Committee AGENDA

E-mail: CommitteeServices@horsham.gov.uk

Direct line: 01403 215465

Development Control (North) Committee TUESDAY 3RD FEBRUARY 2015 AT 5.30pm COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM

Councillors: Liz Kitchen (Chairman) Roy Cornell (Vice-Chairman) John Bailey Ian Howard Andrew Baldwin David Jenkins Peter Burgess Christian Mitchell John Chidlow Josh Murphy Christine Costin Godfrey Newman Helena Croft Jim Rae Leonard Crosbie Stuart Ritchie Malcolm Curnock David Sheldon Laurence Deakins David Skipp Duncan England Simon Torn Frances Haigh Claire Vickers David Holmes Tricia Youtan You are summoned to the meeting to transact the following business Tom Crowley Chief Executive

AGENDA 1. Apologies for absence

2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 6th January 2015 (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 reports of the following officers and to take such action thereon as may be necessary:

Development Manager

(a) Appeals (b) Applications for determination by the Committee:

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 Rusper and DC/14/2132 Land East of Emmanuel Cottage, Rusper Road, Colgate Ifield

A2 Horsham Park DC/14/1252 Norfolk House, 32 - 40 North Street, Horsham

A3 Horsham Park DC/14/1917 Griffin House, Nightingale Road, Horsham

A4 Rudgwick DC/14/1453 Martlet Court, Church Street, Rudgwick

A5 Nuthurst DC/14/1990 Blakes Farm, Copsale Road, Maplehurst

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.

DCN150106

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 6th January 2015

Present: Councillors: Liz Kitchen (Chairman), John Bailey, Andrew Baldwin, Peter Burgess, John Chidlow, Christine Costin, Helena Croft, Leonard Crosbie, Malcolm Curnock, Laurence Deakins, Duncan England, Frances Haigh, David Holmes, Ian Howard, David Jenkins, Christian Mitchell, Godfrey Newman, Jim Rae, Stuart Ritchie, David Sheldon, David Skipp, Simon Torn, Claire Vickers, Tricia Youtan

Apologies: Councillors: Roy Cornell(Vice-Chairman), Josh Murphy

DCN/67 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 2th December were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DCN/68 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

Member Item Nature of Interest

Councillor Peter DC/14/1966 DPI – he is a member of North Burgess Horsham Parish Council, which has an interest in the site

DCN/69 ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

DCN/70 APPEALS

Notice concerning the following appeals had been received:

Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No Site Officer Committee Recommendation Resolution DC/14/0491 Wester House, Bonnetts Refuse N/A Lane, Ifield, Crawley DC/13/2366 Hillside Cottages, Non-determination N/A Brighton Road, Lower Beeding

Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/71 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/1966 – DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE TO PROVIDE AN 80 BEDROOM CARE HOME TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING AND CAR PARKING PROVISION SITE: EVELYN LANCASTER HOUSE, ST MARKS LANE, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR R SMITH (Councillor Peter Burgess declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in this item as he was a member of North Horsham Parish Council which had an interest in the site. He withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the determination of the application.)

The Development Manager reported that this application sought full permission for the demolition of a 41-bedroom extra care building and its replacement with a 80-bedroom care home together with associated landscaping and car parking. Each bedroom would have en-suite facilities, and there would be communal facilities including dining areas, lounges, a cinema, a hobby room, a hairdressers and a café area. There would also be staff and utility areas.

The care home would form a splayed ‘U’ shape building. The building would be largely red brick, with some render and timber effect cladding and a pitched tiled roof. The existing access would be retained and there would be a car parking area with 26 spaces, including two accessible spaces, at the front of the building. Two footpaths would be created within the grounds.

The application site was located within the built-up area of Horsham on the south eastern end of St Marks Lane, an adopted paved road serving St Mark’s Church, North Heath Hall, the Sussex Barn public house and 18 residential properties. The ground level dropped considerably from a high point at the access down to the southern edge of the site, adjacent to Channells Brook.

The existing building was a large brick two storey structure with varying levels to account for the changes in level across the site. A public footpath ran around the southern and eastern boundaries of the site, where there was a 1.2 metre high fence. There was a line of mature trees along the northern boundary, and the north western boundary was adjacent to numbers 7 and 17 St Marks Lane.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. Eleven letters of objection had been received. The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

2 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/71 Planning Application: DC/14/1966 (Cont.)

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development; the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and on the amenities of nearby residents; highway impacts and parking; and ecology and drainage.

The current building was not considered fit for purpose and Members discussed the resulting loss of affordable housing units. It was noted that the impact of construction traffic on St Marks Lane would be controlled through Condition 9. Members also discussed parking provision within the site and on balance considered this to be acceptable.

Members concluded that the proposal would help to meet a recognised need in a sustainable location and was acceptable.

It was agreed that Local Members should review the conditions prior to the issuing of the decision

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/14/1966 be granted subject to the following conditions:

01 A2 Full Permission

02 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted the following shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority:

· a schedule of materials and samples of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for the external walls, roofs, fenestration and balconies of the building; · details of all hard surfacing materials to be used within the site; · details of all boundary treatments proposed.

All materials and details used shall conform to those approved.

03 The landscaping scheme for the development hereby permitted shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details, within the first planting season following the commencement of the development. Any plants which within a period of 5

3 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/71 Planning Application: DC/14/1966 (Cont.)

years die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

04 Prior to the commencement of development a detailed Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan for all landscape areas, to cover a period of 5 years from the date that construction commences, shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted plan shall include:

· A description of landscape components; · Management prescriptions; · Details of maintenance operations and their timing; · Details of the parties/organisations who will maintain and manage the site, to include a plan delineating the areas that they will be responsible for.

The plan shall demonstrate full integration of landscape, biodiversity and arboricultural considerations. The areas of planting shall thereafter be retained and maintained in perpetuity in accordance with the approved Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan and in accordance with best practice, unless any variation is approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

05 All works shall be executed in full accordance with the approved CBA Trees ‘Arboricultural Development Statement’ dated August 2014, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

06 No existing trees, hedges or shrubs on the site, other than those the Local Planning Authority has agreed to be removed as part of this permission, shall be wilfully damaged or uprooted, felled/removed, topped or lopped without the previous written consent of the Local Planning Authority until 5 years after completion of the development hereby permitted. Any trees, hedges or shrubs on the site, whether within the tree protective 4 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/71 Planning Application: DC/14/1966 (Cont.)

areas or not, which die or become damaged during the construction process shall be replaced with trees, hedging plants or shrubs of a type, size and in positions agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

07 Prior to the commencement of development, details of the proposed means of foul and surface water drainage and sewerage disposal shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with Southern Water where appropriate. The submitted information shall include:

· details of any measures required to divert/protect public sewers; · details of all sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) that are to be utilised across the site; · details of how the SuDS are to be maintained and managed after completion; · details of how the development has been designed for exceedance events and flood flow paths; · details to prevent surface water draining onto the public highway or public footpath.

The approved details shall be fully implemented prior to the first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained and maintained as approved.

08 Before development commences precise details of the finished floor levels of the development in relation to a nearby datum point and in relation to predicted flood levels (where known) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

09 Prior to the commencement of development, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate, but not necessarily be restricted to, the following matters: 5 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/71 Planning Application: DC/14/1966 (Cont.)

· the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during demolition and construction; · the method of access and routing of vehicles during construction; · the parking of vehicles by site operatives and visitors; · the loading and unloading of plant, materials and waste; · the storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development; · the erection and maintenance of security hoarding; · the provision of wheel washing facilities to prevent material being carried onto the public highway; · details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works; · the implementation of a temporary Traffic Regulation Order to prevent on-street parking along St Marks Lane during the site operating hours throughout the duration of the demolition and construction project; · the provision of a banksman/men to assist in the management of construction traffic along St Marks Lane; · measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition and construction; · lighting for construction and security.

10 No part of the development shall be first occupied until the car parking has been constructed in accordance with the approved site plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated purpose.

11 Upon the first occupation of the use, the Applicant shall implement the measures incorporated within the approved travel plan. The Applicant shall thereafter monitor, report and subsequently revise the travel plan as specified within the approved document.

6 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/71 Planning Application: DC/14/1966 (Cont.)

12 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the proposals and recommendations of the SLR ‘Preliminary Ecological Appraisal’ (incorporating bat survey results) referenced 402-02498-00011-020 dated July 2014, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

13 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of the proposed construction methods incorporating sustainable construction techniques to achieve at least a BREEAM ‘very good’ rating shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

14 The use hereby permitted shall not be commenced until full details of the means of ventilation for the extraction and disposal of cooking odours has been provided in accordance with details first submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include times of operation of the ventilation system and the proposed maintenance programme. Thereafter, the ventilation system shall be installed, operated and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

15 Prior to the commencement of development, details of the means and location for the provision of refuse/recycling bin storage shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented prior to the first occupation of the dwellings and thereafter retained as approved.

16 If, during development, contamination (including the presence of asbestos containing materials) not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the Local Planning Authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained

7 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/71 Planning Application: DC/14/1966 (Cont.)

written approval from the Local Planning Authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

17 An appropriately licensed waste removal contractor shall remove clearance debris and construction waste from site, including all asbestos waste.

18 Prior to their first occupation, the specified windows within the building identified below shall be glazed in obscured glass and permanently retained in that condition thereafter.

· First floor level windows to the western end of the building facing towards the west, shown on drawing No. 4459 PL08 to serve a stairwell and quiet lounge; · First floor level windows to the western end of the building facing towards the north, shown on drawing No. 4459 PL08 to serve a stairwell and corridor; · First and second floor level windows to the northern end of the building facing towards the north, shown on drawings No. 4459 PL08 and 4459 PL09 to serve a corridor and store room.

19 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or Orders amending or revoking and re- enacting the same, no windows or other openings (other than those shown on the plans hereby approved) shall be formed, at first floor level or above, in the building without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority pursuant to an application for the purpose.

20 The development hereby approved shall be used as a residential care home under Use Class C2 only and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Use Class C2) in the schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

21 No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted, including the receipt or dispatch of deliveries/removals to and from the site, shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 09.00 hours and 14.00 hours on Saturdays, and

8 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/71 Planning Application: DC/14/1966 (Cont.)

no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

22 O2 No Burning of Materials

23 List of approved documents and plan numbers.

REASON

01 The proposal is considered to be economically and socially sustainable and in accord with paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

02 The proposal would not have an adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area and accords with the requirements of policies CP1 and CP3 of the Core Strategy, and DC9 of the General Development Control policies.

03 In terms of highway impacts, the proposal accords with the NPPF and policy CP19 of the Core Strategy and DC31 and DC40 of the General Development Control policies.

04 The proposal would not cause significant harm to protected species or the ecological value of the site, and as such accords with policy DC5 of the General Development Control policies.

05 The required drainage strategy will ensure the development is carried out in accordance with policy DC7 of the General Development Control policies.

DCN/72 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/1905 – PROPOSED TWO STOREY ROOF EXTENSION TO ACCOMMODATE 14 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ELEVATION CHANGES TO EXISTING BUILDING, FOLLOWING THE GRANT OF PRIOR APPROVAL (DC/14/1311) FOR THE CHANGE OF USE OF LINDEN HOUSE TO RESIDENTIAL COMPRISING 65 UNITS SITE: LINDEN HOUSE, CHART WAY, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR NIGEL RIPPON

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for the construction of a further two storeys to be added to Linden House to create an additional 14 residential units. The proposed roof extension would measure approximately 44 metres by 25 metres on the third floor, which would be set back 2.4 metres from the existing parapet wall. The fourth floor

9 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/72 Planning Application: DC/14/1905 (Cont.)

level would have a reduced depth in order to form part of an amenity space for the residents.

External alterations to the existing building would include glazed curtain walling and glazed look-alike solid panels around the ground floor level and the creation of angled box bay windows across the existing windows at first and second floor level. The extension would have a flat roof and be largely timber clad with box type bay windows. During consideration of the application the alignment of the windows had been amended.

The application site was located within the built-up area of Horsham to the north-west of Chart Way, north-east of Albion Way and south-west of County Hall North. The site and its parking area were accessed from the eastern end of Madeira Avenue via a controlled gate system shared with County Hall North and the Royal Sun Alliance buildings, situated just to the south. The building had been vacant for some time and had previously been occupied with a Class B1(a) Office use. The site had an extant prior approval for its conversion into 65 residential units.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Neighbourhood Council had withdrawn its original objection in response to amendments. Eight letters of objection had been received. The Horsham Society had withdrawn its original objection in response to amendments. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development; the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; the impact on the amenities of nearby residents; highway impacts and parking; and legal obligations.

Members discussed aspects of the proposal including: the design of the proposal and its impact on the character of the surrounding area; its impact on the amenity of Madeira Avenue residents; and parking provision for the 14 additional units. Members noted that a legal agreement to ensure infrastructure contributions had not been secured.

Members were mindful of the prominent position of the site and concluded that the design of the proposal was of poor quality and would be out of keeping with the character of the town centre and nearby Horsham Park. Members therefore concluded that the proposal was unacceptable.

10 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/72 Planning Application: DC/14/1905 (Cont.)

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/14/1905 be refused for the following reasons:

01 The proposed development is considered to constitute an inappropriate design which would be out of keeping with the character of the area by reason of being in a prominent location on a roof of a building with a strong character of its own, in an area that is visible both from nearby pedestrian walkways and parkland, such that the proposed development would not adequately integrate into the natural, built and historic environment. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the NPPF, in particular Section 7 ‘Requiring good design’.

02 The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to education provision; libraries; fire and rescue services; open space, sport and recreation facilities; or community facilities and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2007) as it has not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.

DCN/73 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/1943 – RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 53 DWELLINGS SITE: LAND NORTH OF HEATH BARN FARM BUNGALOW, BILLINGSHURST ROAD, BROADBRIDGE HEATH APPLICANT: MR JOHN CLARKE

Item deferred and deleted from the agenda.

DCN/74 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1172: S1062087 – VARIATION OF S106 AGREEMENT TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT TO CONSTRUCT A LEFT-IN LEFT-OUT ACCESS TO THE SITE SITE: HEATH BARN FARMHOUSE, BILLINGSHURST ROAD, BROADBRIDGE HEATH APPLICANT: A2DOMINION NEW HOMES

In June 2013, planning permission DC/12/1172 had been granted for the demolition of a farmhouse and associated outbuildings and the erection of 34 dwellings together with highway works and landscaping (Minute No. DCN/42 (4.9.12) refers). The legal agreement attached to the permission had secured a number of benefits including a right-turn ban and the construction of a left-in left-out access to the site.

11 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/74 Planning Application: DC/12/1172: S1062087 (Cont.)

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for a variation of this legal agreement to remove the requirement for a left- only system at the site access. The Highway Authority had reviewed the access requirements of the site in the light of the highway infrastructure connected to the development of the first phase of the adjacent Countryside development (DC/09/2101) that had been completed since permission DC/12/1172 had been granted, and had advised that a right-turn ban was no longer necessary to make the development acceptable in highway terms.

The application site was located within the built-up area boundary of Broadbridge Heath, although separated from the main settlement by the A264. The site was adjacent to and north of the larger area of the West of Horsham strategic land allocation.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The response from the Highway Authority, as contained within the report, was considered by the Committee. Since preparation of the report an additional response had been received from the Highway Authority confirming that ‘the all movements access has passed the safety audit process and is acceptable in terms of its design and safety’ and therefore ‘in safety and traffic management terms it would be difficult to insist on a right turn ban’. No letters of representation had been received.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issue for consideration in determining the proposal was whether the development would remain acceptable without the works previously required being carried out.

Members discussed current and future traffic flow in the light of the relief road and the South of Broadbridge Heath Strategic Development.

The Parish Council had not been aware of the proposed variation and Members requested that the item be deferred to allow the Parish Council to respond so that their comments could be taken into account.

RESOLVED

That the proposal to vary the legal agreement S106-2087, attached to planning application DC/12/1172, be deferred to enable the views of the Parish Council to be considered prior to determination of the proposal.

12 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/75 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/1904 – NEW SHOP FRONT (RETROSPECTIVE) SITE: ENTERPRISE HOUSE, 80 LAMBS FARM ROAD, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR H CELEBI

The Development Manager reported that this application sought retrospective permission for a new shop front, which had been installed in August 2014. It comprised two full height glazed windows with a central entrance door, above which was a fanlight, all in grey powder coated aluminium.

The application site was located within the built-up are of Horsham at the western end of a local shopping parade on the south side of Lambs Farm Road. There were three units, with flats above, in the parade comprising a convenience store, a sports shop and the application site.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

There had been no responses from statutory internal and external consultees. The Parish Council had not commented on the application. Four letters of objection had been received.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issue for consideration in determining the proposal was the impact of the new shop front on the character of the existing building and on the street scene.

Members considered the proposal and the history of the application. Whilst not directly relevant to the determination of the proposal, Members discussed implementation of conditions attached to DC/11/1660, in particular those regarding the extraction system and bollards.

With regards to conditions attached to DC/11/1660, the Development Manager confirmed that enforcement and planning officers were negotiating with the applicant to ensure they would be met, and gave assurance that Local Members would be consulted.

Members concluded that the shop front was similar in design to the neighbouring units and would not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/14/1904 be granted.

13 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/75 Planning Application: DC/14/1904 (Cont.)

REASON

The proposal is in full compliance with policy DC14: Shop Fronts and Advertisements of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies.

DCN/76 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/2252 – ADDITIONAL BLOCK OF ACCOMMODATION AT EXISTING CARE FACILITY TO PROVIDE 10 SPECIAL CARE BED SPACES TOGETHER WITH ESSENTIAL STAFF ACCOMMODATION SITE: CLEMSFOLD HOUSE, GUILDFORD ROAD, CLEMSFOLD, HORSHAM APPLICANT: DR S SACHEDINA

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for a two storey detached building containing ten special care bed spaces on the ground floor for young people with profound learning and physical disabilities requiring 24-hour care assistance.

The ground floor would also include a lounge, dining/activities room, multi- sensory room, kitchen, offices and staff facilities. The building included staff accommodation comprising nine studio units and a single one bedroom unit on the first floor, within the roof space.

The building would be situated on the southern edge of a central courtyard and landscaped area, and complemented and interrelated with the buildings already on the site; Clemsfold House, Redwood House, Oak Lodge and Beech Lodge. The proposal would also reconfigure a driveway and parking area along the western boundary to provide five car parking spaces and turning area.

The application site was located outside the built-up area in the countryside, south of the Guildford Road adjacent to the Clemsfold Roundabout where the A281 met the A29. A large landscaped area was to the north of the site with ponds fronting onto the A29.

Sussex Health Care, a group of independent special care homes, was the service provider. The Clemsfold site currently provided 30 beds for adults with physical and learning difficulties and 44 beds for the elderly mentally infirm.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council

14 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/76 Planning Application: DC/14/2252 (Cont.)

had raised no objection to the proposal. No letters of representation had been received.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development; its siting and design; and access and parking. The applicant had demonstrated that there was a high demand for this highly specialised care, with significant waiting lists.

Members considered that the scheme would bring social and economic benefits and concluded that the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/14/2252 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 No work shall be carried out on the site unless and until an effective vehicle wheel-cleaning facility has been installed in accordance with details approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and such facility shall be retained in working order and operated throughout the period of work on the site to ensure that vehicles do not leave the site carrying earth and mud on their wheels in a quantity which causes a nuisance, hazard or visual intrusion from material deposited on the road system in the locality.

03 The materials and finishes of all new external walls and roofs of the development hereby permitted shall match in type, colour and texture those of the existing buildings unless otherwise agreed in writing.

04 No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between 08.00 hours and 18.00 hours 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.

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

15 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/76 Planning Application: DC/14/2252 (Cont.)

06 No part of the development shall be first occupied until the vehicle parking and turning spaces have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained for their designated use.

07 The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the recommended measures set out in the Ecological Appraisal report by ACD, dated September 2014, unless otherwise approved in writing..

08 An archaeological investigation of the site shall be carried out at the expense of the developer in accordance with a specification and timetable to be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing following approved removal of trees upon the site and before the commencement of any building works.

09 The first floor dwellings shall be occupied at all times by staff employed within the care facility.

REASON

01 It is considered that the applicant has provided sufficient justification for the expansion to the facilities and that the form and type of development is appropriate in this location.

02 The appearance and layout of the scheme is considered to be acceptable in the context of the character of the locality and in compliance with the aims of policy DC9.

03 The proposal is considered to be in line with the desire in the NPPF to create and expand facilities which meet the needs of existing and new communities.

16 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/77 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1197 – APPLICATION FOR A MINOR MATERIAL AMENDMENT TO DC/12/1315 (MINOR MATERIAL AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DC/10/2172 (DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOUSE AT 246A CRAWLEY ROAD, TO FORM PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD TO 11 NO. NEW HOUSES WITHIN LAND TO THE REAR OF NOS 246 - 256 CRAWLEY ROAD, TO INCLUDE CAR-PORTS, HARDSTANDING AND ASSOCIATED EXTERNAL WORKS) TO INCLUDE REVISED LAYOUT AND VARY THE LIST OF APPROVED PLANS) TO INCLUDE THE INSERTION OF NEW WINDOWS AND DOORS WITH ASSOCIATED INTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO PLOT 10 AND 11 SITE: RUTHERFORD WAY, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR J AMOS

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for a minor material amendment to DC/12/1315. The proposal would amend the ‘approved plans’ condition, substituting plans originally specified for Plot 10 and Plot 11 to amended versions. The proposal would create an additional bedroom at first floor level for the dwellings on both plots. The proposal would regularise amendments that had already taken place.

External changes to both dwellings to facilitate this included additional windows to the western and eastern elevations, amendments to the rear elevation windows, and the relocation of a patio door and an additional patio door on the rear elevation.

The application site was located within the built-up area of Horsham. Construction of 11 new dwellings on the site had been completed and all appeared to be occupied.

There were a number of mature and semi mature trees on the boundary of the site with dense screening along part if the southern and eastern boundary. A number of these trees were subject to Tree Protection Orders. Access to the site was from Crawley Road.

The surrounding location was predominantly residential and comprised semi-detached and detached dwellings of varying periods and designs. There was a bus stop on the Crawley Road, allowing for good access to public transport links. Northolmes Junior School was approximately 200 metres to the north east and there was a Co-operative supermarket and Tesco Express service station further east along Crawley Road.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee. Applications DC/13/1560 and DC13/1574 for additional minor material amendments to DC/12/1315 were considered by the Committee at the current meeting.

17 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/77 Planning Application: DC/13/1197 (Cont.)

There had been no responses from statutory internal and external consultees to report. The Neighbourhood Council raised no objection to the application. No letters of representation had been received.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were the revised housing mix and privacy. The principle of the development had been established and the amendments would not materially alter the appearance of the development.

Members considered aspects of the proposal and noted that the revised housing mix was compatible with the surrounding area and the inclusion of additional bedrooms could have been achieved without planning permission if no external alterations had been included.

Members concluded that the proposal would not have a material impact on the overall scheme and was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/13/1197 be granted subject to the following conditions:

01 The windows at first floor level in the rear (northern) elevation of the dwellings on Plots 10 and 11 shall be fitted with obscured glazing and any part of the windows that are less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be non- opening. The windows shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.

0 2 The solar photovoltaic panels remain in place and in operational condition in accordance with the details approved by the Council on 17/05/2013.

03 The screen walls and/or fences shall be retained as approved and maintained in accordance with drawing number 1185-EXT-003 Revision H received by the Council on 03/12/2014 and no further walls and/or fences shall be erected within or around the site thereafter.

04 The refuse and recycling storage areas shall remain in place in accordance with the details approved by the Council on 17/05/2013 and shall not be used for any other purpose.

18 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/77 Planning Application: DC/13/1197 (Cont.)

05 The parking turning and access facilities shall be retained in accordance with the approved drawings solely for that purpose [and solely in connection with the development].

06 The access from the site to the public highway shall remain in place in accordance with the details approved by the Council on 07/06/2013.

07 The facilities for the parking of cycles as shown on drawing number 1185-EXT-003 Revision H received by the Council on 03/12/2014 shall be retained solely for that purpose.

08 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order amending or revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification) no development falling within Classes A B C D E and F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the order shall be erected constructed or placed within the curtilage(s) of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted so as to enlarge improve or otherwise alter the appearance or setting of the dwelling(s) unless permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to an application for the purpose.

09 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No2) (England) Order 2008 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows/dormer windows [other than those expressly authorised by this permission] shall be constructed.

10 The landscaping scheme approved by the Council on 07/06/2013 shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any plants which within a period of 5 years 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.

19 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/77 Planning Application: DC/13/1197 (Cont.)

11 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the landscape management plan approved by the Council on 07/06/2013, and shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with those approved details.

12 No trees, hedges or shrubs on the site, other than those the Local Planning Authority has agreed to be felled as part of this permission, shall be wilfully damaged or uprooted, felled/removed, topped or lopped without the previous written consent of the Local Planning Authority until 5 years after completion of the development hereby permitted. Any trees, hedges or shrubs on the site, whether within the tree protective areas or not, which die or become damaged during the construction process shall be replaced with trees, hedging plants or shrubs of a type, size and in positions agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

13 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details of surface water drainage approved by the Council on 07/06/2013, which shall thereafter remain in place as approved.

14 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details of foul and surface water sewerage approved by the Council on 07/06/2013, which shall thereafter remain in place as approved.

15 The noise mitigation measures, including the minimum stated sound reduction indices for the building elements, stated in the Planning Policy Guidance 24 - Noise Assessment prepared by Mach Testing dated 16th September 2010 and submitted in support of this application shall be fully implemented and permanently retained unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

16 The new permanent bat roosting areas shall remain in place in accordance with the details approved by the Council on 17/05/2013.

17 External lighting shall be provided only in accordance with the details approved by the Council on 17/05/2013 and no additional external lighting shall be erected within the site thereafter.

20 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/77 Planning Application: DC/13/1197 (Cont.)

18 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings.

REASON

The proposed amendments do not pose any adverse impacts on the amenity of existing or future occupiers. Therefore the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the Horsham District General Development Control Policies.

DCN/78 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1560 – APPLICATION FOR A MINOR MATERIAL AMENDMENT TO DC/12/1315 (MINOR MATERIAL AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DC/10/2172 (DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOUSE AT 246A CRAWLEY ROAD, TO FORM PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD TO 11 NO. NEW HOUSES WITHIN LAND TO THE REAR OF NOS 246 - 256 CRAWLEY ROAD, TO INCLUDE CAR-PORTS, HARDSTANDING AND ASSOCIATED EXTERNAL WORKS) TO INCLUDE REVISED LAYOUT AND VARY THE LIST OF APPROVED PLANS) TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OF A SINGLE STOREY SIDE SECTION TO PLOT 9 SITE: RUTHERFORD WAY, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR J AMOS

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for a minor material amendment to DC/12/1315. The proposal would amend the ‘approved plans’ condition, substituting plans originally specified for Plot 9 to amended versions. The proposal would amend the dwelling on Plot 9 to include a single storey addition to the eastern side measuring three metres by 5.4 metres, with a ridge height of 4.9 metres. The proposal would regularise amendments that had already taken place.

The application site was located within the built-up area of Horsham. Construction of 11 new dwellings on the site had been completed and all appeared to be occupied. Details of the site and surrounding area, as printed in the report, were noted by the Committee.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee. Applications DC/13/1197 and DC13/1574 for additional minor material amendments to DC/12/1315 were considered by the Committee at the current meeting.

The response from the Council’s Arboricultural Officer, who raised no objection subject to conditions, as contained within the report, was considered by the Committee. The Neighbourhood Council raised no objection to the application. No letters of representation had been received.

21 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/78 Planning Application: DC/13/1560 (Cont.)

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment and considered whether the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the dwelling or on neighbouring residents. The principle of the development had been established and the amendments would not materially alter the appearance of the development.

Members considered aspects of the proposal including the scale and location of the extension and concluded that the proposal would not have a material impact on the overall scheme and was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/13/1560 be granted subject to the following conditions:

02 The solar photovoltaic panels remain in place and in operational condition in accordance with the details approved by the Council on 17/05/2013.

0 4 The refuse and recycling storage areas shall remain in place in accordance with the details approved by the Council on 17/05/2013 and shall not be used for any other purpose.

0 5 The parking turning and access facilities shall be retained in accordance with the approved drawings solely for that purpose [and solely in connection with the development].

22 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/78 Planning Application: DC/13/1560 (Cont.)

06 The access from the site to the public highway shall remain in place in accordance with the details approved by the Council on 07/06/2013.

07 The facilities for the parking of cycles as shown on drawing number 1185-EXT-003 Revision H received by the Council on 03/12/2014 shall be retained solely for that purpose.

11 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the landscape management plan approved by the Council on 07/06/2013, and

23 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/78 Planning Application: DC/13/1560 (Cont.)

shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with those approved details.

13 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details of surface water drainage approved by the Council on 07/06/2013, which shall thereafter remain in place as approved.

14 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details of foul and surface water sewerage approved by the Council on 07/06/2013, which shall thereafter remain in place as approved.

16 The new permanent bat roosting areas shall remain in place in accordance with the details approved by the Council on 17/05/2013.

17 External lighting shall be provided only in accordance with the details approved by the Council on 17/05/2013 and no additional external lighting shall be erected within the site thereafter.

18 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings.

24 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/78 Planning Application: DC/13/1560 (Cont.)

REASON

DCN/79 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1574 – APPLICATION FOR A MINOR MATERIAL AMENDMENT TO DC/12/1315 (MINOR MATERIAL AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DC/10/2172 (DEMOLITION OF EXISTING HOUSE AT 246A CRAWLEY ROAD, TO FORM PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD TO 11 NO. NEW HOUSES WITHIN LAND TO THE REAR OF NOS 246 - 256 CRAWLEY ROAD, TO INCLUDE CAR-PORTS, HARDSTANDING AND ASSOCIATED EXTERNAL WORKS) TO INCLUDE REVISED LAYOUT AND VARY THE LIST OF APPROVED PLANS) TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION OF A SINGLE STOREY SIDE SECTION TO PLOT 10 SITE: RUTHERFORD WAY, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR J AMOS

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for a minor material amendment to DC/12/1315. The proposal would amend the ‘approved plans’ condition, substituting plans originally specified for amended plans. The proposal would amend the dwelling on Plot 10 to include a single storey addition to the eastern side measuring 2.5 metres by 4.7 metres, with a ridge height of 3.4 metres. The proposal would regularise amendments that had already taken place.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee. Applications DC/13/1197 and DC13/1560 for additional minor material amendments to DC/12/1315 were considered by the Committee at the current meeting.

25 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/79 Planning Application: DC/13/1574 (Cont.)

established and the amendments would not materially alter the appearance of the development.

Members considered aspects of the proposal including the scale and location of the extension and concluded that the proposal would not have a material impact on the overall scheme and was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/13/1574 be granted subject to the following conditions:

0 2 The solar photovoltaic panels remain in place and in operational condition in accordance with the details approved by the Council on 17/05/2013.

04 The refuse and recycling storage areas shall remain in place in accordance with the details approved by the Council on 17/05/2013 and shall not be used for any other purpose.

05 The parking turning and access facilities shall be retained in accordance with the approved drawings solely for that purpose [and solely in connection with the development].

06 The access from the site to the public highway shall remain in place in accordance with the details approved by the Council on 07/06/2013.

26 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/79 Planning Application: DC/13/1574 (Cont.)

07 The facilities for the parking of cycles as shown on drawing number 1185-EXT-003 Revision H received by the Council on 03/12/2014 shall be retained solely for that purpose.

27 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/79 Planning Application: DC/13/1574 (Cont.)

13 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details of surface water drainage approved by the Council on 07/06/2013, which shall thereafter remain in place as approved.

14 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details of foul and surface water sewerage approved by the Council on 07/06/2013, which shall thereafter remain in place as approved.

16 The new permanent bat roosting areas shall remain in place in accordance with the details approved by the Council on 17/05/2013.

17 External lighting shall be provided only in accordance with the details approved by the Council on 17/05/2013 and no additional external lighting shall be erected within the site thereafter.

18 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings.

28 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/80 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/2234 – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING STABLES AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS, LANDSCAPING AND GARAGES SITE: GHYLL HOUSE FARM BROADWATER LANE COPSALE APPLICANT: MR ALAN BURGESS

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for the demolition of the two stable buildings and the construction of two detached dwellings with detached double garages.

The dwellings would be very similar in design, measuring approximately 15.2 metres by 11.2 metres, with a ridge height of 9.2 metres. They would be made of brick and render with clay tile roofs. The timber frame garages would be 10.6 metres by 6.9 metres, with a ridge height of five metres. The private access granted under DC/14/0778 would be extended. Native hedging would be planted along the southern and eastern boundaries, along with a low maintenance wild flower meadow along the southern, eastern and western boundaries of the site.

The application site was located outside any defined built-up area, with access off Broadwater Lane, a C classified road. Immediately to the west and south of the site were three residential dwellings, including the substantial Ghyll Farm House. The site was surrounded by agricultural land and woodland containing sporadic residential development. Land to the north was within the area of the Garden of Historic Interest associated with Sedgwick Park. The wider area was characterised by undulating agricultural land interspersed with field boundaries and woodland.

Details of relevant government and council policies and planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council had raised no objection. No letters of representation had been received.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issue for consideration in determining the proposal was the replacement of attractive buildings in a countryside location with new build houses.

The principle of residential development of the site had been established when DC/12/0778 and DC/12/1516 had been approved. Members discussed aspects of the proposal including: the history of the site; how the proposal compared with the previously approved application for the conversion of the stables into three smaller dwellings; the scale of the proposed dwellings; and the insubstantial structure of the stables.

29 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/80 Planning Application: DC/14/2234 (Cont.)

Members concluded that the proposal was acceptable in principle.

RESOLVED

(i) That a Deed of Variation of the original legal agreement, required under DC/12/0778 and DC/12/1516, be secured.

(ii) That on completion of (i) above, application DC/14/2234 be determined by the Development Manager. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCN/81 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/2127 – ERECTION OF HIGH ROPES COURSE AND ASSOCIATED WORKS (REVISED SCHEME TO THAT APPROVED UNDER DC/13/0374) SITE: THE PAVILIONS IN THE PARK, HURST ROAD, HORSHAM APPLICANT: PLACES FOR PEOPLE LEISURE MANAGEMENT LTD

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for a high level rope course and associated works.

Permission had previously been granted by the Committee for a similar scheme DC/13/0374 (Minute No. DCN/28 (06.08.13) refers. The current application proposed a revised layout with a different footprint. The most significant differences between the schemes were:

· Revised height of 11 metres (not 11.5 as printed in the report) to the top of the vaulted roof · Reduced footprint of the high ropes course · Reduction of five main elements to three main elements · Increased height of tower element · Change in materials and appearance.

It was confirmed at the meeting that the high level aerial activity would have a maximum height of 10.5 metres.

Access would be via the leisure centre for individuals and through a controlled gate off the car park for large pre-booked groups. The facility would be suitable for all ages and abilities from five years and above and used for educational and developmental programmes as well as recreational use.

The application site was located in Horsham Park, close to the town centre and railway station. It was to the south of the Pavilions in the Park leisure centre within the fenced corner formed by two of the sections of the leisure 30 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/81 Planning Application: DC/14/2127 (Cont.)

centre buildings. Park House, a grade II* listed building, was approximately 50 metres to the south of the site.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. No letters of representation had been received. A representative of the Parish Council spoke in objection to the application and requested the addition of three conditions to ensure: that the facility should be removed if the permit expired or the facility were no longer in use; that the sign facing the car park is not illuminated; and that Condition 5 regarding the replacement of fencing after construction should also apply to hedges.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment and discussed aspects of the proposal including parking provision and the differences between the proposal and the approved scheme.

Members concluded that the proposal would not have a materially different impact on the park setting or the listed building than the previously approved scheme, and was therefore acceptable. It was agreed that the additional conditions requested by the Parish Council should be included.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/14/2127 be granted subject to the following conditions, and an additional condition regarding amended plans, and the three conditions requested by the Parish Council if appropriate:

01 A2 Full Permission (3 years)

02 No external lighting or floodlighting shall be installed without the submission and approval of a planning application to the Local Planning Authority.

03 L1 Hard and soft landscaping

04 M6 Prescribed Materials

05 Any fences removed during the construction stage of the development shall be replaced prior to the commencement of the use hereby approved in accordance with the details on the approved plans. Thereafter the fencing shall be retained / maintained

31 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/81 Planning Application: DC/14/2127 (Cont.)

as approved in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

06 O1 Hours of Working

07 The development hereby permitted shall not exceed the roof line of the Pavillions Leisure Centre Building to which it is adjacent.

REASON

01 The proposal is in accord with all relevant Development Plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework

02 The proposal would improve the community facilities in the area.

DCN/82 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/1187 – FULL APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION OF AN APARTMENT BLOCK (CONSISTING OF 12NO RETIREMENT APARTMENTS) AND 5NO RETIREMENT COTTAGES WITH PARKING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS SITE: DURRANT’S VILLAGE, FAYGATE LANE, FAYGATE APPLICANT: HELICAL (FAYGATE) LTD

The Development Manager reported that this application sought full planning permission for a block of twelve 2-bedroom self-contained apartments for the over 60s and five 3-bedroom retirement cottages. These would replace the previously approved 50 bedroom residential care home.

The previously approved care home had been an L-shape building; the proposed apartment block would occupy a much reduced footprint, equivalent to the northern part of the care home. Four of the retirement cottages would have a comparable footprint to the southern part of the care home, but further to the south. The fifth retirement cottage would be in the northern corner of the application site, which had previously been proposed for car parking.

Seventeen car parking spaces would be provided. Access would be from Faygate lane, as in the previously approved scheme

The applicant had proposed an affordable housing contribution in lieu of an on-site provision of seven units (40% provision), in accordance with the original scheme.

32 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DCN/82 Planning Application: DC/14/1187 (Cont.)

The application site was located between Faygate Lane and Faygate Business Park, directly to the north of Faygate. There was ancient woodland to the north of the site. It comprised the southern part of the overall sheltered care housing scheme that had been allowed on appeal under application DC/08/0316. The wider development of 148 retirement units on the site was in progress in accordance with this permission.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

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. One letter of objection had been received.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the loss of a residential care home; housing mix; the appropriateness of the proposal in respect of living environment and residential amenity; design in the context of the wider development; highways; and impact on infrastructure and planning contributions.

Members discussed the proposal in the context of the wider development, in particular the loss of care home facilities on the site. The lack of affordable housing provision on the site was also discussed.

Whilst Members considered that the proposal compromised the vision of the original proposal, Members concluded that, on balance, the proposal was acceptable in principle.

RESOLVED

(i) That a legal agreement be entered into to secure the necessary infrastructure contributions and affordable housing commuted sum.

(ii) That upon completion of (i) above, application DC/14/1187 be determined by the Development Manager. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

The meeting closed at 8.28pm having commenced at 5.30pm.

CHAIRMAN

33 Development Control (North) Committee 6th January 2015

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 3RD FEBRUARY 2015 REPORT BY DEVELOPMENT MANAGER – 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

Officer Committee Ref No. Site Appeal Recommendation Resolution Ashton Grange Nursing Home, 3 DC/14/0053 Written Reps Delegated N/A Richmond Road, Horsham

3. Appeal Decisions

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

Officer Committee Ref No. Site Appeal Recommendation Resolution The Levee Loxwood DC/14/0618 Road Rudgwick Dismissed Refused Delegated

Horsham The Old Bakehouse DC/14/1208 Wickhurst Lane Allowed Refused Delegated

Broadbridge Heath

94 Brighton Road DC/14/0670 Dismissed Refused Delegated Horsham

Springfield Farm DC/14/1384 Bungalow Springfield Dismissed Withdrawn Delegated Lane Colgate Horsham Part of Land Known DC/14/0587 As Blindmans Wood, Allowed Permit Refused Woodland Lane, Colgate

Water Farm, DC/14/1348 Bashurst Hill, Withdrawn Refused Delegated

Itchingfield, Horsham

ITEM A1 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management (North) Committee BY: Development Manager DATE: 3rd February 2015 Outline planning application for a development of up to 95 dwellings with DEVELOPMENT: associated open space and landscaping with all matters reserved, except for access SITE: Land East of Emmanuel Cottage Rusper Road Ifield Crawley WARD: Rusper and Colgate APPLICATION: DC/14/2132 APPLICANT: Gladman Developments

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of development

RECOMMENDATION: Refusal

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

The application site is within Rusper ward and is located to the west of Ifield. This is an outline planning application for up to 95 dwellings with all matters reserved except access.

The access is proposed to be taken from Rusper Road through an existing belt of trees which are located along the western boundary. Whilst matters of layout, appearance, scale and landscaping are not for consideration within this application, the supporting documents and in particular the Design and Access Statement, do provide a number of illustrative details such as indicating areas of open space and drainage ponds along the eastern edge and south west corner, pedestrian access points to be taken from Rusper Road in the north west and south west corners and an illustrative site layout plan indicating location of dwellings.

The application is supported by the following key documents: · Design and Access Statement · Energy Statement · Flood Risk Assessment · Foul drainage Report · Ecological Appraisal · Archaeology Report

Contact Officer: Emma Parkes Tel: 01403 215528 ITEM A1 - 2

· Air Quality Assessment · Noise Report · Arboricultural Impact Assessment · Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment · Transport Assessment · Travel Plan · Socio Economic Report · Statement of Community Involvement

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

The application site is located to the West of the neighbourhood of Ifield and adjoins the rear gardens of properties fronting onto Rusper Road to the south. This portion of Rusper Road is very rural in character with large detached dwellings which form a transition from the built up area of Crawley to the rural area. From the boundary of the site onwards this low density ribbon development ceases. The neighbourhood of Ifield, which is nearby, fallws within the administrative area of Crawley; however some rural/residential development along its western fringes does fall within the administrative boundary of Horsham District Council.

This site falls within Horsham District and extends to 3.87 ha in size. It is bounded by trees along the eastern and western boundaries, and to a much lesser extent the southern boundary. The eastern boundary adjoins a wooded area which extends into an area of ancient woodland, which is also designated as a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCi). Within the SNCi lies Ifield Brook and Ifield Mill Stream. This area to the east is within Flood Zone 2 which the Environment Agency has estimated to have a 1 in 1000 chance of flooding in any year. Further east lays the wider area of open space known as Ifield Park.

The western boundary is characterised by a belt of small oak trees and understorey vegetation. There is also a ditch which runs along Rusper Road. There would be some loss of trees to accommodate the proposed access and visibility splays. The southern boundary adjoins the rear boundaries of residential properties fronting onto Rusper Road. These have a mixture of boundary treatments from relatively open low picket fences to more substantial fencing with tree and hedge screening. The northern boundary of the site is open in nature with the exception of a low fence dividing fields further north.

The site slopes from west to east, although not significantly. At the time of an officer site visit water was lying along the western part of the field. The field is currently in agricultural use.

The site lies within the Gatwick Safeguarding Zone.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF)

- Section 4: Promoting sustainable transport ITEM A1 - 3

- Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes - Section 7: Requiring good design - Section 8: Promoting healthy communities - Section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change - Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Planning Policy Guidance (2014) Technical Guidance to the NPPF (2012)

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) –

CP1 (Landscape and Townscape character); CP2 (Environmental Quality); CP3 (Improving the Quality of new development); CP5 (Build-Up Areas and Previously Developed Land) CP12 (Meeting Housing Needs); CP13 (Infrastructure Requirements) CP19 (Managing Travel Demand and Widening Choice of Transport)

Local Development Framework: Development Control Policies (2007) –

DC1 (Countryside Protection and Enhancement) DC2 (Landscape Character); DC3 (Settlement Coalescence) DC5 (Biodiversity and Geology) DC6 (Woodland and Trees) DC7 (Flooding) DC8 (Renewable Energy and Climate Change) DC9 (Development Principles); DC10 (Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments) DC13 (Listed Buildings); DC18 (Smaller Homes/Housing Mix); DC19 (Employment Site/Land Protection); DC22 (New Open Space, Sports and Recreation) DC31 (New/Extensions To Retirement Housing and Care Home Schemes); DC40 (Transport and Access)

Local Development Framework: Supplementary Planning Documents:

- Facilitating Appropriate Development (2009) (FAD) - Planning Obligations (2007)

The emerging Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was approved by Council on 30th April 2014 as the Council’s policy for planning the future of the District for the period 2011-2031. Following a six week period of representations, the plan was submitted to the Government on 8th August 2014 for independent examination under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. The examination of the HDPF was undertaken by an independent Planning Inspector in November 2014. The Inspector published his preliminary findings in a letter dated 19 December 2014. The basic strategy is accepted as is made clear in para 4:

‘On balance, I consider the overall strategy to concentrate growth in the main settlements in the hierarchy, starting with Horsham as a first order centre, followed by Southwater and ITEM A1 - 4

Billingshurst, to be sound. The proposal for some development in villages, in accordance with Neighbourhood Plans (NP)s, is also justified and accords with government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). As will be explained in some more depth in my final report, the alternative strategy of greater dispersal to smaller settlements would be likely to lead to a less sustainable pattern of development with regard to transport patterns related to provision of employment opportunities, retail facilities and social and community services..’

There is a requirement to revisit the housing figures and the Examination will re-open in 6 months time to allow time for the Council to show how the annual housing provision can be increased to provide for a minimum of 750 dwellings per annum. It is important to note that the inquiry will re-open to consider this one issue only. Given the Inspector’s findings the emerging plan is therefore a material consideration of considerable weight in terms of the overall strategy.

PLANNING HISTORY

There are no formal applications which are relevant to this application site however Officers note that this site (and a wider site at West of Ifield) were considered within the recent Examination of the Horsham District Planning Framework; in particular Matter 14: Crawley Extension Sites.

Reference is made within this report of a planning application to the south of Rusper Road, which involves the redevelopment of a number of detached properties, and the creation of 36 units. This was granted in July 2014 under planning reference DC/13/0368.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

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.

3.1 Internal Consultations

Arboriculture Officer: (summarised): No objection subject to conditions

The scheme is located at a suitable distance from the Ancient Woodland. The access to the site is off Rusper Road and would result in the felling of a small number of trees along the boundary; however this loss would not be to any important trees. Overall it is considered that the presence of trees has been thought through at the design stage.

Housing Department (summarised): Comment

No information has been submitted regarding the mix and tenure split, it is however the applicants intention to provide 40% affordable housing.

Landscape Architect (summarised): Objection

From the site visit it is noted that there are strong site boundaries to the east, south and west, the site is locally well contained and not widely visible, but the character changes to the north where the open northern boundary allows more far reaching views north and north west. The site is in clear view from the east - west footpath from Rusper Church to Lower Barn on the Rusper Road, a short distance north of the open northern site boundary. ITEM A1 - 5

From Rusper Road the site is noted between gaps in existing frontage development or through the western tree belt but the most open view occurs adjacent to Emmanuel Cottage, set adjacent to the site's north western corner.

The access plan appears to show that access could be implemented with only minor clearance, although there would be a further urbanising effect from the proposed footway.

The most significant landscape concern with the proposal relates to the northern site boundary which is described as to be formed of a hedgerow and tree planting. It is considered that a far more robust treatment of this boundary needs to be proposed.

The drainage strategy indicates SUDS attenuation ponds on the eastern and south western parts of the site. It is recommended that, if possible, consideration be given to locating these closer to the northern boundary where they could assist in forming a stronger boundary at the open countryside interface.

The relationship of the proposals to the woodland to the east should be clarified, including the exact location of the red line relative to the ancient woodland and the SNCI.

Overall the proposal cannot be supported as there are a number of issues that need to be clarified before it could be supported to recommend the grant of outline consent. However if these matters in so far as landscape and visual are resolved the proposal may be recommended for approval.

Strategic and Community Planning (summarised): Objection

Whilst the Council accept the District does not currently a 5-year housing supply (and as such, recognises that relevant housing policies of the Horsham District Local Plan should not be considered up-to-date); it is recognised that the initial Findings of the Planning Inspector dated 19th December 2014 indicate that the forthcoming strategy in the Proposed HDPF is sound, and that development following the proposed settlement hierarchy is the most sustainable way forward. It is considered therefore that a development proposal of this scale in this less sustainable location is not contingent to the strategy set out in the forthcoming HDPF (as considered sound by the Planning Inspector), and is therefore not appropriate to permit at this time. This site could perhaps be considered alongside any long term development of a larger allocation or the removal or confirmation of the safeguarding land as a result of a decision about expansion of Gatwick Airport.

It is considered that it is not appropriate or necessary to develop this site at present given the inconsistency with the settlement hierarchy as set out in the HDPF Proposed Submission, as well as it being located in a less sustainable part of the District where cumulative, piecemeal development through ad-hoc planning applications is not appropriate - particularly given that the Council can demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply through planned allocations in the emerging HDPF.

Public Health and Licencing (summarised): Comment subject to conditions

From the assessment of the noise survey concern is raised that the noise levels at night are higher than would be expected from a semi-rural location. It has not been demonstrated that aircraft noise is not a major contributor to the noise environment and concern is raised that the regular individual noise events from aircraft movements could have a significant adverse effect.

Noise in the external space will be difficult to mitigate to be in accordance with the WHO recommended levels. ITEM A1 - 6

If the proposal is allowed a condition is recommended requiring that a scheme for protecting the proposed development from external noise to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing prior to the commencement of development.

Matters relating to contamination and impacts during construction can be controlled through appropriately worded conditions.

Community Safety Partnership: No comments received

Technical: No objection subject to conditions

No objection to the drainage strategy proposed, therefore until detailed design information has been submitted at the appropriate planning stage it is recommended that drainage conditions should be applied.

3.2 External Consultations

Environment Agency (summarised): No comment

A risk based assessment has been undertaken and as the site is located on Flood Zone 1 bespoke comments will not be provided or a review of the technical documents has not been undertaken in relation to this proposal.

Crawley Borough Council (summarised): Objection

· The form of the development is suburban in an areas of rural character. It is therefore considered that the development would result in an inappropriate form of housing development in open countryside adjacent to Crawley’s boundary that would be harmful to the setting of the town and contrary to paragraph 64 of the NPPF. · The proposal would also be a piecemeal, incremental development outside the built up area, and would not form a comprehensive neighbourhood development. The development would not therefore bring forward new services, facilities or enhancements to the transport network. It is therefore considered that this unacceptable development is premature before a decision has been taken on the most sustainable and appropriate form and location of additional developments beyond those planned for in the emerging Local Plans within the northern West Sussex Housing Market Area. · Other concerns relate to the impact the proposed development would have on the transport network of Crawley Borough, in terms of traffic congestion and safety on Crawley’s transport network, potential increase in off-site flooding as the site is immediately adjacent to a major river and a defined zone 3 flood risk area and the proposal must not cause harm to the Ancient Woodland and Site of Nature Conservation Importance to the east of the site.

West Sussex County Council – Highways (summarised): No objection subject to conditions

No objection subject to appropriate planning conditions relating to detailed information on the access to the site being satisfied by the Local Planning Authority.

West Sussex Country Council – Section 106 (summarised): No objection subject to S106 contributions ITEM A1 - 7

The proposal is likely to require contributions towards the provision of additional County Council service infrastructure, other than highways and public transport that would arise in relation to the proposed development.

West Sussex County Council – Archaeology (summarised): No objection subject to conditions

No objection on archaeological grounds subject to suitable planning conditions which safeguard and ensure the investigation, recording, and reporting where appropriate of archaeological heritage assets within the site.

West Sussex County Council – Ecology (summarised): No objection subject to conditions

No objection raised subject to appropriate conditions and more detailed information at the reserved matters submission.

Southern Water (summarised): No objection

Southern Water can provide a water supply to the site.

Thames Water (summarised): No objection subject to a conditions

· Thames Water has identified an inability of the existing waste water infrastructure to accommodate the needs of this application. · Should the application be approved a condition should be attached relating to the need for a drainage strategy. · Waste Water: Infrastructure capacity problems are known or suspected, the developer will be required to finance an impact study. Running through the middle of the proposed development are easements and way leaves. These are Thames Water Assets. The company will seek assurances that these will not be affected by the proposed development.

Gatwick Airport have been consulted and their comments will be updated at committee

Rusper Parish Council: Objects

It is understood that further comments explaining this objection are likely to be received. Any additional comments will be updated at committee.

Public Consultations

Ifield Village Conservation Area Advisory Committee (summarised): Objects

· The proposed development would back onto the Arts and Crafts style houses in Rusper Road. Crawley Borough Council has recognised the heritage value of the Arts and Crafts buildings on their side of the border by designating them an ‘Area of Special Character (ASC)’ following advice from a study of Heritage in the Town. They also have designated the meadows behind these buildings as Local Green Space; · Would increase the coalescence of settlements; · There would be increased traffic and congestion; · The transition between the urban and rural is considered to be inappropriate. ITEM A1 - 8

A petition with 82 signatures objecting to the proposal was submitted during the consultation period.

Letters of representations objecting to the proposal have been received from a total of 29 No. residents. These letters raise the following summarised planning concerns:

· The development is on a greenfield site and would be out of character with the design of the surrounding area and settlement pattern; · Given the timescales of delivery of the site, it is considered that the proposed scheme would not be completed within the next 5 years, therefore the proposal would fail to assist in meeting the Council’s current housing shortfall; · The principle of development does not comply with policies CP4 and CP5 of the Core Strategy and Policies 1,2 and 3 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework; · The proposal is not in accordance with Council Policy; · Development will increase the risk of flooding; · Increased pressure will be placed on local infrastructure, specifically sewage infrastructure which is already at capacity and other utilities; · The proposal would increase traffic. This would increase the risk to pedestrians and cyclists; · The existing wildlife will be lost; · The proposal would create an estate which would be out of character with the area; · The proposal would put increased pressure on the local schools and doctors surgeries; · There is no direct bus service between the site and the town; · Until a decision is made on the provision of a second runway at Gatwick Airport housing in this area will in the future potentially be at risk from aircraft noise; · The proposal is not in accordance with the Human Rights Act, Protocol 1, Article 1, which states that a person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions, which includes the home and other land; · The Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) considered the site to be developable in the 6-10 year period and states 80 units; · The application refers to the creation of links to a public right of way footpath network to the north and south of the development of the site, but it has been noted that there is no existing footpath either to the north or the south of the proposed point of access; · Query why access is required to the north of the site into existing agricultural land; · The site is unsuitable for development due to aircraft noise; · The development will cause harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties; · The existing tree boundary around the site will be reduced; · The proposal is contrary to the paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework; · The proposal is contrary to paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework as the proposal fails to demonstrate good design; · The proposal does not comply with policies in the Horsham District Planning Framework which relate to the coalescence of settlements, protection of the character of the area and providing adequate infrastructure, in particular schools.

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

ITEM A1 - 9

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.

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 key issues for consideration in relation to this proposal are:

· The principle of the development · Design, character and affordable housing · Amenities of nearby and future residents · Landscape and Ecology · Drainage · Infrastructure · Other matters · S106 obligations · Representations

Principle of the development

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that this should run through both plan-making and decision-taking (paragraph 14). In terms of the determination of planning applications this should mean the approval of developments that accord with the development plan without delay, and that where the development plan is silent or relevant policies are out of date, that permission be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or policies of the NPPF indicate otherwise.

6.3 Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that ‘housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development’ and that ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.’

6.4 The NPPF further requires, at paragraph 47, that Local Planning Authorities should identify, and update annually, a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to meet their housing requirements for a 5 year period with an additional buffer of 5%. The most recent AMR (Dec 2014) indicates that the Authority currently has a five year housing land supply of 65.7%, which does not represent a five year housing land supply across the Horsham District. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF indicates that, in the absence of a demonstrable five year housing supply, relevant policies for the supply of housing should be considered out- of-date. In light of this, the proposal should also be considered in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development given in paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

6.5 Of note is paragraph 31 of the Inspectors appeal decision at RMC Engineering Works (application ref: DC/10/1457) where it was stated that rather than regarding the Council’s housing policies as out-of-date in their entirety it would be more appropriate to identify those elements of the policies to which less weight is to be given. The Inspector suggested ITEM A1 - 10

that it might be appropriate to apply policies CP5 and DC1 more flexibly in the case of housing proposals on the edge or close to built-up area boundaries, whilst continuing to exercise a general policy of restraint in more remote rural areas.

6.6 This particular site lies is designated on the proposals map as open countryside. Whilst Policies CP5 and DC1 should be considered more flexibly given the lack of a 5 year supply of housing Horsham District Council are at an advanced stage of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) and therefore this should be afforded considerable weight. The HDPF Proposed Submission was submitted by Horsham District Council to the Planning Inspectorate on 8th August 2014. A series of Examination Hearings took place in November 2014 to allow the appointed Planning Inspector to test the soundness and legal compliance of the proposed plan. The initial Findings of the Inspector were sent to Horsham District Council on 19th December 2014. The Inspector reveals in this letter that he considers sound the overall proposed development strategy to concentrate growth in the main settlements in the hierarchy (Horsham, Southwater and Billingshurst), rather than the alternative strategy of greater dispersal around the District which he considers to be less sustainable. Sites including this site were discussed in Matter 14 of the Examination Hearings.

6.7 In considering the HDPF the Inspectors initial findings do require Horsham District Council to provide for a higher level of housing that initially tabled. This includes up to an additional 100 dwelling per year to provide for the needs of Crawley; depending on the position of other Councils such as Mid Sussex. Whilst it is recognised that the provision of 95 dwellings would contribute in assisting to meet the needs of Crawley Borough Council (and the required housing numbers for Horsham District Council) the Inspector when considering the HDPF makes no mention of the need for housing within such close proximity to Crawley. Indeed he makes no mention of any development West of Ifield but instead agrees with the Councils strategy of concentrating development in accordance with the settlement hierarchy namely Horsham, Southwater and Billingshurst.

6.8 When considering whether this development would meet the housing needs of Crawley Borough Council (and the required housing numbers for Horsham District Council) it should be noted that this development is not supported by Crawley Borough Council who consider that their housing needs can be met elsewhere and they are concerned, amongst other matters, that the proposal would result in an inappropriate form of housing development in open countryside adjacent to Crawley’s boundary that would be harmful to the setting of the town.

6.9 The Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD was adopted in May 2009 as a means of ensuring that sufficient housing supply was provided during the period of the Core Strategy through enabling a more flexible approach to the consideration of proposals on sites which adjoin defined settlement boundaries. The general approach of the FAD SPD was agreed by the Inspector in the RMC Engineering Works appeal decision. This application does not adjoin a main settlement boundary and is therefore in conflict with the FAD SPD. This report will however consider the remaining FAD criteria in conjunction with Paragraph 7 of the NPPF which sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development, those being economic, social and environmental, with which the planning system is tasked with promoting.

Design, Character and Affordable Housing

6.10 The application proposes up to 95 dwellings on an area of 3.93 hectares which results in a density of 32 dwellings per hectare. Whilst this density is not considered to be particularly high in general planning terms the site does adjoin a row of large detached properties fronting onto Rusper Road which are at a considerably lower density of under 8 dwellings per hectare. Officers note that permission has been granted to the south of Rusper Road ITEM A1 - 11

for a development of 36 dwellings. However this development did not encroach into the countryside; being completely surrounded by residential development. The density does increase as you travel further east and south however this is when the development moves away from the fringes of Ifield and becomes more suburban in nature. The housing to the west of Rusper Road is in effect ribbon development and therefore does not fall within the general settlement pattern for Ifield.

6.11 Given the location of the application site behind the rear garden boundaries of properties fronting onto Rusper Road it is not considered to relate well to the existing settlement and is isolated in nature. The application site is bounded by trees to the east and west and the only available pedestrian and vehicular links are proposed onto Rusper Road; this only serves to accentuate its isolation from the general settlement pattern of Ifield. Contrastingly the site has no landscaped northern boundary and therefore the site at present is more visually associated with the agricultural land to the north. Comments relating to the sites proximity to transport and services will be discussed within the transport and infrastructure section below.

6.12 Some concern is raised to the location of the open space and in particularly any play equipment along the eastern boundary of the site. Whilst this may be provided within a required buffer to the ancient woodland officers question how accessible and maintainable it would be. It is of course recognised that these are matters which would be considered within a reserved matters in the event that an outline scheme is granted.

6.13 In terms of sustainable design construction the application is accompanied by an Energy Statement which states that the preferred scheme for the reduction in CO2 emissions will be a ‘fabric first’ approach. If the requirements of Policy DC8 and the HDPF cannot be accommodated through a fabric first approach then additional on-site renewable or low- carbon technologies may need to be considered. Any permission granted can be conditioned to ensure that it is policy compliant in terms of CO2 reduction.

6.14 The Planning Statement confirms that the proposal would provide 40% affordable housing on-site, comprising 38 units. In the event that permission is granted the implementation of the affordable units would be secured through the completion of a S106 Legal Agreement. The exact mix of affordable and market dwellings would be considered within a reserved matters application which would consider the scale of the development. It would be at this stage that officers would need to ensure that the mix of housing sizes proposed accords with Core Strategy and HDPF requirements, in particular the need for smaller units.

Amenities of nearby and future residents

6.15 The application site would clearly be visible from most of the rear facades and rear gardens of properties fronting onto Rusper Road; adjoining the southern boundary of the site. However with the exception of Greenacres, which is located at the south west boundary of the application site, all of these neighbouring properties have extensive rear gardens in the region of 40m long. There is a clear difference in planning terms when comparing whether a development is visible from a neighbouring property or whether it has an impact on their amenities. Bearing in mind acceptable back-to-back distances for development is in the region of 21 metres it is considered that the depth of the neighbouring gardens will mitigate any amenity impact. Greenacres has a slightly different orientation to the site in that it is side on. Given the orientation and the distance of Greenacres to the boundary, together with the fact that it is at a higher land level, it is considered that a layout could be achieved which would not have a detrimental impact on their amenities

6.16 The above will however need to be considered alongside an appropriate boundary treatment for the southern edge of the site to prevent direct overlooking into neighbouring gardens together with a levels condition. In the event that outline permission is granted any ITEM A1 - 12

reserved matters will also need to ensure a sensitive layout which has regard to the neighbouring properties.

6.17 Whilst layout, scale, appearance and landscaping are not for consideration within this application there is nothing at present which would indicate that any future occupiers would have a sub-standard level of amenity. This would however be subject to scrutiny within any reserved matters application.

Landscape and Ecology

6.18 As a result of the strong site boundaries to the east, south and west the site is locally contained and not widely visible. However the character changes to the north where the open northern boundary allows more far reaching views north and north west. A number of points of clarification have been raised by Horsham District Council’s Landscape Consultant but these are not considered to be insurmountable. However significant landscape concern is raised to the open boundary along the northern edge of the site. Whilst illustrative details relating to the planting of a hedgerow and trees have been provided this does not give confidence that a robust boundary between the open countryside to the north and the development site can be accommodated within the application site and which will be retained and maintained in the long term. Even if provided such a boundary treatment should take some time to establish in the short to medium term. The absence of such a buffer will result in the development being overly visible within the landscape providing a harsh edge to the settlement of Ifield.

6.19 In terms of any impact on trees HDC Arboricultural Officer has considered the proposal and has provided a number of comments. It is noted that the illustrative layout indicates that a 15 metre buffer will be provided to the ancient woodland to the east of the site. This should be for all development, including SUDS basins. The access from Rusper Road would result in the removal of a small number of trees which are not considered to be of especial merit and the Arboricultural Officer has raised no objection to their removal. In the event that an outline approval is granted any reserved matters will need to ensure that an acceptable distance between the ancient woodland, root protection areas of trees and in general terms between trees and dwellings. A tree protection condition would be imposed on any permission granted.

6.20 It is noted that an Ecology Appraisal has been submitted by the applicant which has been reviewed by the County Ecologist. No objections in principle have been raised by the County Ecologist in terms of the impact on ecological matters however a number of conditions have been requested which require the following matters through conditions: · A Construction Environmental Management Plan · A 15m buffer to the ancient woodland · A layout which avoids hedge H2 being incorporated into private gardens · A drainage scheme considering pollution and sensitive habitats · A detailed lighting plan · Biodiversity enhancements · Updated surveys (dependant on the timescales for the submission of a reserved matters application)

Drainage

6.21 The application has been supported by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and a Foul Drainage Report. In considering drainage matters for the site comments have been sought from HDC Technical Advisor, the Environment Agency and water utilities operators. Given the site falls within Flood Zone 1 (which is at the lowest risk of flooding) the Environment Agency has not provided any detailed comments on the scheme but has deferred to HDC ITEM A1 - 13

specialist officers. HDCs Technical Advisor has stated that the submitted FRA describes how the risk from all sources of flooding to the proposed site will be managed taking into climate change.

6.22 Thames Water have raised concerns to the existing waste water infrastructure capacity however they have requested that in the event that permission is granted a Grampian style condition be imposed to ensure that infrastructure can be provided to ensure that it has capacity for waste water. No objections are therefore raised to the proposed drainage strategy as it is considered that the development can mitigate against its own drainage impacts however further details will be required through conditions and within any reserved matters application.

Infrastructure

6.23 The proposal would result in quite a significant addition to Ifield creating additional demand to travel to employment centres, shopping facilities, and community services such as schools, shops, healthcare and leisure. WSCC Highways Engineer has commented that Rusper Road, which the site will access from, is of varying carriageway width but generally wide enough for two cars to pass safely. This margin of safety is however restricted when Large Goods Vehicles (LGV’s) use the road although such movements are relatively light. The road itself is 30mph at the point of the proposed access although this increases to 40mph to the north. WSCC Highway Engineer has commented that at the time of inspection, traffic speeds along the 30mph stretch of road seemed quite high, although the right angled bend to the south of the site does act as a speed restraint. There is also no street lighting along the road and only a single continuous footway along the northern side of Rusper Road from Hyde Drive to the property known as ‘Annadel’ where it then stops. There is therefore no existing footway link to the site and the footway leading to ‘Annadel’ is narrow.

6.24 However WSCC Highway Engineer notes that footways within the vicinity will improve through highway enhancements which will be undertaken in association with the development to the south of Rusper Road, which was granted in 2014. A new footway will be provided on the south side between Arthur Road and Whitehall Drive, a short section of footway between the site and Hyde Drive is due to be improved as is the public bridlepath link from Arthur Road to Hyde Drive.

6.25 WSCC Highways Engineer has commented that a new 2m footway link will be required from the site access southwards to the existing footway near ‘Greenacre’. The existing footway would then need to be improved with a higher kerb face and new surfacing. As Whitehall Drive will be a pedestrian desire line and as there is limited scope to improve the existing Rusper Road footway width, a new footway will also be required on the west side of Rusper Road between the site access, across the Ifield Golf Club ingress/egress to Whitehall Drive. This would enable pedestrians to cross the road to access Whitehall Drive safely rather than on or close to the bend. It would also link up with the footway being provided by the consented development on the south side of Rusper Road. WSCC Highways Engineer has stated that it is considered there is sufficient public highway to provide the required footways, although this may result in the need to culvert a highway ditch to the west of Rusper Road. Street lighting would also be required to encourage use of the footways.

6.26 WSCC Highway Engineer is of the view that the proposed site access is acceptable. A simple T-junction design is proposed which is considered to be sufficient for the level of development proposed, although it is noted that this is close to the threshold where a right- hand ghost lane would be recommended. Whilst the visibility splays are considered to be acceptable, given the speed surveys indicate speeds above 30mph some form of village gateway and traffic calming (not speed humps) along Rusper Road is desirable by WSCC ITEM A1 - 14

Highway Engineer. It is considered that most traffic movements generated would be to and from Crawley and WSCC Highways Engineer considers that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate this additional traffic.

6.27 The nearest rail station to the site is Ifield Station, which is a local station with limited services. Whilst it is within walking or cycling distance of the site, there is, effectively, only one route and that is via Rusper Road, Tangmere Road and Ifield Drive. These roads can be busy in the peak periods and the footways leading from the site to the station are fairly narrow in places. Cyclists would have to share the carriageway with other traffic as there is no dedicated off-carriageway route. Access to bus services is better as regular services 2 and 300 operate along Rusper Road and Hyde Drive Monday-Saturday with the nearest stops being just to the south of the junction of Rusper Road with Hyde Drive.

6.28 It is understood that the nearest grocery store to the site is in Dobbins Place which is accessed from Hyde Lane to the south. This is approximately 750m from the application site. Other facilities such as health care and schools can be found at a similar distance to the application site. WSCC Education has stated that there is no capacity at neighbouring schools to accommodate the population of this development. However they have stated that in the event that permission is granted a contribution would be sought from the developers towards education provision. WSCC comments do not state how additional capacity will be achieved however in the absence of an objection from WSCC as the education authority no objection can be sustained on the lack of school capacity. It is common practice to gain contributions for development in the event of a lack of school capacity and use this to increase school capacity.

6.29 Thames Water has advised that there is insufficient capacity to accommodate the waste water needs of the development. However they have advised that in the event that permission is granted a Grampian condition should be imposed requiring a strategy and works to be completed prior to any discharge from the site. Southern Water has advised that the network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the water needs of the development.

6.30 Officers are aware that infrastructure capacity issues were raised at the HDPF Examination with regard to the promotion of a larger site at West of Ifield. However this application is for up to 95 dwellings and there have been no objections raised in principle regarding infrastructure capacity from consultees. Where consultees have stated that there is insufficient capacity they have considered that these matters could be addressed through S106 Legal Agreement contributions or Grampian style conditions, which would likely require works prior to the commencement of development. In the event that permission is granted any capacity issues associated with heath facilities could also be explored. Given the scale of the proposal it is considered that contributions could mitigate against these impacts. Any such contributions would need to adhere to the Community Infrastructure Levy.

Other Matters

6.31 Archaeology – WSCC Archaeologist has advised that no objections on archaeological grounds are raised subject to suitable archaeological safeguards to ensure the investigation, recording and reporting where appropriate of archaeological heritage assets within the site.

6.32 Noise and Contamination – A Ground Condition Desk Study relating to contamination was submitted in support of this application, which is welcomed by HDC Environmental Health. The recommendations for further work within this report are accepted by HDC Environmental Health and the provision of such information can be secured through a suitably worded condition based on a stepped approach to investigation. ITEM A1 - 15

6.33 A Noise Report was submitted in support of this application however HDC Environmental Health have raised concerns to the scope of this report, in particular the monitoring of aircraft noise over a longer period of time than that monitored in the initial report submitted by the applicant. In response to this the applicant has submitted an additional Noise Report. Having considered this additional report HDC Environmental Health remains concerned by the conclusions of the report; in particular the impact of aircraft noise and the general noise levels at night and within private gardens. Whilst HDC Environmental Health is not satisfied by the noise information which has been submitted they consider that a condition requiring that a scheme for protecting the proposed development from external noise could mitigate against this concern. This concern cannot therefore substantiate a reason for refusal.

6.34 Construction – More than one consultee has recommended that in the event of permission being granted a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) should be required by condition. Such a condition would seek to mitigate against the impacts of construction and would include the requirements of information including but not limited to the following: · The control of noise and dust · Wheel washing · Construction material storage · Construction parking · Details of mitigation, avoidance and compensation measures to conserve biodiversity and comply with protected species legislation · Tree protection · Site management contact details Matters such as hours of operations can be controlled through a separate condition.

6.35 Whilst many matters relating to construction can be controlled through a CEMP condition HDC Highways Engineer have commented that concern is raised regarding potential damage to Rusper Road from the use of HGVs which would be required for the construction of this site. As this would fall outside of the application site and cannot be controlled through a planning condition HDC Highways Engineer have stated that they would want the developer to enter an extraordinary traffic agreement under Section 59 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure any damage during construction is made good to a satisfactory standard.

6.36 Representations – Many of the comments raised within the representation letters received have already been discussed within this report. As highlighted through representations it is important to note that this site is currently within the open countryside and there is currently a lack of some local infrastructure to support its needs. In terms of the latter this development is not however for a larger site West of Ifield (which was also promoted through the HDPF process). It is for a development of up to 95 dwellings and there has been no in principle objection from relevant consultees regarding the ability to provide this infrastructure.

6.37 Comments from Ifield Village Conservation Area Advisory Committee have been noted. Whilst other dwellings along Rusper Road may have been designated as an ‘Area of Special Character’ those directly backing on to the application site have no such designation and therefore concerns cannot be raised in terms of the impact on their individual character or setting.

6.38 The site is within the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) which considered the site to be developable in the 6-10 year period and states that 80 units could be accommodated. In particular this stated that access was a concern however WSCC Highways have raised no concerns to the proposed access in principle. ITEM A1 - 16

S106 Legal Agreement

6.39 In the event that permission is granted a number of S106 contributions and requirements will be required to mitigate against the impacts of the development. These must adhere to the three Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) tests which are 1) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, 2) Directly related to the development; and 3) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

6.40 WSCC have stated that in the event that permission is granted a number of contributions will be required to deliver infrastructure. As the exact housing mix, and therefore the resultant population of the development, is not known at this stage a formula based approach is suggested. This would seek contributions towards education, libraries, fire and rescue infrastructure and a highways Total Access Demand (TAD) contribution.

6.41 In the event that permission is granted HDC would require likely contributions towards the following infrastructure: Amenity open space, Locally Equipped Areas of Play (LEAPs) and Neighbourhood Equipped Areas of Play (NEAPs), indoor and outdoor sports provision and community centres and/or halls. Whether contributions would be sought towards amenity open space and LEAPs and NEAPs will depend on what level and standard of onsite facilities are being provided.

6.42 In addition to financial contributions the following points, but not limited to the below, should be included within any S106 Legal Agreement in the event that permission is granted:

· Provision of 40% affordable housing onsite – details to be agreed · Specification and management details for open space/play provision · Provision of a new footway link on the east side of Rusper Road between the site access and ‘Greenacre’ and the widening of the existing footway with new kerbing · Provision of a new footway link on the west side of Rusper Road within the highway boundary between the site access and Whitehall Drive including new kerbing, drainage and culverting as necessary · Provision of a village gateway on Rusper Road close to the change in the 30mph/40mph speed limit and speed reducing measures between this gateway and Hyde Drive · Provision of a street lighting scheme along Rusper Road between Hyde Drive and the site access · The provision of a cycle/pedestrian link within the development to the northern boundary of the site to integrate the development with the West of Ifield strategic site should this go ahead. · An extraordinary traffic agreement to cover damage to Rusper Road between Hyde Drive and the site access. All construction traffic to approach the site from Hyde Drive and a construction route agreed through Ifield avoiding traffic calming where possible

Conclusion

6.43 Paragraph 2 of the NPPF states that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This application is considered to be contrary to the Councils emerging strategy, which is to concentrate growth within the main settlements, namely Horsham, Southwater and Billingshurst. This strategy has undergone Examination and has been considered sound by the Inspector and is therefore considered to carry considerable weight.

ITEM A1 - 17

6.44 It is recognised that the Council does not currently have a 5 year housing land supply and therefore some policies should be used more flexibly; in particular policies CP5 and DC1. However with regard to this particular site, given its close proximity to Crawley Borough Council any housing is likely to serve towards its needs and it is not a site supported by Crawley Borough Council who consider that its needs can be met elsewhere. The site itself is within the open countryside and whilst it adjoins the fringes of Ifield along its southern boundary it is considered to result in an incongruous addition to the built up area. It is relatively isolated in nature with both vehicular and pedestrian access being from Rusper Road only. This is a relatively narrow road with higher speeds than the designated speed limit. In order to make the development acceptable in planning terms street lighting along Rusper Road would be required in addition to the removal of verges and the provision of footways. This will negatively impact upon the rural character of this part of Ifield as you travel along Rusper Road.

6.45 The housing within this site would be denser than those immediately adjoining it and would create an estate enclave given its boundary treatments to the east, west and south. The only open boundary is that to the north which provides the site with a much greater affinity with the land to the north than the existing residential area to the south. This boundary would need to be heavily screened to mitigate against the impacts of the development, but would then only serve to consolidate its enclave character. No detailed information relating to the northern boundary has been submitted and it has not been demonstrated that such a boundary could be provided within the application site whilst still providing an acceptable site layout with sufficient garden sizes, distances to the ancient woodland etc.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The proposal is contrary to the adopted Core Strategy 2007 and the emerging strategy within the Horsham District Planning Framework which is to concentrate growth within the main settlements. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy (2007), Policies 2 and 3 of the Horsham District Planning Framework and paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

2. The application site would result in an incongruous addition to the neighbourhood of Ifield, in an isolated location outside of the rural fringe with limited accessibility to and from the site. Those improvements which would be required to make the site more accessible, namely street lighting and the loss of verge for footways would negatively impact upon the rural character of this part of Rusper Road. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) and paragraphs 7 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

3. It has not been demonstrated that the provision of a robust landscape buffer is possible within the confines of the site, along the northern boundary, whilst still providing an acceptable internal layout. The absence of such a buffer would provide a form of development which is intrusive and highly visible within the surrounding landscape to its detriment. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) and paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

4. The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to education provision; libraries; fire and rescue services; open space, sport and recreation facilities; or, community facilities and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2007) as it has not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.

Background Papers: DC/14/2132 DC/14/2132

Land East of Emmanuel Cottage

For Business use only - not for distribution to the general public

Scale: 1:4,690

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller Organisation Horsham District Council of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2012. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments Not Set

Date 22/01/2015 MSA Number 100023865 ITEM A/ 2 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management (North) Committee

BY: Development Manager

DATE: 3 February 2015 Demolition of office building (use class B1) and erection of a 5 storey building to provide 21 retirement apartments (use class C3) providing DEVELOPMENT: vehicular access from Norfolk Road, closure of vehicular access from North Street and associated pa SITE: Norfolk House, 32 - 40 North Street, Horsham, West Sussex

WARD: Horsham Parking

APPLICATION: DC/14/1252

APPLICANT: McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.2 The application seeks full planning permission to redevelop the site, demolishing the existing building and providing 21 retirement apartments (use class C3) within a new five storey building of contemporary appearance. The building will feature 18 car parking spaces at ground floor within an undercroft with vehicular access to these spaces being gained from an existing crossover to the site on Norfolk Road. The existing vehicular access from North Street is proposed to be closed although the main pedestrian access into the building will be from North Street. A small external amenity area is proposed to the front of the building and the car park.

Further to concerns which were raised through the planning process the applicant has submitted amended plans to seek to address some of the concerns. This has included amendments to the design of the building, particularly the corner feature where a curved feature has been introduced, and the introduction of features which are considered to be more domestic in nature when compared to the previous design. The top floor has also been lowered in height slightly. Given the receipt of amendments the application was reconsulted to neighbours and consultees. Any additional comments received, as well as

Contact Officer: Emma Parkes Tel: 01403 215528 ITEM A/ 2 - 2

those submitted in response to the original design, have been summarised within this report.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The application site is located within the Built up Area Boundary of Horsham which is identified as a category 1 settlement area.

1.4 The application site is approximately 0.1 hectares in size and is located on a prominent site on the busy North Street which carries traffic from the north east into central Horsham and is the main pedestrian route from the town’s train station to its central shopping area. The site is located at North Street’s junction with Norfolk Road which runs to the east of North Street. The site is currently occupied by a three storey office block with a shallow pitched roof. The building dates from 1987 and in appearance terms can be described as non- descript though inoffensive. It was vacated in December 2013 and is still currently empty.

1.5 Adjacent and to the north east of the site is Sussex House, another 3 storey office building of similar style and age to Norfolk House. To the south east of the site is 3 Norfolk Road. There are two built elements to this address, one being the semi-detached Edwardian residential house and the other a smaller annex which may be original but has been converted into Class B1 offices and is currently occupied. This building directly abuts the application site’s boundary wall. Directly to the south of the site on the southern side of Norfolk House is No.2 Norfolk Road and 78 Park Street, Edwardian semi-detached dwellings which read together.

1.6 On the western side of North Street opposite the site there are a number of different buildings, some of which are statutorily listed. St Leonard’s House is another 3 storey office building which appears to date from the 1980’s. Like its cousins on the eastern side of North Street its relative modest size allows the building some relative anonymity in terms of street presence. This is useful in that adjacent to it, is Nos. 33 & 35 North Street, which were listed Grade 2 in 1985. These properties are two storey feature weatherboarding and a plain tile roof and date from the 1600’s. They currently operate as a restaurant at ground floor with accommodation above. The public house which they are attached to, The Black Jug, although an attractive building, is neither locally or statutorily listed. On the opposite (southern) side of Chart Way, which is the pedestrian footpath leading to the town centre, and located approximately 25 metres to the south west of the application site is another set of Grade 2 listed properties, Nos 26-30 North Street. The properties read largely as one building and occupy a prominent site between the main road and the pedestrian footway. Its listing description refers to gables, part-stucco and tiled roof as key features. With parts of the building dating from the 1600’s the description refers to the building as having ‘considerable townscape value’. Beyond these are much larger office buildings, including those belonging to West Sussex County Council which appear to date from the 1990’s.

1.7 The area in which the site stands is relatively mixed in land use terms. Whilst Norfolk Road is largely residential there are a small number of commercial businesses with premises operating from this street. Norfolk Road is one way with access to but not from North Street. North Street although mainly featuring Class B1 office uses in the vicinity of the application site also has The Capital Theatre and Cinema and the road on its western side also contains a number of converted retail properties with residential accommodation at first floor level once south of Norfolk Street although the road is formally known as Park Street at this point.

1.7 In terms of actual site designations the front of the site features a mature Copper Beech tree which is subject to a TPO. A second Copper Beech which is also subject to a TPO immediately to the north east is actually within the demise of the adjacent Sussex House as is a mature lime tree to the rear which overhangs into the application site. The application ITEM A/ 2 - 3

site is not located in close proximity to any Conservation Area and there are no other significant land use designations.

Norfolk Road is open to one-way traffic with no entrance for vehicles wishing to access the site from Park Street. If wishing to access the western part of Norfolk Road from Park Street vehicles need to travel along Wellington Road and Chichester Terrace before turning left into Norfolk Road.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

- Paragraph 7 (Sustainable Development); - Paragraph 14 (Presumption in favour of sustainable development); - Paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles); - Paragraph 19 (Encourage Sustainable Growth); - Paragraph 47 (Sustainable Development); - Paragraph 49 (Presumption in favour of sustainable development); - Paragraph 51 (Core Planning Principles); - Paragraph 56 (Encourage Sustainable Growth); - Paragraph 57 (High quality inclusive Design); - Paragraph 60 (Design style); - Paragraph 61 (Integration of New Development); - Paragraph 64 (Poor Design); - Paragraph 128 (Significance of Heritage Assets); - Paragraph 129 (Impact of Development on Heritage Assets); - Paragraph 131 (Desirability of sustaining and enhancing Heritage Assets); - Paragraph 132 (Weight given to Heritage Asset’s Conservation) - Paragraph 134 (Harm to Heritage Asset v Public benefit);

2.2 The 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.

2.3 The NPPF is supported by Planning Practice Guidance which was introduced in March 2014 after a 2 year review by the Government and replaces numerous Circulars, Technical Notes and letters to Chief Planning Officers. It is available as a web-based resource, will be continually updated and includes guidance on matters such as Design, Noise and Use of Planning conditions.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) –

CP1 (Landscape and Townscape character); CP2 (Environmental Quality); CP3 (Improving the Quality of new development); CP11 (Employment Sites and Premises); CP12 (Meeting Housing Needs); CP19 (Managing Travel Demand and Widening Choice of Transport) ITEM A/ 2 - 4

2.5 Local Development Framework: Development Control Policies (2007) –

DC1 (Countryside Protection and Enhancement) DC2 (Landscape Character); DC9 (Development Principles); DC13 (Listed Buildings); DC18 (Smaller Homes/Housing Mix); DC19 (Employment Site/Land Protection); DC31 (New/ExtensionsTo Retirement Housing and Care Home Schemes); DC40 (Transport and Access)

2.6 Horsham Town Plan Supplementary Planning Document – September 2012 Site Specific Guidance 3

2.7 The emerging Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was approved by Council on 30th April 2014 as the Council’s policy for planning the future of the District for the period 2011-2031. Following a six week period of representations, the plan was submitted to the Government on 8th August 2014 for independent examination under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. The examination of the HDPF was undertaken by an independent Planning Inspector in November 2014. The Inspector published his preliminary findings in a letter dated 19 December 2014. The basic strategy is accepted as is made clear in para 4:

‘On balance, I consider the overall strategy to concentrate growth in the main settlements in the hierarchy, starting with Horsham as a first order centre, followed by Southwater and Billingshurst, to be sound. The proposal for some development in villages, in accordance with Neighbourhood Plans (NP)s, is also justified and accords with government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). As will be explained in some more depth in my final report, the alternative strategy of greater dispersal to smaller settlements would be likely to lead to a less sustainable pattern of development with regard to transport patterns related to provision of employment opportunities, retail facilities and social and community services..’

There is a requirement to revisit the housing figures and the Inquiry will re-open in 6 months time to allow time for the Council to show how the annual housing provision can be increased to provide for a minimum of 750 dwellings per annum. It is important to note that the inquiry will re-open to consider this one issue only. Given the Inspector’s findings the emerging plan is therefore a material consideration of considerable weight in terms of the overall strategy.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.6 HU/349/85 Erection of offices. Implemented.

The original office building was erected in 1987. Little planning history of consequence then exists until recently when a number of applications have been submitted.

DC/13/1322 – Extension to ground floor reception entrance and installation of a security fence. Granted 11 September 2013.

DC/13/2281 – Change of use of offices (Class B1a) to 19 residential units (Class C3) with 18 Car parking spaces (Prior Approval Application under Class J of the GPDO). Granted 27 January 2014. ITEM A/ 2 - 5

DC/14/0347 – Planning application for the creation of two bedroom flats within the existing under-croft car park and external alterations including the insertion of 12 dormers within the roof to facilitate the implementation of the Prior Approval Permission DC/13/2281 is currently under consideration by the Council. Additional plans have been received regarding the proposal and re-consultation of neighbours is proposed.

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 . The Council’s Housing Strategy and Development Manager was not consulted on this application as the applicant has indicated that unlike during the application process in 2013 they are willing to sign a legal agreement which obliges payment of a commuted sum in lieu of affordable housing.

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Tree Officer: No objection (summary)

The Council’s Arboricultural officer has indicated that he is satisfied with the Tree Survey and Tree Protection Plan that have been submitted with the application and that the site and nearby Copper Beech Trees will be adequately maintained and protected.

3.2 Environmental Health and Licensing: Objection (summary)

Concerns that the amenity space fronting North Street is not ideally sited because of traffic noise and that whilst the applicant’s noise consultant states that the WHO target of 55dBa for amenity areas will be met there is no information to support this assertion. In seeking to achieve this figure it is likely that the amenity area will need to be screened and it is noted that such screening is not part of the existing drawing submission.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.5 West Sussex County Council – Highways: No Objection (summary)

The Highways officers reports that:

The site has already been allocated for development of flats under the provision for permitted development in Class J of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 as amended. Class J is intended to allow sites previously used as offices to be used instead for housing. Horsham District Council decided in January 2014 that the planning authority’s prior approval was not required for the proposed change of use to 19 flats with 18 car parking spaces. The highway authority did not raise any concerns at that time. (See planning application reference DC/13/2281.)

The highway access from North Street into the site was to be closed and the sole highway access was to be from Norfolk Road. The highway authority considered that it was unlikely that the proposal would result in an increase in traffic using the access onto Norfolk Road (as compared with the previous office use). Given the close proximity to the town centre and the level of parking controls in the vicinity of the development site, the parking ITEM A/ 2 - 6

provision proposed did not raise any highway safety concerns provided the spaces remain unallocated between the flats (to allow flexibility).

The current application is for 21 flats rather than the 19 previously proposed. The highway authority’s views remain as stated for the previous proposal under Class J. It is considered that the additional two flats proposed would not give rise to noticeable additional traffic on Norfolk Road and the surrounding roads. 18 parking spaces are proposed and the authority’s view remains as stated for the previous proposal.

The applicants have provided a construction method statement. It is understood that the applicants approached the highway authority in April 2014 about options for site management during construction. Discussions are continuing on how best to accommodate construction in the event that any planning permission be granted. The authority therefore at present does not assent to any of the proposals within the construction method statement.

No objections have been raised to the amended plans

3.6 West Sussex County Council – Monitoring and Records:

Have indicated that a S106 contribution of £4584 should be sought for libraries and fire and rescue services.

3.7 Denne Neighbourhood Council : Objection (summary)

Raised issues relating to overdevelopment, the office style appearance of the building, the Shading of the rooms because of the trees, the lack of communal facilities and buggy or scooter parking, the poor quality of the soft and hard landscaping including the unusable deeply shaded open area to the rear and also that the only vehicle access would be off Norfolk Road which is one-way resulting in all traffic having to use Norfolk Road.

3.9 Sussex Police: No Objection (summary)

Welcomed the fact that the Design Statement referred to secure by Design and indicated satisfaction with all proposed crime prevention measures proposed.

3.10 Health and Safety Executive: .

Consulted as at the time of the application, the site was within a safety hazard zone buffer associated with a site within Horsham Railway Goods Yard. The Council received confirmation from the HSE in September that the buffer zone was no longer applicable as ownership of the site had changed effectively ending any Hazardous Substances Consent.

3.11 UK Power Networks:

No Objection

3.12 West Sussex County Council Archaeology:

No Objection subject to standard condition were planning permission to be granted

3.13 West Sussex County Council Ecology

No objection subject to a condition relating to nesting birds

ITEM A/ 2 - 7

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.14 Following neighbour notification and the posting of a site notice 74 letters have been received commenting on the scheme, predominately in objection, (including those sent on behalf of the Horsham Society and British Telecom). It should be noted that some letters are from the same respondents offering further comment. The objections were based on the following grounds:

· The scheme represents overdevelopment, is excessively high and over bulky for this location and causes detriment to the street scene on an important approach road to the town. · It will cause overshadowing, loss of privacy, daylight and sunlight to neighbouring properties · It will detrimentally impact on listed buildings on Chart Way and North Street; · The office like design style of the building is inappropriate for this location; · Amenity space provided is poorly located, insufficient in size and will be dark and damp for much of the year; · The development would create dangerous traffic conditions on narrow residential streets through additional on-street parking and service traffic movements; · The development will result in the loss of a several much needed on-street car parking bays in an area of high car parking stress causing problems for residents and existing businesses alike; · The proposals have an insufficient on-site car parking; · The development would result in excessive construction noise, pollution and damage to neighbouring properties; · There should be no temporary road closures which result in difficulty for BT vehicles accessing its North Street site. · Concerns are raised regarding highway safety · Existing drawings submitted are inaccurate showing rooflights where none are currently present; · Consultation with residents by the applicant was unhelpful and inadequate; · Party wall detail is insufficient · There will be no affordable housing provision

3.15 Norfolk Road is one way with no access from North Street. Many of the letters of objection refer to the disruption by possible closure of access onto Norfolk Road from North Street to all traffic for a period of 77 weeks which is the construction timespan the applicant has indicated within the accompanying affordable Housing Statement. Objectors consider that this would result in construction traffic accessing the site by using busy, heavily parked surrounding residential roads.

3.16 Further to the reconsultation due to the receipt of amended plans the following additional comments from 13 letters have been received. The below summary does not reiterate comments which have already been expressed within the first consultation and it should be noted that all comments received which relate to planning matters, whether within the first or second consultation remain a material consideration. · The revised plans go some way to address design concerns; however previous concerns still remain (Horsham Society) · The amendments are only superficial and do not address concerns which have been raised · The structure still exceeds the original roofline · The overall mass of the proposal is out of proportion to neighbouring properties ITEM A/ 2 - 8

· The proposal still has the appearance of an office block · The European Convention of Human rights, Article 1 of Protocol 1 has been ignored · The amended plans show the access and exit points as a brick wall · In the event of approval could a new exit be created behind the cinema/HDC offices or additional parking provided to residents elsewhere · There is a waiting list for resident parking permits. · Concerns are raised to the loss of potential customers for the car sales business due to the inability to park due to loss of parking spaces and the road closure · Concerns are raised to the impact on children’s health and safety given the location of a nursery behind the site – particularly during demolition and construction

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 the determination of this application are the principle of the development in this location; the impact and scale of the development on the character and visual amenities of the area, the impact of the development on the setting of the Grade II listed buildings, the amenities of neighbouring and future occupiers; highway safety, access and parking; impact on existing trees and vegetation; flooding and drainage issues, energy and sustainability and Section 106 requirements including affordable housing and the nature of any contribution.

Principle of Development

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework adopted in 2012 is highly relevant to the application, paragraph 14 of the Framework states that at its heart is the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as the golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking. The core planning principles of the Framework encourages the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land) provide that it not of high environmental value.

6.3 It is considered that the site is situated within a sustainable location with good access to local facilities and a range of services within the town centre, with good links to public transport. As such the scheme should be assessed against the usual development control policy criteria contained within the current adopted Local Development Framework and to the overarching principles of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

6.4 The site is located within the Built-up Area Boundary of Horsham. Local Plan policies, specifically CP5 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 (Built up areas and previously developed land) identifies Horsham as a category 1 settlement area, ITEM A/ 2 - 9

encourages new development to take place on previously developed land and within defined built-up areas indicating that appropriate development within these areas will be permitted, including infilling, redevelopment and conversion, provided that the impact on the character of the area and the environment, resources and assets of the District is considered to be acceptable.

6.5 Set against the above is Policy DC19 which seeks to regulate the loss of employment land both within and outside of Employment Protection Zones. The site stands outside of an Employment Zone and where this is the case, DC19 requires that redevelopment will be allowed where the Council are satisfied that the commercial space is no longer needed or viable, adequate access exists and the proposals would result in significant environmental improvements, enhancements to the character of the area and improved relationship with nearby residential occupiers.

6.6 The existing Class B1a office building has remained vacant for around 11 months. No marketing evidence has been provided as part of the application. However it is noted that a Prior Approval application for the change of use of B1a office to C3 residential (19 flats) was granted in January 2014 as it was considered that the application complied with Class J of the General Permitted Development Order. This is a national piece of legislation which allows certain types of development to go ahead without the need for planning permission. Whilst Policy DC19 is still a material consideration it is considered that officers can attribute very little weight to its requirements bearing in mind the fallback position for the existing site is the conversion of the existing building to C3 residential. Whilst the loss of B1a office accommodation within a town centre location is significantly regrettable it is not considered to be reasonable to raise concerns to its loss given the fallback position for the site.

6.7 A further land use consideration is policy DC31 (New/Extensions to Retirement Housing and Care Homes Schemes) of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) Document which advises that retirement housing will be permitted within defined built up areas only if it is accessible by foot or public transport to local shops, services community facilities and the wider public transport network; and, includes appropriate amenity space and suitable car parking. The supporting justification for policy DC31 advises that any proposal for retirement housing or care homes should also comply with all other relevant policies and particularly those relating to character, design and affordable housing.

6.8 The proposed development makes use of land within the settlement boundary of Horsham, and the increase in dwelling units carries weight in terms of the strong presumption in favour of sustainable development and the Council’s inability to meet its up-to-date five year housing land supply as required by the Paragraph 47 of the Framework (Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes). It is therefore considered that no objections can be raised to the regrettable loss of employment land. The development is considered to be in a sustainable location, which has good access to local services and shops and also good public transport links. Such a location is appropriate and in accordance with policies CP5 and CP12 and therefore it is considered that in principle the use of this site for sheltered housing is acceptable. However this report will now need to consider the detailed matters relating to the proposed scheme.

Housing Density, Mix, Affordability and Tenure

6.9 In respect of the housing mix, CP12 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 states that development should provide a mix of housing sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of the District communities, and provision should be made for smaller homes to meet the needs of new and existing households. The requirements of this policy are amplified by Policy DC18 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: ITEM A/ 2 - 10

General Development Control Policies (2007) (Smaller Homes/Housing Mix) which states that for development of 5 or more units, planning permission will be granted in appropriate locations provided that the housing mix and type meets an identified need for smaller homes (1 and 2 bed properties).

6.10 21 two-bed ‘retirement apartments’ are proposed and as such this accords with the requirements of LDF policy CP12 - Meeting Housing Needs and DC18 - Smaller Homes which requires a percentage of at least 64% within the range of 1 and 2 bed dwelling types. Paragraph 50 of the Framework also supports this requirement.

6.11 The site has an area of 0.09 hectares; therefore with the 21 units proposed the development would result in a density of approximately 233 dwellings per hectare which even for a flatted development within a central location can be considered extremely high density. As is well established, the Council cannot evidence an up-to-date five year housing land supply as required by the Paragraph 47 of the Framework (Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes). The final part of the same paragraph also indicates that local authorities should set their own approach to housing density to reflect local circumstances. As no such guidance is available the Framework is clear at Paragraph 14 that ‘where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date’ development proposals should be approved unless ‘any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.’

6.12 In terms of tenure, the submitted proposal comprises 21 ‘sheltered accommodation units.’ Policy CP12 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 (Meeting Housing Needs) requires that 40% of the total number of proposed units should be identified as affordable homes. In this case however, all of the units are for private occupation. The applicant has provided detailed information relating to site economics and viability to justify this lack of affordable provision. This information has been reviewed by an external assessor in accordance with section A6 of the Planning Obligations SPD (2007). The assessor has concurred with the conclusions of the accompanying Affordable Housing Statement that the development cannot support any affordable housing provision. This inability to support affordable housing is mainly due to the relatively high site value which has been established by the Prior Approval decision made in January 2013 which allows for a residential use of the land. The sub-text for Policy CP12 of the Core Strategy states that ‘we will view the 40% provision as a ‘baseline’ or target on the basis that developers will need to demonstrate why the particular targets could not be met.’

With regard to affordable housing the Local Development Framework Core Strategy policy CP12 addresses affordable housing within new development where the relevant threshold is triggered. The applicant accepts in principle that having regard to the size of the site, the site would be capable of accommodating a number of non-sheltered dwellings above the threshold level, and as such affordable housing should be provided through the development.

6.46 The applicant has cited the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document and in particular section A6 (Development Viability). A6 states that on certain sites development viability may be affected by a range or combination of factors such as high abnormal costs and/or competing use values. The SPD goes on to outline that where development viability is considered to be affected, the developer should identify these issues and submit detailed information to the Council at the earliest opportunity. An assessment of the development viability will be undertaken by the Council and this assessment will include a thorough appraisal of the site economics and will require co- operation and an open book approach between the developer and the Council.

6.47 The applicant has submitted an Affordable Housing Statement. This Statement concluded that because of the relatively high site acquisition costs, the proposed development ITEM A/ 2 - 11

scheme could not support an amount of affordable housing, either in terms of on-site units or off-site contributions in lieu. In line with the SPD the Council sought to have this Viability position reviewed by independent valuers, Dickson Searle Planning and Development Viability Consultants. It was concluded by Dickson Searle that the Affordable Housing position and the assumptions used in the Valuation Report are broadly acceptable.

6.13 The proposed approach in providing 2 bed units can be considered to meet policy objectives for smaller units and verified viability evidence submitted with the application justifies the lack of affordable housing.

Design

Background

6.14 The proposed building comprises a relatively standard envelope with a broadly rectangular box form sitting above a ground floor undercroft car parking area which is accessed from Norfolk Road. Building lines are set back from the pavement edge on North Street and Norfolk Road. On North Street the set-back allows a small, external amenity area to be sited to the front of the building set around the protected Copper Beech Tree. Little or no detail as to means of enclosure at ground floor level is provided other than reference to a ‘dwarf wall and railings’ to North Street on the ground floor plan.

6.15 The height of the proposed building which is flat roofed, is designed to be comparable to the ridge height of the existing 3 storey building which features a shallow pitched roof. The external height of the main and highest flat roof varies from 15.1 to 15.4 metres AOD. It should be noted that the overall height of the roof has been reduced in height by just over 0.5 metres following initial concerns which were raised through the first consultation process. Apart from being two storeys higher than the existing 3 storey building, the proposed building is also, in absolute terms, slightly higher than the existing building’s ridge height. There are two main public facades to the building, one being North Street, which is one of the main routes into Horsham Town Centre. The south side North Street is largely characterised by moderately sized commercial buildings and when seen from the east, the form of the proposed building gradually steps up on the approach to the town centre. The other main façade of the building is on Norfolk Road. Conversely there is a step down in the built form of the proposal on Norfolk Road in an attempt to integrate the building into the street’s almost wholly domestic scale architecture. In overall terms the building stands at five storeys with the fifth storey set back in an attempt to try and lessen impact of scale, bulk and height. Both main facades have been designed with a regular grid-like appearance to provide a fairly simple and ordered design. The main pedestrian entrance and access is from North Street

Height, Scale and Bulk.

6.16 Paragraph 58 of the NPPF requires, amongst other matters, that developments add to the overall quality of the area and respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials. Paragraph 59 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that Local Planning Authorities should avoid unnecessary prescription or detail and should concentrate on guiding overall scale, density massing, height, landscape, layout, materials and access of the new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally. Paragraph 61 of the Frameworks requires that inter alia decisions should address the integration of new development into the built environment. In addition to the Framework, Policy CP1 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 (Landscape and Townscape Character) and Policy CP3 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 (Improving the Quality of New Development) require that townscape character is protected and that development should contribute to a sense of ITEM A/ 2 - 12

place both in the buildings and spaces themselves and in the way that they integrate with their surroundings. Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) states inter alia that planning permission will be given for developments which ensure that the scale, massing and appearance of the development is of a high standard of design and layout and where relevant relates sympathetically with the built surrounding and routes adjoining the site.

6.17 The scale, mass and height of the proposed building is considered excessive for this location. Despite some larger and taller commercial buildings on nearby Chart Way, notably the County Council Office building, it is the view of officers that the proposal shows insufficient respect for the existing built context. On North Street although there is no one consistent building height line for the nearby commercial properties on its eastern side, there are none that are five storeys in height. Although this would not necessarily preclude a five storey building, the site stands at the apex of a small rise which means that when seen from the south the building will appear even more dominant and excessively scaled than might normally be considered appropriate.

6.18 The proximity of relatively low, small scale domestic architecture on Norfolk Road and the mixed use commercial properties at Nos. 68 -78 Park Street which are all two storey buildings also exacerbate the proportions of the proposal. Although an attempt has been made by the applicant to bring the height of the proposal down to the scale of Norfolk Street with some incremental stepping down at that point where it meets No.3 Norfolk Road, the relationship between the existing buildings referred to above and the proposed building when juxtaposed together will be awkward particularly when seen driving from the traffic junction to the south or walking up on Park Street’s eastern footpath.

6.19 The Design and Access Statement submitted with the application makes reference to ‘the similarity of height between the proposal and the existing building ‘, that ‘height of the proposed development must respond to the scale, massing and appearance of its neighbours in streetscape and architectural terms’ and the proposal must have regard ‘to the wider context’ . It is the contention of officers that at a full five storeys there is no similarity in height and mass between the existing and proposed building, that its height and mass fails to respond to the scale and appearance of its neighbours, including buildings on North Street, Chart Way, Park Street and Norfolk Road and has little regard to context. 6.20 The consequent failure to address fundamental design matters relating to scale, massing and height means the proposal cannot be said to accord with Paragraph 61 of The Framework and Part C of Policy DC9 (Development Principles) of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

Appearance

6.21 As already suggested North Street displays a variety of architectural styles with buildings showing a range of ages, uses and styles of architecture. The design style of the application scheme is unfussy and contemporary with a palette of materials consisting of red brick, timber cladding, upvc rain screen cladding, white render, aluminium windows and powder coated metal balconies. Some changes have been made to the design of the building following the first consultation which includes the creation of a corner feature and the introduction of features which are considered to be more domestic in nature when compared to the previous design.

6.22 Paragraph 59 of the Framework states that Local Planning Authorities should avoid unnecessary prescription or detail and should concentrate of guiding overall scale, density massing, height, landscape, layout, materials and access of the new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally. Paragraph 60 of the Framework advises Local Authorities not to attempt to impose architectural styles or ITEM A/ 2 - 13

particular tastes. Having regard to this advice, and clearly notwithstanding overt concerns about scale, massing and height, it is considered that, officers would not wish to prescribe a specific approach to architectural style for the site.

6.23 With regard to the above, a wholly contemporary approach to building appearance is not inappropriate in this location. Although Norfolk Street consists of Edwardian residential properties there should not be a presumption that a contemporary design approach could not sit comfortably with this kind of period architecture provided proposed materials were of a sufficient quality and overall design matters relating to height, scale and massing were acceptable. The proposed contemporary style of the building and this design approach should also be considered against the existing building on site and those nearby. All of the office buildings in the vicinity of the site could in appearance terms, be described as unremarkable. However there are none comparable to the modern design approach now proposed.

6.24 With Paragraph 59 and particularly 60 of The Framework in mind it can be asserted that the contemporary style design approach adopted for the application proposal is not a concern in principle for officers. There are heritage assets in the near vicinity and it is again asserted as in the paragraph above that high quality, contemporary materials and design approach can and often does work successfully alongside heritage assets, often allowing enhancement of such assets.

Heritage Impacts (26-30 North Street & 33-35 North Street)

6.25 Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that the decision maker must give special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing listed buildings and their settings. The heightened importance of this ‘special regard’ has been underlined through two recent High Court decisions, the most notable of which is Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd vs. East Northants DC, English Heritage, National Trust and DCLG

6.26 Allied to the above, the Framework states, at paragraph 132, that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets and that the more important the asset the greater the weight should be and that significance can be harmed through development within its setting. Paragraph 134 adds that ‘where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.’ In assessing the extent of this harm, regard should be had to s.66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990, and the special regard to the desirability to protect and enhance the setting of a listed building.

6.27 It is the view of officers that the two listed buildings are clearly within the setting of the application site each being a matter of approximately 50 metres from the site boundary. Other large, and in some cases tall, office buildings exist in the form of Saint Mark’s Court, County Hall North and St Leonard’s House are also in the vicinity of both the application site, and more importantly, the two listed buildings. Officers concur with the assertion in the submitted Heritage Statement at 4.4 that the heritage assets are ‘dominated’ by this largely modern surrounding development. The applicant however suggests that because the significance of the setting of the listed building is already diminished through the presence of these buildings another overly large, excessively high building would make little difference to existing setting.

6.28 Whilst officers acknowledge that setting of the listed buildings has been harmed through these existing modern office buildings which were allowed in the 1980’s and 1990’s a five storey building in this location would mean that both listed buildings would in effect be ITEM A/ 2 - 14

enveloped on all sides by tall, expansive, dominating office buildings. The existing building is, as has been suggested, unremarkable in its appearance but in height and scale terms is relatively modest and this allows an amount of breathing space for the listed buildings. It does not presently intrude on, and therefore harm, the setting of the listed buildings. The setting of the listed buildings includes the wide footpath on North Street leading into Chart Way which is busy with people travelling into and out of the town, the relatively heavily trafficked road. Significantly, a busy pub, The Black Jug, stands between the two listed buildings and in the summer people often use outdoor seating to its front. The two listed buildings and the existing building can all be viewed together from a number of points on North Street/Park Street from both road and footpath. It is contended that an excessively tall and bulky building on the south east side of this space will lead to a perceived enclosure of the space in front of the listed building and therefore harm their setting

6.29 Whilst it is acknowledged this harm would be less than substantial, the importance of conserving heritage assets must be given great weight. In accordance with paragraph 134 of the Framework, the benefits of the proposed development should be weighed against the identified level of harm. The proposed redevelopment would secure specialist retirement accommodation in an accessible location on previously developed land. However whilst the provision of residential accommodation, for which there is a recognised and significant need within the District is important and can clearly be seen as a public benefit, it is considered that the harm that would be caused to the setting of these listed buildings would outweigh any public benefit that would come about through the provision of 21 open market residential units.

6.30 In conclusion officers are of the view that the proposal will cause harm to the significance of the identified listed buildings and there will be a deleterious impact on the setting of these listed buildings. It is not accepted that the scheme is ‘higher quality’ due to its excessive height and bulk which is not sympathetic to the surrounding built form. In this respect the scheme can be said to conflict with the presumption in favour of the preservation of the setting of listed buildings established by Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 and Policy DC13 (Listed Buildings) of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) which specifically states that development affecting a Listed Building or its setting will not be permitted unless the proposal has no adverse effect on the special architectural or historic character and appearance of the building or its setting.

Future Residential Amenity to Occupiers and Neighbours

6.31 Policy DC9 (Development Principles) of the Horsham District Local Development Framework:General Development Control Policies (2007) requires that new development provide an acceptable residential amenity both for future occupiers and neighbouring residential properties.

6.32 All 21 residential units are of an acceptable size and will enjoy relatively good levels of sunlight and daylight with many of the units being dual aspect. The main external shared amenity area for residents will be the courtyard to the front of the site overlooking North Street and underneath the canopy of the protected tree. Although there are no specific policies about shared amenity areas of this type there is concern from officers that the space is small, will be exposed to significant traffic noise from the relatively busy North Street, will be heavily shaded and impractical to use due to the various falls from the tree. The applicant in the supporting documentation suggests that residents of the proposed development do not regularly use external space and its provision is not a significant factor in any purchaser’s decision to live within such retirement developments. Officers would not wish to speculate on this assertion but would consider the standard of the proposed external amenity space to be poor. ITEM A/ 2 - 15

6.33 However officers note that a Prior Approval was granted for the conversion of the existing office building into 19 flats, as was discussed at paragraph 6.6. This did not provide for any outdoor amenity space. A valid development could therefore be carried out on the site which would not provide any outdoor amenity space. Whilst this is not ideal this needs to be considered when assessing the current scheme. Given the proximity of Horsham Park across the road, which can be accessed via a pedestrian crossing, together with the lack of amenity space provided with the Prior Approval application officers are of the view that the poor quality of outside amenity space cannot substantiate a reason for refusal.

6.34 Officers have also assessed whether the proposed development would impinge on the residential amenity enjoyed by existing nearby residents. The nearest residential property is No.3 Norfolk Road. A two storey Class B1 office property lies between it and the application site, although the western boundary of No.3 Norfolk Road adjoins the application site. This 2 metre high brick wall that runs along the rear of the application site, along the garden of No.3 Norfolk Road and parts of Sussex House (the B1 unit) will be retained. There is also some ivy vegetation within the application site which rises above this wall; it is unclear whether this is proposed to be retained.

6.35 The existing building is just visible above the wall and vegetation when viewed from the rear garden of No.3. Officers note however that the vegetation could be removed without requiring any consent and that this would result in increased visibility of the building from the rear gardens of No.3 and No.5 Norfolk Road and similarly an increased view from the building into these gardens. Officers note that the existing use of the building as B1 office would usually mean that any overlooking would be limited to working hours Monday to Friday and that this would not in general terms conflict with the enjoyment of using residential gardens which are more often used at evenings in the summer and at weekends. However as expressed at paragraph 6.6 the site does benefit from a Prior Approval for the change of use of B1 office to C3 residential. If implemented this would enable overlooking from residential flats into the rear gardens of Nos.3 and 5 Norfolk Road. This is a material consideration when assessing the amenity impacts of this proposal.

6.36 Whilst this may be the case it is important to consider the differences in the scale, height and mass of the building now proposed when compared to that existing and whether there is any increase in overlooking or perceived overlooking. The proposed development would be a full two stories higher than the existing building. Whilst the 5th storey would be set back the building itself would be slightly closer to the boundary of No.3 Norfolk Road. It is considered that an additional storey so close to the boundary (between 2m and 6.4m) would create an unacceptable level of additional overlooking into the rear amenity space of Nos. 3 and 5 Norfolk Road. The addition of the 4th and 5th stories would by reason of their height and mass would also result in a dominating structure which would negatively impact on the level of amenity enjoyed within the rear gardens of Nos.3 and 5 Norfolk Road.

6.37 It is noted that the proposed building would be visible from the rear windows of neighbouring dwellings, particularly No.5, however given the angle it is not considered that the proposal would result in any additional overlooking into the neighbouring properties themselves. The impact on their view is not a material consideration.

6.38 Officers do not therefore consider that the proposal accords with Policy DC9 (Development Principles) of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document (2007), particularly (b) which states that planning permissions will not be granted for developments that cause unacceptable harm to the amenity/users of nearby property and land.

Access and Vehicle Movements ITEM A/ 2 - 16

6.39 The scheme proposes 18 car parking spaces set within the ground floor undercroft area. Vehicular access will be off Norfolk Road via an existing crossover with pedestrian access via North Street. West Sussex’s County Council Highways Engineer has assessed the findings of the Transport Statement and is satisfied with its findings that the development is likely to have a limited impact on the surrounding highway network. Furthermore the County have also taken into account the fact that they did not object on Highways grounds to the Prior Approval application that was allowed in 2013. This Prior Approval scheme provided 18 car parking spaces for 19 flats and also had the sole vehicular access being from Norfolk Road. It was concluded by the County that the increase in traffic (as compared to the previous office use) would not be so significant as to allow objection to be raised on Highways grounds.

6.40 In addition having reviewed the permission granted for the existing building in 1985 there is no requirement to retain the access from North Street Street. This access could be closed at any time without the need for planning consent, and the both access and exit could be from Norfolk Road. Given this position it is considered by the County that a scheme which proposes an additional two flats (with the same 18 car parking spaces) would not warrant a highways related objection. It should also be noted that the Prior Approval granted is for C3 residential, which would allow open market housing. The proposal is for sheltered accommodation which according to the County Parking Standards has a lower parking need.

6.41 The car parking spaces provided within the undercroft are of an appropriate dimension and it is not considered that tracking into these spaces will present particular difficulty.

6.42 A number of concerns have been raised through representations regarding the construction process for the development, in the event that permission is granted. Whilst officers acknowledge that any construction may have an impact on highway users within the vicinity of the site, this is not a matter to be considered within this application. The granting of any permission does not approve any temporary or indeed permanent changes to the highway network, which will require a separate consent from West Sussex County Council Highways through a Highways Agreement. It is understand that any such application to WSCC Highways will result in public consultation before any decision is made.

6.43 On basis of the above it is considered that no traffic or highways objection to the scheme is sustainable and the proposed development will accord with the provisions within Policy DC40 (Transport and Access) of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document (2007).

Trees and Landscaping

6.44 Officers are satisfied with the provisions of the Tree Survey and Tree Protection Plan that have been submitted with the application and the mature trees on site including the protected Copper Beech Tree will, it is considered be adequately maintained and protected throughout any development. Soft landscaping proposals provided show an adequate range and variety of robust plant species including trees, shrubs, grasses and climbers. Hard landscaping features such as block paving, gravel, seating, uplighters, and pavement slabs are proposed and these again are generally non-contentious and would complement the planting and the proposed building. Officers are of the view that tree protection and associated landscape proposals are broadly in accordance with the requirements of Policy DC9 (Development Principles) of the Local Development Framework General Development ITEM A/ 2 - 17

Control Policies Document (2007) specifically part e of DC9 which states that planning permission will be granted for development that uses a high standard of landscaping.

Drainage and Flooding

6.45 A Flood Risk Assessment was not submitted as the site is in Flood Zone 1 and less than 1 hectare in size. Foul and surface water drainage provisions are non-contentious with a new attenuation tank proposed for additional surface water drainage capacity. Further details relating to drainage could be secured through a suitable condition in the event that permission is granted.

Energy & Sustainability

6.46 It is proposed that the development will utilise Air Source Heat Pump (ASHP) technology which absorbs heat from outside air and releases it inside the building, as hot air, hot water-filled radiators, underfloor heating and/or domestic hot water supply. The units are proposed to be located discretely on a flat roofed area of the building to the rear of the building and will not be visible from street level. Use of ASHP would allow a reduction of over 10% on the baseline CO2 emissions for a building of this nature.

6.47 The applicant has submitted an Energy/Sustainability Statement which confirms the proposed dwellings would be built to a minimum of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3. The Council requires new dwellings to be built to meet the standards required to achieve level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. With the above in mind it is considered that the proposed development would be in compliance with that part of Policy DC8 of the Council’s General Development Control Policies Local Development Framework (2007) which principally seeks to ensure that development minimises emissions of greenhouse gases and utilises sustainable construction techniques.

Other Matters

6.48 A Desk Study Land Contamination report was also submitted as part of the application documentation concluding that it was highly unlikely that the site would be constrained by issues related to ground contamination or ground gases.

S106 Contributions including Affordable Housing

6.49 All contributions should be justified in accordance with the 3 tests set out under Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, in that they are considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; are directly related to the proposed development; and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and time to the proposed development. The Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document has been adopted by the Council as part of the Horsham District Local Development Framework and is a material consideration in the determination of this Application.

6.50 It has been found that the 2013 Prior Approval decision for the site (Ref. DC/13/2281) which allows residential use of the existing building without affordable housing or other planning obligations has enhanced the site value to such an extent that purchase of such a site, associated build costs and what is accepted as an acceptable level of profit, set ITEM A/ 2 - 18

against the likely sales value of flats, would not allow for ‘headroom’ or development surplus which would normally support planning obligation costs.

Conclusion

6.51 In summary the proposed scheme would deliver 21 specialist retirement housing units on a sustainable, accessible site within the built-up area boundary of Horsham. However the proposed building by reason of its scale, height and bulk is an inappropriate designed form of development which causes harm to the streetscene and to the setting of nearby listed buildings. Furthermore by reason of the scale, height and bulk of the building in close proximity to the rear gardens of Nos.3 and 5 Norfolk Road the proposal would result in a dominating form of development when viewed from these rear gardens and would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking which would be detrimental to the amenities of the residents of these residential properties. Therefore the proposal does not outweigh the benefits of housing provision arising from the scheme. As such the proposal can be said to conflict with those key policies referred to in this report both in the Core Strategy and General Development Control Policies in the Local Development Framework and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, namely Policies DC9 and DC13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) and Policies CP1 and CP3 of the of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007. The development fails to meet social and environmental aspects of sustainability, as set out in paragraph 14 of the NPPF and therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development disapplies.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused.

7.2 Permission should be refused for the following reasons

1. The proposed development by reason of its excessive scale, massing, height and bulk will be out of keeping with and visually disruptive to the streetscene having an overly dominant and detrimental impact on both Norfolk Road and North Street. Furthermore by reason of its detrimental impact on the streetscene of North Street the development is considered to be detrimental to the setting of nearby heritage assets namely the Grade II listed buildings at Nos. 33 & 35 and Nos. 26-40 North Street causing harm to the significance of these heritage assets. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CP1 (Landscape and Townscape Character), CP3 (Improving the quality of new development) of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007, DC13 (Listed Buildings) and DC9 (Development Principles) of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) together with Paragraphs 129 &132 of the NPPF and the provisions of Section 66 of the of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990

2. The proposed development by reason of its excessive scale, massing, height, bulk and proximity to the rear boundaries of Nos.3 & 5 Norfolk Road is considered to have an overbearing and dominating impact on the rear outside amenity spaces of these properties and would result in an unacceptable level of additional overlooking. The development is therefore considered to be detrimental to Policy DC9 (Development Principles) of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Background Papers: DC/14/1252 Contact Officer: Emma Parkes DC/14/1252

Norfolk House

Posts For Business use only - not for distribution to the general public

(Council Offices)

e s El Sub Sta ou e W H m D dg .1 k 1 r 5 Lo a P E Posts le c t New Park House ro w a tt H o u s e

Park North St Leonards House (Council Office)

S u s County Hall North s The Capitol e x H 3 o 3 u 0 s 4 e PH o t 2 1 3 to LB 1 2 Barrington Gate G un y 8 dr m a 2 0 y's .5 W 3 H 1 rt ou 5 a 6 1 s h 2 e C 2 2 8 7

4 9

NO RF 1 12 OL 1 T K 13 E RO E A R D T 2 S

K 21 R 1 0 A 7 P E C a A 1 8 R 4 6 1 8 R 6 6 E T 1 4 R 51.5m E T 1 3 S E H E C C I 3 A H 1 R C R 4 E 13 T K L O Scale: 1:1,173 F R O Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller Organisation Horsham District CouncilN of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2012. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments Not Set

Date 22/01/2015 MSA Number 100023865

ITEM A/ 3 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management (North) Committee BY: Development Manager DATE: 3rd February 2015 DEVELOPMENT: Change of use from office (class B1a) to Place of Worship (Class D1) SITE: Griffin House Nightingale Road Horsham West Sussex WARD: Horsham Park APPLICATION: DC/14/1917 APPLICANT: Mrs Joyce Nduka

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Member Referral – Cllr Holmes

RECOMMENDATION: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the change of use of the existing commercial building to a place of worship under Class D1 (non residential institutions).

1.2 The premises would be occupied by the Redeemed Christian Church of God Living Faith Assembly who are an existing community of worshippers consisting of approximately a maximum of 100 worshippers at any one time. The expansion of the church has resulted in this application for the use of the above building which would offer larger accommodation to serve the church’s community.

1.3 It is advised that the church will operate sessions as follows:

11:00 -19:00 hrs Monday-Friday 16:00 – 20:00 hrs Saturdays 09:00 – 19:00 hrs Sundays and Bank holidays

1.4 The church operates a 1 to 1 Pastor Counselling service by appointment only 7 days a week. It is advised that there would be Community Projects once per week (no fixed time or day) which would have approx. 5 -10 attendees, which would be for the benefit of the local community (providing for example a consultation and skill session for local parents).

Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes Tel: 01403 215521 ITEM A/ 3 - 2

1.5 The church services itself would be on a Wednesday 19:00hrs - 20:30 hrs and Sunday 09:00hrs -14:00hrs.

1.6 The church employs 1 full time employee and 3 part time employees (equivalent to 1 number full time).

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.7 The application site is located on the west side of Nightingale Road. The building is single storey with a mezzanine floor and has a pitched roof. The unit is currently vacant and was last occupied by Griffin Limited who used the building operating as printers and associated office space (B1).

1.8 The area surrounding the application site is characterised by mixed business uses with residential properties situated within Gladstone Court and Hurst Court. The application is located within the Built up Area Boundary and just within the Employment Protection Zone (DC19).

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 – Section 2 and 14

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy 2007 - the following Policies are of particular relevance: CP3 Improving the quality of new development; CP5 Built Up Areas and Previously Developed Land; CP14 Protection and Enhancement of Community facilities and Services; CP14 Managing Travel Demand and Widening Choice of Transport.

2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC9 Development Principles; DC29 Equestrian Development.; DC40 Transport and Access.

the alternative strategy of greater dispersal to smaller settlements would be likely to lead to a less sustainable pattern of development with regard to transport patterns related to provision of employment opportunities, retail facilities and social and community services..’

PLANNING HISTORY

HU/167/88 1st floor extension for offices REF (From old Planning History)

HU/174/66 Storage and distribution units and ancillary site works PER Comment: Outline (whole site) (From old Planning History)

HU/250/88 Alterations to front of building PER (From old Planning History)

HU/377/66 Erection of storage and distribution units and ancillary site PER works Comment: + br (From old Planning History)

HU/36/88 Use of building for car type sales and fitting, construction PER (From old Planning History)

HU/456/65 32 flats and garages REF Comment: Outline (whole site) (From old Planning History)

HU/65/88 1st floor extension for offices REF (From old Planning History)

DC/14/0721 Change of use from B1 office to D1 place of worship REF

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Access Officer: comments made regarding accessibility for those who have mobility difficulties and those with prams.

3.2 Public Health And Licensing: Following the submission of extra information, the Department still has concerns over noise breakout from the proposed change of use affecting the amenity of neighbouring residential neighbours, as well as disturbance caused by the arrival and departure of patrons, and the sound resistance of the structure.

An environmental noise impact assessment is required to demonstrate the extent to which the proposed activities will affect the amenity of neighbouring properties. This assessment should include the arrival and departure of patrons as well as the service itself.

ITEM A/ 3 - 4

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3 Denne Neighbourhood Council: Object

Raised concerns relating to the Transport Assessment, Transport Plan, the number of people attending services, hours of operation, car parking and restrictions, Viability Assessment, Denne NC request application be considered at committee and to speak.

3.4 West Sussex County Council – Highways: No objection subject to conditions

3.5 Health & Safety Executive: No objections raised.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.6 4 letters of representation were received, The following is a summary of the objections received:

· highway safety · parking, · noise and disturbance · impact on residential amenity. · over intensification of use and impact on parking provision in busy commercial area, · danger arising from commercial vehicles to pedestrians arriving on foot.

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

Background 6.1 An application for planning permission for the change of use from B1 (Business use) to D1 (non residential institution) was submitted under planning reference: DC/14/0721 and was subsequently refused on the 18th July 2014 for the following reasons:

1. In the absence of sufficient information to enable the Council to assess the potential impacts of the proposed change of use on the highway and transport network. The proposed development is considered unacceptable and contrary to General Development Control Policy (2007) DC40 and the NPPF.

2. The application has failed to provide sufficient evidence through marketing information and feasibility and viability studies to satisfy the Council that the change of use of the premises is no longer viable. In the absence of such information the proposed development is considered unacceptable and contrary to General Development Control Policy (2007) DC19 and the NPPF. ITEM A/ 3 - 5

6.2 The current application submitted under DC/14/1917 has been submitted with supporting documents which includes information to address the reasons for refusal as imposed under DC/14/0721. The additional information includes the following:

· An Economic Growth Assessment · Viability Assessment · Transport Assessment · Travel Plan

6.3 Further information relating to the marketing strategy dated the 12th November was submitted by Crickmay Chartered Surveyors during the assessment of the application, following concerns raised by third parties during the consultation process.

6.4 The Council’s Property Division have advised informally that the marketing strategy as set out in Crickmays letter as referred to above, dated the 12th November 2013, is considered to be satisfactory.

Current Proposals 6.5 The main issues in the consideration of this application are considered to be the principle of the change of use from Office (B1) to a Place of Worship (D1), the impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring occupants including noise, activity, access and parking issues, wider parking/highway issues and the benefit of the use to the community.

6.6 In terms of the principle of the change of use from B1 to D1 (place of worship) the application will be considered against the relevant policy criteria which in this case is LDF policy DC19 Employment Site / Land Protection, DC9 General Development Principles, and CP14 Protection and Enhancement of Community Facilities.

Policies 6.7 The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 contains core planning principles and sets out that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that this should run through both plan making and decision taking. Relevant policies support the promotion of competitive town centre environments and the recognition that town centres are at the heart of their communities.

6.8 Local Development Framework: Core Strategy CP14 – the policy advises that new or improved community facilities or services will be encouraged in order to enrich the overall quality of life within the District and, particularly where they meet the identified needs of local communities. These facilities or services should preferably be within the defined built up areas but exceptionally may be located outside such areas where this is the only practicable option and where a suitable site well related to an existing settlement exists. It further states that development proposal that would result in the loss of sites and premises currently or last used for the provision of community facilities or services leisure or cultural activities for the community will be resisted.

6.9 Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policy DC19 states that proposals which would result in the loss of commercial sites and premises to non employment uses within the defined Employment Protection Zones will not be permitted unless:

a) The Council is satisfied through evidence (marketing information and feasibility and viability studies) submitted with the planning application that the sequential approach has been applied towards the redevelopment of the site. The sequential approach being: employment based redevelopment; mixed use or ITEM A/ 3 - 6

other employment creating use redevelopment; and finally, alternative non – employment creating use based redevelopment.

The application proposal is not for a redevelopment of the site but for a change of use. As such the application proposals should be assessed against part (c) of this policy and not part a).

b) The Council is satisfied the commercial unit(s) are no longer viable as a consequence of the unit(s) having been marketed at a reasonable price or rent for at least 18 months prior to the application submission at each stage of the sequential approach.

Part b) above is related to the sequential approach as referred to in part a) above which relates to redevelopment and therefore is not considered relevant.

c) In terms of a proposal for the change of use of commercial unit(s) already with a mixed use scheme, the Council is satisfied the unit has been marketed at a reasonable price or at a reasonable rent for at least 18 months prior to the submission of the proposal.

It has been advised by Crickmay Chartered Surveyors in the supporting information dated 12th November 2013 submitted on behalf on the applicants that the property has been marketed since 24th July 2013.

The details of the property have also been circulated regularly through both their website and other national commercial property listings to include; Focus, P I Property, Commercial Property Database and The Gatwick Diamond Commercial Property, Estate Agents Clearing House, E G Property Link and Movehut. A marketing board was also erected on the property to clearly advertise the availability of building on a freehold basis for B1 use.

The applicants advised that there has been a willingness to compromise on price and to undertake any required works to enable a sale, however it is advised that a suitable purchaser for use of the premises has not to date been found.

6.10 It is noted that the marketing supporting statement by Crickmay Chartered Surveyors advises that they consider the application site is no longer fit for purpose for office use, on the basis that it does not meet the current modern day requirements of applicants seeking accommodation of this nature, given its poor specification as office accommodation. Furthermore, the supporting statement from Crickmay Chartered Surveyors advises that although office uptake is generally improving in the Horsham, this tends to be for larger principal office buildings (those typically over 2,500sqft) which are suitable for residential conversion, and that there is still lengthy void periods with smaller office accommodation and those with poor location, accommodation and redevelopment potential such as Griffin House.

6.11 The Councils Property Department has confirmed informally that the specific financial details within the supporting statement are acceptable. It has advised that the supporting marketing strategy information shows that the building has been marketed on competitive and flexible terms.

6.12 Your officers advise therefore, that in this respect, and given that the application site has been actively marketed since July 2013, that part c) of DC19 has been met. As such the requirements of this policy are satisfied.

ITEM A/ 3 - 7

6.13 Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policy DC9 Development Principles, requires proposals to be of a high standard of design, relate sympathetically with the built surroundings and character of the surrounding area and have appropriate access and parking arrangements; also of particular relevance in respect of the development would be its impact upon both private neighbour amenities and the visual amenities of the area.

6.14 The details of the application do not include any details of the very minor external alterations to the elevations (new doors). Such alterations will require a further application for planning permission should permission be granted for the change of use.

6.15 In terms of the surrounding development, the application site is located on an existing industrial estate and as such there are a variety of light industrial /commercial uses surrounding the application site. To the east of the application site is a railway line and associated sidings. To the west of the application site and the western boundary of the industrial estate, are the rear gardens of properties fronting Hurst Road. To the south of the application site the rear gardens of the residential properties facing Gladstone Road adjoin the eastern boundary of the industrial estate, and to the south east of the application site, the residential properties located along Nightingale Road.

6.16 The applicant has provided details in supporting information submitted with the application, specifically the Transport information and the information relating to the practice of worship and associated hours of operation within the application site which are most relevant to neighbouring residents and their private amenity.

6.17 The details relating to the worship hours and provisions are as set out in section 1 of this report. 11:00 -19:00 hrs Monday-Friday; 16:00 – 20:00 hrs Saturdays; 09:00 – 19:00 hrs Sundays and Bank holidays.

6.18 There are two main worship periods which fall on a Wednesday evening 19:00hrs - 20:30 hrs and on a Sunday 09:00hrs -14:00hrs, at the maximum it is advised that approximately 100 people could be in attendance. Other meetings are generally by appointment on a 1 to 1 basis with the Pastor and additionally there would be 1 community meeting per week where it is expected that there would be approximately 5 -10 attendees.

6.19 The level of attendance by those attending the church is such that it is likely that there would be a steady stream of people arriving individually or in small groups to the two main worship periods (Wednesdays and Sundays), the nature of the activity is such that there would be more activity on leaving the church given that the congregation are more likely to leave in a more concentrated way. Whilst it is recognised that there may be some degree of detrimental impact on the private amenities of nearby residents, given the timings and the number of main worship periods per week (twice), that this would occur it is not considered that this impact would be so significant as to justify a refusal of the application.

Traffic and Highway Safety

6.20 There are no highways objections to the proposals. West Sussex Highways were reconsulted on the revised information that was submitted by the applicants. The revised information provided clarification on the numbers of potential worshippers that would be likely to attend the church and information relating to parking.

6.21 The applicants confirmed in their email dated 13th November 2014 that the church anticipates a maximum of 100 worshippers at any one point. It is also confirmed by the applicants that the building has direct access to three allocated car parking spaces within the estate set out as one disabled space and two standard spaces. On Sundays trading units within the estate do not operate and therefore the church would have access to some ITEM A/ 3 - 8

10 unallocated spaces. Notwithstanding this the submitted reports confirm that there is sufficient space within the street on a Sunday. The application is also supported by a travel plan.

6.22 In response to the revised details received, West Sussex County Council Highways have provided additional comments and advise the following: ‘The site is located in a built up area with close proximity to public transport services including Horsham Railway Station and Horsham Town Centre. The site is accessible by foot and bicycle.

The car parking survey was undertaken between 8:30 and 1pm on a Sunday to coincide with the main Sunday Service, spaces within 100m of the site were included in the survey (including unallocated spaces within the Industrial Estate) and it was found to be a minimum of 19 and maximum of 23 spaces available. With the addition of the 3 on-site parking spaces there would be a minimum of 22 car parking spaces (max 26) and given that the worshipers are from the local community and that most will walk or car-share this level was considered as sufficient for up to 60 worshipers. It is now understood that the application is for a maximum of 100 worshipers. This level could put pressure on the parking spaces available on surrounding streets if a large proportion choose to drive as we do not have any data on how the congregation currently travel or how they plan to travel. However it is stressed in the Planning Statement that this is a community church and those accessing the services will be; local and therefore more likely to walk and families who will car share.

It is likely that the increase to 100 worshipers will not be an average attendance on the Wednesday and Sunday Services but a ‘caveat’ to cover busier times such as religious festival and celebrations. It is suggested that the applicant updates the Travel Plan to include at the very minimum; a congregation travel survey, definitive plans to reduce private car use and plans to mitigate parking overspill at busy times. Advice is available from WSCC travel advisor and a condition is required to ensure an updated Travel Plan is provided pre-commencement. Cycle parking should also be provided.

Parking spaces within the Industrial Estate have been included in the parking survey which would suggest that occupiers of Griffin House have the authority to use the Industrial Estate. It may be a possibility for 3rd party discussion take place with owner/occupiers of the estate to agree the use of other spaces with the Estate which would not be used in the evenings and at weekends’.

6.23 In view of the comments made by WSCC Highways above, it is considered appropriate to impose a condition with regards to a requirement for an updated Travel Plan to be submitted and approved before the use of the premises as a Place of Worship commences.

Environmental Health

6.24 It is noted that Environmental Health have requested a noise survey to establish the sound resistance of the structure. Given that this issue was not raised by Environmental Health during the assessment of the original application and is not raised in the reasons for refusal it is not considered appropriate to raise this as a reason for refusal now. However, it is considered appropriate to impose suitable conditions with regards to the hours of use, amplification of music and a request for a statement of noise mitigation measures, such as keeping the windows / doors closed during meetings.

6.25 The applicants have advised that in fact there will be no recorded or amplified music played and that typically services will involve singing and prayer accompanied by piano.

ITEM A/ 3 - 9

6.26 Given the sustainable location of the site and the number of people that are likely to walk to the meetings either from the immediate locality or the town centre it is considered that the impact would be relatively limited. It is recognised that there would be more activity associated with the two main meetings however, it is considered that any associated problems relating to parking would be on these two occasions. It is considered that a greater intensity of use of the site could create addition problems with parking in terms of the impact on private amenity and that consequently, for these reasons it might not be suitable for use on a more regular basis.

Conclusion

6.27 On balance, it is considered that the application premises are located within a sustainable location, and that the proposals are supported by LDF CP14 Protection and Enhancement of Community Facilities as it serves a local need, and that the proposals meets the requirements of LDF policies Dc9 Development Principles, and DC19 Employment Site / Protection.

6.28 To conclude, whilst the use raised issues in relation to the impact on parking and the amenities of residential occupiers in the vicinity, it is considered that the use can be successfully accommodated without significant detriment to the amenities of the area. The building would also serve the needs of the community in a building suited in design to the proposed use.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

Planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. A2 Full permission

2. The change of use hereby approved shall be used for prayer meetings and associated study and for no other purposes (including any other purposes in any class3s D1 use in the schedule to Town and Country Planning (|Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended).

3. No part of the development shall be first occupied until a Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall be completed in accordance with the latest guidance and good practice documentation as published by the Department for Transport or as advised by the Highway Authority. Reason: To encourage and promote sustainable transport.

4. No sound amplification system shall be installed at the site unless and until full details of the system including the position of speakers shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No sound amplification system excepting that which may be approved in writing shall be installed at the premises. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residents and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007.

5. D10 Floodlighting

6. No prayer meeting shall take place excepting within the building. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residents and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007.

7. Windows within the building shall at all times be kept closed during prayer meetings. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of nearby residents and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007. ITEM A/ 3 - 10

8. The church facility shall only be open to visitors between the hours of 10:30am -19:00 Monday to Friday and 16:00 – 20:00 hrs, Saturdays, and 09:00 – 19:00 hrs Sundays and Bank holidays for 1 to 1 appointments and Wednesday 19:00hrs - 20:30 hrs for worship meeting and Sunday 09:00hrs -14:00hrs for worship meeting and 1 weekday event and as set out within the application details and at no other times unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

9. No part of the development shall be first occupied until covered and secure cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To provide alternative travel options to the use of the car in accordance with current sustainable transport policies.

Background Papers: DC/14/1917 Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes DC/14/1917

Griffin House

5 25 For Business use only - not for distribution to theNightingale general public Industrial Chipman House 36 35 Estate 34

39 38 37

T 2 R 2 2 2 3 U 4

8 C 4 7 4 T 46 S R

H k 1 8 1 1 n 3 4 Depository 5 a

El Sub Sta T 0 7 to 0 9 1 4 11 12 1 2 3 2

Hurst Park

4 o1 1 10t 1 t o 9 Works use Ho P fin o rif s G 5 t s Springboard House

5 2

4 El Sub Sta

1 WB

4 N 4 I G H T 52.1m I N G 8 A 1 L E

R O 13 A D 3 6 19 LB TCB 7 AD 5 O 2 R NE O T 1 1 DS 0 LA G Scale: 1:1,173

Date 22/01/2015 MSA Number 100023865

ITEM A/ 4 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management (North) Committee BY: Development Manager DATE: 3rd February 2015 Conversion of existing roof storage space to form 1 x 1 Bed Flat and 1 x 2 DEVELOPMENT: Bed Flat within an existing block of flats SITE: Martlet Court Church Street Rudgwick West Sussex WARD: Rudgwick APPLICATION: DC/14/1453 APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs A Leahy

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: 12 Letters of Objection received.

RECOMMENDATION: Grant Planning Permission subject to conditions

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks permission for the conversion of existing roof storage space to form 1 x 1 Bed Flat and 1 x 2 Bed Flat within an existing block of flats.

1.2 The proposals include the provision within the roof slope of 3 new dormers in total, comprising 1 in the proposed front elevation (south east) side elevation (north west), and rear elevation (south west elevation). The pitched roof dormer windows comprise a tiled roof finish with lead clad cheeks to match existing.

1.3 A new roof light window is proposed within the north east side elevation set to a minimum distance of 1.7 metres from the finished floor level to the cill height in order to ensure privacy is maintained and no overlooking occurs from the window.

1.4 The proposals include 2 new parking bays to serve the two new flats, additionally there is new cycle storage facilities and a new bin store and enclosure to serve the two new flats.

1.5 The Councils’ Public Health and Licensing Department have confirmed that the noise report submitted by the applicant is sufficient and that they are satisfied that the existing sound insulation between the new and existing flats is satisfactory.

Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes Tel: 01403 215521 ITEM A/ 4 - 2

1.6 Concerns raised by a resident as part of third party representations have been addressed by the applicants who have submitted the correct Certificate B. The application is therefore considered to be valid for planning administrative purposes.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.7 The application site forms a part of the wider site owned by the applicant which itself has dual frontages onto Church Street and Station Road.

1.8 The application site itself is located on the western side of Church Road between the junction with Station Road to the north and the bridge across the Downslink footpath to the south. The site is located within the Built up Area of Rudgwick and the existing apartment block is located centrally within the overall plot. The site is located on a flat area of land at the level of Church Street with land levels varying along the south east to south west axis. There is a steep embankment which falls away from the site to the rear.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

National Planning Policy Framework – Chapter 6 paragraph 49 and 50

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.2 Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy 2007 - the following Policies are of particular relevance: CP3 Improving the quality of new development; CP5 Built Up Areas and Previously Developed Land; CP12 Meeting Housing Need

2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC9 Development Principles, DC40 Transport and Access.

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/04/2713 Re-development of existing car showroom/garage and existing REF flat to provide new car showroom/garage and 25 flats (2 x 1 bed and 23 x 2 bed) with ancillary car parking and access

DC/05/0047 Re-development of existing car showroom/garage and existing REF flat to provide new car showroom/garage and 25 flats (2 x 1 bed and 23 x 2 bed) with ancillary parking and access

DC/05/2026 Redevelopment of existing car showroom/garage and existing REF flat to provide a new car showroom/garage and 25 flats (3 x 1 bed and 22 x 2 bed) and ancillary parking

DC/05/2027 Redevelopment of existing car showroom/garage and existing NONDET flat to provide 2 residential blocks containing 21 flats (6 x 1-bed APPEAL and 15 x 2-bed), two ground floor shops and ancillary parking. ALLOWED

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Public Health and Licensing: No objections Commented in respect of the noise test report that ‘it would seem that the conversion is compliant with the building regulations resistance to airborne noise performance standards and is therefore satisfactory’.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 West Sussex County Council Highways: No objections

The application seeks approval for the conversion of an existing storage space to form 1 x 1 bedroom flat and 1 x 2 bedroom flat within an existing block of flats.

Through the proposal, each new flat will be given one allocated parking space with the added benefit of a secure cycle storage area which will help mitigate the need for a private car. This is in line with WSCC's standards for flats of this size in a sustainable area. It is noted that there are issues with parking within the area; however it is considered that the addition of 2 flats will not adversely affect the current situation that would warrant an objection. On-street parking is available within the area, however as the development includes cycle parking, it is accepted that residents may travel by bicycle to avoid this.

No concerns would be raised to this application subject to a condition securing the cycle parking.

3.3 West Sussex County Council County Fire Officer: No objection ITEM A/ 4 - 4

No Fire Hydrants are required for this proposal.

3.4 Rudgwick Parish Council: Object

Their comments dated 11 August 2014 can be summarised as follows: The existing parking is insufficient for the present accommodation and some of the spaces are too small for residents to manoeuvre into. As a result residents and visitors park on the surrounding residential roads which leads to congestion. The proposed development would be detrimental to the amenities of the other residents in the block in terms of noise, particularly those below, with living rooms above the bedroom. The Parish Council is concerned with regard to safety in the event of a fire as there would be only one staircase to the third floor. The proposed development would be contrary to Rudgwick Design Statement Policy 11 which states that building higher than two storey is inappropriate in a village. Points 5.13 and 6.4 of the applicant's Design and Access Statement , which refer to undeveloped land and retail units on the site, would appear to relate to the original application.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.5 16 letters of representation were received 12 objected to the proposal and 4 supported the proposal. The following is a summary of the objections received:

· Parking · Highway safety · Pressures on parking · Private and Visual Amenities · Rudgwick Design Statement – height · Housing Need · Noise

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 As background, an application for planning permission under DC/05/2027 for the redevelopment of the application site to provide 2 residential blocks containing 21 flats (5 x 1 bed and 16 x 2 bed ) two ground floor shops and ancillary parking site was subject to an appeal following non determination of the application. The appeal was allowed by the Planning Inspector on the 22nd September 2006.

6.2 In terms of character and appearance the Inspector advised in paragraph 9 of the decision letter that ‘The different building height of the two blocks together with a gentle fall in level from north to south across the site frontage to Church Street would provide a reducing scale and stepped profile of the eaves and perceived ridgelines from north to south and ITEM A/ 4 - 5

from east to west along the Station Road frontage.’ Furthermore in paragraph 10 the Inspector commented that ‘In my view the key position of the site at a focal point in the village necessitates in urban design terms a building of greater scale and distinctiveness than nearby village housing’ and also that ‘ I consider that this is a site where a development of more than 2 storeys in height would be in keeping with built form and townscape of the area’. A copy of the Inspectors decision notice is attached at Appendix A.

Principle of development

6.3 In regards to the principle of residential development in this location, the site is located within the Built up Area of Rudgwick within a category 2 settlement area.

6.4 As defined by policy CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007), these are settlements with a more limited level of services and which should accommodate only small scale development or minor extensions to meet identified local need. Within Category 2 Settlements the development should address a specific ‘local need’ for housing including affordable housing, the retention or enhancement of community facilities and services, and the extent to which the addition of new development will not reinforce unsustainable patterns.

6.5 The settlement hierarchy of category 1 and 2 settlements set out in policy CP5 is in place in order to restrict development in these Category 2 settlements. Thus, development in Category 2 settlements needs to be very strongly justified by both local need and sustainability criteria.

6.6 The Rudgwick Parish Plan 2006 does outline some support for further development in the parish so long as it is restricted to small scale development “with small properties with a significant element of affordable and sheltered housing to meet locally defined need.”

6.7 LDF Policy CP15 relates to the Districts rural strategy which encourages sustainable rural economic development which would deliver economic, social and environmental benefits for local communities.

6.8 The relevant policies within the Horsham District LDF General Development Control Policies Document 2007 are DC9, and DC40.

6.9 LDF Policy DC9 relates to development principles and requires development to make the most efficient use of land while respecting any constraints, to not cause an unacceptable harm to the amenities of occupiers/users of nearby land or property, and ensure a high standard of design or layout.

6.10 LDF Policy DC40 relates to transport and access and requires that development provides a safe and adequate means of access and includes where appropriate provision for public transport either within the scheme or through contributions.

6.11 Notwithstanding the above, at present the Council does not have a 5-year housing supply, consequently the Local Planning Authority has given due consideration to paragraph 49 of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This states: “Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.” The proposal has therefore been considered against the presumption in favour of sustainable development guidance given in paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

ITEM A/ 4 - 6

6.12 In this respect, where there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, it is advised that a more flexible application of policy CP5 housing policies applies and thus requires the Local Planning Authority to grant planning permission unless there is significant and demonstrable adverse impacts that outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole (paragraph 14). The Local Planning Authority will need to assess whether any application proposals amount to a sustainable form development in respect of the three golden strands of economic, social and environmental dimensions.

6.13 Significant and demonstrable harm resulting from a proposal is recognised where the adverse impacts of a proposal are both significant and irresolvable.

6.14 The application has been considered within the context of the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. In respect of the three dimensions which are needed to achieve sustainable development identified through economic, social and environmental roles, it is the Local Planning Authority’s view that the proposed development would fulfil the economic role as the employment opportunities created would contribute to building a strong and competitive economy. Furthermore it is considered that the proposals would fulfil the environmental role identified as the proposals are considered to reflect the built environment in regards to the character of existing development with minimal alterations to the elevations to facilitate the new residential units, and is thus not out of keeping with the existing characteristics of the area. It is also considered that the social element would be fulfilled as the proposal is considered to meet an identified need for housing in an area which has accessible local services that reflects the communities needs and supports its health, social and cultural well being.

Private and Visual Amenities

6.15 The application proposals seeks two new apartments within the envelope of an existing building through the conversion of the existing roof space and introduction of three dormer windows and rooflights. There would be no increase in the height of the existing building and minimal external alterations proposed to the elevations. The proposed dormer window arrangements are such that there would be no overlooking between surrounding residential development and the two proposed residential flats within the existing roof space of Martletts Court. The proposed dormer window at second floor level located within the north western elevation to the rear of the existing roof, is located approximately 24 metres from the adjacent block of flats further to the north west of the application site. Separation distance is therefore considered to be satisfactory to ensure that there is no material harm caused through overlooking or loss of privacy. The dormer window located within the south west and south east elevations do not overlook any residential dwellings.

6.16 It is noted that the Parish Council have objected to the proposed conversion proposals on the grounds that three storey development in Rudgwick is resisted as it does not conform to the Rudgwick Design Statement Policy 11 which states that building higher than two storey is inappropriate in a village. Your officers considered however, that the proposed conversion within the existing building envelope would not create any additional height as a result of the proposals albeit that it would create an additional floor of living accommodation within the existing building envelope. Furthermore, the introduction of three dormer windows and a roof light is not considered to result in any substantial or appreciable visual harm to the street scene. Therefore, it is not considered that this would be a justifiable reason for refusal of this application.

Highways

6.17 There are no highways objections to the proposals. Car parking spaces for the two additional residential units have been provided within the existing car parking area, and ITEM A/ 4 - 7

WSCC Highways are satisfied with the level of provision and the location of the car parking spaces to be provided. Access arrangements to the site and car parking area remain as existing.

Conclusion

6.18 It is considered that the creation of the proposed two additional residential units within the existing building envelope and roof space of an existing development of flats, within the Built up Area of Rudgwick, where the principle of the development for residential dwellings on the site has already been established is acceptable, and that it would be difficult to justify a refusal on sustainability grounds within this category 2 settlement area. Adequate parking spaces at a ratio of 1:1 have been provided within the site. The proposals are considered to be in accordance with the LDF policies DC9 and CP5 and the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions

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

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The materials and finishes of the roof of the development hereby permitted shall match in type, colour and texture those of the existing building.

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

3. No work shall be carried out on site unless there is available within the site provision for the storage of materials and equipment associated with the building works; all in accordance with precise details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before development commences. The approved facilities shall be retained and available for use throughout the period of work required to implement the development hereby permitted unless alternative details are agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

4. The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking facilities have been provided in accordance with the plans hereby approved and the parking turning and access facilities shall thereafter be retained solely for that purpose [and solely in connection with the development]. Reason: To ensure adequate parking, turning and access facilities are available to serve the development in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

5. The dwellings 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.

Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of recycling facilities in accordance with policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007). ITEM A/ 4 - 8

6. Before development commences, details of the provision of facilities for the parking of cycles shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the facilities so provided shall be thereafter retained solely for that purpose.

Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for the parking of cycles in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

7. No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between 08.00 hours and 18.00 hours 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).

Background Papers: DC/14/1453 Case Officer : Amanda Wilkes

DC/14/1453

Martlet Court

s e g M 7 a a For Business use only - not for distribution to the general t public y 1 t fa J ir o 1 UB 6 C 0 IL 1 t 8 EE 1 2 s T 2 r R 2 31 32 E E O 7 33 l S u H A ub h E T olm D 4 S 8 k R h t c y h 35 a T e ur u U rs st 38 S p C Playground 4 Kesley B Du pe ot 1 4 H n r ta 2 3 le Ha ge 30 C B y C ve S R ak o n 28 OLE 5 eh tta Little Sinks H ChanctonburyU ViewCoou gHavene D FOX 8 3 H ttase Villas A 6 C 52.5m ge 2 O 9 3 2 R 0 M 1 9 a 1 y D 1 T 5 tho L Br 8 he rn E oo Fo I kh KIN ld F 3 urs H G D t F ea S R O ie th O O 5 2 ld co AD W 2 1 Av te 2 14 1 o 3 n t 1 2 W le n t t o a t o y o d r o s C r id B C e T e R St h n LutineKilburn re 7 n e o Cottages sa a Cottage r Be i s PO o e v e c i C h Issues n T e Bakery 2 t a s V e m 5 Cottage e b a Bookers l u 3 Sidings 2 3 t rl D thPlace The Eaves r ai 2 a n e r M a a g t Pond M an in a a S ST n t 0 Health ATION ROAD a t Centre TH o 4 b C u U 9 4 T R S H h N 's 7 1 1 o e E l 1 ll y o t ie W 9 E t 4 The o r s c 1 t A 1 Sidings u Y u 1 o D 2 L 3 1 Co a C t le ) t ta ge 7 m le 4 t u r 1 ( 5 B 0 h 1 a ri t 0 to 13 to 3 TCB d 5 M ge a 2 2 H 4 P ou 4 T se E ele xc ph h o Thistle r a n 8 Cottage e 3 e ng 4 1 e g

1 n E a t a S l S 9 H E 1 O b B 5 5 s L u R ' t C S2 I t 4 D a S G E v N a r Y El R

Sub Sta G K O A S D A

G 29 6 8 4 Pond P ath 5 3 (u m) 1 8

Pennthorpe 1 School 0 1 S T R Arun A House EM 1 H 8 T 4 s 23 1 T t ra u c tn m k s .7 e 9 h 3 C Headmasters House Victor ia House Childrens Nursery Scale: 1:2,345

Date 22/01/2015 MSA Number 100023865

ITEM A/ 5 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management (North) Committee BY: Development Manager DATE: 3rd February 2015 Erection of a timber and corrugated fibre stable block comprising of 3 DEVELOPMENT: stables and a lock up store on a concrete base size 14.40 metres by 3.60 metres SITE: Blakes Farm Copsale Road Maplehurst Horsham WARD: Nuthurst APPLICATION: DC/14/1990 APPLICANT: Mr Duncan England

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development – Cllr England is Applicant

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 for the erection of a timber stable block comprising 3 stables with a footprint of 14.4 metres x 3.6 metres and a height of 2.9 metres together with a lock up hay barn store (4 units in total). Additionally, a short spur access track is also proposed off of the main private access to Blake’s Farm.

1.2 No landscaping is proposed given that the site is screened by existing hedges and tree cover.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The application site is accessed off of Copsale Road and lies between Copsale Road to the east and the Sussex Downs link which runs along the dismantled railway to the west of the site. The farm is characterised by rolling fields which are well screened by mature trees and hedges. There are a number of temporary field shelters for horses and the main dwelling at Blake’s Farm, which itself was a conversion from a traditional Sussex barn in 2003.

Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes Tel: 01403 215521 ITEM A/ 5 - 2

1.4 The proposed stable block is located to the east of the existing dwelling along the eastern edge of the field currently used for grazing horses and donkeys. The field is well screened from the public highway to the south east and the Downs Link to the west.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.1 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 – Section 3

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

PLANNING HISTORY

N/90/02 Conversion of barn into 1 dwelling PER Site: Black Farm Barn Great Steads Farm Copsale Road ITEM A/ 5 - 3

Maplehurst

DC/06/0991 Erection of agricultural building for housing livestock PER

DC/10/1369 Erection of an open fronted garage PER

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Public Health and Licensing: No objections subject to the imposition of conditions

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 West Sussex County Council Highways: No objections

3.3 Nuthurst Parish Council: No objections

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.4 No representation letters 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 issues in the consideration of this application are the principle of development and its effect on the visual amenities and character of this rural area.

6.2 The proposal is for the erection of a three bay stable block measuring 11.4m x 3.6m with a height of 2.9m along with an adjoining lock up hay store and access spur.

6.3 The stable block would be constructed of stained softwood shiplap boarding to a studwork frame under a black corrugated fibre based onduline roof situated upon a concrete base. There is an existing access leading up from Copsale Road and an existing gate to the field where the stable block is proposed.

6.4 The site is located outside the built-up area and is therefore subject to the countryside protection policies of the Local Development Framework, specifically Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policy DC1 Countryside Protection and DC29 Equestrian Development are considered to be relevant.

ITEM A/ 5 - 4

6.5 LDF policy DC1 aims to protect the countryside for its own sake and restrict any development to that which can be justified as being essential to the needs of agriculture, forestry, the extraction of minerals, disposal of waste or quiet informal recreational use. It is generally accepted, however, that equestrian development requires a countryside location.

6.6 LDF policy DC29 Equestrian Development advises that planning permission will be granted for equestrian development if;

a) It can be demonstrated that the re use of existing buildings on site for any related equestrian use is not appropriate before new of replacement buildings are considered;

There are a number of temporary stable blocks on site however, none of a permanent nature such as that proposed. There are no other appropriate buildings on site that could be re used for stables.

b) The proposals is appropriate in scale and activity , and in keeping with its location and surroundings;

The three stables proposed are considered appropriate in terms of their size and scale for the proposed level of activity in connection with equestrian facilities for private use and incidental to the use of a private dwelling. The proposed spur access is small and leads directly to the proposed stables.

c) Does not result in sporadic development leading to an intensification of buildings in the countryside, particularly in urban fringe location.

The stable block is located to the east of the dwelling and is well screened by existing hedges and trees. The size, small scale, low profile structure of the stable block and the proposed materials is such that the stables are considered appropriate to their countryside location and will be well screened by the adjacent mature boundary hedge.

Private and Visual Amenities

6.7 The proposed stables are located sensitively in the eastern corner of the field currently used for grazing horses and donkeys, is well screened by existing vegetation and does not result in any material harm to visual amenities or the character of the countryside.

6.8 There are no immediate neighbours to the proposed stables and as such there is no adverse impact upon the private amenities of any residential occupiers in the locality.

Traffic

6.9 WSCC Highways have not raised any objections to the proposed stables and have advised that the proposal is not anticipated to significantly increase traffic movement to the site and the existing access would appear suitable to support this development.

Conclusion

6.10 In conclusion, the proposed replacement stable building is considered acceptable for non- livery use in this rural area. There are no highway safety issues and the Public Health and Licensing Officer is satisfied provided restrictive conditions are imposed. The proposed application is not considered to be contrary to the aims of policies contained within the Development Plan, in particular Policies DC9 Development Principles or DC29 - Equestrian ITEM A/ 5 - 5

Development or to the overarching principles of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

01 A2 Full Permission

02 M1 Approval of Materials

03 A scheme for management of stable waste to be submitted, approved, implemented and maintained. This will include details of methods and frequency of stable cleaning and storage, collection and disposal of stable waste. Within the management plan it would be expected that storage of stable wastes (muck heaps) be located no closer than 30m from any residential boundary. Burning of stable waste is not an appropriate or acceptable disposal method.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies 2007.

04 The stables hereby permitted shall not be used for commercial purposes or in connection with any form of riding establishment.

Reason: In the interests of amenity, to enable the Local Planning Authority to regulate and control the development and in accordance with policy DC29 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

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

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

Background Papers: DC/14/1990 Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes DC/14/1990

Blakes Farm

Farm House For Business use only - not for distribution to the general public

Shuckers Pond 27.6m Farm

D in ra ra in D Pond

Bakers

28.8m

CO 21.7m URTU Pond HPILL

Pond

Blake's Farm Pond

Scale: 1:2,345

Date 22/01/2015 MSA Number 100023865