit the site. No mention is made of this. The site will employ two full time members of staff, one of whom will presumably live off site and the proposed mobile home has 3 bedrooms, presumably for the applicant and his family. This will add to the vehicle movements since there is no public transport to the site.

HPC note that the LDC local plan states that East Chiltington is most thinly populated and its poor road access helps retain this character and this will be a key issue in the future. Hamsey parish council wish to point out that traffic generation doesn't have to be high to materially adversely affect the character of these narrow, quiet lanes.

Main Town Or Parish Council

Comment Date: Tue 25 Oct 2016

East Chiltington Parish Council discussed this proposal at its meeting on the 8th September 2016. 28 members of the public were present at the meeting. In reaching its position with respect to this application, East Chiltington Parish Council has taken into account comments submitted by both objectors and supporters of the proposal, the full documentation submitted, and the views of external and independent experts.

ECPC accepts that the applicant has made considerable efforts to address the concerns that were raised regarding the earlier application, most importantly the lack of information relating to the nature of the intended aquaculture system and the possible environmental impacts. However, ECPC objects to the application on the following grounds:

Landscape impact
ECPC considers that the proposal is contrary to Core Policy 10 of the recently adopted Lewes District Council Local Plan Core Strategy 2016 and Lewes District Local Plan 2003 policy ST3 (design, form and setting of development).

Core policy 10, criterion 1.1 states the importance of "Maintaining and where possible enhancing the natural, locally distinctive and heritage landscape qualities and characteristics of the district". It also notes that development should be resisted that "fails to conserve and appropriately enhance its rural, urban and historic landscape qualities, and its natural and scenic beauty, as informed by the South Downs Integrated Landscape Character Assessment."

The proposal is for extensive development in a field sandwiched between three houses (one of which is grade 2 listed), on the edge of the South Downs National Park, and up a single-track lane. We consider that this will dramatically and unacceptably change the locally distinctive and historic landscape characteristics of the setting.

Impact on the environment
Point 4 of Core Policy 10 of the Joint Core Strategy 2016 states that it is important to "Ensure that water quality is improved where necessary or maintained when appropriate (including during any construction process) and that watercourses (including groundwater flows) are protected from encroachment and adverse impacts in line with the objectives of the South East River Basin Management Plan"
ECPC considers that the proposal is contrary to this policy. ECPC is concerned that the proposal plans to abstract water from the Romans Winterbourne stream. The proposed abstraction of 20m3 per day during winter months is based on a measurement of water availability taken during a period of peak flow. Equally important, this proposed abstraction does not take into account any possible future variations in flow of the stream, for example, as a result of climate change. We consider that this element of the proposal is both unnecessary and environmentally problematic.
There are also unanswered questions and outstanding risks with regard to possible discharge from the ponds and associated pollution, and with flooding in times of peak rainfall. While certain elements of the documentation suggest that this is an entirely 'closed' system, other expert opinion suggests that this is unlikely to be possible.

Lastly, the Parish Council has additional concerns regarding the necessity of a mobile home on site. The justification for a three bedroom dwelling on the site is not entirely convincing.

Whilst it may not be a planning consideration, we believe that if the applicant did not own the land, he would not be seeking a location such as this on which to start his fish farm.

Environmental Health

Comment Date: Tue 04 Oct 2016

Contaminated Land

Following a review of historical mapping, data and other available information, no potentially contaminative uses have been identified at or in the immediate vicinity of the site. In addition, the scope of the proposal has been evaluated with no contamination concerns identified. Therefore, no conditions relating to contaminated land are considered necessary for this application.


Having reviewed the noise assessment carried out by Acoustic Associates Sussex Ltd. I agree with the scope of the assessment and proposed mitigation measures put forward in the conclusion section of the report.

The two sources of noise with potential to generate the highest levels include the emergency generator and wind turbine. To mitigate the impact of these features the sound power level should be limited to the levels stated within the assessment (page 18).


With regards to the odour assessment, it was concluded that the proposal will have a negligible effect on odour at local receptors and that no mitigation was considered necessary. The site setting indicates it would be unlikely for any future odour issues especially given a south westerly prevailing wind and the location of nearby properties.

Showing 1-10 of 14|1|2|

an idox solution (opens in a new window)