Park North, North Street, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1RL Tel: (01403) 215100 (calls may be recorded) Fax: (01403) 262985 DX 57609 HORSHAM 6 www.horsham.gov.uk
Chief Executive - Tom Crowley
Personal callers and deliveries: please come to Park North
E-Mail: [email protected] Direct Line: 01403 215465
Development Control (North) Committee TUESDAY 2ND AUGUST 2011 AT 5.30p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM
Councillors: Liz Kitchen (Chairman) Roy Cornell (Vice-Chairman) John Bailey Ian Howard Andrew Baldwin David Jenkins Peter Burgess Christian Mitchell John Chidlow Josh Murphy Christine Costin Godfrey Newman Helena Croft Robert Nye Leonard Crosbie Jim Rae Malcolm Curnock David Sheldon Laurence Deakins David Skipp Duncan England Simon Torn Frances Haigh Claire Vickers David Holmes Tricia Youtan
You are summoned to the meeting to transact the following business
Tom Crowley Chief Executive
AGENDA 1. Apologies for absence
2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 5th July 2011 (attached)
3. To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee – any clarification on whether a Member has an interest should be sought before attending the meeting.
4. To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee or the Chief Executive
Paper certified as sustainable by an independent global forest certification organisation
5. To consider the reports of the following officers and to take such action thereon as may be necessary
Head of Planning & Environmental Services Appeals Decisions on Lawful Development Certificates Applications for determination by Committee – Appendix A
Item Ward Reference Site No. Number
A1 Nuthurst DC/10/2592 GHYLL HOUSE FARM, BROADWATER LANE, COPSALE
A2 Southwater DC/11/1131 OAKHURST BUSINESS PARK, WILBERFORCE WAY
A3 Itchingfield, DC/11/0950 COACH PARK ADJACENT TO KINGSCOTE, DORKING ROAD, Slinfold & WARNHAM Warnham
A4 Rudgwick DC/11/0543 SAXES PLAT, TISMANS COMMON, RUDGWICK
A5 Itchingfield, DC/11/0397 BRIDGE HOUSE RIDING STABLES, FIVE OAKS ROAD, Slinfold & SLINFOLD Warnham
A6 Holbrook East DC/11/1068 32 SLOUGHBROOK CLOSE, HORSHAM
A7 Denne DC/11/1070 3 STANS WAY, EAST STREET, HORSHAM
NOTE: (a) Those items which are headed DELEGATION in the recommendation are seeking authority for the application to be decided by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services. The Committee is not being asked to decide the application as it is unable to do so at this meeting.
(b) The suggested conditions and reasons for refusal may alter from those set out in the agenda.
(c) Applications relating to sites in two or more parishes are shown under the first Parish in alphabetical order.
6. Items not on the agenda which the Chairman of the meeting is of the opinion should be considered as urgent because of the special circumstances.
DCN110705
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 5TH JULY 2011
Present: Councillors: Liz Kitchen (Chairman), Roy Cornell (Vice- Chairman), John Bailey, Andrew Baldwin, Peter Burgess, John Chidlow, Christine Costin, Helena Croft, Leonard Crosbie, Malcolm Curnock, Laurence Deakins, Duncan England, Frances Haigh, Ian Howard, David Jenkins, , Christian Mitchell, Josh Murphy, Godfrey Newman, Jim Rae, David Sheldon, David Skipp, Claire Vickers.
Apologies: Councillors: David Holmes, Robert Nye, Simon Torn, Tricia Youtan
DCN/18 MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 7th June 2011 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
DCN/19 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS
Member Item Nature of Interest
Councillor Malcolm DC/11/0224 Personal – recreational user of the Curnock land in question Councillor David DC/11/0224 Personal – he is a member of West Sheldon and Sussex County Council DC/11/0619 Councillor Peter DC/11/0673 Personal – he is a member of the Burgess Parish Council
DCN/20 ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.
DCN/21 APPEALS
Notice concerning the following appeals had been received:
Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service
Ref No Site Appellant(s)
DC/11/0398 6 Rowan Way, Horsham Mr Timothy Jenner
Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/21 Appeals (cont.) Appeals Lodged - Written Representations/Household Appeals Service (cont.)
DC/10/2637 Baldhorns Park Farm, Wimland Mrs A Armour Road, Rusper DC/11/0485 Ashton Grange Nursing Home, 3 Mr and Mrs Richmond Road, Horsham Ragunathan EN/2/2011 Stonehouse Farm, Hammerpond Mr G Cooper Road, Plummers Plain EN/3/2011 Stonehouse Farm, Hammerpond Mr G Cooper Road, Plummers Plain EN/4/2011 Stonehouse Farm, Hammerpond Mr G Cooper Road, Plummers Plain
Public Inquiry:
Ref No Site Appellant(s) Decision
EN/6/2010 Waterland Chalet, Mr M De La Dismissed Guildford Road, Slinfold Pole
Appeal Decisions:
Ref No Site Appellant(s) Decision
DC/10/2694 63 Greenway, Horsham Mr and Mrs K R Dismissed Moden (Delegated) DC/10/2440 3 Finians Field, Barns Mr R Cherriman Allowed Green, Horsham (Delegated)
DCN/22 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0224 - OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 2.8 HECTARES WITH UP TO 70 DWELLINGS (40% AS AFFORDABLE HOMES), ASSOCIATED OPEN SPACE, STRATEGIC LANDSCAPING AND ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS AND THE USE OF 1.5 HECTARES OF LAND WITHIN THE SITE AS NEW PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND WOODLAND PLANTING SITE: LAND SOUTH OF ATHELSTAN WAY, HORSHAM APPLICANT: WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (Councillor Malcolm Curnock declared a personal interest in this application as he was recreational user of the land in question. Councillor David Sheldon declared a personal interest in this application as he was a member of West Sussex County Council)
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that the applicant had submitted an appeal in respect of the non-determination of this
2 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/22 Planning Application: DC/11/0224 (cont.)
application. As an appeal had been lodged, the application which would now be determined by the Planning Inspector. However, it was necessary for the Committee to consider the proposal and if appropriate to agree the grounds on which the appeal would be contested.
Government policies PPS1, PPS3, PPG13, PPG17 and PPS25; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, C12, CP13, CP14 and CP19; and General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC18, DC22 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application. Also relevant to the determination of this application were the Local Development Framework: Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document May 2009; the Local Development Framework: Horsham Town Design Statement Supplementary Planning Document December 2008 and South East Plan 2009 Policies: SP1,SP3, CC1, CC2, CC4, CC6, CC9, H1, H2, H3, H5, NMM4, NRM5, C5, GAT1 and GAT3.
The outline application sought to establish the principle of developing the site owned by West Sussex County Council, with residential development of up to 70 dwellings and public open space. Matters for consideration under this outline application comprised the principle of the development and the access. The appearance of the buildings, landscaping, layout of the site and scale would be dealt with as subsequent reserved matters.
The site had a total area of 4.3 hectares and an indicative layout had been submitted with the application showing 2.8 hectares being developed for residential development of up to 70 dwellings, of which 40% were to be provided as affordable homes, and the remaining 1.5 hectares of land shown as new public open space and woodland planting. Access was to be taken off the end of Athelstan Way. A strategic landscaping plan had been submitted.
The application also included an indicative layout and indicative street scene elevations. A Design and Access Statement had been submitted together with an environmental statement, a landscape character and visual assessment report, a sustainability report, foul drainage/surface water report, a housing land supply assessment, a draft s106 agreement and list of draft conditions.
The County Council had originally acquired the site with vehicular access rights from Athelstan Way for the provision of a new School but, following improvements to existing schools to increase pupil capacity elsewhere in Horsham, the land was no longer required to meet current or future educational needs in the District.
3 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/22 Planning Application: DC/11/0224 (cont.)
The application site was located at the end of Athelstan Way, outside the built-up area and within the Horsham/Southwater Strategic Gap.
In 1973, planning permission had been granted for the erection of a middle school and playing field HU/132/73.
Land at Athelstan Way had been included as a Greenfield site for potential housing allocation in the deposit draft of the Horsham District Local Plan in 1996. However, following the Examination in Public into the various proposals, the Inspector’s Report published in December 1996 recommended that the proposed allocation at Athelstan Way be deleted.
Strategic Community Planning and the Landscape Architect objected to the proposals. The comments of the Arboricultural Officer; the Estates Management and Valuation Section; Leisure Services – Parks and Countryside; the Housing Strategy & Development Manager; Public Health and Licensing; the Engineering Section; the Environment Agency; Southern Water; the Sussex Police Crime Prevention Design Adviser; West Sussex County Council were noted. The Neighbourhood Council strongly objected to the application.
Two hundred and fifty eight letters of objection and one letter of support had been received. A member of the Parish Council and two members of the public spoke in objection to the application.
The main issues in the consideration of this application were the principle of the development, its effect on the landscape, rural character and visual amenities of the area, including the impact on the Horsham/Southwater Strategic Gap; the amenities of neighbouring and future occupiers; highway safety, access and parking; existing trees and vegetation; flooding and drainage issues and development contributions.
It was considered that the proposal for 70 dwellings and provision of open space would have a significant adverse impact on the character of this part of the countryside which was located within the Strategic Gap and would be detrimental to the landscape character of the locality. Whilst the current position with regard to housing supply was acknowledged, it was considered that the harm identified by the development to the Strategic Gap and the landscape setting of the site and rural character of this site outweighed the benefits to housing provision arising from the scheme. As such the proposal did not comply with the Core Strategy and General Development Control Policies in the Local Development Framework or the criteria set out in the Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document or the Horsham Town Design Statement Supplementary Planning Document. The site was therefore considered to be inappropriate and unacceptable for the residential development proposed.
4 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/22 Planning Application: DC/11/0224 (cont.)
RESOLVED
That the appeal be contested and that, had the Committee been in a position to determine the application, it would have been refused for the following reasons:
01 The development by virtue of its location and siting would be unduly prominent and adversely affect the visual character of the area which is located within the Horsham/Southwater Strategic Gap. It is also considered that the proposal would not complement the landscape and townscape character of the area. The application site is located outside the built-up area as defined in the Horsham District Local Development Framework and there is a strong presumption against additional residential development and there are no overriding reasons to justify the harm the development would cause or to justify a departure from Development Plan policies. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies CP1, CP3 and CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007; Policies DC1, DC2, DC3 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies 2007 and guidance contained with the Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework and the Horsham Town Design Statement Supplementary Planning Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework. It also conflicts with the guidance given in PPS1 and PPS3.
02 The proposed development has no mechanism for the provision and tenure of affordable housing and makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to transport infrastructure, education provision, fire and rescue services and community facilities and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local
5 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/22 Planning Application: DC/11/0224 (cont.)
Development Framework :Core Strategy and the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document as it has not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.
DCN/23 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0857 - PROPOSED REVISIONS TO PLANNING APPROVAL DC/09/1923 (ERECTION OF 11 DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING - OUTLINE) AND DC/10/2664 (APPROVAL OF SCALE AND APPEARANCE - APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS), INVOLVING RE-POSITIONING OF DWELLINGS AND CHANGES TO ELEVATION APPEARANCE OF HOUSE SITE: LAND REAR OF TROLLSLUND AND THE REST, WORTHING ROAD, SOUTHWATER APPLICANT: CHURCHLANDS
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought approval for revisions to outline permission DC/09/1923 and Reserved Matters permission DC/10/2664 which had granted permission for the erection of 11 dwellings comprising 4x3 bed and 7x4 bed units. The outline approval had established the principle of the development together with approval of access arrangements and layout. The Reserved Matters application had approved the remaining issues of appearance, landscaping and scale. The proposed revisions included the re-positioning of the approved dwellings by reason of an increase in the site area, together with changes to the elevational appearance of plots 3, 4, 8, 10 and 11.
Government policies PPS1, PPS3, PPS7 and PPG13; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 and CP19; General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC8, DC9, DC18 and DC40 and Policies SP1, SP3, GAT1, CC1, CC2 and CC4 of the South East Plan were relevant to the determination of this application.
Relevant planning history, included: DC/09/1923 Erection of 11 dwellings with associated parking Granted (4x3 bed and 7x4 bed dwellings) and formation of new access point onto Worthing Road (Outline Planning Permission). DC/10/2664 Approval for scale and appearance of each Granted property together with landscaping (Approval of Reserved Matters associated with previous permission DC/09/1923).
6 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/23 Planning Application: DC/11/0857 (cont.)
Relevant planning history at an adjacent site, known as ‘Land Rear of Rossbank, Worthing Road’, included: DC/08/0892 Erection of 2 x semi-detached 3-bed chalet Refused. dwellings and 2 x 3-bed semi-detached houses Appeal with access road and garages and replacement lodged garage for Rossbank and withdrawn DC/09/0646 Erection of 2 detached dwellings (outline) Granted DC/10/0727 Erection of 2 x 4-bed detached dwelling Granted (Approval of Reserved Matters) DC/10/1397 Erection of a detached dwelling (4-bed) on land Refused to the rear of Rossbank DC/10/2087 Erection of a two-bedroom chalet bungalow on Refused land to the rear of Rossbank.
The comments of the Sussex Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor, West Sussex County Council and Southern Water were noted. The Parish Council raised no objection to the proposal and one letter of representation had been received.
The application site was situated on the western side of Worthing Road at the northern end of the settlement of Southwater. Whilst the site was located outside the built up area boundary of Southwater, the southern and eastern boundaries of the site were contiguous with the defined settlement of Southwater.
The main considerations in the assessment of the current application were the impact of the proposed increase in site area and the resulting reposition of the dwellings, on the amenities of nearby residential occupiers; impact of the change of elevational treatment of the dwellings on the character of the area; impact on existing parking and traffic conditions in the area together with sustainability and drainage issues.
The proposed mix of roof style and design detailing for the proposed dwellings was considered to be acceptable.
The landscaping details remained unchanged from the approved Reserved Matters application and was therefore considered appropriate.
The proposed revisions and relocation of dwellings were considered to be marginal and would not significantly alter the character of the development approved previously. Similarly, it was considered that the relocation of dwellings by virtue of the increase site area would not adversely affect the amenity of residents of nearby residential properties.
7 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/23 Planning Application: DC/11/0857 (cont.)
The parking provision details also remained unchanged from the recently approved Reserved Matters application.
A planning agreement to secure the payment of financial contributions toward infrastructure improvements and community facilities had been completed as part of outline permission DC/09/1923 and the monies received, therefore further financial contributions would not be required. However, a new planning agreement would be required to ensure that contributions are payable which ever scheme is implemented
RESOLVED
(i) That a planning agreement be entered into tying the financial contributions already received in relation to application DC/09/1923 to the current application (DC/11/0857). (ii) That, upon completion of the agreement in (i) above, application DC/11/0857 be determined by the Head of Planning and Environmental Services. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.
DCN/24 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0130 – ERECTION OF BUILDING FOR B1/B2 USES AND B8 STORAGE ONLY SITE: R J CASE AND CO LTD, BOGNOR ROAD, BROADBRIDGE HEATH, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR RICHARD CASE
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the erection of a ‘second hand’ commercial building comprising four units in total for B1 (light Industrial); B2 (General Industrial); and B8 (Storage and Distribution) uses, located in the north west corner of the established commercial yard associated with R J Case and Co Ltd. The proposed building would be 24.5 metres long x 18 metres wide and 8.2 metres high with an eaves height of 6.4 metres.
Government policies PPS1, PPS4, PPS7 and PPG13; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP10, CP11, CP15 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC9, DC19, DC25 and DC40; and Policies CC1, CC4, CC6, CC7, C4, BE1 and RE3 of the South East Plan were relevant to the determination of this application.
8 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/24 Planning Application: DC/11/0130 (cont.)
Additional information submitted by the applicant indicated that Unit 1 would be occupied by R J Case Contractors Ltd for lock up storage and workshop facilities. The additional three units would be occupied by existing local companies for spray painting commercial vehicles; storage of vehicles and equipment; and storage.
The current commercial yard was located within the countryside and comprised an established plant hire yard as well as the base for Rowhook garage and a storage facility for salvage vehicles on an area of land that was approximately 0.72 hectares in area. The site was located on the west side of Bognor Road (A29).
The existing commercial yard comprised a dwelling known as ‘Garden Cottage’ located in the southern corner of the site adjacent to the main access, a vehicle paint spray workshop located to the west of the dwelling, and two vehicle repair workshops adjacent to the south west boundary of the site. There was also an under-pinning contractors unit located adjacent to the northern boundary of the vehicle repair workshop. Land to the north- west corner of the yard was an open storage yard currently used in connection with the storage of vehicles for salvage vehicles.
Relevant planning history included: WN/47/69 An established use certificate for contractor’s Granted plant hire yard WN/46/92 The retention of transport, contractors Granted haulage and storage yard WN/8/99 The erection of 9 houses and garages and a Refused & garage for garden cottage. subsequent appeal dismissed WN/11/02 The extension of the workshop Granted WN/50/03 The retention of replacement workshop for Granted plant hire business
The concerns of Strategic Planning and the comments of the County Council were noted. The Parish Council raised no objection to the proposal. The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.
The main considerations in the determination of this application were considered to be the impact of the proposal on the rural character of the area; impact on amenity; impact on highway safety; infrastructure requirements; sustainability issues and the principle and justification of the proposal in the countryside.
9 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/24 Planning Application: DC/11/0130 (cont.)
It was considered that, in view of the distance of the proposal from the nearest residential properties and the limited views of the site from public vantage points, there would be no material impact in respect of visual amenity.
It was also considered that the proposed units would not result in any significant increase in vehicle movements or intensification of the use of the site access.
Whilst the site was located in the countryside, it had an extensive history of commercial activity and Members considered that the proposal would contribute to the wider rural economy by supporting local businesses.
It was also considered the proposal would result in some environmental improvements through the reduction of salvage vehicle storage on the site.
Members therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable in principle subject to the receipt of further information and it was proposed that the determination of the application be delegated to the Head of Planning & Environmental Services pending the receipt of further information.
RESOLVED
That application DC/11/0130 be determined by the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, in consultation with the Chairman and the local Members, following the receipt of further information including named users for the individual units; how the proposal would address the relevant policy criteria for the erection of new industrial buildings in the countryside; an appropriate mechanism to secure the reduction of salvage vehicle storage in accordance with the details submitted with the application; and the formulation of appropriate conditions. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.
10 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/25 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0673 – CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE STOREY END OF TERRACE BUNGALOW FACING PEARY CLOSE, USE OF PART OF EXISTING EXTENSION ON NORTHERN BOUNDARY AS PART OF NEW BUNGALOW SITE: 14 PEARY CLOSE, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR A MARSH (Councillor Peter Burgess declared a personal interest in this application as he was a member of the Parish Council)
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the erection of a single storey end of terrace bungalow facing Peary Close. The new dwelling would incorporate part of an existing extension on the northern boundary as part of the new bungalow.
This application site currently comprised an end of terrace single storey bungalow which fronted onto Peary Close with a single storey side extension, rear dormer window and a single garage building and concrete driveway to the north off North Heath Lane. An oak tree located on the corner of the of the north eastern boundary line, was the subject of a tree preservation order. The property was located within an identified category 1 settlement area, within the built up area boundaries of Horsham.
Government policies PPS1, PPS3 and PPG13; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP13 and CP19; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC6, DC8, DC9 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.
Relevant planning history included: NH/76/01 Single-Storey side Extension Granted DC/04/0773 Single-Storey Extension Granted DC/07/1093 Erection of 2-storey attached dwelling to Withdrawn provide a granny annexe DC/07/2268 Erection of 1 single storey 2-bed end of Withdrawn terrace dwelling with dormer window to provide living accommodation in the roof space facing North Heath Lane DC/08/0070 Erection of 1 end of terrace x 2-bed dwelling Withdrawn DC/08/1469 Demolish an extension and erection of an Refused and attached 3-bed dwelling. subsequent appeal dismissed DC/10/1646 Part demolition of an existing extension and Refused and build a new two-bed dwelling end of terrace subsequent facing North Heath Lane. appeal dismissed
11 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/25 Planning Application: DC/11/0673 (cont.)
The Public Health & Licensing Departments, the Arboriculture Officer and West Sussex County Council raised no objections to the proposal. Southern Water raised no objections subject to conditions. The Parish Council objected to this application and three letters of objection had been received. The applicant and a member of the public spoke in support of the application.
A previous application for a 2-bed dwelling facing North Heath Lane (DC/10/1646) had been refused and the subsequent appeal dismissed. Given the appeal decision, which was a material condition in respect of the current application, the main issues for consideration were the principle of development and its effects on the amenity and outlook of neighbouring occupiers, the impact on visual amenity, highway safety and the impact on trees.
Whilst Development Plan policies supported new residential development and the re-use of suitable previously developed land, provided that all other relevant policy criteria were met, the current scheme still raised a number of concerns regarding its impact on the residential amenity of adjacent properties.
The relationship and juxtaposition of the proposed development with the neighbouring properties adjoining the site would be such that the main bulk of the proposed dwelling would be at the mid point of the garden area of number 30 Primrose Copse with the ridge point of the gable end elevation along the northern elevation rising 3.2 metres above the 2 metre fence at the bottom of the garden.
Due to the close proximity and relationship of these properties, it was considered that the impact of this vertical elevation would result in an overbearing and detrimental visual impact that would result in a loss of outlook to the occupiers of the adjoining property, resulting in appreciable harm to their level of residential amenity.
Whilst it was recognised the current proposal sought to address concerns raised with regard to the previously refused scheme, Members considered that it was inappropriate in regard to its impact on adjoining properties in Primrose Copse.
RESOLVED
That application DC/11/0673 be refused for the following reasons:
01 Having regard to the layout of the proposal, the form, size, and footprint of the new dwelling and the relationship with the site boundaries and
12 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/25 Planning Application: DC/11/0673 (cont.)
nearby residential properties, it is considered the proposal represents an unsympathetic form of development which would result in a poor relationship with neighbouring residential properties by reason of overbearing impact and loss of outlook, thus the scheme as a whole is considered to represent an undesirable form of development which is considered contrary to policies CP1, CP3 and CP19 of the Horsham Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 and to policies DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies 2007
02 The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to transport infrastructure, libraries and fire service infrastructure, or community facilities comprising open space, sport and recreation, community centres and halls and local recycling and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Core Strategy (2007) of the Horsham District Local Development Framework’.
DCN/26 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0670 – SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO AND AN INCREASE IN THE HEIGHT OF THE ROOF OF THE EXISTING VEHICLE WORKSHOP AND USE OF THE PREMISES AS AN MOT TESTING STATION SITE: 3 VICTORY ROAD, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR TONY KNEALE
Application withdrawn.
DCN/27 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0742 – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING FIRE-DAMAGED CARPORT/CONSERVATORY AND CONSTRUCTION OF THREE-BEDROOM DWELLINGHOUSE TOGETHER WITH CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO NO. 28 WIMBLEHURST ROAD SITE: 28 WIMBLEHURST ROAD, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MRS HARRIS
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought the demolition of an existing fire-damaged garage together with an existing conservatory and the construction of a detached 3- bedroom dwellinghouse. The application also sought planning permission for the construction of a single storey extension to the main dwelling, 28 Wimblehurst Road. 13 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/27 Planning Application: DC/11/0742 (cont.)
The application site was situated on the southern side of Wimblehurst Road within the Horsham (Richmond Road) conservation area and the built-up area boundary of Horsham.
Government policies PPS1, PPS3 and PPS5; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC8, DC9, DC12 and DC40 and South East Plan Policies GAT2 and CC1 were relevant to the determination of this application.
Relevant planning history included: DC/04/2071 3-storey side extension on the Eastern side of Granted the existing 3-storey property to provide 1x2 bedroom and 1x3 bedroom flats and associated parking DC/09/0940 Demolition of existing car port and Refused conservatory, construction of 1 x 4-bed detached dwelling, construction of extension to existing building. DC/10/2417 Demolition of existing fire damaged Withdrawn carport/conservatory and construction of three-bedroomed dwelling house together with construction of single storey extension to number 28 Wimblehurst Road.
The comments of the Design and Conservation Adviser, the County Council and Southern Water were noted. Horsham Society and the Neighbourhood Council objected to the proposal. Eight letters of objection and three of support had been received. The applicant spoke in support of the application and three members of the public spoke in objection.
It was noted that a similar application for a new detached dwelling on this site had previously been refused (DC/09/0940). It was therefore necessary in assessing the current proposal to have regard to the previous reasons for refusal and to consider whether, on balance, the current proposal had adequately addressed these issues.
It was considered, on balance, that the current application had not adequately addressed previous concerns raised by Members relating to parking, size, footprint and scale of the proposed dwelling. It was also considered that the proposed dwelling would result in a significant loss of amenity to the occupiers of the adjacent property, 26 Wimblehurst Road. Members were also concerned that the development would have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area, particularly with regard to the extent of parking that would take place on the front of the site.
14 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/27 Planning Application: DC/11/0742 (cont.)
Members therefore considered that the application should be refused.
RESOLVED
That application DC/11/0742 be refused on the following grounds:
01 The proposed development by reason of the amount of parking to the front of the site together with the size, footprint and scale of the proposed dwelling would result in an overdevelopment of the site, both cumulatively and individually. Furthermore, the proposed dwelling by virtue of its design, siting and bulk would have an un- neighbourly impact on the occupiers of 26 Wimblehurst Road. Additionally, the level and form of parking to the front of the proposed dwelling would be detrimental to the character for the conservation area. The scheme would thus fail to sustain or enhance the character and appearance of the Horsham (Richmond Road) Conservation Area. Therefore, the proposed development is considered to be contrary in particular to policies DC9 and DC12 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) and policies CP1 and CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007).
DCN/28 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0899 – SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION SITE: 7 REAPERS CLOSE, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR ALFIE BUCK
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for a single storey rear extension which would extend beyond the rear wall of the dwellinghouse by 6 metres, measure 4.35 metres in width, with a ridge height of 3.4 metres. A distance of one metre would be maintained to the northern boundary and a distance of 2.9 metres would be maintained to the southern boundary.
The application site was located within the built up area of Horsham.
15 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/28 Planning Application: DC/11/0899 (cont.)
Government Policy PPS1; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP3; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC3 and DC9 and South East Plan Policies CC1 and CC4 were relevant to the determination of this application.
The Parish Council objected to the proposal, as originally submitted, and two letters of objection had been received from a neighbouring resident. One member of the public spoke in objection to the proposal.
The main issues in the determination of this application included the proposal’s impact on the character of the area and on the residential amenities of nearby occupiers.
Whilst the proposed extension would project six metres from the rear wall of the applicant’s dwelling, given the position and design of the neighbouring property to the north in relation to the application site, it would only project approximately 1.5 metres beyond the rear building line of number 8, limiting the overall impact of the proposal on this neighbouring property.
It was considered that the height of the proposed window in the northern elevation and the distance to the boundary would minimise any mutual overlooking or loss of privacy issues. The roof of the proposed extension would have a shallow pitch and, given the single storey nature and the boundary treatment, it was not considered that this would give rise to an overbearing impact.
It was therefore considered that the proposed development would not be overbearing to the main dwelling and that the impact on the amenities of the neighbours would be acceptable. Whilst the proposed single storey rear extension would not be visible from Reapers Close, it would be visible from North Heath Lane. However, it was considered that it would not have a negative impact on the character of the area or the visual amenities of the street scenes.
Members therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable.
RESOLVED
That application DC/11/0899 be granted subject to the following conditions:
01 A2 Full Permission 02 M4 Marching Materials – Walls and roofs
16 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/28 Planning Application: DC/11/0899 (cont.)
REASON
ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
DCN/29 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1049 - PROPOSED ERECTION OF A PORTACABIN, RETROSPECTIVE PERMISSION SOUGHT FOR ERECTION OF 2 NO. DUGOUTS AND A TEA HUT SITE: CHENNELLS BROOK FOOTBALL GROUND, BARTHOLOMEW WAY, HORSHAM APPLICANT: ROFFEY FOOTBALL CLUB
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the erection of a portacabin and retrospective permission for the erection of two dugouts and a tea hut.
The application site was located in Bartholomew Way within the built up area of Horsham, directly to the south of the A264. The pitch that related directly to the application was adjoined by the residential properties of Shottermill.
Government Policies PPS1 and PPG17; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP3; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC3, DC9 and DC22 were relevant to the determination of this application.
Relevant planning history included: NH/16/92 Erection of building for football changing Granted facilities NH/29/93 Single storey extension to existing clubhouse Granted NH/51/00 Use of clubroom for pre-school playgroup Granted
The main issues in the determination of this application were considered to be the impact of the proposal on the visual amenities and character of the locality and its impact on the amenities of adjacent occupiers.
The proposed portacabin would be sited to the east of the existing pavilion and would be 6.2 metres in length, 2.6 metres in width, with a height of 2.4 metres. The structure was required to accommodate match officials in order to meet the facility standards of the County League.
The dugouts had been constructed on the northern sideline of the eastern pitch, sitting either side of the half way line of the pitch. They had been constructed of breeze blocks on a concrete base with a timber felted roof and had been painted dark green. Each dug out measured 3.2 metres in width, 1.3 metres deep and 1.8 metres in height. 17 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/29 Planning Application: DC/11/1049 (cont.)
The tea hut was located in the north western corner of the pitch and had also been constructed of breeze blocks on a concrete base with a timber felted roof and had been painted dark green. The front elevation of the structure had a timber serving hatch. The tea hut was 3 metres wide, 3 metres deep and 2.5 metres high. A single pole barrier had also been erected around the perimeter of the pitch on both sidelines and the goal line to the west.
It was considered the proposed scheme would maintain the provision of sports facilities on the site and by reason of its size, scale and position would not cause material harm to the amenities of adjacent occupiers, adversely affect the visual amenities/character of the area or conflict with adopted policies.
RESOLVED
That application DC/11/1049 be determined by the Head of Planning and Environmental Services following the expiry of the consultation period on the 7th July 2011. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted for a temporary period of three years.
DCN/30 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0710 - CHANGE OF USE OF AN AGRICULTURAL BUILDING TO STORAGE OF FURNITURE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THOSE PERMITTED UNDER REFERENCE CG/3/00 SITE: FOREST HEIGHTS, SPRINGFIELD LANE, COLGATE APPLICANT: MR J VERBEETEN
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the change of use of an agricultural building to long term storage of furniture.
The application site was located outside any built-up area and within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site was surrounded on the south, west and north boundaries by ancient woodland.
Government Policies PPS1, PPS4, PPS7 and PPG13; Local Development Framework Core Strategy policies CP1, CP3, CP10, CP11, CP15 and CP19; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC4, DC9, DC23, DC24, DC25 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application
18 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/30 Planning Application: DC/11/0710 (cont.)
Relevant planning history included: CG/18/90 Reduction of agricultural unit from 16.2 to 1.7 Granted hectares and permission for a change of use for Units 1 and 2 for use as agricultural processing and retail sale of animal feed supplies and associated animal products CG/22/92 Application to remove the agricultural Refused occupancy condition on the dwelling CG/1/98 Application to remove the agricultural Refused occupancy condition on the dwelling CG/18/90 Removal of the personal condition Granted CG/3/00 Buildings 1 and 2 – Permission to be used for Granted long term furniture storage, subject to conditions relating to vehicular movements and limiting the use CG/3/03 Retrospective planning application for the Granted retention of cladding on the building, the subject of the current application (bldg. 3) which was previously a pole barn. DC/07/0218 Planning application for the change of use of Refused building 3 for long term furniture storage
The Parish Council raised no objection but reiterated the concerns of residents within Springfield Lane. Six letters of objection had been received. West Sussex County Council Highways raised no objection to the proposal. The applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application and three members of the public spoke in objection to the application.
The main issues in the determination of this application included the principle of the proposal in this location, the proposal's impact on the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, highway safety implications, sustainability and the impact of the increased activity at the site on residential amenities of occupiers along Springfield Lane.
The proposal was not to change the external appearance of the building, which had been reclad in 2002, or to partition the building internally. The proposal solely related to the change of use of 149 square metres of floor space. The total floorspace at the site for furniture storage would thus be increased to a total of 402 square metres for the three buildings. The applicant had advised that the additional storage proposed would only necessitate one additional lorry movement per week.
Whilst concerns had been expressed that existing conditions restricting vehicular movements to the site had been breached, monitoring of the site had not identified any such breach. However, in order to control lorry movements at the level indicated in the application, it was considered appropriate to enter into a planning agreement. 19 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/30 Planning Application: DC/11/0710 (cont.)
Members therefore considered that the proposed change of use of this building to long term furniture storage would not represent an increase in the level of activity to such a degree which would adversely affect the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or the amenities of nearby residents.
RESOLVED
(i) That a planning agreement be entered into to secure control of the number of lorry movements associated with the proposal.
(ii) That, upon completion of the agreement in (i) above, application DC/11/0710 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.
DCN/31 PLANNING APPLICATIONS: 18 LINTOT SQUARE, SOUTHWATER DC/11/0946 - CHANGE OF CLASS USE OF A1 SHOP UNIT TO CLASS A3 TO ALLOW PREMISES TO BE USED AS A RESTAURANT/CAFE. USE OF ADJACENT PEDESTRIAN AREA AS OUTSIDE DINING AREA FOR SITING TABLES AND CHAIRS DC/11/1003 – 2 NO. RETRACTABLE AWNING CANOPIES, 1 NO. HANGING SIGN AND ALUMINIUM SUPPORT POSTS WITH CANVAS BANNER INFILL'S AND FASCIA (ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT) 19 LINTOT SQUARE, SOUTHWATER DC/11/0988 - REPLACE FIXED GLAZED WINDOWS TO SOUTH FACING ELEVATION WITH PARTIALLY GLAZED DOUBLE TIMBER DOORSET TO MATCH EXISTING DOORS TO SOUTH EAST ELEVATION DC/11/1002 - ADVERTISEMENT CONSENT FOR ONE FASCIA AND ONE WALL SIGN SITE: 18 AND 19 LINTOT SQUARE, SOUTHWATER APPLICANTS: HATTIES HOMEBAKED AND STEMS FLORIST
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that these applications sought permission for change of use, external alterations and advertisement consent in respect of two adjoining units. The proposals were effectively to swap the uses over, so that no. 18 became an A3 unit and no. 19 an A1 unit.
The application site was located on the north side of Lintot Square, a modern shopping area constructed in 2004 as part of the Southwater Centre redevelopment scheme (DC/04/1901 refers).
20 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/31 Planning Applications DC/11/0946; DC/11/1003; DC/11/0988 and DC/11/1002 (cont.)
Government Policies PPS1, PPS4 and PPS6; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP14, CP16, CP17 and CP18; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC9, DC14 and DC36 were relevant to the determination of this application.
Relevant planning history included: DC/04/1901 Mixed used village centre development Granted comprising 113 apartments and 18 retail units and community building etc.
No 18 Lintot Square - Change of Use A1 to A3 (DC/11/0946) This application sought permission for a change of use to A3 restaurant/café with use of the adjacent pedestrian area as an outside dining area. The application premises had an internal gross floor area of 39 square metres and would be laid out to provide 16 covers. The outside area would provide for 6 covers. The external appearance of the building would remain unchanged except for the introduction of canvas awnings which would provide protection for customers using the external seats and tables.
Advertisement Consent (DC/11/1003): Advertisement consent was sought for replacement signage to the shop front fascia, the inclusion of a powder- coated non-illuminated hanging sign and the installation of two awnings (west and south elevations) with logos together with advertising logos on the canvas banners which would form the barrier for the outside eating area.
Change of Use A1 to A3 and outside eating area (DC/11/0946) The concerns of the Parish Council were noted. One letter of objection had been received from a neighbouring business.
It was considered that the proposed change of use to a restaurant/café was acceptable, subject to satisfactory comments from the Public Health and Licensing Department and a condition controlling the extent of the outside eating area to prevent possible obstruction to pedestrians. It was considered that the proposal would not cause material harm to the residential amenities of nearby occupiers or detract from the aims of Development Plan policies.
Advertisement Consent (DC/11/1003) It was considered that the advertisements proposed for these business premises were acceptable and by reason of their form and materials would not cause material harm to the visual amenities and character of this retail area.
No 19 Lintot Square – External alterations (DC/11/0988) The change of use from A3 to A1 retail could be carried out without planning permission being required in this case. The only change to the external
21 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/31 Planning Applications DC/11/0946; DC/11/1003; DC/11/0988 and DC/11/1002 (cont.)
appearance of the building would be to the window on the south elevation whereby the fixed glazed windows would be replaced with partially glazed double timber doors to match the existing doors on the south east elevation of the premises.
Advertisement Consent (DC/11/1002) was sought for a fascia sign and a wall sign on the south west elevation. The timber fascia sign above the new entrance doors would be 2.4 mts by 0.35 mts with applied acrylic black lettering text on a beige background. The wall sign consisted of a painted timber board 2.5mts high by 0.650mts with black lettering on beige background. The sign would be located adjacent to the proposed front doors of the shop.
External Alterations (DC/11/0988) The Parish Council raised no objection.
The proposed works were considered to be in keeping with the character of the existing building and would not cause material harm to the character and visual amenities of the locality.
Advertisement Consent (DC/11/1002) The Parish Council raised no objection to the proposed fascia but had requested further information as to the size and design of the proposed wall sign.
It was considered that the two proposed signs would be in keeping with the commercial premises on which they were to be displayed and would not cause material harm to the visual amenities and character of the area.
RESOLVED
(i) That application DC/11/0946 be determined by the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, subject to the receipt of satisfactory comments from the Council’s Public Health and Licensing department. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.
(ii) That application DC/11/1003 be granted subject to the following conditions:
01 AD1 Standard advert condition 02 AD2 Standard advert condition 03 AD3 Standard advert condition 04 AD4 Standard advert condition 22 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/31 Planning Applications DC/11/0946; DC/11/1003; DC/11/0988 and DC/11/1002 (cont.)
05 AD5 Standard advert condition 06 Notwithstanding the submitted details the proposed barriers shall not be located more than 1.5mts away from the front and side of the building.
REASON
IAC3 The proposal would be sympathetic to the appearance of the building and not cause harm to the amenities of the area.
(iii) That application DC/11/0988 be granted subject to the following conditions:
01 A2 Full Permission 02 M6 Prescribed Materials
REASON
ICAB3 The proposal does not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene or locality.
(iv) That application DC/11/1002 be granted subject to the following conditions:
01 AD1 Standard advert condition 02 AD2 Standard advert condition 03 AD3 Standard advert condition 04 AD4 Standard advert condition 05 AD5 Standard advert condition
REASON
IAC3 The proposal would be sympathetic to the appearance of the building and not cause harm to the amenities of the area.
23 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/32 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0774 - VARIATION OF CONDITION NO. 29 OF PLANNING PERMISSION DC/04/1901 IN RELATION TO NEWSPAPER DELIVERY HOURS SITE: THE CO-OPERATIVE STORE, LINTOT SQUARE, FAIRBANK ROAD, SOUTHWATER APPLICANT: THE CO-OPERATIVE GROUP
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the variation of condition No. 29 of planning permission DC/04/1901 in relation to newspaper delivery hours.
The application site was located on the ground floor of the building known as Mead House. The application premises were located to the north west of the car park serving Lintot Square.
Government Policy PPS1; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP2, CP5, CP11 and CP19; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policy DC9 were relevant to the determination of this application
Relevant planning history included: DC/04/0727 Mixed urban village centre, including 112 Granted apartments (affordable/private sales), retail units, offices, bar/restaurant and community building DC/04/1901 Mixed use village centre development Granted DC/05/1522 Alterations to approved scheme ref: Granted DC/04/1901 in the course of construction relating to changes to Block K/L, Block G, design of re-cycling facilities, changes to the northern and southern boundary and the revisions to the car parking layout in Station Road (opposite Block K/L).
The comments of the Parish Council were noted. Two letters of objection and one petition signed by nine residents had been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the proposal.
The store was located at the heart of the Lintot Square Development. There were 11 flats above the store, within the development itself, and other residential occupiers nearby were located within Ghyll Court (90 metres from the customer entrance to the store) and at 41 – 43 Station Road (50 metres from the customer entrance to the store).
Condition 29 of DC/04/1901 had been imposed to safeguard the private amenities of nearby residents. The alterations sought would result in papers being delivered any time after 06:00 hours each morning as opposed to after 07:00 hours each morning as required by condition 29. 24 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/32 Planning Application: DC/11/0774 (cont.)
The current application had been submitted following investigation by the Council of a complaint concerning noise and disturbance to the residents living above the store. The complaint stated that, whilst permission had been granted for newspaper deliveries after 07:00 hrs, deliveries had been made as early as 04:00 hrs and 05:30 hrs every day for the last few years, disturbing the quality of sleep and general amenities of neighbouring residents.
Members considered that further investigation was required to ascertain whether the newspaper drop point could be relocated to avoid the disturbance of neighbours.
RESOLVED
That consideration of application DC/11/0774 be deferred for further consideration, in consultation with the Estate Manager, of an alternative location for the newspaper delivery drop-off point.
DCN/33 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0619 - SURGERY TO 10 OAK TREES SITE: VERGE TO WEST OF 46 – 60 SMITHBARN, HORSHAM APPLICANT: WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (Councillor David Sheldon declared a personal interest in this application as he was a member of West Sussex County Council) The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application proposed surgery to a line of 10 large to very large oak trees.
The trees were sited on the wide verge between the highway, to the west, and the public footpath, to the east, along the east side of Smithbarn in front of the property numbers 46 – 60.
The trees in question were protected by area Tree Preservation Order number 62, designation A3, protecting several trees of varying types within the designated area present at the date of serving. This order had been confirmed on 26th September 1960.
Members were advised of the principles of good practice set out in the publication TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000).
Two letters of support and one of concern had been received.
The ten oak trees in question were in a straight line, roughly south to north, and had been designated T1 to T10. The trees were of considerable age; trees T8, T9 and T10 all had stem diameters in excess of 1000mm, indicating a likely age in excess of 150 years. Trees T1 to T7 were smaller, but were still semi-mature specimens of considerable size. 25 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/33 Planning Application: DC/11/0619 (cont.)
The original proposal had been to effect a full 30% crown reduction to each of the trees, but further examination by the Arboricultural Officer in conjunction with the County Council’s Arboricultural Officer had resulted in a revised specification with particular regard to the outstanding specimens, T8, T9 and T10.
It was therefore now proposed to carry out an overall reduction of 25% maximum to trees T1 – T7 inclusive, and in the case of T8, T9 and T10 solely to improve the profile of the crowns by trimming back such parts which extended beyond the ambient crown profile, by a maximum of around 2 metres, as appropriate.
The revised works specification would ensure that the trees would not be harmed by the works, nor their amenity value adversely affected.
RESOLVED
That application DC/11/0619 be granted, subject to the following conditions:
01 TR2 Time limit
02 TR3 Treeworks limits:
All trees: Crown lift to 5m all round, though to 6m over the carriageway. This should involve the removal of small pendulous branches, and does not include large scale removal of boughs which emanate from any tree at a point below 5m. Remove any deadwood.
Trees T1 – T7 inclusive (southerly specimens): Crown reduce each tree overall by no more than 25% as each tree requires by trimming to appropriate growth points in each case.
Trees T8, T9, T10: Trim back parts of high crowns protruding from overall crown profile in each case by no more than 2m by trimming to suitable growth points. Remove any deadwood. 26 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/33 Planning Application: DC/11/0619 (cont.)
03 TR4 Surgery standards
REASON
ITRE1(b) The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact either on the health of the trees or the character and amenities of the local area.
DCN/34 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0974 - SURGERY TO 1 ASH TREE SITE: LAND TO WEST OF 10 THE BROOK, SOUTHWATER APPLICANT: HORSHAM DISTRICT COUNCIL
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application proposed surgery to a modest woodland edge ash tree.
The tree was sited on the eastern edge of the woodland known as Pondfarm Ghyll, immediately to the west of the residential dwelling, 10 The Brook. The crown of the tree had spread over the house and garden of this residence.
The tree in question was protected by virtue of its inclusion in the woodland Tree Preservation Order number 534, confirmed on 6th May 1986.
The land on which the tree was growing was owned and managed by Horsham District Council Leisure Services.
Members were advised of the principles of good practice set out in the publication TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000).
The Parish Council raised no objection to the proposal
The ash tree in question was a rather poor drawn up woodland edge tree of very limited amenity merit, being largely hidden from public view behind the house and only 3 metres from the edge of the property.
The tree had previously been trimmed under DC/10/1886, but subsequently had suffered branch failure. As the garden to the adjacent residential dwelling lay right below the crown, it was clearly in the Council’s interests to minimise the chances of the tree causing injury or damage in the future from similar events, which appeared to be increasingly likely due to its form.
A full crown reduction of 30% was thereby proposed to reduce the mechanical loading on the multi-stemmed base of the tree.
27 Development Control (North) Committee 5th July 2011
DCN/34 Planning Application: DC/11/0974 (cont.)
This action was in line with best practice as set out in BS 3998 'Recommendations for Tree Work' (2010) and would minimise the chances of the tree causing injury. Given the tree’s low amenity value, the proposed course of action appeared reasonable and acceptable.
RESOLVED
That application DC/11/0974 be granted, subject to the following conditions:
01 TR2 Time limit 02 TR3 Treeworks limits: Undertake works exactly as set out in schedule as submitted with application. 03 TR4 Surgery standards
REASON
ITRE1 (a) The proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact either on the health of the tree or the character and amenities of the local area
The meeting closed at 8.30pm having commenced at 5.30pm.
CHAIRMAN
28 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 2ND AUGUST 2011 REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
APPEALS
1. Appeals Lodged
I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been lodged:-
2. Written Representations/Householder Appeals Service
DC/11/0323 Extension comprising two bedrooms and a shower room. Home Barn, Tismans Common, Rudgwick, Horsham, RH12 3BW For: Mr Richard Fawcett
DC/11/0492 2 Storey front and rear extensions and single storey side extension. 18 Pollards Drive, Horsham, RH13 5HH. For: Mr and Mrs M Howell
DC/10/2683 Erection of new attached 3 bedroom dwelling in side garden of No. 1 Lucas Road. 1 Lucas Road, Warnham, Horsham, RH12 3RG. For: Mr P Cavallini
DC/11/0628 Replacement of unsympathetic extension (Full Planning). West Wing Forest Grange Manor, Forest Grange, Horsham, RH12 4TG. For: Mr Desmond Greener
3. Informal Hearings/Public Inquiries
DC/11/0224 Outline application for development of 2.8ha with up to 70 dwellings (40% as affordable homes), associated open space, strategic landscaping and access improvements and the use of 1.5ha of land within the site as new public open space and woodland planting.. Land South of Athelstan Way, Horsham, West Sussex For: West Sussex County Council
4. Appeal Decisions
I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been determined:-
DC/11/0302 Single-storey side extension and boundary fence. 2 Brushwood Road, Horsham, RH12 4PE. For: Mr P Blackburn Appeal: ALLOWED (Delegated)
DC/10/2665 Detached double garage ancillary to main dwelling. Acacia House, 110 Manor Fields, Horsham, RH13 6SG. For: Mr Howard Payne Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)
DC/10/1724 Change of use to a food takeaway. Enterprise House, 80 Lambs Farm Road, Horsham, RH12 4JH. For: Mr John Relleen Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)
DC/10/0675 Construction of a new 2 bed single storey dwelling. 53 Littlehaven Lane, Horsham, RH12 4JE. For: Mr D Maguire Appeal: DISMISSED (Committee)
DC/10/2244 Erection of a single storey detached dwelling with garaging to rear of site and minor alterations to No. 19 Guildford Road. The Cottage, 19 Guildford Road, Horsham, RH12 1LU. For: Mr D.L and Mrs C.Brown Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)
Development Control (North) Committee 2nd August 2011 Decisions on Lawful Development Certificates
DC/10/2290 – Permitted in part – Oxcopse Farm, Hooklands Lane, Shipley
The application is for a Certificate of Lawfulness of the continued residential use of the caravan and dairy on the land.
There is some evidence that Mr Jefferies main residence is in Worthing. However local people have all said that Mr Jefferies resides at Oxcopse Farm. As he states that it is he that lives there it could mean that his wife resides in Worthing and he at the farm.
The Caravan / mobile home does not seem to have been seen during the enforcement process. The Mobile home ,the subject of this application was not visible from the area of land which was being investigated by the enforcement team. It has been there since 1992. Many photographs are on the enforcement file but of mobile homes and caravans in the main yard of the site. This mobile home is situated near the dairy and the other side of the large barn from the area of land investigated.
The evidence provided and that received from the Parish Council and other local people shows that the residential use of the mobile home has continued since 1992 which exceeds the ten years required for a change of use. As the caravan is a large mobile home it can not be caught by the enforcement notice which only effects touring caravans.
There is no proof of residential use of the dairy, neither is it capable of being called a residence so this will be excluded from the certificate. The Certificate has been issued for the use of the land for the siting of a caravan/mobile home used for residential purposes.
DC/11/1130 – Granted – Slinfold Aerodrome, Wellcross Grange
The application is for the use of the land for the taking off, landing, maneouvring, parking , storage/hangarage of aircraft. The applicant had to show a ten year use of the land, without planning consent, for a Certificate to be granted.
The applicant was able to prove that the land had been used continuously since the 1950’s as an Aerodrome.
DC/11/0995 – Granted – The Barn, Rowfold Farmhouse
This application is for the ancillary domestic use of the barn . The applicants had to prove that the barn had been used as ancillary to the main enjoyment of the farmhouse for a continuous period of ten years, without planning permission. The applicant was able to show that initially the barn was used by the children of the family as their space . Then is has been used as a large dining room for family occasions and a gallery space for Art Exhibitions. The use has existed for more than ten years.
DC/11/1252 – Granted – Butlers Ghyll Airstrip, Butlers Ghyll Farm, Jackrells Lane
This is a re-submission of a previous application for the use of land as an airstrip without planning permission. This time the applicant produced more flight logs to show that the 605 metre long airstrip had been used by visiting pilots and their own plane for more than the permitted 28 days per year. A Certificate was granted for the use of the land as a 605 metre airstrip for the landing , taking off and manoeuvring of small private aircraft. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1.
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 2nd August 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Conversion of disused stable buildings to residential use, the demolition of former agricultural buildings and the erection of 4 x 5-bed detached houses with associated parking and screen planting
SITE: Ghyll House Farm, Broadwater Lane, Copsale
WARD: Nuthurst
APPLICATION: DC/10/2592
APPLICANT: Mr James Hyatt
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Officer Referral
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that planning permission be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services, subject to the completion of a satisfactory S106 agreement securing contributions and securing the whole package of development if implemented, the receipt of satisfactory comments from consultees and, advertisement of the proposal as a departure from the Development Plan.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning applications.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATIONS
1.3 This full application comprises the following main elements:
a) Demolition of existing lawful buildings with a floor area of approximately 590 sqm;
b) Use of two buildings for three residential units;
Contact: Steve Booth Extension: 5169 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2.
c) Provision of internal access to serve commercial buildings and land allowing existing access to serve the residential units
d) The applicant has also recently acquired some additional land adjacent to the access and its junction onto Broadwater Lane, which would enable the existing junction to be altered and associated visibility splay improvements if required.
In addition to the above elements included within the application, the applicant has “offered up” the following additional elements suggested to be secured either through covenants or a S106 agreement with the Council.
e) Land mainly to the north of the main buildings, which has been tipped with rubble, etc. to have its top layer screened to provide hardcore for various access and parking areas associated with the application;
f) Removal of 4 x 4 track on adjacent land, by grading back into adjacent land profiles
1.5 The proposal is a full application relating to the "farmyard" area of Ghyll House Farm. This area was last used for many years for commercial activities without the benefit of planning permission and has been sold away from the land it originally served for agricultural purposes. The application proposes the conversion of two buildings into three residential units. It also proposes the replacement of the existing former agricultural buildings, with four detached dwellings, each with a floor area of approximately 325 sqm (3,500 sq ft). It is stated the scheme is based on valuations that demonstrate what is necessary to prevent commercial use of the site being pursued, by demolishing all the buildings suitable for such commercial use.
1.6 It is stated that whilst historically the buildings proposed to be converted to residential use have been used for stables, they have last been used for offices and similar commercial uses for a considerable period of time, and are buildings constructed of brick under a tiled roof. It is proposed that the existing vehicular access to these buildings, via the drive to the former farmhouse would be utilised to serve these units. The former farmhouse is not included within the current applications and is shown to be outside the ownership of the applicant.
1.7 The demolition of the former agricultural buildings to the north the applicant states, would free up space about the residential units to allow for the provision of adequate amenity space. Three small sheds are proposed to allow for refuse, recycling and secure cycle storage and existing areas of hardstanding will be removed.
1.8 The proposed four new build residential units (each of the same design) are each shown to have a floor area of approximately 325 sqm over two floors. Access to these dwellings would be from the northern drive.
2 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3.
1.9 The proposed dwellings are shown to have a maximum width of 16.5m and a maximum depth of 11.5m with a maximum ridge height of 7.8m.
1.10 The applicant also states the proposal would result in the cessation of the use of a 4X4 track on adjacent land and the grading back of the track into adjacent land profiles together with the screening of the top layer of a field to the north that has previously been tipped with rubble etc, with the removed material used to provide hardcore for the access track and parking areas, enabling the field to be improved and returned to grazing purposes. These matters are not included directly in the current planning application, but have been offered up by the applicant to be controlled either by covenants imposed by the applicant or through a S106 agreement with the Council.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.12 The application site extends to approximately 2.91 hectares comprising the "farmyard" area together with some adjacent land to the north and east and the accesses to Broadwater Lane.
1.13 The land lies outside any defined built-up area and vehicular access is obtained from Broadwater Lane, a 'C' classified road, having the characteristics of a country lane. The buildings within the "farmyard" area have all previously been in use (prior to the current applicant's ownership of the site) for non-agricultural commercial purposes including such uses as car repairs etc. without the benefit of planning permission or a Certificate of Lawful Development.
1.14 The former stable buildings (previously used as offices etc.) are single storey brick built structures under tiled roofs. The remaining former agricultural buildings on the site are mainly portal framed structures clad in various forms of corrugated sheeting.
1.15 Immediately to the west and south of the farmyard area lie three existing residential dwellings, the substantial Ghyll Farm House and the smaller dwellings 1 and 2 The Paddocks. It is understood these properties were formerly in the same ownership as Ghyll House Farm and surrounding land, but the current application site and surrounding land were sold away when the current applicant purchased much of the remaining land and farmyard buildings associated with Ghyll House Farm.
1.16 The immediate vicinity of the site consists of agricultural land and woodland. A public footpath runs east-west to the south of the former "farmyard". Land to the north of the farmyard falls within the area of the Garden of Historic Interest associated with Sedgwick Park and the area of tipped land proposed to be reinstated to agricultural use lies within this designation. The wider area is characterised by undulating agricultural land interspersed with field boundaries and woodland, containing sporadic residential development served by the lanes which provide vehicular access in the immediate vicinity of the site.
3 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4.
PLANNING HISTORY
1.17 It is understood that most of the buildings in the farmyard area were erected under agricultural permitted development over a number of years and there is no planning history associated with these buildings. Likewise, there is no record of planning permission being applied for the 4 x 4 track.
1.18 The site has an extensive enforcement history (prior to the purchase of the site by the current owner). The enforcement history principally relates to unauthorised tipping activity, creation of hardstandings and unauthorised commercial uses and associated works. This enforcement history pre-dates the current applicant's acquisition of the site.
In 2008 application ref DC/08/2187 was submitted proposing the Demolition of grain silos and farm buildings, conversion of remaining farm buildings for commercial (B1) use, conversion of two former stable buildings for residential use, creation of new access track, the removal of 4 x 4 track and construction of ponds for small scale commercial recreational fishing and the restoration of woodlands damaged by 4 x 4 racing
In light of considerable local opposition to this application, the applicant subsequently advised that it was his intention that should application DC/10/0807 (below) be approved, proposals for commercial (B1) use would be deleted from that application.
The above application attracted 108 letters of objection from 77 separate addresses
As a result of opposition to the above application the applicant submitted application DC/10/0807 for the conversion of disused stable buildings to 3 residential units, the demolition of former agricultural buildings and the erection of 4 x 5 bed detached houses with associated parking and screen planting (total 7 dwellings.
The Committee resolved to refuse both the above applications at its meeting on the 5th October 2010, however the applicant withdrew the applications prior to their determination.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
4 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development;PPS4 - Planning for Sustainable economic Groeth;PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment PPS7 - Sustainable Development in Rural Areas, PPG13 - Transport;, together with PPS23 - Planning and Pollution Control.
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policy CP1 - Landscape and Townscape Character; CP2 - Environmental Quality; CP3 - Improving the Quality of New Development; CP8 - Small Scale 'Greenfield' Sites; CP11 - Employment Sites and Premises; CP13 - Infrastructure Requirements; CP15 - Rural Strategy and CP19 - Management Travel Demand and Widening Choice of Transport.
2.4 General Development Control Policies DC1 - Countryside Protection and Enhancement; DC2 - Landscape Character; DC8 - Renewable Energy and Climate Change; DC9 - Development Principles; DC18 - Smaller Homes/Housing Mix; DC24 - Conversion of Agricultural and Rural Buildings for Industrial, Business or Residential Uses; DC40 - Transport and Access.
South East Plan Policies CC1 Sustainable Development; CC$ Sustainable Design and Construction; CC6 Sustainable Communities and Character of the Environment; M1 Sustainable Construction; C4v Landscape and Countryside Management.
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 The Council's Drainage and Minor Works Section makes no comment.
3.2 The Council's Public Health and Licensing Section comment as follows. I have some concerns about this proposal with regard to land contamination and potential loss of amenity due to other activities in the vicinity of the proposed houses. The report by Environmental Assessment Services Ltd dated August 2010 submitted in support of the application does not fully address the land contamination concerns for the following reasons:
The report makes no reference to the “Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination” (CLR 11 published by DEFRA and the Environment Agency). This is the recognised industry standard which provides a technical framework for applying a risk management process when dealing with land affected by contamination. The report does not follow the approach in CLR 11.
5 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6.
There is no initial conceptual model. This is a fundamental step in the risk assessment process and should be completed at the outset and tested throughout the ensuing investigations. The soil sampling strategy seems to be based upon areas of known past contamination. The future use of the site in terms of the garden areas proposed has not been considered in the sampling strategy. There has been a very limited intrusive site investigation. There are areas outside the delineated application boundary that have been subject to extensive unauthorised and uncontrolled tipping. The impacts of these areas on the application site have not been considered. The risks from gas migration onto the development site have not been considered. There is insufficient justification for the use of the SGVs. For example the soil organic matter in the soil has not stated and this can have significant effects on the SGV.
3.3 The Environment Agency have made specific comments on the EAS Report which have compounded my concerns. They have noted the following:
There is very little information in respect of a desk study or conceptual model – it is noted that they have previously completed a Preliminary Contamination Risk Assessment, dated July 2010, although this has not been provided. No site description of the land use or surfacing condition, Figure 2 provides a poor indication of the potential sources of contamination – this should have been updated/derived from the Preliminary Contamination Risk Assessment. Therefore there are concerns regarding the quality of the preliminary assessment report. There are some unusual standards being used – Dutch Action Thresholds for Groundwater – why are they not using DWS, WHO Private Water Supply Regulation or EQS ? The conceptual model should have identified the nearby surface waters and thereby should indicate the most appropriate standards, also using indicator contaminants such as Naphthalene (given the likely fuel oil source). Made Ground - The thickness of the made ground in TP5 has not been determined. Figure 2 suggests that the potential total extent of the made ground is greater than the extent of the investigation. Given the extent of the made ground identified, the sampling and testing programme is very limited indeed – TP5 has only a single sample collected, this is therefore not representative of the ground conditions and does not determine the potential risk posed. The made ground will have an inherent heterogeneity – is the sample and testing schedule robust? It seems that a conceptual site model has been developed after the investigation works, in line with CLR11, a (preliminary) conceptual site model (CSM) is developed prior to the investigation works and is used to produce the investigation strategy. Following which the investigation the CSM is updated – it doesn’t seem that this is the case. Table 8.1 is very basic, the ‘Wider environment’ should be expanded to include surface water and groundwater – these should be considered separately. There are a number of surface water features which are in close proximity to the site – these must be considered.
6 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7.
Photograph 3 showing the spoil from TP2 is suggestive of greater contamination than indicated in the contamination results. The results are little odd too; the sample of the clay at 1.0m (which should be there to demonstrate that the contamination is restricted to the made ground) has a higher degree of contamination than the oily concrete/clay strata – I do wonder how they were taking the samples? The TPH groundwater results are slightly deceptive as they have been reported in mg/l rather than µg/l – C8-C10 is 1400µg/l which is a fairly significant result. There are also potential indications of migration through the made ground to the east (see TP8 and TP9) although it is not clear whether these results relate to contaminated fill material given that the sampling depths are so poor.
The Environment Agency officer considers that overall the report is of limited value. The completed investigation is not sufficiently extensive due to the depth distribution of the made ground identified. The conceptual model is weak and does not fully consider the sources, receptors and pathways in accordance with the procedures set out in CLR11, and therefore could not accept the proposed remediation scheme.
Therefore, in accordance with PPS23, it is considered that there is insufficient information provided to properly determine the application with regard to the potential contamination risks posed.
I am also of the opinion that the land surrounding the proposed residential development could lead to loss of amenity for residents if agricultural activities or other former uses such as quad biking and motocross pursuits are re-instituted.
Additional information in this regard has been submitted and the comments of the relevant consultees are awaited.
3.4 Sussex Building Control No Objection
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.5 Southern Water comment the applicant is advised to consult the Environment Agency regarding fouls water disposal. Surface water drainage disposal system should be maintained in an appropriate manner
3.6 The Environment Agency no objection subject to conditions and informatives.
3.7 Nuthurst Parish Council object to the application on the grounds that any new builds would be an intrusion in the countryside, however, there would not be any objection to the stable block being converted.
3.8 West Sussex County Council state The highway authority objects to this application on the ground of highway safety. Details of the junction between the site access road and Broadwater Lane are required, including evidence of how adequate visibility will be achieved at the junction.
7 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8.
Additional information has been submitted in this and the comments of the Highway Authority are awaited.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.9 20 letters of objection from 17 separate addresses have been received on the grounds of
Rural area where development is not generally allowed Difficult to prevent subsequent applications Increased traffic/safety hazard on narrow roads with cyclists/horses Unsustainable location Does not represent farm diversification Contrary to countryside policies Contaminated land issues Overdevelopment Additional houses would result in a housing estate
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The site lies outside any defined built-up area and is therefore subject to the countryside protection policies of the Local Development Framework. Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies Document states that in the countryside development will normally be restricted to that which is essential to the needs of agriculture, forestry, the extraction of minerals, the disposal of waste or quiet informal recreational use. It is therefore considered that the proposal for new residential development in the countryside, and in particular the demolition of former agricultural buildings and the erection of four new detached dwellings, unrelated to the essential needs of agriculture or the countryside, would be contrary to these policies unless there is an exceptional material justification which would support a decision otherwise than in accordance with the Development Plan.
6.3 The history of the site demonstrates that there is considerable concern regarding potential commercial use of the buildings in light of possible increases in traffic generation associated with such commercial uses and in particular having regard to the nature of the surrounding road network. The County Surveyor considered
8 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 9.
additional information was required in this regard before further detailed consideration could be given to comparisons between traffic levels generated by the proposed development and traffic levels that could be generated by an existing authorised use of the site. In this respect the applicant sought to maintain that in light of uses to which the site could be put, current proposal would be less harmful than that generated either by an intensive agricultural use of the site and buildings or a commercial uses in the buildings
6.5 The applicant has also now acquired additional land adjacent to the access and junction with Broadwater Lane, permitting improvements at the junction and sight lines if required. It is considered the current proposed would generate less and different types of vehicle movements than associated with either intensive agricultural or commercial uses of the site.
6.7 As stated above, residential use on this site within the countryside and in a relatively unsustainable location, and in particular four new detached residential dwellings unrelated to the essential needs of the countryside would be contrary to Development Plan policies and Government guidance, unless there were exceptional material considerations which justify a decision otherwise in accordance with the Development Plan.
6.8 Proposals such as this need to be considered against policies in the Local Development Framework, in particular the Core Strategy (2007) and the General Development Control Policies (2007). National planning guidance is also relevant to the consideration of the application, in particular those within PPS7 (Sustainable Development in Rural Areas) and PPS1 (Delivering Sustainable Development). The key issue is the principle of redevelopment of the site for residential purposes as proposed, in relation to the adopted planning policies and any other material considerations.
6.9 Core Policies CP8 and CP15 are considered relevant, which need to be read in the context of generally restrictive countryside policies. The basis for Policy CP15 is the wish to ensure sustainable rural economic growth and to meet the needs of people who live and work in rural areas. The intention is to seek to balance development necessary to sustain and ensure future economic diversity and prosperity whilst maintaining the continued protection of the countryside's environmental character. The Policy states:
"In the countryside, development which maintains the quality and character of the area whilst sustaining its varied and productive social and economic activity will be supported in principle. Any development should be appropriate to the countryside location and should;
a) contribute to the diverse and sustainable farming enterprises within the district or, in the case of other countryside based enterprises and activities, contribute to the wider rural economy and/or promote recreation in and the enjoyment of, the countryside; and either
9 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 10.
b) be contained wherever possible within suitably located buildings which are appropriate for conversion or, in the case of an established rural industrial estate, within the existing boundaries of the estate; or
c) result in the substantial environmental improvement and reduce the impact on the countryside particularly where, exceptionally, new or replacement buildings are involved."
6.10 Policy CP8 supports this approach and recognises that, beyond the provision made for new development in the Site Specific Allocations of Land DPD, permission only exceptionally will be granted where additional local, social or economic needs arise or where development would result in substantial environmental enhancement compatible with the character of the location.
6.11 Having regard to; the extensive history of previous unauthorised uses on the site, the potential for intensive agricultural/commercial reuse of the existing substantial buildings (with the associated traffic concerns expressed regarding such a potential use); together with measures to investigate and address any issues surrounding potential contamination associated with previous unauthorised uses and tipping on the site, it is a matter of judgment whether, exceptionally, in this case, there is justification for a departure from normal restrictive Development Plan policies relating to development in the countryside, having regard to any potential environmental "improvements" that may take place as a result of the development. Such environmental "improvements" would include securely precluding future commercial use of the existing substantial buildings, addressing any outstanding issues surrounding potential contamination of the site from previous uses and, forming part of a package of proposals that would restore land to the north of the site for grazing purposes and removal of the 4 x 4 track.
6.12 Such "benefits" would need to be considered against harm arising from new residential development comprising four detached dwellings in the countryside, the creation of three residential units in the two existing buildings proposed to be converted, traffic movements generated by the development and the impact of the change in character of the site from a collection of buildings whose character is associated with rural areas (i.e. substantial agricultural buildings), to a site with a residential appearance and character associated with the dwellings, their gardens, associated features and activity.
6.13 The restoration of the woodland damaged by the 4 x 4 racing activities and the associated tracks is also a material consideration in the determination of this aspect of the application
6.14 Likewise, the principle of appropriate "restoration" of the land that has been tipped to the north of the "farmyard" complex would also be considered appropriate in principle, subject to ensuring an appropriate technical methodology, no adverse impact being caused to the registered parkland setting, together with suitable controls to ensure inappropriate levels of material are neither imported or exported from the site. This matter could be controlled through a S106 legal agreement.
10 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 11.
6.15 On balance, in this case it is exceptionally considered, having regard to its individual circumstances, and in particular the intensive local concern that has previously been expressed regarding harm arising from traffic generated by previous uses on the site in light of the adequacy of the local road network to cater for such traffic, that a proposal which seeks to comprehensively address the above issues within the application site and surrounding land could justify an exception to normal restrictive countryside policies in this individual case.
6.16 With regard to normal development management criteria it is considered that the buildings proposed for conversion are suitable for such use without substantial reconstruction and that the proposed dwellings would have an appropriate relationship with each other and other development, providing an acceptable level of amenity for proposed occupiers. If the principle of residential use of the buildings is accepted in this location, it is considered that the form of development proposed is also appropriate.
6.17 With regard to the demolition of the existing buildings on the "farmyard" site and their replacement with four detached residential dwellings, likewise if the principle of such a proposal were to be exceptionally accepted, the form of development proposed would be likewise considered appropriate. The proposed dwellings are approximately 2m higher than the agricultural buildings on the site, but their footprint is less and the amount of hardstanding on the site would also be significantly reduced. If the principle of the development were exceptionally accepted, it would be necessary to give further detailed consideration to matters such as surface water drainage, potential contamination investigation and remediation, consideration of formal comments of interested parties on the impact of the proposal on the setting of the adjacent registered parkland, infrastructure contributions; and mechanisms, controlled through a Section 106 Agreement to ensure development, if permitted, delivers the overall aims of securing cessation of future commercial use of land and buildings in the "farmyard" area, the demolition of buildings indicated outside the "farmyard" area etc.
6.18 The application seeks permission for the construction of four substantial detached properties in the existing "farmyard" site and conversion of two of the buildings to three residential units. It is considered the proposals have an acceptable relationship with adjacent dwellings (outside the application site and not in the ownership of the applicant). It is considered that the removal of the existing buildings, silos and associated hardstandings etc. could represent an improvement to the overall appearance of the site although the existing buildings in themselves, due to their agricultural appearance are not considered inappropriate in a countryside location. The application due to its residential nature, would offer opportunities to landscape the site, although the change in character of the site to residential and the impact this would have on the character of the area needs to be given due consideration, on balance in the circumstances of this case it is considered such an approach could be supported.
6.19 Due to the site's rural location and distance to neighbouring properties it is considered that the proposed dwellings would not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties with regard to overlooking or loss of privacy. With regard to
11 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 12.
the design of the proposed dwellings, it is considered that in itself they would be appropriate for their proposed location in terms of design and material etc.
6.20 The site is in a relatively unsustainable location, however having regard to the weight given to the various considerations relevant to the determination of the application together with the potential sustainability issues should planning permission be granted for some form of commercial use of buildings on the site if approved, it is considered exceptionally in this case sustainability considerations associated with the proposal are not of such weight to justify refusal, having regard to the individual circumstances of the case.
6.21 In light of the proposal's residential nature in an area subject to restrictive countryside and sustainability policies it is considered appropriate to treat the proposal as a departure from the Development Plan should Members agree the recommendation.
6.22 In conclusion, it is considered that due to the exceptional circumstances relating to this site, that the proposed residential use could, on balance, be acceptable in this instance, subject to appropriate conditions, the receipt of satisfactory comments from consultees in respect of the recently submitted information and the completion of a S106 legal agreement to in respect of infrastructure contributions and relating to the cessation of the use of the 4X4 track together with the restoration of the field to the north of the site referred to above.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be delegated for approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services subject to the completion of a satisfactory S106 agreement securing contributions and securing the whole package of development if implemented, receipt of satisfactory comments from consultees, advertisement of the proposal or a departure from the Development Plan, the following conditions and any other conditions arising from the consultation process.
1. A2 – Full Permission 2. L1 – Hard and Soft Landscaping 3. M8 – Sustainable Construction 4. D10 – Floodlighting 5. E2 – No Fences 6. E3 – Fencing 7. G3 – Parking, Turning and Access 8. G6 – Recycling 9. H1 – Access – visibility splay 2.4m x 50m 10. H4 – On site Parking 11. H6 – Wheel Washing 12. H10 – Cycling Provision 13. J10 – Removal of Permitted Development Dwellings 14. L4 – Landscape Management Plan 15. L9 – Wildlife Protection 16. M1 – Approval of Materials
12 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 13.
17. O1 – Hours of Working 18. O2 – Burning of Materials 19. O3 - Site Clearance – All existing buildings
20. Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:
i) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: • all previous uses; • potential contaminants associated with those uses; • a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors; • potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.
ii) A site investigation scheme, based on (i) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.
iii) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (ii) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
iv) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (iii) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.
Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. Reason; As per K1
21. Prior to commencement of development and occupation of any part of the permitted development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a “long-term monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer- term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the local planning authority. Reason; As per K9
13 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 14.
22. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. Reason; As per K9
23. Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed after completion Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of these in accordance with the principles of Planning Policy Statement 25 – “Development and Flood Risk” (PPS25), PPS9 -“Biodiversity and Geological Conservation”, Policies NRM2 – “Water Quality” and NRM4 – “Sustainable Flood Risk Management” of the South East Plan and DC7 of Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
24. D6 Floor Levels
Note to Applicant
Ecological surveys are required prior to development, to enable an assessment of the level of risk posed by the development. Without such information, it is not possible to judge whether the proposals would meet the requirements of PPS9 (key principles 1i) requiring planning decisions to be “based on up to date information about the environmental characteristics of their areas”. The detailed design, construction, mitigation and compensation measures should be based on the results of a survey carried out at an appropriate time of year by a suitably experienced surveyor using recognised survey methodology.
The survey and risk assessment should:
identify any rare, declining, protected or otherwise important flora, fauna or habitats within the site;
assess the importance of the above features at a local, regional and national level;
identify the impacts of the scheme on those features;
demonstrate how the development will avoid adverse impacts
14 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 15.
propose mitigation for any adverse ecological impacts or compensation for loss;
propose wildlife/ habitat enhancement measures;
propose post-project appraisal, management plans and management responsibilities with details of how biodiversity enhancement will be incorporated into the development and maintained over the long term.
We would also like to remind the applicant that the Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM) guidelines stipulate that commercial ecologists should be providing their biodiversity data to the appropriate local record centre. For Sussex, the contact details are as follows: [email protected]
8. REASONS
8.1 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
Based on individual circumstances of this case it is considered appropriate development in this location.
Background Papers: DC/10/2592
Contact Officer: Steve Booth
15 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1.
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 2nd August 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Erection of a B8 (storage and distribution) building of 1276 sqm and links to Unit 15 with associated access, parking and turning facilities and landscaping
SITE: Oakhurst Business Park, Wilberforce Way, Southwater
WARD: Southwater
APPLICATION: DC/11/1131
APPLICANT: Horsham District Council
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of development and application submitted by Horsham District Council
RECOMMENDATION: That the application be delegated with a view to approval to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement relating to contributions and thereafter the imposition of conditions
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a B8 storage building to be attached to Unit 15 with associated access, parking and turning facilities and landscaping.
1.2 The point of access to the development would be taken from the south off Wilberforce Way. The site extends to 0.71 ha with the building itself having a gross floorspace of 1292 sqm. This would comprise 1088sqm on the ground floor with 2 links to Unit 15 of 38sqm and 14sqm and a mezzanine floor of 152sqm.
Contact: Val Cheesman Extension: 5163 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2.
1.3 The Design Statement advises that ‘the successful tenant of unit 15 (Neville and Moore) wishes to expand his business without the need to vacate the site. Therefore under the initial tenancy agreement the proposed units 20 and 21 would be combined and linked to unit 15 as an extension. There would be a ground floor warehouse link and a first floor office link between the 2 structures. ‘The fundamental part of the brief is to provide for future flexibility’ which would allow for the links to be removed and a dividing partition to be constructed internally within the building. Thus units 15, 20 and 21 could all potentially be let as separate tenancies if so required.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.4 The site is currently undeveloped but forms part of the wider Oakhurst Business Park development. It lies at the north east corner of the Business Park within the part owned by HDC. Within this area Units 1 and 2 -14 were built as Phase 1, with Unit 15 (occupied by Neville and Moore) and 16 – 19 built as part of Phase 2. The site currently contains the spoil from the development of the Phase 2 units.
1.5 Along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site is a wildlife buffer and pond that was provided in association with the development of Phase 2. Further to the north is the landscaped bund (in different ownership) which is part of the overall approved landscaping strategy for the business park that have been undertaken. Further to the east is the car park for the unit occupied by McFarlanes.
PLANNING HISTORY
1.6 Outline planning permission was granted on 23rd February 1993 for the overall area of land north of Southwater Street for 350 dwellings, 5 acres of social housing, 350,000 sq ft of commercial development, public open space, land for primary school, estate roads and access (SQ/91/92).
1.7 In this permission all land to the north of Southwater Street was allocated for commercial development including an area specifically allocated for businesses displaced by proposed Southwater Village Centre redevelopment. Prior to the granting of planning permission in February 1993 a legal agreement was completed between the owners and Horsham District Council in December 1992. The legal agreement incorporates a design brief for the development which sets out various criteria.
1.8 Since the early 1990s various approvals of reserved matters, landscaping and further full permissions have been granted for the commercial development of the business park, including SQ/46/99 for the erection of the RSPCA headquarters building and SQ/11/03 which included the relocation of the businesses from the original Southwater Industrial Estate known as Phase 1. Phase 2 was granted permission under DC/06/0608 for the erection of 4 x B1 units and one industrial warehouse unit (comprising Units 15 and 16 – 19).
1.9 On the application site itself a further application for Phase 2 (DC/06/0610) was approved. This was for the erection of 6 x B1 units and an innovation centre with access, parking and landscaping but has not been implemented. This current
2 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3.
application has been submitted as an alternative development for the site in response to current priorities and requirements.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 PPS1, PPS4 and PPG13.
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP10, CP11, CP13 and CP19.
2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies 2007: DC8, DC9 and DC40.
2.5 South East Plan 2009 : SP2,CC1,CC2,CC4, RE3,GAT1,GAT2
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Public Health and Licensing have no objections subject to conditions relating to hours of use (implementation and operational), contamination and control of dust etc.
3.2 Landscape Architect – ‘My pre-application recommendations on the design and layout of the car park have led to an improvement in the area available for planting on the frontage so this should be adequate now to allow integration of the building and car park
However there is a need for an additional specimen tree on the southern side of the access- I would seek this to be planted at semi-mature size. Also the small areas of wildflower seeded areas apart from in the amenity area are not likely to be easily manageable so should be replaced with groundcover shrub planting.
It is important that the quality of landscape treatment on the business park is continued on this site
Recommend a condition for submission of landscape details not withstanding the information already submitted and I will do some more detailed comments for the applicant before resubmission of the scheme’
3 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4.
3.3 Technical Services have no adverse comments.
3.4 Access Forum – ‘Although the design and access statement mentions 10% accessible parking, this seems relatively high, 5% is better, with one additional parking bay for every disabled member of staff who needs this’
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.5 Southwater Parish Council
No objection. However, the existing spoil piles on the site have been noted, and these should be removed prior to commencement of building. The roof height of the proposed building should not be higher than the adjacent Neville and Moore building, as specified in the application.
3.6 Environment Agency have no objection.
3.7 Southern Water have no objections but recommend a condition regarding the SUDS drainage system
3.8 West Sussex County Council comment as follows:
Access to development: This development site is on a partially completed business park approved in 1993. The units in question are remote from the publicly maintainable highway. The business park access roads were designed to take the traffic for the original full development. The development spine road connects with the public highway at a roundabout junction with an unclassified road (‘D’ class). It is understood that the roundabout at the business park access was designed to allow for the full development and would therefore not be affected by increased HGV or general traffic use.
The only appropriate route out of the business park is to turn left (North) to later access a classified road (Worthing Road) and the strategic (Primary Route) A24 at the Hop Oast Roundabout. (The highway south of the business park is narrow, and runs though a traffic calmed residential area).
It is taken that the development does not require the preparation of a transport assessment or a safety audit because this was done for the full business park scheme.
Car parking: Car parking space provision meets WSCC standards.
Sustainable travel: It appears that there is a good opportunity to provide access to bus services at bus stops on Worthing Road, Southwater, this will considerably
4 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5.
improve sustainable access to the site and so potentially reduce car based trips to/from the development.
All weather foot access would be needed across the site and business park to access the existing public footpath that runs south of Martindale Farm (this possibility is also mentioned by the applicants).
The footpath will need to be provided with an improved surface in order to be suitable for bus users accessing the development for work purposes. I have been informed that part of the TAD contribution would cover the cost of the work on the public footpath. The current condition of the footpath and possible improvements needed have been investigated.
There are 3 bus services that stop on Worthing Road adjacent to the footpath, two of which are regular services.
The 98 route north to the Hop Oast park and ride, Horsham and Roffey or south to Southwater. Frequent at every 15 minutes in the week and hourly at weekends. The Metrobus 23 service to Crawley via Horsham northbound and to Worthing southbound at 2 hourly frequencies during the week. A further local bus route that runs 3 times a day during the week.
Cycling: Cycle facilities on site are well provided for.
Local accident history: Over the last 3 years there has been one slight injury accident between the Hop Oast roundabout and the Business Park access roundabout, however, the accident was due to an icy surface and not related to the business park junction. (There are accidents recorded on the arm of the A24 Hop Oast roundabout that will be used by development traffic).
Impacts from other nearby development: Other recent development nearby is not seen as likely to have relevance to this application. However others have applied for permission for a residential development at Martindale Farm.
Infrastructure Contributions (TAD): £18,126
Ecology : No ecological objection subject to condition.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main considerations in respect of this application are considered to be the principle of the development having regard to the outline permission for the Business Park as a whole plus the legal agreement and design brief, the subsequent reserved matters that have been granted and more specifically the previous permission relating to this site; the effect on the character and appearance of the area, the effect on the amenities of neighbouring properties, access and highway safety issues, landscaping, ecology, drainage, sustainable construction and employment issues.
Principle of the Development
6.2 Outline planning permission was initially granted for industrial/commercial development (the Business Park itself) in February 1993 (SQ/91/92). The site as a whole was identified as a commitment for such purposes in the Horsham District Local Plan and now lies within an Employment Protection Zone within the current Local Development Framework. More specifically, on the application site itself permission has been granted for the erection of 6 x B1 units and an innovation centre (DC/06/0610) but this has not been implemented. Consequently there is no objection in principle to the proposed development of this site for commercial purposes.
6.3 With regard to the legal agreement and design brief, these set out the general principles for the development of the site as a whole. It includes the height of buildings, materials to be used, the details of the estate roads and parking facilities and landscaping. It advises that the commercial estate development to be in accordance with the planning permission and subject to the terms of the design brief.
6.4 In respect of the details within the design brief itself, the relevant paragraphs are:
3.1.2 Where the development comprises a mixture of uses within Classes B1, B2 and B8 those areas of commercial estate development closest to either existing residential properties or proposed residential properties should be limited to development in Use Class B1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 in order to protect the amenities of adjoining properties.
3.1.3 The key objective is the creation of an image of a predominantly landscaped commercial estate complex of high quality.
3.1.4 Parking and service areas should generally not be visible from public areas although it will be necessary to provide adequate visitor and disabled parking spaces in suitably prominent locations. The
6 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7.
provision of basement car parking will be encouraged in order to meet the standards without adverse visual intrusion if this is considered to be necessary. Car parking and lorry spaces will be provided in accordance with the provisions of the "Standards for Car Parking and Servicing in Relation to Development" published by West Sussex County Council in August 1991. Large car parking or service areas should be avoided. Car parks would be broken up by trees and shrub planting to a significant extent. Specific provision will be required for cycle parking as well as for other special categories such as disabled parking.
3.1.5 Buildings should not exceed three storeys and 14m to eaves level. Roof projections and the forms of tanks extractors, pipe plant room and flue where essential must form part of the overall design concept.
3.1.6: Special care is needed to avoid the visual impact of boundary walls and security fences. Security should be obtained by the use of building layout as much as possible with the provision of secure buildings as opposed to secure enclosures. No outside permanent storage would be permitted.
3.1.7: The external design and appearance of the building should be controlled by the following restrictions:
a) Materials normally to comprise slates and tiles in warm colours however where industrial type buildings normally associated with Use Class B2 are to be constructed, other cladding provided they use appropriate colours and self-maintained finishes will not be ruled out.
b) Elevations to include the use of a significant proportion of local stock bricks of warm natural colours with a minimum of three brick types and in the case of industrial type buildings normally associated with Use Class B2 other types of cladding provided they are appropriately coloured and have self-maintaining finishes will not be ruled out.
6.5 In respect of the proposed use and the occupier it is necessary to consider how this conforms or otherwise to the outline permission, the legal agreement and the design brief. The application is for a B8 storage and distribution building, initially to be used as an extension to unit 15 so that that the current occupier Neville and Moore may expand their operation, but potentially in the future it could be sub- divided to provide two separately occupied units. The location of the site is well within the business park boundaries and screened with the existing bund and landscaping. The development is effectively an extension to the existing warehouse building at Unit 15 permitted under DC/06/0608. It is thus considered that the application would comply with the requirements of the outline legal agreement and design brief, which require the B2 and B8 uses to be situated away from adjacent residential properties. Therefore the principle of a warehouse unit on this site is acceptable subject to an assessment of the detailed aspects of the scheme including the layout, construction and landscaping and these are set out in more detail in the following paragraphs.
7 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8.
Character and appearance of the area
6.6 It is proposed to construct the building in a modern style using modern materials as set out earlier in the report. The agent has advised that this latest phase continues the principles of the Design Brief in that:
the apex of the proposed building is lower than the existing adjacent unit 15 that is itself below the maximum stated height. the same external materials are being utilised in this phase as the previous two in order to continue a homogeneous feel to the whole development avoiding the random collection of island site architecture. Discreet external lighting is proposed. Block paving to car park and loading bay areas are proposed. Retaining the clean lines and rhythms and repeating elements of the building such as the entrances, windows, cladding and roof line will also achieve the visual link with the previous phases.
6.7 The site lies within the business park boundaries as an area of land proposed for commercial development and as such in general terms the development for a commercial building of a modern design is appropriate in this context, particularly given the permission granted for development on the business park as a whole and the buildings which have been erected, including that immediately adjacent to the site to units 15 etc. and that of Nursing Hygiene most recently and that for Volvo permitted under DC/10/0953 and currently under construction.
6.8 Furthermore, when viewed from outside of the business park to the west from Worthing Road and from the north from the footpath which leads from Worthing Road through to Blakes Farm Road , views would be screened by the landscaped bund and the existing unit 15.
6.9 From the east and south views of the site are seen in the context of the business park itself.
6.10 The building would be 9.6m to the eaves with a maximum height of 11.3m. It therefore falls within the guidelines set out in the Design Brief which state a maximum eaves level of 14m. It would be lower that the host building unit 15 which has a height of 12.2m
6.11 With regards to the proposed materials, it is considered that the materials are similar to those used on the other commercial buildings on the business park and are appropriate to the design of the building which is in keeping with the overall character of the surrounding commercial units. Whilst they are not traditional, as required by the design brief they do relate to those used in the remainder of the development and are considered to be appropriate in this context.
8 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 9.
6.12 It is proposed that photovoltaic panels are installed on the south facing elevation of the building. This would face onto the business park itself and are considered to be acceptable in this setting.
Effect on amenities of adjoining occupiers
6.13 The building is to be located in the northern part of the site, immediately adjacent to Unit 15. It thus acts as a screen for the yard area which lies on the southern part of the application site and would be consistent with the layout of the adjacent unit and the previous permission on the site.
6.14 The nearest residential properties are those on the western side of Worthing Road and so are separated from the application site by unit 15, the landscaped bund and Worthing Road itself.
6.15 To the north lie the residential properties of Martindale Farm, Carrick and Robin Hood. It should be noted that a planning application for residential development in respect of Martindale Farm for the development of 44 units, has a resolution for permission to ne granted subject to the completion of a s106 Agreement. With regard to the impact on these current and future properties to the north of the site, they would be separated by the footpath running from Worthing Road to Blakes Farm Road and also the landscaped bund which runs around the northern perimeter of the business park. It is therefore considered that the development would have a satisfactory relationship with residential properties in the locality.
6.16 With regard to working hours, the legal agreement and design brief do not contain a specific working hours for the business park as a whole but the original outline permission contains conditions restricting the hours of use of plant and machinery for the B2 units and noise levels. Similarly no hours of use condition was applied to the permissions for the earlier part of phase 2, namely the B1 and B8 units approved under DC/06/0608 (which included Unit 15) and the B1 units and Innovation Centre approved under DC/08/0610. This application is for a B8 use ( as an extension to Unit 15 ) and so no condition is suggested in these circumstances.
Access and highway safety issues
6.17 Access to the site would be formed off Wilberforce Way. Vehicle parking would be provided to the front of the site together with areas for secure staff cycle parking and visitor parking. West Sussex County Council consider the submitted details to be satisfactory.
6.18 In connection with the previous applications for the business park your officers have endeavoured to secure footpath links to and from the business park to the surrounding area to enhance the connectivity of the site as a whole. In this case the application includes space to allow for a path to link to the footpath which runs adjacent to Martindale Farm from Worthing Road (which is a bus route) to Blakes Farm Road and which would improve pedestrian access links in this regard.
9 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 10.
Landscaping
6.19 The principal landscaping in the area is located off the application site itself, being the planted bund to the north and west of the business park. There is also a line of preserved trees which run along the eastern boundary of the site but these would not be affected by the built form of the development.
6.20 On the site itself the proposal involves additional landscaping at the front of the site to provide an appropriate entrance into the site and to provide some screening of the parking/yard area. The existing amenity area looking over the pond with seating is to be retained and wild flower turf is to be laid in this area. The 3m wide existing wildlife buffer strip around the site is to be maintained and is to be protected during construction.
Ecology
6.21 As part of Phase 2 the pond on the site was relocated to its current position in the south eastern corner of the land to accommodate the resident Great Crested Newts. As part of this proposal further ecological investigations have taken place and surveys submitted in respect of Great Crested Newts, other amphibians and reptiles. These advise that mitigation works are required and should be carried out before the development of the site commences. WSCC have no objection to this approach and recommend an appropriate condition.
Drainage
6.22 The site lies within flood zone 1 which is land at low risk of flooding. As part of the Phase 2 development of the business park, a site-wide strategy was developed for the drainage incorporating a balancing pond, a series of swales, underground tank storage and permeable paving. It is proposed to utilise this approach with the site draining into the existing swales and the sub base of the permeable block work areas acting as a storage system, draining into the existing system. A new foul water drain will connect into the existing foul water sewer serving Phase 2, ultimately discharging to the public sewer. The Environment Agency and Southern Water have no objections and these matters can be covered by an appropriate condition.
Sustainable Construction
6.23 The Design Statement advises that ‘the design has been developed from early stages to achieve an integrated approach in terms of environmental design and sustainable construction. The target in excess of 10% carbon reduction would be incorporated. Formal BREEAM accreditation will not be sought as many of the periphery aspects are already established. It is proposed to concentrate funds on construction aspects to achieve the equivalent of a ‘very good’ rating for the building. ‘
6.24 The building is to be constructed to a high sustainable standard, the target is to achieve thermal insulation values with a 25% improvement over the current building regulations. Other measure would include low E glass and sunshading devices,
10 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 11.
photovoltaic panels will be installed on the south facing pitch of the roof to provide renewable energy, the SUDS drainage system installed as part of Phase 2 will be extended.
Employment Issues
6.25 The site lies within an Employment Protection Zone and is within the confines of the permitted business park. The use of the site for local employment purposes is thus compliant with policy and the overall aims of the Council for the economy and ties in with the purpose of the business park. In respect of the detailed employment considerations, the Design Statement advises that,
The proposed building will be let to Neville and Moore Ltd, the occupiers of the adjacent Unit 15 property. Neville and Moore operate in the packaging business and have had a presence in Southwater for almost 20 years. During that time as the company has grown, it has occupied successively larger properties. Unit 15 was purpose built for the company in 2006/ 2007.
The proposed building will accommodate planned future growth. As the business grows there will be a corresponding growth in staff numbers. The firm currently employs 30 staff and anticipate that this figure could increase to 50 should the new building be completed and operational .
The firm’s customer base includes major companies such as GSK, Novartis, Alliance, Boots, Marks and Spencer and Selfridges. Exports account for 5 to 10% of turnover and are increasing particularly in Europe. This accords with the broad objectives of the newly established Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership to increase gross value added ( GVA ) to the sub-region, increase exports and the number of private sector jobs.
The firm are keen to remain in Southwater as the majority of their staff lives within the locality.
The proposal is considered to be compliant with both Planning Policy Statement 4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth and the ‘ Planning for Growth’ Ministerial Statement issued in March 2011 The proposal will accordingly generate an economic output which in turn generates employment activity and wealth.
The proposal is considered sustainable on a number of economic grounds including increased local employment and the use of local contractors and suppliers for the development project - the principal contractor is based in Haywards Heath, the Photovoltaic System sub contractor in Horley and the Project Manager Quantity Surveyor in Steyning .
Should consent for the proposed building not be secured, the firm will need to consider relocating to another location possibly outside the district and region to accommodate the planned growth.’
11 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 12.
Conclusion
6.26 The site is part of a wider area that since the 1990s has been allocated for an industrial/commercial development with subsequent specific approval for B1 units and an innovation centre having been granted in 2006. This application for a B8 unit is considered to be appropriate for this location. The design and scale of the building proposed and the layout is considered to be acceptable and sympathetic to the character of the rest of the business park. It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable subject to conditions.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is recommended that the application be approved subject to a legal agreement for contributions and the following conditions:
01 A2 Full Permission 02 D6 Finished Floor Levels 03 M1 Materials 04 H4 On Site Parking (during construction) 05 H6 Wheel Washing 06 O1 Hours of Working During Construction 07 O2 Burning of Materials 08 D10 Floodlighting 09 E3 Fencing 10 G3 Parking, Turning and Access 11 H10 Cycle Parking 12 V3 Storage 13 V5 No Extensions 14 L1 Hard and Soft Landscaping
15 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of proposed construction methods incorporating sustainable construction techniques and measures to achieve a 10% reduction in the scheme’s carbon dioxide emissions shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of sustainability and in accordance with Policy DC8 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).
16 G6 Refuse/recycling facilities 17 S4 Surface water drainage
18 The development hereby approved shall be completed only in accordance with the Reptile Mitigation Strategy; mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with the details therein and under the supervision of an
12 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 13.
Ecological Clerk of Works unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To avoid impact on legally protected species (Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981)
8. REASONS
IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan. ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
Background Papers: DC/11/1131 Contact Officer: Val Cheesman
13 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 2 August 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Cessation of commercial use and erection of a (4-bed) dwelling on land at Kingscote
SITE: Coach park adjacent to Kingscote, Dorking Road, Warnham
WARD: Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham
APPLICATION: DC/11/0950
APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs R S Knight
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Agent request to speak
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be refused
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks planning permission for the cessation of the existing commercial use of the site and the erection of a 4-bedroom dwelling.
1.2 The proposed dwelling would be two-storey formed in an ‘L’ shape and situated to the north-east of the dwelling known as Kingscote. The accommodation would comprise living room, dining room, kitchen, utility, study and WC at ground floor with four bedrooms and family bathroom at first floor. Two of the bedrooms would benefit from en-suite facilities. An integral double garage is also proposed.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.3 The application site is situated within the countryside approximately 3km north of the built up area boundary of Warnham. Formerly part of the residential curtilage of Kingscote, the site now has a lawfully established use for the operational use of three public service vehicles and benefits from an existing access which it shares
Contact: Jamie Forsman Extension: 5258 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2
with Kingscote. In terms of the existing built environment the site is currently vacant with the exception of a small wooden building adjacent the north boundary.
1.4 To the north of the application site is Durfold Hill Farm. This is set back from the road behind a belt of trees. There are a number of detached houses to the South of Kingscote, all within large plots and most of which are set back from the road behind trees resulting in a pronounced sylvan rural atmosphere.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 PPS1, PPS3 and PPS7.
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP13 and CP19
2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC1, DC6, DC8, DC9 and DC40
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
WN/41/86 - Erection of house and garage (outline). Application refused 17.12.1986 (appeal lodged and subsequently dismissed)
WN/53/00 - Erection of 1 dwelling and garaging (outline). Application withdrawn 5.12.2000
WN/3/01 – Erection of 1 dwelling and garaging (outline). Application refused 1.03.2001 (appeal lodged and subsequently dismissed) A copy of the appeal decision is appended to this report
WN/25/02 – Certificate of lawful use relating to the operational use & parking of psv vehicles. Application permitted 7.8.2002
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 None received
APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.2 West Sussex County Council: No objections
“The proposal aims to remove the commercial use of the land which is currently for parking, cleaning, inspections and minor repairs of 3 coaches and replace this use with a 4 bed residential dwelling. It is clear that the applicant considers the existing access to be sub standard for the use of coaches and that the same access for a residential dwelling would be adequate. Having inspected all the available information, it appears that the access width is acceptable from a residential perspective with an acceptable level of visibility in both directions of Dorking Road from the point of access. I should also point out that there have not been any recorded accidents at the point of access with Dorking Road in the last 3 years. The applicant aims to provide 3 car parking spaces with this proposal and according to our parking calculator this exceeds WSCC standards. The applicant however does appear to have sufficient space within the site to provide the necessary parking, but the LPA may wish to consider this. From inspection of the block floor and elevation plan there appears to be an adequate area of turning provided to allow for a vehicle to leave the site in a forward gear.”
Cycle store condition recommended and County section 106 contributions to be secured.
3.3 Southern Water: No objections subject to imposition of a sustainable drainage condition
3.4 Warnham Parish Council: Object to the application on the following grounds:
“The proposed construction is in a rural location and is not compatible with the concept of the infilling of gaps within defined built up areas of the parish. The certificate of lawfulness granted for the parking of 3 coaches is specific in its limitations and controls and future use in the event of changed ownership. The granting of the planning application in this location would set a precedent for the construction of residential dwellings in areas not designated for such usage.”
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.5 No third party letters of representation received
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues are the principle of the proposed land use in this location and the effect of the development on the character of the area; the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining property and the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling; trees; and highways and traffic conditions.
Principle of development
6.2 The site is situated outside the built up area boundary of Warnham and therefore for the purposes of planning policy it is situated within the countryside, whereby new residential development is generally resisted and is considered unsustainable in such a locality. The site currently has an established use for the operational use of three public service vehicles and formerly formed part of the residential curtilage of Kingscote, the neighbouring residential property, which is in the applicants’ ownership.
6.3 The change of use from commercial to residential in conjunction with the associated development of a new dwelling needs to be considered against relevant Development Plan policies to ensure that the impact upon the visual amenities of the countryside, neighbour amenity and highway safety are acceptable in planning terms.
Impact upon the appearance and character of the area
6.4 The proposal seeks to partly infill an existing visual gap between Kingscote and Durfold Hill Farm. Previous applications for residential development on this site have been refused by the Local Planning Authority and subsequently dismissed at appeal.
6.5 It is noted that the site now benefits from a lawful use certificate for the parking of three public service vehicles, however the site remains undeveloped (with the exception of a small storage shed) therefore the visual impact of new residential accommodation remains a material consideration.
6.6 When compared to neighbouring properties, the proposed dwelling is considered to be of an inappropriate size and scale with specific reference to its bulk and massing. The level of detailing, in particular the use of subsidiary features such as dormers, 11 in number, is excessive resulting in an overly convoluted appearance that detracts from the built character of neighbouring properties. The introduction of a dwelling in this immediate locality will result in undue intensification of the residential frontage and compromise the existing visual gap between Durfold Hill Farm and Kingscote. This is considered inappropriate in such a countryside location.
6.7 In addition a residential use will result in a change to the open rural character by reason of the introduction of residential paraphernalia, manicured gardens and APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5
similar features associated with residential use which are considered to have a more significant impact upon the rural character of the countryside than the current lawful storage of 3 vehicles.
6.8 The Inspector noted in the decision of application WN/3/01 that:
“… I consider that there is a marked change of character between Kingscote and Durfold Hill Farm. The row of houses along the eastern side of the A24 in this location is, to my mind, perceived as residential accommodation in the countryside, whereas the land to the north of Kingscote is contained within the wider agricultural land that surrounds this isolated group of dwellings”.
The Inspector further states that:
“…the present unbuilt nature of the appeal site, by being open, contributes toward the rural atmosphere of the surroundings, and that the introduction of another dwelling here would be an unexpected addition to this group, and would thereby intrude in the countryside, making it less rural”.
6.9 While residential use may result in less intensive use of the site than the lawful commercial use, the visual impacts resulting from the associated development are considered on balance to warrant refusal of the application.
6.10 Furthermore, the site is situated outside of any defined built-up area within the countryside and in an isolated position poorly served by public transport together with the nature of the roads without lighting and limited footpaths, it is considered that the occupants of the proposed dwelling would be heavily reliant on the car for access purposes and would reinforce unsustainable patterns of development.
Impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining property and the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling
6.11 The proposal is sufficiently distanced from neighbouring residential properties and would not result in any adverse impacts upon neighbouring occupiers with respect to overlooking, loss of light and outlook.
6.12 The property would provide a large spacious size family home with plenty of private amenity space. No concerns are raised in this respect.
Trees and landscaping
6.13 The site is vacant and contains no TPO trees. Existing boundary vegetation to the north would not be affected as a result of the siting of the proposed building platform. Landscaping could be secured by way of standard planning conditions or undertaken at the applicant’s discretion. The proposal would benefit from planting to the front of the site to ensure the continuation of the sylvan rural atmosphere.
Highway safety, parking and access
6.14 WSCC Highways raise no objection to the proposal and note that the existing access would be sufficient for residential purposes. While the on site parking provision may exceed the maximum parking standards required by the West APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6
Sussex Car Parking Calculator, it is not deemed significant given that this is likely to be inevitable on a generous size countryside plot.
6.15 The applicant maintains the proposal will result in an improvement in highway safety as a result of the cessation of the use of the existing access by public service vehicles associated with the lawful use of the site. However, on the basis of the information submitted it is not considered that any benefits associated with this aspect of the proposal outweigh the harm identified from the impact of the construction of a new dwelling in this unsustainable rural location.
Contributions
6.16 The proposed development would trigger the requirement to provide financial contributions toward Libraries (£308), Fire & Rescue (£135) and Total Access Demand (£2656) and which would be sought by the County Council. The District Authority would also seek financial contributions toward Open Space and Recreation (£2201); Community Centres and Halls (£486) and Local Recycling (£243).
6.17 The required section 106 contributions listed above have not been secured at the time of this application and the proposal therefore fails to mitigate impacts upon off-site services, amenities and infrastructure. This forms an additional reason for refusal.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
1. The proposed dwelling by reason of its size, siting and design and the partial infilling of an existing visual gap, in the sporadic linear form of development within the Countryside, is considered to be an unsympathetic and visually intrusive form of development which would result in unacceptable intensification of the existing streetscene to the detriment of the character and visual amenities of this unsustainable countryside location and would be contrary in particular to policies DC1 (Countryside Protection and Enhancement) and DC9 (Development Principles) of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
2. The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to transport, community facilities, amenities and infrastructure and is therefore contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Core strategy (2007) as it has not been demonstrated how the infrastructure needs for the development would be met.
Background Papers: DC/11/0950 Contact Officer: Jamie Forsman APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee (North) BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 2nd August 2011 DEVELOPMENT: Proposed erection of four bay detached garage SITE: Saxes Plat, Tismans Common, Rudgwick, Horsham WARD: Rudgwick APPLICATION: DC/11/0543 APPLICANT: Mrs N Reeve-Tucker
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak
RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 Proposed erection of four bay detached garage located forward of the main house.
1.2 The proposal has been amended on two occasions (10/05/11 and 10/06/11) during the consideration process of the application and reconsultation undertaken accordingly.
1.3 The current amended proposals for the garage show a structure with some annotated dimensions, other dimensions have been scaled off the drawings. The garage would have a length of 15.2metres and a width of 5.4metres wide and height of 4.5metres. A front projecting gable would project a further 1.2metres. The garage has been designed with an eaves height at the front at 2.5metres and to the rear the eaves height is 2.3metres to give a partial ‘catslide’ roof effect. The side (north) elevation has a full ‘catslide’ roof incorporating a log store.
Contact Officer: Pauline Ollive Tel: 5424 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.5 The application site comprises a large two-storey dwelling that is set back from the road in a countryside location. That site is bounded at the front adjacent to a grassed verge at the back edge of the road by 1.5metre high mature hedges with 2metre high automated wooden gates between two brick pillars at approximately 3.5metres in height including finials that lead into a front garden that is mainly laid to tarmac to the front of the house, with grassed areas to the sides. The site has been the subject of previous applications that cumulatively have extended the size of the house from the original classic country arts and crafts house, however many of these original features are still evident.
1.6 The locality of Tismans Common is rural in character comprising agricultural land with sporadic residential development and buildings. The dwellings are in the main two storey detached dwellings in substantial plot sizes with mature gardens with boundary planting.
1.7 To the southwest of the site and set well back from the road to the side of the main house there was an existing 3 (possibly 4) bay garage, that has since been demolished. The demolition of that existing garage together with existing single storey extensions was a part of an earlier application (DC/07/1473) that approved the erection of a 2-storey extension, leisure annexe and conservatory. This permission has been implemented and works are currently ongoing on the site.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 PPS1 and PPS7
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 The relevant policies of the LDF Core Strategy are CP1 and CP3
2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies are DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC28
2.5 South East Plan 2009 CC6 Sustainable Communities and Character of the Environment
PLANNING HISTORY
RW/6/62 - Addition of sun room to existing house - Permitted RW/16/64 - Proposed additional sitting room and bedrooms to ground floor single storey wing – Permitted APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3
RW/46/83 - Erection of timber stables and hay barn to replace existing timber buildings in close proximity – Permitted DC/06/2943 - Demolition of single storey extensions and erection of 2-storey extension, new access, brick piers, walls, gates, leisure annexe and conservatory – Refused DC/07/1473 - Demolition of single storey extensions and erection of 2-storey extension, leisure annexe and conservatory – Permitted DC/08/0404 - Retention of 1st floor extension – Permitted DC/10/2630 - Proposed erection of 5-bay detached garage - Refused
3 OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.1 WSCC Highways Engineer - I refer to your consultation in respect of the above planning application and would provide the following comments.
West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under planning application no.DC/2630/10 to which no objections were raised.
From inspection of the plans submitted with this application, dated 10.05.2011, it is apparent that the proposed number of parking bays within the garage has been reduced from five to four parking bays.
The garage set to be demolished currently caters for four vehicles and as the proposed garage is offering the same arrangement. As a result of this there will be no material change to the parking situation at Saxes Plat.
Based on the most recently submitted plans, it is not anticipated that there will be any highway concerns associated with this proposal.
3.2 Rudgwick Parish Council - Commented on 13/04/11 and subsequently on amended plans on; 26/05/11 and 07/07/11.
In respect of the original plans of 22/03/11 – The Parish Council objects to the application for reasons of size, scale and proximity to the side boundary. The proposed development would be overly prominent and detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring property. The amendments to previous application DC/10/2630 appear to be minimal and do not address the previous objections.
in respect of amended plans of 10/05/11 – note the reduction of the proposed garage to four bays with a log store; however the Parish Council still object for reasons of size, scale. “The proposed garage would be too close to the boundary detrimental to the amenities of the neighbouring property”.
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4
in respect of further amendments of 10/06/11 - The Parish Council, at its meeting had no objection when it considered the application, which is understood; meet the minimum criteria suggested by the Planning Officer.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.3 Neighbours – Letters were received from:
Little Swains - on 14/04/11, 22/05/11, Chalmington - on 14/04/11, 22/05/11 and 5/07/11 Urchins - on 15/04/11, 21/05/11 27/06/11 and 5/07/11 1 Perry Lodge - on 19/04/11 and 3/07/11 Bucks Cottage - on 24/05/11 Perry Lodge - on 17/04/11
Rudgwick Preservation Society – on 17/04/11 and 23/06/11
Original Plans 22/03/11
Little Swains - design, overdevelopment, loss of privacy, light and noise; Chalmington - loss of light, size, outlook, general amenity and noise disruption; Urchins - size, Loss of light, noise disruption and overdevelopment; 1 Perry Lodge - design, Overdevelopment, Loss of privacy, light and noise disruption. Rudgwick Preservation Society - object on the grounds of height, imposing, effects on character and detrimental to neighbour amenity.
Amended Plans 10/05/11
Little Swains - design, overdevelopment, Privacy, light and noise, trees and landscaping; Urchins - loss of general amenity, overdevelopment, privacy, light and noise; Chalmington – size, loss of light outlook, general amenity and noise disruption; Bucks Cottage - design, Overdevelopment, privacy, light and noise; 1 Perry Lodge - loss of general amenity, overdevelopment, privacy, light and noise, trees and landscaping. Rudgwick Preservation Society – 22/05/11.
Further Amended Plans 10/06/11
Urchins - design, Loss of General amenity, overdevelopment, privacy, light and noise; Perry Lodge - design, privacy, light and noise; 1 Perry Lodge - design, Loss of general amenity, overdevelopment, privacy, light and noise, trees and landscaping.
Rudgwick Preservation Society - “sees only minimal change in height and length. The proposed structure is still too large. The proposed structure is still too large. The over-dominance of the building will affect the character of a rural area and will interfere with the amenities of the neighbours.
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
5.1 It is not considered that the proposal gives rise to any crime and disorder implications.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main considerations are the principle of the proposed development in this location, the effect of the development on the character of the area and the impact on amenities of nearby residential occupiers
6.2 The site lies in the countryside outside the defined built up area of Rudgwick
6.3 This is a revised application for the erection of a detached garage that would be set forward of the main house adjacent to the northwest boundary with the neighbouring property to the west ‘Chalmington’.
Background History
6.4 The previous application DC/10/2630 was for a five bay garage with log store that had dimensions of 18.1metres by a maximum depth of 6.1m metres, (which includes the central gabled projection). The garage would have a roof ridge to a maximum height of 5.1metres. The application was refused on the grounds that “The proposed detached garage by virtue of its size, scale, height, proximity to the side boundary, relationship with the adjacent dwelling together with its forward location of the main dwellinghouse would result in an overbearing and overly prominent form of development which would detract from the rural character of the area and amenities of adjacent occupiers”
Current Application
6.5 The current application as originally submitted showed a garage of a length of 15.9metres by 5metres with a 1metre front projecting bay to a height of 4.9metres. However, it still showed a five bay garage. It was considered that the concerns regarding the impact on the rural character and visual amenities had not been overcome. Given its juxtaposition with ‘Chalmington,’ together with its height and proximity to the boundary, it was considered that the garage was overbearing and would impede the outlook that the occupiers of the adjacent dwellinghouse currently enjoy.
6.6 Subsequent discussions have taken place with the applicant and revised drawings were submitted on the 10/05/11 that showed a reduction in the length, but increased width and height. The revised dimensions were 15.2metres by APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6
5.4metres, with a front projecting bay that extended a further 1.2metres. Whilst the ridge height is annotated at 4.9metres, a comparison of the elevations to the earlier plans, show it higher and it scales off at between 4.9 and 5.2metres. The internal layout showed four bays and log store. However, this was still not considered sufficient to overcome the concerns and further revisions were required.
6.7 A second set of amended plans were submitted on the 10/06/11 these show the garage with dimensions of 15.2metres in length x 5.4metres wide with the front projecting bay that extended a further 1.2metres with an overall ridge height of the garage at 4.5metres with eaves height of 2.5metres on the front elevation and incorporating a ‘catslide’ effect roof on the rear elevation with an eaves height of 2.3metres.
Character and Appearance
6.8 The garage would be sited forward of the host building in the front garden area, but would be set back approximately 10.5metres from the road. The site is largely screened from the road by the existing hedges and wooden gates. It is acknowledged that the roof of the garage may be seen from the eastern edge of the site when travelling along the road in a westerly direction, but the structure could be read in conjunction with the properties to the west. The site originally had a flat roof garage that was set back from the front wall of the house on its western side, but this has since been demolished, as a part of an earlier application DC/07/1473.
6.9 As a result of the amendments to the size and height of the garage, the gabled projection no longer sits in the central part of the garage. The gabled roof is a design feature of this projecting element on the front elevation. Although the roof of this element could be hipped to further reduce the bulk of this element of the roof, the applicant is happy with this design and did not wish to further amend the plans in this respect
6.10 Given the size, scale and bulk of the host house, that over time has been substantially extended and altered, it is considered, on balance, the proposed garage is in scale and character with the host property. Also given the degree of screening from the road it is considered the size of the garage as amended would not detract from the rural character or visual amenities of the streetscene in this location such to warrant a refusal of planning permission in this case.
Neighbours
6.11 There are residential properties to the northwest of the site that adjoin the application site by their rear gardens comprising; 2 Perry Lodge, Perry Lodge, No1 Perry Lodge and Evergreens respectively. The south and south-eastern side of the site the property overlooks open fields. Urchin and Springside, are residential properties located on the opposite side of the road that are set well back from the road and screened from the site by hedged boundaries.
6.12 The nearest residential property to the application site that would be directly affected is ‘Chalmington’ which has a boundary that adjoins the application site at its rear (south) and side (east) boundaries.
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 7
6.13 The concerns that have been raised concern the height and size of the garage and the ensuing loss of light, outlook general amenities and noise disruption.
6.14 Chalmington has been previously extended and has three side facing windows. The closest is a large window that serves a stairwell in the extended part which is also used at ground floor level as a study area. There are also windows at first floor and ground floor level in the main house (set further away) facing the application site. The window at first floor level is a secondary window to an upstairs living room and the ground floor window (also a secondary window) serves a dining room. There would be a distance of approximately 6metres from the side elevation of the adjacent neighbouring property and the proposed garage.
6.15 Thus the closest window (the landing window) does not serve a habitable room and given the distance and reduced height of the garage (now 4.5metres) this is considered to be an acceptable arrangement between the two properties.
6.16 Currently the boundary between the two properties is made up of mixed species hedging including laurel that is approximately 4.0 plus metres in height. The hedge has its main trunks along the common boundary, the branches of which extend out to a width of approximately 2metres in places. The garage would be located adjacent to the hedge with a separation of between 1.5metres at the northern end, (closest to the road), and 1metre at its south-eastern end.
6.17 Concern has been expressed by the occupiers of Chalmington with regards to the loss of the hedge, as previous assurances by the applicant to replace a part of the hedge that has been removed has apparently not been undertaken, with a woven rush type boundary treatment closing the gap and until recently with new relatively young plants. In this respect a condition could be imposed to safeguard the current boundary treatment, to minimise any harmful effects on their residential amenities as a result of the development and requiring any replanting/strengthening of the boundary.
6.18 The amendments to the height and overall size of the garage are together, with the ‘catslide effect’ rear roof slope that slopes away from the boundary, is considered to overcome previous concerns in respect of the impact on neighbouring amenity of Chalmington.
6.19 With regards to the other neighbours to the west, namely 2 Perry Lodge, Perry Lodge, 1 Perry Lodge and Evergreens, although their rear gardens bound the side garden of the application site, given the position of the garage to the front of the site it is unlikely that the occupiers of these properties would be adversely affected by the proposal.
6.20 Other concerns that have been raised by neighbouring properties to the site are in respect of noise and disruption that relates to the construction of the extensions and landscaping at the rear of the property. These complaints were being dealt with by the Public Health and Licensing Department, are now concluded. In addition Planning Compliance Officers that have indicated a letter has been sent to the applicant advising that a Lawful Development Certificate application be submitted in respect of the extensive landscaping currently being undertaken.
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 8
Conclusion
6.21 It is considered that on balance the proposed detached garage would reflect the scale and character of the existing house as extended and would not detract from the wider landscape setting, or residential amenity and as such the proposal is recommended for approval
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 It is recommended the application be granted subject to the following conditions
01 A2 Full permission 02 M1 Approval of Materials 03 L1 Hard and soft landscaping, including retention of the hedge 04 The garage hereby approved shall not be used other than for domestic storage or parking of private motor vehicles in association with the private enjoyment of Saxes Plat as a dwelling and for no other purpose Reason: The site is located within a rural area where the formation of additional independent units of residential accommodation would be contrary to policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 05 The garage hereby approved shall not be extended or altered without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority by way of an application in that behalf Reason: To maintain control over the development in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).
8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
IDP The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.
Background Papers: DC/11/0543 Contact Officer: Pauline Ollive
APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 5th July 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Proposed change of use of existing equestrian establishment including conversion and alterations to existing buildings to a place of worship with associated gardens and car parking plus demolition of buildings
SITE: Bridge House Riding Stables, Five Oaks Road, Slinfold
WARD: Itchingfield, Slinfold & Warnham
APPLICATION: DC/11/0397
APPLICANT: Dr E Umerah - The Grail Foundation of Great Britain
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Category of development
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be refused
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks permission for the change of use of part of the existing equestrian establishment at Bridge House Riding Stables. It includes the conversion and alteration of existing buildings to a place of worship with associated gardens and car parking plus demolition of identified.
1.2 The proposal involves the conversion of the main indoor riding school into a worship hall, with the building attached to the stables to be converted into a reception building and the stables converted into storage space. Some stables/barn would be converted for use as private reflection rooms and classrooms and one for the purposes of an office and caretakers room which would also be used for occasional overnight stays.
Contact: Amanda Wilkes Extension: 5521 APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2.
1.3 In total the application proposes the following:
1 worship hall 1 reception building and storage 1 office and wc facilities 1 caretakers overnight accommodation 18 parking spaces 6 disabled car parking spaces 3 min bus parking spaces Gardens
1.4 The applicant, ‘The Grail Foundation of Great Britain’, is a registered charity (no 211305) and advises that it has approximately 500 members in the UK. The Design and Access Statement advises that they have agreed to purchase the existing premises excluding the dwelling off Five Oaks Road.
1.5 It is anticipated by the applicants that the venue would be used at weekends and for approximately three festivals per year. A statement prepared by the applicant is attached to this report.
1.6 The site is accessed via an existing hard surfaced track which runs to the west and is located between Bridge House and Well Hall Cottage.
1.7 The existing dwelling known as Bridge House and the stable area located to the rear of residential properties located along the western boundary of Five Oaks Road are to be retained in their existing form by the current owners of the site.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1. 8 The application site is located on the west side of Five Oaks Road, to the rear of the dwelling known as Bridge House and partially to the rear of Well Hall Cottage.
1.9 Bridge House stables is a relatively large livery enterprise occupying a site of approximately 0.97 hectares, and includes a substantial yard with 55 stables. There are a number of other buildings associated with the commercial equestrian use of the site as well as a large indoor school, and an outdoor ménage used for dressage and other events.
1.10 It is advised by the applicant that the Equestrian Centre has been in operation for approximately 30 years and offers a range of events on site principally on Sundays including shows, hunter trials, ridden and hand events and a summer show.
1.11 There is a public bridleway (The Downs Link) to the southern boundary of the site. The site is located outside any defined Built Up Area Boundary and as such for the purposes of planning policy is located within the countryside.
1.12 The whole of the existing equestrian site is shielded from public views from both northern and western boundaries of the site by belts of mature trees.
APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 National Planning Advice PPS1, PPS4, PPS 7, PPG13
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP13, CP14, CP15 and CP19..
2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Documents 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC1, DC2, DC3, DC8, DC9, DC24, DC27, DC29 and DC40.
2.5 South East Plan 2009 - The Core Strategy for this sub – region is set out in policy GAT1. Further appropriate policies include CC1 Sustainable Development, CC4 Sustainable Design and Construction, CC6 Sustainable Communities and Character of the Environment, and C4 Landscape and Countryside Management.
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
2.6 The application site is subject to a long planning history, relating to the equestrian use of the site, dating from 1978. There have been no other applications for other uses or redevelopment.
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Building Control: Comments as follows:
The report is comprehensive with variable conclusions but only for the existing use. We think that it would be unlikely to be economically suitable for the proposed conversion. We would also suggest / consider a properly costed schedule of works to ensure viability.
3.2 Public Health and Licensing Department: comment as follows:
Area This premises is situated on a busy traffic route between Billingshurst and Broadbridge Heath.
APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4.
History This department has no complaints registered against this business.
Pollution Due to the close proximity of neighbouring residential properties, hours of demolition and construction activities (including deliveries and dispatch) should be limited to: 08.00 – 18.00 Monday until Friday; 09.00 – 13.00 Saturdays; and No activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
No burning of materials should take place on site.
Due to the close proximity of neighbouring residential properties, hours of worship activities should be limited to: 08.00 – 22.00 Monday until Friday; 09.00 – 22.00 Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays.
Any speech, singing and music must be inaudible at the premises boundary to prevent public nuisance.
A licensed waste removal contractor should remove all clearance debris and construction waste from site.
Health & Safety Asbestos has been recognised on the site. Any works, or possible disturbance to asbestos containing materials must be carried out by a licensed contractor. All asbestos containing materials must be disposed of as hazardous waste and conveyed to a licensed disposal site designated for asbestos.
Conclusion This department has no objection to the application provided the applicant addresses these issues.
3.3 Horsham and District Access Forum: Comments as follows:
It is not clear how accessible this venue/site will be for disabled people. There seems to be steps up into the main place of worship, level access will be needed. What sort of access is provided to the other venues on site? Is the ground gravel or firm tarmac?
It is not clear if there will be an accessible toilet on site for disabled people.
Also all the accessible/disabled parking is concentrated near the main worship hall. Other buildings may need accessible parking spaces nearby so that disabled people can park close by if needed.
APPENDIX A/ 5 - 5.
EXTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.4 Slinfold Parish Council: Comments as follows
At the Parish Council meeting on 28th April 2011, members voted to OBJECT to this application making the following observations:
1) The plans are not clear as to exactly what is involved e.g. are the stables being closed and what are the arrangements for the riding school? How many people may attend, on what days and at what times? What exactly is the space going to be used for? 2) Is this development in character with this rural location? 3) The safety issue with regard to large volumes of traffic exiting and entering from the site is of concern.
Slinfold Parish Council feel that an application of this nature should not be delegated and must go to committee and that the bordering parish 'Itchingfield' must be consulted too.
3.5 West Sussex County Council: Comments as follows:
Five Oaks Road is a classified road (A264) subject to a speed restriction of 40mph at the site access. The road is a district distributor between Billingshurst (A29) and Broadbridge Heath/Horsham (A24) and therefore traffic volumes are likely to be high. The road bends to the north and the south of the site access limiting visibility from the access in both directions. In addition, there are solid white lines painted down the centre of the road which are used to prohibit overtaking where visibility is limited. There are grass verges to the north and to the south of the access which provide for some level of visibility from the access, however it is unlikely that the visibility available accords with the recommended standard (DMRB 120m y distance) Our accident records have been checked and although there have been a number of recorded accidents on the bends to the south and the north of the application site there have been no recorded accidents within 200m (approx) of the site access in the last 3 years.
The site is currently being used as a livery yard and events venue (horse shows, dressage) and includes 55 stables, an indoor school and an outdoor ménage. The proposal is for the change of use of the equestrian facility to that of a place of worship. The application states there will be a loss of 514 sqm of floorspace resulting in the new internal floorspace of 1440sqm.
With regards to vehicular parking 18 car, 6 disabled and 3 Mini Bus spaces are proposed. The application form states that there are no existing parking spaces with relation to the existing use, which I believe to be an error or an omission. It is likely that historically the parking spaces have not been marked.
The existing access is a wide bellmouth with a concrete finish and divided into two lanes by a mature tree estimated to be 3-4m back into the site from the edge of the carriageway. It is likely that an in/out arrangement operates here which is acceptable. APPENDIX A/ 5 - 6.
Traffic Generation The Traffic Statement included with the application states the following information:
Existing Use Stables:30-40 cars twice a day. Approx. 150 movements per day. Given the number of movements it is assumed that the stables are operating on a DIY livery basis Training days: Additional movements Shows: A Sunday show could bring in excess of 100 movements per day
Proposed Use Sunday: 40-60 movements per day plus mini bus pick up Fri/Sat: 4-6 movements Festivals: 80-120 movements over weekend (Fri/Sat). 3 or 4 per year
From the information provided it would appear that the proposed use would not result in an increase in traffic movements when compared with the existing use. Also relevant is the type of vehicles using the access. Given the nature of the permitted use there are likely to of been a large number of towing vehicles ie horse boxes, this will not be the case with the proposed use.
Given the proposed use is likely to generate less traffic than the existing I would not wish to raise an objection to the application on highway safety grounds. However, given the level of visibility from the access is substandard and the level of signage currently located within the access (although I understand this will change with the new owners), I would request a plan showing available visibility splays in order to secure a condition which will keep these free from signage and ensure vegetation is maintained and does not overhang the highway/visibility splays.
In terms of current national and local transportation policies that call for less reliance on motor cars, the proposal for a new dwelling in a rural location is considered to be unsustainable and a reason for refusal can be formulated on these grounds.
However, if there are national or local planning policies that your authority consider to be material in this case sufficient to outweigh the transportation and sustainable development considerations, then this authority would confirm that the site is capable of being developed utilising the existing access and would not have a significant impact on the local highway network.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.6 Neighbour Notifications – 15 letters of objection (including 2 from same address) have been received from the neighbouring residential properties surrounding the application site, which provided the following comments and reasons for objection:
Impact on countryside Not in a sustainable location Loss of equestrian facility APPENDIX A/ 5 - 7.
Poor access and visibility Noise and Disruption Highway Safety Traffic and parking implications Loss of privacy Development considered out of scale and character with surrounding area Detrimental impact upon local residents No overriding local need for place or worship Concerns regarding relationship between proposed use and exiting retained use Concerns regarding amplified sound system Siting and general form of development
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The issues in this case are considered to be the principle of the development in this location; the amenities of neighbour and future occupiers, parking and highway safety issues; the impact and scale of the development on the character and visual amenities of the area, together with sustainability.
Details of the Scheme
6.2 The proposal is for the conversion of existing equestrian buildings for use as D1 purposes (Places of Worship). The Design and Access Statement describes the proposal as including the ‘conversion of the main arena area into a place of worship, some stables/barn will be converted for ancillary use (private reflection rooms and classrooms) and one into an office and caretakers room. The Design and Access Statement also states that ‘in preparation for the weekend and the 3 festivals it is sometimes necessary for someone to be onsite for long ours and a room will be made available for them to use at night. It is not intended to create a dwelling for permanent use.’
6.3 The existing owners of the site would retain the dwelling known as Bridge House and the stables to the north of the red line area as shown in the application details.
APPENDIX A/ 5 - 8.
Principle of Development
6.4 The proposal is for the change of use of part of an existing equestrian establishment including conversion of existing buildings to a place of worship with associated gardens and caretaker's overnight accommodation and car parking plus demolition of 2 buildings.
6.5 With regards to the principle of the proposed change of use the proposal raises several issues. Government Advice contained within PPS7 states that ‘The Government's policy is to support the re-use of appropriately located and suitably constructed existing buildings in the countryside where this would meet sustainable development objectives. Re-use for economic development purposes will usually be preferable, but residential conversions may be more appropriate in some locations, and for some types of building. Planning authorities should therefore set out in LDDs their policy criteria for permitting the conversion and re-use of buildings in the countryside for economic, residential and any other purposes, including mixed uses’. PPS4 also encourages LPAs to approve the conversion and reuse of appropriately located and suitably constructed existing buildings in the countryside for economic development.
6.6 The application site lies outside of any Built Up Area Boundary as defined by policy CP5 of the LDF Core Strategy within a countryside area where the Council’s restrictive Countryside policies apply.
6.7 LDF policy DC1 Countryside Protection and Enhancement advises that in the countryside, development will not be permitted unless it is considered essential to its countryside location and supports the needs of agriculture or forestry; enables the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste; provides for quiet informal recreation use; or ensures the sustainable development of rural areas.
6.8 LDF policy DC29 Equestrian Development supports new equestrian development subject to meeting with the relevant criteria but states that permission will not normally be granted for the conversion or change of use of existing equestrian establishments to a non- equestrian use.
6.9 Thus the loss of the existing equestrian facility is considered to be contrary to policy, and it is not considered that there has been any other mitigating circumstances that would justify the proposed development which is considered contrary to the advice contained within established and adopted policy.
6.10 The change of use of equestrian buildings has been submitted by the applicants under the auspices of LDF Core strategy policy CP14, CP15 Rural Strategy CP16 Inclusive Communities and CP18 Tourism and Cultural Facilities.
6.11 CP14 relates to the Protection and Enhancement of Community Facilities and Services. This policy advises that new or improved community facilities or services will be encouraged in order to enrich the overall quality of life within the District and, particularly where they meet the identified needs of local communities. The policy states that these facilities or services should preferably be within the defined built up area areas but exceptionally may be located outside such areas where this is APPENDIX A/ 5 - 9.
the only practicable option and where a suitable well suited site well related to an existing settlement exists.
6.12 Furthermore Policy CP14 states that development proposals that would result in the loss of sites and premises last used for the provision of community facilities or services, leisure or cultural activities for the community will be resisted.
6.13 It is recognised that whilst the current authorised use of the site is for Equestrian use providing a leisure facility for local people, the existing use is a private commercial leisure facility and as such the proposal should be examined in more detail against LDF policies DC1 Countryside Protection and Enhancement and DC29 Equestrian Development.
6.14 LDF Core Strategy policy CP15 - Rural Strategy states that:
Sustainable rural economic development within the District will be encouraged in order to deliver economic, social and environmental benefits to the local communities. It further states that development in the countryside which maintains the quality and character of the area whilst sustaining its varied and productive social and economic activity will be supported in principle, and that any development should be appropriate to the countryside location and should:
a) contribute to the diverse and sustainable farming enterprises within the District or, in the case of other Countryside-based enterprises and activities, contribute to the wider rural economy and /or promote recreation in, and the enjoyment of, the countryside;
With regard to the above the proposal does not represent a diversification of an existing enterprise; and is not considered to contribute to the rural economy or promote recreation in or enjoyment of the countryside particularly with regards to the detrimental impact resulting from activities and disturbance to the private residential amenity of local and adjacent residents as a result of the proposed development.
The applicants state in their Traffic Statement that activity levels at the proposed Place of Worship would be low with approximately 60 -70 uses arriving by car (families and car share) and involving an estimated 20 – 30 vehicles (40 -60 movements) on a Sunday. Additionally, three festivals (Friday to Sunday) are proposed 3 - 4 times per year with 100 - 150 visitors arriving and leaving over a three day period 40 -60 vehicles (80 – 120 movements).
It is anticipated by the applicant that some people will arrive by public transport and that an organised mini bus will operate to pick up from the local railway station and bus network. Other anticipated car movements are sited by the applicant as negligible with 4- 6 movements on a Friday and Saturday preparing for the weekends. The site will also employ a gardener involving 2 movements per week.
The current use levels of vehicular activity is estimated by the applicants as between 30 – 40 vehicles twice a day (up to 150 vehicles), with shows and APPENDIX A/ 5 - 10.
events on many Sundays (estimated by the applicant as being in excess of 100 movements over the day and therefore in their view the proposal would result in a reduction in traffic movements to the site.
However, your officers have concerns that given the countryside location of the application site, and the fact that there is limited public transport options available to people in the area, it is more likely that people visiting the area would choose to travel and journey by private cars.
Furthermore, it is considered by your officers that the existing use attracts individual people wishing to access a form of leisure activity appropriate to its countryside location. For information purposes, the Council’s Public Health and Licensing have confirmed that they have received no complaints regarding the existing use.
Comparatively the proposed Place of Worship facility would generate levels of traffic and vehicle movements for group gatherings at very specific times. These journeys would be in respect of a use that is not considered as essential to its countryside location. Thus, it is considered that such a facility would be better located within an identified built up area, in a more sustainable location, to enable the congregation to walk to the site or access public transport.
b) be contained wherever possible within suitably located buildings which are appropriate for conversion or in the case of an established rural industrial estate, within the boundaries of the estate,
The Council’s Building Control Department have provided comments which state that ‘The report is comprehensive with variable conclusions but only for the existing use. We think that it would be unlikely to be economically suitable for the proposed conversion. They also suggest a properly costed schedule of works to ensure viability.
c) result in substantial environmental improvements and reduce the impact on the countryside particularly where, exceptionally, new or replacement buildings are involved.
It is considered that the proposed external alterations do not result in substantial environmental improvements, and furthermore that they do not reduce the impact on the countryside. In addition, the alterations are not considered to be in keeping with the rural character of the existing building.
6.15 The policy also states that any development in accordance with this strategy should not harm the rural character of the area by virtue of the nature and level of activity involved and the type and amount of traffic generated (or other effects such as noise and pollution).
6.16 The supporting information with the policy states that the principle purpose regarding the rural economy of the district is to ensure sustainable economic growth and to meet the social needs of people who live and work in rural areas. It further states that it is necessary to balance the development necessary to sustain APPENDIX A/ 5 - 11.
and ensure future economic diversity and prosperity whilst maintaining the continued protection of the countryside’s environment and character.
6.17 It also advises that any developments should be appropriate to its countryside location and should amongst other criteria, be contained wherever possible within suitably located buildings which are appropriate for conversion. Such proposals should also result in substantial environmental improvements and reduce the impact on the countryside. Given the comments made by the Council’s Building Control department, the Council remain to be convinced that the building is suitable for conversion.
6.18 The policy also states that development should not harm the rural character of the area by virtue of the nature and level of activity involved and the amount of traffic generated.
6.19 It is not considered that Policies CP16 Inclusive Communities and CP18 Tourism and Cultural Facilities are relevant to this application.
6.20 With regards to the residential element of the scheme, PPS7 requires new housing within the countryside to be appropriately justified and essential for its countryside location and should be for an identified local need. It states that new house building and other new development in the open countryside away from established settlements or areas allocated for development in the Development Plan should be strictly controlled. It further states at Annex A that:
“it is essential that all applications for planning permission for new occupational dwellings in the countryside are scrutinised thoroughly with the aim of detecting attempts to abuse (e.g. through speculative proposals) the concession that the planning system makes for such dwellings”.
6.21 The applicant believes there is a necessity to be on site at certain times given the long hours required in preparation for the weekend and the three festivals held during the year. Although they state it is not for permanent accommodation, it is not considered that any substantive evidence has been submitted to justify setting aside strong policy objections to new development within the countryside and has not been appropriately justified or shown to be essential for its countryside location.
Scale and Appearance
6.22 The dimensions of the worship hall are given by the applicant as 49.245 metres x 23.890 metres (1,176.46sqm) and 89.3 metres to the ridge. Materials would include the use of fair faced block work, with a profiled steel composite clad roof, timber joinery and large windows to the east north and west elevations.
6.23 The Reception building and caretakers accommodation is ‘L’ shaped and the figures are given as 21 m x 8.3 m and 10.8 m x 8.3 m (264.94 sqm) with a ridge height of 3.85m. The building comprises block work with felt roof.
APPENDIX A/ 5 - 12.
6.24 The care takers accommodation comprises a one bed room unit and the plans show it as comprising a sitting room, bedroom and bathroom to the rear of the office, storeroom and toilets associated with the reception area.
6.25 The buildings to be demolished involve 26.94 sqm of floorspace.
Character and Visual Amenity
6.26 In terms of design the proposed external alterations to the building are considered to be relatively extensive with the level and degree of new fenestration proposed and result in a more domesticated appearance rather than a utilitarian building typically characteristic within the countryside. Although not immediately visible from the road frontage or Bridle Way the extent of alterations to the elevations is considered to be unacceptable and detriment to the wider rural character of the area.
Residential Amenities
6.27 With regards to the impact of the proposed use on the amenity of adjacent occupiers of the residential properties along Five Oaks Road, it is considered that the level of activity caused by the proposed Place of Worship in this location may give rise to an unacceptable level of disturbance to the occupiers by reason of the close proximity of the site and the large levels of traffic entering and leaving the site particularly at the weekends and during the festivals.
Contributions
6.28 The proposed scheme does not attract any District or County contributions.
Conclusion
6.29 In conclusion, it is considered that the change of use and external alterations to the existing equestrian facilities, for the purposes of a Place of Worship and the provision of a 1 bed unit of accommodation outside the defined built up area and within an unsustainable location in the countryside, with limited access to services and amenities, would represent an unsustainable form of development. The proposal is therefore considered to represent an unacceptable form of development which is considered as contrary to local development plan policies.
6.30 Your officer’s also consider that the loss of the existing established equestrian facilities, especially given their location immediately adjacent to the Downslink, is not justified particularly given the high demand for equestrian facilities within the Districts rural areas. Furthermore, no details have been submitted with regards to the element of retained equestrian facilities to the north of the red lined area, or details as to how it would operate. As such, your officers have concerns regarding future pressures for their change of use leading to the further erosion of equestrian facilities. APPENDIX A/ 5 - 13.
6.31 Furthermore, your Officers consider that the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that there is a reasoned justified for the creation of a new accommodation to serve the proposed use, or to set aside the strong countryside policies restricting further development within the countryside.
7. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
1. The change of use of this building to a Place of Worship is considered inappropriate and would fail to comply with the principles of sustainable development given the location of the site outside any defined built-up area and with poor access to services and facilities being remote from adequate public transport provision. Furthermore it has not been sufficiently demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the buildings are unsuited for their continued use for equestrian facilities or for economic development purposes, or that the residential use would meet a specific local need. The proposed development would thus be contrary to policies CP5, CP15 and CP19 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC1, DC29 and DC40 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies and the provisions of PPS3, PPS7 and PPG13.
2. The applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate that the additional unit of residential accommodation is both functionally necessary for the proper functioning of the site as required by Annex A of planning Policy Statement & :Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and Policy DC27 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) regarding essential rural workers on site accommodation. The proposed development would thus be contrary to policies CP3 and CP5 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC1 DC27 and DC29 of The Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies and the provisions of PPS3, PPS7 and PPG13.
Background Papers: DC/11/0397
Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes APPENDIX A/ 6 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 2 August 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Garage conversion to ‘granny annexe’
SITE: 32 Sloughbrook Close, Horsham
WARD: Holbrook East
APPLICATION: DC/11/1068
APPLICANT: Mr Iain Jones
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Applicant request to speak
RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be refused
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks permission to convert the existing garage to a ‘granny annexe’. The application involves the construction of a dormer window to the rear (South-West) elevation, change from barn-hip to gable on the side (South-East) elevation together with the removal of the existing garage doors and the insertion of a window, sliding doors together with a rooflight to the front (North-East) elevation.
1.2 The internal alterations include the provision of entirely self-contained accommodation comprising kitchenette and combined living/dining room at ground floor and insertion of stairs and provision of bedroom with en-suite at first floor.
1.3 The applicant within their submitted supplementary document states, that: “The owners, who have a family, have indicated a need for increased space in the form of conversion of the existing double garage to a house for their daughter and her fiancé and it is proposed to increase the floor area to 37.09m2 by inclusion of a first
Contact: Karen Tipper Extension: 5174 APPENDIX A/ 6 - 2
floor and re design part of the structure of the roof to include a small dormer and small gable end with the level entrance from the main house and garden”
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.4 The application site is situated on the southern side of Sloughbrook Close within a cul-de-sac development. The dwelling forms part of a larger housing development constructed in the early 1990s, which comprises in the main two-storey detached dwellings. A small terrace of three dwellings is situated on the opposite side of Sloughbrook Close with two pairs of semi-detached dwellings at the eastern end of the close. Higher density dwellings are located at the termination of the cul-de-sac.
1.5 32 Sloughbrook Close is a two storey detached property with detached double garage which sits forward of the dwelling. Vehicular access to 32 and 33 Sloughbrook Close crosses in front of number 31 Sloughbrook Close although this aforementioned property does not benefit from this access.
1.6 The boundary treatment is predominately timber close bordered fencing, although the south western boundary benefits from a thick tree line separating the application site from properties within Gateford Drive. These trees are located within the adjoining properties to the west.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 PPS1 and PPS3
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP5
2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC8 and DC9
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
NH/21/87 Res dev. max 900 dwellings etc outline. Permitted 06/11/1987
NH/112/90 Erection of 39 dwellings (approval of reserved matters) Site: Area 5A Chennells Brook Horsham. Permitted 05/11/1990
APPENDIX A/ 6 - 3
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 None.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.2 WSCC: The proposal would not be anticipated to have a negative impact on highway safety in this location, although it is unclear as to whether the annexe will be restricted to an annexe use by condition.
3.3 North Horsham Neighbourhood Council: No objection
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.4 No third party letters of representation received
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues in this case are the principle of the proposed development in this location and the effect of the development on the character of the area and visual amenities of the street scene; the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining property and the amenities of future occupiers.
6.2 The application site is located within the built-up area of Horsham, a Category 1 settlement, in a relatively sustainable location with access to local amenities, Littlehaven railway station and the town centre. The broad principle of residential development is considered acceptable in this location, however it is necessary to examine the details of the proposal in more depth.
6.3 A degree of ancillary accommodation associated with dwellinghouses can be provided as permitted development, however this would not allow for the provision APPENDIX A/ 6 - 4
of self-contained accommodation capable of separate independent residential use. Development Plan policies also allow for residential extensions and ancillary accommodation where the proposal is of a high standard of design whilst having regard to all other relevant considerations.
6.4 The application seeks permission to convert the existing garage to a ‘granny annexe’ together with minor external alterations. The internal alterations include the provision of entirely self-contained accommodation comprising kitchenette and combined living/dining room at ground floor and insertion of stairs and provision of bedroom with en-suite at first floor. For this reason, it is necessary to assess the relationship between the proposed ‘granny annexe’ and the main dwelling together with the level and nature of accommodation shown indicated and whether the proposal represents appropriate accommodation in this location.
6.5 The applicant within their submitted supplementary document advises that the need for increased space in the form of the conversion of the existing double garage to a house is for their daughter and her fiancé.
6.6 The intentions and sincerity of the applicant to provide residential accommodation for family members, in the short term for their daughter and fiancé, having regard to the current economic climate and uncertain employment opportunity for their daughter is not disputed. However, it is considered that personal circumstances should rarely be decisive on their own, when they are to be considered against policy objections to the principle of a proposal, this has been a long established general thrust of the planning process. Moreover, personal circumstances can change but the development would remain long after those particular circumstances had ceased.
6.7 The proposed annexe as shown on the submitted plans and as previously mentioned would provide entirely self-contained accommodation and could readily be occupied independently from the main dwelling. Indeed this is the intention to occupy it as a house as stated by the applicant within the submitted information. Thus, in effect a new dwelling would be created. For this reason the Local Planning Authority are not convinced that the proposed ‘granny annexe’ realistically represents appropriate ‘ancillary’ accommodation.
6.8 In light of the self-contained accommodation proposed, it is necessary to assess whether the proposal would provide acceptable accommodation for any future occupiers. The applicant has advised that in the longer term, the accommodation could accommodate elderly parents should the need arise. However, having regard to the size and layout, with bedroom and en-suite accommodation at first floor, it is considered that this is unlikely to be appropriate ‘granny annexe’ accommodation in these circumstances.
6.9 It is considered that the location of the detached garage forward of the main dwelling with separate access together with the level and nature of accommodation illustrated would result in the establishment of a new dwelling. It is considered that this relationship is inappropriate giving rise to a cramped form of development with limited amenity space. It would thus significantly harm and erode the defining characteristic of Sloughbrook Close which is predominately dwellings with APPENDIX A/ 6 - 5
associated garages on individual plots. The size of plot and prevalence of other similar garages within the vicinity would provide scope for other independent small dwellings to be created in the area, which the Local Planning Authority would likely resist.
6.10 The applicant has advised that they are willing to accept a condition to secure the proposed accommodation remain ancillary, however the attachment of a condition should only be imposed where the development would otherwise have been approved. Similarly a unilateral planning obligation preventing the severance of ownership from the main dwelling would serve little purpose, where a separate dwelling, in terms of use, were permitted. In this instance the LPA is not satisfied that the proposed development accords with the relevant planning policies and the attachment of a condition or unilateral undertaking would therefore not be appropriate in this instance.
6.11 In respect of the proposed external alterations, it is considered that the proposed dormer window is overly bulky dominating the roof slope, however the proposed dormer window is located on the rear roof slope and so would not result in any loss of amenity to occupiers of adjoining properties and would not be visually intrusive from the street. Similarly, the change from barn-hip to gable on the south-east elevation would not adversely affect the character of the street nor would it result in any adverse impact to residential amenity.
6.12 It should be noted for the avoidance of doubt that the orientation of the garage as shown annotated on the submitted elevational plans is inaccurate, however this is not considered to prejudice the assessment of the application.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reason:
1. Having regard to the level and nature of accommodation illustrated, together with its relationship forward of the existing dwelling with separate access, the conversion of the building to residential use as proposed has the facilities to represent an independent unit of accommodation, capable of separate residential use thus resulting in the significant harm and erosion of the defining characteristic of Sloughbrook Close. The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied by the information submitted that the nature of accommodation proposed represents ancillary accommodation. As such the proposed development is contrary to policies CP1 and CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)
Note to applicant: The applicant is advised that were an application submitted for a ‘link extension’ which provided the necessary accommodation at ground floor whilst retaining an internal link to the main dwelling, that the LPA may consider this more favourably.
APPENDIX A/ 6 - 6
Background Papers: DC/11/1068 Contact Officer: Karen Tipper APPENDIX A/ 7 - 1.
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services
DATE: 2nd August 2011
DEVELOPMENT: Change of use from A1 to A3 use and alterations to allow expansion of existing restaraunt
SITE: No’s 1 and 3 Stans Way, East Street, Horsham
WARD: Denne
APPLICATION: DC/11/1070
APPLICANT: Mr Tristan Mason
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Council owned property
RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks permission for a change of use from A1 to A3 of No 1 Stans Way which would result in the expansion of the A3 use at Restaurant Tristan, 3 Stans Way into the adjoining unit. Minor external changes to the East Street frontage of No 1 are also proposed.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.2 The application site is located in the town centre within the built up area boundary of Horsham. Both units are sited within the Horsham Conservation Area and No 1 Stans Way, which is currently used as a linen shop forms part of the identified secondary retail frontage of the town. The current restaurant is accessed from Stans Way, which is off East Street. The restaurant is sited directly to the rear of No 1 Stans Way.
Contact: David Taylor Extension: 5166 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 2
PLANNING HISTORY
1.3 HU/303/00 Use of building for A3 (restaurant) purposes permitted on 10/04/2001
DC/05/1102 Change of use of pedestrian thoroughfare to allow siting of 2 tables and 4 chairs permitted on 28/06/2005
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 PPS1, PPS4
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy are CP1, CP2, CP17.
2.4 The relevant policies of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document are DC3, DC9, DC12 and DC14.
2.5 The relevant policies of the South East Plan are CC1 and CC4.
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Access Officer – “It looks like this application will mean more accessible dining space for disabled and older customers (ie those who are unable to use stairs). No further comments to make.”
HDC Design and Conservation Officer – No comments to make
Public Health and Licensing – “I have no objections to this proposal in principal. However, in order to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts, the applicant will need to exercise suitable controls in the following areas and I make recommendations for consideration by the Planning Department:
1. The proposed opening to the front window on the floor offers the potential for noise breakout, which could cause potential noise nuisance to the neighbouring sensitive properties. The glass opening should be closed at 22.00 each evening.
2. No live or amplified music activities to be undertaken in any external areas and no speakers or sound systems to be positioned in any external areas.
APPENDIX A/ 7 - 3
3. There should be an effective management system in place to control noise and nuisance ensuring that neighbouring residents are not disturbed. This includes supervision of patrons while on site and marshalling of patrons as they leave the site to prevent noise, nuisance & anti-social behaviour.
4. If successful with this application for the proposed extension and changes to internal layout the proprietors may be required to apply to this department for a Variation of the current Premises Licence under the Licensing Act 2003. Conditions can be imposed upon the granting of any licence. Such conditions set out to ensure the following (a) the prevention of crime and disorder; (b) public safety; (c) the prevention of public nuisance; and (d) the protection of children from harm.
5. Planners should be aware however that the applicants may choose to apply for Temporary Event Notices. Currently premises are entitled to apply for a maximum of 12 Temporary Event Notices a year. It is important for you to be advised that there are NO conditions attached to a Temporary Event Notice. Therefore events can be held with no restrictions to control noise from amplified music being played indoors or outdoors and after 23.00, etc. I therefore offer the following planning condition recommendations for your consideration to protect neighbouring residents from potential noise nuisance and loss of amenity.
6. An effective management system shall be put into operation to monitor, supervise and control patrons while using the external areas. The management system must be effective to control noisy and anti-social behaviour ensuring that neighbouring residents are not disturbed by customers using any external area.
7. When live music is being played inside the premises an effective management system shall be put into operation to ensure that music is kept to a level which will not cause nuisance to neighbouring properties. The applicant must monitor the external areas adjacent to neighbouring residential buildings to ensure that music is barely audible.
8. No external lighting or heating appliances should be installed without the prior consent of this department for health & safety and nuisance purposes.
Construction Works:
1. Suitable assessments should be made to identify any asbestos contained within the building materials to be replaced and controls put in place to ensure safe removal and disposal.
APPENDIX A/ 7 - 4
2. A licensed waste removal contractor should remove all clearance debris and construction waste from site.
3. Suitable provisions must be made for the control of dust.
4. No burning of materials should take place on site.
Hours of construction activities (including vehicle movements) should be limited to 08.00 – 17.00 Monday until Friday, 09.00 – 13.00 Saturdays and no activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays.”
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.2 West Sussex County Council – “No highway concerns regarding this change of use”
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.3 Denne Neighbourhood Council – No objection
No other representations or consultation responses have been received.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
It is not considered that there are any implications for crime and disorder arising from this application.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues in the determination of this application are the principle of the proposed change of use, the impact of the proposal on the visual amenities of the locality and the character of the Conservation Area and the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties.
6.2 The application seeks permission for a change of use from A1 to A3 of No 1 Stans Way which would result in the expansion of the A3 use at Restaurant Tristan, 3 Stans Way into the ground floor of No1. The scheme also involves some minor external changes comprising the insertion of a door in place of a window on the East Street elevation (South Elevation) and the existing window being adapted to be fully opening. The site is within the area designated as Secondary Retail Frontage.
APPENDIX A/ 7 - 5
Principle of Development
6.3 The principle of the proposed change of use is assessed primarily under Policy DC36 of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007 which deals with changes of use within defined town and village centres. The policy states that proposals for change of use from A1 (Shops) to other A-class uses at ground floor level within the defined Town and Village Centre Boundaries will be permitted provided that the proposal will not result in more than 4 out of 10 units within the Secondary Retail Frontage being in non-retail use or result in more than 3 permitted non-retail uses operating adjacent to each other. Furthermore that the proposal will not result in the loss of local amenity particularly in terms of noise, litter, smell, parking and traffic creation and trading hours and for applications where an A3 use is proposed, the application is accompanied by a statement giving full details of means of control of emission of fumes, storage and disposal of refuse and means of insulation.
6.4 There are a total of 11 units within this area of Secondary Retail Frontage. At present, 2 of the units are in non-retail use, those being Pizza Express and the Hongkong Chinese Takeaway. The property would be bounded on each side by units which are in A1 use. The proposal would therefore comply with policy in terms of the number and proximity of non retail uses.
6.5 As the proposal would result in a seating area at ground floor level in the existing restaurant, it is not considered there would be a material adverse impact on local amenity in terms of noise, litter, smell, parking and traffic creation due to the nature of the proposal being ancillary to the existing use taking place on the site. The kitchen area would be unaffected by the proposal. The restaurant would still operate under the controls of the original planning permission in terms of control of emission of fumes, storage and disposal of refuse and means of insulation.
6.6 It is also a requirement for the unit to have been marketed for 18 months prior to the submission of an application. No marketing information has been submitted with the application. However, the Council’s Property and Valuation section, as land owner have stated that the unit has changed hands a number of times in the past, suggesting due to its relatively small size that it is unsuitable and not viable for an A1 use in this area. It is therefore considered that the proposal meets the criteria as set out under Policy DC36 of the General Development Control Policies Document.
Impact on Visual Amenities of Locality and Character of Conservation Area
6.7 The scheme incorporates a number of external changes to the East Street elevation of the property. A door is proposed to be inserted in place of an existing window to provide pedestrian access directly from East Street. The existing window is also to be adapted to be fully opening. This is a similar style to other restaurant windows in the street and is not considered to be at odds with the character of the area.
6.8 Policy DC12 of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007 states that within a Conservation Area, development (including expansion or APPENDIX A/ 7 - 6
intensification) will not be permitted unless, amongst other matters, the proposal is of a design and scale that preserves or enhances the special character or appearance of the area and is compatible with neighbouring buildings and spaces. The proposal would not result in an increase in the size of the existing structures and is therefore considered to be of an appropriate scale. It is considered the design of the proposal would preserve the character of the Conservation Area. It is noted that any proposed new signage to serve the unit would require a separate application for advertisement consent.
Impact on Amenities of Occupiers of Adjoining Properties
6.9 It is noted that an A3 use is currently undertaken at No 3 Stans Way. The site is located within a vibrant area of the town which has a number of restaurant uses in the near vicinity. It is considered the use of No 1 Stans Way to provide additional seating for the existing restaurant would have no additional material adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties, subject to appropriate controls. A certain level of activity is expected in the area due to the commercial nature of the street and immediate vicinity.
6.10 In conclusion, it is considered the proposed change of use would not cause material harm to the visual amenities or character of the locality or the special architectural character of the conservation area or have any adverse impact on adjoining occupiers and complies with the aims of the Local Development Framework.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted and to include the following conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2) The development hereby approved shall be used for A3 (restaurant and Café Use) only and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in any class in the schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.
Reason: Changes of use as permitted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 are not considered appropriate in this case under policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
3) The premises shall not be open for business other than between the hours of 7.30am – 11.00pm Monday to Thursday and 7.30am – Midnight Friday to Saturday and 10.00am – 10.30pm Sunday and Bank Holidays.
APPENDIX A/ 7 - 7
Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residents and in accordance with policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007.
4) The A3 use hereby permitted shall not be carried out until details of any amplified music/public address system have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The use shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residents and in accordance with policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007.
5) The fully opening window hereby approved shall be closed and securely shut by 22.00 each night and not re-opened until the premises re-opens on the following day.
Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residents and in accordance with policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Document 2007.
6) The use of No 1 Stans Way shall be used as an A3 use solely in connection with the adjoining unit No 3 Stans Way and not independently therefrom and in accordance with the floor plan as shown on plan number 1650.1/01, received 7th June 2011, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority by means of a planning application on that behalf
Reason: The use of the unit independently would require separate extraction and ventilation for independent use in order to ensure any pollution is dealt with in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
8. REASONS
IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.
ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.
Background Papers: DC/11/1070 Contact Officer: David Taylor