South) Committee TUESDAY 21ST JANUARY 2014 at 2.00Pm COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM

E-mail: CommitteeServices@horsham.gov.uk

Direct line: 01403 215465

Development Control (South) Committee TUESDAY 21ST JANUARY 2014 AT 2.00pm COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM

Councillors: David Jenkins (Chairman) Sheila Matthews Vice-Chairman) Roger Arthur Liz Kitchen Adam Breacher Gordon Lindsay Jonathan Chowen Brian O’Connell Philip Circus Roger Paterson Roger Clarke Sue Rogers George Cockman Kate Rowbottom David Coldwell Jim Sanson Ray Dawe Diana van der Klugt Brian Donnelly Claire Vickers Jim Goddard

Tom Crowley Chief Executive

AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence

2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17th December 2013 (attached)

3. To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee – any clarification on whether a Member has an interest should be sought before attending the meeting

4. To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee or the Chief Executive

5. To consider the following reports and to take such action thereon as may be necessary

Head of Planning & Environmental Services Appeals Applications for determination by Committee - Appendix A

Horsham District Council, Park North, Horsham, West Sussex RH12 1RL Tel: 01403 215100 (calls may be recorded) www.horsham.gov.uk Chief Executive - Tom Crowley

Item Ward Reference Site No. Number

A1 Chanctonbury DC/13/1265 Land North of Brook Close and Rother Close, Storrington

A2 Cowfold,Shermanbury DC/13/1818 Bridge Garage, Henfield Road, Cowfold & West Grinstead

A3 Chanctonbury DC/12/1028 Sussex Mushrooms, Storrington Road, Thakeham

A4 Cowfold,Shermanbury DC/13/2060 New Barn Farm, Swallows Lane, & West Grinstead Dial Post

A5 Henfield DC/13/2285 Henfield Business Park, Shoreham Road, Henfield

A6 Henfield DC/13/2287 Henfield Business Park, Shoreham Road, Henfield

6. Items not on the agenda which the Chairman of the meeting is of the opinion should be considered as urgent because of the special circumstances

DCS131217

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 17th December 2013

Present: Councillors: David Jenkins (Chairman), Sheila Matthews (Vice- Chairman), Roger Arthur, Jonathan Chowen, Philip Circus, Roger Clarke, George Cockman, Ray Dawe, Brian Donnelly, Jim Goddard, Liz Kitchen, Gordon Lindsay, Roger Paterson, Sue Rogers, Kate Rowbottom, Jim Sanson, Diana van der Klugt, Claire Vickers

Apologies: Councillors: Adam Breacher, David Coldwell, Brian O’Connell

DCS/77 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19th November 2013 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DCS/78 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

Member Item Nature of Interest

Councillor Roger DC/12/1092 Personal – he had been a member of Clarke West Grinstead Parish Council Planning Committee when it had considered the application

DCS/79 ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

DCS/80 APPEALS

Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No Site Appellant(s)

DC/13/1259 The Old Coach House, High Street, Mr Robert Hill Upper Beeding DC/13/1271 Brookhill Cottage, Horsham Road, Mr D Hiscock Cowfold DC/13/1272 Brookhill Cottage, Horsham Road, Mr D Hiscock Cowfold DC/13/1149 Gay Street Farm, Gay Street, Mr and Mrs Julian Pulborough Trumper DC/13/1150 Gay Street Farm, Gay Street, Mr and Mrs Julian Pulborough Trumper

Development Control (South) Committee 17th December 2013

DCS/80 Appeals (Cont.)

DC/13/0538 Curlytail Bungalow, Adversane Mr W Forrest Lane, Adversane, Billingshurst DC/13/1527 Walden Hall, Cowfold Road, West Mr David Bostock Grinstead SDNP/13/ Highden House, London Road, Mrs J Denman 03221/FUL Washington

Informal Hearings

Ref No Site Appellant(s)

DC/13/0132 Mobile Home, Furzefield Farm, Furzefield Farm Honeybridge Lane, Ashurst Equestrian

Appeal Decisions

Ref No Site Appellant(s) Decision

DC/12/2332 The Annexe, The Hollies, Mr Patrick and Dismissed Nightingale Lane, Storrington Mrs Vivien Ong

DCS/81 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1265 – DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 75 DWELLINGS INCLUDING THE CREATION OF AN ACCESS POINT FROM WATER LANE. PROVISION OF OPEN SPACE INCLUDING CHILDREN'S PLAY AREA, LINEAR PARK, LANDSCAPING AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN DRAINAGE SYSTEMS ON THE SITE (OUTLINE) SITE: LAND NORTH OF BROOK CLOSE AND ROTHER CLOSE STORRINGTON APPLICANT: MR NEIL KELLY

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought outline planning permission for the erection of approximately 75 residential dwellings with informal open space, play area and parking. Matters for consideration under this outline application were the principle of the development and access, with all other matters reserved for future determination.

The application had been considered by the Committee in October, when Members had been minded to refuse the application and it had been resolved to seek legal advice with regard to the suggested reasons for refusal (Minute No. DCS/63 (15.10.13) refers).

Development Control (South) Committee 17th December 2013

DCS/81 Planning Application: DC/13/1265 (Cont.)

The application site was located outside the built-up area to the north-east of Storrington on the northern side of Water Lane and covered an irregularly shaped area of 4.47 hectares comprising rough grassland bounded by field hedging and trees. A stream flowed along the southern boundary.

Members were referred to the previous report which contained details of the location, relevant policies, planning history, the outcome of consultations and a planning assessment of the proposal.

Since preparation of the report, two further letters of objection had been received. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application. Representatives from West Grinstead Parish Council and Cowfold Parish Council both spoke in objection to the application.

Members discussed the proposal in the light of the legal advice which had been received and in the context of the Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy. It was noted that under the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD any potential adverse impact would need to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the potential benefits.

Members discussed whether the application was premature, given the Parish Council had yet to publish its Neighbourhood Plan, and the strong local opposition to the proposal.

Members discussed their grave concerns regarding vehicle emissions, and noted the mitigation measures that the applicant had agreed to implement. The applicant had also confirmed that they had no objection in principle to helping to fund wider CIL compliant measures to address air quality in the area. Members considered that even a negligible increase in traffic movements would have a detrimental impact on air quality and the health of residents, and questioned the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures.

Members remained concerned that the potential increase in traffic movements would overstretch the current local network. A Member, who was also a County Councillor, stated that he had been advised by West Sussex County Council’s County Surveyor that, whilst the Highway Authority had raised no objection to the proposal, they did not consider the development to be particularly desirable. The Member considered that, should the application be refused and taken to appeal, a more nuanced response raising highway concerns would therefore be available to an inspector.

It was considered that Members required clarification of the County Surveyor’s reported comments regarding highway safety and congestion, to ensure they were fully informed of all material considerations prior to determining the application.

Development Control (South) Committee 17th December 2013

DCS/81 Planning Application: DC/13/1265 (Cont.)

Members therefore agreed that the application should be deferred.

RESOLVED

That application DC/13/1265 be deferred until the next meeting of the Committee to allow for clarification to be sought from the County Surveyor regarding West Sussex County Council’s consultation response to highway safety and capacity.

DCS/82 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1092 – DEVELOPMENT OF CREMATORIUM FACILITY WITHIN A PARKLAND SETTING, INCLUDING A GROUNDS MAINTENANCE AND SECURE EQUIPMENT STORE AND A TOTAL OF 63 CAR PARKING SPACES. PROPOSALS INCLUDE AN UPGRADED ACCESS ONTO A272 TO BE SHARED WITH THE EXISTING RESTAURANT WHICH ADJOINS THE SITE SITE: LAND ADJOINING THE ORCHARD COWFOLD ROAD WEST GRINSTEAD APPLICANT: PEACEBOUND LTD (Councillor Roger Clarke declared a personal interest in this application as he had been a member of West Grinstead Parish Council Planning Committee when it had considered the application.)

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the erection of a crematorium building in a parkland setting, with associated infrastructure including grounds maintenance and secure equipment store. There would be a total of 120 parking spaces, including 57 informal overspill parking spaces. The proposal included an upgraded access onto the A272 to be shared with the existing restaurant adjoining the site.

The building would be 68.5 metres long and 23.5 metres wide, with a single storey sedum green roof to the covered entrance and office, and a sloping single ply roofing membrane to the main building. There would be a staff room, office, crematory area with all required mechanical plant, a chapel, vestry and waiting area, toilets, a hall of remembrance, two suites for families after the service and a kitchen area. The main materials proposed for the structure would be local stock bricks and patinated copper coloured metal vertical cladding. A ground maintenance and secure equipment store would be towards the front of the site.

The application site was located in the countryside on the northern side of the A272, to the west of the former railway line that now formed part of the Downs Link and was close to a small informal group of properties that formed the hamlet of West Grinstead. There were residential properties to the west and south of the site, and the restaurant was to the south east.

Development Control (South) Committee 17th December 2013

DCS/82 Planning Application: DC/12/1092 (Cont.)

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP13, CP15 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC5, DC6, DC8, DC9 and DC40; and the Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/12/1851 Sustainable low impact eco holiday and Granted ranger centre, comprising 8 holiday lodges and campsite, WSCC Rangers office, associated parking blocks, parking and access (following expiry of DC/08/0593) DC/11/0783 The erection of a crematorium building Refused with associated infrastructure including new internal access road, manager's lodge house, grounds maintenance and secure equipment store and 63 parking spaces. Upgraded access onto the A272 to be shared with the existing restaurant adjoining the site DC/08/0593 Sustainable low impact eco holiday and Granted ranger centre, comprising 8 holiday lodges and campsite, WSCC Rangers office, associated parking blocks, parking and access WG/42/91 40 bedroom Trusthouse Forte travel lodge Refused and car park extension

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. In particular, the comments and concerns of the Strategic Planning Officer were noted. It was reported at the meeting that in addition to the 63 parking spaces there would be an area for overspill parking for 57 vehicles. It was reported at the meeting that clay pigeon shooting on an area adjacent to the site had been permitted.

West Grinstead Parish Council and Cowfold Parish Council both objected to the application. 163 letters of objection and 66 of support had been received. Since preparation of the report a petition of 94 signatures in objection to the proposal had been received. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application and one member of the public spoke in support. The applicant and the applicant’s agent both addressed the committee in support of the proposal. A representative of the Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Development Control (South) Committee 17th December 2013

DCS/82 Planning Application: DC/12/1092 (Cont.)

Members considered the principle of the development and its impact on the character of the surrounding area and on the amenities of neighbouring properties. Application DC/11/0783 had been refused by the Committee in September 2011 as it had been considered that the proposal would harm the rural character of the vicinity and there had been no proven need for a crematorium in this rural location (Minute No. DCS/73 (20.09.11) refers). Members considered that the only significant change since the previous application was that the current proposal did not include a manager’s lodge house on the site.

Members noted the strong local objection the discussed concerns raised by residents who lived in close proximity to the site. Members considered that concerns regarding the impact of the previous proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area had not been overcome.

The unsustainable nature of the site was discussed. Whilst the Highway Authority had raised no objection, a significant increase in traffic would be generated by the proposal and Members considered there would be safety implications due to increased access and egress from the A272. Members questioned whether there was a proven need for a crematorium in this part of the District and considered that, should the need for a further crematorium in the district be proven, a site closer to a Category 1 Settlement in the District would be more appropriate.

Whilst the operation of the site would be controlled by the Cremation Act, Members were concerned that the size and layout of the site would not allow for the long term scattering and burial of ashes. Members discussed the layout of the proposal and its impact on neighbouring properties.

Members considered that, on balance and after careful assessment of all the relevant material considerations, the community benefits of the proposal had not been proven and would not outweigh concerns regarding the sustainability of the location, the internal layout of the site and the impact on the amenity of surrounding area. Members therefore concluded that the proposal of unacceptable in principle.

RESOLVED

That application DC/12/1092 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with local Members, to allow for the framing of reasons for refusal. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be refused.

Development Control (South) Committee 17th December 2013

DCS/83 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1909 – DEMOLITION OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND THE ERECTION OF THREE DWELLINGS SITE: BARNFIELD HOUSE SINCOX LANE SHIPLEY HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR FREDDIE GRAHAM-WATSON

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the demolition of existing commercial buildings and their replacement with three residential dwellings. The existing vehicular access would serve all three dwellings, with a shared driveway leading along the eastern boundary of the site.

There were three main buildings which would be removed; two of these were vacant and one was currently used for the storage of hay. There was also a large area of concrete hard-surfacing which would be removed.

The dwellings would be positioned towards the centre of the site and be divided up to create three residential curtilage areas, with the southern most section given over to the creation of a nature/wetland feature.

Unit One, a 3-bedroom dwelling, would be attached to Unit Two, a 4- bedroom dwelling, by means of a double space car port. Unit Three would be a fully detached 4-bedroom property set further to the south within the site.

The application site was located in a countryside location south west of Shipley. There was a cluster of buildings to the east comprising Falconers, including the Grade II listed farmhouse, The Bungalows and Pond House. Barnfield House was to the immediate west.

The site was enclosed by a line of trees and vegetation to the northern boundary, by a 1.8 metre high red brick wall to the western boundary and by a combination of low hedging, fencing and a red brick wall to the eastern boundary.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP11, CP12, CP13 and CP15; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC5, DC7, DC9, DC13, DC24, DC30 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

SP/41/94 Retention of agricultural building Granted

Development Control (South) Committee 17th December 2013

DCS/83 Planning Application: DC/13/1909 (Cont.)

SP/23/96 Erection of an agricultural lean-to Granted SP/37/98 Continued use for production of animal Granted feeds with ancillary storage of straw and other crops SP/38/98 Retention of linking structure between Granted buildings for storage of grain straw and other crops SP/41/98 Retention of use of part of building for Refused accommodation of horses SP/47/98 Retention of use for retail sales of animal Refused products and associated produce DC/12/0638 Use of dwelling in breach of Condition 3 Granted (Agricultural occupancy restriction) of planning permission SP/5/91 (Erection of farmhouse and garage) for more than 10 years (Certificate of Lawful Development - Existing)

The lawful use of the site and buildings was unclear. Planning permission for a section of one building only had been granted in 1998 for the production of animal feeds and the storage of ancillary straw and crops. An application for a Certificate of Lawful Development, which had sought to regularise the use of an adjacent dwelling in contravention of the agricultural occupancy condition imposed upon it, had been submitted in 2012. The Certificate of Lawful Development only related to the adjacent dwelling and did not establish the lawful use of the application site.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. It was noted that insufficient information relating to the potential risks from ground contamination had been submitted. The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. One letter of objection and 30 letters of support had been received. One member of the public spoke in support of the application and the applicant and the applicant’s agent both addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

It was considered that the principal issues in the determination of the application were whether the proposal was acceptable in principle and its impact on the character and appearance of the area and on the amenities of nearby residents. Members also considered highway issues and the proposal’s impact on ecology, contamination and drainage issues.

Members discussed the proposal in the context of local residents support. It was noted that the current largely unauthorised commercial use of the site generated unacceptable levels of traffic in the vicinity and caused

Development Control (South) Committee 17th December 2013

DCS/83 Planning Application: DC/13/1909 (Cont.)

disturbance to neighbouring occupiers. Whilst the proposal would prevent continued commercial use and reduce noise and traffic disturbance for nearby residents, Members did not consider this to be sufficient grounds for overlooking planning considerations.

Members were also concerned that permitting residential development, in place of a rural business, would set a precedent.

The site was not adjacent to an established settlement and did not benefit from public transport links. Members considered the site to be unsustainable and the introduction of three family homes would be contrary to local and national policies in favour of sustainable development that protected the rural countryside.

Members noted the design and mass of the proposed dwellings and considered that the proposal would be overdevelopment of the site. It was a brownfield site in a small residential pocket and Members discussed whether some residential development of a lower density than the proposal, could be acceptable in principle.

Taking all material considerations into account, Members considered that the potential benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harm and agreed that the proposal was unacceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/13/1909 be refused for the following reasons:

01 The site lies within an unsustainable rural location outside the limits of any existing settlement and with poor access to services and facilities without the use of a private motor vehicle. In addition, the proposed development does not constitute a use considered essential to such a countryside location. The proposal would therefore conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework, and in particular with paragraph 55, and with policies CP1, CP5 and CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

02 The design of the proposed development would not reflect the characteristics of residential properties in the locality and would consequently appear out of

Development Control (South) Committee 17th December 2013

DCS/83 Planning Application: DC/13/1909 (Cont.)

keeping with the visual amenity of the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007) and with the adopted Shipley Parish Design Statement SPD (2013).

03 The application has not been supported by sufficient information relating to the potential risks from ground contamination to enable a full assessment of the suitability of the site for the development proposed or any mitigation measures that may be required. The application therefore does not accord with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular paragraphs 120 and 121.

DCS/84 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/2121 – ERECTION OF A 3 BEDROOM CHALET WITH DETACHED GARAGE AND GARDEN/BIKE STORE (AMENDMENT TO PLANNING APPROVAL DC/12/2221 TO INCLUDE A SINGLE-STOREY SUN ROOM TO THE REAR) SITE: FORMER BEEHIVE BENTONS LANE DIAL POST APPLICANT: MR AND MRS SCROGGS

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the erection of a three bedroom dwelling and double garage. Application DC/12/2221 for the replacement of a two bedroom dwelling with a new three bedroom dwelling and double garage had been considered by the Committee in January 2013 (Minute No. DCS/103 (15.01.13) refers) and the dwelling, which had been approved, was currently under construction. This application sought permission for the inclusion of a single story conservatory-style sun room measuring 3.82 metres by 5.41 metres, with a height of 4.7 metres, which would adjoin the lounge. It would be constructed of materials to match the existing dwelling.

The site was located off London Road in a private road, which led to dwellings of varying size and design, and included a single storey dwelling consisting of two bedrooms, and a number of outbuildings and carport. The dwelling was located within a large plot formed of residential curtilage and further land to the rear of the application site, which was owned by the applicant. Dial Post was located outside any defined built up area boundary.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP3; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC28; and the Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy were relevant to the determination of this application.

Development Control (South) Committee 17th December 2013

DCS/84 Planning Application: DC/13/2121 (Cont.)

Relevant planning history included:

DC/12/1332 Demolition of existing single storey Withdrawn dwelling and the erection of a three bedroom chalet with detached garage and garden/bike store DC/12/2221 Demolition of existing single storey Granted dwelling and the erection of a 3 bedroom chalet with detached garage and garden/bike store DC/13/1472 Proposed single storey sun room Withdrawn extension

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council objected to the application. Six letters of objection had been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant and the applicant’s agent both addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. A representative of the Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Members noted that the proposal sought approval for an amended scheme based on the previously approved application. The only change sought was the addition of a sun room to the rear of the property. There were several substantial dwellings in Bentons Lane of similar character to the proposed dwelling and Members had previously concluded that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the street scene. It was therefore considered that the principle of the larger replacement dwelling had been established as acceptable.

Members discussed the impact of the additional sunroom on the mass and character of the proposed dwelling. Whilst concerns regarding an incremental increase in size were noted, given its location to the rear of the dwelling and its single storey height, Members considered the proposal would be an appropriate addition.

Members considered that the proposal would have an insignificant impact on the previously approved DC/12/2221 and therefore be in keeping with the street scene and have no significant detrimental impact on the countryside location or the amenity of neighbouring properties.

RESOLVED

That application DC/13/2121 be granted subject to the following conditions:

01 A2 Full Permission

Development Control (South) Committee 17th December 2013

DCS/84 Planning Application: DC/13/2121 (Cont.)

02 M1 Approval of Materials 03 D5 No windows (east elevation) 04 M8 Sustainable Construction 05 D6 Finished Floor Levels 06 G6 Refuse/recycling 07 H6 Wheel Washing 08 H4a On Site Parking 09 L1 Landscaping 10 O1 Hours of Working 11 O2 Burning of materials in connection with the development 12 O3 Site Clearance 13 V5 No Extensions

REASON

The proposed amendment to previously approved application DC/12/2221 would accord with the requirements of policies DC1, DC9 and DC28. The additional sun room to the rear would be an appropriate addition that would be of a design and scale that would not materially affect the character of the permitted dwelling or its countryside setting, the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, or the street scene.

DCS/85 PLANNING APPLICATION: SDNP/13/01971/FUL – RETENTION OF POTTING SHED AND GREENHOUSE WITH SOFT LANDSCAPING SCHEME ALONG THE BOUNDARY WALL SITE: THE THATCHED COTTAGE HOG LANE AMBERLEY APPLICANT: MISS CHARLOTTE MORROW

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought retrospective planning permission for the retention of a potting shed and greenhouse with soft landscaping scheme along the boundary wall. The potting shed measured two metres by approximately one metre with a height of 3.3 metres and was finished with oak cladding. The greenhouse measured 1.8 metres by 2.3 metres with a height of 2.4 metres and was finished with green powder coating.

The application site was located within the Conservation Area of Amberley on the northern part of Hog Lane and included a two-storey detached Grade II listed dwelling.

There was a large sloping rear garden which sloped downwards in a South- North direction. The potting shed and green house were in the north-eastern corner of the garden and could not be seen from the listed building.

Development Control (South) Committee 17th December 2013

DCS/85 Planning Application: SDNP/13/01971/FUL (Cont.)

There was a 1.5 metre retaining wall on the northern boundary. A public right of way ran to the north-west of the site and there were views over looking Amberley Wild Brooks to the immediate North.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; the statutory purposes of the SDNP designation; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP3; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC2, DC9, DC12 and DC13 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Relevant planning history included:

DC/10/0728 Single storey timber outbuilding Granted

DC/10/1947 Retrospective permission for an oak clad Refused potting shed, green powder coated Granted on greenhouse and a brick fire pit Appeal DC/12/0030 Removal of damaged top section of brick Refused wall at far end of boundary, to be replaced by metal posts and mess wire DC/12/0031 Removal of damaged top section of brick Refused wall at far end of boundary, to be replaced by metal posts and mess wire (Listed Building Consent)

Members discussed the history of the site. Whilst the shed and greenhouse had been allowed on appeal, the applicant had failed to comply with the appeal conditions regarding the submission and approval of a suitable soft landscaping scheme. The appeal conditions had required the demolition of the structures should this condition be breached.

The applicant had undertaken some landscaping and submitted a landscaping scheme with the current application, which had been approved by the Landscape Architect. Whilst concerns regarding the visual impact of the proposal were noted, Members considered that the proposed additional hedging and other landscaping would be sufficient to mitigate the impact on the visual amenity of the surrounding countryside.

Development Control (South) Committee 17th December 2013

DCS/85 Planning Application: SDNP/13/01971/FUL (Cont.)

In the light of previous non-compliance, Members considered that an additional condition, requiring the removal of the buildings if the landscaping scheme were not implemented in accordance with Condition 1, should be added. It was noted that a Breach of Condition notice would be served and enforcement action could be taken should the landscaping condition be breached.

RESOLVED

That application SDNP/13/01971/FUL be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with Local Members, for the framing of an additional condition requiring the removal of the buildings if the approved landscaping scheme is not implemented in accordance with the requirements of Condition 1. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCS/86 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1634 – USE OF THE SITE AS NURSERY AND FARM SHOP (RENEWAL OF PERMISSION DC/09/2188) SITE: FORMER ASHURST VILLAGE NURSERY BINES GREEN PARTRIDGE GREEN APPLICANT: MR ROBERT HOLLAND

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the use of the site as a nursery and farm shop. The application had previously been considered by the Committee in October 2013 when permission had been granted, subject to the completion of a legal agreement to limit the range of goods sold (Minute No. DCS/11 (15.10.13) refers). Subsequent to that decision, the Head of Legal Services had raised concerns over the enforceability of the legal agreement and advised that the restrictions would be better controlled and enforced through conditions.

The application site was located within a countryside location to the east of the B2135 approximately one kilometre north of Ashurst and two and a half kilometres south of Partridge Green. The site had been vacant for approximately five years. There was a small farm shop and a large greenhouse with an area of hard standing used for parking. There were open fields to the south and east, and a Grade II residential property (Doves Cottage) to the north.

Members were referred to the previous report which contained details of relevant policies, planning history, the outcome of consultations and a planning assessment of the proposal.

Development Control (South) Committee 17th December 2013

DCS/86 Planning Application: DC/13/1634 (Cont.)

Members noted that there had been no material changes since the application had been previously granted, and considered that the proposed retail outlets would promote and encourage the rural economy.

Members discussed the viability of a business in this rural location and noted the range of goods that would be allowed under Condition 15 and 16. Members considered that the control of the sale of goods through these conditions would be acceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/13/1634 be granted subject to the following conditions:

01 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

02 The development hereby approved shall be used as a nursery and farm shop only in accordance with the approved plans, and details and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in any class of the schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987).

03 No works or development shall take place until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any plants which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

04 No burning of materials shall take place on the site.

05 No external lighting or floodlighting shall be installed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority by way of a planning application. Any that is installed with the permission of the Local Planning Authority shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Development Control (South) Committee 17th December 2013

DCS/86 Planning Application: DC/13/1634 (Cont.)

06 No work shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of:- 0900 hours and 1800 hours on Mondays to Saturdays inclusive, and 1030 hours and 1630 hours on Sundays and Public Holidays.

07 Deliveries, loading, unloading, collection of trade waste and any other form of dispatch (Other than visiting customers taking away purchased goods) shall be restricted to:- 0800 hours and 1800 hours on Mondays to Fridays inclusive, 0900 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays, and no deliveries, loading or unloading shall be undertaken on Sundays or Public Holidays.

08 No produce, crates, packing materials or waste shall be stacked or stored on the site except within the building, without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

09 The site hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless and until provision for the storage of refuse/recycling bins has been made within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

10 No external refrigerated units, walk-in-chillers, freezer vehicles etc must be stored on site.

11 Before development commences details of any proposed refrigeration plant or machinery shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

12 No vehicle access is permitted through the entrance to the access track adjacent to the northern boundary with Dove’s Cottage. This track must only be used for access to the field at the rear of the site. The track should be kept clear of all obstructions, at all times.

13 The site shall not be occupied until customer parking spaces shown on drawing no. 785/07/P/10A shall have been constructed. The areas of land so provided shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking of customer’s vehicles.

Development Control (South) Committee 17th December 2013

DCS/86 Planning Application: DC/13/1634 (Cont.)

14 Before development commences, suitable noise controls of any extract ventilation, heating etc to the greenhouse or farm shop shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The controls must ensure that there is no background noise levels (to include low frequency noise). Thereafter, the ventilation/heating systems shall be operated and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

15 The range of products retailed from the farm shop shall be limited to meat and dairy products, eggs, jam and honey, fresh fruit and vegetables and cut flowers. Any changes to the range of products retailed shall not be made without the approval of the Local Planning Authority by way of a planning application

16 The retailing of goods from the retail nursery shall be limited to bedding plants, pot plants, trees, peat and potting compost, baskets, pesticides, plant pots and tubs, ornamental stone and aggregates commonly used in the landscaping of gardens. Any changes to the range of goods retailed shall not be made without the approval of the Local Planning Authority by way of a planning application.

REASON

The need to promote and encourage the rural economy is part of the core planning principles of the NPPF. The site is located in a rural area where in accordance with Policy DC38 of the General Development Control Policies (2007), retail goods sold should be appropriate to the rural location.

The meeting closed at 5.28pm having commenced at 2.00pm.

CHAIRMAN

Development Control (South) Committee 17th December 2013

Blank

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 21ST JANUARY 2014 REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

APPEALS

1. Appeals Lodged

I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been lodged:-

2. Written Representations/Householder Appeals Service

DC/13/1303 Retrospective application for 1.5m high fence 1 Picketty Cottages, Coolham Road, West Chiltington, Pulborough, RH20 2LT. For: Mr Francis Ashbee

DC/13/1681 Replacement of old windows with new PVCu alternatives. Tunsgate, Jarvis Lane, Steyning For: Mr Michael Bissett-Powell

DC/13/0475 Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission AS/26/97 (the 21 seasonal caravans stationed on the site shall only be occupied from 1st March to 31st October inclusive) to allow the residential occupancy of 10 mobile homes. Luckista Caravan Site, Billingshurst Road, Ashington, Pulborough, RH20 3AY For: Frankham Real Estates Limited

SDNP/13/01577/FUL Change of use of former Chapel to one-bed dwelling, erection of single storey rear extension and provision of 2 off street parking spaces. Watersfield Chapel, London Road, Watersfield, Pulborough, RH20 1NQ. For: Mrs C E Judd

DC/13/1342 Construction of 4-bed detached dwelling and attached garage. Land South of Springwood, Sandgate Lane, Storrington. For: Mrs H Amand

DC/13/1357 Amendment to previously approved DC/13/0001 (Extension to the front of the property, raising of roof to form additional 1st floor living accommodation and new roof, to improve space and appearance) to include the removal of 1x roof light on south elevation and the addition of 1 x roof light on north elevation. Little Bracken, 63A Roman Road, Steyning, BN44 3FN. For: Mr Alan Margodt APPEALS (Cont.)

DC/13/0780 Proposed 3-bedroom chalet style house. Land Rear of 116 High Street, Billingshurst. For: Mr Nigel Alexander

3. Informal Hearings

DC/13/0926 Proposed change of use of land to a single pitch local gypsy site for a temporary period of 5 years. The Caravan, Littleworth Lane, Partridge Green For: Mr Billy Bath

4. Appeal Decisions

I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been determined:-

DC/12/1878 Proposed 3-bedroom chalet style house 116 High Street, Billingshurst For: Mr Nigel Alexander Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/13/0897 Conversion of existing barns to a live/work unit with stables and hay store. Smallham Farm Barns, Kennel Lane, West Grinstead For: Dr David Hartnett Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/12/1997 To use as cafe/restaurant mainly from existing kitchen in next door unit. Sale of guitars and equipment and recording music as existing (Certificate of Lawful Development - Proposed). 4A West Street, Storrington, Pulborough, RH20 4EE. For: Mr Ray Kwok Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/13/1303 Retrospective application for 1.5m high fence. 1 Picketty Cottages, Coolham Road, West Chiltington, Pulborough, RH20 2LT For: Mr Francis Ashbee Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/13/1093 Additional roof space to existing garage and new gates (Full Planning). Copper Beeches, The Street, Thakeham, Pulborough, RH20 3EP. For: Mr and Mrs Keenan Appeal: ALLOWED (Delegated)

DC/13/0808 The change of use of Lannards Annexe from ancillary accommodation to a separate self contained dwelling. Lannards Annexe, Okehurst Lane, Billingshurst, RH14 9HR. For: Mr and Mrs C and J Buck Appeal: ALLOWED (Delegated) APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 21st January 2014 Development of approximately 75 dwellings including the creation of an access point from Water Lane. Provision of open space including DEVELOPMENT: children's play area, linear park, landscaping and sustainable urban drainage systems on the site (Outline) SITE: Land North of Brook Close and Rother Close Storrington West Sussex WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/13/1265 APPLICANT: Mr Neil Kelly

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Officer referral

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a Sec106 Agreement

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This application was first reported to Committee in October 2013 and again in December 2013. Copies of both Committee reports are attached at Appendix A. Members will recall that at the October Committee meeting it was resolved to overturn the recommendation for approval and to defer the application to seek legal advice with regard to the suggested reasons for refusal.

1.2 Following the receipt of legal advice in respect of the suggested reasons for refusal, Members were duly advised at the December Committee meeting, that given the acknowledged need for housing within the District, none of the objections were considered to be sustainable. ln addition, it was advised there was also the risk that the Council would be found to have acted unreasonably if planning permission were to be refused.

1.3 Notwithstanding this advice, Members requested further clarification of the County Council’s position on highway matters in respect of the proposed development, and with particular reference to the sustainability of the proposal. In this regard confirmation has been received from the Highway Authority that the consultation responses dated 9th August and 3rd September 2013 respectively remain the Highway Authority’s official views on the application and to which no objection is raised. Copies of the responses are attached at Appendix B.

1.4 In terms of accessibility, the Highway Authority has advised that the applicant has demonstrated through the application of current guidance that there are a range of services

Contact Officer: Hazel Corke Tel: 01403 215177 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2

and facilities within reasonable walking and cycling distance of the site. Pedestrian routes towards the village centre have also been considered in detail by the applicant and there is no disagreement with the conclusions reached by the applicant in the Transport Assessment. It is acknowledged that the application site lies on the edge of the village and as such and dependent upon the trip purpose, future residents may need to make use of the private car. However, residents would not be dependent upon the car for all purposes and they would have a choice as to how trips of a certain nature would be made. No objection is therefore raised to the proposal on the grounds of accessibility.

1.5 Whilst the current application has been considered on its own merits, the Highway Authority has drawn attention to a recent appeal decision for residential development on land adjacent to the application site, known as Venters (DC/11/0111). The Inspector who considered the appeal offered comments on the issue of accessibility in his subsequent decision. Whilst the Inspector considered that the site was not in a highly accessible location, nevertheless, he did identify that given the distance to Storrington High Street (1.6km) that residents would have a choice as to transport modes and that residents would not be wholly dependent upon the private car. It should be noted that the current application site is located closer to Storrington than the scheme which was allowed at appeal.

2. CONCLUSION

2.1 National planning policy is clear that a high priority must be given to meeting the fully assessed need for housing and this requirement has been clearly demonstrated by recent appeal decisions. Given the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the lack of a 5 year housing land supply, the national guidance is very clear in that there must be significant and demonstrable harm associated with the proposal which would outweigh the benefits of the development. In this respect no objections to the proposed development have been raised by the Highway Authority or any other consultee in terms of policy, landscape impact, noise, air quality and flooding.

2.2 Without a valid planning objection to the proposal it would be extremely difficult to defend a refusal of planning permission at appeal and this has been confirmed by the requisite legal advice. Furthermore, the Council would also run the risk of an award of costs if it was found that it had acted unreasonably in making its decision. In the circumstances, it is considered that planning permission should be granted for the proposed development.

3. RECOMMENDATION

3.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure the relevant contributions and the conditions as set out in the original Committee report.

Background Papers: DC/13/1265 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 17th December 2013 Development of approximately 75 dwellings including the creation of an access point from Water Lane. Provision of open space including DEVELOPMENT: children's play area, linear park, landscaping and sustainable urban drainage systems on the site (Outline) SITE: Land North of Brook Close and Rother Close Storrington West Sussex WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/13/1265 APPLICANT: Mr Neil Kelly

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Officer referral

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a Sec106 Agreement

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This application was first reported to the October Committee meeting whereby it was resolved to overturn the recommendation for approval and to defer the application to seek legal advice with regard to the suggested reasons for refusal. A copy of the original Committee report is attached at Appendix A.

1.2 Members’ objections to the proposed development were as follows;

 The development would be contrary to the South East Plan policy in respect of the Gatwick region in terms of the number of houses required;  There would be an adverse impact on the Air Quality Management Area in Storrington;  The development would be contrary to criteria 4, 11 and 13 of the FAD SPD;  The development would be contrary to Para 124 of the NPPF  The development would be premature as the Parish Council has not yet published its neighbourhood plan;  The community benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the above concerns.

1.3 Following receipt of legal advice in respect of the above objections, Members are duly advised that given the acknowledged need for housing within the District, which would be given significant weight in an appeal situation, that none of the objections are considered to be sustainable and there is also the risk that the Council would be found to have acted

Contact Officer: Hazel Corke Tel: 01403 215177 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2

unreasonably if permission is refused. Having regard to this advice it is therefore considered that planning permission should be granted for the proposed development subject to appropriate conditions and the completion of a Legal Agreement to secure the relevant financial contributions.

1.4 Notwithstanding the above comments, it is acknowledged that the issue of air quality is a matter of great concern to Members. Consequently, in the light of legal advice received, discussions have taken place with the applicant in respect of the proposed air quality mitigation measures in which the applicant has confirmed a commitment to the operational phase mitigation measures which would comprise of the following:

 Residential sales staff training – all sales staff would be trained to give advice to all purchasers on the alternative modes of transport to the private car, which can be accessed from the new development, and details of facilities within the immediate area  Sustainable travel information pack and website – each household would be provided with a Travel Information Pack which would contain such details as bus timetables, local footpaths, maps and details of websites for local car sharing  Bus taster tickets – each household would be offered a bus season ticket for 3 months or  Cycle vouchers – the provision of one new bicycle per household if bus season ticket is not taken  Promotion of car sharing opportunities – as part of the Travel Information Pack residents would be directed to the West Sussex Carshare website, to encourage car sharing from the first day of occupation.

In addition a firm commitment has been received from the applicant with regard to the provision of electric car charging points with the intention of providing points for the equivalent of not less than 60% of the number of new homes constructed.

1.5 The applicant has also confirmed that he has no objection in principle to help fund wider measures to address air quality in Storrington subject to the identification of a project which would be CIL compliant.

2. CONCLUSION

2.1 It is acknowledged that Members have raised a number of objections to the proposal, however, legal advice has confirmed that none of the objections could be substantiated and successfully defended at appeal. There is also the risk that an award of costs could be made against the Council if it was found that the Council had acted unreasonably in making its decision.

2.1 Members will recall that no objection was raised to the proposal by any of the respective consultees and there would be undoubted benefits arising from the development. In the circumstances, it is therefore considered that planning permission should be granted for the proposed development.

3. RECOMMENDATION

Background Papers: DC/13/1265 ITEM A? - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 15th October 2013 Development of up to 75 dwellings including the creation of an access point from Water Lane. Provision of open space including children's play DEVELOPMENT: area, linear park, landscaping and sustainable urban drainage systems on the site (Outline) SITE: Land North of Brook Close and Rother Close Storrington West Sussex WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/13/1265 APPLICANT: Mr Neil Kelly

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of development

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to conditions and the completion of a Sec106 Agreement.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks outline consent for the erection of up to 75 dwellings with a new access, associated parking with open space and play area provision. Consent is here sought for the means of access to the site with all other matters reserved for future determination. The application was deleted from the September Committee agenda in order to seek further clarification from Southern Water in respect of the capacity of the local infrastructure and its ability to accommodate the proposed development.

1.2 The application site has an area of 4.47hectares of which approx. 1.4 hectares would be provided for on-site informal open space.

1.3 Whilst the application is in outline form the applicant has indicated that the proposed development would comprise the following mix of units:- 8 x 2 bed flats, 10 x 2 bed houses, 37 x 3 bed houses, 13 x 4 bed houses and 7 x 5 bed houses. The proposal would provide 30 affordable units which would equate to 40% affordable housing provision and the remaining 45 units would be for open market housing.

Contact Officer: Hazel Corke Tel: 01403 215177 ITEM A? - 2

1.4 A new vehicular access would be created off Water Lane to serve the majority of the development and it is also proposed that 3 dwellings would utilise the existing private driveway serving Snapes Cottage off the B2139, Storrington Road.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5 The application site lies to the north-east of the village of Storrington, on the northern side of Water Lane, but falls within the parish of Thakeham. The site is irregular in shape and comprises rough grassland bounded by field hedging and trees. A stream flows within the site along the southern boundary.

1.6 Water Lane and the Water Lane Industrial Estate abut the south western boundary of the site. To the south and east the site is bounded by residential properties in Brook Close, Rother Close, Concorde Close, Jubilee Way, Rainbow Way and Snapes Road. Snapes Cottage a Grade II Listed Building lies to the north of the site. A residential development of 8 dwellings is currently under construction to the east of the site (DC/11/0111). To the north and west of the site are open fields and planning permission has recently been granted for a warehouse building in the field immediately to the west of the site for Tesla, a local company on the Water Lane Estate.

1.7 The site slopes from north to south and the southern boundary along Water Lane, in particular, is predominantly screened by a hedgerow and mature trees, some of which are covered by Tree Preservation Orders.

1.8 The application site is outside of any built-up area as currently defined by the Horsham District Local Development Framework. The applicant states that the proposal has been submitted under the terms of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD which seeks to deliver small housing sites capable of delivering housing in the short term and to maintain the Council’s rolling 5 year housing land supply.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 – Delivering Sustainable Development - Sections 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 & 11 are relevant to the proposal.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 & CP19 of the Core Strategy are relevant to the determination of the application

2.4 Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC18 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document are relevant to the determination of the application.

2.5 The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy was approved by Council for consultation on 25th July 2013. The consultation period runs from 16th August to 11th October 2013. The planning application will be considered within the consultation period and therefore the Preferred Strategy is a material consideration in the assessment of this planning application. ITEM A? - 3

2.6 Guidance contained within the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD and the Planning Obligations SPD is also relevant to the determination of the application.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

The following section provides a summary of the responses received as a result of internal and external consultation, however, officers have considered the full comments of each consultee which are available to view on the public file at www.horsham.gov.uk

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Strategic Planning Policy Manager: has summarised that the proposal would be contrary to the Council’s current adopted planning policies (CP1 & DC1) which seek to protect the countryside by preventing development in the countryside unless it is considered essential to its countryside location.

It is acknowledged that the Council does not have a 5 year housing supply against the South East Plan and as such the NPPF states that the relevant housing policies of the Horsham District Local Plan should not be considered up-to-date. However, the FAD SPD has been used as a local approach to address the Council’s shortfall in housing supply. The consistency of the FAD SPD against the objectives and principles of the NPPF has been recently endorsed by the Planning Inspectorate through the appeal decision at the RMC Engineering Works.

The site is located adjacent to the BUAB of Storrington, a Category 1 settlement, meaning the application is able to be considered under the FAD SPD guidance. The proposal is considered to be in broad compliance with the criterion listed within this policy, therefore from a policy perspective, there is no objection in principle to this proposal.

3.2 Landscape Architect: has no objection to the proposal subject to the submission of satisfactory and additional information. It is considered that key landscape and visual issues relating to the need to mitigate any potential significant adverse impact on the wider countryside to the north, to ensure some attractive framed and glimpsed views from the site of the South Downs are maintained, and to demonstrate a sensitive approach overall to integration of the development into the site landscape have generally been satisfactorily dealt with. However some important specific concerns must be addressed in relation to the following:

 Excessive proposed parameter plan maximum building ridge heights at the northern edge of the development  The general design approach to planting and boundary treatments adjoining existing residential gardens  Sustainable urban drainage features and their design as positive landscape features  Responsibilities for long term management and maintenance

3.3 Arboricultural Officer: has no objection to the proposal as the scheme has been devised sensitively towards the existing tree stock.

3.4 Head of Public Health & Licensing: raises no objection.

In respect of noise some concern was initially raised relating to the potential conflict of uses between the proposed residential site and the site immediately to the west for which planning permission has recently been granted for the erection of a warehouse for B2 use. ITEM A? - 4

However, this concern has been addressed following the submission of a further acoustic report which contained a noise assessment taking into account a different level of noise generation assuming a more intense manufacturing process than that approved.

With regard to air quality, the applicant has submitted an air dispersion modelling assessment of air quality impacts associated with the increased road traffic associated with the proposed development. The results show that the development would cause an ‘Imperceptible’ to ‘Small’ increase in pollutant concentrations, and therefore that the impact of the proposed development on air quality is considered to be ‘negligible’ for both nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter (PM10). However, in the context of Storrington, nitrogen dioxide concentrations within the AQMA are significantly in excess of the UK air quality objective and the cumulative impact of even small additional increases in pollution are counter to the objectives of the air quality action plan for Storrington, which is to bring pollution levels to within the air quality objective limits. It is therefore recommended that the applicant submit a ‘Low Emission Strategy’ (LES) proposal, specific to the development, detailing a range of measures intended to fully mitigate against the predicted increase in traffic emissions.

It is also recommended that a Construction Environmental Management Plan be submitted to control adverse impacts from noise, dust and waste from construction activities.

3.5 Technical Officer: has no overall objections to the preliminary surface water drainage strategy proposed until detailed design information has been submitted at the appropriate planning stage subject to the imposition of drainage conditions.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.6 West Sussex County Council: as highways authority has considered the highway safety and capacity impacts arising from the proposal. The assessment has taken into account both the impact of the proposed development and other permitted developments within the immediate area. In this regard, Government guidance contained within the NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. In light of the information submitted, it is not considered that this development would give rise to any severe impacts upon highway capacity. Therefore, no highway objection is raised subject to the imposition of conditions.

3.7 County Archaeologist: has no objection on archaeological grounds subject to suitable archaeological safeguards to be secured by way of conditions.

3.8 County Ecologist: has no objection to the proposed development subject to the imposition of appropriately worded conditions.

3.9 Environment Agency: has no objection in principle to the proposal and has no concerns over the location of properties in relation to fluvial flood risk. It is also advised that the applicant’s approach to surface water flood risk is comprehensive and provides more than enough capacity to limit flows to current levels, and possibly be an improvement to existing levels.

3.10 Southern Water: comment that a public water trunk main crosses the application site and states that all existing infrastructure must be protected which could be controlled via a planning condition.

It is also advised that Storrington catchment is currently under a hydraulic issue relating to excessive surface water infiltration, which is under investigation, and there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the ITEM A? - 5

proposed development. As the proposed development would increase flows to the public sewerage system, existing properties and land may be subject to a greater risk of flooding as a result. Additional off-site sewers, or improvements to existing sewers, will therefore be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development.

3.11 NHS Property Services: advise that both GP practices in Storrington are already at or above capacity with a total complement approaching 13,000 patients and that infrastructure improvements are a pre requisite to enable further registration of new patients from such proposals. A Section 106 contribution of £33,595 is therefore sought.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.12 Thankham Parish Council: strongly object to the proposal and a copy of their full comments are attached at Appendix A..

The Parish Council’s specific objections are listed below:

 The application is outside the built up area of Storrington and Sullington  There is no local need for more housing  Air pollution in Storrington will be exacerbated – fails FAD criterion 13 and NPPF  Undesirable coalescence of settlements – against FAD criterion 4  Insufficient infrastructure – fails FAD criterion 17 and NPPF

3.13 Storrington & Sullington Parish Council strongly object to the proposal on the grounds that it fails to comply with all the criteria listed in the FAD SPD.

More specifically, the site has been classified as not currently developable in the recently published Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The existing infrastructure in respect of education, health and drainage is inadequate and the proposal will have an adverse impact on the AQMA.

3.14 165 letters of objection have been received from local residents on the following grounds:

 Increased traffic congestion  Inadequate local services  Lack of public transport  Loss of wildlife habitat  Over-development  Suburban sprawl  Adverse impact on air quality  Light, noise and air pollution  Greenfield site  Flooding  Lack of local need  Adverse impact on the local landscape  Loss of biodiversity

3.15 3 letters of support have also been received.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment below.

ITEM A? - 6

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 It is considered that the principal issues in the determination of the application are (i) whether the proposal is acceptable in principle having regard to central government and development plan policy (ii) the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area (iii) highway safety (iv) air quality and (v) flooding.

At the forefront of the assessment of the application is the prevailing policy context set by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and its advice for decision makers which is set out below before addressing the key issues identified above.

Policy context

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the government’s planning policy. In this regard, the NPPF has the presumption in favour of sustainable development running through it as a golden thread. Para.7 of the NPPF explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development:- an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. Para.8 advises that these roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. Economic growth can secure higher social and environmental standards, and well designed buildings and places can improve the lives of people and communities. Therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. Therefore whereas previously the concept of sustainability in relation to development in rural areas has been widely interpreted to relate purely to transport sustainability, in fact, the concept should be applied on a much wider basis to encompass all aspects of sustainability. This broader view, now encompassed in the NPPF, requires an assessment at the overall impact of a development on the community.

6.3 Specific advice for decision taking is set out in Para.14 which requires that development which accords with the development plan should be approved without delay and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, to grant permission unless any adverse impacts of so doing would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

6.4 The site lies outside any defined built-up area and is therefore subject to the countryside protection policies of the Local Development Framework. However, the application has been submitted under the auspices of the FAD SPD. This document has arisen from the need to provide ‘flexibility’ to ensure that there is sufficient housing supply during the life of the existing adopted Core Strategy. The document sets out the requirements against which those planning applications for development, put forward by landowners/developers as a response to the evolving circumstances, on greenfield and brownfield sites which adjoin defined settlement boundaries in the District will be considered.

6.5 The approach put forward in the document is a criterion based one to enable all stakeholders to determine if sites may be considered suitable for development. Sites put forward under this policy approach should be ‘deliverable’ at the time that the site is put forward for planning permission. In the case of housing, there is likely to be a specific need in the short term, therefore sites should be capable of delivering housing completions during the life of the Core Strategy. ITEM A? - 7

6.6 A willingness to develop and hence deliverability, is not the only criterion which governs the permitting of potentially suitable sites. LDF policy also requires that development is in ‘sustainable’ locations. Category 1 settlements are considered sustainable locations, as these are town and villages with a good range of services and facilities, as well as some access to public transport; they are also deemed capable of sustaining some expansion. In the case of Category 2 settlements only small scale development within the settlement and minor extensions to the settlement may be permitted providing that they address a specific local need. In both cases any site would be expected to adjoin the defined Built-up Area Boundary.

6.7 The scale of development will impact on the deliverability and the sustainability of a development. The size of all developments that come forward under this approach will be considered in terms of their scale in relation to the settlement to which they are attached.

6.8 The three issues of deliverability, sustainability and scale form the basis for the approach to be taken in considering proposals on greenfield and brownfield sites which adjoin defined settlement boundaries and are a constant theme running through the FAD SPD. All development proposals should also respect the requirements of Policy CP8 by assisting ‘in the gradual evolution of the communities by enabling development which meets their needs but does not fundamentally undermine their qualities which make them or their countryside setting unique and special’.

6.9 The SPD sets out a number of criteria against which development proposals will be assessed. These include:

- The site boundary is contiguous (at least one boundary must physically adjoin in whole or part) with an identified Built-Up Area Boundary to accord with policies CP5 and CP8 of the Core Strategy.

- The scale of the development adjoining a Category 1 settlement does not exceed around 150 dwellings, individually or cumulatively, to accord with the aims of the policies CP1, CP3, CP8, CP9, CP15, CP19 and DC9. Any development adjoining a Category 2 settlement would be expected to be of a much smaller scale in accordance with policies CP3, CP5, CP8, CP15 and DC1, DC9.

- The impact of the development individually, or cumulatively, around the edges of a settlement does not result in the actual or perceived coalescence of settlements in accordance with policy DC3.

- The impact of the development individually, or cumulatively, does not prejudice comprehensive, long term development, in order not to conflict with the development strategy set out in the Core Strategy and/or not to prejudice the review of the Core Strategy.

- The landscape and townscape character is protected, and conserved and/or enhanced, in accordance with policies CP1, DC2, DC4, DC9, DC11 and DC12

- The biodiversity of a site is protected, conserved and enhanced where relevant, in accordance with policies CP1 and DC5

- Existing natural features, such as woodland, trees and hedgerows are retained wherever possible, in accordance with policies DC2, DC6 and DC9

- The site and proposed development is sustainable in accordance with PPS1, PPS3, PPG13, and the Core Strategy (2007) in particular policies CP5, CP8, and CP9. A ITEM A? - 8

sustainability report must be submitted with any planning application following the criteria and scoring guidelines set out in the Appendix.

- In order to assess and where necessary compare sites adjoining the same settlement, the advice in paragraph 75 of PPG13, that is, the length of short journeys that are likely to be replaced by walking are those under 2km, shall also be used. Sites where it is possible to walk to a wide range of facilities will be considered preferable to sites which are further away and make car journeys into town/village centres more likely

- The development is of a high quality, in all aspects, including layout and design, to accord with policies CP3 and DC9. In addition, high standards of sustainable construction are expected as well as the inclusion of renewable and low carbon energy generation where feasible, in order to comply with policies CP2 and DC8.

- Where housing is proposed there is a mix of housing sizes, types and tenures in accordance with policy CP12; on developments of more than 15 dwellings up to 40% of the dwellings are required to be ‘affordable’ dwellings, and a mix including smaller units is required by policy DC18.

- The proposal satisfies the criteria relating to transport and access set out in policy DC40. Note that criteria b of Policy DC40 requires that the development is of an appropriate scale to the transport infrastructure in its location. Infrastructure contributions may be required. A Green Travel Plan will be required for developments that exceed Travel Plan thresholds.

- The Council is satisfied that the site is deliverable and sufficient evidence is provided to demonstrate this. Applicants must be prepared to accept time limited permissions which have regard to new policy development

6.10 It can be seen from the above criteria that, potentially, the application site could fall within the remit of the SPD and therefore could be considered for development. However, it would be necessary to meet the requirements of all the criteria for a favourable recommendation to be given to construct up to 75 dwellings on a site outside of the built-up area.

Principle of development

6.11 The application site lies in the countryside outside of the Built-up Area Boundary of Storrington as defined in the Proposals Map of the Local Development Framework and as such would normally be considered contrary to Policy CP1. However, in light of the Council’s current lawful position in relation to 5 year housing land supply as outlined by the Strategic Planning Policy Manager at Para.3.1, the Council’s approach is to consider the proposal against the criteria outlined in the FAD SPD. Members will also be aware that planning permission has previously been granted for 78 residential units relating to the former RMC site, Washington Country Park (DC/10/1457) on appeal. This recent appeal decision is a material consideration in the determination of this current application. Given the Council’s ‘substantial shortfall’ in housing supply of over 2,000 dwellings that he had identified, the Inspector considered that the development would make a modest but valuable contribution to meeting the shortfall. As such, the Inspector gave substantial weight to the contribution of the site to meeting the Council’s housing land requirements and very little weight to the requirements of the criterion. Members will also be aware that another Inspector took a similar view in relation to the appeal allowed for 46 dwellings at Daux Avenue (DC/11/2385).

6.12 Storrington is a Category 1 settlement as defined by Policy CP5 and is therefore potentially capable of accommodating some expansion, infilling and redevelopment. The proposal ITEM A? - 9

complies with Criteria 1 of the FAD which requires at least one boundary to physically adjoin in whole or part with the Built-up Area Boundary. The south eastern and south western boundary of the application site adjoins in whole the Built-Up Area Boundary running along the north side of the properties fronting Brook Close, Rother Close and Jubilee Way.

6.13 However, there are other criteria which are of relevance when considering the principle of development. Criterion 3 requires that the scale of development adjoining a Category 1 settlement should not exceed around 150 dwellings, individually or cumulatively. The proposal seeks the development of up to 75 dwellings and does not form part of a cumulative development that exceeds 150 dwellings and hence complies with the criterion.

6.14 Another matter for consideration in terms of principle is whether the development individually or cumulatively prejudices the comprehensive, long term development strategy set out in the Core Strategy and /or the review of the Core Strategy. Criterion 5 of the FAD is relevant here. The Inspector in the Oddstones (87 dwellings) appeal decision (DC/09/0488) took the view that unless the development actually hinders or holds back other developments in the Core Strategy or prevents something being taken through the Core Strategy Review, it can not be considered contrary to this criterion. Whilst Storrington has been previously suggested as a strategic location for development in the Core Strategy review process, the Council has taken the decision to respond on an ad-hoc basis to planning applications whilst working on the review. Therefore, there is no justification for a refusal of the proposal on this basis.

6.15 In terms of the general principle of development, it is considered that an objection could not be sustained as the proposal meets the first criterion of the FAD, also taking into consideration the comments of Strategic Planning Policy Manager at Para.3.1 and the Inspectors in the recent appeals for 78 residential units at the former RMC site and 46 dwellings at Daux Avenue.

Landscape Impact

6.16 Whilst there is no objection in principle to residential development of the site, normal development control criteria must also be fulfilled to ensure that the development complies with all the criteria set out in the FAD. In this regard, Criterion 6 requires that the landscape and townscape character be protected, and conserved and/or enhanced, in accordance with policies CP1, DC2, DC4, DC9, DC11 and DC12 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.

6.17 More specifically, policy DC2 states:

Development will be permitted where it protects and/or conserves and/or enhances the key characteristics of the landscape character area in which it is located, including:

a. the development pattern of the area, its historical and ecological qualities, tranquillity and sensitivity to change; b. the pattern of woodlands, fields, hedgerows, trees, waterbodies and other features; and c. the topography of the area.

6.18 The Landscape Architect considers the site to be of overall moderate-high sensitivity due to its elevated moderate to steeply sloping landform which then continues to rise more gently to a ridgeline to the north. The site is also seen against the backdrop of existing suburban residential development and the industrial development of Water Lane. In addition, the recently granted permission for a new building for TESLA on land immediately to the north west of the site must also be taken into consideration. It is also not a particularly visually prominent site in views from the South Downs. ITEM A? - 10

6.19 In terms of impact on the very attractive, mostly unspoilt rural character of the land to the north it is not considered overall there would be any significant adverse impact taking into consideration the location of the development on the site, existing boundary trees and vegetation and subject to additional appropriate planting mitigation measures. Furthermore, the submitted landscape and visual appraisal satisfactorily demonstrates that any adverse visual impact from the local rights of way network in the countryside to the north will be limited. It has also been demonstrated through the illustrative layout, indicative visualisations, and parameter plans that it should be feasible to retain framed corridor views and glimpsed views of the South Downs between buildings.

6.20 It is acknowledged that there would be a substantial change in the visual amenity of the residential properties adjoining the southern boundaries of the site, especially where there is less existing boundary vegetation or there is insubstantial/poor boundary fencing. Therefore the applicant has been requested to provide further details as to how existing vegetation and new planting can be retained in the long term. In addition, the proposed building heights at the northern edge of the development are a concern and an amended building heights parameter plan has also been requested. These additional details have been submitted and the comments of the Landscape Architect are awaited at the time of writing this report, however, a verbal update will be given at Committee.

6.21 There is therefore no objection in principle to development of the southern part of the site subject to appropriate mitigation, as the illustrative layout is considered to be generally sensitive and responsive to the local landscape character and the local distinctiveness of Storrington.

Highway safety

6.22 The site is proposed to be served by way of two vehicular access points. The access onto Water Lane is proposed to serve 72 dwellings, with 3 dwellings served by way of an existing access onto the Storrington Road. The vehicular access arrangements are considered to comply with current highway design guidance. The construction and use of the access points are not anticipated to result in any detriment to highway safety, however, details would need to be secured via conditions. It is also recommended that only the proposed access onto Water Lane is used for the purposes of construction.

6.23 In terms of traffic generation, and taking into account previously permitted development, the Transport Assessment demonstrates that the mini-roundabout at the junction of Water Lane/Thakeham Road would continue working within capacity in opening and future years scenarios. It is anticipated that queuing would take place on the Thakeham Road west arm. However, it is advised that viewing the situation with or without development, it is evident that the proposal would result in minimal additional queuing or delay.

6.24 It is recognised that there are local concerns regarding increased congestion on the highway network and relating to the worsening of air quality, especially through the High Street. The Highway Authority acknowledges that the development would result in increased traffic flows on the surrounding highway network but it is not anticipated that the increase in movements would be such as to warrant a reason for refusal.

Air Quality

6.25 The consultation response from Environmental Health at Para.3.4 considers the air quality issue in relation to the proposed development. The air quality assessment submitted by the applicant found that the current proposal will increase nitrogen dioxide concentrations at 24 of the 29 identified receptor locations. The receptor locations were agreed by Environmental Health prior to submission of the air quality assessment and represent ITEM A? - 11

residential properties on routes likely to experience a change in traffic volume both in the immediate vicinity of the site and within the existing AQMA. The results show that the development would cause an ‘Imperceptible’ to ‘Small’ increase in pollutant concentrations, and therefore that the impact of the proposed development on air quality is considered to be ‘negligible’ for both nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter (PM10).

6.26 However, in context of Storrington, nitrogen dioxide concentrations within the AQMA are significantly in excess of the UK air quality objective and the cumulative impact of even small additional increases in pollution are counter to the objectives of the air quality action plan for Storrington, which is to bring pollution levels to within the air quality objective limits.

The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) paragraph 124:

“Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan.”

6.27 On this basis, whilst there is concern about the impact of the development on air quality it is unlikely that there would be sufficient grounds to recommend refusal of the application on these grounds alone. It is however recommended that a Low Emission Strategy be submitted specific to the development, detailing a range of measures intended to fully mitigate against the predicted increase in traffic emissions.

Flooding

6.28 It is acknowledged that a number of local residents have raised flooding as an issue within the locality of the site and Southern Water has advised that the Storrington catchment is currently under a hydraulic issue relating to excessive surface water infiltration. Additional off-site sewers, or improvements to existing sewers, would be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development. Following further discussions with Southern Water in this respect, it is advised that whilst the proposed enhancements to the infrastructure to accommodate the development would not provide a solution to the current problem, which is under investigation, it would also not exacerbate the existing situation. In addition, the Council’s Technical Services Engineer has advised that the proposed drainage strategy appears acceptable at this stage and the Environment Agency advises that the proposed surface water strategy is comprehensive and provides more than enough capacity to limit flows to current levels and possibly be an improvement to existing levels. In the circumstances, it is therefore considered that a reason for refusal on flooding grounds could not be substantiated.

Other Matters

6.29 Storrington& Sullington Parish Council have raised the issue that the site is currently classified as ‘not currently developable’ within the SHLAA. The SHLAA is a live document and the status of a site can change subject to the level of information available. The SHLAA is a tool used to identify opportunities for housing development within the District and sites are assessed according to their ‘suitability’, ‘achievability’ and ‘availability’. If following a review of the information submitted in support of a site, together with a site visit, a site is found to be suitable, available and achievable, then the site is found to be deliverable (1-5 years) or developable (6-10 years). If constraints are highlighted in either of these three categories, then it may be that the site is classified as ‘not currently developable’ until more information is known about the potential for overcoming such constraints.

ITEM A? - 12

The SHLAA does not look at potential sites in the same level of detail as a planning application and therefore cannot be used in the consideration of a planning application.

6.30 It is noted that local residents have also raised concerns relating to the possible loss of biodiversity, increase in traffic and consequent impact on air quality, lack of local need and adverse impact on the landscape. However, these are all issues that have been addressed in Section 3 of the report, and it will be noted that no objection to the proposal has been received from any of the relevant consultees in respect of these matters.

S106 obligations

6.31 In order to ensure sufficient infrastructure capacity to serve the proposed development, the applicant has been advised that there would be a requirement to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town &Country Planning Act. This requirement is set out in policy CP13 of the Core Strategy and within the adopted SPD on Planning Obligations.

Summary

Having regard to the assessment above the key factors to be taken into account in reaching a decision in respect of this application are:-

 The NPPF has the presumption in favour of sustainable development running through it as a golden thread. The three dimensions to sustainable development comprise:- an economic role, a social role and an environmental role and these roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. This broader view, now encompassed in the NPPF, requires an assessment at the overall impact of a development on the community.

 The proposal would represent an opportunity to help meet the housing land requirements within the District and Members will be aware of the current shortfall in the 5 year housing supply. In this respect, the comments of the Inspector on the Daux Avenue appeal are again of particular relevance. The Inspector identified the shortfall as 2,410 dwellings which in his view represented a ‘very substantial shortfall’. The current proposal for 75 units would thus make a valuable contribution to tackling the existing shortfall in the housing land supply.

 Given the shortfall in the provision of affordable housing in the District, the provision of some 30 affordable housing units would be a welcome increase in the number of affordable housing units coming forward.

 The proposed development would give rise to some important economic and financial benefits. There is no dispute that the construction of the development would generate jobs. It is also recognised that the expenditure by the occupants of the development in local shops would put money into the local economy thereby indirectly supporting retail and service jobs. The economic and financial benefits of the development should be accorded due weight in the assessment of the proposal.

 There is strong local opposition to the proposed development but none of the concerns raised are considered to be of sufficient weight to off set the benefits from the development of the site as set out above.

ITEM A? - 13

Conclusion

6.32 The application must be determined in accordance with central government guidance and development plan policy. National planning policy is clear that a high priority must be given to meeting the fully assessed need for housing and this requirement has been clearly demonstrated by recent appeal decisions. Therefore, there have to be extremely clear and specific reasons for refusal if the housing supply position is to be over-ridden by other factors. The report has demonstrated the benefits arising from the development and notwithstanding the objections raised to the proposal as set out in the report, these objections need to be balanced against the contribution the development would make to the Council’s 5 year housing land supply shortfall which the Inspector at the RMC, Washington appeal, described as ‘…the pressing need in Horsham District for housing in general, and affordable housing in particular’. In the circumstances, it is therefore considered that the proposal should be supported for the reasons set out in the report.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure the relevant contributions and the following conditions:-

1. A1 – Outline Permission 2. M1 – Approval of Materials 3. E3 – Fencing 4. H4a – On site parking 5. M8 – Sustainable Construction 6. D6 – Finished Floor Levels 7. D10 – Floodlighting 8. G6 – Recycling 9. L6 – Burning of Materials 10. O1 – Hours of Working 11. H6 – Wheel washing

And such other conditions as recommended by the various consultees.

Background Papers: DC/13/1265 ITEM A? - 14

Blank

DC/13/1265

Land North of Brook Close and Rother Close

Scale : 1:2500

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments O/S EXTRACT Date 07 January 2014

SLA Number 100023865 Blank APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 21 January 2014 Replacement of existing garage building and Change of use from car DEVELOPMENT: repairs to a mixed use of car sales, car repairs, class 7 MOT testing plus equipment hire & repairs SITE: Bridge Garage Henfield Road Cowfold Horsham WARD: Cowfold,Shermanbury and West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/13/1818 APPLICANT: Bridge Garage Sussex Ltd

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: 5 or more letters of representation contrary to recommendation

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks permission for the demolition of the existing building and the erection of a new larger building, which would involve a change of use from car repair garage to a mixed use site including car sales, car repairs, car & class 7 MOT and a crane hire business and repairs.

1.2 The proposed building would be 9.6m in width and 31.8m in depth with a height of 8.4m, comprising a total footprint of 305m2. The original plans proposed the entire building to be replaced, however amended plans have since been submitted to retain the existing front brick façade, though increased in height. The remaining elevations of the proposed building would be constructed with green metal sheeting with 5 aluminium roller shutters along the southern elevation along with a small door and window. The southern slope of the pitched roof would have light grey metal sheets with 4 rows of 19 photovoltaic panels.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The site is located along the eastern side of Henfield Road at the southern end of the village of Cowfold and within the defined built up area boundary of Cowfold. To the north of the site lie a row of residential dwellings and further dwellings on the western side of Henfield Road. To the south of the site runs a narrow brook with open fields to the east.

Contact Officer: Doug Wright Tel: 01403 215522 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2

1.4 The site consists of a large building, which has a number of uses. The forecourt and front section of the building are used for car sales, and is leased to an independent company, Armadillio Car Sales. To the rear of the car sales is a workshop for car repairs with a larger area at the rear of the building used for further car repairs and repairs and maintenance for the equipment in connection with the crane hire business. Parts of the existing building are fairly dilapidated with vegetation growing within the building and also covering the northern roof slope.

1.5 A large yard lies to the south of the main building, which is separated from the sales forecourt with a 2.4m high fence. The yard currently contains 3 porta cabins used as offices for the crane hire businesses, Clarkes Cranes & Access and Helical Pier Systems. There are 4 storage containers along the rear (eastern) boundary, as well as a plethora of equipment, vehicles and miscellaneous items.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 – Section 3 - Supporting a prosperous rural economy

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant Local Plan Policies are CP1, CP2, CP3 & CP11 of the Core Strategy (2007) and DC2, DC9, DC20 & DC40 of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

2.4 The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy (2013) - This strategy was approved by Horsham District Council on 25th July 2013 for a period of public consultation which ran from 16th August to 11th October 2013. As the Preferred Strategy is a material consideration in the assessment of all planning applications, its content will be taken into account in the following planning assessment, albeit that at this stage it has limited weight.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 DC/04/0466 Residential development of up to 9 dwellings (1500 sq Withdrawn Metres) and access, following the demolition of existing buildings (Outline)

DC/04/2635 Residential development of approximately 9 dwellings Refused (1500 Sq Metres) and access, following the demolition of existing buildings (Outline)

DC/07/1969 Demolition of existing garage premises and erection of 2 x Refused 4-bed houses and 1 pair of 3-bed semi-detached houses, access and parking

DC/08/0504 Demolition of existing garage premises and erection of 3 x Refused 4-bed dwellings, access, parking and landscaping

DC/09/0152 Erection of 2.4 metre high boundary fencing Permitted

DC/13/1837 Relocation of existing signage Pending

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

Where consultation responses have been summarised, it should be noted that Officers have had consideration of the full comments received, which are available to view on the public file at www.horsham.gov.uk

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Head of Public Health & Licensing has no objection to the application having visited the site and received additional information from the acoustic consultant. It is considered that the additional use of the site would not generate noise over and above that of its existing use. A condition has been suggested for sound insulation and noise reduction should the application be approved, in order to mitigate against any possible adverse impacts in respect of neighbour amenity.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 West Sussex County Council as highway authority, initially considered that the information provided was not sufficient, as to how the use of the site will impact upon highway safety. Therefore additional information was submitted by the applicant, which enabled the highway authority to fully assess the proposal and thus raise no objection to the proposal.

3.3 Environment Agency has no objection in principle to the proposal, however, wish the following to be taken into consideration:

“All vehicle washing must be carried out in a covered vehicle washbay which drains to the foul sewer via a silt trap. Any discharge to the foul sewer must be in accordance with a Trade Effluent Consent issued by the water company. If a foul sewer pipe is not available, then the vehicle washings must drain to a sealed holding tank, and emptied by a tanker and taken to a suitable sewage treatment works. All drainage from the site must go through a 3 chamber oil interceptor.”

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.4 Cowfold Parish Council does not consider the site to be suitable for an industrial building or an industrial use. The site is prominent when travelling into Cowfold from the south and therefore the retention of a brick façade is important. A number of conditions are suggested if the application is to be approved, relating to the restriction of the size of vehicles stored and repaired on site – hours of work, only car sales on weekends – no vehicles parked off site and on site parking strictly adhered to.

3.5 At the time of writing the report 125 letters of representation have been received, which consisted of 48 objections and 76 in support. These have been summarised below:

Objections:

 Overdevelopment of the site  Intensification of the site  Impact upon residential amenity  Increase in noise  Increase in traffic  Parking on the road

In Support:

 Improvement of the site APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4

 In keeping with the character of the area  Employment within the village  Economic benefit to the area

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 It is considered that the main issues in the determination of the application are:

 Principle of the development  Design  Impact upon amenity  Parking & Access

Principle of Development

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has a golden thread running through it which seeks to ensure a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The National Planning Policy Framework seeks to ensure that the planning system performs an economic, social and environmental role. The Framework requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan. Paragraph 28 of the NPPF states “Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity”. Whilst paragraph 123 states new development should “avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life”. It is considered that the policies contained within the Horsham District Local Development Framework are still relevant in this case.

6.3 This application proposes the replacement of the existing building with a larger building and seeks to formalise the existing use of the site. The site has previously been used as a petrol station and for car sales. The existing premises is not subject to planning conditions regulating its activity in terms of car sales and repairs plus unauthorised uses and therefore the proposal would ensure a range of operating conditions to be imposed, which would enable the Council to exercise better control of the site. The proposal would retain the existing use of the site, those being car sales, car repairs and the regularisation of the crane hire business and repairs, along with the addition of car & class 7 MOT services. The main consideration in this application is therefore the design of the proposed building, the impact of the proposal on neighbour amenity, the intensification of the use of the site and highway safety.

Design

6.4 Other than the proposed additional use of the site, the main element of the application is the replacement of the garage building on the site. Paragraph 57 of the NPPF emphasises that all new development should be of a “high quality and inclusive design” Horsham District Council policies are consistent with this advice and Policy DC9 of the General APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5

Development Control Policies (2007) states development should be "of a high standard of design…..and where relevant relates sympathetically with the built surroundings".

6.5 The front elevation of the proposed building was originally intended to be a simple pitched roof gable end with first floor windows and ground floors doors and windows. However amended plans have since been submitted in order to retain the style and appearance of the front elevation of the existing building with facing brickwork, albeit slightly larger in scale. The remaining sections of the proposed building would be more industrial in appearance and thereby practical for the intended use. It is considered that given the retention of the front façade, the proposed building would cause no undue harm to the surrounding area, in terms of its character and appearance. The proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of this element of Policy DC9.

Amenity

6.6 The main consideration is the impact of the building in relation to the neighbouring dwelling of Bridgewater to the north. The NPPF, as quoted above, recognises the importance of seeking to ensure that new development mitigates any adverse impacts in the health and quality of life arising from new development and recognises the importance of conditions to exercise control. Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) is in line with this advice and states planning permission will be granted where developments "do not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers/users of nearby property and land, for example through overlooking or noise, whilst having regard to the sensitivities of surrounding development".

6.7 The existing building is located approximately 2.5 metres from the boundary with Bridgewater and 3.5 metres from the dwelling house itself. The proposed replacement building would be located closer to the adjoining boundary with a proposed separation distance of 1m. The replacement building would also be 1.4m higher than the existing building.

6.8 Whilst the proposed building would be closer to the adjoining boundary of the property to the north, the neighbouring dwelling is however positioned on higher ground level than the application site and it is therefore considered that the increase in height and its proximity to the boundary, would not cause any greater harm to the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling than the presence of the existing building. The proposed building would be greater in length than the existing building and whilst currently may cause some loss of light, the new section of the proposed building would be located towards the rear of the curtilage of the neighbouring dwelling and in this respect would not be considered to cause significant harm to justify a reason for refusal, given the economic benefits of the proposed development. The proposal is therefore acceptable in terms of this element of Policy DC9 and the NPPF.

6.9 With regard to the issue of noise, the applicant appointed noise consultants ‘Acoustic Associates Sussex Ltd’ to undertake an industrial noise assessment. Following the withdrawal of PPG24, the NPPF does not have a specific section on noise impact, therefore placing the onus on the Local Authority to set its own criteria. This is currently provided by ‘BS8233 (1999) Sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings’ and ‘World Health Organisation (WHO)- Guidelines for Community Noise (1999)’.

6.10 The survey undertook a number of tests to assess the use of typical garage equipment in relation to the surrounding residential area. The findings considered that the noise currently generated from the site is not over and above the noise which comes from the busy Henfield Road, which runs along the western boundary of the site. This is supported by the Head of Public Health & Licensing, who advises that the addition of an MOT station would not generate any additional noise. It is therefore considered that suitable controls by way of conditions could be put in place which would mitigate any potential adverse impact upon the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling. In this respect it is considered that the APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6

proposed use of the site would cause no additional harm upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring dwellings.

6.11 The application seeks permission for the mixed use of the site, which is currently in operation and therefore is unrestricted. The site has a long history of use as a garage and whilst the activity on the site has increased, it is considered that the current proposal would enable the site to be regularised and ensure the impact upon the residential amenities is kept to a minimum through appropriate noise control measures. It is therefore considered that the development would be acceptable in terms of Policy DC9 and the NPPF.

Parking & Access

6.12 The site is located along the eastern side of Henfield Road, A281, which runs through Cowfold from Horsham and onto Henfield. The site is located 20m to the north of the change in speed limit from the 60mph zone to the 30mph zone, though measured data provided shows speeds to be in excess of the 30mph speed limit. Along this stretch of the road, both sides have the benefit of a pavement.

6.13 The site is accessed via a single point located centrally along the front boundary. The site used to have an in & out system, however the northern entry point has been closed off by bollards, due to the existence of the car sales forecourt, which utilises the majority of the land to the front of the building and the yard. Site evidence has also shown vehicles to be parked on the roadside. The current proposal seeks to divide the forecourt into separate areas with car sales in the northern section and visitor parking for 6 vehicles along the southern boundary, plus 2 disabled parking spaces and a delivery/short stay bay. The proposed layout of the front forecourt aims to provide a more structured use of the area, to which the Highway Authority has raised no concerns. However the Highway Authority does fear that the site frontage appears to be extending onto highway land. The applicant is provide a plan to verify the highway/site boundary. Whilst concern is raised over the parking along the roadside, it is not considered that all parking relates to the site, though the applicant should be vigilant to ensure all site related parking is provided within the site.

6.14 The forecourt and the yard area are separated by a 2.4m high fence with access via double gates. The rear yard would provide 6 staff parking spaces and a further 6 spaces for vans and light goods vehicles, located along the rear boundary. The site currently stores a variety of equipment, though in a fairly ad-hoc fashion, the proposal seeks to tidy the site and remove unnecessary equipment. The submitted plan shows dedicated parking within the yard for the different businesses on the site. Following the submission of further information, it is now considered by the Highways Authority that the differing uses would not result in an over-intensification of the site. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact upon highway safety. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in terms of Policy DC40.

Conclusion

6.15 In summary, it is considered that the proposed increase in the size of the building would be considered acceptable in terms of its design and appearance within the street scene. Following the submission of further information it is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon highway safety.

6.16 It is recognised that the existing building and its replacement inflict an element of harm upon the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling to the north, however it is considered the larger building would not increase the impact and furthermore is outweighed by the economical benefits the proposal would bring to the village.

6.17 Accordingly it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of the relevant policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document (2007). APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1) A2 Full Permission 2) M6 Prescribed Materials

3) Before any other operations are commenced or the development is occupied the proposed vehicular modified access to Henfield Road shall be designed/constructed and provided with visibility zones, in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, all to be permanently maintained to a specification to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and the visibility zones shall be kept permanently clear of any obstruction.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

4) Within three months of the date of this permission or such extended time as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan showing the layout of the proposed development defining the areas used solely for the car sales forecourt and the area used solely for car repairs, Class 7 MOT and crane hire business and the provision of their associated car parking spaces shall be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority. The areas of land so provided shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than stated.

Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the parking of vehicles clear of all highways in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

5) Within three months of the date of this permission or such extended time agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority details for the loading and unloading of vehicles and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The parking/turning areas shall be used and retained exclusively for their designated purpose.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

6) The car repairs, Class 7 MOT and the crane hire business hereby approved shall be undertaken as a single unit of operation at all times.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the use of the site and because other uses would be contrary to policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

5) No development shall start until a Construction Management Plan, to include details of:

Element 1: Public Safety, Amenity and Site Security Element 2: Operating Hours, Noise and Vibration Controls Element 3: Air and Dust Management Element 4: Storm water and Sediment Control, including the prevention of mud on the highway. Element 5: Waste and Materials Re-use Element 6: Traffic Management, including parking of construction vehicles APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Only the approved details shall be implemented during the construction period.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

6) O3 Site Clearance 7) S4 Surface water details…..option B

8) Prior to the commencement of development in respect of the garage building hereby approved an acoustical report prepared by a suitably qualified person should be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority together with a scheme of attenuation measures to mitigate any potentially adverse impacts identified in the acoustic assessment. The report should include and take account of BS8223:1999 (sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings Code of practice) and BS4142:1997 (noise assessment of industrial plant) and include 1/3 octave frequency analysis with appropriate corrections for acoustic features where necessary. The scheme as approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be fully installed before the use of the garage building hereby permitted commences and shall be maintained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

9) No work shall be operated and no process carried out and no deliveries taken or dispatched from the car sales office and forecourt outside the following times:-

0730 hours and 1800 hours on Mondays to Saturdays inclusive, 1000 hours and 1600 hours on Sundays and Bank and Public Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

10) No vehicles, plant or machinery shall be operated and no process carried out and no deliveries taken or dispatched from the site, excluding the car sales office and forecourt outside the following times:-

0730 hours and 1800 hours on Mondays to Fridays inclusive, 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays, and not on Sundays and Bank and Public Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

11) D10 Floodlighting

Background Papers: DC/13/1818 DC/13/1818 Bridge Garage

Scale : 1:1250

SLA Number 100023865 Blank APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 21st January 2013 Change of use of building from Fuel Store Building to Tray and Crate DEVELOPMENT: Storage and Filling involving external alterations to the building. SITE: Sussex Mushrooms, Storrington Road, Thakeham WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/12/1028 APPLICANT: Sussex Mushrooms Ltd

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Number of Representations Received contrary to Recommendation

RECOMMENDATION: To Grant Planning Permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks planning permission to change the use of the building from a fuel store granted under DC/10/0860 to tray and crate storage and filling for mushroom production.

1.2 The proposal is for the change of use of the building, the original application included the washing of trays however this part has been deleted from the application and the trays will be emptied and washed elsewhere on the site. The works proposed to be carried out within the building would be limited to the cooking out of trays, storage of trays and subsequent filling of the trays with compost and casing.

1.3 The trays would be moved directly into the cookout room section of the building by forklift at which point the room is sealed and the trays sterilised using steam. The sterilised trays are them moved out of the cookout room into the main area of the building to be filled.

1.4 The filling process entails the trays being lifted by forklift onto the tray filling line where they move along the length of the line to be filled with compost and casing. At the end of the tray line the filled trays are then moved by forklift directly into the growing houses of Blocks A, B and C.

Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler Tel: 01403 215175 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2

1.5 The proposal also involves:

 the removal of a small section of cladding on the eastern elevation to provide direct access to the proposed tray cook out room.  Infilling the western elevation with concrete infill panels and pedestrian access door to improve sound attenuation towards the western boundary.  The insertion of new double skinned insulated cladding to the roof and upper wall sections of the existing building and the new cook out room to provide improved sound attenuation; and  New gas concrete block work walls to the proposed new cookout room.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.6 The site is located on the western side of Storrington Road and the building is sited to the south west corner of the site. The building has a portal frame structure with concrete panels to the sides and grey corrugated metal cladding to the upper elevations. At present the eastern and western ends have exposed openings. There is an existing metal clad building to the north of the application building, to the east are the main brick built mushroom buildings, to the south is an established vegetated boundary with two large trees and to the west is an open area of green space with vegetation along the western boundary. Old House Farm is sited approximately 100 metres to the west of the application site. There are also houses to the south of the site which are located approximately 130 metres away.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 Relevant policy is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

Paragraph 28 (Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy) states that “Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should:

 Support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings.”

Paragraph 123 states that “Planning policies and decisions should aim to:

 Avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of the new development;  Mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development including through the use of conditions;  Recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established and APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3

 Identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.”

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy (2013) - This strategy was approved by Horsham District Council on 25th July 2013 for a period of public consultation which ran from 16th August to 11th October 2013. As the Preferred Strategy is a material consideration in the assessment of all planning applications, its content will be taken into account in the following planning assessment, albeit that at this stage it has limited weight.

2.4 Policies CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP15 of the Core Strategy of the Horsham District Local Development Framework are relevant to the determination of the application.

2.5 Policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC24, DC25 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework are also relevant to the determination of the application.

PLANNING HISTORY

The most recent planning history for the site is listed below:

DC/04/0348 Change of use to coach storage and maintenance REFUSED

DC/10/0860 Fuel storage building PERMITTED

DC/10/1316 Erection of new bunkers (1,697 sq metres) with aerated PENDING floors which will reduce odours, a replacement Gypsum DECISION and material store (2,800 sq metres), pasteurising tunnels (1,840.5 sq metres) and growing rooms (16,698.5 square metres) required for the cultivation of mushrooms, open space and landscaped areas (Including footpaths)

DC/11/1236 Prior notification relating to the installation of solar panels PRIOR onto the roofs of buildings on the Chesswood site APPROVAL REFUSED

DC/12/0841 Demolition of existing growing rooms and surrounding PERMITTED ancillary buildings, removal of compost production on site. Erection of new growing rooms (farms) required for the cultivation of mushrooms, a replacement office building, staff cafeteria, pack house building, ancillary plant structures and provision of open space and landscaped areas (including re-directed footpaths). Refurbishment and extension of existing production and package buildings including alterations to entrance of the site.

DC/13/2176 Part demolition of former mushroom production buildings WITHDRAWN and the change of use of retained buildings and the remaining hard surfaced areas to general storage within Class B8

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

The full comments of Public Health & Licensing have been provided given the nature of the application.

3.1 Public Health & Licensing has reviewed the noise assessment and questioned some of the calculations and reviewed this in the light of the mitigation measures proposed and concludes that concerns are raised if the plant is operated in the evening and at night. The nearest residential property will suffer loss of amenity due to noise intrusion. Therefore, it is recommended that hours of operation for the compost filling and casing soil filling within the building subject to this development are restricted to 0730 and 1800 Mondays to Fridays; 0800 and 1300 on Saturdays with no plant operating on Sundays and Bank Holidays. These hours of operation are in line with the previous application for this building, reference DC/10/0860. It is also recommended that a condition is included in the decision notice requiring that the mitigation measures proposed in the report are implemented.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 Environment Agency has no comments.

3.3 West Sussex Highway Authority has no objections to the application.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.4 10 letters of objection have been received on the grounds of:

 This use had commenced and the noise was unacceptable;  The noise came from the washing process, tractors, trailers and fork lift trucks driving over badly made up surfaces;  The work force also plays loud music;  The working hours granted for the fuel store have been breached many times;  The west entrance of the building should be closed / sealed and the building sound proofed in order to reduce noise emanating;  The odour of the site is unbearable;  Where will the waste water go?

3.5 Thakeham Village Action has noted that washing will no longer take place within the building but question whether the filling, casing and cookout could be done in buildings further away from residential properties.

3.6 Thakeham Parish Council has no objection to the proposal provided:

 The change of use is deemed acceptable by the HDC Environmental Health Officer.  That this is an interim measure only until the new shelving/growing system is installed.  That the working hours condition currently applied to the building is maintained or further restricted in view of the proximity to neighbouring houses.

APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5

3.7 No other representations have been received to public notification on the application at the time of writing this report. Any further representations received will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The main issues in determination of this application are considered to be:

1) The principle of the development, 2) Noise Pollution & the effect of the development on the amenities of nearby occupiers; 3) The effect on the visual amenities of the area;

Principle

6.2 National Planning Policy within the Framework seeks to support a prosperous rural economy with paragraph 28 (Supporting a Prosperous Rural Economy) stating that “Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should:

 Support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings.”

Therefore, in principle national policy supports the growth of existing businesses within rural locations. The Framework also provides guidance on noise control and this is covered in Paragraph 2.2 of the report.

Whilst there is no objection in principle, central to this case is the mitigation proposed as advised by the Public Health Officer. Thakeham Mushrooms is an existing business on site, however the applicant should mitigate and reduce the impacts on nearby residents as much as possible given their proximity.

Noise pollution

6.3 The applicant has submitted a document titled ‘Plant Noise Assessment’ dated December 2013 prepared by WYG Planning & Environment on which the Head of Public Health & Licensing Department has commented. Public Health have assessed the documents submitted and have raised concerns that if the plant is operated in the evening and at night, the nearest residential property will suffer loss of amenity due to noise intrusion. It is therefore recommend that hours of operation for the compost filling and casing soil filling within the building be restricted to 0730 and 1800 Mondays to Fridays; 0800 and 1300 on Saturdays with no plant operating on Sundays and Bank Holidays. These hours of operation are therefore restricted by condition and would be in line with the previous application for this building, DC/10/0860. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6

6.4 Neighbours have stated that noise is generated when fork lift trucks drive over uneven surfaces within the site. The applicant has stated that in order to overcome this, they have been implementing re-surfacing to the internal roads within the site. A condition is attached to address the issue of re-surfacing.

Visual Amenities

6.5 The proposal would result in minor alterations to the external appearance of the building which would involve the removal of a small section of cladding on the eastern elevation to provide direct access to the proposed tray cook out room and the infilling of the western elevation with concrete infill panels and pedestrian access door to improve sound attenuation towards the western boundary. These alterations are considered to be in keeping with the character of the building and would not result in an adverse impact on the visual amenities of the locality.

Summary

6.6 The applicant has been willing to amend the building externally and internally in order to mitigate against the potential noise that the equipment and process would generate. By enclosing the building and providing insulation, Public Health & Licensing consider that this would be sufficient to control noise outbreak. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal accords with Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following conditions:

1) A2 Full Permission

2) J1 Use Limitation “Tray and Crate Storage and Filling”

3) M6 Prescribed Materials

4) No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturdays, and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

5) No work shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of:-

0730 hours and 1800 hours on Mondays to Fridays inclusive, 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays, and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays and Bank and Public Holidays.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

6) Before the use commences on site, the alterations to the external elevation of the building and the proposed internal noise insulation as shown on drawing no. 02.01C APPENDIX A/ 3 - 7

and the mitigation measures in the Plant Noise Assessment received on 4th December 2013 shall be implemented. The scheme shall thereafter be retained at all times. Reason – In the interests of amenity and to ensure the use of the building does not have a harmful environmental effect and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007.

7) The building shall not be brought into the use hereby permitted until the resurfacing works shown on drawing no. 01.04 received on 10th January 2014 have been implemented on site. Reason - In the interests of amenity and to ensure the use of the building does not have a harmful environmental effect and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007.

Background Papers: DC/12/1028

Case Officer: Kathryn Sadler DC/12/1028

Sussex Mushrooms

Scale : 1:2500

SLA Number 100023865 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 21st January 2014 Installation of solar photovoltaic farm and associated works including DEVELOPMENT: inverter housing, fencing, cameras and landscaping New Barn Farm, Swallows Lane, Dial Post, Horsham, West Sussex, SITE: RH13 8NN WARD: Cowfold, Shermanbury & West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/13/2060 APPLICANT: Sir Charles Burrell (Knepp Castle Estate)

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Large Scale Major Development

RECOMMENDATION: Grant Planning Permission subject to Conditions

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This is a full planning application seeking permission for the installation of a solar photovoltaic array across a site area of 2.58 ha.

1.2 The original planning application comprised of two options for the solar farm; Options A and B. Option A placed the associated plant on the western side of the site and therefore did not require an access track across the site, whilst Option B placed the plant near to the eastern boundary and therefore included an access track of 3.5m stretching across the site from the western gated entrance to the field.

1.3 The applicant has chosen to proceed with Option A (as shown on drawing ref: 308/641/003), and as such this is the scheme for determination.

1.4 Option A comprises of a series of linear arrays of solar photovoltaic panels spanning diagonally across the entire width of the site. For reasons that are self-evident, the arrays have a southerly aspect and are positioned 6.3m apart. They have a total height of 2.7m from ground level. A minimum separation distance of 10m has been retained to both the north-east and southern boundaries.

1.5 As stated above, the associated switch gear/transformer cabinet and the ‘UK Power Network’ cabinet will be positioned on the north-western boundary of the site, and in close

Contact Officer: James Hutchison Tel: 01403 215162 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2

proximity to the vehicular access. These cabinets are no greater than 2.5m in height and will be painted ‘Holly Green’.

1.6 A CCTV mast measuring 30m in height, and also to be painted in Holly Green, is to be sited close to the north-eastern boundary of the site.

1.7 The north-east and north-west boundaries of the site will comprise of new and infill hedgerow planting, contained within a deer fence. The wider surrounding area will be put to grassland and wildflower areas, with some additional hedgerow and tree planting.

1.8 Access will be provided from an existing gated entrance to the field in the western corner of the site.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.9 The application site comprises of a triangular area of approximately 2.58ha of grassland, which will be formed out of the sub-division of the existing field. This field is currently in an equestrian use and is presently being used in association with New Barn Farm.

1.10 The site is positioned within the Knepp Castle Estate and is located to the west of Dial Post. To the west of the application site is the collection of rural buildings known as New Barn Farm. The surrounding area is characterised by gently undulating fields, interspersed with hedgerows and the occasional shaw. The site is within the Sussex Low Weald.

1.11 The application site comprises of dense hedgerows along its north-east, north-west and south-eastern boundaries. As the site will be sub-divided from the remainder of the field to the south, there is presently no boundary treatment along its longest side.

1.12 Access to the existing field is provided by a gated entrance leading onto the aggregate formed track to the south-west.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (2012):-

Section 7 (Requiring Good Design) Section 10 (Meeting the Challenge of Climate Change, Flooding and Coastal Change) Section 11 (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment) Section 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment)

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Policies CP 1, CP 2, CP 3 and CP 15 of the Core Strategy (2007)

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3

2.4 Policy DC 1, DC 2, DC 5, DC 8, DC 9, DC13 and DC 40 of the General Development Control Policies (2007)

OTHER RELEVANT GUIDANCE

2.5 DCLG guidance note: “planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy” dated July 2013

PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 There is no planning history relevant to this site.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Landscape Officer has made an assessment of the proposal and in summary, considers that the applicant has responded positively to the commitments made in respect of wildflower seeding in the field in which the panels are to be located. The height of the solar panels at 2.7m from ground level are also accepted in order to allow for sheep grazing, when considered in combination with the hedgerows that will be allowed to grow to at least 3m in height. No objection has been raised on landscape grounds, subject to conditions.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 WSCC Ecology Officer has assessed the application and confirms that the requisite ecology studies have been undertaken, and that there is unlikely to be any ecological impact arising from the proposals. No objection has been raised.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 West Grinstead Parish Council has raised no objection.

3.4 There have been no other public comments made on the application.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

Principle of the Development:

6.1 Section 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides the over-riding support for the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, and requires that Local Planning Authorities should not require energy developers to demonstrate an overall need for the proposal, and should approve an application where any detrimental impacts can be successfully mitigated.

6.2 The supporting policies of the South East Plan 2009 have now been revoked, and in its place the development plan policies of the Horsham District Core Strategy and General Development Control Policies (2007) are most relevant. In particular, policy CP 2 (Environmental Quality) of the former sets out a broad support for the utilisation of renewable energies, whilst policy DC 8 (Renewable Energy and Climate Change) of the latter states that the Local Planning Authority will permit schemes for renewable energy (including solar) where they do not have a significant adverse impact on; landscape character; wildlife; areas of historical significance; or amenity value.

6.3 In July 2013, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) issued the document; “planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy”. This document is a material consideration in the determination of applications for renewable energy developments, and in association with the aforementioned policies, its assessment criteria should be followed unless there are clear reasons to deviate from any of these.

6.4 Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) sets out the criteria upon which development will be considered as acceptable within the countryside. Criterion (d) allows for essential development in a countryside location where it ensures the sustainable development of a rural area.

6.5 The area of the application site extends to 2.58ha and cannot be reduced to a smaller footprint owing to the land-hungry nature of the proposal. The proposed development is therefore not one that can be accommodated within the confines of the built-up settlement area. In addition to this, the proposed development will provide a substantial renewable energy supply, and the development as a whole meets with the objectives of sustainable development, as set-out in paragraph 7 of the framework. A solar farm would therefore be considered as an appropriate development within a countryside location, and is therefore compliant with policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

6.6 The proposed installation of a solar photovoltaic farm on the application site is considered to be wholly acceptable in principle, and should be permitted unless any significant material harm can be demonstrated to be caused by the development. The impact of the development in respect of the criteria established in paragraph 6.2 (above) is assessed in the following sections of the report.

Landscape Character of the Area:

6.7 The proposed development will not be located within an area designated for its landscape value, and neither are there any defined heritage assets within at least 200m of any of the APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5

boundaries of the application site. The nearest designated feature is the Grade II Listed building of Medlars, which is positioned 200m from the site.

6.8 The site lies within an area defined as ‘Broadford Bridge to Ashington Farmlands’ (Horsham District Landscape Character Assessment, 2003), and this is an area distinguished by its low lying and gently undulating topography. The application site and immediate surroundings are very much typical of this defined character area, exhibiting the characteristic patterns of fields, shaws and hedgerows. Although as stated within the HDC Character Assessment, the latter of these is considered to be at a greater risk from the gradual fragmentation of land within the Low Weald.

6.9 The formation of a new hedgerow and the infilling of the existing hedgerows around the boundaries of the application site will mean that the panels and plant cabinets (2.7m and 2.5m in height respectively) would be completely screened when the hedgerows are maintained at the indicated minimum height of 3m. The existing and new hedgerows, when considered in context with the low lying character of the surrounding area within the immediate and medium distance views, will completely screen the solar array and plant from the wider landscape character of the area. In order to further blend the development into its rural surroundings, the applicant has proposed to paint the cabinets and CCTV mast a dark green colour. This will be conditioned accordingly.

6.10 It is acknowledged that the CCTV mast will exceed the height of the boundary screening, however with a mast width of 76mm, and a minimal amount of equipment on the top, this structure is not considered to be at all imposing or discernable within the wider views of the site and surrounding area. The deer fencing, at a height of 2m, will be positioned on the outside of the hedgerows in order that it will serve its intended function of protecting the boundary screening. Whilst therefore being visible, this fencing will blend into the background of the dense hedgerows behind, and will therefore not have an adverse and urbanising appearance within the rural area.

6.11 The Council’s Landscape Officer has raised no concerns with the proposed scheme subject to various conditions being attached to the permission securing the proposed mitigation measures, a landscape management and maintenance plan, and requiring the cessation of use and the removal of all plant after 25 years.

6.12 The proposed development is not considered to have a significant impact on the surrounding landscape character of the area, and through the implementation of the mitigation measures, it is considered to lead to an enhancement through the provision of positive landscape features such as native hedgerows, trees and areas of wildflowers.

6.13 The application therefore complies with policies CP1, CP2 and CP3 of the Core Strategy (2007), policies DC2 and DC9 of the General Development Control Policies (2007), and the relevant sections of the Framework.

Biodiversity and Ecology:

6.14 The application site has been grazed for many years by horses, and before that, it is recorded as being used for arable farming. Consequently, a Phase 1 Habitat Survey conducted by the applicant’s ecologist on 1 August 2013, concluded that the site comprised of “species-poor improved grassland with boundary hedgerows absent of trees”.

6.15 The solar panels will not have any substantial impact on the existing ecology of the site, and in terms of their construction, the panels are relatively light-weight structures that screw into the ground without foundations. There will therefore be minimal disturbance to any habitats, and the work will be undertaken during the winter to further negate any APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6

impacts during the nesting season. The separation buffer between the panels and the site’s boundaries will additionally avoid any impact on species habitats in the hedgerows and areas of longer grass.

6.16 The lack of any significant plant diversity in the field owing to the years of agricultural/equestrian disturbance, together with the absence of species habitats with the exception of those in the hedgerows, which are to be retained in any case, means that there will be little impact on the existing ecology of the site and its surroundings.

6.17 In contrast to this, the proposed solar farm will bring about significant ecological benefits to the site and surroundings through the increase in the length and quality of native hedgerows, and the planting of the wildflowers across the application site and in the areas also within the ownership of the Knepp Castle Estate. In addition, the raised position of the solar panels will allow sheep to graze the site, which is in accordance with government guidance that seeks to retain greenfield land in the countryside for an agricultural use.

6.18 The applicant has submitted plans of the wider area outside of the red-lined site, and this shows proposals for grassland and wildflower areas, and also new tree planting on surrounding land within the ownership of Knepp Castle Estate. These proposals will considerably add to the wildlife habitats and general ecology of the area, and therefore comply with the national planning guidance that promotes ecological improvements as part of proposals for renewable energy developments.

6.19 The County Council’s Ecology Officer has considered these proposals, and the submitted habitat survey, and has raised no objection to the planning application.

6.20 These ecological improvements, alongside the other sustainability benefits to be achieved through this development, are considered to strongly support the grant of permission. The application is considered to comply with policies CP2 and CP3 of the Core Strategy (2007), policies DC2, DC5 and DC9 of the General Development Control Policies, and the wider policies of the Framework. In addition, it should be noted that the ecological benefits accrued through this application fully accord with the recently published government’s guidance note: “planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy”.

Impact on Heritage Assets:

6.21 The application has been accompanied by a Heritage Assessment, which has considered the impact of the solar farm on the nearest heritage assets, which include the grade II listed cottages of Medlar and Sherword, and Swallows Farmhouse. The nearest of these listed buildings is Medlar, which is barely visible owing to the fact that it is circa 200m to the north. Consequently the site is not within the setting of a listed building, and neither is it within a defined archaeologically sensitive area.

6.22 Due to the distance of the proposed solar farm from any listed buildings, and as a result of the fact that it will be completely screened by the existing and enhanced boundary treatment, there will not be any harm caused by this proposal. The application therefore accords with policy DC13 of the General Development Control Policies (2007), and the policies with section 12 of the Framework.

Transport Implications:

6.23 The construction phase of the development will require approximately 9 HGV movements during the entire construction period (duration of approximately 6 weeks), and approximately 10 car/van movements daily. On-going maintenance following completion APPENDIX A/ 4 - 7

will be limited, and will usually comprise of an engineer attending site if and when there is an issue detected. Landscape maintenance will be carried out by the Knepp Castle Estate.

6.24 There will be no requirement for an access track across the site anymore following the applicant’s decision to proceed solely with Option A, which places the equipment near to the existing entrance to the field for ease of access in terms of construction/servicing.

6.25 The amount of traffic that the development will generate per day will be minimal during the construction period, and the delivery of the panels and associated materials will be infrequent over the 6 week construction period. Once the development has been completed, the vehicle movements generated by the solar farm will be negligible especially in consideration of the use of the existing equestrian facility at New Barn Farm.

6.26 The application is therefore considered to be compliant with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

Conclusions:

6.27 The proposed development of the site through the installation of a solar photovoltaic farm has significant benefits in terms of the large-scale generation of renewable energy, and this is supported by both national and local planning policies. In addition, the application will not have any significant or harmful impacts on the landscape character of the area or the existing ecological value of the site, but would furthermore attract benefits through its implementation in terms of enhancing the biodiversity of the site.

6.28 The application is therefore compliant with policies CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP15 of the Core Strategy (2007), policies DC1, DC2, DC5, DC9, DC13 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies (2007). The application also fully endorses those policies within the framework that seek to promote the generation of renewable energy and protect the natural environment; namely sections 7 and 10 of the Framework.

7. RECOMMENDATION

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

STANDARD CONDITIONS

1. Standard Time Limit: (A2 - full permission 3 years)

2. Approved Plans: (Option A)

3. Construction Parking (H4A - on-site parking)

4. Construction Materials Storage: (H4B)

5. Landscape Management Plan: (L4 - tailored to specific landscape/ecology plan)

NON-STANDARD CONDITIONS

6. Approved Landscape Plans: ( LA001 rev O; LA002 rev O; LA003 rev O)

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 8

7. Retention of hedgerows: (those bounding the site at a height of no less than 3m from ground level & the replanting of hedgerows in accordance with condition 4).

8. Colour of Cabinets and CCTV Mast: (RAL: BS4800 Shade 14 C 39 Holly Green)

9. Cessation of Use: (The use of the site hereby approved shall cease and all plant, equipment and associated hard-standing shall be removed from the site on the expiration of 25 years from the date of this permission).

Background Papers: DC/13/2060

DC/13/2060

New Barn Farm

Scale : 1:5000

SLA Number 100023865 Blank APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 21st January 2014 Application for Variation to Transport Contribution relating to DC/12/1990 (Erection of 2 No. single-storey industrial units for B1(Business), B2 DEVELOPMENT: (General Industrial) and B8 (Storage or Distribution) use plus associated parking) SITE: Henfield Business Park Shoreham Road Henfield West Sussex WARD: Henfield APPLICATION: DC/13/2285 Section 106/2050 APPLICANT: HHC Development

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Legal agreement previously agreed by the Planning Committee

RECOMMENDATION: To agree to vary the S106 Agreement and modify the TAD contribution to £1

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the variation to the legal agreement S106/2050

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks a variation of the previously agreed legal agreement on the site. Planning Permission was originally granted in October 2013 for the construction of two new units along with associated parking and access (DC/12/1990).

1.2 West Sussex County Council as Highways Authority in their consultation response on DC/12/1990 requested transport contributions of £12,643 with contributions due to be paid on commencement of the development.

1.3 This application seeks to vary the original legal agreement which sought transport contributions of £12,643 towards transport projects within the parish. The applicant is now questioning the validity of the legal agreement and whether the contributions have been robustly justified and is seeking to reduce the contributions required on this development to £1.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

Contact Officer: Emma Greening Tel: 01403 215122 APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2

1.4 The application site is located outside of the built up area boundary to the east of the A2037. The site itself is an established business park with the units for this application being located to the east of the industrial units permitted under DC/10/2400.

1.5 Within the wider context, there is a footpath which runs along the north eastern corner of the site and an area of Ancient Woodland to the south of the site. Access to Horton Golf Club is through the business park site.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 The relevant government policy is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was published in March 2012 and the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010

2.3 Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 states that

“a planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is- a) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms b) Directly related to the development; and c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

2.4 This view on planning obligations is further reiterated in the National Planning Policy Framework and expanded on in paragraph 205 which states “Where obligations are being sought or revised, Local Planning Authorities should take account of changes in market conditions over time and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled”

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.5 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007): Policies CP1 (Landscape and Townscape Character), CP2 (Environmental Quality), CP3 (Improving the Quality of New Development), CP10 (Employment Provision), CP11 (Employment Sites and Premises), CP13 (Infrastructure Requirements) & CP15 (Rural Strategy)

2.6 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007): DC1 (Countryside Protection and Enhancement), DC2 (Landscape Character), DC9 (Development Principles), DC25 (Rural economic development and the expansion of existing rural commercial sites/intensification of uses) and DC40 (Transport and Access).

2.7 Planning Obligations Supplementary planning Document (2007)

PLANNING HISTORY

HF/15/90 Use of land for industrial estate, including relocation of R Permitted Vinall (Henfield) ltd builders yard & Milcot industrial estate Site: Field Off A/2037 Henfield

HF/32/98 Erection of b1 & b8 units and associated parking and Permitted APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3

turning Site: Henfield Business Park Shoreham Road Henfield

DC/10/2400 Expansion of Henfield Business Park including the erection Permitted of an industrial building containing 5 units, a new access and parking and cycle provision

DC/12/1990 Erection of 2 No. single-storey industrial units for Permitted B1(Business), B2 (General Industrial) and B8 (Storage or Distribution) use plus associated parking

DC/13/2287 Application for Variation to Transport Contribution amount Pending relating to DC/10/2400 (Expansion of Henfield Business Consideration Park including the erection of an industrial building containing 5 units, a new access and parking and cycle provision)

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 WSCC Highways have provided a written response on why they consider the requested contributions to be justified, a copy of this document is attached as Appendix 1

Having discussed the recommendation with WSCC Highways, they have stated that they would be prepared to defend their position at appeal as they believe that they have a robust policy basis and that TAD has been accepted regularly at appeal around the county.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 Henfield Parish Council commented on the application and suggested that it would be inappropriate to comment without all available information. The Parish Council would like to draw to the legal department’s attention the comments it made during the determination of DC/10/2400 regarding adequate measures being in place to ensure no downstream flooding. It is considered appropriate to use Section 106 transport related funds to mitigate the flooding that regularly occurs on the A2037 adjacent to this site.

3.4 Neighbour comments: At the time of writing the report, no letters had been received

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The main consideration in the determination of this application is whether the contributions sought for the development are compliant with the Community Infrastructure Regulations and whether the contributions required have been adequately justified. It should be noted that there is a similar application under consideration (DC/13/2287) which is related to an application for five units on the same site. Members should however consider each of these APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4

applications on their individual merits, given the different amounts requested and time between the applications.

6.2 At the time of the original application, West Sussex County Council considered the implications of the proposed development upon the highways network and assessed the level of contributions required to mitigate the impact of the development upon the local infrastructure. The contributions from the County Council can therefore be broken down into Infrastructure Contribution and Sustainable Transport Contribution resulting in a total amount payable of £12,643. The District Council did not make any request for contributions as the development was commercial rather than residential in nature.

6.3 In order to be acceptable, contributions must meet the three tests of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy 2010 (CIL). This states that:

“A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is- a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms b) directly related to the development; and c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”

6.4 The applicants have argued that transport contributions should only be sought for developments where the proposal is essential to serve the new development and in some cases the development should not be occupied until the improvements to infrastructure have been carried out.

6.5 As this application constitutes a formal request to vary the original legal agreement, West Sussex County Council has been requested to provide a justification for the funds sought and this is attached at Appendix 1. In essence, the County Council have suggested that the funds could be spent on the following projects:

 A town/ village enhancement scheme with accessibility improvements and access to the farmers market. This scheme could be used be used by employees of the business park to access the local amenities of the town, and services that Henfield has to offer and provides a sustainable alternative to using the car for short journeys into town  Cycle enhancements between Henfield and Woodmancote- improvements to the cycling facilities from Woodmancote to Henfield would enable employees living in the local villages to commute to work by means other than the car because they will have enhanced cycling facilities available to them, and will have an option to travel more sustainably  Vehicle Activated Signs on the London Road, and other speed management plans along the north of the village. This would also encourage employees travelling to the Business Park who live north of the village to consider getting to work by means other than the car because the speed management scheme would make cycling and walking through this part of the village safer- again increasing the sustainable travel;  Speed reduction measures on the A2037 Shoreham Road- this scheme would again encourage employees to consider commuting to work by means other than the car because cycling would be a safer and more visible alternative;  Safety improvements along the B2116 which would again encourage commuters from the north of the village to cycle to work as a sustainable alternative to using the car during the busy peak rush hour.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 5

6.6 Based on the information received by the County Council, consideration must be given to whether the projects specified above would meet the statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations as outlined at 6.4.

6.7 In this respect the County Council have suggested that the contributions requested satisfy the three statutory tests outlined in the CIL regulations and that the contributions are:

a) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms- the proposed TAD contribution would enable the provision of improved infrastructure at identified locations, which would encourage and promote the use of sustainable transport modes such as walking and cycling b) Directly related to the development- The identified schemes are situated close to and would directly benefit future employees of the proposed development c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development- The contribution is based upon a formula and is hence influenced by the size of the proposed development

6.8 It is acknowledged that the proposed development will result in an increase in traffic movements to and from the site with additional employees working in Henfield Business Park. However the examples of projects are not considered to be directly related to the development. The only scheme of any relevance to the development would be the possible speed reduction measures on the A2037. However there is no indication given on where exactly on the road the speed reduction measures would be located, likely implementation time and likely cost of the proposal. Whilst it may be related to the area, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed speed reduction measures are directly related to the development.

6.9 The NPPF states at paragraph 205 that “where obligations are being sought or revised, local planning authorities should take account of changes in market conditions over time and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled”. During the consideration of the application, the Local Planning Authority has requested additional justification from West Sussex County Council, requiring details of how the monies would be spent and a breakdown of costs, the evidence base behind the justification and how the project is directly related to the development permitted.

6.10 Whilst some information has been received, it is not considered sufficient justification to satisfactorily demonstrate how the contributions would meet the requirements of CIL and are directly related to the development. It is acknowledged that if this application is approved that this may set a precedent for future requests to vary legal agreements, however these would need to be considered on a case by case basis. Based on the information received from West Sussex County Council, there is not considered adequate justification on this occasion to request the contributions of £12,643.

6.11 In respect of the comments raised by Henfield Parish Council regarding the re-use of the monies to address the issue of flooding on the A2037, it must be pointed out that permission has been granted for the development along with an agreed S106 agreement. The flooding issue on the A2037 was not identified by the Highways Authority as requiring a contribution as part of the original application and has not subsequently identified it as part of their evidence base to support their position in relation to this application. For this reason the Council cannot now introduce or consider new requirements, such as the issue of flooding on the A2037, to be included within the variation of S106 agreement sought by this application.

6.12 In conclusion, the proposal seeks to vary an existing legal agreement by the reduction in the transport contributions payable to £1. The County Council have advised that they would be willing to defend their position regarding the level of contributions to be paid at appeal as they believe their contributions policy to be robust. As previously advised at 6.4 APPENDIX A/ 5 - 6

contributions must meet the three tests of the Community Infrastructure Levy, in this case the Local Planning Authority has sought further justification from the County Council on the transport contributions sought. Having considered both the evidence put forward by the applicants and the County Council, on this occasion the proposed justification for the contributions are not considered to be robust and it is therefore recommended that the legal agreement be amended to reduce the contributions to £1 as requested by the applicant.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 That the legal agreement is modified to reduce the TAD contributions to be paid to £1

Background Papers: DC/12/1990

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Local Authority Ref:

DC/13/2285 Application for Variation to Transport Contribution amount relating to DC/12/1990

And DC/13/2287 Application for Variation to Transport Contribution amount relating to DC/10/2400

Application Site: Henfield Business Park, Shoreham Road, Henfield, West Sussex

Written Submission by West Sussex County Council 1. West Sussex County Council Requirements

1.1 West Sussex County Council (“WSCC”) were consulted by Horsham District Council (“HDC”), acting as Planning Authority, on planning applications DC/10/2400 and DC/12/1990. WSCC considered the implications of the proposed development upon the highway network, and assessed the level of contributions required to mitigate the impact of the development upon the local County Council infrastructure. The WSCC consultation response were forwarded to HDC and provided advice on levels of contributions required at the site. The following contributions were identified to be secured by way of a Section 106 planning obligation:

(a) TAD (Highways) Contribution of £26,241 for DC/10/2400; and (b) TAD (Highways) Contribution of £12,643 for DC/12/1990

2. Total Access Demand

2.1 TAD is based on a formula to improve transparency and predictability. The TAD methodology formula has two elements that consider total access to and from a development. An Infrastructure Contribution is required in respect of each occupant or employee provided with a parking space, as they would be more likely to use the road infrastructure. The Sustainable Transport Contribution is required in respect of each occupant or employee not provided with a parking space which would be likely to rely on sustainable transport:

TAD = Infrastructure contribution + Sustainable Transport contribution

Infrastructure Contribution Contributions for Infrastructure are determined by the net increase in car parking spaces, multiplied by WSCC’s estimated cost of providing transport infrastructure per vehicle known as the Infrastructure cost multiplier. The Infrastructure cost multiplier was £900 per parking space at the time of the consultation under planning reference DC/2400/10 and £1000 per parking space at the time of the consultation under planning reference DC/12/1990.

Infrastructure contributions = Car parking spaces x Cost multiplier.

Sustainable Transport Contribution This is derived from the net car parking increase subtracted from the projected increase in occupancy of the development. The sustainable transport contribution increases where the population is greater than the parking provided. The sustainable transport figure is then multiplied by the County Council’s estimated costs of providing sustainable transport infrastructure cost multiplier (£450 at the time of the consultation under planning reference DC/2400/10 and £500 at the time of the consultation under planning reference DC/12/1990).

Sustainable transport contr. = (net car parking – occupancy) x 500

Note: occupancy is determined by projected rates per dwelling and projected people per commercial floor space as determined by WSCC.

2.2 Based upon the above formula, contributions of £12,643 and £26,241 were sought. Given the size of the contributions, these are likely to be pooled with other contributions in order to deliver identified schemes to improve the accessibility of the site by sustainable transport modes.

2.3 The TAD methodology was adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) in November 2003.

2.4 How the contribution will be used

Paragraph 29 of the NPPF (2012) states that, “the transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes”. The purpose of the TAD Contribution is therefore to be used to achieve measures that would promote and influence travel patterns for new residents of the proposed development. Such improvements would also potentially confer a wider benefit to the surrounding community. The schemes identified below all fulfil this criterion.

2.5 The Highway Authority has identified several sustainable schemes within the vicinity of the Appeal Site that could be delivered by way of contributions from development. These schemes include:

• A town/village enhancement scheme, with accessibility improvements and access to the Farmers Market. This scheme could be used by employees of the business park to access the local amenities of the town, and services that Henfield has to offer and provides a sustainable alternative to using the car for short journeys into town; • Cycle enhancements between Henfield and Woodmancote - improvements to the cycling facilities from Woodmancote to Henfield would enable employees living in the local villages to commute to work by means other than the car because they will have enhanced cycling facilities available to them, and will have an option to travel more sustainably; • Vehicle Activated Signs on the London Road, and other speed management plans along the north of the village. This would also encourage employees travelling to the Business Park who live north of the village to consider getting to work by means other than the car because the speed management scheme would make cycling and walking through this part of the village safer - again increasing sustainable travel; • Speed reduction measures on the A2037 Shoreham Road - this scheme would again encourage employees to consider commuting to work by means other than the car because cycling would be safer and a more viable alternative; • Safety improvements along the B2116 which would again encourage commuters from the north of the village to cycle to work as a sustainable alternative to using the car during the busy peak rush hour.

These improvements would provide improved pedestrian and cycling facilities to encourage less car dependency and the use of sustainable transport modes. This is in accordance with the NPPF.

2.6 Satisfying statutory tests

This methodology satisfies the three statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (SI 2010/948) and endorsed in Paragraph 204 in the NPPF (2012) in the following ways:

(i) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms - the proposed TAD contribution would enable the provision of improved infrastructure at identified locations, which would encourage and promote the use of sustainable transport modes such as walking and cycling.

(ii) Directly related to the development – the identified schemes are situated close to and would directly benefit future employees of the proposed development, should the appeal be permitted.

(iii) Fairly and reasonable related in scale and kind to the development – the contribution is based upon a formula and is hence influenced by the size of the proposed development.

3 Conclusion

WSCC contends that the infrastructure contributions and obligations set out are in full accordance with the requirements set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and, as such, requests that the Inspector includes these requirements, should it be determined that planning permission is granted.

DC/13/2285

Henfield Business Park

Scale : 1:2500

SLA Number 100023865 Blank APPENDIX A/ 6 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 21 January 2014 Application for Variation to Transport Contribution amount relating to DC/10/2400 (Expansion of Henfield Business Park including the erection DEVELOPMENT: of an industrial building containing 5 units, a new access and parking and cycle provision) SITE: Henfield Business Park Shoreham Road Henfield West Sussex WARD: Henfield DC/13/2287 APPLICATION: Section 106/1869 APPLICANT: HHC Development

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Legal agreement previously agreed by the Planning Committee

RECOMMENDATION: To agree to vary the S106 Agreement and modify the TAD contribution to £1

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the variation to the legal agreement S106/1869

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks a variation of the previously agreed legal agreement on the site. Planning Permission was originally granted in May 2011 for the construction of five new units along with associated parking and access (DC/10/2400). These units have now been constructed and at the time of the site visit, appeared to be occupied.

1.2 West Sussex County Council as Highway Authority in their consultation response on DC/10/2400 requested transport contributions of £26,241. The original contributions were due to be paid on commencement of the development; however the development has been substantially completed, and to date the contributions have not been paid.

1.3 This application seeks to vary the original legal agreement which sought transport contributions of £26,241 towards transport projects within the parish. The applicant is now questioning the validity of the legal agreement and whether the contributions have been robustly justified and is seeking to reduce the contributions required on this development to £1.

Contact Officer: Emma Greening Tel: 01403 215122 APPENDIX A/ 6 - 2

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 The application site is located outside of the built up area boundary to the east of the A2037. The site itself is an established business park with the subject units for this application being located to the east of the original industrial units on the site.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 The relevant government policy is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was published in March 2012 and the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010

2.3 Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 states that

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.5 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007): CP1 (Landscape and Townscape Character), CP10 (Employment Provision), CP13 (Infrastructure Requirements) and CP15 (Rural Strategy).

2.6 Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2007)

PLANNING HISTORY

HF/15/90 Use of land for industrial estate, including relocation of R Permitted Vinall (Henfield) ltd builders yard & Milcot industrial estate Site: Field Off A/2037 Henfield

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 3

HF/32/98 Erection of B1 & B8 units and associated parking and Permitted turning Site: Henfield Business Park Shoreham Road Henfield

DC/10/2400 Expansion of Henfield Business Park including the erection Permitted of an industrial building containing 5 units, a new access and parking and cycle provision

DC/12/1990 Erection of 2 No. single-storey industrial units for Permitted B1(Business), B2 (General Industrial) and B8 (Storage or Distribution) use plus associated parking

DC/13/2285 Application for Variation to Transport Contribution relating Pending to DC/12/1990 (Erection of 2 No. single-storey industrial Consideration units for B1(Business), B2 (General Industrial) and B8 (Storage or Distribution) use plus associated parking)

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.1 WSCC Highways have provided a written response on why they consider the requested contributions to be justified, a copy of this document is attached as Appendix 1

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.2 Henfield Parish Council commented on the application and suggested that it would be inappropriate to comment without all available information. The Parish Council would like to draw to the legal department’s attention the comments it made during the determination of DC/10/2400 regarding adequate measures being in place to ensure no downstream flooding. It is considered appropriate to use Section 106 transport related funds to mitigate the flooding that regularly occurs on the A2037 adjacent to this site.

3.3 Neighbour comments: At the time of writing the report, no letters had been received

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The main consideration in the determination of this application is whether the contributions sought for the development are compliant with the Community Infrastructure Regulations and whether the contributions required have been adequately justified. It should be noted that there is a similar application under consideration (DC/13/2285) which is related to two other units on the same site. Members should however consider each of these applications APPENDIX A/ 6 - 4

on their individual merits, given the different amounts requested and time between the applications.

6.2 At the time of the original applications, West Sussex County Council considered the implications of the proposed development upon the highways network and assessed the level of contributions required to mitigate the impact of the development upon the local infrastructure. The contributions from the County Council can therefore be broken down into Infrastructure Contribution and Sustainable Transport Contribution resulting in a total amount payable of £26,241. The District Council did not make any request for contributions as the development was commercial rather than residential in nature.

6.3 From correspondence at the time of the original application, it would appear that the applicants were willing to enter into a Section 106 agreement to secure contributions, and subsequently the legal agreement was signed and planning permission granted.

6.4 In order to be acceptable, contributions must meet the three tests of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy 2010 (CIL). This states that:

6.5 The applicants have argued that transport contributions should only be sought for developments where the proposal is essential to serve the new development and in some cases the development should not be occupied until the improvements to infrastructure have been carried out.

6.6 As this application constitutes a formal request to vary the original legal agreement, West Sussex County Council has been requested to provide a justification for the funds sought and this is attached at Appendix 1. In essence, the County Council have suggested that the funds could be spent on the following projects:

 Safety improvements along the B2116 which would again encourage commuters from the north of the village to cycle to work as a sustainable alternative to using the car during the busy peak rush hour.

6.7 Based on the information received by the County Council, consideration must be given to whether the projects specified above would meet the statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations as outlined at 6.4.

6.8 In this respect the County Council have suggested that the contributions requested satisfy the three statutory tests outlined in the CIL regulations and that the contributions are:

6.9 It is acknowledged that the development will result in an increase in traffic movements to and from the site with additional employees working in Henfield Business Park. However the examples of projects are not considered to be directly related to the development. The only scheme of any relevance to the development would be the possible speed reduction measures on the A2037. However there is no indication given on where exactly on the road the speed reduction measures would be located, likely implementation time and likely cost of the proposal. Whilst it may be related to the area, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed speed reduction measures are directly related to the development.

6.10 The NPPF states at paragraph 205 that “where obligations are being sought or revised, local planning authorities should take account of changes in market conditions over time and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled”. During the consideration of the application, the Local Planning Authority has requested additional justification from West Sussex County Council, requiring details of how the monies would be spent and a breakdown of costs, the evidence base behind the justification and how the project is directly related to the development permitted.

6.11 Whilst some information has been received, it is not considered sufficient justification to satisfactorily demonstrate how the contributions would meet the requirements of CIL and are directly related to the development. It is acknowledged that if this application is approved that this may set a precedent for future requests to vary legal agreements, however these would need to be considered on a case by case basis. Based on the information received from West Sussex County Council, there is not considered adequate justification on this occasion to request the contributions of £26,241.

6.12 In respect of the comments raised by Henfield Parish Council regarding the re-use of the monies to address the issue of flooding on the A2037, it must be pointed out that permission has been granted for the development along with an agreed S106 agreement. The flooding issue on the A2037 was not identified by the Highways Authority as requiring a contribution as part of the original application and has not subsequently identified it as part of their evidence base to support their position in relation to this application. For this reason the Council cannot now introduce or consider new requirements, such as the issue of flooding on the A2037, to be included within the variation of S106 agreement sought by this application.

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 6

6.13 In conclusion, the proposal seeks to vary an existing legal agreement by the reduction in the transport contributions payable to £1. The County Council have advised that they would be willing to defend their position regarding the level of contributions to be paid at appeal as they believe their contributions policy to be robust. As previously advised at 6.4 contributions must meet the three tests of the Community Infrastructure Levy, in this case the Local Planning Authority has sought further justification from the County Council on the transport contributions sought. Having considered both the evidence put forward by the applicants and the County Council, on this occasion the proposed justification for the contributions are not considered to be robust and it is therefore recommended that the legal agreement be amended to reduce the contributions to £1 as requested by the applicant.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 That the legal agreement is modified to reduce the TAD contributions to be paid to £1

Background Papers: DC/10/2400

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Local Authority Ref:

DC/13/2285 Application for Variation to Transport Contribution amount relating to DC/12/1990

And DC/13/2287 Application for Variation to Transport Contribution amount relating to DC/10/2400

Application Site: Henfield Business Park, Shoreham Road, Henfield, West Sussex

Written Submission by West Sussex County Council 1. West Sussex County Council Requirements

(a) TAD (Highways) Contribution of £26,241 for DC/10/2400; and (b) TAD (Highways) Contribution of £12,643 for DC/12/1990

2. Total Access Demand

TAD = Infrastructure contribution + Sustainable Transport contribution

Infrastructure contributions = Car parking spaces x Cost multiplier.

Sustainable transport contr. = (net car parking – occupancy) x 500

Note: occupancy is determined by projected rates per dwelling and projected people per commercial floor space as determined by WSCC.

2.3 The TAD methodology was adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) in November 2003.

2.4 How the contribution will be used

2.5 The Highway Authority has identified several sustainable schemes within the vicinity of the Appeal Site that could be delivered by way of contributions from development. These schemes include:

These improvements would provide improved pedestrian and cycling facilities to encourage less car dependency and the use of sustainable transport modes. This is in accordance with the NPPF.

2.6 Satisfying statutory tests

This methodology satisfies the three statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (SI 2010/948) and endorsed in Paragraph 204 in the NPPF (2012) in the following ways:

(ii) Directly related to the development – the identified schemes are situated close to and would directly benefit future employees of the proposed development, should the appeal be permitted.

(iii) Fairly and reasonable related in scale and kind to the development – the contribution is based upon a formula and is hence influenced by the size of the proposed development.

3 Conclusion

DC/13/2287

Henfield Business Park

Scale : 1:2500

SLA Number 100023865