For questions regarding this agenda please ask for Rosie Chase – email: [email protected]
CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY – PLANNING COMMITTEE
A virtual meeting of the Conservancy’s Planning Committee will be held at 10.30am on Monday 13 July 2020. Due to the Covid 19 Pandemic the meeting will be held virtually using Zoom.
Richard Craven Director and Harbour Master
AGENDA
1. Welcome and Apologies
2. Declaration of Interests
Members and officers are reminded to make declarations of pecuniary or personal interests they may have in relation to items on the agenda and to make any declarations at any stage during the meeting if it then becomes apparent that this may be required when a particular item or issue is considered.
3. Minutes a. Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 1 June 2020 (page 1)
4. Development Applications a. APP/18/00943, Tournerbury Woods, Tournerbury Lane, Hayling Island (page 7) b. APP/20/00376, Fowley Cottage, 46 Warblington Road, Emsworth (page 68) c. BO/20/01459/DOM, Minikin, Chequer Lane, Bosham (page 76) d. SB/20/01053/FUL, Land to rear of Mountain Ash, 106 Main Road, Southbourne, Chichester, West Sussex (page 90)
5. Feedback from Meeting with Chichester District Council
6. Table of Delegated Reports from 20 February to 20 May 2020
To note the report from the Principal Planning Officers (page 105)
7. Date of Next Meeting
Monday 21 September 2020, from 10.30am ______Planning Committee members: Adrian Moss, Ann Briggs, Chris Emery, Keith Martin, Pieter Montyn, Ken Smith, Alison Wakelin, and one position vacant.
Agenda Item 3
CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Minutes of the meeting held on Monday 1 June 2020, via Zoom, from 10.30am.
Present Keith Martin (Chairman)
Heather Baker Chris Emery Ann Briggs Ken Smith
Alison Wakelin
Officers
Richard Austin David Rothery Steve Lawrence Rosie Chase
Richard Craven
1.0 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES
1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Pieter Montyn and Adrian Moss.
2.0 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
2.1 Richard Craven declared a prejudicial interest in the West Wittering Neighbourhood Plan and said that he would depart the meeting before the matter was discussed.
2.2 Keith Martin also declared a personal interest in the West Wittering Neighbourhood Plan, which was not considered to be prejudicial, however he additionally said that he would not vote on any recommendations arising from the discussions.
2.3 Alison Wakelin declared an interest in the Emsworth Yacht Harbour application, which was covered in the Delegated Decision report which should not feature as part of the meeting discussions.
3.0 MINUTES
3.1 The minutes of the planning meeting held on 2 March 2020 were agreed as a true record of the meeting.
3.2 The minutes of the Consulted Delegated Decision procedure meeting held on 13 May 2020 were noted.
4.0 PLANNING PRINCIPLE 19 - HOUSEBOATS
4.1 The AONB Manager explained that the proposed houseboat Planning Principle has not been legally checked and would need to be before any action was taken. The Director & Harbour Master introduced the revised principle.
4.2 A member said that the Principle appeared to contradict itself in that house boats can only be in marinas impounded by a sea wall. The Director & Harbour Master said it was a typo and clarified that any houseboat outside of a marina would need to have the facility to pump out.
4.3 It was suggested the wording change from “likely to support” to “unlikely to object” rather than likely to support. A member suggested that there should be a proviso that no more than 10% of berths in a marina should be taken up by houseboats. The Director & Harbour Master said his original proposal was 3% - which was still
1 up to 30 houseboats in some marinas. Another member suggested that there should be no more than 3.
4.4 The AONB Manager said that the cap could be low at 1% which will at least enable all Marinas to have at least one houseboat, or to cap to a maximum of 5% depending on size.
4.5 A discussion was held around the wording on “beds on board”.
4.5 It was suggested that the abbreviation of LPA be replaced with “local planning authority”.
Recommendation
4.5 A cap of 3% or 5 houseboats, whichever was the greatest, was recommended. It was confirmed that legal opinion will be sought then the principle will appear again at the Advisory Committee for final scrutiny and decision.
Richard Craven left the meeting
5.0 WEST WITTERING NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN
5.1 The Principal Planning Officer presented his comments on the plan.
5.2 The presentation included the context for the development of the neighbourhood plans as well as the designations assigned to the area.
5.3 A member asked whether sufficient regard had been made in the plan to the Chichester Harbour Management Plan. The Principal Planning Officer said that the wording from the adopted and emerging local plan should be used and that it was important that the two documents linked together.
5.4 The Principal Planning Officer discussed the allocation of 25 new dwellings, which have been proposed for outside the boundary of the AONB. He went on to say that he did not have any major concerns about this.
5.5 He went on to outline the plans for 15 affordable houses and there was some resistance to the loss of bungalows as they provide small useful and in demand housing units and was unsure whether the 30% figure proposed would stand up with the examiner. The Chairman said that the this was reflective of the population of West Wittering, being proportionately older.
5.6 Members discussed retail facilities and the improved parking provided. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the working in the report should say that the loss of retail space was regrettable and not laudable.
5.7 The Principal Planning Officer agreed to add references to the cycle lanes.
5.8 The Chairman confirmed that the deadline for section 14 consultation had passed. The AONB Manger said that the Conservancy’s comments would be welcomed, however.
5.9 The AONB Manager said that this was the last of the neighbourhood plans in the AONB to come before the Committee. He went on to say that all of the other plans had been reviewed in the same way and fed back to the communities.
Recommendations
5.10 Members discussed the West Wittering Neighbourhood Plan and endorsed the officer’s comments.
2 6.0 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS a. Rose Briar Copse, land east of Broad Road Scant Road West Hambrook West Sussex
6.1. The Principal Planning Officer presented his report to members for screening opinion for the erection of approximately 120 residential dwellings, with the associated pedestrian and vehicular access and parking, as well as biodiversity and green infrastructure areas. He went on to say that this was not an application for planning permission but may lead to one. He explained that the matter to be discussed was whether an environmental impact assessment was required for the site.
6.2 The Principal Planning Officer Confirmed that he was concerned about the impact on the views of Chichester Harbour AONB, particularly from Walderton Down in the South Downs National Park. A member confirmed that the application had not been considered by the South Downs National Park.
6.3 A member referred to the Conservancy’s views study and said that should be used to help preserve the natural beauty of the area,
6.4 The AONB Manager said there was no mention of the Chichester Harbour AONB in the recently published South Downs National Park Management Plan, other than an acknowledgement that Natural Recovery Networks need to extend outside the boundary off the National Park. He said he felt it unlikely that they would comment on matters outside of their area.
6.5 There was unanimous support for the Officer recommendations.
Recommendations
6.6 The Planning Committee ratified the officer recommendations and considered that the proposed development would require an environmental statement to be prepared to support a formal planning application, owing to significant landscape effects on the setting of the Chichester Harbour AONB, when viewed from Walderton Down.
6.7 That if an application is to be submitted, at the very least, Landscaping - (including full details of trees and hedgerows to be retained) - should be listed by the applicant as a matter to be considered under an outline application, in view of a Planning Inspector’s report from 2015, relating to the site. In the event that an outline application is made valid without landscaping listed for consideration, The Conservancy will lobby the Council to use its powers under Article 5 (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 to have it become part of the application within the first 28 days post validation.
Black Cat Cottage, Main Road, Nutbourne, Chichester, West Sussex
6.8 The Principal Planning Officer (DR) presented his report for the application for construction of a detached barn-sized outbuilding for use as an independent residential annex. He informed members he had sent an update from the LPA and had forwarded an email that morning, confirming that the LPA would be looking to impose some form of control over occupancy.
6.9 The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the site was outside of a settlement area.
3 6.9 A member asked if the shrubbery from the roadside will be removed. The Principal Planning Officer said that there was no removal of landscaping mentioned in the application notes Should a favourable comment be sought a condition to seek landscaping and screening of the proposal could be included
6.10 A member said that it should be objected to on the basis that it is too large and exceeds the Conservancy’s guidelines and was a significant enough size to be considered an independent dwelling house.
Recommendation
6.11 The Planning Committee resolved to object to the application.
6.12 1.AONB Size and Scale Assessment Criteria The proposal for a free-standing barn-sized outbuilding for independent residential occupation would amount to a development which would be contrary to the provisions of Chichester Harbour AONB Planning Principles (version 1.1 July 2017) Planning Principle PP03 (Replacement dwellings and domestic householder extensions); and the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint Supplementary Planning Document (16 May 2017) as adopted by Chichester District Council, paras. 15.1 to 15.2 (ancillary buildings) and 12.1 to 12.4 (guidance on size increases), in that the scale of the proposed outbuilding for independent residential occupation when compared to the original dwelling represents a building with a silhouette in excess of the 25% maximum when viewed from the east/west elevations and a footprint greater than 50% of that of the original host dwelling on the site. The proposal is considered to be too large and therefore excessively visual within the AONB countryside.
6.13 2.AONB New Dwellings The proposal for a free-standing barn-sized outbuilding for independent residential occupation would amount to a development which would be contrary to the provisions of Chichester Harbour AONB Planning Principles (version 1.1 July 2017) Planning Principle PP04 (Creation of new dwellings and residential institutions); in that the absence of a legal control to secure the use of the proposed structure as ancillary accommodation to the host dwelling house results in the proposal being considered as an independent residential unit of accommodation. In this situation the proposal is considered to be a new residential dwelling in the countryside for which there is no justified agricultural, horticultural, forestry, social, environmental, or economic reason within the AONB countryside.
6.14 3.Wildlife Mitigation Contribution The absence of a legal control to secure the use of the proposed structure as ancillary accommodation to the host dwelling house results in the proposal being considered as an independent residential unit of accommodation. The site is located within the specified 5.6km 'zone of influence' of the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area where it is identified that the net increase in independent residential development results in significant harm to those areas of nature conservation due to increased recreational disturbance. The absence to make sufficient mitigation against such an impact or provide for any contribution towards the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership Strategy with regards to development and disturbance of wild birds in Chichester and Langstone harbours Special Protection Areas is contrary to AONB Chichester Harbour Management Plan (2019-2024) Policy 3: Diversity of Habitats and contravenes the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.
4 6.15 4.AONB Increased glazing and light pollution The proposal introduces and significant increases the total areas of glazing to the southern elevation which would harm the character of the area due to excessive light generation and pollution within this semi-rural location, contrary to Planning Principle PP09 (Dark Skies).
6.16 Reasoning and policy justification - The proposal would amount to a development which would be contrary to the provisions of The Chichester Harbour AONB Landscape Character Assessment (CBA update 2019); The Chichester Harbour Management Plan 2019-2024 (April 2019 Third Review) particularly Policy 1: Conserving and Enhancing the landscape, Policy 2: Development Management; The Chichester Harbour AONB Planning Principles (Management Plan version April 2019) particularly Planning Principle PP01: Chichester Harbour as a Protected Area; Planning Principle PP03: Replacement dwellings and domestic householder extensions; Planning Principle PP04: Creation of new dwellings and residential institutions; Planning Principle PP09: Dark Skies: and the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint Supplementary Planning Document (16 May 2017) as adopted by the Council, particularly Part 2: Overarching Principle, Part 8: Landscape, Part 11: Scale and Massing, and Part 36: Lower Coastal Plain Hermitage to Fishbourne with reference to infill development, linear development along roadside, landscape setting to villages, and responding to settlement pattern.
6.17 The Chichester Harbour Conservancy considered that a more sympathetic treatment of the site and surrounds is necessary for a proposal of this kind. On this basis, should the LPA be mindful to grant planning permission, contrary to the Chichester Harbour AONB recommendation, the Conservancy’s Planning Committee suggests that further negotiation to obtain a new scheme to meet the AONB concerns is carried out and that in any event there should be a secure agreement to ensure that the new building remains ancillary to the main dwelling and is limited to occupation solely for the use of family (as an elderly relative granny annex or similar) and is not separated, sold, let or occupied as independent residential dwelling accommodation unrelated to the applicants family or used for any tourist or tourism related accommodation.
7.0 DELEGATED DECISION REPORT – 20 FEBRUARY – 20 MAY
7.1 The Chairman noted the 80 delegated reports which is a phenomenal amount and the Committee extended collective thanks to the Principal Planning Officers for their work. Presentations were provided on the following sites.
7.2 39 Bridgefoot Path- an objection on grounds of harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and net loss to biodiversity. The application had been withdrawn and revised application made retaining the tree and merely trimming it.
7.3 Ronic House. The objection was raised based on the design being visually divergent from context of surrounding built form and adverse effect to the setting of the AONB.
7.4 Chichester Yacht Club. The part holding objection was raised in respect of conditions from a planning permission.
7.5 Mariners Tea Room. The objection was raised over concern about the illuminated sign being out of keeping with the existing street scene and cluttered appearance.
7.6 Land South of Prinsted Lane. The site is outside the AONB. The site has not been properly identified in the local plan process, and could end up with excessive traffic.
5
7.7 Rectory Farm. The objection was raised on the impact on the physical Appearance and Prominent Impact in the AONB. The building is listed.
7.8 Broad Road. The site is outside the settlement area and pre-empted and was prejudicial to the proper consideration of the existing and emerging local and neighbourhood plans.
7.9 Byways. The substantial remodelling of the dwelling increased height, bulk and loss of space about the building was considered to be harmful to the character of the area.
7.10 Tiled Cottage. The development was considered to be cramped and an alternative location for the extension should be considered.
7.11 Bosham Inn. The LPA said this was a listed building application and not a full works application and they were not consulting the Conservancy.
8.0 QUARTERLY SUMMERY
8.1 The Committee noted the 62 applications. 12 had been withdrawn and the accordance rate was 90%.
8.2 He provided updates on the applications that did not accord, which included Birdham Fruit Farm, Magnolia House, Longmore, The Crown and Anchor and The Old Town Hall.
9.0 ANY OTHER BUSINESS
9.1 There was none.
The meeting finished at 12.49
Chairman
6 Agenda Item 4a
Local Planning Authority planning application reference: APP/18/00943
Site: Tournerbury Woods, Tournerbury Lane, Hayling Island
Proposals: A material change of use of Land as a wedding and events venue and ancillary operational development to the material change of use
(N.B original description of development was notified as – “Change of Use of land and woodland (retrospective) as a wedding venue, including retention of permanent ancillary buildings and structures, the erection of temporary structures (including marquees and temporary facilities) and the use of land as a campsite in association with events, and use of existing cottage for visitor accommodation).”
On 15 November 2019, Havant Borough Council reconsulted the Conservancy in relation to new and additional information submitted by the applicant in relation to highways impact, a right of way enjoyed by the applicant through Tournerbury Farm and acoustic matters.
This is the third time this application (made valid on 6 November 2018) is being reported to The Conservancy’s Planning Committee, following the submission of further ecological reports, one asserting that it is not necessary for the Council, as ‘competant authority’, to carry out an ‘appropriate assessment’ under The Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2017. Appendix ‘A’ to this report is a set of intitial queries put to the applicant, also with notes of a meeting with the applicant 17.1.2019 and Appendix ‘B’ the response received from the applicant.
RECOMMENDATION
That Havant Borough Council, as local planning authority, be advised that Chichester Harbour Conservancy raises an objection to the proposed development.
It is suggested that the application be refused for insufficient information as soon as possible.
The applicant has failed to demonstrate how disturbance from visitors could be effectively managed so as to avoid harm to the Chichester Harbour SSSI, in terms of the key features of the SSSI and how its condition is to be enhanced. Harm may also be likely to the Chichester and Langstone Harbour SPA/Ramsar/SAC from disturbance at the shoreline. Without bat surveys (requested over a year ago) it is not possible to conclude that there would be no adverse impact to bats.
The uncontrolled escalation of the number of events to up to 200 per year would not constitute sustainable development and would not conserve nor enhance the Chichester Harbour AONB.
These impacts do not just create impact to the venue areas, but also those areas adjoining them, from noise, external lighting impact and vehicular movement to and from the site.
7
Conservancy Officers’ comments and reasoned justification
1.0 Site and its context (aerial photograph below looking west, Woods Cottage in the centre)
8 Site in wider context shown below with zommed in extract showing site edged red
1.1 This 4.8 ha site is located at the eastern end of Tournerbury Lane, which also gives access through Tournerbury Farm(yard). Land edged blue above shows the wider estate, purchased in 1931 by the applicant’s grandfather and including a substantial proportion of this part of the Harbour.
1.2 Whilst not formally recognised as ‘Ancient Woodland’ on the Development Plan Proposals Map, the submitted phase 1 ecological report suggests that part of the wood may be considered to be ancient woodland. Paragraph 1.1.3 stating –
“The survey area comprised primarily of broadleaved woodland with Tournerbury Wood (the Bury) situated on a Saxon fort considered to be ancient broadleaved semi-natural woodland. Broadleaved plantation adjoins the ancient woodland and mapping shows this was planted and developed into woodland in the late 19th Century (Tournerbury plantation). The site opens out into amenity grassland and open woodland, and a small area of saltmarsh to the south, and improved grassland to the south east. Small woodland ponds are scattered through the southern woodland and a large duck pond is situated in the centre of the site. A brackish pond and drain exist in the south eastern corner.”
Paragraph 2.1.4 goes on to state –
“The Tournerbury Estate is designated partly as a unit of the Chichester Harbour Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Tournerbury is noted within the SSSI designation as follows: ‘Semi-natural broadleaved woodland associated with the harbour is important for breeding birds and supports two heronries. Oak is the major tree species, usually with hazel coppice, as at Old Park Wood, although Tournerbury Wood has well-spaced oaks with the occasional beech, holly and yew with a fairly dense ground flora of bramble and bracken.’ The Chichester Harbour SSSI covers an area of 3695 hectares and Tournerbury forms 0.4% of its total area.”
9 Paragraph 2.1.5 opines –
“The SSSI falls within the Chichester and Langstone Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA) designated on account of populations of European importance of breeding, passage and over-wintering birds associated with the exposed estuarine sand and mudflats including breeding little tern (Sterna albifrons) and sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis), passage little egret (Egretta garzetta and over- wintering waterbirds including dark-bellied Brent Goose (Branta bernicla bernicla), black-tailed godwit (Limosa limosa islandica) and dunlin (Calidris alpina alpine).”
1.3 The northern part of the wood contains the remains of iron age fortifications, which are a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM). The single width metalled track leading to the application site passes through those fortifications. The whole wood is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (S.S.S.I.) and part of the wider Special Protection Area for the Harbour (according to Narual England’s Magic Maps website, although the Proposals Map of the Havant Borough Local Plan suggests the site also falls within a Special Area of Conservation (SAC). A heronry exists within the estate. Owing to SSSI protection works in the woodland are controllable and a Woodland Tree Preservation Order exists on the whole Tournerbury Woods Estate (Council TPO 448).
1.4 The application site is shown as being adjacent to an uncertain site for brent geese and/or waders (Policy DM23)/Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (Policy CS11) on the Proposals Map (shown hatched green below) of the Development Plan, with the the site in Flood zone 3 (highest risk) and most of the remainder of the landed estate in flood zone 2. The site is within the council’s ‘coastal zone’ (Policy DM9).
1.5 The site currently comprises woodland and open agricultural land/open grassed areas with at least two large ponds, all accessed via the winding end of Tournerbury Lane, where one has to pass through the farmyard of Tournerbury Farm to reach the site. The various parts of the Tournerbury Woods Estate (14.78 ha in total and not all forming part of the application site), as identified by the applicant, are shown
10 below. The Estate consititutes 19% of all woodland on Hayling Island, but only 0.4% of the Chichester Harbour SSSI.
1.6 Woods Cottage is nestled at the end of the ‘track’, with some glimpsed views of this 4 bed chalet bungalow from My Lords Pond. The Cottage had been used up till 1990 by a local painter (Keith Shackleton) and periodically offered as a holiday let since that time, but now fully serves as an administrative base for the wedding venue/events business. Occasionally a bride and groom will spend the first night of their honeymoon at the cottage.
1.7 Other buildings now sought for retention include a white plastic/canvas walled/double pinacle roofed marquee, the black painted, metal gazebo and a covered deck. The highest part of these structures is the double pinacles of the marquee at 8.5m above ground level. Notwithstanding tree screening and screening from Woods Cottage, itself limited views of the marquee can be seen from some parts of My Lord’s Pond (see above) and the opposite landward side of that creek. Some photographs of these structures/buildings are shown below and on the next page.
11
2.0 Planning History
2.1 97/62340 - Clearing & Dredging of existing Duck Pond. Creation of Island in centre (retrospective) & regrading of Banks (Conditional approval). Land appears to enjoy historic use for agricultural/forestry purposes with applicant referring to
12 previous industrial uses (brick making from 1800’s to 1931) and prior to that ‘bottle dump and tip’. Tournerbury Farm used to form part of the estate but was sold off circa 1987, albeit the applicant retained legal access to and from Tournerbury Lane through the farmyard.
2.2 01/62340/001 (Partial raising of lawn to above tidal level and removal of two trees to north of cottage covered by TPO 448. | Woods Cottage, Tournerbury Lane, Hayling Island). (Conditional approval 18.12.2001).
2.3 In 2012 an application was made by the current applicant to construct a private way from Tournerbury Lane, parrallel to Laburnum Grove, across a field in the ownership of Tournerbury Farm to access the estate, instead of going through the farm yard. It is understood that access rights from that direction might then have been relinquished. This permission (APP/12/01333) was not implemented. A further similar application was made again under reference APP/17/00207. This too was granted permission, and has recently been partly implemented by the owner of Tournerbury Farm, whose land it traverses. It is understood the two parties still have yet to agree terms regarding relinquishing access rights through Tournerbury farmyard.
2.4 APP/19/00889 - Application for Lawful Development Certificate relating to the erection of log cabin and adjoining deck; erection of Victorian style gazebo structure; and erection of marquee structure (Withdrawn). Chichester Harbour Conservancy challenged this application.
2.5 APP/19/01262 - Application for Certificate of Lawfulness for an existing use or development relating to (1) change of use of Woods Cottage and its environs into leisure/tourism use for the purposes of holiday lettings and camping, and as a commercial event venue for the purposes of both holidays and the holding of weddings and events and the utilisation of any ancillary buildings and structures that may be required as necessary for such uses; (2) erection of log cabin and adjoining deck; (3) erection of Victorian style gazebo structure; and (4) erection of marquee structure (undetermined at the time of writing this report).
13 Chichester Harbour Conservancy has challenged this application.
2.6 On 17.1.2020, Havant Borough Council served a Planning Enforcement Notice on -
Mr CMV Snell, 196-198 Sea Front, Hayling Island, PO11 9HR Ms AL De Pury Snell, 196-198 Sea Front, Hayling Island, PO11 9HR The Owner, Tournerbury Woods, Tournerbury Lane, Hayling Island The Occupier, Tournerbury Woods, Tournerbury Lane, Hayling Island.
The Notice states –
“Without planning permission and within the last 10 years, a material change of use of the land from agriculture and a dwellinghouse used for holiday letting's, to the use of the land for agriculture, a dwellinghouse used for holiday letting's, camping, holding of weddings and other commercial events.”
Reasons for issuing the Notice are given as –
“It appears to the council that the above breach of planning control has occurred within the last 10 years.
The development is in the countryside and the use of the land causes significant harm to this sensitive rural location and to the amenity of occupiers of the area by reason of noise and disturbance contrary to Policy AL1 of Havant Borough Local Plan (allocations) and Policies CS16, CS17 and M10 of the Havant Borough Core Strategy and national advice in the National Planning Policy Framework.
The development falls within the Chichester Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, A Special Protection Area, a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Special Area of Conservation and an appropriate assessment to assess the development on these sensitive areas in accordance with Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 has not been undertaken to ascertain whether it is likely the development would have a significant effect on these important nature conservation areas designated under UK and European Law and of international importance. Therefore, due to insufficient information and applying the precautionary principle, it has not been shown through appropriate assessment that the development would not adversely affect the integrity of these sites. The development is therefore contrary to the requirements in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, Policies CS11, CS12 and DM8 and DM9 of the Havant Borough Core Strategy and national advice in the National Planning Policy Framework.
The Council do not consider that planning permission should be given, because planning conditions could not overcome these problems.”
The requirements of the Notice are –
“1 Cease the use of the Land for weddings and other commercial events
2 Cease the use of the Land for camping associated with weddings and other commercial events
3 Cease the use of the dwellinghouse for accommodation associated with weddings and other commercial events
14 4 Remove from the Land, all buildings (excluding the dwellinghouse), structures, decking and marquees and any other paraphernalia associated with weddings and commercial events”
A period of compliance of 3 months was given from when the Notice became effective (13 March 2020) unless an Appeal was lodged before that date.
An Appeal has been lodged, but no start date has yet been given by The Planning Inspectorate at the time of writing this report.
The ‘Land’ to which the Enforcement Notice relates is shown edged red below.
15 3.0 Proposed development
3.1 Apart from ‘D’ (Woods Cottage), permission is sought to retain A-C and use them with Woods Cottage as the supporting buildings to run a wedding/events venue. The applicant says other temporary portaloos and caterers tents can also sometimes be brought onto the site, but those are temporary and removed once the related event is over.
3.2 The application is supported by a number of reports – Phase 1 Ecological Report (Originally 2013, with a 2014 national vegetation survey and all updated September 2018) Ecological Impact report (June 2020) Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment report (April 2020) Email from agent dated 5 June 2020 Design and Access Statement/Report setting out the Environmental, Economic and Social merits of the porposals (August 2018) Topographic survey with parking areas annotated/delineated (May 2018) Drainage, sewerage and utilities assessment (undated, but received by the Council November 2018) Scheduled Ancient Monument impact report (undated, but received by the Council November 2018) Tree survey and arboricultural impact statement (May 2017 updated October 2018) Acoustic Report (October 2013 and updated July 2019) Flood risk assessment (Undated, but received by the Council September 2018) Land deed documantation setting out access rights across Tournerbury Farmyard Two Transport Statements (November 2019)
3.3 The applicant is already licenced in a number of ways. Firstly as a venue to conduct civil partnerships which is arranged through Hampshire County Conuncil. That has existed since 27 January 2016. The other two licences are administered by Havant Borough Council and include a liquor licence and public entertainment licence. The latter does allow operation until 01.00 hours in the morning. Live music typically ends at 22.30 hours (under hire contract terms imposed by the applicant), albeit a
16 DJ can operate up to 00.00 hours. The former allows operation until 00.00 hours, but in relaity this means last orders at 23.30 and time at the bar 23.45, with patrons asked to leave the site at 00.00 hours. From an operational point of view, the applicant has not traded to 01.00 hours, albeit it is worrying that the submitted acoustic report talks in the executive summary of trading until 02.00 hours and no intended hours are set out on the submitted application form (question 19). There is a clear sign by the marquee entrance encouraging customers to have had their taxis booked for midnight, so they can depart at that time (see photo above).
3.4 Further information was submitted in terms of likely noise impact/attenuation. Attenuation works had been undertaken in the Marquee in April 2019 (Relevant extracts are reproduced as Appendix C). The applicant also has compiled an analysis of certain dates when it is claimed that the TWE has wrongly been accused by local residents of causing noise disturbance. One incident referred to the use of fireworks, but other than two occasions 31.12.1999 and then 18.5.2002, when the applicant became married at the site, no use of fireworks is permitted by those who hire TWE. TWE do admit that on 30.3.19 there was a fault with its ‘Direct Acoustics Zone Array’, which could have caused an issue, but that this was quickly corrected. On some of these occasions, the council’s Environmental Health Officers have been present to observe noise levels and have also travelled to the south side of My Lord’s Pond to listen from there. On other occasions other organised events have also been occurring at the time of TWE events and dated evidence is submitted from those other events when no acoustic attenuation was in place and metrological and wind direction conditions could have easily caused the nuisance local residents reported or referred to generally in objections to this planning application. The Council’s Environmental Health Officers are reported later and clearly critical in the local planning authority’s determination on this issue.
3.5 The applicant sets out that some events have attracted as few as 15 people, whereas some have attracted 500 people. The submitted transport statement gives more detail in respect of events held in 2019.
3.6 Two transport statements have been submitted along with a letter from a Solicitor acting for the applicant. The first transport statement (TS) focuses on the capacity of Tounerbury Lane and then its junction with Church Road to absorb the traffic from the events being held at the Tournerbury Woods Estate (TWE). It, like the other TS, uses automated traffic counter data gathered from 4 events held over the 2019 summer months, but also encloses attendance data for 42 events held since March 2019 (relevant extracts are reporoduced as Appendix D). The first TS concludes that sufficient capacity does exist on Tournerbury Lane and at the aforementioned junction and thus those particular requirements of paragraph 109 of the NPPF and relevant Development Plan policy are met.
3.7 The second TS focuses on that private right of way and whether it has sufficient capacity to absorb the traffic using TWE, when it holds events. Although 3 pinch points are identified along this route, leading to some delays in vehicles progressing whilst they wait for on-coming vehicles, it is concluded that the level of inconvenience to the farm users is limited. As before, the data from 4 specific events is used to demonstrate this finding. It is therefore asserted by the applicant’s transport consultants that the use of the route is safe in highway safety terms.
3.8 The Solicitor’s letter points to various deeds submitted to demonstrate that the applicant – or those authorised by him – has/have a legal right to pass and repass the track leading from the end of Tournerbury Lane where it ceases to be public highway, through Tournerbury Farm’s farmyard to the TWE, whether on foot or in
17 vehicles. The deeds also show the owners of Tournerbury Farm have a right, among other things, to pass through the TWE to effect repairs to the Harbour’s sea wall, subject to obtaining others’ consents to effect such works.
3.9 Images of the structures proposed to be retained and the appearance of Woods Cottage as operated as part of the use are shown below.
3.10 The marquee (A –purchased in 2006) has a floorspace of 33m x 12m. The circular pagoda/gazebo is 3m in diameter. The elevated, decked area (C) is just under 22m long and varies in width from 6.4m to 11.2m.
3.11 The applicant has made the following statements in support of the proposals – The proposals will not result in any harm to the woodland; The site has been used to host events for charities, including of more recent time the charity ‘Releasing Potential’ with links to the Duke of Edinburgh awards scheme in July and August of this year, in terms of Forest Schools and learning bushcraft; During 2018, 10,253 people came to the estate; Positive reports of the venue have appeared in the Sunday Times, Daily Express and Open Air magazine; Employment levels could rise to 45-50 if the applicant’s aspiration to operate 200
18 events per year/’season’ were realised.
3.12 A summary of the additional ecological information is as follows – The agent for the application refers to ecology research volumes and that they are not going to be submitted as they run to 60,000 words! He asserts that the applicant has applied the NPPF test that the - “benefits of sustainable development outweigh the harm identified” and that in respect to the intensification of the number of future events if permission is granted is - “…a matter for future consideration should it arise”. He talks about - “…the management plan proposed…” but it is not clear what he is referring to (albeit 6.1 of the submitted Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) says the existing site management plan, which may be the one agreed with Natural England). This Site Management Plan does not form part of the submitted application. The agent also claims there are no historic records to assess trends in the favourable condition of wildlife at the site, yet the HRA makes it clear that the heronry has been surveyed/monitored since 1966 and the new ecological report confirms that birds were surveyed at the Tournerbury Woods Estate in 2014, with specific Heronry surveys in 2015 and 2019.
The 187 page ecological report lists the ‘European Site’s’ notable species, which do not include herons, which are described (nationally) as having green flag favourable condition in England. Methodology used to prepare the new report seems fair and of a scientifically based, Institute approved protocol. 388 notable species (100 plant types and rest animals of which 121 invertebrates) within 1km of site, including 149 types of breeding birds (27 seen on site) and 8 types of bat. The report contains the statement - “No habitat is due to be removed” (see comment below). Tournerbury Woods are assessed as being in ‘favourable condition’ since 1997. It is stated that the wooded area of the (Tourner)bury was only reason for including Tournerbury Woods Estate within the SSSI and as that is outside the ‘red line’ of the application site, no adverse impact is concluded and no need for mitigation by the consultant, albeit there is an offer to place bat and bird boxes at the wider site. The Phase 1 report survey is used to identify the types of habitat on the Tournerbury Woods Estate, which are shown below. Recommendations as to what type of external lighting might be acceptable are set out, cowled downwards and not exceeding 1 lux ground spillage. There are some useful condition recommendations for lighting in Section 5.3 (paras 2, 4 & 5) if the council (or a Planning Inspector) is minded to approve.
19
The report starts by talking about assessment of impact ‘significance’, against what the site has been designated for. S.40 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, places a duty on the Council as local planning authority to - “…have regard for conserving biodiversity…” including “…a duty to restore and enhance as well as maintain biodiversity”. Reference is made to the NPPF and the need to achieve net gains to biodiversity. With regards to specific species impact, the following is set out –
Dormice – none found on site (despite right kind of habitat) and no records within 1km of site. Concludes no adverse impact to dormice.
Not suitable habitat for great crested newts or water voles so no impact predicted.
20 Otters may be present and crossing the site (but not during an event). Negligible impact otherwise from time of events V’s all other times otters may cross.
Mammal burrows found in the Bury, but no records of badgers on Tournerbury Woods Estate.
Breeding birds. 7 amber and 2 red species, but overall typical for this type of woodland and common in Hampshire. Heron (surveyed since 1966, where the number of nests appears to have fluctuated between 2 to 18, with Conservancy Officers seeing 3 [empty] in January 2019), little egret and moorhen have low count numbers.
2015 survey showed 9 nests (8 x heron and 1 x little egret)
The report however does not then go on to talk about the 2019 survey (4 nests), the differences to 2015 and why that might be other than to use the term ‘natural fluctuations’ (2 paras up from Section 5.9).
Effect of habituation mentioned in para 31; so no overall impact to nesting birds concluded. 2nd para up from bottom of page 45 recommending 6 No. bird boxes (see Table 5.8.1}
Paragraph after that also recommending evergreen tree planting between venue area and shoreline to help wintering birds forage. No impact to reptiles, as short mown grass unsuitable habitat. Might exist in longer grass cover, but no significant impact predicted.
Table 4.4.2 summarises impact to ecological receptor - (during events impact to SPA and birds on site) - described as moderately significant and impact to bats described as significant) without mitigation, table 4.4.1 showing impact to ecological receptors needing mitigation.
Bats concluded as to currently unknown impact.
The submitted Habitats Regulations Assessment concludes no significant impacts to those features the ‘European Sites’ were designated for, with the ecological report having concluded no adverse impact to the SSSI separately and no need for the Council to therefore carry out an appropriate assessment. No real assessment of the likely impact of the number of events increasing dramatically at the site is attempted. Nutrient neutrality: Whilst use of a W.C. at Woods Cottage is unlikely to have increased significantly from wedding venue use (which in any case goes to a septic tank emptied once a year and disposed of at Budds Farm WWtW). Portaloos are supplied by a contractor from Pulborough and their waste disposed to a sewerage system there.
4.0 Key issues and related Policy framework*
NPPF – 1-3, 6-12, 15, 17-20, 28, 38-43, 47-48, 54-56, 80, 83-84, 91-92, 102- 103, 105-106, 108-111, 117-118, 124-128, 130, 148-150, 155, 157-161, 163- 164, 170-172, 174-177, 180, Chapter 16, 212-213; NPPG – ID’s 6-8, 21a, 26, 31, 34, 37; HBLP – CS1-CS3, CS5-CS6, CS8, CS11-CS17, CS19-CS21, DM1, DM5, DM8-12, DM14; HBLPSA – AL1-AL2, DM20, DM23; PVHBLP 2036 – DR1, IN2, IN3, E1-E2, E6, E8-E13, E15-E18, E20, C8, C10; CHMP – 1-3, 6, 8, 12-13; PP – 01, 06-07, 09, 14; SPD.
21 4.1 When was it necessary to have applied for planning permission?
4.1.1 It is permitted development - (under planning law, but not under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in terms of prohibited operations in a SSSI) - to operate a use of open land (which is not the curtilage of a building) for up to 28 days in any calendar year. There are some exceptions such as clay pigeon shooting and motorcross racing, but those operations are not proposed here. The applicant sets out that in 2009 the number of booked events, which had started modestly first in 1990 as a private school reunion party, had increased to 29, each events season generally running from the Mid-March to the end of November, operating mostly Friday to Sunday.
4.1.2 Technically speaking, that is the point at which planning permission ought to have been applied for if one accepts Woods Cottage had ceased to be used as a dwellinghouse and if that is not the case, then the events were staged outside the curtilage of Woods Cottage on open (not wooded) land.
4.1.3 It is Conservancy Officers’ position that planning permission to hold events was required at the outset, with a SSSI. It is wrong for the agent to suggest that intensification impact can be reviewed later; rather it is important to assess it now if that is the applicant’s true (and stated) aspriation. If the Council (or a Planning Inspector) is minded to support the use, it would be possible to ‘cap’ the number of events that could be held in any calendar year by a planning condition.
4.2 Safeguarding intrinsic character and beauty of countryside/coast/biodiversity from inappropriate development –
4.2.1 The Conservancy’s Ecologist - (full comments at Appendix E to this report) - is still not satisfied with the level of information provided to demonstrate why such impacts should be entertained in a SSSI, or what mitigation is to be offered for such impact. The consultant does not say how little egret and moorhen bird species have varied over time (i.e. when event numbers became more than 28/year) and not really why they think numbers may have varied. The applicant has had since January 2019 to have commissioned the necessary bat reports. Your Ecology Officer is of the opinion that an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations ought to have been submitted to cover this issue. The applicant’s ecological consultatant confirms that bat surveys are still to be carried out. The Phase 1 ecology report even questions the basis of the SSSI designation, as does the second ecological consultant.
4.2.2 The 187 page ecological report recently submitted makes very little mention of the AONB (until paragraph 3.4.5) or the need in policy terms to conserve and enhance its condition, when carrying out development within it. No reference is made to WeBS bird count surveys over time. The merits of utilising different vehicular access to the site thereby avoiding the heronry in ‘The Bury’) under APP/17/00207 are not discussed, albeit the agent states that he might write further about that in – “…the next few days”.
4.2.3 Reference is made to external lighting, acknowledging this has increased but not quantifying it. Agreeing it can affect bats foraging though but implying that it has been there throughout use, then the impact is not adverse. No assessment of impact of lighting actually installed at the site is made, other than by the applicant who has surveyed the site from the Harbour at night, stating that all external site lighting was on when the photography was taken and comparing the impact from adjacent housing, and the Mengham Rhythe and Hayling Island Sailing Clubs on
22 the same date. Your Officers cannot verify that all site lighting was on and other than a diagram supplied by the applicant, the number of external lights has never been presented as a schedule/linked to a map base. Despite stating no mitigation would be needed, bird and bat boxes are offered and evergreen planting at the shoreline to the benefit of overwintering birds foraging in the Harbour. 6 bird boxes do not seem to offer a great deal of enhancement to the AONB.
4.2.4 The report plays down the significance of the heronry by stating not one of 30 notified features which led to SSSI being designated. Your Ecologist takes a contrary view. Survey data 2015 & 2019 shows number of heron nests halved during that time from 8 to 4 nests. The consultant says that the heronry is only a secondary colony from Thorney Island and that a rookery in ‘The Bury’ may suppress the heronry enlarging. The consultant concludes overall that herons and little egrets have continued to breed during the wedding events so no significant impact can be attributed to the wedding events use having operated.
4.2.5 As another specific example, a general intention to remove dead wood from many of the trees, set out in the arboricultural impact statement is not clearly specified. Being as the trees are potected by a TPO and the major feature of the SSSI and the habitat they provide, this is of clear concern.
4.2.6 The consultant says no vegetation is to be removed, so there would be no adverse impact to habitats present at the site. This is used to argue no impact to foxes, rabbits, voles, shrews or deer which may be present/using the site. However, Google Earth imagery over time and indeed the aerial photograph at the beginning of this report shows that trees have been removed to create the main grassed events space. The formation of parking areas with stone scalpings have also removed scrub habitat under trees.
4.2.7 The reasoning set out in the design and access statement merely seeks to suggest that Tournerbury Wood is of limited importance percentage wise within the AONB, rather than properly setting out impacts and whether any mitigation is to be offered, or a definitie management plan to pro-actively ‘police’ patrons whilst they are on site. Appendix A to this report is a set of queries emailed to the agent, the day after the first site visit was made. The responses thereto are listed in Appendix B as well as contemporaneous notes taken by Steve Lawrence (Principal Planning Officer) and Peter Hughes (Ecology Officer), of the Conservancy, of a meeting with the applicant and his ecology consultant John Wenman, which took place on 17 January 2019. The need to survey bats was made at that time.
4.2.8 It has to be accepted that a large number of events have occurred since the notional - (but not established as lawful) -permitted development tipping point may have been passed in 2009. There is a general suggestion that revenue made from the holding of events allows investment in the upkeep of the wood/estate and its coastal sea defences. However, no clear ‘open book’ accounting is presented to demonstrate this, such as receipts to contractors carrying out tree management or sea defence repairs/replenishment work. If the applicant truly wished to demonstrate ‘sustainable development’, balancing environmental/economic/social planning considerations, then such further evidence ought to have been provided by now.
4.2.9 It is perhaps the applicant’s aspiration to expand events to 200 every ‘250 day/year season’ - (Mid-March/end of November), which is of most concern, seeming to skew towards the economic end of the ‘sustainable development’ spectrum, without the Council as decision taker truly knowing the likely environmental impact.
23 4.2.10 Those attending events are free to roam into more sensitive parts of the site. This may be limited by health and safety considerations, especially when darkness has fallen and those coming to the site are likely to be more focused on enjoying the event, but no conscious management plan is put forward by the applicant to try to control this potential problem. There is some anecdotal evidence of people ‘wandering’ and causing disturbance/annoyance immediately off-site. Full implementation of APP/17/00207 and the applicant agreeing use of that new means of access could help to eliminate those occurances, but is beyond the scope of this application to deliver, unless offered up by the applicant in a binding legal agreement/planning obligation.
4.2.11 There is some visibility of the large white marquee in the wider AONB landscape, especially in the winter when trees do not have their leaf cover. The other structures are generally screened by Woods Cottage and tree cover. However, there are two other impacts to consider – light (in times of darkness) and noise. I saw a number of external light fittings and strings of decorative lights, placed around the site. It is not clear if these can be seen from the water, in what is a rather dark and remote part of the AONB at night. I also saw at first hand how a specialised ‘zone array sound ceiling’ speaker system has been placed in the roof lining of the marquee and some sound attenuation work carried out by the applicant, who has a degree and training in such matters. I was advised that the Council’s Environmental Health Team has monitored the noise from live/recorded music, as part of assessing the public entertainment licence and is satisfied. The applicant states enquiries are periodically made with the Council to understand if noise complaints are made. Noise complaints have been made to the Council. The (December 2019) planning responses on-line reveal the following-
“This office dealt with a number of noise complaints received in the latter part of 2018 and early 2019, levelled at this facility especially in relation to alleged noise nuisance from loud music, and also allegations of noise from loud voices and swearing.
The applicant has in April of this year, as advised by Direct Acoustics in the above report, further improved on the acoustic mitigation measures that previously existed within the marquee, used primarily for wedding receptions.
The report shows that these measures, have significantly improved the attenuation of noise levels produced by live or recorded music.
Direct Acoustics have, after considering their assessment in June of this year, recommended that a suitable internal noise level of 96 dBA should not be exceeded within the dance floor area. If this is adhered to, it should then ensure no impact on nearby residential receptors from loud music.
There have been no further complaints of noise nuisance logged with this office at this time, especially since the additional mitigation measures were completed, nor any related to alleged people noise including shouting and swearing, emanating from the site.
This office therefore has no objection in principle to this retrospective application for this development, but would suggest the inclusion of the following conditions, if this application were to receive approval:
Condition 1: All recorded or live music to be provided for the entertainment of wedding or function guests should only be employed within the designated acoustic enclosure sited within the existing marquee
24 on the site, and the noise level within this enclosure should not exceed the maximum 96 dBA LAeq recommended on the dance floor.
Reason: to ensure the amenity of nearby residential receptors is not impacted upon.
Condition 2: That no 'after parties' or similar activities be allowed to take place within the boundaries of the Tournerbury Woods site.
Reason: to ensure the amenity of nearby residential receptors is not impacted upon.
In respect of the latter condition, it is recommended that the applicant submit a 'noise plan', to confirm what procedures and practices are currently in place and what, if any, additional measures are being considered to ensure no impact, especially from those guests staying over in the proposed camp site area or in the cottage.”
4.2.12 The ecological consultant says it is very unlikely that dogs would be present at a wedding or other event. Still, this cannot be ruled out or controlled by planning condition, so disturbance to birds at the shoreline might still result.
4.3 Waste management, pollution, flood risk and climate change –
4.3.1 The use is unlikely to excaerbate flooding issues off the site. Your Officers are concerned about the fact that some customers attending events camp on site in what is flood zone 3, but ultimately this is a matter the council could control/prevent with conditions, if advised by the Environment Agency on this point. Clearly the Conservancy wants everyone to safely enjoy the AONB. The agent seems to have obtained his flood mapping from a different place obtainable on the EA website and asserts that no camping takes place within an area of flood risk and that although the marquee is in such an area, sea defences on the estate mean that the site has “never flooded” and as such flooding would result from tidal surges, these are highly predicatable and necessary pre-alerts can be issued to those using the site.
4.3.2 At the time of your Officer’s site visit, the site was very clean and tidy and it is obviously in the applicant’s interest from a business perspective to maintain that condition of the site. Woods Cottage foul sewerage is provisioned by a 1000 gallon underground concrete cesspit. This is pumped throughout the year by licensed waste operators and removed from site by tanker to be taken to a treatment plant. Portable chemical toilets are hired in for events and there is also mention by the applicant of naturally composting W.C.’s being introduced. The importation of ‘luxury’ portaloos for events and the question of where the wastewater is disposed of to understand if it would harm Chichester Harbour is a relative unknown, if the current operator from Pulborough were to alter. Ultimately, these are matters likely to be controlled through the public entertainments licence and will no doubt be scrutinised by Southern Water and the Environment Agency, commenting on this application.
4.3.3 Photos from the water by Mr Snell, purportedly with all lighting installed turned on and no leaf cover, at wintertime shows a worst case scenario. Mr Snell is basically making the case that other lighting in the creek is worse and not tempered by tree screening. He also makes reference to a scientific study – (Liley et al, 2010) - which concluded no disturbance witnessed to overwintering birds.
25 4.4 Transportation considerations
4.4.1 Access to the site is restricted by the single width lane/passing points, albeit the events have clearly occurred in the past and been absorbed on the local highway network. Conflict arising from those travelling to the site passing through the adjoining farmyard is clearly not ideal, but apparently legally preserved by a deed, when the farm was sold from the estate.
4.4.2 Within the context, that for the evening, limited farm vehicle movements might be likely in hours of darkness, the consultant is estimating that for 1% of the time there might be some minor inconvenience to farm activities from a pure capacity perspective. The consultant extrapolates the percentage to 2.5% even if the number of events were to increase five-fold.
4.4.3 Highway matters are for the Highways Authority to consider and control in advising the local planning authority. No public foopaths within the AONB are affected by the proposals.
4.4.4 The highest recorded numbers from the submitted TS were recorded at a wedding that took place on 10.8.2019, when 215 guests attended. What is not clear though is how many vehicles they arrived in and how many of these vehicles were taxis and coaches. Over the 42 events listed, an average attendance was 138 guests. There are clear peaks in arrival and departure associated with the wedding events – late morning to early afternoon and then just before midnight, when most might leave. It is estimated from the survey work that at the peak time 78 two way movements could be anticipated equating to an average of 1.3 vehicle movements per minute, which is not considered to be a high flow by the traffic consultant. The consultant also considers the average of 0.9 movements per minute to be the more likely average. By way of comparison the consultant states a typical busy road might expect to see 20 vehicle movements per minute.
4.4.5 Full implementation of the new access into the site under APP/17/00207, with the applicant and patrons attending events acquiring rights to pass and repass over it, would remove the major point of conflict with farm activities. However, this does not seem to be develiverable, all the time the two parties cannot agree terms. The noise impact from traffic movements, especially late at night also does not seem to have been scoped in the acoustic report, which instead focuses on noise from music being played at the wedding receptions.
4.5 Economic and employment considerations –
4.5.1 The use may have and possibly still continues to offer the potential to create a sustainable, visitor attraction within the AONB, with low key visual impact, but this can only be accepted in the AONB if the maxims of ‘conserve and enhance’ under paragraph 172 of the NPPF are demonstrated by the applicant.
4.5.2 The principle and actuality of muliplier effects to the local economy from visitors spending in the local area and local businesses earning revenue from supplying goods and services to the venue are clearly understood and tangible. The applicant estimates this as worth £1.32 million to the local economy, but the Conservancy must be convinced that a net gain to the condition of the AONB and its natural beauty will result, before supporting such a use (limited by safeguarding planning conditions).
26 4.5.3 The use currently provides direct employment for 10 part-time and 3 full-time members of staff.
5.0 Conclusions
5.1 Notwithstanding the further ecological report submitted, at present, there is still insufficient analysis, no survey of bats, nor assurances offered by the applicant for the Conservancy to support this application. The ecological consultant does not really comment on nature of activities for which retrospective planning permission is sought, nor how number of events is intended to escalate. If a lawful development certificate is granted for the use of the land and supporting operational development, it is not possible to attach planning conditions to such certificates, possibly leaving the only means of control being a public entertainment licence when it is reviewed.
5.2 For the ecological consultant to say there is no evidence of impact, when halving of the heronry population could have been directly attributable to disturbance and also to conclude appropriate assessment not required to be undertaken by the Council when Natural England has said one is required, is not considered tenable. It also ignores that the application site red line (and all vehicular traffic) passes through ‘The Bury’ (where the heronry is located) and that once on site, guests are not ‘policed’ and can wander off. The noise report produced has been principally prepared to demonstrate no harm or disturbance to human beings at unsocial hours, not impact to wildlife per se, other than to claim wildlife has become habituated to such impact.
5.3 Whilst Conservancy Officers sympathise with those living at Tournerbury Farm, the disturbance from the coming and going of vehicles attending the events at unsocial hours, is more a matter for the Council to ‘police’/seek to control under all relevant legislation including planning law. Such impacts are certainly not considered in the applicant’s various noise reports though. The Conservancy wants to see the farm flourish though within the AONB and its safe operation not impeded.
5.4 Whilst most will leave when events are finished, some will remain on site in tented accommodation. If such revellers were to stay up past the events’ midnight curfew and continue to ‘party’, listening to their own music/sound systems, very real impact to wildlife, especially that feeding at night, could have a negative impact to the SPA/SAC/SSSI/Ramsar designations. Ultimately, it seems on occasion the applicant has had no real control over where event attendees wander off to once on site, which is also of very real concern to the owners of Tournerbury Farm, where they assert there have been instances of trespass into their farm buildings and other unwanted activities such as smoking in a hay barn.
5.5 The consultant says the function of the report to predict whether significant effects would result - (which may be the case if the number of annual events leaps from 52 to 200) - whereas The Conservancy is arguing because the use has continued for some time, those effects could already be indicated from comparing historic to current survey data. Whereas those patrons not staying overnight are to have left by 12 midnight, the levels of disturbance generated by clearing up and those staff leaving the site in the early morning is not really assessed.
5.6 The precautionary protection of the SPA/SAC/SSSI/Ramsar/AONB must be afforded the greatest weight by the Council in its decision.
SRL – for 13.7.2020 CHC Plannning Committee – Comments requested by 2.7.2020: extension of time requested to comment.
27 *Abreviations used:
NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework – (Revised February 2019)
NPPG– National Planning Practice Guidance – (2014)
HBLP – Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy)(2011)
HBLPSA – Havant Borough Local Plan Allocations (2014)
PVHBLP 2036 – Preferred option version of emerging Havant Borough Local Plan
CHMP – Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan (2019-2024)
PP – CHC Planning Principles (first adopted 17.10.16, since amended and part of the CHMP document)
SDP:
CHAONB – Joint AONB SPD HBDG - Havant Borough Design Guide (2011) HBPS – Parking standards (2016)
TWE - Tournerbury Woods Estate TS – Transport statement.
28 APPENDIX ‘A’
Steve Lawrence Nov 27, 2018, 5:20 PM (17 hours ago)
to
From: Steve Lawrence Sent: 27 November 2018 17:20 To: '[email protected]'
Dear Mr Morris,
I met your clients, Chris and Alice Snell yesterday on site, who showed me around the site. I said I would have a number of queries for them following the meeting, hence I am writing to you as agent as I do not have Chris’ email.
I am copying this to the case officer at the council, so she is aware of our request for additional information.
Whilst on-site, Chris said he would be happy for Peter Hughes to come to site. Peter is the Conservancy’s ecologist. This would assist in clarifying a number of points and enable me to complete my report as much as is possible for the Conservancy’s 10.12.18 Planning Consultative Committee meeting.
Taking the design and access statement page by page, I make the following observations –
Page 1
It would be useful for the 4 bullet pointed areas to be identified on a separate plan;
Page 2
The slow increase in events at the site is noted, in the context of permitted development rights in respect of open land being a tipping point of 28 days in any one calendar year. This represents some sort of base datum of ‘general disturbance’, from which to make an assessment;
1
29 I am having some difficulty in understanding the environmental benefits flowing from the proposed use. Do you just generally mean a means of raising monies to fund management of Tournerbury Woods Estate as a S.S.S.I./SPA woodland?
Page 3
Is the site registered with the Camping and Caravanning Club of Great Britain?
Can you roughly say what % of events thus far have been charity related?
From my estimation, turnover of TWE seems to be £180,000. Is this something I could confirm with Companies House?
Page 4
Under heading of ‘data’, the arguments made, whilst noted, do not really address the impact to the S.S.S.I./SPA. Use of the phrase ‘surrounding the harbour’ is also rather nebulous. Use of a map/diagram to show the catchment referred to would have helped our assessment. Whilst it would be for the local planning authority to determine this advised by Natural England, the Conservancy was expecting to see an appropriate assessment carried out under the Habitats Regulations.
The difference between Alcohol and Entertainments Licence terminal hours was explained to me by Chris and I was able to see a sign on site alerting people to have departed by 00.00 hours.
Page 5
I had some difficulty seeing where each structure was on the block plan. Although Chris explained this was because of the scale/need to show blue line land separately, an additional block plan of the general events area would help others understand the location of the 4 main structures, 3 of which permission is being sought retrospectively.
Now I have fully read the Design and Access Statement, I must confess I am rather concerned about the aspiration to expand to 200 events a year, especially without an Appropriate Assessment (principally to overwintering birds in the SPA) having been carried out and if 500 were to turn up to each and every event.
Page 6
A site plan showing the general location of ‘designated camping sites’ would be useful, as would the current location of external lighting, to understand what is there at the present and the general lux levels emitted. Again, this should feature as part of an Appropriate Assessment so impact of such lighting to wildlife (particularly bats) can be understood.
Whilst I was able to see the two main parking areas for myself, which are unmarked in terms of bays, has Chris ever done a quick headcount in the past to know the upper limit of cars and coaches requiring to park? I was rather
2
30 surprised that no transport statement accompanied the application, especially with some events attracting up to 500 persons. The Conservancy’s interest here is the promotion of tranquillity in this relatively remote part of the AONB.
Page 7
Would well-being retreat activities typically take place in the marquee and deck, or might the grassed area in-between be also used? The Conservancy’s concern would be to avoid the wooded areas outside the events area here.
Page 8
Lighting has been referred to above in terms of additional information that might be supplied. It may also be useful to illuminate all the lights and then take some photography from the harbour/My Lords Pond/Wilson’s Boatyard to illustrate the point you are making about tree cover screening at the site.
Whilst Chris referred to some local businesses benefiting from the use trading, the statement refers to a list, which I could not find.
Generally
No bat report has been submitted to support the application.
No assessment of ‘fit’ with national and local planning policy has been undertaken to allow others to weigh the ‘planning balance’, especially impact to the AONB and ecological features of interest within it.
Trusting the above with help Chris to provide some further information to aid the Conservancy’s assessment.
Yours sincerely
Steve Lawrence MRTPI Principal Planning Officer Chichester Harbour Conservancy
3
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 APPENDIX ‘E’
APP/18/00943 |Tournerbury: Comments of Peter Hughes, CHC Ecology Officer
Two documents have been recently added this application (Shadow HRA Report, and Ecological Impact Assessment Report), along with a letter from the agent, Mr Morris. Much of the two reports and the letter seeks to downplay the importance or relevance of the SSSI designation and/or the proposal’s impact on SPA features.
As there has been no prior acknowledgement of the importance of the site and the possible impacts of the proposal, there has unfortunately been no ongoing on-site environmental monitoring of some key species or features during the last few years, during which a substantial increase in use of the site as a wedding venue has occurred.
The letter claims that “ there are no records available of the environmental situation that existed prior to the development taking place”, although there is a long data set of Wetland Bird Survey (WeBS) for Chichester Harbour, and indeed the report quotes the heronry data from the BTO going back to 1966. Unfortunately, this past data has not been utilised – I would consider an analysis of the WeBS data relating to the sectors adjacent to the site as being fundamental to the HRA process.
Overall, the statements fail to provide avoidance/mitigation measures aimed at reducing the likely impacts that come from the use of the site as a wedding venue with the attendant increase in visitor numbers, traffic, noise etc at certain times. The statements still lack an overall management plan for the visitors and venue operation (e.g. such as parking, camping, predicted numbers of events or monthly usage) to ensure no impact on SSSI/SPA features, and/or protected species. Indeed, the ecological impact assessment (June 2020) states that there is “currently no information on what bat species are present on site, including whether Woods cottage is a bat roost”.
The issue of breeding birds (an SSSI feature), and in particular, the heronry is confused. The report wrongly states that the heronry is “a small secondary colony” that “has originated from a large colony on Thorney Island” when in fact this refers to roosting little egrets, rather than breeding grey herons (Eyre, 2015). Far from being a ‘secondary site’, the Tournerbury woodland remains one of only two historic heronries around Chichester harbour, has been occupied since at least the 1960s (probably far longer), and thus is an important breeding site for the species. Breeding herons could well have already been impacted the existing situation, and it could be impacted further in future years.
In their letter dated 17 Dec 2018, Natural England requested • A detailed assessment of the ecological impacts of the proposed land uses and associated activities on the designated sites (on-site and adjacent land) and notable species, including the over-wintering waders and brent geese and the heronry in Tournerbury Wood. • A bat survey to assess the impact from disturbance and lighting on these species. • An assessment of mitigation and enhancement measures to address any impacts. It is recommended this is set out in a comprehensive site management plan, so that biodiversity net gain can be demonstrated.
Much of this detail is still to be supplied, and as such it very hard to make an assessment of the proposal and evaluate the impacts that may have already occurred.
Ref: Eyre, J (ed), 2015, Hampshire Bird Atlas (Hampshire Ornithological Society).
67 Agenda Item 4b
Local Planning Authority planning application reference: BO/20/01459/DOM
Site: Minikin Chequer Lane Bosham PO18 8EJ
Proposals: Demolition of shed and garage, proposed two storey rear and single storey side extension, proposed garage and workshop
Recommendation – Subject to the Council being satisfied that the property is not being used as a bat roost, no objection, subject to conditions to secure –
Face brickwork and tiles to be submitted for approval; Roof lights are fitted with suitable blinds to preserve the CHC AONB dark skies policies; and, the new garage/workshop to remain ancillary to the main dwelling and not used for commercial purposes.
1.0 Site and its context
1.1 This broadly rectangular site (0.184ha) is located on the east side of the street, at the point where it turns through 90 degrees and leads north on towards the A259, forming the end of a run of detached dwellings, set in good-sized plots. As such, it closes the vista as one looks east down the street. The site lies within Flood Zone 1 (least risk) within the ‘Lanes’ character Area ‘E’, in the Bosham Village Design Statement (VDS) and sits outside the defined settlement boundary for Bosham. The property is specifically referred to in paragraph 2.3 of the VDS. There is an indent at the north-west corner of the plot where an electricity sub-station exists. The plot is fairly open in character, with an agricultural (cropped) field to the north and east. A public footpath marks the southern boundary, which also separates it from the next nearest dwelling (‘The Croft’) to the west.
68
1.2 Built form currently occupies just under 4.6% of the plot, comprising a 2-storey dwelling (81.5 sq.m) and single storey, detached garage/workshop/store (17 sq.m) and garden shed (approximately 3 sq.m). Both are treated with plain clay tiled, hipped roofs and faced with red brick. Although not a Listed Building, the front elevation of the house has an attractive half-timbered arts and crafts styling, with leaded fenestration and a prominent, central gabled feature (with white rendered panelling between the timbers) and eyebrows over first floor windows at either side, built into the roof. This central gabled feature currently accommodates the property’s stairwell. A pair of distinctive, well-detailed brick chimney stacks project from the east (rear) facing roof slope. The agent makes reference to a demolished conservatory/garden room, but this is not shown on the existing survey and was not seen on site. The street and southern boundaries are marked by a stone and brick wall of around 1.0-1.2m height and a brick piered, planted pergola sits between that and the front elevation of the house. The northern boundary is rather open, save for some hedging and a few trees in the north-east corner of the plot, with the rear boundary marked by a post and rail timber fence.
1.3 An aerial view, with some photographs of the existing property are shown below
69 1.4 The applicant has provided photographic evidence of a much larger, thatched cottage that once sat on the plot but was destroyed by fire in 1933. The existing house was built back in 1935/36, specifically for a batchelor and his live-in house- keeper. The agent explains that the layout of the house is thus not family friendly, with small main habitable spaces.
2.0 Relevant planning history
2.1 Earlier records may exist on microfilm held at the Council offices.
2.2 The applicant has had pre-application discussions with the council. I cannot find a record of the Council consulting the Conservancy for its views. A summary of the council’s comments by the agent is given below.
2.3 The applicant states the following changes had been made to the original design concept in submitting application 19/02690/DOM –
2.4 Application 19/02690/DOM - Demolition of shed and garage, proposed two storey rear and single storey side extension, proposed garage and workshop (withdrawn). The Conservancy recommendation from its 20.1.2020 Planning Committee meeting was –
70 “Objection: Overdominant rear extension and discordant roof pitch angle, taken with poor choice of facing materials to host dwelling and poor elevational composition/excessive lounge glazing, results in an unsympathetic proposal. Whereas it was considered that an extension and replacement garage was possible at the site, more regard needed to be had to sympathetically designing the work with respect to –
• Materials (such as matching red brick and perhaps tile hanging to the first floor element if it was necessary to differentiate between the original house and new two storey extension);
• Limiting glazing to ensure the Conservancy’s ‘dark skies’ agenda was maintained;
• Providing a greater level of detail in terms of a planting schedule, for new soft planting works, having regard to the prominent location of the site in the AONB landscape.”
2.5 Since the withdrawal it would seem another pre-application enquiry took place with the council under reference 20/00064/PREHH. Again, The Conservancy does not seem to have been consulted by the Council for its views. It would seem that some adjustments were made following the Council raising concerns about scale, massing, materials and design (albeit those changes are not detailed in the revised planning statement).
3.0 Proposed development
3.1 Since the withdrawal of application 19/02690/DOM, the applicant has made the following changes to the proposed works –
Proposed roof pitch to 2 storey rear extension steepened to match existing roof (whilst this has raised its ridgeline, that still remains sub-ordinate to the main roof ridge); 2 storey rear extension reduced 2.5m in depth (5.5m) and 1m in width (6m). Dormer added to east elevation and ground floor glazed area reduced. North elevation dormers better proportioned and (kitchen) window introduced in ground floor beneath them. South elevation dormers better proportioned and glazing beneath them reduced; Sun lounge side extension reduced 1m in depth and 1m in width (i.e. 4m x 4m) (lantern light remains to same dimensions, but overall height dropped), with west elevation altered to reduce glazing, which now has more mullion bars, matching better the proportions of other window panes in the existing elevation; The internal layout at ground and first floor level has been modified to suit client requirements and as part of this the window on the north elevation serving the kitchen has been repositioned; To use brickwork and roofing tiles for the extensions/new garage to match the existing house; Garage (same dimensions) positioned further away from house and minor modifications to elevations/better proportioned window openings; and, Whist maintaining the main features of the garden, including the pergola and paving; it is proposed that further landscaping be implemented to enhance the site and surroundings.
71 3.2 The existing detached garage/workshop/store and garden shed to the north side is to be demolished. A new double garage and workshop set much further away from the house is proposed, 9.6m long by 5.8m wide. It will be faced with brickwork to match the house and clad with clay tiles to the hipped, pitch roof. The images below show the new proposals in the context of existing elevations and those withdrawn under 19/02690/DOM.
3.3 This will turn a 3 bedroomed house into a 4 bedroomed house.
3.4 The footprint of built form and silhouettes west and south would be more attuned to the Joint CHAONB SPD recommended percentage increases. Splitting the garage further away from the house (see below) has also helped in this regard.
72 3.5 In terms of hard landscaping works in the plot –
The driveway to the house and garage, together with all parking areas are proposed to be surfaced in permeable gravel. The existing brick paving to the pergola area is to be repaired and re-laid; as are the brick piers and timber frame. The existing cobbled area around the pergola is to be repaired. The new patio areas to the south of the house are to be in brick paving to match the existing pergola area. The existing well will be repaired and retained.
3.6 In terms of soft landscaping on the plot, the agent explains –
To the south there are mature trees and substantial woodland with little public access and views; however, the proposed hedging, shrubs and repair to the existing wall will enhance this aspect. To the east the hornbeam hedging will create a natural boundary to the open farmland beyond. At present the northern boundary is open and whilst there are only distant views of this aspect, the extension of the hornbeam hedging and incorporation of semi mature native trees, will improve this aspect. The existing brick and flint wall to the south and west will be repaired. This together with additional shrub planting will improve the principle view of Minikin from Chequer Lane. Within the site the repair of existing features such as the pergola and the introduction of additional shrubs and planting beds will bring the garden back to life, enhancing both Minikin and the surroundings.
Policy framework*
NPPF-1-3, 6-12, 28, 38-42,47-48, 54-56, 91, 102, 105-106, 109-110, 124-128, 130-131, 148-150, 155, 163-164, 166-167, 170-172, Chapter 16, 212-213; NPPG – ID’s 6-8, 18a, 26; CLP –1, 33, 39-40, 43, 47-49; POCLP - S1-S2, S20, S22, S26, DM16, DM19, DM27-DM29, DM31; BMNP – 2 and 5-9; CHMP – 1, 2, 15; PP – 01, 03, 09; SPD
4.0 Key issues
4.1 Safeguarding intrinsic character and beauty of the AONB/biodiversity from inappropriate development –
4.1.1 Paragraph 7.2 of the VDS advises –
“Great attention must be given to ensure that any alterations fit the context of their most precious surroundings. In general domestic extensions and other incremental additions to existing dwellings should restrict the increase in the ‘footprint’ and the ‘silhouette’ of any elevation of the original building visible from the wider landscape”
Policy 2 of the Neighbourhood Plan has some limited relevance also (reproduced at the end of this report), but the main Local Plan Policies are 33, 43 and 45, relating to domestic extensions in the AONB/rural area.
73 4.1.2 The amendments made are far most respectful to the host dwelling in terms of scale, design, massing and materials, compared to the withdrawn 19/02690/DOM scheme.
4.1.3 The main roof would need to be broken open to fit the extension’s roof into it. There is still no survey of the existing property to demonstrate that the existing dwelling’s roof and other structures to be demolished are not being used by bats.
5.0 Conclusions
5.1 The new scheme is acceptable and it is pleasing to see that the applicant is also going to improve soft planting at the site, representing an enhancement to the AONB. The Conservancy can now support the works proposed.
SRL - For 13.7.20 CHC Planning Committee
Comments (on amended proposals) requested by: 24 July 2020.
*Abbreviations used
NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework – (Revised 2018)
NPPG – National Planning Practice Guidance – (March 2014)
CLP – Chichester Local Plan (2015)
BMNP – ‘Made’ version Bosham Neighbourhood Plan (2016)
POCLP – Chichester Local Plan Preferred Option (to 2035)
CHMP – Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan (2019-2024)
PP – Planning Principles (adopted by The Conservancy 17.10.16)
SPG/SPD – Planning guidance published by Chichester District Council relating to:-
• VDS - Bosham Village Design Statement (2011)
• Parking standards (2007)
• Joint CHAONB SPD (2017)
Policy 2 from the ‘made’ Bosham Neighbourhood Plan (2016)
“Policy 2 - Criteria for Housing Development
(A) Housing development must:
(i) provide at least the required percentage of the total number of dwellings as affordable housing (as defined in the NPPF) with a mix of tenure types designed to meet the housing needs of individuals, couples and, or, families on the CDC Housing Register with a proven local connection to the Parish of Bosham;
(ii) provide a balanced mix of market housing in keeping with, and wherever possible enhancing, the character of adjacent residential areas;
(iii) use locally common materials wherever possible and provide for optimum Broadband connectivity;
74 (iv) be designed within a layout that observes high standards of spatial design including green spaces and gardens which make and maintain provision for locally naturalised flora, fauna and wildlife;
(v) be designed to minimise any increase in the generation of vehicular traffic and provide safe and convenient access and links to all local services for pedestrians and cyclists;
(vi) demonstrate that the local road network can safely accommodate the development and that there is safe vehicular access to the site; any highways improvements necessary to make the development acceptable in terms of pedestrian or vehicular safety, traffic management or the mitigation of potential congestion must be provided either as part of the development itself or by a highways agreement and/or by planning obligations;
(vii) must make suitable provision appropriate in scale and extent to meet local requirements arising from the development, whether on-site or via the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), for increased education facilities, for green infrastructure and for public open space;
(viii) must comply with all the requirements of BPNP Policy8 - Flooding and Drainage;
(ix) must comply with BPNP Policy 5 - Conservation of the Historic Environment, including archaeological investigation of the site prior to development where necessary.”
75 Agenda Item 4c
Site - Fowley Cottage, 46 Warblington Road, Emsworth, PO10 7HH
Proposal - APP/20/00376 - Retain the existing 'Fowley Cottage' dwelling and tennis court and construct nine new dwellings and 1No. garden studio (Revised).
Recommendation – No objection, provided -
(a) The Council secures the necessary SDMP payment to fund ecological mitigation from increased recreational disturbance through a formal legal agreement before the development commences; and,
(b) The following planning conditions being imposed:-
Tree protection to be in place before the commencement of development and retained throughout in accordance with the arborist report recommendations; Any tree felling to take place outside the bird nesting season (i.e. not between March to October); Agreement of a Construction Environment Management Plan, to ensure that the public right of way in front of the site is not obstructed during the build process; Samples of external facing and roofing materials – including solar panels if they are to be installed on roof surfaces - to be agreed (with the Conservancy’s preference of colour finishes of a dark hue); A management plan should be prepared to maintain the land between the site and the coastal footpath and no structures should be erected within it (i.e. if these areas are to be formally conveyed to any of the residential plots proposed, permitted development rights relating to outbuildings, including swimming pools should be withdrawn); Details of a hard and soft landscape design to follow the principles set out in the previous Terra Firma Landscape Strategy drawing 2067-TF-00-00-SK-L-0001 02 (submitted under application APP/19/00623), to be submitted for
76 approval/implemented/maintained: the scheme should at least include the replanting of 20 new trees to heavy nursery standard; All external lighting to be submitted for approval and be so designed to minimise impact on the setting of the AONB; and, Implementation to the incorporation of bat or bird boxes into the fabric of the new dwelling, and wild flower meadow planting, recommended by the applicant’s ecologist, to achieve a net gain to biodiversity.
Conservancy Officers’ comments and reasoned justification
1.0 Site and its context
1.1 The 0.82 ha [2 acres] site itself is outside of the Chichester Harbour AONB and separated from the Harbour ecological designations by other land in the applicant’s ownership and a public footpath along the shoreline. It is, however, clearly visible from the water and the footpath itself and forms part of the setting of the AONB. The site is within a defined ‘Urban’ area and sits immediately north of the AONB boundary in the C2 Emsworth Channel Head Landscape charcter area, as defined by the CBA 2005 Landscape Character assessment for the Conservancy, exhibiting the following relevant key characteristics:-
Broad inlet bounded by the gentle slopes of Thorney and Hayling Island, and of the lower Coastal Plain to the north. Intertidal mudflats and saltmarsh. Long uninterrupted views. Open character.
In addition to the above, the applicant’s landscape architects, in preparing the LVIA, have cited the council’s own landscape character assessment for the Borough. The site lies within the Urban lower harbour plain/Emsworth-Western suburbs character area/type. Within that the site is identified as being within LLCA3 (Semi-improved grassland) and LLCA’s 1 (Emsworth residential and gardens) and is adjacent or could influence the setting of LLCA2 (Emsworth Harbour including harbour edge and sailing club) of the Havant Borough Townscape, Landscape and Seascape Character Assessment, February 2007 (HBLCA).
77 1.2 The Proposals Map for the current Local Plan shows this key waterfront site as ‘white land’ and not – for example shown as protected green space, nor a site used by Brent Geese and other wading birds. The site does not constitute ‘previously developed land’ as inferred by the architect on page 16 of their statement. Notwithstanding permission 01/51600/005 having lapsed, it would seem the council has previously accepted further residential development at this site and Policies CS17 and AL2 support that approach. Whether the council will consider the land to represent existing ‘green infrastructure’ is not established at this stage. The coastal public footpath passes east-west in front of the site with the Harbour shoreline immediately beyond. Further west in Western Parade a number of replacement houses have been built and there is a mixture of architecture and materials.
1.3 The site is very prominent to views from the Harbour and its foreshore as well as the public right of way in front of the site. The applicant has therefore commissioned a LVIA to assess visual impact within the landscape. A number of TPO trees cover the site. Details of the TPO’s 891 (made 1975) and 1352 (made 1988), supplied to the Conservancy by the Council are shown below.
1.4 A grassed track runs down the western boundary to the public footpath. It ends with a pedestrian gate with a notice reading ‘Private’. It provides access to Fowley Cottage to the beach and would also appear to mark the line of a public surface water drain from Warblington Road according to the utilities survey carried out by the applicant, draining into the Harbour. A public sewer crosses the site
78 (east -west), also noted as a constraint to development in the preamble to its draft Policy H13 in the emerging local plan. Some images of the site are shown above and below.
1.5 There is a great mixture of architectural styles/materials in the area, but most built form is two storeys in scale with pitched roof treatments. Some examples of neighbouring properties are shown below.
79 1.6 The application site falls within a Mineral Safeguarding Area as defined by the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2013), because it is likely to be underlain by sand and gravel.
2.0 Site history
2.1 The applicant’s architect carried out pre-application discussions with the Conservancy in January 2016. Given the site history discussed below, a generally positive response was given to the principle of development subject to a number of caveats on a ‘without prejudice’ basis. It would seem that formal PREAP discussions have also taken place with the council.
2.2 Outline permission for the construction of 7 detached houses (5 and 2 to the south/north of No. 46 respectively) was granted 1998 and renewed once under reference 01/51600/005, granted 3 December 2001. That permission has since lapsed. The layout of the approved scheme consented in 2001 is shown below.
2.3 An ‘open house’ evening was also organised in Fowley Cottage 28.11.18 to guage neighbours’ thoughts on the scheme later submitted under reference APP/19/00623. The applicant has made changes following these consultations, which shows a positive collaborative approach, encouraged by the NPPF.
2.4 APP/19/00623 – Retain the existing 'Fowley Cottage' dwelling and construction of 7 No. detached dwellings, two on the Warblington Road frontage and five to the rear garden area. Access to Plot 5 to be taken off Warblington Road, access to Plots 1-4, 6 and 7 to be taken off Curlew Close (Refused - 29 April 2020). The agent says the applicant intends to Appeal this decision. Reasons for refusal, with the existing site plan and proposed layout/landscape design are set out in Appendix 1 to this report. In summary reasons relate to – no mitigation secured for likely increased recreational disturbance at the Harbour shoreline, not making efficient use of the site to provide more housing, inadequate flood risk assessment, and, insufficient, up-to-date information relating to ecological impact.
2.5 The pre-submission version of the new local plan varied the dwelling estimate at the site from 7 to 40 dwellings, which the Conservancy will contest at a forthcoming Examination in Public. Strand ‘d’ of that H13 Policy requires the design and layout of the development to –
“d. i. Maximise the waterfront location of the site;
80 ii. Conserve and enhance the AONB to the southern boundary of the site in line with Policy E5; iii. Locate residential development in areas not at risk of flooding in line with Policy E19; iv. Avoids unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents through loss of privacy, noise, outlook and overlooking; v. Provide suitable easement for the sewer that crosses the site; and, vi. Provide safe and convenient access to Havant Footpath 56 (Wayfarer’s Way) to the southern boundary of the site.”
2.6 But for the Covid-19 situation, the agent says a further public open evening might have been held, before the submission of this application.
3.0 Proposed development
3.1 The revised application differs from the refused APP/19/00623 application in the following ways –
9 dwellings are proposed now, not 7; Plots on the southern part of the site have remained similar, although one house design has changed/main footprint position altered and the access spur has moved very slightly eastwards; The plots fronting Warblington Road and Curlew Close have doubled their density, each now providing a semi-detached pair of dwellings of differing design; Finished internal floor levels to be no lower than 4.5m AOD (taking account of climate change to the year 2115); and, No hard/soft landscape design plan, nor LVIA has been re-submitted for the revised application.
3.2 Existing, refused and proposed site layouts are shown above. 5 x 4, 2 x 3 and 2 x 2 bedroomed houses are proposed, whilst retaining Fowley Cottage itself. Plot 1 will also have a ‘garden studio’ single storey in height, positioned north of that dwelling on the common boundary with the retained Fowley Cottage. That and a significant diagonal slice of the harbour frontage of the land do not form part of the
81 application site. An existing tennis court is also being retained to provide communal space/recreation facility for all residents. This now represents a density of 18.1 dwellings per hectare (the agent saying that only 0.495ha of the 0.71 ha red line site is developable). The refused scheme had a density of 7.3 d/ha, using the full 0.71ha to calculate that density. It was encourgaing that the Conservancy advice to remove second floor pods was been taken on board for the last application and that remains true for the re-submission. Images for the housing to the Warblington Road and Curlew Close frnotages are shown below.
3.3 A common (but private) route through the site to allow residents to take boats down to the Harbour is shown, although this still passes through a sharp right- angled bend around plots 4 and 2.
3.4 Curlew Close is situated on the western boundary and provides vehicular access to three adjacent houses. The client has established consent to provide access to five of the proposed houses via this road. Fowley cottage and plots 8 and 9 will be accessed from Warblington Road. The existing point of access to Fowley Cottage is being moved east by 5 metres. A private covenant exists limiting as to how many dwellings may be served off Curlew Close to five. The agent asserts that this covenant would mean the Council’s H13 Policy requirement for 40 dwellings (representing 614 d/ha) would not be ‘deliverable’ - (see footnote 7 to NPPF paragraph 11 and paragraphs 14c, 16b, 35c, 67a/footnote 32, 73/footnote 37, 74 and definition within Glossary) - and thus not soundly based as a Policy. It is unclear whether existing residents of Curlew Close would enjoy access to the
82 private path leading down to the foreshore, but it is clear that the applicant does not intend that to become a public thoroughfare.
3.5 The arboricultural report submitted indicates that 17 individual trees and four groups of trees are to be felled (albeit the submitted planning statement only says 14) and that the use of Curlew Close was to enable prominent protected trees at the north end of the site to be retained. The houses are arranged such that the existing retained trees provide useful screening and create a mature and established setting. Hedging and additional tree planting is utilised for the division of plots. It is proposed to retain the rustic split-rail timber fencing to the harbour footpath and new hedge planting would offer new garden areas privacy. It is possible for the Council to place planning conditions on land edged ‘blue’.
3.6 To handle the slight variation in ground levels, dwellings on plots 1 and 2 will be built on brick plinths at their southern end. Whilst a flood risk assessment only needed to be carried out if the site exceeded 1 ha, the applicant has commissioned such a study and is aware of local plan policy DM25’s requirement to demonstrate how post development runoff would be reduced. To this end, sedum roofs are proposed on part of the single storey elements of each new house and permeable bonded gravel is to be used to provide vehicular access. The local planning authority may also negotiate a developer contribution towards the Emsworth Flood Alleviation Scheme. Existing drains crossing the site have influenced the positioning of dwellings, as has the desire to offer each dwelling, on plots 1-5, harbour views. The basic concept, leading to the design for each new dwelling is shown below. Fowley Cottage itself has already been sold off separately and will be renovated by its new owner. Some perspective images of the intended scheme are shown below.
83
3.7 In terms of chosen materials the architect has set out the following –
“The balance between glazing, cladding, eaves and roof pitch has been carefully considered to deliver a comfortable composition of texture, light and mass.
84 Brickwork A soft earthy grey brickwork plinth connects the buildings to the ground and provides warmth and solidity in planters, chimneys and retaining structures.
Timber Boarding Vertical timber boarding softens to a silver grey when untreated and provides a perfect backdrop to the waterfront setting. The material is well suited to marine environments and provides a low maintenance solution which will mature sympathetically and consistently over time.
Slate The design requires a simple and honest roof material. A natural riven slate roof is chosen for this.
Green Roofs The single storey accommodation has a planted roof, which provides a softened roof datum line and is attractive to look down upon from the two storey elements.”
3.8 Drainage will remain tied to mains sewerage. A brief energy statement has been provided by the architect, which refers to the use of air source heat pumps and/or solar panels, although none are detailed on the submitted elevations/floor plans. Whilst this matter could be conditioned, the detailed visual impact of solar panels and their positioning relative to fenestration in the elevations below should not be left to chance. Ground mounted air source heat pumps have the potential to be less visually intrusive.
3.9 The applicant’s ambition for this site is to create a legacy. A small close-knit community sharing facilities such as the tennis court, landscaped communal areas and access to the sea, including small boat access if possible.
4.0 Key issues and related Policy framework*
* NPPF (February 2019 Revision) paragraphs (Generally) - 1-3, 6-9, 15-16, 33, 35, 38-43, 67, 73-74, 102, 105, 110, 117, 125, 149-150, 166, 171, 174 & 212- 213; and, (Specifically) 10-14, 28-29, 47-49, 54, 91, 95, 108, 124, 127-130, 148, 155, 167, 170, 172, 175, 177 & 180;
NPPG: ID’s - 6-8, 15, 20, 21a, 21b, 23b, 26, 34, 53, 56;
Havant Borough Local Plan (Core Strategy) 2011 – CS1, CS8-CS9, CS11- CS17, CS19-CS21, DM1, DM8-DM13;
Havant Borough Local Plan (Allocations) 2014 - AL1-AL2, DM17- DM18, DM20, DM25;
Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2013) – Policy 15
Submission Emsworth Neighbourhood Plan (2019) - DENP – H1, D1-D2, D5, D7-D8;
Draft Havant Borough Local Plan 2036 (Pre-submission version)(2019) – DR1, IN1-IN3, E1-E3, E5-E6, E9, E12-E16, E18-E19, E22;
Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan 2019-2024: 1-3, 6
85 SPG/SPD –
Borough Design Guide (2011); Parking standards (2016); Emsworth Design Statement (Residential Area 5, p.27-28) (2008) Joint CHAONB SPD (2017).
4.1 Safeguarding setting of the AONB/intrinsic character and beauty of coast/biodiversity from inappropriate development
4.1.1 The flatness of the landscape makes the AONB particularly vulnerable to visual intrusion from inappropriate development, both within or adjacent to the boundary, which can often be seen from significant distances across inlets, the main harbour
86 channels. The retention of No. 46 itself and (most of) those trees protected by TPO is supported to preserve the character of the area. A thorough LVIA has been undertaken with the AONB clearly identified as a visual receptor. Of all the 15 viewpoints the assessment was made from, the report concludes that it is the close in, northern views from the shoreline public footpath where a major adverse impact to the landscape is predicted, tempered by the retained shoreline semi-improved grassland and new planting proposed. This is a necessary consequence of the council wishing to see the site developed for new housing. Increased density above the 9 dwellings proposed would only have a greater impact. Some images of close- in landscape views approaching the site from the LVIA that accompanied application APP/19/0000623 are shown below.
87 4.1.2 The proposals represent a material increase in the number of dwellings approved in 2001 and refused in 2020. The arrangement and positioning of the dwellings south of No. 46 Warblington Road, seems logical. Set back from the southern boundary will mitigate impact perceived from the Harbour and public footpath. It is encouraging that the applicant decided not to propose dwellings on three levels and chose to use pitched roofs.
4.1.3 The elevational treatment put forward demonstrates muted and restrained materials, which will help to assimilate the development into its treed setting. No objection is raised to the contemporary architecture, which would make a positive contribution to the character of the area and enhance the setting of the AONB.
4.1.4 The large, full-length glazed areas shown are somewhat tempered by being recessed at first floor level and the ground floor by the pergola overhang.
4.1.5 A bat emergence survey of the existing garage to be demolished has now been been carried out. The existing garage is not being used as a bat roost. This is something the Council needs to establish under European law before it can determine the application. A net gain to biodiversity would be achieved by the bat boxes and wild flower planting recommended in the Phase 1 ecology report. Some 13 individual trees (2 TPO’d on the Warblington Road frontage) and three other tree groups are being removed. Only one is a category B tree (where A is the highest possible grade). Replacement tree planting to heavy nursery standard is recommended as a planning condition to compensate for that loss.
4.1.6 In terms of Policy 15 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2013), the applicant’s agent sets out –
“It would not be commercially viable to extract the potential mineral because of relatively small size of the site and its close proximity to existing housing (to the north, east and west which are classified as sensitive receptors). The extraction of the minerals is likely to result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of nearby occupants by increased noise, vibration and dust generation linked to extraction. As such the proposed development is not sterilised by these mineral reserves.”
4.2 Flood risk
4.2.1 According to the Environment Agency’s (EA) flood maps, the site lies within Flood Zone 1 (lowest risk). The need to adjust for site level difference through plots 1 and 2, mean that those dwellings will be put on plinths at their southern end, tapering northwards. As they face the harbour, those dwellings will therefore have an apparently higher overall finished height of roof eaves and ridge above current ground level compared to the other proposed dwellings. So whilst the impact will be greater, existing and (in time new) tree planting will mitigate that visual impact, set back from the Harbour. In its 23.6.20 response the EA is still making a holding objection until a satisfactory flood risk assessment is submitted, which clarifies their technical requirements as to the ‘freeboard’ dimension to be incorporated. This would seem like something the applicant can address.
4.2.2 The Conservancy is clearly concerned about water quality in the Harbour (HBC Policy DM10) and how this affects the Harbour ecology. The means of disposing of surface water run-off from the development is to be to storage/attenuation tanks for each dwelling as, sub-strata infiltration testing has proven soakaways will not be tenable. The discharge rate will be controlled via ‘hydro-brake’ and limited to 10.9 litres per second.
88 5.0 Conclusions
5.1 These revised proposals would have no significant implications for the setting of the AONB landscape provided the Conservancy’s stated caveats are negotiated by the council. Desnity has been increased (by 26%) at the less sensitive northern part of the site, where it will not affect the setting of the AONB. Your Officers agree with the agent’s statement that the development proposed represents –“…an eficient use of land whilst reflecting local character”.
5.2 The increased density of devleopment put forward - (compared to that refused under APP/19/00623) - is acceptable to the Conservancy, given the site constraints, but it remains to be seen whether the local planning authority will take this view when interpreting their existing Policy CS17 and the still limited amount of weight they can currently afford to give to emerging policy H13. While it falls below the general criteria for density provision, it is appropriate to the context and sensitive edge of settlement location.
SRL - For 13.7.20 CHC Planning Committee
Comments requested by: 24 June 2020. Extension of time granted to comment.
*Policy framework and other abbreviations
NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework (2012) NPPG – National Planning Practice Guidance (2014) HBLP – Havant Borough Local Plan (2011/2014) MWLP – Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2013) PVHBLP – Pre-submission version of Havant Borough Local Plan (2018) DENP - Draft Emsworth Neighbourhood Plan CHMP – Chichester Harbour Management Plan (2019-2024) SPG/SPD – Borough Design Guide Emsworth Design Statement Joint Chichester Harbour AONB SPD (2017) HBLCA - Havant Borough Townscape, Landscape and Seascape Character Assessment, February (2007) CHCLCA – Chichester Harbour Conservancy Landscape Character Assessment (2005). LVIA – Landscape visual impact assessment AOD – Above Ordnance datum
89 Agenda Item 4d
Local Planning Authority planning application reference: SB/20/01053/FUL
Site: Land to rear of Mountain Ash, 106 Main Road, Southbourne, Chichester, West Sussex
Proposals: Erection of a chalet bungalow to the rear of the road frontage property in a back-land position following removal of outbuildings
RECOMMENDATION
(a) That Chichester District Council, as local planning authority be advised that Chichester Harbour Conservancy raises no objection to the proposed development,
(b) That the following suggested planning conditions are applied-
- schedule/samples of materials to be agreed prior to construction as per submission / application forms and drawings
- removal of permitted development rights relating to additions, extensions, enlargements, or alterations affecting the external appearance of the proposed building given the overall size and scale of the dwelling and the plot created
- for glazed surfaces, the use of coated surface glass that is non-reflective to mitigate external reflective glare which might also assist with keeping heat in and radiation out for the respective seasonal changes
- that blinds screens or similar are installed to vertical wall windows and openings to be provided at ground floor and first floor levels
90 - a fence shall be provided to the red-line rear / southern boundary to enclose the site and prevent unauthorised expansion overtime of the use into the field beyond and erosion of the countryside character, the fence shall be of a rural design, such as a timber post and rail design or similar and not in less than 1.5m in height above the ground
- landscape planting comprising hedgerow shrubbery and trees of a native species typical of the AONB (list of native species found on page 20 of the Joint SPD Document) shall be planted to the rear southern boundary as denoted by the red-line application site and thereafter maintained and retained for the duration of the buildings use as a dwelling and any loss or removal of planting within five (5) years of its provision shall be replaced with like hedgerow / shrubbery / trees
- details of other boundary enclosures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA to control the character and appearance of the development from the surrounding wider countryside
- no external lighting shall be provided on site to the building’s external elevations and any external lighting subsequently considered acceptable shall be restricted / controlled to specific hours of use
- wildlife mitigation controls : prior to the commencement of any site works a development contribution is made with regards to development and disturbance of birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas
91
Conservancy Officers’ comments and reasoned justification
1.0 Chichester Harbour Policy Guidance
The adopted guidance requires a clear demonstration that no harm is caused to the AONB.
- Landscape Character
1.1 The Chichester Harbour AONB Landscape Character Assessment (CBA update 2019) prepared for the Conservancy, identifies the site sits within the Zone H1: Havant to Chichester Coastal Plain Landscape Character area type. As such this area is defined by the exhibiting the following relevant key characteristics: - - Flat, coastal plain on brick earths, sands and gravels - Open, arable farmland, with strong rectilinear field patterns - Small hedged paddocks associated with the villages - Pockets of orchards, enclosed coastal grazing marsh and small copses are features - Linear historic settlements follow close to the Roman Road line of the A259
92
1.2 Landscape condition is moderate. There is mixed survival of characteristic features. Some areas of arable farmland have lost hedgerows and there is urban edge/urban fringe intrusion in parts which erodes character. The sensitivity of the landscape is classed as moderate to high. Open grazing marsh and slightly elevated open arable farmland near the harbour edge are particularly sensitive to change.
- Management Plan
1.3 The Chichester Harbour Management Plan 2019-2024 (April 2019 Third Review) provides an integrated coastal zone management strategy for the Trust Port and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Relevant policies would include, Policy 1: Conserving and Enhancing the landscape, Policy 2: Development Management, and Policy 3: Diversity of Habitats.
1.4 The Conservancy’s Management Plan for the AONB records special qualities of the landscape character as including – • Unique blend of land and sea, especially the combination of large open water areas, narrow inlets and intimate creeks; Flatness of the landform accentuates the significance of sea and tide; Wealth of flora/fauna; • Unspoilt and unobtrusive beauty; • Very special sense of peace and tranquillity.
1.5 The Conservancy’s Management Plan for the AONB has vision and values that seek: The special qualities of the AONB are appreciated and enjoyed by local people and visitors who care for the Harbour, now and in the future; Management that is balanced by ongoing mutual respect shown by different user groups Diverse habitats and excellent water quality that benefit a rich array of wildlife using the Harbour in harmony with recreational activities
- Planning Principles
1.6 The Chichester Harbour AONB Planning Principles (Management Plan version April 2019) provides guidance on development. These principles set a range of criteria to be addressed to warrant a favourable consideration in terms of likely impact within and on the AONB. Planning Principle PP01 (Chichester Harbour as a Protected Area) is applicable to this proposal.
1.7 Planning Principle PP01: Chichester Harbour as a Protected Area, sets out the key overarching approach for the AONB, in that the statutory primary purpose is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. Great weight shall be given to the protection of the landscape, the conservation of nature, and the special qualities of Chichester Harbour and its surrounding supporting hinterland.
1.8 Planning Principle PP04: Creation of New Dwellings and Residential Institutions, this requires the proposal to address four criteria relating to:- - the development being within existing settlement boundaries - that enough headroom capacity exists in wastewater treatment works infrastructure to serve the development - recreational disturbance is adequately and appropriately mitigated - that biodiversity net gains are achieved - if there is a local identified social and/or economic need (if in a countryside location)
93 1.9 The proposal for a new dwelling should be within a sustainable location to allow most daily functions to be carried out without reliance on private cars. Development outside defined settlement boundaries may have a significant and long-lasting adverse impact on the character and landscape of the AONB. Only clearly justified social / affordable housing, or dwellings for agricultural workers would be considered outside the settlement areas.
- Joint Supplementary Planning Document
1.10 The Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Beauty Joint Supplementary Planning Document (2017) Section 2 indicates four principles that any development proposed in the AONB should be guided by to protect, conserve and enhance natural beauty and wildlife. The SPD is adopted by both Chichester District Council and by Havant Borough Council as part of their planning policy and development control approach.
1.11 The four principles are – 1. – to ensure that all development conserves and enhances the natural beauty of Chichester Harbour 2. – to stimulate the highest standards of design, conservation, and development 3. – to consider where the development will be seen in the wider landscape and from the water and demonstrate how any adverse impacts are positively mitigates to meet point 1. 4. – to ensure that development will effectively mitigate any adverse impacts on the AONB and to secure positive, sustainable, social, economic and environmental benefits to fulfil the purpose of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).
1.12 The Joint Chichester Harbour AONB Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) provides detailed guidance on the level of acceptable development within the AONB. All development within the AONB should follow the guidance as closely as possible
1.13 The adopted Chichester Harbour AONB Joint SPD (2017) section-8 (page 17) requires that in designing new development, consideration of the setting of the development in the AONB landscape must be shown as to how the proposal would contribute to the character of the area. A Landscape Visual Impact Assessment may be necessary in sensitive areas of exposed wide landscape character.
2.0 Relevant planning history
2.1 There is no recent or relevant planning history available for this site on the LPA public access website. The site planning history relates to the existing dwelling only.
3.0 Site and its context
Contextual Consideration –
3.1 The site is located within the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (ANOB), where development is subject to more stringent planning guidance to ensure that development respects and enhances the inherent qualities of such a sensitive location.
3.2 The site lies within the AONB occupying an edge of settlement peripheral built-up location south of the A259 Main Road. The red-line application does not have a boundary with a coastal frontage. The proposal would therefore have a visual impact the character of the AONB to this semi-urban locality. The site is not believed to lie within a Conservation Area or is indicated to be on or close to a building on the scheduled list of buildings of historic or architectural importance. No information has
94 been provided but the site is indicated as being within Flood Zone 1: Low Probability of flooding (application form question 11).
Location and Existing Development -
3.3 The site is located on a back-land area to the rear of no.106 Main Road. Access is via a side-track driveway to the western side of the frontage property. The site currently is occupied by various outbuilding structures used for storage purposes. The outside areas to the outbuildings are also used for storage purposes and as a hardstanding for vehicle parking.
3.4 The land to the south of the proposed plot is shown as blue-land, within the ownership and control of the applicant. This is not shown as part of the curtilage of the proposal plot and is assumed therefore to remain as undeveloped non-domestic agricultural fields. The current use is indicated from photographs as an orchard.
4.0 Proposed development
4.1 The current application is for a free-standing chalet bungalow dwelling within its own newly created residential curtilage. This is to the south of and separate apart from the joint vehicular access of the frontage dwelling No.106 Main Road.
4.2 The proposal is shown with two floors providing up to three bedrooms served by two en-suites (the plans room use annotation is faint). The roof space obtains natural light from three dormer windows, one to each en-suite and one to a bedroom on the north, south and west elevations. The remaining two bedrooms have gable wall windows. No rooflights are indicated on the elevation drawings. External construction materials are indicated as stock brick to the walls and play clay tiles to the roof slopes.
4.3 The roof ridgeline is approx. 6.5m from the ground. The floor area dimensions are approx. 11.2m by 13.1m in a stunted L-shaped configuration. The total ground floor footprint covers approx.120.77sqm. Two car parking spaces are shown to the north of the proposed siting of the building. Foul drainage is stated on the application forms as being discharged to the mains sewer system.
4.4 There is no indication in the submission that the applicant would be agreeable into entering a legal Section 106 Agreement with the LPA to secure contributions towards a wildlife mitigation measures (Bird Aware) initiative.
5.0 Applicants Approach and Supporting Documents
5.1 The applicant/applicant’s agent has made only passing reference of the application proposal within its context and setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in the submitted documents for the proposal.
5.2 There is no recognition made to the AONB planning policy documents relevant to the consideration of the proposal (see above in Planning Approach section). Furthermore, the applicant has failed to make any reference to, or to consider the LPA Local Plan Policy specifically addressing the AONB (Local Plan Policy 43).
5.3 Given the single dwelling nature of the proposal, this is not unusual or unexpected, with the status and significance of the AONB unfortunately not being fully demonstarted as being considered .
95 5.4 The proposal has apparently therefore been made without acknowledgement of the status of the AONB and Management Plan, and without the expected due professional understanding, care or oversight that would be considered appropriate in this regard.
5.5 Submitted in support of the application (forms, plans and drawings) is a Planning Statement, Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Opinion (HRA), an Ecological Assessment, and a Tree Protection Plan.
6.0 Planning Considerations
6.1 The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty. There is a requirement that the LPA should assess the application carefully as to whether the proposed development would have a significant impact on or harm that statutory purpose. Relevant to this is the duty on public bodies to ‘have regard’ for that statutory purpose in carrying out their functions (Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000). The Planning Practice Guidance confirms that this duty also applies to proposals outside the designated area but impacting on its natural beauty.
6.2 Chichester Harbour Conservancy, administer and safeguard the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The aim of conserving and enhancing the areas natural beauty requires the Conservancy to consider the proposal on its landscape character aspects. Landscape covers both urban environments as well as countryside and coastal areas.
6.3 The overarching principle (PP01, para. 1.7 above) is applicable to the proposal, in that any development in the AONB should be guided by the four principles as indciated in Section 2 of the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint SPD (2017) in order to protect, conserve and enhance natural beauty and wildlife.
6.4 The main planning assessment issues to be considered for this site within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty relate to – 1. Policy Considerations of the principle of the development within the AONB 2. The visual impact within the Chichester Harbour AONB Landscape 3. Visual Scale / Bulk Changes 4. Use and Activity Impact on Visual Character and Tranquillity 5. Wildlife, Biodiversity and environmental affects within the AONB 6. Mitigate the impact of ecological disturbance at the harbour shoreline
Policy Considerations of the principle of the development within the AONB
6.5 The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty. The adopted guidance requires a clear demonstration that no harm is caused to the AONB.
6.6 In general planning terms, the principle of – A. the proposed use and activity resulting from the development, B. the proposed physical works and finished treatment and appearance, would require a full and detailed consideration and assessment of potential, possible, and probable impact of both (A) the use and activity and (B) the physical works, to the character and appearance of the site and locality within the AONB.
6.7 The principle of the proposed use and activity would not be a significant concern due to the proposed use on the site as a residential unit being within the Hermitage
96 Settlement Policy Area of the Local Plan. The principle of the proposed physical works and appearance should be generally acceptable to the character and appearance of the surrounding environment subject to a size and scale comparison.
6.8 In considering the policy guidance, the proposal generally appears to meet advice offered in Management Plan Policy 1, Planning Principles PP01, and PP04, as well as the detailed guidance provided in the Joint Chichester Harbour AONB Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). There is no relevant planning history that is applicable to this proposal to add to the consideration.
The visual impact within the Chichester Harbour AONB Landscape
6.9 The proposed new chalet bungalow is shown positioned to the rear of the road fronting property and set back within a back-land location from the A259, where access to the site is taken from. The site, other than the joint access would be unlikely to be easily viewed from public vantage points. The visual impact of this proposed dwelling on the front boundary of the site would be unlikley to be noticeable.
6.10 The site is screened by boundary landscaping, interveening fields and/or by distance from the south and east, and by the properties along Gordon Road to the west.
6.11 The proposed chalet bungalow itself has a ridgeline height of approx 6.5m which is similar to any two-storey house. The upper floors of the proposed building would therefore have some visual presence by is unlikley to be objectionable given the backdrop of surrounding development to the west on Gordon Road.
Visual Scale / Bulk Changes
6.12 The visual impact of the proposal within the AONB is also a factor of scale. Scale is a matter considered by provisions of Part 12 of the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint Supplementary Planning Document (16 May 2017) as adopted by the Council. From the ground footprint and outline silhouette assessment tool, the figures have then to be judged alongside the acceptability of the building design and on the impact on the setting of the site within the landscape.
6.13 The proposal is to replace a range of single storey outbuildings which are in various states of repair and various storage uses. The loss of these structures would not be an issue within the AONB. From the submitted plans (particuklarly the site plan) the footprint of the proposed dwelling is less than that of the hotch-potch of shed structures. The silhouette comparisons would be significantly different, with a two- storey dwelling replacing single storey sheds.
6.14 However the situation and the context of the site is also a considering factor. Given this consideration and that the site is taken as being part of the residential curtilage of no.106 Main Road in the first place, the proposal is not in conformity with the SPD but is not considered to conflict with the aims and intent of the adopted guidance on size increase set down in part 12 of the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint SPD (2017).
Use and Activity Impact on Visual Character and Tranquillity
6.15 The visual impact as quantified above for the physical structure should also be considered alongside the change of use / additional use of the land to facilitate the proposed development.
97 6.16 The proposal lies within the presumed domestic curtilage of the road frontage property, 106 Main Road, and therefore would not involve a change of use. The proposed outbuilding is suggested as providing a separate, independent dwelling house within the settlelemt policy area of Hermitage. The building is shown just within this area, the garden amenity area would fall outside this designation, withing the countryside.
Wildlife, Biodiversity and environmental affects within the AONB
6.17 The exisiting outbuilding structure on the site to be removed to cater for the proposal may have wildlife habitat activity. The submitted Ecological Statement and the Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Opinion considers these possibilities.
6.18 The new residential accommodation, will inevitably lead to increased recreational activity in the locality, and the consequential erosion of the rural character of the area through this activity and the coming and goings of residents, visitors, and trades people, will require appropriate wildlife mitigation to be in-place, through the Bird Aware initiative.
Mitigate the impact of ecological disturbance at the harbour shoreline
6.19 P.U.S.H. which includes Chichester District Council, have formed a partnership and commissioned studies into recreational impact and an interim mitigation strategy - the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership Definitive Strategy - has been adopted by partners, including the Conservancy, which has the support of Natural England. Under the European Habitats Regulations, such mitigation has to be secured before affected development can be supported.
6.20 Any additional or increase in residential accommodation may lead to increased recreational activity in the locality, and possibly add to the consequential erosion of the rural character of the area through this activity and the coming and goings of residents, visitors, and trades people. The requirement to make an appropriate wildlife mitigation through the Bird Aware initiative is a valid requirement and should be addressed through the current proposal.
Conclusion
6.21 The site lies within the AONB, the development area of the site lies just within in the settlement policy area for Hermitage, though the remaining designated garden area of the site would lie within the countryside and outside the built-up area boundary of the settlement.
6.22 The size, scale and positioning of the proposal would have a limited visual impact on the character and appearance of the site and immediate surroundings and would have a similar minor impact on the character of the surrounding AONB. The proposed residential use of the site would not change in planning terms from the current domestic curtilage of no.106 Main Road.
6.23 Given its setting, the proposal is not considered to be unduly prominent to be detrimental to the character or the appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
6.24 Subject to compliance with the findings of the submitted Ecology Report the proposal is unlikely to have any significant impact or effect in relation to wildlife conservation and protection within the AONB.
98
CDC LPA webpage for application details: - https://publicaccess.chichester.gov.uk/online‐ applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=Q98VOPERIH800
CHC Planning Committee Process DR - For 13.07.2020 CHC Planning Committee (meeting via internet) Site viewed 19-06-2020 LPA request reply 2 July 2020 extension of time has been sought LPA Planning Case Officer : Calum Thomas Chichester Harbour AONB : David Rothery – Principal Planning Officer
This recommendation is made having regard to the Policy framework: - Chichester Harbour Landscape Character Assessment (2005) - Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan (2019-2024) - Chichester Harbour AONB Planning Principles (Conservancy adopted 17.10.16 and Management Plan version April 2019) - Chichester Harbour AONB Joint SPD (2017) - National Planning Policy Framework – (July 2018) - National Planning Practice Guidance – (March 2014) - Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies (2015) - Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan (‘made’ 2015) - Parking standards (2007)
Visit our webpage – www.conservancy.co.uk/page/planning One of the UK’s National Landscapes
99 100 101 102 103 104 Officer Delegated Report – 18 May to 9 July 2020
Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered 18/05/2020 APP/20/00274 HBC 30 KING STREET, ALTERATIONS TO LISTED DWELLING No Objection EMSWORTH, PO10 7AZ INCLUDING THE RELOCATION OF THE Suggested considerations – EXISTING ENTRANCE - schedule/samples of materials to be FROM KING STREET AND THE REPLACING agreed prior to construction / as indicated THE EXISTING CONSERVATORY WITH A on application forms / to match the existing SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION; 400MM on site HIGH TRELLIS ALONG TOP OF THE - any and all roof lights / skylights / ridge- BOUNDARY WALL (PART SOUTHERN AND lights / roof lantern should be fitted with WESTERN BOUNDARY AS SHOWN). working internal screen blinds to reduce light spillage during evenings and night- times (dark skies policies) in order to minimise and reduce the amount of light illumination emitted both to the surrounding skyline and to the vertical, skyward, aspect of the new window openings. - the glazed fenestration should employ tinted glass panels, and these should be fitted with working internal screen blinds to reduce light spillage during evenings and night-times (dark skies policies) in order to minimise and reduce the amount of light illumination emitted both to the surrounding skyline and to the visual horizontal aspect of the new window openings. 18/05/2020 APP/20/00311 HBC 10 QUEEN STREET, SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION, No Objection EMSWORTH, PO10 7BL REVISED GARDEN TERRACE AND Suggested considerations:
105 Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered INCREASE IN HEIGHT TO - schedule/samples of materials to be SOUTH-WESTERN AND NORTH-WESTERN agreed prior to construction / as indicated GARDEN WALLS. on application forms / to match the existing on site - any and all roof lights / skylights / ridge- lights / roof lantern should be fitted with working internal screen blinds to reduce light spillage during evenings and night- times (dark skies policies) in order to minimise and reduce the amount of light illumination emitted both to the surrounding skyline and to the vertical, skyward, aspect of the new window openings. - the glazed fenestration should employ tinted glass panels, and these should be fitted with working internal screen blinds to reduce light spillage during evenings and night-times (dark skies policies) in order to minimise and reduce the amount of light illumination emitted both to the surrounding skyline and to the visual horizontal aspect of the new window openings. 18/05/2020 APP/20/00241 HBC SAXTED HOUSE 5 TOWER (LAND ADJACENT TO SAXTED HOUSE) Objection STREET EMSWORTH PO10 CONSTRUCTION OF 1NO. 5 BED 1. AONB Size and Scale Assessment Criteria 7BH DETACHED DWELLING AND DETACHED The proposal would be contrary to the GARAGE. (ALTERNATIVE DESIGN FOR ONE provisions of Chichester Harbour AONB OF TWO DWELLINGS GRANTED Planning Principles because the scale of the PLANNING CONSENT IN 2003 (REF: proposed development represents a
106 Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered 03/53651/016) AND PARTIALLY building with a silhouette in excess of the IMPLEMENTED). 25% maximum when viewed from both the north/south and the east/west elevations and a footprint greater than 50% of that of the original host dwelling on the site. 2. Siting and Location The proposal introducing a structure with little sympathetic treatment to the prevailing local character of the harbour waterside settlement in this location would compromise the Special Qualities of the AONB (particularly the character of the picturesque harbourside settlements and the unspoilt character and unobtrusive beauty of the AONB) that exists along this part of the harbour coastal edge. 3. Design Impact – Lighting within the Dark Skies Policy Area The proposed structures visual design, with numerous large, clear, picture windows, and ground floor openings would impose a new structure with significant light intrusion on and close to the harbour coastline. 4. Lighting Impact to Wildlife Habitats The proposal would generate internal and external lighting illumination from the large picture windows at night all year round, therefore it fails to conserve or enhance the habitats and species which are favourable to the special qualities of the AONB.
107 Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered 5. Additional Recreational Disturbance An additional dwelling to that existing on the site would generate additional traffic journeys and create additional disturbance along the Chichester Harbour coastal edge within the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Diversity of Habitats 6. Wildlife Mitigation Contribution The site is located within the specified 5.6km 'zone of influence' of the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area - the net increase in independent residential development results in significant harm to those areas of nature conservation due to increased recreational disturbance. The absence to enter into a legal agreement or obligation to control and to secure sufficient mitigation against such an impact or provide for any contribution towards the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership Strategy with regards to development and disturbance of wild birds in Chichester and Langstone harbours Special Protection Areas is contrary to AONB Chichester Harbour Management Plan (2019-2024). 3: Diversity of Habitats and contravenes the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.
108 Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered The proposal would amount to a development which would be contrary to the provisions of The Chichester Harbour AONB principles and policies. 2: Overarching Principle, Part 8: Landscape, Part 11: Scale and Massing, Part 18: Windows and glazing, Part 19: Reducing the impact of windows, Part 30: Dark Skies, and Part 35: Lower Coastal Plain – Emsworth Historic Core with reference to infill development, conserving the historic character of the town, responding to settlement pattern landscape setting and locally distinctive building style within the town, and to reflect the historic character typical of the area. 18/05/2020 SB/20/00840/DOM CDC WESTON LODGE, MAIN RAISE THE PRINCIPLE ROOF AND INSTALL Holding objection - status of submitted ROAD, NUTBOURNE, 4 NO. ROOFLIGHTS TO THE NORTH documents PO18 8XA ELEVATION, 2 NO. ROOFLIGHTS TO THE The submitted application is subject to WEST ELEVATION AND INSERT FRENCH errors and inaccuracies which make the DOORS AND A JULIET BALCONY TO THE submission contradictory in parts and EAST ELEVATION IN ORDER TO therefore unable to be considered other FACILITATE THE USE OF THE ROOFSPACE than by way of objection until such errors AS HABITABLE ACCOMMODATION. and inaccuracies have been fully and correctly addressed. The following points have been identified and should be specifically corrected: - the north-south and the east-west annotation of the plans are wrongly indicated and should be reversed
109 Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered - the submitted plans indicate three roof lights to the southern roof slope but the elevation drawing of the southern face of the building (wrongly labelled as north) indicate four roof lights - the submitted plans indicate a new doorway to the southern elevation but the elevation drawing of the southern face of the building (wrongly labelled as north) indicate an existing window - the submitted plans indicate an existing doorway and side windows to the eastern elevation but the elevation drawing of the eastern face of the building (wrongly labelled as west) indicate a new doorway and a separate horizontal orientated window - the submitted red-line and blue-line application location plan / site plan / block plan indicates the red-line site tight to the residential plot northern boundary with the access track and the verge to the north of the track within the blue-line and therefore the ownership and/or control of the applicant. A check with earlier planning submissions indicate that the blue-line land ownership excludes the access track north of the building and the verge to the opposite side of the track (see applications
110 Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered SB/13/03037/FUL and SB/13/01675/FUL) Other inaccuracies may also be found but have not been identified at the time of preparation of this assessment. Until the plans and drawings and any supporting documentation have been correctly amended, the proposal is not considered in a suitable state for anything but a refusal. Correcting the errors and inaccuracies would lead to a reassessment of the proposal based on any such amended documentation. Additional comment The site lies within the rural countryside area within the AONB and adjacent designated areas – RAMSAR, SAC, SINC, SPA, SSSI. 26/05/2020 BO/20/01105/DOM CDC 2 CHEQUERS COTTAGES, SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND REAR No objection. Suggested considerations: CHEQUER LANE, EXTENSION - schedule/samples of materials to be BOSHAM, PO18 8EJ agreed prior to construction / as indicated on application forms / to match the existing on site - the glazed fenestration should employ tinted glass panels, and these should be fitted with working internal screen blinds to reduce light spillage during evenings and night-times (dark skies policies) - any and all roof lights/ skylights / ridge- light on the building should be fitted with working internal screen blinds to reduce
111 Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered light spillage during evenings and night- times (dark skies policies) 30/05/2020 WI/20/01012/DOM CDC WHEELHOUSE, SPINNEY PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL AND Objection: excessive massing and bulk at LANE, ITCHENOR, PO20 RAISED DECK IN CONNECTION WITH THE northern end, visible from the Harbour 7DJ RESIDENTIAL DWELLING WHEELHOUSE. not considered appropriate, given the relative width of the proposed swimming pool. 03/06/2020 BI/20/00981/FUL CDC FARNE HOUSE, COURT SWIMMING POOL AND PLANT ROOM IN No objection subject to no external lighting BARN ROAD, BIRDHAM, CONNECTION WITH THE RESIDENTIAL being installed within or immediately CHICHESTER, WEST DWELLING FARNE HOUSE outside the pool and the retaining wall SUSSEX, PO20 7BQ structure being faced with flint as set out on the application form 03/06/2020 AP/20/01075/DOM CDC HONEYSUCKLE COTTAGE, PROPOSED SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND No objection, if the council negotiates 109 DELL QUAY ROAD, REAR EXTENSION AND CONSTRUCTION deletion of the rooflights shown to the side DELL QUAY, APULDRAM, OF WORKSHOP/GARAGE AND extension, is satisfied no part of any PO20 7EE SUMMERHOUSE. building being demolished is being used as a bat roost, subject to – • The buildings annotated as being removed, being removed before first use of the new habitable accommodation and all resultant materials removed from the site; • That no trade or business be instigated in any of the new floorspace consented; and, • That full sample details of external facing and roofing materials be agreed and then used to implement the development before the development commences
112 Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered 08/06/2020 SB/20/01063/DOM CDC 1 THORNEY ROAD, REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING GARDEN Recommendation – Objection: hardening of SOUTHBOURNE, PO10 CABIN IN REAR GARDEN WITH A FIXED southern boundary, likely to cause 8BL OUTBUILDING, WITH DOOR ACCESS TO complete removal of an established hedge SIDE OF PROPERTY AND ACCESS FROM which contributes to the natural GARDEN. environment of this part of the AONB. Proposal harmful to the character of the AONB landscape. 08/06/2020 BO/20/01094/DOM CDC ORCHARD HOUSE, SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION No objection WALTON LANE, BOSHAM, Suggested considerations: CHICHESTER, WEST - schedule/samples of materials to be SUSSEX PO18 8QB agreed prior to construction / as indicated on application forms / to match the existing on site - the glazed fenestration should employ tinted glass panels, and these should be fitted with working internal screen blinds to reduce light spillage during evenings and night-times (dark skies policies) - any and all roof lights/ skylights / ridge- lights on the building should be fitted with working internal screen blinds to reduce light spillage during evenings and night- times (dark skies policies) 15/06/2020 APP/20/00380 HBC 1 SALTERNS CLOSE, PROPOSED FRONT AND SIDE EXTENSIONS No objection HAYLING ISLAND, TO EXISTING GARAGE Suggested considerations: HAMPSHIRE, PO11 9PL - schedule/samples of materials to be agreed prior to construction / as indicated on application forms / to match the existing on site - the garage / storage building shall remain
113 Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered ancillary to the host dwelling on the site and shall not be separated from the host property, sold, let or occupied as a separate independent dwelling unit or for tourist accommodation thereby generating the requirement for an additional replacement garage / storage building 16/06/2020 CH/20/01232/DOM CDC CANIGOU, COT LANE, SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION AND No objection CHIDHAM, CHICHESTER, INTERNAL ALTERATIONS. Suggested considerations: WEST SUSSEX. PO18 8SP - schedule/samples of materials to be agreed prior to construction / as indicated on application forms / to match the existing on site - the glazed fenestration should employ tinted glass panels, and these should be fitted with working internal screen blinds to reduce light spillage during evenings and night-times (dark skies policies) - any and all roof lights/ skylights / ridge- lights on the building should be fitted with working internal screen blinds to reduce light spillage during evenings and night- times (dark skies policies) 22/06/2020 BO/20/01252/DOM CDC HOPE COTTAGE, SINGLE STOREY INFILL TO COURTYARD No objection SUNNYWAY, BOSHAM AND EXTENSION TO KITCHEN. DORMER Suggested considerations: PO18 8HQ EXTENSION. - schedule/samples of materials to be agreed prior to construction / as indicated on application forms / to match the existing on site - the glazed fenestration should employ
114 Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered tinted glass panels, and these should be fitted with working internal screen blinds to reduce light spillage during evenings and night-times (dark skies policies) - any and all roof lights/ skylights / ridge- lights on the building should be fitted with working internal screen blinds to reduce light spillage during evenings and night- times (dark skies policies) 29/06/2020 BI/20/01237/DOM CDC MERRIEWEATHER, 18 3 NO. TWO STOREY EXTENSIONS AND 1 Objection. GREENACRES, BIRDHAM, NO. SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO THE The proposal represents an overly large and PO20 7HL EAST ELEVATION, AND ASSOCIATED imposing redesign to this already large WORKS. property located on the coastline of the Chichester Harbour with an open view from the harbour. The proposal with repetitive profile gives an appearance of a row of mews properties rather than a single dwelling house, and the design includes glazing (including to balcony balustrades) that is out-of-proportion with the character of properties within this residential enclave with open aspect to the harbour waterside coastal frontage. The proposal therefore considered to be unduly prominent be detrimental to the character of the AONB. Prominent Impact in the AONB The proposed extension to the western side will increase the profile and visual impact and appearance of the dwelling, being elevated and closer to the public footpath
115 Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered linking Greenacres to the coastal footpath that runs to the north of the application site, reducing the buildings set back from this curtilage line and making the building more prominent when seen from neighbouring land and public locations along this footpath route and the open water coastal frontage. The proposal therefore considered to be unduly prominent and to be detrimental to the character of the AONB. AONB Size and Scale Assessment Criteria The proposal for extensions to the dwelling would be contrary to the provisions of Chichester Harbour AONB Planning Principles in that the scale of the proposed extension when compared to the original dwelling represents a building with a footprint greater than 50% of that of the original. 29/06/2020 APP/20/00286 HBC 37 EASTOKE AVENUE, SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION, FIRST Objection: unsympathetic extension to host HAYLING ISLAND, PO11 FLOOR REAR DORMER TO INCLUDE dwelling, with too much glazing facing 9QW BALCONY, EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO Chichester Harbour, contrary to Policies FRONT ELEVATION AND DEMOLITION OF CS12 and CS16 of the Development Plan EXISTING REAR GARAGE AND and the Joint CHAONB SPD. OUTBUILDING. 30/06/2020 SB/20/01089/FUL CDC STABLES NORTH OF CHANGE OF USE OF A VACANT STABLES, Holding objection, which may be removed THORNHAM FARM BARN AND MACHINERY STORE TO subject to the Environment Agency and HOUSE, PRINSTEAD LANE, EQUESTRIAN BASED TOURIST Council’s Coast Protection & Land Drainage ACCOMMODATION ASSOCIATED Officer withdrawing their written
116 Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered PRINSTEAD, EMSWORTH, CONVERSION AND ALTERATIONS AND objections, with clarifications being HAMPSHIRE CONSTRUCTION OF BUND submitted by the applicant relating to – • A Flood Risk Assessment which makes clear how people/horses/any object could pass through the intended bund, takes account of climate change and indicates provision of a safe escape route during a flood event or other strategy, which would not place unnecessary burden on the emergency services; • Demonstrating nitrogen neutrality and in particular how horse droppings/manure is to stored/disposed of, so as not to create any public nuisance and ensure nitrate surface run-off does not drain into Chichester Harbour; • Indicates what provision is to be made for any external lighting to be used (not PIR as this can accidentally be triggered by wildlife, but preferably an automatic timer, sensitive to British summer time); • Employing some form of (buried) attenuation tank to mitigate the effect heavy rainfall events, rather than rely upon a pump, which may malfunction; and, • A written business-plan demonstrating the use to be a viable proposition. If those matters could be addressed, subject to the developer contribution towards management of increased recreational
117 Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered disturbance based upon the proposed number of bedrooms, planning conditions relating to – • Full implementation of the bund before first occupation of either tourism let; • Planting of the outside of the bund before first occupation or in the next available planting season , with maintenance and replacement planting if any fails within the first five years of being planted; • Agreement of new facing materials; • Tourism lets to not be occupied for more than 50 weeks of any calendar year and a register be kept for inspection by the local planning authority to confirm this limit is not being exceeded; and, • Neither tourism let to be occupied as a primary place of residence are suggested. 30/06/2020 SB/20/01253/FUL CDC MARINA FARM, THORNEY REDEVELOPMENT OF PREVIOUSLY Recommendation – Objection: ROAD, SOUTHBOURNE, DEVELOPED LAND. REMOVAL OF • unsustainable development, outside EMSWORTH, PO10 8BZ EXISTING 5 NO. BUILDINGS. PROPOSED 1 defined settlement boundary for NO. DWELLING. Southbourne Parish; • Non-compliant with Government (and Council pre-application) advice with regard to flood risk; • Unsympathetic design and facing materials; • Unclear as to whether public footpaths through the site would be maintained and unobstructed;
118 Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered • Unclear as to extent of residential curtilage. 01/07/2020 SB/20/01268/DOM CDC LYNDHURST, MAIN ROAD, DEMOLITION OF EXISTING EXTENSIONS Objection. NUTBOURNE, PO18 8RT AND CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE STOREY The proposal represents an unsympathetic EXTENSION TO REAR AND SIDE. EXISTING visual roof alteration / addition and HABITABLE ATTIC TO BE EXTENDED – redesign of the roof profile to this semi- CHANGE OF HIPPED ROOF TO A GABLED detached dwelling house located adjacent ROOF. NEW PORCH to open countryside with medium and long distance views to and from the proposed works. The proposal would result in an unbalanced and unsymmetrical profile to these semi-detached dwellings from the street scene and from longer distance views. The visual impact of the change in the roof from a full hipped detail to a gable end detail is more pronounced as the semi- detached dwellings this roof alteration effects are within only a very small residential enclave with each dwelling consequently being more significant to the whole than in a more built-up locality. The proposal therefore considered to be unduly prominent be detrimental to the character of the AONB. It is noted that the applicant’s agent has made no reference the application proposal within its context and setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in the submitted documents for the proposal. There is no recognition made to the AONB
119 Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered planning policy documents relevant to the consideration of the proposal. 01/07/2020 BO/20/01297/DOM CDC LITTLE BECK, BROOK ERECTION OF TWO STOREY SIDE No objection AVENUE, BOSHAM, PO18 EXTENSION AND LOFT CONVERSION Suggested considerations – 8LQ WITH FRONT AND REAR DORMER - schedule/samples of materials to be agreed prior to construction / as indicated on application forms / to match the existing on site. - the glazed fenestration should employ tinted glass panels, and these should be fitted with working internal screen blinds to reduce light spillage during evenings and night-times (dark skies policies) in order to minimise and reduce the amount of light illumination emitted both to the surrounding skyline and to the visual horizontal aspect of the new window openings. 06/07/2020 WI/20/01298/DOM CDC SUMMERWOOD SPINNEY ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY SIDE No objection LANE ITCHENOR EXTENSION, REPLACEMENT GARAGE AND Suggested considerations – CHICHESTER WEST ASSOCIATED WORKS. - schedule/samples of materials to be SUSSEX PO20 7DJ agreed prior to construction / as indicated on application forms / to match the existing on site. - the glazed fenestration should employ tinted glass panels, and these should be fitted with working internal screen blinds to reduce light spillage during evenings and night-times (dark skies policies) in order to minimise and reduce the amount of light
120 Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered illumination emitted both to the surrounding skyline and to the visual horizontal aspect of the new window openings. - a suitable condition to ensure that the proposed detached garage is used for parking / home office and therefore remains ancillary to the host dwelling and is not sold, let or occupied as a separate dwelling or used for tourism accommodation or similar purposed un- associated with the occupation of the main residential unit. 06/07/2020 BI/20/01223/DOC CDC BROOMER FARM LOCK DISCHARGE OF CONDITION 3 FROM No objection LANE BIRDHAM PLANNING PERMISSION 19/02122/FUL. CHICHESTER WEST SUSSEX PO20 7AX 07/07/2020 APP/20/00444 HBC 33 MAISEMORE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE No objection GARDENS, EMSWORTH, STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AND ERECTION Suggested considerations – PO10 7JX OF TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION. - schedule/samples of materials to be agreed prior to construction / as indicated on application forms / to match the existing on site. - the glazed fenestration should employ tinted glass panels, and these should be fitted with working internal screen blinds to reduce light spillage during evenings and night-times (dark skies policies) in order to minimise and reduce the amount of light illumination emitted both to the
121 Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered surrounding skyline and to the visual horizontal aspect of the new window openings. - a suitable condition to ensure that the proposed extension is used and therefore remains ancillary to the host dwelling and is not sold, let or occupied as a separate dwelling or used for tourism accommodation or similar purposed un- associated with the occupation of the main residential unit. The proposal facilitates ancillary accommodation (a granny annex) to the host dwelling with the extension providing a one-bedroom self-contained annex with a separate doorway entrance, kitchen area and bathing area to the main retained dwelling house. The possibility of the proposal being used to enable tourism accommodation, or separation as an independent dwelling unit, separate from the host dwelling. Such changes of activity in the use would require separate and specific planning permission. Some of these uses would not be in accordance with the character of the area and the planning approach taken by the Chichester Harbour Conservancy. For this reason, a favourable outcome to the proposal should be controlled by planning restrictions for
122 Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered alternative uses for clarity and to avoid any future misinterpretation of the planning status of the structure. 08/07/2020 BI/20/01482/DOM CDC TIDES REACH, 30 PROPOSED KITCHEN EXTENSION. No objection. Suggested considerations – GREENACRES, BIRDHAM, - schedule/samples of materials to be CHICHESTER, WEST agreed prior to construction / as indicated SUSSEX, PO20 7HL on application forms / to match the existing on site. - the glazed fenestration should employ tinted glass panels, and these should be fitted with working internal screen blinds to reduce light spillage during evenings and night-times (dark skies policies) in order to minimise and reduce the amount of light illumination emitted both to the surrounding skyline and to the visual horizontal aspect of the new window openings. - any and all roof lights / skylights / ridge- lights / roof lantern should be fitted with working internal screen blinds to reduce light spillage during evenings and night- times (dark skies policies) in order to minimise and reduce the amount of light illumination emitted both to the surrounding skyline and to the vertical, skyward, aspect of the new window openings. 08/07/2020 APP/20/00476 HBC LAND ADJ 23 ST CROWN LIFT 1NO.OAK (T1 ON PLAN) TO No objection BENEDICT ROAD, 4M AND REDUCE NORTH WEST LIMB Suggested considerations –
123 Date Application No L/A Site Application Details Recommendation Considered HAYLING ISLAND, PO11 (OVERHANGING REAR GARDEN OF 23 ST - no works should be carried out during the 9FN BENEDICT ROAD) BY UP TO 3M LEAVING bird nesting season (April to September) or A FINISHED WIDTH OF APPROX 7M. if there is evidence of bat roosting SUBJECT TO TPO 1924. (hibernation or maternity roosts) 08/07/2020 BI/20/01289/DOM CDC WADERS, WESTLANDS EXTENSIONS, ALTERATIONS AND No objection ESTATE, BIRDHAM, PO20 REFURBISHMENT TO EXISTING HOUSE. Suggested considerations – 7HJ NEW GARAGE. - schedule/samples of materials to be agreed prior to construction / as indicated on application forms / to match the existing on site. - the glazed fenestration should employ tinted glass panels, and these should be fitted with working internal screen blinds to reduce light spillage during evenings and night-times (dark skies policies) in order to minimise and reduce the amount of light illumination emitted both to the surrounding skyline and to the visual horizontal aspect of the new window openings. - any and all roof lights / skylights / ridge- lights / roof lantern should be fitted with working internal screen blinds to reduce light spillage during evenings and night- times (dark skies policies) in order to minimise and reduce the amount of light illumination emitted both to the surrounding skyline and to the vertical, skyward, aspect of the new window openings.
124
125