Parish: Ward: North North Mundham

NM/15/04160/FUL

Proposal Erection of 25 dwellings and associated access, parking, gardens and landscaping.

Site Land South Of Stoney Lodge School Lane North Mundham West

Map Ref (E) 487527 (N) 102445

Applicant Mr Luke Leleiu

RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced NOT TO from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the SCALE controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The application site is an area of agricultural land of approximately 0.77 hectares that is currently used for the storage of hay bales and contains no buildings. The site is located outside the village Settlement Boundary, as set out in the Adopted District Local Plan (carried forward from the 1999 Local Plan) and the emerging Site Allocations DPD.

2.2 The site is accessed from School Lane, close to the junction with Lagness Road (B2166). School Lane has no pedestrian footways at present, and there is a no- through road serving the school, directly opposite the application site. The village hall is located to the north of the site and a ribbon of dwellings (2 storey and bungalows) extend northwards leading to a single track bridleway.

2.3 There is an existing hedgerow along the eastern boundary which also adjoins an extensive area of mature vegetation along the southern boundary, which surrounds an abandoned canal. The canal runs to the south of the site, adjacent to the B2166, parallel to a ditch which marks the southern boundary. The western boundary is marked by an existing post and wire fence, and the boundary to the north is marked by mixed vegetation of varying heights and close boarded timber fence. The vegetation and fence closest to the dwelling immediately to the north of the site (Stoney Lodge) is low, allowing unrestricted views into the neighbouring property. The outbuilding serving this property is located immediately adjacent to the northern boundary, close to School Lane.

2.4 North Mundham is a small village, with limited facilities, including a school, village hall, pub and a regular bus service to Chichester and Bognor Regis. The village is bisected by the Lagness Road (B2166) and the application site is located to the north of the Lagness Road.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of 25 dwellings, including 40% affordable, on land to the South of Stoney Lodge, an arable field located on the edge of the settlement of North Mundham.

3.2 A previous application for 25 dwellings was allowed at appeal in 2014 (13/01036/OUT) and secured the principle of development, with layout, access and scale approved. Appearance and landscaping were to be dealt with by reserved matters. This full application is submitted to enable a revised layout and housing mix to be considered.

3.3 The development would be served by a single vehicular access onto School Lane, approximately 30-35 metres north of the junction with the Lagness Road (B2166) and includes an internal access road in the form of a residential cul-de-sac, with a mix of detached and semi-detached dwellings, including 3 bungalows, and 4 maisonettes. The scheme includes 50 parking spaces - 8 more than provided with the outline consent - with 11 disabled spaces. Each unit will have private amenity space in the form of a garden, including the maisonettes. Ten of the units would be affordable, which equates to 40% overall. The proposed units are single and two storeys, with a maximum ridge height of 9.3 metres, and incorporate varying house types, heights and roof pitches. Materials proposed include tile hanging, brick and flint, and timber boarding. Parking would either be on curtilage or in small parking courts. Each residential unit would have two car parking spaces.

3.4 The housing mix proposed with this scheme is as follows:-

4 x 1 bed maisonettes 9 x 2 bed houses 8 x 3 bed houses 2 x 1 bed bungalows 2 x 2 bed bungalows Total - 25

Affordable 4 x 1 bed maisonettes (social rent) 2 x 1 bed bungalows (social rent) 1 x 2 bed bungalow (social rent) 2 x 2 bed houses (intermediate) 1 x 3 bed house (intermediate) Total - 10

Market 5 x 2 bed houses 8 x 3 bed houses 2 x 2 bed bungalows Total - 15

4.0 History

13/01036/OUT ALLOW Mixed housing development comprising 11 no. terraced cottages, 4 no. flats, 6 no. semi detached dwellings and 4 no. detached dwellings, associated access road, gardens and parking areas.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area YES AONB NO Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO EA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 North Mundham Parish Council

Object

Southern Water states there is inadequate capacity in the local foul water network. Council notes objections from nearby residents on flooding. In order to support the application, the Parish seeks assurance that the issue of inadequate drainage will be addressed at the planning stage.

There may be a detrimental impact on the adjoining disused canal area because of the development. Proximity of housing and lack of a management strategy for the wildlife corridor could result in the undeveloped area becoming a dumping area for waste material. Measures should be put in place by the developer to minimise the risk.

Further comments following additional information The Council still has no confidence that the provision of foul drainage will be adequate.

The Council notes the various responses from Southern Water and their contractors which asserted initially (Southern Water and Atkins letter dated 4 October 2012) that the local foul drainage system has inadequate capacity. This advice was repeated in Southern Water’s letter of 5 February 2016. However Southern Water’s letter of 20 April 2016 indicates that the development can be accommodated and no improvement works are required. This differs significantly from the experience of local residents who already suffer instances of sewage backing up into their properties. In particular North Mundham Village Hall, North Mundham Primary School and the Playing Field Pavilion used by the Sunbeams Pre-School and pupils from the Free School have all been affected.

Local experience is particularly unsatisfactory in periods of heavy rainfall and in the immediate aftermath, and it is believed that surface water infiltration exacerbates the situation. In this context we note the information from a conversation with contractors carrying out a closed –circuit TV survey of the pipework in June 2014. They commented that the pipework is of an age where the joints between the lengths of pipe are unlikely to be very well sealed.

The Parish Council has raised its concerns directly with Southern Water on a number of occasions. In particular, it is believed that the sewage main in the vicinity of this development is regularly overloaded by the discharge from the Lakeside Holiday Park development which discharges into the same branch of the foul drainage system at the northern end of School Lane. The Council has on record correspondence with both Southern Water and Council dating back to 2001, when the potential problem of a proposed large increase in the number of holiday homes was recognised. As a result, an agreement was put in place by which the operators of the holiday park would limit the rate of discharge into the foul drainage system.

Recent experience has called into question whether this agreement is still in force and effective, and the matter was raised with Southern Water in the context of a wider discussion on the sewage problems in the parish. These discussions culminated in a detailed e-mail sent on 12 June 2014 explaining the history and detail of the agreement, of which Southern Water appeared to have no record. Southern Water agreed to investigate the situation, initially suggesting that they would install flow monitoring equipment. However, despite regular updates asserting that such instrumentation would be installed, it is not yet in place. The latest update from Southern Water (by e-mail dated 25 April 2016) indicates that they will instead undertake “manual measurements of velocity and depth to establish a better understanding of the flow”.

It is clear that the true state of the sewage system remains under investigation. We are therefore unable to understand how Southern Water in their letter of 20 April 2016 can confidently assert that they are “happy to confirm that Southern Water is able to provide foul sewerage disposal to service the proposed above development with no requirement of any improvement works to the public sewerage network”.

The situation is potentially exacerbated by two other developments which could be connected to the same part of the local sewage system. There is already outline consent for a development of eight new homes on an immediately adjacent site at Stoney Meadow Farm (15/01857/OUT). There is also a decision pending on an application for a further 37 lodge-style holiday caravans at Lakeside Holiday Park (15/02356/FUL) which would add further to the burden on the system – this Council has already recorded an objection to the application on the grounds of the overload on the local sewage system.

The Council therefore finds it incomprehensible that Southern Water can assert that the system has the potential to handle the additional burden of a further 70 homes when it is already demonstrably not fit for purpose. Until the Council is reassured that a full and realistic assessment has been completed, both of the capacity of the local sewerage network and the existing loads placed on it, it will continue to maintain its objection.

6.2 Chichester Harbour Conservancy

No objection. Site far removed from coast, but within 5.6km of the Langstone and Chichester Harbour Special Protection Area. Site is identified in current SHLAA and has outline permission granted on appeal, June 2014 (15 market, 10 affordable). Would ask that developer enters into a S106 Agreement to avoid recreational disturbance on the coast and contribute to monitoring of such disturbance to inform any review of the Solent Mitigation Strategy.

6.3 Southern Water Services

Inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul water sewerage disposal to service the development.

Further comments following additional information [Phase 2 Capacity Assessment]

Following further assessment, Southern Water confirms that it is able to provide foul sewerage disposal to service the proposed development with no requirement for any improvement works to the public sewerage network. Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the public foul sewer to be made by the developer.

6.4 Natural

No objection

The application is within 5.6km of Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA and 3.5km of the Pagham Harbour SPA and will lead to a net increase in residential accommodation. Subject to financial contributions, as set out in Chichester District Council's Interim Policy, Natural England is satisfied that the applicant has mitigated against potential adverse effects on European designated sites and raises no objection. Given that residents will not be able to access the SPAs at the same time, we would suggest it reasonable for adjustments to reflect this.

6.5 Sussex Police

DAS mentions crime prevention measures to be incorporated into design and layout. Applicant may wish to consider Secured by Design. Proposed cycle store for plots 19-25 is to have PIR operated lighting. Lighting to conform to recommendations within BS 5489:2013.

6.5 WSCC - Local Development Division (Highways)

No objection, subject to conditions.

Re-submission of application NM/1036/13 allowed at appeal. In highway safety terms, Inspector did not consider there to be any significant adverse effect on the operation of the junction with Lagness Road and School Lane. Inspector concluded that whilst the operation of North Mundham School has a significant effect on highway users at school drop off and pick-up times, the sharp bend in Lagness Road and operation of the light controlled pedestrian crossing, has the effect of causing delay and associated inconvenience, rather than a hazard. Inspector considered the new footway link from the development to be beneficial providing a safe pedestrian access to the rest of Mundham.

New access provides good visibility splays of 4.5 x 40m in both directions. Main access is 5.5 metres allowing two vehicles to pass and a turning head is provided. 1.8 metre footpath will link development to the footway on the north side of Lagness Road and the pedestrian crossing. In response to RSA, off-site highway improvements will be delivered: School Lane will be widened to 5.5 metres between the junction of the B2166 and the development access and a 1.8 metre wide footpath created on the eastern side of School Lane providing better inter- visibility for pedestrians. Level of trip generation is not severe in highway safety or capacity terms. Recommendations raised in the Stage 1 RSA have been addressed by the designer and are supported by the audit team. The applicant will have to enter into s278 Agreement for the access and all off-site highway works included in a Section 106 Agreement. A total of 50 parking spaces are provided. This exceeds WSCC maximum standards and is considered acceptable in this location. Each parking space is 2.4 x 4.8 metres and cycle parking is provided in each dwelling.

6.7 WSCC - Local Development Division (Flooding)

Application indicates the use of soakaways for the disposal of surface water. Where the intention is to dispose to soakaways, these should be shown to work through an appropriate assessment carried out under BRE Digest 365. Development shall not commence until finalised details of surface water drainage designs, based on sustainable principles and an assessment of hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development. Drainage strategy to demonstrate that surface water run-off generated up to and including the 100 year plus 30% for climate change critical storm, will not exceed run-off from current site following rainfall event. Provision for long term maintenance should be provided as part of any SuDs scheme to the LPA.

6.8 CDC Housing Enabling Manager

Support 40% affordable. 6 units to be secured as affordable rented and 4 as shared ownership, which is not line with SHMA recommendations. Request the following units to be secured in line with SHMA recommendations: Affordable Rented (7 units) 4 x 1 bed flat 2 x 1 bed bungalow 1 x 2 bed bungalow

Shared Ownership (3 units) 2 x 2 bed house 1 x 3 bed house

North Mundham is a designated protected area (DPA) under the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. Registered Providers/ Housing Associations who are in receipt of public funding from the HCA have to restrict the purchasers maximum share of shared ownership units to 80%. CDC as housing authority has the ability to request a waiver. These properties could be lost to the open market, to provide smaller, affordable homes and balance out the housing market. North Mundham PC resolved to support the DPA waiver, subject to a housing mix of 15 units (60%) shared ownership and 10 units (40% affordable rented).

Require the following units to be delivered in the following mix to support the DPA waiver: Affordable rented (3 units) 3 x 2 bed house

Shared Ownership (12 units) 1 x 2 bed bungalow 4 x 2 bed house 7 x 3 bed house

6.9 CDC Archaeological Officer

As with the previous scheme, potential archaeological interest would justify an investigation ahead of development, in order that anything of significance might be preserved. Please apply condition G09F.

6.10 CDC Drainage Engineer

Please note previous comments submitted on application 13/01036/OUT. Please ensure conditions for drainage design, SUDs maintenance and easements to ditches / watercourses.

6.11 CDC Community Facilities

Request a contribution of £44,675 towards community facilities at North Mundham Village Hall. [Officer comment – this is now incorporated within CIL].

6.12 CDC Waste Services

Comment Attention to be paid to size, weight and turning circle of freighters. All road surfaces to be constructed in a suitable surfacing material. Discourage the use of block paving, parking restrictions to be put in place and adequate visitor parking to prevent visitors parking at the side of the road.

6.13 CDC Environmental Strategy

Full reptile mitigation strategy required. Buffer strips for bats along hedgerows and streams. Lighting scheme for bats. Badger survey required prior to development commencing. Clearance of site to take place outside of bird breeding season (1 March - 1 October). Recreational disturbance mitigation required for Pagham Harbour SPA and Chichester Harbour SPA.

Further comment following additional information Reptile mitigation may be conditioned.

6.14 CDC Design and Implementation Manager

 Communal bike store for plots 19-25 in the rear parking court should be on curtilage for individual plots.  Blanked out windows to the front elevation of plots 22-25 appear contrived.  Timber boarding is inappropriate in this context - should be tile hanging or brick.  The entire building should have a consistent material i.e. it should be all brick and flint, or just brick.  Recommended that plots 22-25 at the site entrance and plots 10-12 are swapped, so there is a short terrace of cottages addressing the street frontage.  Please omit the crown roof on plots 22-25.  Parking court to the rear of plots 19-21 is not well overlooked, and will encourage residents to park on the street.  Plots 1-4 are problematic. Requires a more unified design with fewer gables of different shapes and sizes, and a simpler palette of materials (see comments above). This block needs to be red-designed.  Minimum of 230 sq metres public open space is required.  Clay tiles are preferable to reconstituted slate.  Flintwork should be random course flintwork, rather than flint panels, with pebbles, rather than knapped flint.

6.15 12 Third Party Objections

 Previous objection in 2012 and 2013. No reason for renewal. Concern with busy B2166 junction, sewage and flooding.  Not enough parking without using the village carpark.  Appreciate more housing needed.  Stream alongside could be made more attractive for the entire village.  Access is close to North Mundham Primary School. Junction is congested and dangerous to exit from School Lane. Additional traffic would cause congestion at junction of School Lane with B2166, and danger to children and road users.  Flooding is bad  Infrastructure is inadequate  Traffic during the summer months is excessive  Increased noise and disturbance as a result of traffic problems  Sewer network cannot cope with additional housing  Surface water problematic  No facilities in North Mundham - school and pre-school are over subscribed  Site already identified for affordable housing. No need for this additional development  Location is isolated from main settlement by the B2166 and old canal  Radical change of use of land from a pasture/paddock  Significant level of development in a rural area  Land has long history of flooding  Problems with foul drainage in the area, necessitating pumps being brought into the school  Increase in traffic is hazardous for school children  Increase in traffic volume will create air pollution and a hazard for pedestrians walking to school or using School Lane, and users of the B2166

6.16 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information

Planning Statement (including Affordable Housing), Design and Access Statement, Ecological Appraisal, Reptile Survey (Rev A), Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, Transport Assessment and Stage 1 Road Safety Audit, Hard and Soft Landscaping Scheme.

7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan

7.1 The Development Plan for the area comprises the Chichester District Local Plan: 2014-2029, which was adopted by Full Council on 14th July. There is no Neighbourhood Plan for North Mundham.

7.2 Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies: 2014-2029

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 4: Housing Provision Policy 5: Parish Housing Sites 2012- 2029 Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 9: Development and Infrastructure Provision Policy 29: Settlement Hubs and Village Centres Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 34: Affordable Housing Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 42: Flood Risk and Water Management Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 52: Green Infrastructure Policy 54: Open Space, Sport and Recreation

National Policy and Guidance

7.3 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Consideration should be given to paragraphs 6-13 (Presumption in Favour), 16 (Community Engagement), 17 (Core Planning Principles), 32, 34-39 (Sustainable Transport), 47 (Housing), 56-61 (Design), 69- 70 and 73 (Healthy Communities), 116-118 (Natural Environment), 162 (Infrastructure), 183-185 (Neighbourhood Planning), 196-198 (Determining Planning Applications).

7.4 The government's New Homes Bonus (NHB) which was set up in response to historically low levels of housebuilding aims to reward local authorities who grant planning permissions for new housing. Through the NHB the government will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built. As a result, councils will receive an automatic, six-year, 100 per cent increase in the amount of revenue derived from each new house built in their area. It follows that by allowing more homes to be built in their area local councils will receive more money to pay for the increased services that will be required, to hold down council tax. The NHB is intended to be an incentive for local government and local people, to encourage rather than resist, new housing of types and in places that are sensitive to local concerns and with which local communities are, therefore, content. Section 143 of the Localism Act which amends S.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes certain financial considerations such as the NHB, material considerations in the determination of planning applications for new housing. The amount of weight to be attached to the NHB will be at the discretion of the decision taker when carrying out the final balancing exercise along with the other material considerations relevant to that application.

Other Local Policy and Guidance

7.5 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance is material to the determination of this planning application:

Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document

7.6 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:

B1 - Managing a changing environment B2 - Greener living D1 - Increasing housing supply D2 - Vibrant, safe and clean neighbourhoods D3 - Housing fit for purpose D4 - Understanding and meeting community needs E1 - Traffic management in the district will improve so as to reduce congestion E2 - There will be improved cycling networks and strong links to public transport to ensure that cycling is a viable alternative to using the car E4 - People will have easier access to services at a local level

8.0 Planning Comments

Assessment

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are:

i) Principle of development ii) Highway Access and Safety iii) Design and Layout iv) Housing Mix and Tenure v) Flood Risk and Drainage vi) Ecology vii) Residential Amenity viii) Infrastructure Requirements i) Principle of development

8.2 An outline planning application for 25 dwellings on this site, considering matters of access, layout and scale, was granted at appeal in 2014 (13/01036/OUT). In reaching this decision, the Inspector concluded that the only significant adverse effect of allowing the appeal would be the loss of open countryside due to the development of the field, but this would be outweighed by the provision of 25 residential units, including 10 affordable homes, a new footway on the west side of School Lane and footway crossing that would link the appeal site with the existing footway on the north side of Lagness Road and thereby by way of a pedestrian controlled crossing to the rest of North Mundham.

8.3 It is therefore considered that the principle of development on this greenfield site has been established at appeal. The application site is identical to the scheme allowed at appeal and proposes the same number of dwellings (25). As with the appeal scheme, 40% of the units overall would be affordable, with a wildlife corridor / landscape buffer to be provided in the southern part of the site adjacent to a disused canal, and along the western site boundary. As this application does not alter the overall amount of development to be delivered on this site from the scheme granted at appeal and only varies from the appeal scheme in terms of the detailed layout and appearance of the scheme. The comments of third party objectors regarding the principle of redeveloping this greenfield site for housing are therefore noted, but the principle of development on this site is established by this recent appeal decision.

8.4 North Mundham is identified as a Service Village under policy 2 of the Chichester District Local Plan, where small scale housing development consistent with housing numbers identified under Policy 5 of the Local Plan, is acceptable. Policy 5 identifies an indicative housing number of 25 for North Mundham for the period 2012-2029. The proposed scheme would therefore meet this requirement and is acceptable in principle. ii) Access and Highway Safety

8.5 The application proposes one point of vehicular access onto School Lane, which is identical to that considered by the Inspector as part of the outline appeal.

8.6 County Highways Authority does not raise an objection on highway safety grounds in terms of the access and visibility onto School Lane, subject to the appropriate conditions being imposed. The level of trip generation proposed by the development equates to 15 trips in the morning and afternoon peak times, or 1 in every 4 minutes. This level of trip generation is not severe in highway safety or capacity terms. The new access onto School Lane will provide good visibility splays of 4.5m x 40m in both directions. The main access road will be 5.5m in width, allowing two cars to pass each other and access for emergency vehicles and a turning head is provided at the end of the cul-de-sac.

8.7 The applicant has submitted a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and Designer's Response. Off-site highway improvements will be delivered: School Lane will be widened to 5.5 metres between the junction of the B2166 and the development access, and a proposed footway crossing will be created with a 1.8m wide footpath on the west side of School Lane, and a smaller section of footpath provided on its eastern side. The footway will link the development to the existing footway on the north side of Lagness Road and the pedestrian controlled crossing. These improvements are considered necessary in making the development sustainable and safe for all users of the public highway, and are recommended to be secured by way of a Legal Agreement.

8.8 The scheme provides an increase number of parking spaces in relation to the appeal scheme (50 spaces - 2 spaces per unit, 8 more than the appeal scheme) to serve the development, either on curtilage, garages and a small parking court in the northern half of the site. This level of provision exceeds the WSCC Parking Demand Calculator and therefore no highway objection is raised.

8.9 The objections of third parties in respect of highway safety, specifically in relation to the double bend in the B2166, the high traffic speeds along this road and the inadequate carriageway, are noted. However, the Inspector concluded that there is, 'no evidence that there would be a significant adverse effect upon the operation of the junction', and that in the absence of such evidence or objection from the Highway Authority, the effect on the operation of the highway network would not be significant. The provision of a new footway and dropped kerb to provide an informal crossing point at School Lane to the pedestrian controlled crossing on the Lagness Road would provide safe pedestrian access to the rest of North Mundham and carried significant weight in the Inspector's decision. The applicant has provided a Construction Management Plan, which has been reviewed by the Highways Authority. The Highways Authority is concerned that there is no mention of the school in the construction management plan and a method statement should be included to ensure deliveries of this kind do not clash with school drop off and pick up times. A condition is therefore recommended requiring the submission of a construction management plan. iii) Design and Layout

8.10 At a density of 31 dwellings per hectare, the current layout takes the form of a curved residential cul-de-sac, with small parking courts and on curtilage parking, and a mixture of dwelling types and styles arranged as semi-detached dwellings, terraces, individual bungalows and group of four maisonettes. The development height would be either single or two storeys, with a maximum ridge height of 9.3 metres. The layout proposed with the current scheme addresses the site entrance and the frontage onto School Lane, the school building and the playground opposite, in order to create a more active frontage that integrates with the surrounding settlement. The character of the village was considered to be a mixed one by the Inspector, with residential cul-de-sacs constructed off the original lanes at Fletcher Place/Aldwyn Place and Palmer Place. The Inspector took the view that the curved alignment of the cul-de-sac, retention of frontage hedgerow and mixture of dwelling types would form a, 'pleasant, residential street', rather than an overly dense form of development

8.11 The effect upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area was considered with the outline scheme allowed at appeal. The Inspector concluded that, although the site is located outside of the settlement boundary, it position and proximity to North Mundham Primary School / Hall is such that it is not poorly related to the settlement or outside of it in functional terms. The degree of separation and screening provided by the canal and associated trees, will reduce the extent to which the loss of rural character is evident from parts of Lagness Road, and a robust hedgerow or bank would address the current post and rail fence on the western boundary. The current scheme retains the trees and vegetation along the southern and eastern boundaries, and the area adjacent to the disused canal on the southern boundary would form a wildlife corridor. This landscaping planting will be secured via a S106 Legal Agreement. Hedgerow planting is shown indicatively along the western boundary, and this could be secured as part of a robust landscaping scheme required by condition.

8.12 The Council's Design and Implementation Manager has made a number of suggestions as to how the layout and detailed design of the scheme could be improved. The revised layout incorporates a larger area of public open space of 275 sq metres, located centrally within the site, which will act as a focal point within the development. A more unified and simpler design palette of materials is proposed to create a more legible layout that addresses the frontage on School Lane. Each unit would have some form of private amenity space, including the four maisonettes at plots 22-25, in addition to the communal open space. Parking is in the main provided on curtilage, and a small parking court on the northern site boundary. The outlook and rear gardens of plots 1-4 would be onto an enlarged landscape buffer / wildlife corridor situated along the south and west boundaries, which is to be secured via a S106 Legal Agreement. The cottage vernacular of the units, incorporating brick and flint and brick quoins, tiling hanging and red stock bricks, is sympathetic to the semi-rural character of the area, and the scale of dwellings, limited to one and two storeys, reflects the scale of surrounding development. The applicant has provided a comprehensive hard and soft landscaping plan for the proposed development, along with indicative materials schedule. It is recommended that material samples are secured by planning condition.

8.13 In response to the comments of the Parish Council regarding the potential detrimental impact on the adjoining disused canal area and proximity of housing, a landscape buffer and wildlife corridor is proposed between the houses and the canal. A landscape management plan for the landscape buffer and wildlife corridor, as well as the communal landscaped areas and public open space, is recommended to be secured via the S106 Agreement, which would be maintained in perpetuity. iv) Housing Tenure and Mix

8.14 The outline permission granted at appeal, proposed 10 units of affordable housing (40%) based on a 70:30 tenure split between social rented and shared ownership, with 15 market units. As originally submitted, the scheme proposed the delivery of 40% affordable housing (10) based on a 60:40 tenure split between social rented and shared ownership, which is not SHMA compliant. The mix has therefore been amended to be SHMA compliant, in accordance with policy 34 of the Adopted Local Plan, with a mix of housing that meets the needs of the District. The mix and amount of affordable housing will be secured through a S106 Legal Agreement. The scheme is also acceptable in terms of pepper potting of the affordable units.

8.15 The Housing Enabler comments that the market housing has no restrictions and these could therefore be delivered as all affordable housing, provided the Council supports the request to lift the DPA (designated protected area) waiver by the registered provider. This, however, is not the subject of this application which proposes 40% affordable housing to be secured through the S106 Legal Agreement. v) Flood Risk and Drainage

8.16 The comments of third party objections regarding flood risk are noted; however, the site is located in Flood Zone 1, which is the lowest level of flood risk. In respect of surface water drainage, the CDC Drainage Engineer commented on the previous appeal scheme that a drainage strategy can be satisfactorily achieved, without increasing the greenfield run-off rate. Soakaways is the preferred option and this is referred to in the submitted planning statement with the current application. This is subject to the detailed design based on ground investigations including winter groundwater monitoring and percolation tests. A maintenance manual would be required detailing how the surface water drainage system would be maintained during the lifetime of the development. The full drainage design, maintenance regime may be secured by condition, as per the appeal decision on the outline scheme. Conditions are therefore recommended for drainage design, SUDs maintenance and easements to ditches / watercourses.

8.17 Foul drainage would be via mains drainage, which runs along the highway to the east of the application site. Southern Water indicated on the appeal scheme that there is inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul water drainage for the site without infrastructure upgrades. The Inspector considered that the matter of the detailed design of foul and surface water drainage could be satisfactorily resolved by planning condition. During the assessment of this application, Southern Water has confirmed in writing to the applicant and the Council that no additional upgrades or improvements to the off-site foul sewer network are required to accommodate the development flow from the site. The final details of foul water drainage are recommended to be secured by condition to ensure that all on-site works and connection to the network are undertaken prior to the first occupation of the development, in addition to a separate Legal Agreement under the Water Industry Act between the applicant and Southern Water. The comments of third party objectors and the Parish Council are therefore noted, but in the absence of technical evidence to the contrary or objection from the statutory undertaker, and having regard to the recent appeal decision, a refusal on this basis would not be sustainable. vi) Ecology and Recreational Disturbance

8.18 The site is currently an agricultural field, which has been used for the storage of hay bales and grass is cut low. There is mature vegetation and trees along the southern boundary, which is proposed to be retained and form a wildlife corridor. The wildlife corridor will be secured by the S106 Agreement, and a management plan submitted, which address the comments of the Parish Council.

8.19 Concerns were raised by the Council's Ecologist on the outline scheme, regarding mitigation to protect slow worms on the site and the possibility of other reptiles. The issue was considered by the Inspector and it was concluded that, on the available evidence, the properly managed displacement of any reptiles on adjacent land would not have a significant effect on other populations, or justify a specially managed receptor site, given the extensive grass cutting and agricultural use of the land, and low density reptile population found on the site. In addition, hedgerow planting is proposed along the western site boundary (approximately 90 metre) as compensatory habitat for the loss of a small section of hedgerow on the eastern boundary. The Inspector therefore concluded that there would not be a significant net loss of habitat or other significant harm to biodiversity, or conflict with paragraph 118 of the NPPF.

8.20 In view of the appeal decision and the fact there is no material change to the site, it is considered appropriate to secure a reptile mitigation strategy and this has been provided by the applicant and is considered acceptable by the Council's Ecologist. The mitigation includes the translocation of slow worms to an identified suitable receptor site, the installation of reptile fencing and trapping visits. It is recommended that the mitigation strategy is secured by planning condition. As with the outline scheme, compensatory habitat (hedgerow) planting is proposed along the western site boundary (93 metres).

8.21 In respect of bats, conditions are recommended to ensure that 5 metre hedgerow buffer strips are retained and supplemented across the site for foraging bats, notably on the southern boundary, and a lighting strategy is submitted for approval. The ecological survey does not identify badgers currently on site, but a precautionary badger survey is recommended to be secured by planning condition, as the southern site boundary is suitable habitat for a badger sett. Conditions are recommended to ensure sensitive site clearance.

8.22 The site falls within the 5.6 km Chichester and Langstone Harbour Special Protection Area's Zone of Influence where residential development is likely to have a significant effect on the SPA. This scheme does not propose a scheme of mitigation and therefore a contribution in accordance with the joint mitigation strategy outlined in Phase III of the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project is required. This is currently a sum of £176 per dwelling. The site also falls within the Pagham Harbour Special Protection Area's Zone of Influence and therefore a contribution in accordance with the Phase III of the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project is required. The current sum is £1131 per dwelling. Given that residents will not be able to access both SPA’s at the same time, and having regard to the advice of Natural England, the Council’s Ecologist considers it reasonable for an adjustment to the contribution. The sum of financial contributions would be secured through the S106 Agreement. vii) Residential Amenity

8.23 There is a residential property immediately to the north of the application site at Stoney Lodge. The application proposes four, two storey maisonettes located to the south of Stoney Lodge, at a distance of approximately 10-11 metres from the shared boundary, and a small parking court. The private rear gardens of plots 22- 25 would abut the boundary at this point and there would be overlooking from two first floor rear facing Juliet balconies on the north elevation serving habitable rooms towards the front garden of the neighbouring property. In relation to the extant outline permission, which approved the layout, plots 22-25 would be set further away from the common boundary (by 10-11 metres) and there is a detached outbuilding at this point that provides a degree of screening. Furthermore, the applicant has introduced obscure glazing to the first floor Juliet balconies and the proposal would not create direct overlooking of private amenity space (which is located to the rear of the neighbouring property). On this basis a refusal based on harm to neighbouring amenity is unwarranted.

8.24 Land to the north of the site currently benefits from extant outline permission for the redevelopment of the commercial yard for 8 dwellings (15/01857/OUT). The outline permission approved layout and access. The site layout and separation distance to development is such that there would be no adverse impact in terms of overlooking, outlook or loss of privacy in relation to the extant permission on the adjoining site for 8 dwellings. A new internal access road is proposed closest to the boundary at this point and a separation distance of 18 metres would be retained to the closest neighbouring dwelling. viii) Infrastructure Requirements

8.25 The Community Infrastructure Levy was adopted by the Council on 26th January 2016 and implemented on 1st February 2016. The proposed development will be subject to CIL, in accordance with the Council's Charging Schedule. The levy is £120 per sq metre for net internal residential floorspace to the South of the National Park. On this basis, and in accordance with the Council's Infrastructure and Affordable Housing SPD, the following will be sought by way of a S106 Agreement:

 40% affordable housing (10 units on site)  Provision of a landscape buffer / wildlife corridor along the southern and western site boundary  Provision of a minimum of 230 sq metres of public open space  Off-site highway works – 1.8 metre wide pedestrian footpath along both sides of School Lane and dropped pedestrian kerbs, and realignment of School Lane between the site access and Lagness Road (B2166) to ensure 5.5 metre width  Recreational mitigation (Chichester and Langstone SPA and Pagham SPA) - £28,275

Other Matters

8.26 The CDC Archaeologist has requested that in view of the potential archaeological interest on the site, a scheme of archaeological site investigation is secured by planning condition. Such a condition is recommended.

Significant Conditions

8.27 As recommended by consultees and discussed above, specific conditions are recommended to address the following matters of detail amongst others, to enable the scheme to be acceptable in full:

 Construction Management - including temporary access, hours of work, all activities within the site boundaries  Drainage - full details of all on foul drainage works including a timetable for implementation  Drainage - full scheme for surface water drainage  Access construction, including visibility splays and construction details, with relevant road safety audits, as advised by WSCC  Adherence to all ecological mitigation proposals/plans  A full materials/finish schedule with samples

Conclusion

8.28 The principle of development on this site has been established by the previous appeal decision. Officers consider that the development proposed is appropriate for North Mundham and would not appear incongruous, respecting the scale and character of development within the village. The detailed scale, layout, appearance and landscaping, is considered acceptable and represents an improvement on the appeal scheme. Subject to appropriate conditions and a S106 agreement, the proposal complies with development plan policies and the application is recommended for approval.

Human Rights

8.29 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.

RECOMMENDATION DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT

1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 B01G No Departure from Plans 3 U00110 - Materials 4 U00089 - Field Access Closure 5 U00090 - Prevention of Surface Water 6 U00091 - Access 7 U00092 - Visibility Splays 8 U00093 - Pedestrian visibility 9 U00094 - Cycle Parking 10 U00095 - Vehicle Parking and Turning 11 U00096 - Hours of Construction 12 U00097 - Archaeology - Site Investigation 13 U00099 - Hedgerow buffer 14 U00100 - Lighting 15 U00101 - Reptile Mitigation 16 U00102 - Screen Walls and Fences 17 U00103 - Surface water drainage 18 U00104 - SUDs maintenance 19 U00105 - Easement to ditch/watercourse 20 U00106 - Foul Water 21 F15F Site Levels and Sections 22 U01062 - Construction Method Statement 23 U01063 - Landscaping – accordance with plans 24 U00112 - Landscaping – implementation 25 U01661 - Badger Survey 26 U01686 - Bins

INFORMATIVES

1 U00107 - Section 278 Agreement 2 U00108 - Bird Breeding 3 U00109 - Southern Water 4 W45F Application Approved Following Revisions 5 U01678 - S106

For further information on this application please contact Katherine Rawlins on 01243 444542.