Email: committeeservices@.gov.uk Direct line: 01403 215465 Development Control (South) Committee Tuesday 15th September at 2.00pm Conference Room, Parkside, Chart Way, Horsham

Councillors: Brian O’Connell (Chairman) David Coldwell (Vice-Chairman) John Blackall Gordon Lindsay Jonathan Chowen Timothy Lloyd Philip Circus Paul Marshall Roger Clarke Mike Morgan Paul Clarke Kate Rowbottom Ray Dawe Jim Sanson Brian Donnelly Ben Staines David Jenkins Claire Vickers Nigel Jupp Michael Willett Liz Kitchen

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 18th August 2015 (attached)

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

4. To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee or the Chief Executive 5. To consider the following reports of the Development Manager and to take such action thereon as may be necessary: (a) Appeals (b) Applications for determination by Committee: Item Ward Reference Site No. Number

A01 and DC/15/1084 Land North of Highfield, Stane Street,

A02 , Upper DC/14/1745 Pound Lane, Beeding and Woodmancote

A03 Bramber, Upper DC/14/1744 Little Paddocks, Pound Lane, Upper Beeding Beeding and Woodmancote

A04 Chantry DC/15/1737 Old Clayton Boarding Kennels, Road, Washington

A05 Chanctonbury DC/15/1389 Land West of Smock Alley, Haglands Lane,

A06 DC/15/1318 Setyres Ltd, High Street, Henfield

A07 and DC/15/1107 The Barn, West Chiltington Lane, Billingshurst Shipley

A08 Billingshurst and DC/15/0162 The Barn, West Chiltington Lane, Billingshurst Shipley

A09 ,Shermanb DC/15/0916 Farm Buildings, Brighton Road, ury and

A10 Bramber, Upper DC/15/1471 4 Clays Hill, Bramber, Beeding and Woodmancote

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

Horsham District Council, Parkside, Chart Way, Horsham, West RH12 1RL Telephone: 01403 215100 (calls may be recorded) Horsham.gov.uk Chief Executive – Tom Crowley DCS150818

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 18th August 2015

Present: Councillors: Brian O’Connell (Chairman), John Blackall, Jonathan Chowen, Philip Circus, Paul Clarke, Ray Dawe, Roger Clarke, Brian Donnelly, David Jenkins, Nigel Jupp, Liz Kitchen, Gordon Lindsay, Mike Morgan, Kate Rowbottom, Jim Sanson, Ben Staines, Claire Vickers

Apologies: Councillors: David Coldwell (Vice-Chairman), Timothy Lloyd, Paul Marshall, Michael Willett

DCS/31 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 21st July 2015 were approved as a correct record and signed by the chairman. It was noted that Councillor Paul Marshall had attended the meeting.

DCS/32 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

There were no declarations of interest.

DCS/33 Announcements

There were no announcements.

DCS/34 APPEALS

Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No Site Officer Committee Recommendation Resolution Land Rear of Sussex DC/14/2039 Showground, Grinders Lane, Refuse Delegated West Grinstead, RH13 8NR Meadow Cottage, West DC/14/2756 Chiltington Road, Refuse Delegated Pulborough, RH20 2EE Land Off Kithurst Lane, DC/14/2139 Refuse Delegated Storrington, RH20 4BF Land Rear of 14 – 18, DC/15/0794 Henfield Road, , Refuse Delegated BN5 9XE Land Adjacent 6, Montpelier DC/14/1720 Cottages, Old London Road, Refuse Refuse Washington, RH20 3BN

Development Control (South) Committee 18th August 2015

Hearings

Ref No. Site Officer Committee Resolution Recommendation Elm Stud, EN/14/0222 Road, , Serve Delegated RH13 8QD

Appeal Decisions

Ref No Site Decision Officer Committee Recommendation Resolution 36 Priory Field, Upper DC/14/1923 Beeding, Steyning, Dismissed Refuse Delegated BN44 3HU Newbrook Riding Stables, Pound DC/14/2037 Dismissed Refuse Delegated Lane,Upper Beeding, BN44 3JD Adur Nursery, West DC/14/2070 End Lane, Henfield, Dismissed Refuse Delegated BN5 9RB Chestnuts, Spinney DC/14/2245 Dismissed Refuse Delegated Lane, West Chiltington

DCS/35 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/1325 - EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO NYEWOOD COURT, INCLUDING ADDITION OF PARAPET TO ROOF AND PROJECTING BAY WINDOWS AND CHANGE OF USE OF THE RESULTING BUILDING TO 12 FLATS, AND EXTERNAL ALTERATIONS TO THE FORMER BEVERLEY ENGINEERING BUILDING, INCLUDING A ROOF EXTENSION AND DORMER WINDOWS TO PROVIDE SECOND STOREY ACCOMMODATION, AND CHANGE OF USE OF THE RESULTING BUILDING TO A TERRACE OF 6 DWELLINGS, BOTH WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, REFUSE STORAGE, CYCLE PARKING AND LANDSCAPING SITE: NYEWOOD COURT, BROOKERS ROAD, BILLINGSHURST APPLICANT: MR ROBERT LAMB

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission to alter the exterior of Nyewood Court and the former Beverley Engineering building with a change of use to the resulting buildings to form residential units.

External alterations to Nyewood Court included demolition of a single storey plant room, alterations to fenestration arrangement, installation of rooflights, addition of projecting bay features at first floor level and addition of a parapet roof. This building would be converted to provide 12 flats.

2

Development Control (South) Committee 18th August 2015

DCS/35 Planning Application: DC/15/1325 (Cont.)

External alterations to the former Beverley Engineering building included the demolition of the single storey front section, addition of a pitched roof with dormer windows and rooflights to allow for the creation of second storey accommodation, the addition of bay windows, alterations to fenestration arrangement, addition of Juliette balconies to the rear elevation, addition of porches to the front elevation and changing of external materials. The building would be converted to provide a terrace of 6 dwellings.

Parking for the dwellings would be located in a parking area to the front of Nyewood Court and 13 on the yard area to the south of the buildings. The two end of terrace dwellings would have two parking spaces to the side, and there would be six spaces provided to the front of the building.

The application site was located along Brookers Road. Most of the site is hardsurfaced, other than hedging around the parking area and between the buildings, a landscaped area around the substation to the north of the site, and a grassy patch to the front of the buildings.

There were two three-storey blocks of flats to the east. To the north, on the opposite side of Brooker Road were individual detached dwellings and a railway line to the South. To the west was the Huffwood Trading Estate, comprised of small business units.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee. At the meeting it was reported that WSCC had since proposed an amended condition 10, for highway works set out in the Road Safety Audit to be carried out prior to occupation. Comments from the HDC Collections Supervisor (refuse and recycling) had been received that advised collection vehicles would need to park on the pavement whilst collecting. All Parish Council comments that did not appear in the report were summarised.

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

The Parish Council objected to the application. 3 letters of objection had been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the loss of land in employment use; the impact on the character and appearance of the area; the amenity of neighbouring residents; parking and highway matters; the amenity of future occupiers. The extant Prior Notification (DC/14/0291) for the change of use of the existing buildings to residential was also a key material consideration.

3

Development Control (South) Committee 18th August 2015

DCS/35 Planning Application: DC/15/1325 (Cont.)

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/15/1325 be granted subject to the following conditions:

01 The development hereby permitted in respect of both Nyewood Court and the Beverley Engineering Building shall be begun before 30th May 2016.

02 Before any construction work commences, named types, or samples of the facing bricks, roofing tiles and hanging tiles to be used in the external construction of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

03 Prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby approved full details of all hard and soft landscaping works, including details of surfacing materials and construction of the access road and surrounding areas of hardsurfacing, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works as may be approved shall then be fully implemented in the first planting season, following commencement of the development hereby permitted and completed strictly in accordance with the approved details. Any plants or species which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

04 Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, provision for storage of refuse and recycling shall be made in accordance with the approved drawings. The refuse and recycling storage facilities shall thereafter be retained for that purpose.

05 The facilities for the parking of cycles as shown on the approved drawings shall be provided prior to the occupation of the development hereby

4

Development Control (South) Committee 18th August 2015

DCS/35 Planning Application: DC/15/1325 (Cont.)

permitted, and shall be thereafter retained solely for that purpose.

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

07 Prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted, the parking spaces shown on the approved site plan shall be constructed and made available for use by residents. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for use ancillary to the residential occupation of the buildings.

08 No part of the development shall be first occupied until such time as the vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

09 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily be restricted to the following matters, • the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during construction, • the method of access and routing of vehicles during construction, • the parking of vehicles by site operatives and visitors, • the loading and unloading of plant, materials and waste, • the storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development, • the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, • the provision of wheel washing facilities and other works required to mitigate the impact of construction upon the public highway (including the provision of temporary Traffic Regulation Orders), • measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition and construction, lighting for construction and security, • details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works.

5

Development Control (South) Committee 18th August 2015

DCS/35 Planning Application: DC/15/1325 (Cont.)

10 No development shall commence until such time as full details and plans incorporating the recommendations given in the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit dated March 2015 and prepared by Laurence Shaw Associates and accepted in the Designers Response dated March 2015 and prepared by FMW Consultancy have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. For clarity, these details shall include the required visibility splays and road markings. The details once agreed shall be implemented prior to first occupation.

11 No part of the development shall be first occupied until the vehicle turning space has been constructed within the site in accordance with the approved site plan. This space shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated use.

12 Construction of the development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water.

13 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a full survey of the existing surface water brick culvert within the site, including details of its precise location in relation to existing and proposed works, and its condition, including details of any remedial works or mitigation measures required to ensure the culvert is not damaged or blocked during the construction process and timescales for completion of such works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any remedial or mitigation works required shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

14 A scheme of works to reduce the intrusion of noise to all habitable rooms and amenity spaces shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted. The scheme shall have regard to the requirements of

6

Development Control (South) Committee 18th August 2015

DCS/35 Planning Application: DC/15/1325 (Cont.)

BS8233:2014 and shall include provision of appropriate alternative ventilation to habitable rooms where appropriate. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and thereafter retained as such.

15 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, including asbestos contamination, of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

a) 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.

b) A site investigation scheme, based on (a) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

c) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (c) 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.

d) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (c) 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.

7

Development Control (South) Committee 18th August 2015

DCS/35 Planning Application: DC/15/1325 (Cont.)

16 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 a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

17 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order amending or revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development falling within Classes A B C D E and F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the order shall be erected constructed or placed within the curtilage(s) of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted so as to enlarge improve or otherwise alter the appearance or setting of the dwelling(s) unless permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to an application for the purpose.

DCS/36 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/0501– INSTALLATION OF GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR ARRAYS WITH AN INSTALLED CAPACITY OF UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 5MW OF RENEWABLE ENERGY TOGETHER WITH INVERTER/TRANSFORMER STATIONS, ACCESS, INTERNAL ACCESS TRACKS, LANDSCAPING, CABLING, ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE AND SECURITY MEASURES SITE: LAND AT FARM, STANE STREET, BILLINGSHURST APPLICANT: INAZIN POWER LTD.

The Development Manager reported that this application sought temporary planning permission for the installation of ground mounted solar arrays over an area of 11.9ha for a 30 year period. The solar farm would have capacity of ~5MW with 29,000 modules mounted in arrays running east to west across the site. The legs of the frames would be pile driven into the ground.

It was proposed that the electricity generated by the solar farm will connect to two 33kV electricity lines that cross the site. There was a proposed 2m high deer fence with 4m high posts with mounted motion-activated cameras set at intervals around the perimeter.

8

Development Control (South) Committee 18th August 2015

DCS/36 Planning Application: DC/15/0501 (Cont.)

To support the solar farm, the erection of a series of ancillary buildings that included a substation, and an inverter and transformer were proposed. The substation will be a GRP building on a concrete base and located in the north east corner of the site. To the west of the substation will be a small building housing the switchgear. Towards the centre of the site an inverter and transformer would be erected. These structures will be raised off the ground on stands.

Access to the site would be from the existing point along the A29 after altering the width to accommodate larger construction vehicles.

The application site was located roughly 250m south west of Five Oaks. The eastern boundary of the site was made up of mature hedgerows whilst the northern and western boundaries were framed by mature woodland. The southern boundary was comprised of a low lying, semi-mature hedgerow. The proposed route of the cable was also included within the red line. This extended along the west side of Stane Street, to the north, for approximately 1000m, turning west at Buckman Corner.

Isolated residential dwellings were situated to the south west of the site. Farm was situated to the north of the site. The fields immediately surrounding the site were agricultural in character and appearance. Swathes of dense ancient woodland were situated to the north and north-west of the site.

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

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

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. 13 letters of objection, four of support and one of comment had been received. The applicant addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: principle of development; visual and landscape impact, impact on neighbouring amenity; Impact on heritage assets; Ecology; Trees; Flood risk / drainage; Traffic and transport; Public rights of way; Environmental Impact Assessment and Third Party Representations.

RESOLVED

That Planning Application DC/15/0501 be granted subject to the following conditions:

9

Development Control (South) Committee 18th August 2015

DCS/36 Planning Application: DC/15/0501 (Cont.)

01 The use of the land hereby permitted for generating electricity shall be discontinued on or before 30 years from the first operational use of the solar photovoltaic panels, in accordance with a scheme of works to be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority at least 3 months before the expiry of this permission. The scheme of works shall include: - Method statement for decommissioning and dismantling all equipment on site; - Details of any items to be retained on site; - Method statement for restoring the land to agriculture; - Timescales for decommissioning removal and reinstatement of the land; - Method Statement for the appropriate disposal / recycling of redundant equipment / structures; - Provision for the review of the scheme as necessary. The scheme of works shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and the land restored to its former use within 3 months of the written approval of the scheme of works.

02 The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall strictly accord with those indicated on the approved details associated with the application.

03 There shall be no open burning of materials or waste on the site.

04 No development shall commence until details relating to the colour of the inverters and transformers have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained as such until the cessation of this permission.

05 No development shall commence until details relating to infra-red / thermal imagining CCTV equipment, including details of their design, appearance, height, colour and specification, has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall

10

Development Control (South) Committee 18th August 2015

DCS/36 Planning Application: DC/15/0501 (Cont.)

be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and retained as such thereafter until the cessation of this permission.

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

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

08 The Public Right Of Way 1345 shall be kept clear and unobstructed at all times throughout the construction and operational phases of the development hereby permitted, and a useable width of 2 metres shall be available at all times for lawful footpath users.

09 Notwithstanding the details hereby approved, the details and location of temporary signage along Public Right of Way 1345 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The temporary signage shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and retained as such thereafter until the end of the construction phase.

10 No development shall be carried out, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan (‘the Plan’) has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily be restricted to the following matters,

11

Development Control (South) Committee 18th August 2015

DCS/36 Planning Application: DC/15/0501 (Cont.)

• the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during construction, • the method of access and routing of vehicles during construction, • the parking of vehicles by site operatives and visitors, • the loading and unloading of plant, materials and waste, • the storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development, • the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, • the provision of wheel washing facilities and other works required to mitigate the impact of construction upon the public highway (including the provision of temporary Traffic Regulation Orders), • details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works.

11 No development shall be carried out until a Badger Sett check report has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. In the event that Badgers are reported as being present on site a detailed mitigation strategy shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

12 No development shall be carried out other than between 1 November and 28 February in any year, in accordance with paragraph 3.18 of the Construction Environmental Management Plan prepared by Pegasus Group (May 2015, Version 2) unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

13 No development shall be carried out other than in accordance with measures and timing set out in paragraphs 3.17 - 3.26 of the approved Construction Environmental Management Plan prepared by Pegasus Group (May 2015, Version 2) and the Landscape Mitigation Strategy prepared by Michael Woods Associates (May 2015) unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

14 No development shall take place until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works have been

12

Development Control (South) Committee 18th August 2015

DCS/36 Planning Application: DC/15/0501 (Cont.)

submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. All such works as may be approved shall then be fully implemented in the first planting season, following commencement of the development hereby permitted and completed strictly in accordance with the approved details. Any plants or species which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

15 No development shall be carried out until a landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibility and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas and arrangements following the decommissioning of the site, has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved.

16 No development shall be carried out until a Detailed Construction Method Statement setting out measures to protect the trees noted in the Pegasus Group Arboricultural Survey, Impact Assessment and Draft Tree Protection Plan ref 28 January 2015/TF/BRS.5743_A, Pegasus Group Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan ref BRS.5743_A (CR)/TS, AIA, TPP/TF/05.06.15) and Pegasus Group Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan ref BRS.5743_B(CR)/TS, AIA TPP/TF/08/06/15 has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The Detailed Construction Method Statement shall include details, including plans and sections, setting out methods for the installation and design of new surfacing within the Root Protection Area’s of the trees identified in the Pegasus Group Arboricultural Survey, Impact Assessment and Draft Tree Protection Plan ref 28 January 2015/TF/BRS.5743_A, Pegasus Group Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan ref BRS.5743_A (CR)/TS,

13

Development Control (South) Committee 18th August 2015

DCS/36 Planning Application: DC/15/0501 (Cont.)

AIA, TPP/TF/05.06.15) and Pegasus Group Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan ref BRS.5743_B(CR)/TS, AIA TPP/TF/08/06/15 the positions required for the directional drilling rig to achieve a 3m trench depth beneath all trees. The Detailed Construction Method Statement shall also include details of the method that will be used to install cabling where it is not possible to use the directional drilling rig. Works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

17 No works within the Root Protection Areas of trees identified on the Draft Tree Protection Plan shall be carried out other than under the supervision of suitably qualified professional to be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

18 No development shall be carried out until the vehicular access onto A29 Stance Street has been constructed in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

19 The development shall not be brought into operation until the vehicular access onto A29 Stane Street has been reinstated in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

A. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in the report.

DCS/37 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/0698 – RETROSPECTIVE TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND RAISING OF ROOF FOR FIRST FLOOR SITE: LUPIN COTTAGE, HAMPERS LANE, STORRINGTON APPLICANT: MS A DAVIS

The Development Manager reported that this application sought retrospective planning permission for a first floor extension to a bungalow, with infill two storey extension to the rear.

14

Development Control (South) Committee 18th August 2015

DCS/37 Planning Application: DC/15/0698 (Cont.)

This application was removed from the June 2015 committee agenda amid concerns that the report did not address the consequences should planning permission be refused. A further meeting had been held with the agent and applicant, whereby it was agreed that further details would be submitted in respect of the medical needs of the applicant, along with financial information. On receipt of this information, the independent medical advisor was again consulted, and the views of a psychiatric advisor also sought.

The footprint of the original bungalow had increased by an additional 1.5m to the southern elevation, with an extension to the rear at a depth of 2.3m, with a width of 5.1m to infill the space between the rear elevation of the bungalow and the single storey rear projection. A number of pillars were also set on the eastern and western elevations to support the first floor extension. The first floor extension had raised the height of the roof from 5.2m to a total height of 6.2m. This roof extension extended an additional 1.5m from the southern elevation and western elevations, above the ground floor pillars.

The application site was formed of a detached dwelling to the east of Hampers Lane, within the designated built up area of Storrington and Character Area. The dwelling was adjacent to the northern boundary. The property was set back approximately 20m from the public highway, with neighbouring properties to the north. The neighbouring property to the south was set 17m from the rear of the application dwelling, the boundary between the two properties relatively open with wire and rail fencing. The neighbouring dwelling to the north extended across the width of the plot and was separated by a 1.8m high fence and high leylandii hedging.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, together with the requirements of the Public Sector Equality Duty required by the Equality Act 2010 and other statutory considerations as contained within the report, were noted and considered by the Committee. It was reported that paragraph 6.9 of the report should reference the neighbouring property to the south, not the north.

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

The Parish Council objected to the original application in April 2015. 3 letters of representation had been received. It was reported that the agent had circulated an additional letter to all committee members.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development; impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties; and consequence for the applicant should planning permission be refused.

15

Development Control (South) Committee 18th August 2015

DCS/37 Planning Application: DC/15/0698 (Cont.)

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/15/0501 be refused for the following reasons:

01 The first floor and two storey extensions, due to their scale, bulk, mass and height, represents overdevelopment of the site, creating a substantial addition that subsumes the character of the dwelling, and is out of context with the character of the surroundings. As a result, the development is contrary to policy CP3 of the Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC2, DC9 and DC15 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

02 The development, due to its scale, bulk and height, results in an overbearing and intrusive addition that causes an unacceptable degree of overshadowing, resulting in an adverse impact on the amenities of the neighbouring property to the north. As a result, the development is contrary to policy DC9 of the Horsham District General Development Control Policies (2007).

DCS/38 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/1376 – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE AND CONSERVATORY AND CONSTRUCTION OF TWO SIDE EXTENSIONS AT REAR WITH ADDITIONAL FIRST FLOOR OVER. ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING ROOF TO FRONT ELEVATION AND FORM GABLES, AND ENLARGE CURRENT LOFT ROOMS AND ADDITION OF DORMERS. EXTERNAL TREATMENT AND WINDOW CHANGED SITE: DELL COTTAGE, HEATHER LANE, WEST CHILTINGTON APPLICANT: MRS AMANDA MCGILLIVRAY

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission for the erection of 2 side extensions on the north and south side of the main dwelling house, following the demolition of an existing detached garage and a conservatory. The main house would have its floor area increased by 70% from 127.6sqm to 217sqm and its roof ridge height increased from 6m to 7m.

The application site was located on the east side of heather lane in the built up area of west chiltington common. The dwelling was a single storey bungalow that occupied an almost rectangular plot. The dwelling was accessed via a driveway from heather lane.

16

Development Control (South) Committee 18th August 2015

DCS/38 Planning Application: DC/15/1376 (Cont.)

Monkmead was on the opposite side of the road which was a heavily treed area that was located outside the built up area boundary. Properties in the area were generally well spaced occupying relatively large plots with a mix of house types and sizes.

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

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

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. 1 letter of comment had been received. A representative of the Parish Council spoke in support of the application.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the principle of development; the character of the dwelling and the visual amenities of the streetscene in this location.

Members concluded that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area and was therefore acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/15/1376 be delegated for determination by the Development Manager, to include relevant conditions including one relating to materials, in consultation with Local Members.The preliminary view of the committee was that the application be granted.

DCS/39 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/10/1314 – VARIATION OF S106 AGREEMENT TO AMEND TRIGGER POINT FOR PROVISION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND UPDATE THE MORTGAGEE IN POSSESSION CLAUSE AND NOMINATIONS PROCESS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITE: ABINGWORTH NURSERIES, STORRINGTON ROAD, THAKEHAM APPLICANT: VANILLA THAKEHAM

The Development Manager reported that this application sought permission to amend the original legal agreement connected to DC/10/1314. Members were reminded that DC/10/1314 for the redevelopment of the Abingworth Nursery site for 146 dwellings, village hall (including shop and doctor’s surgery), pre-school facility, community workshops, sports facilities and children’s play area had been initially agreed by the Committee in September 2012.

17

Development Control (South) Committee 18th August 2015

DCS/39 Planning Application: DC/10/1314 (Cont.)

In July 2015 the Committee had granted permission DC/15/1242, which sought minor material amendments to DC/10/1314 regarding the layout of the development. In considering the new legal agreement required in connection with DC/15/1242, the applicant had proposed further changes, namely to increase the number of open market units that could be completed prior to transferring the affordable housing units to the Affordable Housing Provider, and to amend the ‘Mortgagee in Possession’ clause. To enable this proposal the original legal agreement would need to be amended.

The site was located outside the built-up area of Thakeham, east of Storrington Road and north-west of Abingworth Hall Hotel. There was agricultural land to the north, south and east. The boundaries were edged by hedgerows and trees, though the southern and part of the northern boundary were more open. Chesswood Farm, the site of permission DC/12/0841, was to the west and there were residential properties along Storrington Road.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee. There had been no representations received in response to the application.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which set out details of the proposed amendment to the trigger point for providing affordable housing. The key issue for consideration in determining the application was whether the proposal would allow the affordable units to be constructed in a timely fashion. Whilst the proposal would increase the number of market units that could be occupied prior to the provision of affordable housing from 39 to 57, Members concluded that this was reasonable and would not jeopardise the delivery of the affordable units.

RESOLVED

That the variation to the legal agreement attached to DC/10/1314 be determined by the Development Manager. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the variation should be granted.

The meeting closed at 15:03 having commenced at 14:00.

CHAIRMAN

18

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2015

REPORT BY THE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER

APPEALS

1. Appeals Lodged

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

2. Written Representations/Householder Appeals Service

Officer Committee Ref No. Site Appeal Recommendation Resolution Land West of Hivale, DC/15/0859 Sands Lane, Small In Progress Refuse Delegated Dole, BN5 9YL Hobitts, Stall House DC/15/0652 Lane, , In Progress Refuse Delegated Pulborough

3. Appeal Decisions

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

Officer Committee Ref No. Site Appeal Recommendation Resolution 85 High Street, DC/14/2055 Steyning, BN44 Dismissed Refuse Delegated 3RE 85 High Street, DC/14/2056 Steyning, BN44 Dismissed Refuse Delegated 3RE The Spinney, Spinney Lane, West DC/14/2712 Dismissed Refuse Delegated Chiltington, RH20 2NX Land Fronting Dukes Row, DC/14/2265 Dismissed Refuse Delegated Cootham, RH20 4JR 58A Coombe Hill, DC/14/2579 Billingshurst, RH14 Dismissed Refuse Delegated 9LA Blackstone Gate, DC/14/2449 Henfield Road, Dismissed Refuse Delegated Albourne, BN6 9JJ

ITEM A1 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Development Manager DATE: 15 September 2015 DEVELOPMENT: Erection of 97 dwellings with associated infrastructure and open space SITE: Land North of Highfield Stane Street Codmore Hill WARD: Pulborough and Coldwaltham APPLICATION: DC/15/1084 APPLICANT: Mr Stuart Forrester

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: This is a Major planning application.

RECOMMENDATION: To delegate authority to the Development Manager to grant planning permission subject to the conditions outlined in this report and the completion of a suitably worded legal agreement.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application is for the erection of 97 no. dwellings, with associated open space and a single point of vehicular access from Stane Street (A29). The land, the subject of this application, forms part of a larger site that has recently received planning permission for the erection of 103 no. dwellings. The redevelopment of the site was considered under Outline application reference DC/11/0952 and subsequent Reserved Matters application reference DC/14/0683. The applications were approved by the Council on 13 December 2012 and 14 August 2014 respectively.

1.2 The drawings approved under the previously permitted scheme show that the 103 no. dwellings would be arranged as detached, semi-detached and terraced properties, comprising both bungalows and two storey buildings. Parking is shown to be provided within garages, undercrofts and shared parking areas. The plans show 2 no. distinct areas of open space. The larger of the open spaces is shown to extend diagonally from the western boundary towards the centre of the site and includes an equipped play area. A second area of open space was approved at the northern end of the site, extending southwards from the northern boundary. This area of open space is also shown to include a play area.

Contact Officer: Ian Humble AH Tel: 01962 877414 ITEM A1 - 2

1.3 A larger area of public open space, including a ‘kick-about’ area, was approved in the south-west corner of the site, with additional landscaping, including a planted hedgerow proposed from the site entrance, part way along the southern boundary.

1.4 The previous planning permission was the subject of a legal agreement which secured financial contributions towards the provision and maintenance of air quality monitoring equipment; bus shelters; community facilities; community halls; Fire and Rescue services; refuse and recycling; public art; the maintenance of the open space and equipped play areas; primary, secondary and sixth form education and; a new footbridge (or other highway improvements), intended to improve pedestrian access between the application site and local amenities in Pulborough.

1.5 The legal agreement also required the applicant to provide; 40% affordable housing; a 2 metre wide footpath/cycleway through the site (adjacent to the eastern boundary fronting Stane Street); an A29 Embankment Management Plan (in order to manage and maintain the vegetation screen fronting Stane Street); fire hydrants; an informal amenity area, including ‘kick-about’ area; a Permissive Right of Way along the western boundary and; a landscaping buffer on the western side of the site, outside of the application boundaries.

1.6 The developer now proposes to part implement the previous planning permission by erecting 22 no. of the consented dwellings, together with the largest approved area of open space in the south-western corner of the site, which would again provide an informal ‘kick- about’ area. This land has been excluded from the latest proposals, but is shown within the ‘blue line’ of the submitted location plan.

1.7 Across the remainder of the site, it is proposed to erect 97 no. dwellings, increasing the overall provision across the entire site to 119 no. units, 16 no. more than was approved under extant consent DC/14/0683.

1.8 54 no. of the 97 no. proposed dwellings would be made available on the open market, with the remaining 43 no. units made available as affordable housing, equating to 41.7%.

1.9 When combined with the 22 no. dwellings that will be developed under the extant permission, 36.1% of the units proposed across the entire site would be made available as affordable housing.

1.10 The 54 no. open market units would comprise;

• 7 no. two bedroom apartments; • 4 no. three bedroom bungalows; • 6 no. three bedroom chalet bungalows; • 3 no. three bedroom houses; • 29 no. four bedroom houses; • 5 no. five bedroom houses.

1.1 The 43 no. affordable housing units would comprise;

• 14 no. one bedroom apartments; • 4 no. two bedroom apartments; • 2 no. two bedroom bungalows; • 16 no. two bedroom houses; • 7 no. three bedroom dwellings

1.12 Combined with the development approved under the extant consent, the proposed development would provide; ITEM A1 - 3

• 14 no. one bedroom units (11.8%); • 33 no. two bedroom units (27.7%); • 29 no. three bedroom units (24.4%); • 37 no. four bedroom units (31.09%); • 6 no. five bedroom units (5.04%).

1.13 The dwellings would be finished using a combination of red multi-stock facing bricks; buff multi-stock facing bricks; white through colour acrylic render; black timber boarding and; plain tile hanging.

1.14 The proposed vehicular access to the site would be unchanged from that which was approved under the extant consent. It would comprise a three-arm, signalised junction from the A29, sited towards the south-eastern corner of the site, north of the adjacent railway bridge. The junction would serve both the 97 no. dwellings the subject of this application, and the 22 no. dwellings being developed under the extant consent. The main access road in to the site would be 6 metres wide, so as to allow vehicles to enter and exit the site simultaneously.

1.15 A right turn lane would be introduced within the highway (A29) to allow southbound vehicles to turn into the site without interrupting traffic flows. The proposed signal apparatus at the junction would incorporate a MOVA (Microprocesser Optimised Vehicle Actuation) control system to allow for the flexible control of vehicular movements through the access. These systems control optimum ‘green light’ times, to ensure that the traffic signals adapt to minimise queuing traffic.

1.16 The existing pedestrian crossing to the south of the site would be retained and incorporated into the signal phasing of the new junction. In order to provide a safe pedestrian route across the proposed site access itself, a new pedestrian crossing would be provided, which would also be incorporated into the pedestrian phase of the traffic light controlled signals. The proposed vehicular and pedestrian access arrangements have been the subject of a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit.

1.17 It is estimated that the proposed development for 97 no. dwellings, together with the 22 no. dwellings previously approved, would generate 717 no. two-way car trips per day (0700 – 1900 hours). It is anticipated that this would comprise 70 no. trips in the morning peak hour and 75 no. trips in the evening peak hour, equating to just over 1 no. trip per minute in these peak periods.

1.18 The general layout of the site, including the internal road system, would be largely unchanged from that which was previously approved. The increased number of units would, for the most part, be achieved by rationalising plot layouts to create more regularly shaped rear gardens and by reorganising car parking areas and minor access roads in order to reduce areas of hard surfacing.

1.19 A total of 226 no. car parking spaces would be provided. One bedroom units would each be served by a single spaces, with two, three, four and five bedrooms properties served by at least 2 no. spaces. A total of 31 no. visitor spaces would be provided. 52 no. spaces would continue to be provided for the 22 no. dwellings approved under the extant consent, in accordance with the approved drawings.

1.20 Cycle parking facilities for the proposed one and two bedroom apartments would be provided within communal cycle stores. Cycle parking for the proposed dwellings would be provided within stores in the rear gardens, or within garages (which would measure 2.9 x 6 ITEM A1 - 4

metres internally, in order to accommodate a cycle rack). Facilities have also been shown for the storage and collection of refuse bins.

1.21 As with the previously approved scheme, the proposed development would provide a new 2 metre wide north-south pedestrian path/cycleway along the entire length of the eastern boundary. The route would link to the existing highway network at its northern and southern ends. The development would also provide a new east-west pedestrian/cycle link through the site, between Stane Street and the existing Public Footpath (FP 1995) which runs north-south between Hill Farm/Hill Farm Lane and Church Place and provides access towards Pulborough Rail Station.

1.22 It is further proposed to provide a Permissive Right of Way on the western side of the site, adjacent to the western boundary, in order to provide a pedestrian link from Stane Street Close to the new footpath, as well as the largest area of open space. The Permissive Right of Way would follow the same route as was approved under extant consent DC/14/0683.

1.23 In order to facilitate the proposed access, an area of the existing hedgerow on the eastern side of the site, comprising Hazel coppice and scrub vegetation would be removed. Additional planting would be undertaken along the remainder of eastern side of the site in order to ‘gap-up’ the retained hedge/embankment fronting the A29 (Stane Street).

1.24 A total of 119 no. trees would be planted across the development site, in addition to the 101 no. trees planted in association with the 22 no. dwellings approved as part of the extant permission. 2 no. trees would be felled due to poor health. A tree belt would be planted along the western edge of the application site, to enclose the proposed north-south Permissive Right of Way.

1.25 During the consideration of the application, the applicant has submitted amended plans which have sought to address issues and concerns raised by the Local Planning Authority. Under the originally submitted plans, it was proposed to include a terrace of 4 no. dwellings within the western area of proposed open space. Despite being designed to have the appearance of a pavilion building associated with the adjacent amenity area, the provision of private dwellings within an area of public open space was considered inappropriate. Amended plans were, therefore, submitted in order to delete this building from the proposals. The 4 no. units have instead been accommodated within the proposed apartment buildings.

1.26 Minor amendments were also made to the siting of certain building across the site, to ensure that they do not compromise southerly views towards St. Mary’s Church from Stane Street Close. Trees have also been repositioned to ensure that their siting does not restrict important views across the site.

1.27 The siting of the bungalows on the western side of the site were also amended, to better respond to the natural contours of the land. Under the originally submitted proposals, concern was expressed that the bungalows would have too rigid/geometric a layout, which it was considered would relate poorly to the topography of the land and the more informal layout of the adjacent area of proposed public open space immediately to the south.

1.28 The applicant has also revised the design of 8 no. dwellings proposed towards the northern boundary. Under the originally submitted plans, 6 no. of the dwellings were shown to be two stories in height. Amended plans were submitted, however, to replace these dwellings with chalet bungalows, in order to reduce the overall height of the properties. The eaves height of 2 no. further dwellings on the northern side of the site has also been reduced.

1.29 The Local Planning Authority raised concern that, under the originally submitted proposals, the development would introduce large parking courts, that would not make a positive ITEM A1 - 5

contribution to the overall character and appearance of the development. The applicant has, therefore, submitted amended plans in order to reconfigure the layout of certain parking courts, so as to provide complementary areas of soft landscaping.

1.30 The application is accompanied by a Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Air Quality Assessment, Archaeological Evaluation Report, Flood Risk Assessment, Assessment for Protected Species, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Noise Report, Sustainability and Renewable Energy Statement and an Ecological Appraisal.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.31 The application site, which has an area of 3.3 hectares, is located outside of, but has 2 no. contiguous boundaries with, the Built Up Area Boundary of Pulborough, a Category 1 Settlement, as defined by the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007). Pulborough is defined as a Small Town within the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF). Pulborough High Street is located approximately 1km to the south of the site.

1.32 The site occupies an elevated position, approximately 3.5 – 4 metres above the adjacent highway (A29), which is located below a steep-sided embankment of trees and dense hedging. The application site itself has a gentle slope from north to south, with an 11 metre difference in levels between the northern and southern boundaries. At a national level, the site it is located within the High Weald National Landscape Area.

1.33 There is a narrow footway along the western side of the A29, which passes along the full length of the eastern boundary of the application site. The footway, which has a maximum width of approximately 1.5 metres, provides a continuous route from the supermarkets to the north of the application site, to the centre of Pulborough. Its limited width can be problematic for users of mobility scooters or those with pushchairs.

1.34 The speed limit immediately outside of the application site is 40mph, reducing to 30mph to the south, on the approach to Pulborough village. The reduced speed limit is intended to control speeds through the narrower section of the highway, where it passes over the railway bridge. The railway bridge is identified as a main transport priority for Pulborough, with improvements identified within the Pulborough Village Transport Plan. These include a proposal to create a separate footbridge adjacent to the current road bridge, in order to provide a safer, alternative to the existing narrow footway. West Sussex County Council has undertaken feasibility studies in to the deliverability of the scheme.

1.35 The nearest bus stops are located approximately 370 metres to the north of the site, opposite Stane Street Close. The bus stops are serviced by the No. 69, 72, 73, 100 and X2 services, which provide access to Ashington, Worthing, Horsham, Burgess Hill and Billingshurst.

1.36 Pulborough Railway Station is located approximately 1.25km to the south-west of the application site. The station provides services to both local and regional destinations, including London Victoria, Clapham Junction, Gatwick Airport, Horsham, Crawley, Billingshurst and Arundel.

1.37 There is a dental surgery within 1.2km of the site; a medical centre within 550 metres; 2 no. supermarkets within 500 metres, Rectory Close recreation Ground within 600 metres and; Pulborough Library within 1.2km.

1.38 Immediately to the north of the site are the two storey, inter-war, residential properties in Stane Street Close. The rear gardens of a row of two storey, semi-detached and terraced ITEM A1 - 6

dwellings back on to the northern boundary of the application site. The rear boundaries comprise a variety of boundary treatments, including wooden fences and hedges.

1.39 The western boundary currently comprises a hedgerow with occasional trees, beyond which is open countryside. The boundaries of the National Park are located approximately 1 km to the west. The southern boundary comprises a fence, with occasional scrub.

1.40 To the north east of the application site, and on the opposite side of Stane Street (A29), is Riverside, a new residential development of one, two and three storey dwellings, with an overall residential density in the region of 35 dwellings per hectare. The dwellings are constructed from a combination of brick, render and timber boarding, with slate and tile roofs.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 Government Planning Policy is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The Policies contained within this document are, therefore, material to the consideration of this application. Due regard must also be had to the guidance contained within the Government’s National Planning Practice Guidance. The following Sections of the NPPF are particularly relevant to the consideration of this application;

- Section 4: Promoting sustainable transport - Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes - Section 7: Requiring good design - Section 8: Promoting healthy communities - Section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change - Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment - Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007)

- Policy CP1: Landscape and Townscape Character - Policy CP2: Environmental Quality - Policy CP3: Improving the Quality of New Development - Policy CP5: Built-Up Areas and Previously Developed Land - Policy CP12: Meeting Housing Need - Policy CP13: Infrastructure Requirements

2.4 Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

- Policy DC1: Countryside Protection and Enhancement - Policy DC2: Landscape Enhancement - Policy DC3: Settlement Coalescence - Policy DC5: Biodiversity and Geology - Policy DC6: Woodland and Trees - Policy DC7: Flooding - Policy DC8: Renewable Energy and Climate Change ITEM A1 - 7

- Policy DC9 Development Principles - Policy DC10: Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments - Policy DC13: Listed Buildings - Policy DC18: Smaller Homes/Housing Mix - Policy DC22: New Open Space, Sport and Recreation - Policy DC40: Transport and Access

2.5 It should be noted that, in recent appeal decisions in the District at Storrington (Ref: APP/Z3825/A/14/2215437) and (Ref: APP/Z/3825/A/14/2224668), the Planning Inspector concluded that Policy DC13 is inconsistent with the National Planning Policy Framework in so far that it does not admit weight to the positive benefits of a scheme in the balancing exercise, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.6 Local Development Framework: Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs)

- Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) (2009) - Planning Obligations (2007) - Pulborough Design Statement (2013)

2.7 The principal role of the Pulborough Design Statement is to provide a summary of the key characteristics of the local area and how these should be used to guide the design of future development proposals. The application site itself is not included within any of the character area studies, although the areas immediately to the north (Stane Street Close) and south (Highfield and north of London Road) are. The key guidance for development near to these character areas is that ‘any large scale development(s) should have a village feel’ and that new development ‘should reflect nearby materials, scales and design features’.

2.8 The emerging Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was approved by Council on 30th April 2014 as the Council’s policy for planning the future of the District for the period 2011-2031. Following a six week period of representations, the plan was submitted to the Government on 8th August 2014 for independent Examination under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) () Regulations 2012. The Examination of the HDPF was undertaken by an independent Planning Inspector in November 2014, and the Inspector published his Initial Findings on 19th December 2014. The Inspector considers the overall strategy of the plan to be sound as is made clear in paragraph 4 of his Initial Findings:

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

2.10 The Inspector suspended the Examination of the HDPF, after the initial scheduled Hearing sessions, for a 6 month period to allow time for the Council to show how the District’s overall housing provision can be increased to provide for a minimum of 750 dwellings per annum (15,000 over the plan period). The representation period for the HDPF Main Modifications ran from 23rd March 2015 until 5th May 2015. Following the receipt of representations, the Inspector re-opened the Examination Hearings on 3rd July 2015 to consider only the issues outlined in the Initial Findings. The Hearings into the HDPF have now concluded and the Inspector published a Note to the Council on 21st July 2015. This ITEM A1 - 8

Note states that the housing requirement for the plan period should be 800 dwellings per year, resulting in 16,000 dwellings between 2011 and 2031. The Inspector also states that:

‘From the evidence about the Housing Trajectory, I consider that up to 2021 at the very least the revised requirement can be provided from existing allocations and commitments, including the North Horsham allocation. The Council will need to consider how and where the additional dwellings will be provided over the remainder of the Plan period up to 2031.’

2.11 The Inspector also indicates that an early review (to begin within 3 years of adoption) of the Plan to provide for these additional dwellings will be required and that a modification to Policy 36 (Strategic Policy: Appropriate Energy Use) to account for the recent written ministerial statement concerning wind energy development will be necessary. Given the Inspector’s Initial Findings and recent Note, the emerging plan is therefore a material consideration of considerable weight in terms of the overall strategy.

2.12 The following Policies are, therefore, considered to be relevant to the consideration of this application:

1 – Sustainable Development 2 - Strategic Policy 3 – Development Hierarchy 4 – Settlement Expansion 15 – Meeting Housing Need 23 – Environmental Protection 30 – Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity 32 – The Quality of New Development 33 – Cultural and Heritage Assets 34 – Climate Change 36 – Sustainable Construction 37 – Flooding 38 – Infrastructure Provision 39 – Sustainable Transport 40 – Parking 42 – Community Facilities, Leisure and Recreation

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/11/0952 Outline planning application for 103 dwellings and open space PER

DC/13/0530 Non-material amendment to previously approved DC/11/0952 PER (Outline planning application for 103 dwellings and open space) to include amendments to layout as follows : removal of bridge flat in top right corner of site (plot 28) and replacement with a flat over garage on eastern boundary further south (garage adjacent to plot 47); previous terrace of 6 units (plots 63-68) now reduced to 5 units; detached dwelling (plot 87) removed from bottom left of site and added to terrace (plots 61-62); internal road and small number of units aligned further to the east; terrace (plots 22-24) in the top right corner of the site staggered and central open space extended by 4.5m and open space orientated north south widened by 2.5m

DC/14/0535 Non-material amendment on application DC/11/0952 (Outline PER planning application for 103 dwellings and open space)

DC/14/0683 Application for approval of reserved matters (relating to PER ITEM A1 - 9

appearance, landscaping and scale) pursuant to outline planning permission (ref DC/11/0952) for 103 dwellings and open space granted on the 13/12/12

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 HDC Ecology Consultant (summary)

• No objection, subject to conditions requiring the submission and approval of a wildlife protection, mitigation and enhancement plan, setting out practical steps to be taken to avoid impacts on wildlife during site preparation and construction and details of the provisions to be made for biodiversity enhancements (informed by the results and recommendations of the ecological survey reports submitted in support of the application). • Conditions should also be used requiring details of a lighting plan for the site in order to minimise light pollution to the boundary hedges and associated impacts on nocturnal wildlife, particularly bats. • Conditions should be attached requiring the submission of a hedgerow enhancement and management plan, to compensate, as far as possible, for the loss of the hedgerow associated with the provision of the new access and to ensure the appropriate management of the remainder of the hedgerows to maximise wildlife habitat value.

3.2 HDC Environment Management, Waste & Cleansing (summary)

• No objection. It is important to ensure that the siting of the bin stores is appropriate, relative to adjacent car parking spaces.

3.3 HDC Housing Services (summary)

• The proposed level and mix of affordable housing and the tenure split is acceptable and meets an identified local need.

3.4 HDC Landscape Consultant (summary)

No objection.

3.5 Environmental Health & Licensing (summary)

• No objection. A condition should be attached requiring development to stop in the event that unexpected contamination is found to be present until such a time that a suitable mitigation strategy has been agreed. • The submitted Noise Report suggests appropriate mitigation measures to ensure that future occupiers are not exposed to unacceptable levels of noise. A condition will be needed, however, to secure the exact details of the mitigation measures, including methods to reduce noise to habitable rooms. • A financial contribution towards air emissions reduction is proposed. In addition to this, it will be necessary to include conditions requirement the submission and approval of a Construction Environment Management Plan, vehicle electric charging points and a low emission strategy.

3.6 HDC Strategic Planning (summary)

ITEM A1 - 10

• Under the 2007 Horsham District Local Development Framework Proposals Maps, the site is not located within the defined BUAB. However, given the extant permission for 103 dwellings under DC/11/0952, it is anticipated that the BUAB in this part of Pulborough will be re-drawn to include this development. When the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) is adopted, the Proposals Maps will be revised to reflect this. • Whilst this site is not specifically allocated for development in the forthcoming HDPF, given it already has permission for 103 dwellings, and as is located within the built-up area of one of the Districts more sustainable settlements (Pulborough), it is considered in principle to be acceptable. • The net addition of 16 dwellings on this site would be in accordance with national and local polices which seek to ensure that developments make more efficient use of the land. The proposal for the re-development of this site is considered to be in general accordance with the emerging development plan, as well as with paragraph 47 of the NPPF which seeks ‘to boost significantly the supply of housing’, and in principle should be recommended for approval. • Inset 2 of the Policies Maps of the Pulborough Pre-Submission NDP shows this site within the built-up area, therefore it is considered that the principle of the proposed development would be supported by the NDP.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.7 WSCC Highways (summary)

• No objection. The proposed development would have the same access arrangement as that approved under the previous application. • The proposed layout is acceptable. • Whilst the latest proposal would introduce 16 no. more dwellings when compared to the previous consent, the overall number of vehicular movements would remain well within the operating capacity of the new junction and local road network. • The development will not compromise the safe operation of the highway or pedestrian safety.

3.8 Environment Agency (summary)

• No bespoke comments provided. Advice should be sought from West Sussex County Council, as the Lead Local Flood Authority.

3.9 WSCC - Lead Local Flood Authority (summary)

• No objection. The site is at low risk from surface water flooding. The road, adjacent to the site (A29) is identified as having a moderate risk of surface water flooding. The road does, however, have a positive drainage system.

3.10 Southern Water (summary)

• No objection. All existing infrastructure, including protective coatings and cathodic protection, should be protected during the course of construction works and this should be controlled by condition. • Initial investigations reveal that Southern Water can provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. • Initial investigations indicate that there are no public surface water sewers in the area to serve the development. Alternative means of draining surface water from this development are required. The proposed development, therefore, proposes a SUDs system – the applicant will need to make sure that arrangements are put in place for the long term ITEM A1 - 11

maintenance and management of these facilities, and this should be controlled by condition. • Initial investigations reveal that Southern Water can provide water supply to the site.

3.11 – Crime Prevention & Design (summary)

• The development has been designed so as to achieve good levels of natural surveillance. • Where rear parking areas are not overlooked, the adjacent garden should be enclosed by a 1.5 metre high fence with trellising to increase opportunities for surveillance. • Lighting within undercroft parking areas should be given consideration. • Foliage within the central amenity area should be kept low. • Any boundary treatment used to enclose play areas should not restrict natural surveillance.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.12 Pulborough Parish Council has raised no objection to the proposal, subject to the following;

- Confirmation that the north–south pedestrian and cycle link within the site will definitely be provided; - Consideration to be given to relocating the proposed bungalows to the northern boundary; - Three and four bedroom dwellings are preferable to five bedroom units; - Consideration needs to be given to whether the development will result in increased surface water run-off; - The development will need to address the fact the main sewer north of Highfield is not wide enough; - The development should consider the capture and re-use of grey-water; - Consideration as to whether the gas mains are deep enough to take construction traffic; - Construction traffic should not access the site through Stane Street Close; - Is the development environmentally sustainable? - Clarification as to why it is proposed to increase the number of units on the site; - The submission of the conclusions on the air quality report.

3.13 The Pulborough Society has raised the following concerns;

- The additional dwellings proposed at the site will place additional burden on the already over-stretched infrastructure; - The impact on the properties proposed at the northern end of the site on the amenity of residents in Stane Street Close;

3.14 3 no. letters of objection have been received. The letters raise the following issues;

- The development will overlook existing properties, resulting in a loss of privacy and intrusion upon family space; - Concern about the proposed external materials, relative to the prevailing character of the area; - The development will lead to a loss of light and increased noise and disturbance for existing properties; - Concern about the increased number of units; - Queries whether the trees fronting Stane Street will be retained; - Queries whether the larger trees on the site will be retained; - Concerns that the development will damage the views of the green landscape. - Queries the amount of additional traffic and the implications for congestion and highway safety. ITEM A1 - 12

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 development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The acceptability of the principle of residential development at the site was established by planning permissions DC/11/0952 and DC/14/0683, which remain extant, and this is an important material consideration in the determination of this application.

6.2 It is important to note, however, that, since the determination of this application, the Inspector has published his Initial Findings (December 2014) and a Note (July 2015), in response to the Council’s submission of the Horsham District Planning Framework. Given the Inspector’s Initial Findings and recent Note, and for the reasons outlined in Sections 2.8 – 2.12 of this report, the Framework is, therefore, considered to be a material consideration of considerable weight. It is within this Policy context, therefore, that this latest application must be considered.

6.3 In addition to assessing the acceptability of the principle of development in this location, the main issues to consider in the determination of this application are; the acceptability of the mix and tenure type of the proposed dwellings; the design and layout of the proposed development and its impact on the character and appearance of the area and the amenity of existing and prospective occupiers; whether the proposed access arrangements continue to be considered acceptable (having due regard to any increased traffic movements); whether the development can be delivered without having a harmful impact on local traffic conditions, or highway and pedestrian safety; the impact of the proposal on drainage and flooding, the interests of archaeology, nature conservation (including trees), flooding and land contamination and; whether appropriate mechanisms are in place to secure the necessary infrastructure improvements.

Principle

6.4 The NPPF prescribes that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that this should form the basis of all planning decisions. Wherever possible, development proposals that comply with the Policy objectives of the NPPF should, therefore, be approved, without unnecessary delay.

6.5 The site is located outside of the Built Up Area Boundary, as shown on the Proposals Maps accompanying the Horsham District Planning Framework. It is, nevertheless, located immediately adjacent to the Built Up Area and, indeed, has 2 no. contiguous boundaries with it.

6.6 It this respect, it is noteworthy that, within the emerging Pulborough Neighbourhood Plan, the boundaries of the Built Up Area of Pulborough have been extended, in order to include the application site. Whilst the Neighbourhood Plan is at Examination Stage and can, ITEM A1 - 13

therefore, only be afforded limited weight, it is important to note that Policy 1 of the Plan supports the principle of residential development at the application site.

6.7 Policy 3 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework identifies Pulborough as a Small Town, which is defined as a settlement with a good range of services, facilities, strong community networks and local employment opportunities, together with reasonable rail and/or bus services. Policy 3 advises that such settlements act as a hub for smaller villages to meet their daily needs. The site is indeed in an accessible location, close to Pulborough Town Centre, 2 no. supermarkets and within walking distance of a well- serviced train station. Prospective occupiers would, therefore, have good access to a range of public transport links, local services and facilities, particularly when the proposed improvements to the pedestrian links both within and outside of the application site are taken into account.

6.8 Taking all of the above matters into account and have due regard to the existing consent at the site, which remains extant until August 2016 and which must, therefore, constitute a material consideration of significant weight, the principle of the proposed residential development continues to be considered acceptable in this accessible location, close to local services and facilities.

Dwelling Type and Tenure

6.9 36% of the 119 no. units that would be provided across the entire site would be made available on the affordable housing market. Whilst this is slightly below the guideline figure of 40%, as set out in Policy CP12 of the Core Strategy (2007), it exceeds the guideline figure of 35%, as set out in Policy 15 of the Horsham District Planning Framework. The number of proposed one and two bedroom affordable housing units has been increased when compared to the extant consent, following discussions with the Housing Services Manager and to better reflect identified local need.

6.10 A tenure split of 50% affordable rented and 50% Intermediate/Shared Ownership has been proposed. Policy 15 of the Horsham District Planning Framework identifies that developments should aim to provide a target tenure split of 70:30% between affordable rented and intermediate/shared ownership. Notwithstanding this, the Policy recognises that the tenure split on each site will need to be determined in the light of up-to-date information, particularly on local need and supply. The proposed tenure mix has been derived following discussion with both the Parish Council and the Council’s Housing Services Manager and is, therefore, considered appropriate and acceptable.

6.11 Whilst the majority of the proposed affordable housing units would be provided towards the eastern side of the site, they would, nevertheless, be dispersed across the full length of the developable area, thereby helping to create inclusive communities.

6.12 Taking all these matters in to account, the proposed affordable housing provision across the site is considered acceptable, in accordance with the NPPF, Policy 15 of the Horsham District Planning Framework and the findings of the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment. The exact mix and location of the affordable housing units will be controlled through suitably worded clauses in the legal agreement.

6.13 In the interests of development viability and in order to provide a Policy compliant number of affordable housing units, whilst at the same time, providing a notable increase in the number of one and two bedroom units to reflect local demand, the development will provide an increased number of three bedroom units for sale on the open market, when compared with the extant consent. Policy 15 of the Horsham District Planning Framework seeks to achieve a mix of housing sizes to meet the District’s housing needs, as identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), in order to create balanced and ITEM A1 - 14

sustainable communities. The SHMA recognises that larger development sites, such as that under consideration, provide the best opportunity to deliver larger homes and a broader mix of house sizes and suggests a proportion of up to 45% of all units on such sites have three or more bedrooms. Whilst the proportion of three or more bedroom properties across the redevelopment site as a whole would exceed the above guideline threshold, it is important to note that the SHMA itself recognises that demand for family homes remains strong and that the exact mix of housing across the site has been tailored to ensure a suitably strong provision of one and two bedroom affordable housing units.

6.14 On balance, therefore, it is considered that the development will help to provide a suitable range of dwelling types that will meet local needs and that the development is largely compliant with the identified mix of dwellings outlined in the Council’s updated Strategic Housing Market Assessment (2014).

Design, Layout, Public Open Spaces and Landscaping

6.15 The proposed layout follows the broad design concepts established by the extant consent. Opportunities have, however, been sought to rationalise the internal road layout and the siting of dwellings in order to provide improved separation distances between properties and more useable/functional areas of private amenity space.

6.16 The dwellings at the northern end of the site will be set an additional 0.8 metres from the rear boundaries of the properties in Stane Street Close (when compared to the extant consent), providing an improved living environment for both existing and prospective occupiers. What’s more, by introducing double-width driveways at the sides of these properties, the spacing between the properties has been increased, thereby facilitating a greater permeability of southerly views from Stane Street Close, across the application site and beyond, towards St. Mary’s Church, a key objective/requirement when the previous planning applications was considered.

6.17 The linear pattern of development on the northern side of the site is commensurate with existing layout in Stane Street Close, while the more informal layout across the remainder of the site respects the character of the open countryside to the west. Notwithstanding the provision of additional dwellings, at 34 dwellings per hectare (dph), the resultant residential density is comparable to adjacent developments in the locality and is appropriate to its context. The overall layout is commensurate with the prevailing character of the area, including Stane Street Close immediately to the north, and responds well to the natural topography of the land.

6.18 The highest density development would be sited towards the eastern boundary, away from the adjacent countryside and where it will be heavily screened from public view by the existing vegetated embankment on the western side of the A29. Notwithstanding this, opportunities have been sought to improve the siting of the dwellings on this side of the site when compared the extant consent, providing a more fragmented layout, with greater separation distances between opposing flank elevations. This will help to reduce the perception of built form wherever glimpse views are available from the A29.

6.19 The lowest density development will be located on the western side of the site, in recognition of the need to provide an appropriate transition between the proposed development and more rural character of the adjacent, open countryside. The properties closest to the western boundary will be bungalows, with low hipped roofs, and a chalet bungalow, and this will help to reduce the visual impact of the development when viewed from the countryside to the west. As with the previous planning permission, the applicant has agreed to enter into a legal agreement to provide and maintain/manage a ‘western buffer strip’. This landscape strip would be planted so as to provide an element of natural screening, whilst at the same time, having due regard to the need to maintain filtered views ITEM A1 - 15

through the application site (including from the adjacent footpath). Accordingly, the proposal will not have a harmful impact on the character of the adjacent rural landscape.

6.20 Despite increasing the number of residential units at the site, the development will provide 9,500 square metres of public amenity space, which exceeds the required open space standards. The area of open space on the western side of the site will not only provide a functional area of amenity space for prospective occupiers, it will also help to maintain views into the site from the west, preserving an appropriate level of ‘openness’ at the transition between the development site and the adjacent countryside. This was a key objective under the previous planning permission. As with the extant permission, the plans show that 1 no. equipped play area and 1 no. Local Area of Play (LAP) would be incorporated within the open space, the design of which can be secured by condition. The applicant has acknowledged that there will be a need to ensure that the design of the equipment is appropriate to the countryside setting.

6.21 The siting of the open space at the northern end of the site has been carefully considered so as to ensure that southerly views from Stane Street Close, across the development site, and down towards the tower of St. Mary’s Church are retained. This was an important design consideration under the previous approval. Careful consideration has also been given to the siting of the dwellings throughout the site, so as to maintain a north-south corridor of undeveloped land throughout the entire length of the site. All buildings have been deliberately sited outside of this corridor, so as to maintain an uninterrupted southerly view from Stane Street Close.

6.22 The on-going management and maintenance of the open spaces across the site will be secured and controlled through a suitably worded legal agreement. The legal agreement would be worded in such a way so as to allow the open spaces and play areas to be transferred to the Parish or District Council (together with a developer contribution towards future costs) or a suitable Management Company.

6.23 The provision of 220 no. new trees, including street planting, will enhance the attractiveness of the internal road system and open spaces. Trees would also be planted adjacent to the proposed vehicular entrance and this would help to provide a positive impression of the development when entering the site and travelling along the A29.

6.24 As with the extant consent, the applicant proposes to supplement, enhance and reinforce the existing linear tree and scrub belt on the eastern side of the site (fronting the A29) with native species in order to create a strong boundary threshold and to filter views into the site from the adjacent public highway. The applicant has also confirmed a willingness to enter into a legal agreement to secure the provision and implementation of a long-term ‘A29 Embankment Management Plan’. This will ensure the appropriate long-term protection of this important natural vegetative screen.

6.25 Whilst it is accepted that the proposed development will result in the loss of a section of dense vegetation on the eastern side of the site (in order to accommodate the proposed access), the acceptability of this aspect of the development was established under extant permissions DC/11/0952 and DC/14/0683. Under the circumstances, the minor loss of vegetation and the associated impact on the character and appearance of the locality continues to be considered acceptable.

6.26 Each of the proposed dwellings will be provided with a useable area of private amenity space that would be comparable in size to the existing gardens in the locality, providing a pleasant outdoor space for prospective occupiers, which would be further complemented by the proposed areas of public open space. The proposed layout permits external access between the front and rear gardens and this will ensure that refuse bins can be conveniently moved to the front of the property on collection day. Where communal bin ITEM A1 - 16

stores are proposed, they have been sited so as not to detract from the visual amenity of the streetscene and the final details of these features will be controlled by condition. Space has also been made available within the rear gardens and garages for the secure storage of cycles.

6.27 Careful consideration has been given to the design and siting of the proposed dwellings in order to achieve active frontages, including on corner plots, providing high levels of natural surveillance of adjacent parking courts and/or open spaces. The height of the proposed dwellings is comparable to adjacent developments and is appropriate in this location, noting that it is proposed to position bungalows and chalet bungalows on the western side of the site, to reduce their visual prominence when viewed from the adjacent countryside.

6.28 The choice of external facing materials has been carefully considered so as to achieve an appropriate level of continuity across the site, whilst at the same time, avoiding monotony in the streetscene. The provision of bay windows, Juliet balconies, contrasting roof forms, first floor tile hanging and timber boarding will help to enliven the appearance of the dwellings and will add visual interest to the development. Buildings on prominent corner plots will be finished in flint, so as to distinguish them from other properties within the site, providing discernible reference points when travelling through the site and ensuring that the dwellings that terminate key views will make a positive contribution to the public realm.

6.29 Under the extant consent, the 3 no. detached dwellings adjacent to the proposed vehicular entrance are sited beyond a high, retaining wall, as a consequence of the rising land levels. As a consequence, the defining feature when entering the site is a relatively large expanse of unbroken brickwork, with tall, three storey dwellings above. Under the current scheme, the land levels would be amended in order to ensure that the ground floors of proposed dwellings are at street level, thereby creating a more hospitable and welcoming public realm at the entrance to the site.

6.30 The use of contrasting hard surfacing materials, including paving at internal junctions and within smaller access roads and parking areas will, not only enhance the appearance of the development, but will also help to control traffic speeds, creating a safe environment for all users of the highway. Driveways and parking courts will be complemented by areas of soft landscaping and this will ensure that the development does not appear to be unacceptably dominated by hard surfacing materials.

6.31 The provision of metal estate railings and low, bow-top railings, will allow for the passive surveillance of the new areas of open space and will introduce a boundary treatment of rural character at the transition with the open countryside. The provision of timber fencing to enclose the rear gardens is common in modern residential developments and is considered acceptable where it will not be readily visible from any public vantage point. Rear gardens that adjoin the public highway will be enclosed by brick walls. Not only is this preferable from a security perspective, it will also present a more attractive façade to the street. The exact design and materials to be used in the construction of the walls will be controlled by condition.

6.32 In order to ensure that the development maintains a high quality appearance, it is proposed to include a condition removing the permitted development rights relating to the erection of new walls, fences, or other means of enclosure at the front and sides of dwellings, where they front a highway or path.

Impact on the Amenity of Existing and Prospective Occupiers

6.33 Whilst the outlook from the rear windows of the properties to the north in Stane Street Close will undoubtedly change, due to the separation distances involved (which have been increased when compared to the extant consent), and the limited heights of the proposed ITEM A1 - 17

chalet bungalows, it is not considered that the proposed development will have an unacceptably harmful impact on the amenity of prospective or existing residents in terms of loss of light, outlook or privacy. It is not, therefore, considered necessary to require the first floor rear windows of any of the properties to be obscure glazed. For the same reasons, it is not considered that the proposed development will appear over prominent or overbearing when viewed from the rear windows or the rear gardens of the existing dwellings in Stane Street Close. Notwithstanding this, in order to retain suitably sized rear gardens and to maintain appropriate separation distances between opposing elevations across the site, it is proposed to include conditions that will remove the permitted development rights relating to the erection of single and two storey rear extensions and side extensions.

6.34 Whilst the introduction of a total of 119 no. dwellings into what is currently an open and undeveloped area of land will result in increased levels of activity associated with, for instance, the use of rear gardens and the comings and goings of residents in vehicles, the principle of residential development at the site is established. Given the layout and siting of car parking areas and driveways relative to existing properties and the existing residential development in the area, it is not considered that the provision of an additional 16 no. units across the site will result in harmful levels of noise disturbance to existing or prospective occupiers, over and above that which was considered acceptable under the previously approved scheme.

6.35 The application is supported by a Noise Survey, which assesses the likely impacts of the adjacent A29 on the living environment of prospective occupiers, particularly those that would occupy the dwellings on the eastern side of the site. The Survey concludes that, subject to appropriate mitigation, in the form of acoustic glazing, the adjacent highway should not give rise to unacceptable levels of disturbance to prospective occupiers. The Head of Environmental Health has endorsed this view and has recommended that conditions be included requiring the submission and approval of the details of such mitigation measures. The subsequent implementation of these facilities can be controlled by condition.

6.36 A condition will be used requiring the submission and approval of a Construction Environment Management Plan, including details of the design and siting of any site compound(s), the measures to control noise and dust from the site (including hoarding) and the siting of any plant and machinery. A condition will also be used to control the hours of construction.

6.37 Finally, a condition will be used to control the type, method and location of lighting across the site, which will help to preserve the amenity of existing and prospective occupiers by preventing harmful levels of glare/light pollution.

Highway Impact, Access and Parking

6.38 The proposed access, including the provision of a traffic light controlled junction was considered acceptable under planning permissions DC/11/0952 and DC/14/0683. An updated Traffic Assessment has, however, been submitted to take account of the extra 16 no. units being proposed. The Local Highway Authority has confirmed that the extra vehicular movements associated with the additional 16 no. units would be minimal and that the existing highway network retains adequate spare capacity to accommodate the proposed development. In reaching this conclusion, both the new access into the site and the Stane Street Close/Riverside roundabout junction have been analysed. The results reveal that both junctions have adequate capacity to continue to operate safely post development. The requirement to submit a residential Travel Plan for consideration and approval by the Local Planning Authority, which will help to reduce the number of vehicular movements associated with the development site, will be controlled by a suitably worded condition. ITEM A1 - 18

6.39 The proposed access would incorporate an existing pedestrian crossing that was installed in accordance with the requirements of the Riverside development to the north, whilst also providing a new pedestrian crossing across the new access road itself. A two-lane approach from the development to the junction with the A29 would allow traffic entering and exiting the site to access the highway simultaneously, reducing the requirement to queue at the junction and reducing delays on the main road itself. As with the extant consent, the traffic signals will have queue recognition loops, with priority given to the traffic lights serving the A29, so as to avoid harmful interruptions of traffic flows on this main road. Under these circumstances, it is considered that the comings and goings associated with the proposed development and the operation of the proposed traffic light controlled junction will not have a harmful impact on the safe functioning of the A29, unacceptably interrupt traffic flows, or result in harmful levels of congestion in the local highway network. In this respect, it is noted that a right-hand turning lane would be provided for south-bound traffic waiting to enter the application site. This would allow vehicles to wait safely before turning into the site, without interrupting traffic flows on the A29.

6.40 The layout of the internal roads (including the widths, swept paths and visibility splays) and junctions will provide safe, well-lit routes for both vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. Given the nature of the layout, traffic speeds throughout the site will be low and this will help to provide a safe environment for all users of the highway.

6.41 The proposed development will provide adequate facilities for both visitor and resident car parking, in accordance with West Sussex County Council’s Parking Standards. It is not, therefore, considered that the development will result in harmful overspill parking either within the site itself, or within the local highway network. The design and siting of the spaces will allow for safe and convenient maneuvering. The driveways closest to the proposed access to the site have been sited a sufficient distance away from this junction to ensure that their use does not compromise highway or pedestrian safety, or compromise the functioning of the traffic signals. A condition will be used requiring that all driveways, garages and parking courts are retained for the parking of vehicles, so as to ensure that adequate car parking remains available across the development site.

6.42 Appropriate facilities have also been shown for the storage of bicycles, the provision and retention of which can be controlled by condition. Likewise, appropriate facilities are shown for the storage and collection of refuse bins.

6.43 The site is located within a reasonable walking distance of a number of local services and facilities, including 2 no. supermarkets, a doctor’s surgery, a pharmacy and a primary school. There are also a range of other shops and services within a slightly longer walk of the application site. Whilst these facilities are close, the footway links to and from the site are substandard, particularly the route alongside the A29, between New Place Road and Stane Street Close. This footway is particularly narrow, especially where it crosses the railway bridge and rises in a steep cutting between the bridge and Stane Street Close (opposite Sopers Cottages). Its narrowness and proximity to passing traffic can make it intimidating for pedestrians and can also make it difficult for pedestrians with pushchairs and/or mobility scooters to pass one another safely and conveniently. At present, there is only just enough width available between the bridge parapets and guard railings to allow users of mobility scooters to negotiate the footway, leaving little or no space for other users of the path.

6.44 In order to address these identified footway deficiencies and to improve pedestrian connectivity between the application site and nearby services and facilities, the applicant has confirmed a willingness to provide a new footway/cycleway through the development site in order to provide a safe, pleasant and convenient alternative route to the narrow footway on the western side of the A29. The link has been designed with a typical gradient ITEM A1 - 19

of 5% (1 in 20), with flat, rest areas provided along its length. The path will be 2 metres wide and this will ensure that it can be used/shared safely by both pedestrians and cyclists. The provision of surface markings to identify the shared use of the path can be controlled by condition. The provision of improved cycling routes is identified as a key objective of the within the Village Transport Plan. At present, cyclists are required to share the road space with other highway users, which is problematic where the road narrows on the A29 and can often be dark, where tree canopies overhang the highway. The provision of a new link through the site will provide a safer, more convenient alternative to the current substandard arrangements.

6.45 The applicant has also confirmed a willingness to provide a financial contribution towards the provision of a new footbridge over the railway line, to alleviate the problems identified in Section 1.43 of this report. This would negate the need to use the existing narrow path. West Sussex County Council has already ring-fenced developer contributions towards this project (which is identified as a priority in the Village Transport Plan) and has commissioned a feasibility study in to its implementation/delivery.

6.46 Pulborough Station provides a good service to a number of stations, with regular services to London and the south coast. Being located on the western edge of Pulborough, however, the station is not, however, particularly well connected to the main residential centres. The pedestrian routes to the station are along the A283 which lacks a footway along its northern side and also from Church Place, via a twitten known as the ‘cinder path.’ Currently, the most convenient walking route to the station from the application site is along the A29, in to Church Place and along the cinder path. The proposed footpath link will extend in a westerly direction, following the line of the existing field boundary, where it would connect with FP1995. The link will provide improved recreational links to the site and, importantly, would offer an alternative walking route to Pulborough Station, avoiding the need to use existing narrow footways.

6.47 The adjacent bus stops are well serviced and provide a viable alternative to the use of the private motor vehicle, in accordance with the sustainability objectives outlined within the NPPF.

6.48 In summary, the proposed development would provide a safe means of access for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. The development would not harmfully interrupt traffic flows on the A29 or contribute to harmful traffic congestion in the local highway network. An appropriate level of car parking will be provided and adequate facilities are shown for the secure storage of cycles. The proposed development would provide a number of public improvements including;

• the provision of a new north-south pedestrian/cycle link through the development to provide a safe and convenient alternative to the use of the narrow footway on the western side of the A29;

• a financial contribution towards the provision of a new pedestrian footbridge over the adjacent railway line, thereby negating the need for pedestrians to use the existing narrow footway (or other highway infrastructure improvements, as necessary);

• the provision of a new footpath to link the development site to the adjacent Public Footpath FP1995, which will provide an alternative route to Pulborough Station;

• a management plan for the long-term maintenance of the embankment and vegetative screen on the eastern side of the site, where it fronts the A29.

Nature Conservation, Ecology and Biodiversity ITEM A1 - 20

6.49 Subject to an appropriate condition requiring the submission and approval of a wildlife protection, mitigation and enhancement plan setting out practical steps to be taken to avoid impacts on wildlife during site preparation and construction and a detailed lighting plan (showing measures to be used to minimise light pollution of the boundary vegetation and nocturnal wildlife, including bats), it is not considered that the proposed development will harm nature conservation interests of the site, including protected species and their habitats.

6.50 The final details of the landscaping for the site will be controlled by condition and this will ensure that details of a suitable hedgerow management plan are submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. This will ensure for the long-term protection and maintenance of the hedgerows and the site, in the interests of wildlife and nature conservation.

6.51 The NPPF advocates that opportunities should be sought to enhance the biodiversity value of development sites. The provision of additional tree planting, new hedgerows and enhancements to the existing vegetative screen on the eastern boundary will contribute to this objective. A condition will, however, also be used requiring the submission and approval of details of bat and/or bird boxes to be provided across the site and a timetable for their provision. Subject to this condition, the development complies with the aims and objectives of the NPPF.

Flooding and Drainage

6.52 The site is located within Flood Zone 1, which is identified as having a lower risk of flooding.

6.53 Southern Water has confirmed that initial investigations have revealed that it can provide foul sewage disposal for the development.

6.54 Appropriate measures can be put in place to adequately dispose of foul and surface water, the final details of which can be controlled by condition. Likewise, measures to protect existing sewerage infrastructure during the construction period can be controlled by condition.

Land Contamination

6.55 It is not anticipated that the land is contaminated. Notwithstanding this, a condition can be used that will require all works to cease in the event that unexpected contamination is found to be present, until such a time that suitable mitigation measures have been agreed, in writing, by the Council.

Renewable Energy

6.56 The applicant proposes to design-in measures to reduce the scheme’s carbon dioxide emissions. It is proposed to achieve this objective by reducing the energy demands of the proposed buildings by incorporating measures to increase passive solar gain, achieve high levels of thermal efficiency and by using low energy lighting.

6.57 The applicant has also indicated that 11 no. dwellings would be provided with photovoltaic solar thermal panels on the roof.

6.58 The development would, therefore, comply with the NPPF, which seeks to ensure that development minimises emissions of greenhouse gases and utilises sustainable construction techniques. ITEM A1 - 21

Air Quality

6.59 Like the previous planning permission at the site, the applicant has confirmed a willingness to enter in to a legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards real-time air quality monitoring equipment, to be used within the Parish of Pulborough.

6.60 Conditions will be used to ensure that the applicant is required to submit a Construction Environment Management Plan and this will ensure measures are put in place to control emissions associated with the construction phase of development.

6.61 A condition will also be used requiring the submission and approval of a Low Emissions Strategy for the site, together with a condition that will require vehicle electric charging points to be provided throughout the development.

6.62 Subject to these conditions, the development is considered acceptable in terms of its impact on air quality and it will comply with the broad objectives of the Horsham District Council’s Planning Advice Document: Air Quality & Emissions Reduction Guidance (May 2014).

Legal Agreement

6.63 In the event that planning permission is granted, Policy 38 of the Horsham District Planning Framework requires new development to meet its infrastructure needs. In this instance, it is also necessary to ensure that the 22 no. dwellings that it is proposed to build in accordance with the extant consent (as included within the blue line), are linked to the legal agreement attached to this latest application. This is important as it ensures that all planning contributions are calculated in accordance with the total number of units that would be provided across the site, rather than just the 97 no. being considered under this latest proposal. Without this, and due to the payment ‘triggers’ in the existing legal agreement, it is possible that the developer could build the 22 no. dwellings within the blue line without having to make any financial contributions or provisions towards affordable housing.

6.64 The applicant has confirmed a willingness to enter in to such an agreement. For clarity, financial contributions have been calculated on the basis of the total number of residential units to be provided across the site (119 no.) The legal agreement would secure contributions towards the same provisions as the previous consent, as set out in Sections 1.6 and 1.7 of this report

6.65 It is considered that all contributions can be justified in accordance with the three tests set out under Regulation 122 of the Community and Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, in so far that they must be; necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development and; fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

6.66 The principle of taking developer contributions for each net dwelling gain has been established following the findings of the Planning Inspector at the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy Inquiry (2007), whereby Policy CP1 and Planning Obligation SPD were recommended for adoption. The Inspector considered that such provision would not place an unnecessary burden on developers and landowners and that the requirements were reasonable. The three policy tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 Statutory Instrument 2010/248 were applicable at the time of the Inquiry, albeit they were not statutory tests at that time. It is considered that the District Council’s approach continues to meet the three statutory tests.

Other issues ITEM A1 - 22

6.67 The matters raised by Pulborough Parish Council are duly noted, including those relating to construction traffic. The precise details of the means of access to the site for construction traffic will be controlled by a suitably worded condition.

6.68 Paragraphs 186 and 187 of the NPPF requires Local Planning Authorities to approach decision making in a positive way and look for solutions rather than problems, working proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. This sentiment is reflected in Policy 1 of the HDPF, which requires the Council to work pro-actively with applicants to find solutions that allow applications to be approved wherever possible.

6.69 Accordingly, discussions were held with the applicant in order to agree amendments to the design, layout and siting of dwellings across the site, as described in Sections 1.34 – 1.38 of this report. Discussion have also been held with the Parish Council in order to ensure that there is agreement that the projects identified and secured within the legal agreement, will best suit the needs of the Parish and local residents.

Conclusion

6.70 The proposed development, by reason of its appropriate design, layout, appearance, scale and soft landscaping proposals will not harm the character or appearance of the area or the residential amenity of existing or prospective occupiers. It will provide a mix of dwelling types, including 36% affordable housing units, thereby contributing to the mix of units available in the local area. The layout, access and vehicle parking arrangements, together with the provision for refuse storage and cycle parking are acceptable. The development will not harm the interests of highway or pedestrian safety and will not contribute to harmful levels of congestion in the local highway network. Adequate provision has been made for open space which, together with the provision of numerous new trees, reinforced hedges and boundary planting will provide valuable amenity space, wildlife habitats and provide a suitable buffer with the adjacent open countryside, so as not to harm the local landscape. The development will not increase the risk of flooding to people or property and will not have an adverse impact on the interests of nature conservation, archaeology or land contamination. The development includes measures to enhance biodiversity and promote energy conservation.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that Planning Permission be granted, subject to the completion of a suitably worded legal agreement and the following conditions;

1. The development hereby permitted must be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 190 (as amended).

2. No development shall take place until details of the surface water drainage scheme, based on sustainable drainage principles, and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the following:

(a) information about the design relating to storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters.; (b) a timetable for the implementation of the surface water drainage scheme; (c) a management plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other ITEM A1 - 23

arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable urban drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.

The surface water drainage scheme shall be carried out, managed and retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to protect water quality and to ensure the future maintenance of the surface water drainage system and to comply with the NPPF and Policy DC7 of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

3. No development shall take place until a scheme to dispose of foul water has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the following:

(a) a timetable for the implementation of the foul water disposal scheme; (b) a management plan for the lifetime of the development.

The scheme shall be carried out, managed and retained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for foul drainage from the site and to comply with the NPPF and Policy DC7 of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

4. No development shall take place until a scheme to protect existing public sewers at the site, including a timetable for the measures to be carried out, has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable. Reason: To protect existing services from the development and to comply with the NPPF, Policy CP2 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DC7 of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

5. No development shall take place until details of all underground trenching requirements for services, including the positions of soakaways, service ducts, foul, grey and storm water systems and all other underground service facilities and associated ground excavations, have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall demonstrate effective co-ordination with the approved landscape scheme and with existing trees on the site. All such underground services shall be installed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect the roots of important trees and hedgerows on the site in accordance with the NPPF and Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

6. No development shall take place until the details of all external lighting for the site, including within the parking barns and parking courts have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include:

(a) a layout plan with beam orientation and light spill relative to established bat roosts and key flight and foraging routes; (b) the design of all lighting, including luminaire type, mounting height, aiming angles and luminaire profiles; (c) a light scatter diagram with relevant contours; (d) a timetable for the implementation of the lighting scheme;

The lighting scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable. Reason: In the interests of amenity, to create a safe environment, to prevent light pollution and interests of nature conservation, to comply with the NPPF, Policy DC5 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and in the interests of preserving the environment for protected ITEM A1 - 24 species, in accordance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

7. No development shall take place until a detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for the development has been submitted to and agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall contain details of:

(a) the location of the site compound and any buildings within it; (b) the location of any moveable structures, plant, or machinery required temporarily in connection with the development; (c) the means of enclosure of the site compound; (d) the provisions to be made for the parking of contractors, site operatives, employees and visitors vehicles; (e) the provision for wheel washing facilities; (f) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste and spoil resulting from construction works; (g) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt from the site during construction; (h) measures to prevent adverse impacts to surface water and ground water; (i) construction vehicle routes; (j) a scheme to reduce emissions associated with the construction process.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the CEMP unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the environment is protected and that the demolition and construction works on site do not impact surrounding properties and/or adjacent occupiers and to comply with the NPPF and Policy CP2 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).

8. No development shall take place until ecological mitigation measures have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The ecological mitigation measures shall include details of:

i) a wildlife protection, mitigation and enhancement plan, setting out practical steps to be taken to avoid impacts on wildlife during site preparation and construction and make future provision of biodiversity (informed by the results of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal); ii) a pre-development badger survey and mitigation measures as appropriate; iii) a detailed lighting plan, supported by modelled lux levels and luminaire profiles, showing the measures to be used to minimise light pollution of boundary hedgerows and subsequent impacts on nocturnal wildlife, particularly bats; iv) a hedgerow enhancement and management, including measures to maximise wildlife habitat value

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To avoid adverse impacts on protected and priority species and to enhance the biodiversity value of the site, in accordance with the NPPF.

9. No development shall take place until details of the finished floor levels of the development in relation to an appropriate datum point have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to comply with the NPPF and Policy DC9 of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

10. No development shall take place until details of the windows and doors, including the measures to protect prospective occupiers from unacceptable levels of noise, together with appropriate ventilation systems, have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local ITEM A1 - 25

Planning Authority. The windows and doors and associated ventilation systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved details thereafter. Reason: Such details have yet to be submitted and in the interests of residential amenity and to comply with the NPPF.

11. No development above slab level shall take place until details of the proposed windows, including associated external cills and headers, materials and colour finishes for the windows and how they will be set back within the reveals, have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: Such details have yet to be submitted and to ensure the appearance of the development is acceptable and to preserve the character and appearance of the locality, in accordance with the NPPF, Policies CP1 and CP3 of the of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

12. No development above slab level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the front canopies, including the supporting up-stands, have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: Such details have yet to be submitted and to ensure the appearance of the development is acceptable and to preserve the character and appearance of the locality, in accordance with the NPPF, Policies CP1 and CP3 of the of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

13. No development above slab level shall take place until details of the railings to the Juliet balconies have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: Such details have yet to be submitted and to ensure the appearance of the development is acceptable and to preserve the character and appearance of the locality, in accordance with the NPPF, Policies CP1 and CP3 of the of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

14. No development above slab level shall take place until a programme/timetable for the implementation of the following approved aspects of the development have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be out carried in accordance with the approved programme/timetable and retained thereafter. (i) the make up and provision of internal roads, footways, driveways, junctions and street lighting; (ii) the provision of vehicle parking and turning areas; (iii) the Permissive Right of Way; (iv) the 2 metre wide footway/cycleway; (v) the pedestrian link to Footpath 1995 (FP1995); (vi) the western boundary buffer. Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety, residential and visual amenity and to comply with the NPPF, Policies CP1 and CP3 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

15. The roads, footways, 2 metre wide cycleway/footway, driveways, internal junctions and parking areas shall be surfaced in accordance with the details (including materials and surface markings) shown on approved plans DLA-1648-(02)-20 REV A, DLA-1648-(02)-21 REV A, DLA- 1648-(02)-22 REV A and DLA-1648-(02)-23 REV A and in accordance with the programme/timetable approved under condition 14. ITEM A1 - 26

Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety and the visual amenity of the locality and to comply with the NPPF, Policies CP1 and CP3 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

16. No development above slab level shall take place until full details of all boundary treatments, including screen walls, as referenced on approved plans DLA-1648-(02)-20 REV A, DLA-1648- (02)-21 REV A, DLA-1648-(02)-22 REV A and DLA-1648-(02)-23 REV A, have been submitted to and agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include:

(i) elevation drawings showing the height and design of the boundary treatment; (ii) sample materials and/or manufacturer specifications of the material to be used in the construction of the boundary treatment.

The approved boundary treatments shall be provided in accordance with a programme/timetable to agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: Such details have yet to be submitted and in the interests of security and the visual amenity of the locality and to comply with the NPPF, Policies CP1 and CP3 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

17. No development above slab level shall take place until details of bat and bird boxes to be installed at the site, including the design/manufacturer specification and locations for the boxes and a timetable for their implementation, has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable thereafter, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: Such details have yet to be provided and to enhance the biodiversity value of the site and to comply with the aims and objectives of the NPPF.

18. No development above slab level shall take place until details of the electric vehicle charging points to be provided at the site, which must be compatible for use with electric cars, including the precise location of these facilities, have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The electric vehicle charging facilities shall be provided, in full working order, prior to the occupation of the dwelling, or use of the visitor parking bay, to which it relates. Reason: To ensure that the development make the most efficient use of renewable energy and in the interests of air quality and to comply with the NPPF and Policy DC8 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

19. No development above slab level shall take place until a Low Emissions Strategy, based on the principles of Horsham District Council’s Planning Advice Document: Air Quality & Emissions Reduction Guidance (May 2014), including a timeframe for its implementation and monitoring, has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Low Emissions Strategy shall be implemented and monitored in accordance with the approved details thereafter, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: Such details have yet to be submitted and in the interests of preserving the air quality of the area, in accordance with the NPPF.

20. No development above slab level shall take place until details of the proposed communal bin stores as shown on approved plans DLA-1648-(02)-20 REV A, DLA-1648-(02)-21 REV A, DLA 1648-(02)-22 REV A and DLA-1648-(02)-23 REV A, including elevation drawings at a scale of 1:20 or 1:50 and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of these facilities have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The communal bin stores shall be provided, in accordance with the approved details, before the occupation of the residential unit that they are intended to serve. Reason: Such details have yet to be submitted and in the interests of achieving an appropriate ITEM A1 - 27 design and ensuring that adequate facilities are available for the storage and collection of refuse bins, in accordance with the NPPF and Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

21. The development shall not be occupied until the vehicular and pedestrian access to the site and associated pedestrian crossing and traffic management measures have been provided and laid out in accordance with approved plan 2015/2610/01. The approved measures shall be retained thereafter, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway and pedestrian safety and to comply with the NPPF, Policy CP3 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

22. No development shall take place until details, including samples, of all external facing and roofing materials for the dwellings and garages hereby approved have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the buildings is acceptable and to preserve the character and visual amenity of the locality, in accordance with the NPPF, Policy CP1 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DC9 of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

23. The soft landscaping for the site, including the 3 no. open recreational spaces (and any associated boundary treatments), trees, shrub beds, grass verges and hedging shall be provided in accordance with approved plans DLA-1648-(02)-25 REV A, DLA-1648-(02)-26 REV A, DLA- 1648-(02)-27 REV A and DLA-1648-(02)-28 REV A and in accordance with a programme/timetable submitted to and agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that an appropriate level of open space is provided at the site and in the interests of the future visual amenity of the locality and to comply with the NPPF, Policies CP1 and CP3 of the of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DC2, DC5 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

24. No development above slab level shall take place until a Landscape Management Plan for the site, including for the 3 no. open recreational spaces (and their associated boundary treatments), western buffer strip, trees, shrub beds, grass verges, hedging, western buffer strip and A29 Embankment, has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The soft landscaping at the site shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved Landscape Management Plan thereafter, unless otherwise agreed, in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the soft landscaping and areas of open space are managed and maintained appropriately and in the interests of the future visual amenity of the locality and to comply with the NPPF, Policies CP1 and CP3 of the of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DC2, DC5 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

25. No development above slab level shall take place until details of the play equipment and any associated surfacing and/or landscaping, to be provided in areas of open space, as shown on approved plans DLA-1648-(02)-25 REV A, DLA-1648-(02)-26 REV A, DLA-1648-(02)-27 REV A and DLA-1648-(02)-28 REV A, have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The play equipment shall thereafter be provided in accordance with the programme/timetable to be agreed in writing, with the Local Planning Authority, prior to works above slab level being exceeded. Reason: To ensure that appropriate recreational areas are provided and in the interests of the visual amenity of the locality and to comply with the NPPF, Policy CP3 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DC22 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). ITEM A1 - 28

26. No development above slab level shall take place until details of the western buffer strip, including the size/densities of trees/shrubs, the phasing of timing of planting, and the provision for its maintenance during the first five years from the date of planting, have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the appearance and amenity of the locality and to comply with the NPPF, Policy CP3 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DC22 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

27. No development above slab level shall take place until details of an A29 Embankment Management Plan has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The A29 Embankment Management Plan shall include details of a long-term management and maintenance scheme for the boundary vegetation, together with details of how the existing hedge will be gapped up. Reason: In the interests of the appearance and amenity of the locality and to provide a suitable landscape screen on the eastern side of the site and to comply with the NPPF, Policy CP3 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DC22 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

28. No development above slab level shall take place until details of the substations to be provided at the site, including layout plans and elevation drawings at a scale of 1:20 and sample materials have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The substations shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details thereafter. Reason: Such details have yet to be provided and in the interests of visual and residential amenity and to comply with the NPPF and Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

29. Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied, detailed Travel Plans, including details of the appointment of a Green Travel Plan Coordinator and a method of monitoring and implementation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall operate in accordance with the approved Travel Plan following the occupation of the first dwelling unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To reduce the impact of the development on the surrounding highway network, to support sustainable transport objectives, including a reduction in single occupancy car journeys, and to encourage an increased use of public transport, walking an cycling and to comply with the NPPF and Policy CP3 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

30. The approved cycle parking facilities shall be provided for each respective dwelling before it is first occupied and thereafter retained, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that adequate cycle parking facilities are provided and to comply with the NPPF, Policy CP3 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

31. The approved refuse/recycling storage facilities shall be provided for each respective dwelling before it is first occupied and thereafter retained, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that adequate refuse/recycling storage facilities are provided and to comply with the NPPF and Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

ITEM A1 - 29

32. In the event that contamination not previously identified is found to be present on site, an investigation, risk assessment and mitigation study shall be undertaken and submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. A verification report that demonstrates that the remediation has been carried out in accordance with the approved scheme shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority before the development is first brought into use, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the risks from contamination for future users of the land and neighbouring land, property and ecological systems are minimised and in the interests of the safety of construction workers, occupiers of adjacent land and off site receptors, and to comply with the NPPF.

33. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No2) (England) Order, 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no enlargement, improvement or alteration of any dwellinghouse hereby approved shall be permitted. Reason: In order to protect the amenity of residents and to retain suitably sized rear gardens and to accord with the NPPF and Policy CP3 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

34. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No2) (England) Order, 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure shall be permitted to be erected forward of the front and side elevations of any of the dwellings hereby approved. Reason: To preserve the visual amenity of the locality and to comply with the NPPF and Policies CP1 and CP3 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

35. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No2) (England) Order, 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), all garages, driveways and parking areas shall be retained for the parking of vehicles only. Reason: To ensure that adequate car parking is available at the site and in the interests of highway and pedestrian safety and amenity and to comply with the NPPF, Policy CP3 of the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

36. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No2) (England) Order, 1995 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no buildings, moveable structures, works, plant or machinery required temporarily in connection with and for the duration of the development hereby permitted shall be erected or stored on the application site other than within the compounds approved pursuant to condition 7 of this planning permission. Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and in accordance with the NPPF.

37. No development shall be carried out, other than between the hours of 0800 and 1800 on Monday to Friday and 0900 – 1300 on Saturdays. No development shall be carried out at any time of Sundays, Bank Holidays or Public Holidays. Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby properties and to comply with the NPPF.

38. No materials, including those obtained from demolition, site clearance or construction works shall be burnt on the site. Reason: To protect the amenity of nearby properties and to comply with the NPPF.

39. The trees which are shown to be retained in the accordance within the Tree ITEM A1 - 30

Retention/Removal Plan CALA/AT/15515TPP shall be protected during building operations in compliance with BS5837:2012 – Trees in Relation to Construction. Reason: To ensure the enhancement of the development by the retention of natural features, and to comply with the NPPF.

A. Plans condition.

Background Papers:

DC/11/0952 DC/14/0683 DC/15/1084

Land North of Highfield

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

Scale: 1:3,853

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

Date 04/09/2015 MSA Number 100023865

ITEM A2 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (South) BY: Development Manager DATE: 15/09/2015 Provision of residential development of 23 dwellings comprising 3 no. 1 bed apartments, 7 no. 2 bedroom houses, 9 no. 3 bedroom houses and 4 DEVELOPMENT: no. 4 bedroom houses with associated access provision, roads, parking facilities and open space (Outline application) SITE: Land east of Pound Lane Upper Beeding West Sussex WARD: Bramber, Upper Beeding and Woodmancote APPLICATION: DC/14/1745 APPLICANT: Rydon Homes Ltd

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA:

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in Section 7. .

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application in conjunction with planning application DC/14/1744

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

The application seeks Outline planning permission for 23 no dwellings on land east of Pound Lane with all matters reserved except for access. Vehicular and pedestrian access is proposed from Pound Lane to the west of the application. The access would be created south of Emery Lodge and opposite Brentwood which is a residential property in The Driftway which extends west from Pound Lane. Beyond the access the, the indicative layout shows the road within the site travelling directly east and then forking into a north and southern section. The southern section is shown to curve around to the south east to then continue in a west to east direction to terminate in a ‘T’ junction at the eastern boundary of the site. The northern element of the fork turns directly north to tie in with the corresponding southerly road shown on the indicative layout for planning application DC/14/1744 which seeks planning permission for 31 dwellings on the land beyond the north boundary of this application.

The indicative layout shows a large area of open space south of the main access road along with two ponds and a pumping station, both of which are part of the SUDS strategy, located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site.

Contact Officer: Rebecca Humble (WYG) Tel: 01403 215528 ITEM A2 - 2

This application is accompanied by a series of supporting information including: - Design and Access Statement - Affordable Housing Statement - Statement of Community Involvement - Site Waste Management Plan - Lighting, Drainage and Utilities Statement - Environmental Performance Statement - Planning Statement - Arboricultural Implications Assessment - Ecological Appraisal - Great Crested Newts - Bat Survey - Reptile Survey - Archaeological DBA - Landscape Visual Impact Assessment - Flood Risk Assessment - Transport Statement

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

The land east of Pound Lane is a generally rectangular piece of land that wraps around the southern boundary of Emery Lodge and extends approximately 175m east to the existing field boundary. The site is 63m wide (north to south) narrowing to 44m south of Emery Lodge and the site falls away to the east and north. There is a cluster of trees adjacent to the north west corner of the site to the rear of Emery Lodge and another cluster of trees and shrubs on the west boundary of the site visible from Pound Lane. There are high hedges and trees along the southern boundary of the site and the land to the east on the adjoining land is wooded meaning the site is relatively visually enclosed from this side. Footpath 2767 travels parallel with the west boundary of the site along Pound Lane.

Upper Beeding is a historic village located at the northern end of the River Adur gap in the South Downs. It is a bridging point over the River and on the opposite bank are the settlements of Bramber and Steyning. The village lies at the northern edge but outside of the South Downs National Park. The village provides a range of local facilities including pubs, churches, a supermarket, shops, restaurants, a village hall, sports hall and playing fields. The existing residential development within Upper Beeding is mixed in character in terms age, height and architectural style.

The South Downs National Park lies approximately 250m from the site and covers the hills surrounding the site to the east and west. At its nearest point the northern boundary of the application site is 250m away from the southern boundary of the National Park with the higher elevated areas, around Tottington Mount being 1 – 2km away.

Beyond the application site to the south is the Grade II Listed Pound House Cottage which is a thatched cottage listed in 1980 as a building of architectural interest as an example of a vernacular domestic building from at least the 18th century.

2. INTRODUCTION

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF)

ITEM A2 - 3

- Section 4: Promoting sustainable transport - Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes - Section 7: Requiring good design - Section 8: Promoting healthy communities - Section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change - Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

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

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) polices:

- CP1: Landscape and Townscape Character - CP2: Environmental Quality - CP3: Improving the Quality of New Development - CP5: Built-Up Areas and Previously Developed Land - CP8: Small Scale ‘Greenfield’ Sites - CP12: Meeting Housing Needs - CP13: Infrastructure Requirements - CP15: Rural Strategy

2.4 Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

- DC1: Countryside Protection and Enhancement - DC2: Landscape Character - DC5: Biodiversity and Geology - DC6: Woodland and Trees - DC7: Flooding - DC8: Renewable Energy and Climate Change - DC9: Development Principles - DC18: Smaller Homes/Housing Mix - DC22: New Open Space, Sports and Recreation - DC40: Transport and Access

2.6 Local Development Framework: Supplementary Planning Documents:

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

2.7 Upper Beeding Parish Council are progressing a Neighbourhood Plan, however, it is at an early stage and is not yet a material consideration.

2.8 The Proposed Submission version of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was approved by Council in April 2014 as the Council’s policy for planning the future of the District for the period 2011-2031, and was submitted to the Government in August 2014. The Examination of the HDPF was undertaken by an independent Planning Inspector in November 2014, and the Inspector published his Initial Findings in December 2014. The Inspector considers the overall strategy of the plan to be sound as is made clear in paragraph 4 of his Initial Findings:

2.9 ‘On balance, I consider the overall strategy to concentrate growth in the main settlements in the hierarchy, starting with Horsham as a first order centre, followed by Southwater and Billingshurst, to be sound. The proposal for some development in villages, in accordance with Neighbourhood Plans (NP), is also justified and accords with government policy in the ITEM A2 - 4

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). As will be explained in some more depth in my final report, the alternative strategy of greater dispersal to smaller settlements would be likely to lead to a less sustainable pattern of development with regard to transport patterns related to provision of employment opportunities, retail facilities and social and community services..’

2.10 The Inspector suspended the Examination of the HDPF to allow time for the Council to show how the District’s overall housing provision can be increased to provide for a minimum of 750 dwellings per annum (15,000 over the plan period). Main Modifications were then prepared and consulted upon. An additional Examination Hearing took place on 3rd July 2015 to consider only the issues outlined in the Initial Findings. The Inspector published a Note to the Council on 21st July 2015 stating that the housing requirement for the plan period should be raised to 800 dwellings per annum (16,000 dwellings over the plan period). The Inspector also indicates that an early review (to begin within 3 years of adoption) of the Plan to provide for these additional dwellings will be required, and that a modification to Policy 36 (Strategic Policy: Appropriate Energy Use) to account for the recent written ministerial statement concerning wind energy development will be necessary. Given the Inspector’s Initial Findings and recent Note, the emerging plan is therefore considered to be a material consideration of considerable weight in terms of the overall strategy.

2.11 It should be noted that the whilst the required number of dwellings in the HDPF has been increased from 750pa to 800pa, the most recent trajectory for the plan period (2011-2031) clearly demonstrates that the HDPF will provide a sufficient housing land supply from existing allocations and commitments to meet this requirement until at least 2021. The early review mechanism will enable the Council to ensure sufficient land supply is secured to meet the needs after this period.

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/14/1744 Provision of residential development of 31 dwellings Pending comprising 4 no. 1 bedroom apartments, 10 no. 2 bedroom houses, 8 no. 3 bedroom houses, and 9 no. 4 bedroom houses with associated access provision, roads, parking facilities and open space (Outline Application)

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

Strategic Planning (summary): Raise objection. Having received the Planning Inspector’s Note shortly after the close of the Examination Hearings into the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF); the Council considers the weight given to the HDPF as a material consideration has increased, and the document should now be afforded considerable weight in the determination of planning applications.

At present, through the existing suite of adopted development plan documents, the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply sufficient to meet identified need. However when adopted, the HDPF will be able to demonstrate a full 5-year HLS to meet an identified need of 800 dwellings per annum.

ITEM A2 - 5

As the proposed site is not allocated for development within the emerging HDPF, nor is it allocated in a Neighbourhood Development Plan, it is considered that the site is in conflict with the emerging Development Plan. Taking all of these factors into account, the proposal should be recommended for refusal.

It should be noted that these comments do not necessarily preclude the site from coming forward as part of an allocation in a future Local Development Plan or indeed through allocation in the Upper Beeding Neighbourhood Development Plan in order to accommodate required growth in smaller settlements across the District as per provisions in Policy 15 (part d) of the HDPF.

In light of the stage in production of the Upper Beeding Neighbourhood Development Plan and the HDPF, these comments may be subject to change, and should be treated as ‘interim advice’ at this stage.

Housing Officer (summarised): No objection The Facilitating Appropriate Development DPD states: Up to 40% of the dwellings are required to be ‘affordable’ dwellings, and a mix including smaller units is required by policy DC18. The applicant has submitted an Affordable Housing Statement which concludes: The Provision of much-needed affordable housing as part of this proposal is a significant public benefit weighing in favour of the grant of consent (point 9) The Planning Statement paragraph 7.14 Social (benefit) states that the development will provide: …new, high quality affordable housing to contribute to meeting the local housing needs of those unable to compete in the private sector housing market Affordable housing should be secured by means of a legal agreement and not by condition.

The application proposes a mix of 3 no. one bedroom units, 3 no. two bedroom units and 3 no. three bedroom units. The Council expects a Policy compliant tenure mix of 62.5% Affordable rent and 37.5% shared ownership. Although these are outline applications Housing Officers would urge the applicant to discuss the potential schemes with an affordable housing provider as soon as possible, in order to secure future funding arrangements for the affordable homes and ensure the layout and specifications of the affordable units meet the provider’s requirements.

Arboricultural Officer: No objection A number of trees purely internal to the site are targeted for removal. However, these are generally rather poor specimens of no especial merit or value. The proposed site access requires the removal of a number of beech trees on the eastern side of Pound Lane (group G4 in the submitted Arboricultural Implications Assessment (AIA)), and this will involve the loss of some amenity. However, the trees are clearly a remnant hedgerow, and have collective amenity value only; none is of especial or particular merit in its own right. The retention of the three specimens to the immediate south of the access will largely retain this feature, especially when viewed from the south and from The Driftway, to the west. On balance, it is not considered that the trees targeted for removal have a high enough level of individual or collective amenity merit to warrant retention and thereby the re-design of the whole site layout which would result from the consideration of an alternative site access.

The construction of the access driveway will involve some disruption within the RPA of the closest beech tree to the south, but it is not considered that this will cause an inappropriate level of root damage.

The large ash tree on plot 7 (T21) is a fair specimen, but has slightly poor form, being a twin- stemmed tree showing signs of the two stems growing apart; the westerly stem has developed a considerable lean. It has not been possible to inspect the basal bifurcation of this tree, and this might be in good order; on the other hand, if it is not, it is questionable as to the prudence ITEM A2 - 6 of retaining this tree within a residential context. At this stage, there are no issues with its retention, and consider that the (indicative) layout of the site accords it sufficient space to be retained successfully. A far better, but smaller, tree is the well-shaped Field maple to the east (T19). This tree is shown in the layout rather surrounded by car parking spaces. This is not necessarily inappropriate, and it is noted that proposals at para. 11.2 of the AIA for the use of a no-dig, porous construction strategy. This is acceptable and satisfactory and should be secured by condition. The long hedgerow along the southern boundary of the site (G9) has been kept well trimmed, and can be retained within the scheme. It will provide a good rear garden boundary to the plots in this area without becoming a perceived problem to residents.

Heritage Officer (summary) This application is submitted as a stand-alone scheme but also needs to be considered in conjunction with DC/14/1744. The site also falls within the setting of the Grade II listed building referred to as Pound Cottage. Although its fabric may not be harmed and its current garden area will remain unchanged, the site forms part of its setting. Albeit that two dwellings now sit to the north of the subject designated heritage asset, and the field is used as a paddock, it nevertheless contributes to the rural setting of Pound Cottage including views to and from. It is not disputed that the wider rural setting has been intruded upon in direct and peripheral views due to the suburban development to the south and west but the existence of such developments including more recent infilling does not add weight to nor justify the current proposals. There should be no disagreement that the change of a green field to a site containing dwellings will not have an impact on its rural character and therefore the rural setting of the listed building. This change is material and whilst it can also be said that the harm to the significance of the listed building as per para 134 of the NPPF, any level of harm must be given the highest level of importance. Despite the reduction in units and changes to the entrance it is considered that the illustrative layout demonstrates that the development would occupy a significant part of the field and dominate or obliterate views toward the heritage asset. Conversely and at present, views are achievable across the field toward the wider countryside beyond. This would be negatively intruded upon by the proposed development – a development that weights itself toward the suburban development to the west incorporating large detached dwelling, semi- detached pairs and terraces. In that respect and albeit less than substantial, the harm that would arise is significant and would detract from not only the rural environment but the rural context and setting of the listed building. The extent of harm and intrusion into the rural landscape would be exacerbated by the development as shown under reference DC/14/1744 and as such, both individually and cumulatively is not supported from a heritage point of view.

Landscape Officer (summary) Whilst it is recognised that the scheme has been adjusted, primarily to seek to address heritage impact, the scheme is not sufficiently different to the previous proposal to result in materially less damaging landscape and visual effects than the earlier proposal, although it is accepted that the effects of this development are rather less significant than those attributable to the development proposed on the northern site. The previous concerns therefore remain on the adverse landscape and visual effects predicted to arise such that the amended proposal cannot be recommended for approval. The landscape and visual effects would be exacerbated when considered together with those likely to arise from DC/14/1744.

As previously advised, if a reduced overall level of development, augmented by a more comprehensive mitigation strategy, were to be advanced, it is possible that some of the significant adverse effects could be reduced if not avoided. Whilst this has been partly responded to, the recommendation remains that a further reduction in unit numbers is required to introduce the flexibility to address the landscape concerns more satisfactorily such that a scheme design of appropriate quality might be delivered, should planning permission be a subsequently granted (assumed to be on the basis of consent also being ITEM A2 - 7 granted for the adjacent scheme). Even so, the development would remain divorced from the settlement edge at Smugglers Lane south of the southern site.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

WSCC Highways (summary) WSCC in its capacity of LHA requested further information from the applicant on traffic flows along Hyde Lane which was submitted in November 2014. The survey was taken over 3 day period during the week. The survey showed that there were on average 319 two-way movements in the AM Peak and 554 two-way movements in the PM Peak along Hyde Lane/Pound Lane. It is anticipated that the development trips for this period equated to 25 trips during the AM peak and 18 during the PM peak. Based on this data WSCC were satisfied that the proposal was not likely to result in any highway capacity concerns.

At the point of access to the site, the road is not maintained by WSCC. Comments relating to access are, therefore, information only. Visibility splays have been provided and accord with the submitted speed survey, this aspect of the proposals was agreed in 2014 and no changes are proposed to the access as a result of this latest consultation. In addition the access was also subject to a Stage 1 RSA, which was accepted by WSCC, no issues were recorded.

There are a limited range of services within Upper Beeding, however there is a reasonably sized food retail shop. There is a continuous footway to those services. The proposed improvement works to the footway should be secured by condition. An hourly bus service is available from the centre of the village to Shoreham, Brighton and Worthing that operates during the early morning and late evening. This service provides a realistic alternative to the use of the private car for some trips.

Since the proposed number of dwellings has been reduced, the new TRICS report suggests that, across applications DC/14/1744 and DC/14/1745, there will be 29 two way movements in the morning and with 30 two way movements in the evening peak hours. In comparison to the previous scheme this equates to 6 less trips in the AM peak and 7 less trips in the PM peak. The sites used are considered to be comparable in terms of planning use class and location to that proposed, in accordance with TRICS Best Practice Guidance. It is recognised that this proposal would give rise to a more intensive use of Pound Lane; however, this proposal is not anticipated to result in a severe cumulative impact on the operation of the local network in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Conditions relating to access, provision of the footway, a construction management plan and visibility are recommended.

WSCC Drainage (Lead Local Flood Authority) (summary) No objection. The area of the proposed development is shown to be at ‘High risk’ from ground water flooding on the current ESI maps due to permeable geology on the site. This does not mean the site will flood only that the ground is indicated as susceptible to allowing groundwater to permeate. The detailed design of the development should consider this in detail particularly for any structures below ground.

The eastern end of the proposed site is shown to be within Flood zone 3 – and at risk of flooding from the local Main River. There are no records of historic flooding within the confines of the proposed site. This should not be taken that this site has never suffered from flooding, only that it has never been reported to the LLFA.

Current Ordnance Survey mapping shows an ordinary watercourse running along the eastern boundary of site. No development should take place within 5m of any ITEM A2 - 8 watercourse. The ownership and future maintenance of this ditch line must be established during the design stages, so that this does not cause flood risk issues in the future.

Any works affecting a watercourse will need Ordinary Watercourse consent from Horsham District Council.

The proposed surface water drainage approach meets the requirements of the NPPF, PPG and associated guidance documents. However as no detailed plans have been submitted the proposal should be subject to a condition securing details. If the intention is to dispose surface water via infiltration, this should be shown to be suitable through an appropriate assessment carried out under BRE Digest 365 (or equivalent) before any conditions are discharged. A further condition relating to maintenance and management of the SUDS system is recommended.

Environment Agency No objection subject to a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment.

Southern Water No objection subject to conditions relating to SUDS and foul and surface water sewerage disposal together with informatives relating to the requirement for the approval of Southern Water to be obtained before connections are made to the existing system and the need for sewerage infrastructure.

Ecology No objection subject to a condition requiring additional details to be submitted at Reserved Matters stage.

Archaeology (summary) No objection on archaeological grounds is raised to the proposals, subject to suitable archaeological safeguards to ensure the investigation, recording, and reporting where appropriate of archaeological heritage assets within the site.

WSCC PROW Officer Written confirmation of the proposed specification of the footpath to include the width of the path, the proposed surface and who will be responsible for the maintenance of the trees adjacent to the path would be required. If a new stile is proposed, the applicant would need to apply for authorisation for a new structure at this location under s.66 or s.147 of the Highways Act (safeguarding users of the highway or stock control).

South Downs National Park Raise concern. Following is the formal consultation response of the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) on the above application. The above revised applications are both Outline with only access being sought for approval at this stage. The two sites are outside the development boundary are adjoined and are located on the north east side of Upper Beeding. The nearest point of the two development proposals to the boundary of the South Downs National Park (SDNP), is the south-eastern corner of the lower/southerly site (DC/14/1745) At this point the SDNP boundary is approximately 200m away.

Notwithstanding the DC/14/1744 site is within an area identified as SA053 on the Horsham DC SHLAA, both this and the DC/14/1745 site are, nevertheless, relatively exposed and publically visible from elevated points within the National Park, particularly from the public footpath leading north from Windmill Hill; the setting of the nearby National Park in this location is elevated rolling Downland. Notwithstanding the reduction in residential units from a total of 65 down to a total of 54, as stated in the SDNPA consultation response under the above reference numbers, the village of Upper Beeding would still be expanded ITEM A2 - 9 by this proposed development to a degree which would introduce a significant addition to the existing urban form east/south-east toward the National Park, in an area that is currently rural agricultural land. Notwithstanding the existing trees and hedging around the sites, due to the public views from the elevated downs, the SDNPA remain to be convinced that this would adequately screen the resulting urban development with associated roads and lighting. In the event that Outline planning permission were to be granted, it would be appropriate to ensure that the existing trees and vegetation were supplemented with additional tree and other planting to ensure an appropriate and effective soft scape/green transition from urban to rural and help to minimise the visual impact of the urban expansion of Upper Beeding toward the National Park. It should be noted however that for the reasons given, the SDNPA remain to be convinced that any transitional screen buffer would be sufficient to outweigh the visual impact and increasing urbanisation of the locality between Upper Beeding and the National Park, with the total of 54 houses proposed.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

South Downs Society Raise objection. The sites (DC/14/1744 and DC/14/1745) are not within the South Downs National Park but are very close to its border. Many parts of Upper Beeding are concealed when looking in the direction of the two application site from the public footpaths inside the Park, but the village that would be created by the building of dwelling on Little Paddocks and the adjoining land would create a severe eyesore in the middle of the view from Beeding Hill, Windmill Hill and other footpaths. The development of the sites should be resisted.

Upper Beeding Parish Council Raise objection. The proposed development is sited on agricultural land outside the built-up area of the village. The only access routes between the site and the village, and onto the main transport network, are via Hyde Lane and Saltings Way, both of which are narrow and already overutilised. We are not satisfied that sufficient consideration has been given to the ongoing strain on road capacity which will be generated by significant additional housing. We are not satisfied that sufficient consideration has been given to the disposal of surface water at a site adjacent to the flood plain of the river Adur, and already known to be significantly prone to flooding. We are not satisfied that sufficient consideration has been given to the disposal of sewage, given that the foul drainage disposal system in the vicinity is already known to be overstretched beyond capacity. We are not satisfied that sufficient consideration has been given to the provision of education and health facilities for the proposed increased population. Given the number of species considered rare or endangered within a kilometre radius from the proposed site, as listed by the biodiversity report, we would strongly suggest expert scrutiny of the ecology and wildlife reports as part of the consideration of these applications. We believe that the application is premature insofar as it is pre-emptive of the Neighbourhood Plan currently under development, and that the developers have failed to engage adequately with the local community.

298 no. letters of objection received (in response to two periods of consultation) raising the following issues:

- Overdevelopment and harmful impact on the character of the village - Harmful visual impact on National Park - Awkward and incongruous character of development - Design is out of keeping with the character of development - Loss of general amenity - Impact on privacy - Harmful impact from additional lighting and noise ITEM A2 - 10

- Flooding – The site is adjacent to a flood plain - Congestion – The roads are not able to cope with the increased development - Increased risk of danger to pedestrians and other highway users - Sewerage – The sewage network can’t cope with the issues - Village facilities – Pressure on existing educational facilities / medical facilities / etc - Harmful impact on the landscape and trees - Harmful impact on ecology - Impact on the setting of the adjoining listed building

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 development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The key issues for consideration in relation to this proposal are:

• The principle of the development • Impact on the character and appearance of the South Downs National Park • Impact on setting of Listed Building • Impact upon the amenities of nearby and future residents • Housing mix, affordable housing & tenure • Highway impacts • Drainage and Flood Risk • Ecology • Archaeology • Impact on trees and hedgerows • Public Rights of Way • Third Party Representations • S106 obligations

The principle of the development

6.2 The Council is required, through the NPPF (paragraph 47) to ‘identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional 5% buffer to ensure choice and competition in the market for land’.

6.3 Paragraph 49 of the NPPF indicates that, in the absence of a demonstrable five year housing supply, relevant policies for the supply of housing should be considered out-of- date. In light of this, the proposal should also be considered in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development given in paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

ITEM A2 - 11

6.4 The application has been considered against the adopted Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007), which includes the Core Strategy and the General Development Control Policies. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is also a key material consideration along with the Planning Inspector’s Initial Findings into the Examination of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF).

6.5 In light of the Council’s historic position in relation to the shortfall of housing supply, in 2009 the Council adopted the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD which allows for flexibility in the location of development, in order to facilitate provision of housing and expansion of settlements in a sustainable way during the life of the Core Strategy.

6.6 As the Council is required to maintain a five year housing supply, the application could be considered in relation to the FAD SPD which allows for greater flexibility to ensure that there is sufficient housing supply during the life of the Core Strategy. 6.7 The emerging Horsham District Planning Framework is gathering increasing weight and in his most recent Note on the Examination of the Framework (July 2015) the Inspector noted that he considered that the District had capacity to accommodate 16,000 dwellings over the plan period (2011 – 2031) equating 800 dwellings per annum. 6.8 The application site lies in the countryside, adjacent to but outside of the Built Up Area Boundary of Upper Beeding as defined by the Proposals Map (2007). Upper Beeding is a Category 1 Settlement as defined by Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy (2007). Being contiguous with this boundary, the proposal meets the first criterion of the FAD SPD.

6.9 Upper Beeding is a categorised as a Category 2 Settlement and a ‘Smaller Village’ within Policy 3 of the Horsham District Planning Framework, where the provision of residential development, outside the Built Up Area Boundary, would conflict with the hierarchical approach of concentrating development to the main settlements, as endorsed by the Planning Inspector at the recent Public Examination. Such settlements are identified as having limited services, facilities and social networks, with residents reliant on larger settlements to access most of their requirements. This is supported by the Preliminary Results of the Horsham District Council Settlement Sustainability Study, which identifies as having a lack of local services and a large reliance on the use of the car. The results conclude that high levels of development would perpetuate these unsustainable travel patterns. The adjacent bus stops only provide a limited service and it is unlikely that prospective occupiers could be reasonably expected to utilise this form of transport in order to travel to work. The development would be contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy 4 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework, which relates to settlement expansion and requires new developments outside of Built Up Area boundaries to be allocated through the Local Plan or through a Neighbourhood Plan. Lower Beeding does not have a Neighbourhood Plan nor is it an allocated site in the existing or emerging local plans and the application site has not, therefore, been identified as suitable for development.

6.10 The application site, along with application reference DC/14/1745, occupies a clear, edge of settlement location and does not have a defensible boundary with the surrounding open countryside. These physical characteristics, which show that the site is not currently integrated with the settlement, together with the limited facilities available in the village, as confirmed by the categorisation of the settlement as Category 2, demonstrate that the site is unsustainable. The emerging HDPF is at an advanced stage of preparation. In his recent Note (July 2015), the Inspector concluded that the District has sufficient housing land allocations to cover the period until 2021. It is, therefore, considered that the HDPF should be given significant weight when determining this application. The HDPF strategy aims to concentrate growth in the main settlements of Horsham, Southwater and Billingshurst and this approach is considered sound by the Planning Inspector in his Initial Findings. For this reason, and taking all of the above matters into account, the principle of the proposed ITEM A2 - 12

development, due to its location outside of the Built Up Area Boundary of a Category 2 Settlement, where development is considered to be less sustainable, is considered unacceptable and contrary to the NPPF, Policies 2, 3 and 4 of the Horsham District Planning Framework, Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy (2007) and the Council’s FAD SPD.

Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and South Downs National Park

6.11 The application is Outline with all matters reserved except for access. However, the Council is still required to determine whether the quantum of development can be satisfactorily accommodated on site that achieves a high quality environment without adversely affecting the character of the area.

6.12 Paragraph 57 of the NPPF states that ‘the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes’.

6.13 In respect of National Parks, paragraph 115 of the NPPF states that ‘great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks...... which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads’.

6.14 Core Strategy (2007) policy CP1 allows for activities that may influence character where the landscape and townscape character is protected, conserved or enhanced taking into account key landscape characteristics and where protected landscapes are conserved. Policy DC2 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) allows for development where is protects the key characteristics of the landscape character including the pattern of fields and topography of the area.

6.15 The high value placed on the designation of the National Park is established through National (Natural England), Regional (WSCC) and Local (HDC) Landscape Character Assessments.

6.16 In response to initial concern raised by officers and consultees, the applicant reduced overall quantum of development proposed on this site from 30 units to 23 units. In addition, the concurrent application on the land to the south (DC/14/1744) has been reduced from 35 to 31 units, totalling an overall reduction in the number of units proposed across the two sites of 11 units (from 65 to 54).

6.17 The application is also accompanied by a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which includes ‘before’ and ‘after’ views of the site from a range of directions. The site is visible in distant views from the National Park, however, as demonstrated within the LVIA, due to the existing natural undulations of the land to the east and existing development to the west, the greatest area of visual influence is to the north of the site. The existing buildings on the site mean that the site, to some extent, already reads as part of the built up area of the existing settlement. Nevertheless, it remains fact that the site lies outside of the Built Up Area Boundary and the site is currently characterised by dispersed outbuildings which are rundown in appearance.

6.18 The indicative plans submitted in respect of both application DC/14/1744 and DC/14/1745 demonstrate that a large area of green space could be retained around the south, east and northern perimeters of the combined sites along with trees and ponds which would form ITEM A2 - 13

part of the SUDS strategy for the development. This area of land lies within an area at risk of flooding and is not, therefore, suitable for residential development thereby lending itself to performing the role of drainage and open space and forming a natural boundary to development. It is considered that this arrangement could result in an appropriate transition with the urban fringe, were the development to be acceptable in all other regards.

6.19 The indicative plans show a layout that seeks to reflect the historic clusters of farm buildings on the two sites. The layout seeks to be unique and does not follow a rigid pattern. Whilst layout is not a consideration at this stage, the indicative plans demonstrate an appropriate approach to accommodating the proposed quantum of development on the two sites at the periphery of the settlement. The characteristics of the suggested layout, which does not follow a formal pattern or appearance, together with the area of open space and SUDS basis around the north and eastern perimeters would provide a high quality solution to providing residential development without having a harsh or harmful impact on the character of the area or character of the National Park. Soft landscaping could be secured through a Reserved Matters application to ensure that perimeter of the development is softened to reflect the character and existing pattern of the fields adjoining the sites boundaries and National Park beyond, were the development to be acceptable.

6.20 The two applications have been submitted separately due to a technicality relating to land ownership. However, it is intended that the sites would be developed concurrently. Due to the peripheral location of the sites within Upper Beeding, and their location in the context of views from the National Park, it is important that the piecemeal development of either of the sites is restricted. This could lead to isolated forms of development, on either site, that do not link physically or visually and do not appropriately take into account the special location of the site on the periphery of the settlement in view of the National Park.

6.21 In the event that the proposal were to be acceptable in all other respects, the concurrent development of the two sites could be secured by Section 106 agreement and the proposal would comply with the NPPF and policy CP1 of the Core Strategy (2007) and DC2 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

Impact on the setting of the Listed Building

6.22 Paragraph 128 of the NPPF requires applicants to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by its setting. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be afforded to the asset’s conservation (paragraph 132). Paragraphs 133 and 134 expand to set out the consideration process in respect of heritage assets where there would be substantial harm or less than substantial harm respectively.

6.23 Policy DC13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) states that development affecting a Listed Building will not be permitted unless it has no adverse effect on the special architectural or historic character and appearance of the building or its setting.

6.24 Beyond the southern boundary of the application site is Pound House Cottage which is a Grade II Listed building at the corner of Pound Lane and Smugglers Lane. The application site is, therefore, part of the immediate setting of this building. The immediate setting of the building comprises the largely open green space of the garden directly associated with the current domestic use of the house. This space is almost square and includes an unattractive modern garage structure immediately to the north of the house. It is clearly defined by boundaries to the modern made up roads of Pound Lane to the west, Smugglers Lane to the south with the application site to the north with the intervening planting and shrubs along the northern boundary. ITEM A2 - 14

6.25 The extended setting of the listed building beyond the immediate defined garden of the houses includes areas of both established townscape and open green landscape. The building is sited at the junction of modern made up roads and alongside the built up suburban residential area of modern Upper Beeding. A mid and late 20th century layout of housing extends to the south west across Pound Lane and Smugglers Lane. To the north of the building further 20th century suburban development has occurred to the east of the historic line of Pound Lane (i.e. Cattle Copse and Emery Lodge).

6.26 The immediate setting of Pound House Cottage will be retained. The proposal would alter the wider context of the site. In response to concerns raised by the Heritage officer the overall number of dwellings proposed on the site has been reduced. The indicative layout shows a large area of public open space immediately north of the of the Listed Building with trees and shrub planting retained along the western boundary of this space with Pound Lane and the southern boundary with the Listed Building. At present, only glimpses of the roof of the cottage are visible from Pound Lane on approach from the north. The indicative plans demonstrate that the proposed quantum of development can be accommodated within the site whilst ensuring that these views, including the current space around the Listed Building would be retained.

6.27 The creation of the access would result in a formalised area of hard landscaping notable in the setting of the Listed Building. The indicative plans show planting retained immediately north and south of this access which will assist in softening the access and whilst the Local Highway Authority has not objected to this arrangement, the need to retain appropriate sight lines from this access would result in a type of planting that would not provide a soft landscaped screen between the formalised access and setting of the Listed Building.

6.28 In views along Pound Lane from the south, similarly glimpse of Pound House Cottage are possible between existing trees and shrubs. The indicative provision of Public Open Space immediately north of the cottage will to some extent provide a sense of openness around the roofscape of the cottage. Nevertheless, the setting the building will be altered and harmed, albeit to a limited extent.

6.29 Whilst, therefore, the proposal would have an impact on the historic character and appearance of the listed building and its setting, the NPPF on how this type of application should be assessed stating at paragraph 134, ‘where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal’. In this case, as there is no longer a documented shortage of housing supply within the District, there is no overriding public benefit to approving this development in light of the harm to the setting of the listed building. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to the NPPF and Policy DC13 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) and the aims and objectives of the emerging HDPF.

Impact upon the amenities of nearby and future residents

6.30 Policy DC9 relates to Development Principles and requires development, amongst other matters, to recognise any constraints that exist, to not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding occupiers through overlooking or noise having regard to the sensitivities of surrounding development.

6.31 There is an existing level of activity on the site associated with the existing unrestricted use of the site. Outdoor activities, including the use and movement of agricultural and other vehicles, already take place outdoors on the site.

6.32 The proposal would alter the pattern and type of activity that could take place on the site. However, in the context of the existing surrounding residential development, it is not ITEM A2 - 15

considered that the proposal, either in isolation or concurrently with application DC/14/1744, would have a harmful impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the surrounding residential properties as a result of harmful noise and disturbance. The amenities of the immediate neighbours at Cattle Copse and Emery Lodge could be preserved through the use of boundary treatments and landscaping, both of which could be secured under detailed Reserved Matters applications together with any potential harm from overlooking or overshadowing noted in para 6.19 above.

6.33 Turning to the amenities of prospective occupiers, the indicative layout demonstrates that the proposed quantum of development can be accommodated on the site with each property having access to private amenity space, car parking, a reasonable quality of outlook together with on site public open space. The proposal would therefore, comply with policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

Housing mix, affordable housing & tenure

6.34 Policy DC18 of the General Development Control Policies (2007), states that planning permission will be granted in appropriate locations provided that the housing mix and type meets the identified need for smaller homes (1 and 2 bed properties). Policy CP12 of the Horsham Core Strategy (2007) requires an appropriate proportion of affordable homes, with the target being 40% of the total, in order to meet the proven needs of people who are not able to compete in the general housing market.

6.35 The application proposes 3 no. one bedroom, 3 no. two bedroom houses and 3 no. three bedroom affordable units on the site which meet the requirement to provide 40% affordable units on the site. The Housing Manager is supportive of the proposed mix which will also assist in addressing a local need for affordable housing in accordance with criteria 3 of the FAD SPD.

6.36 The indicative layout demonstrates that the suggested mix could be appropriately accommodated on the site and, in the event that all other matters were acceptable, the proposal would be acceptable in this respect subject to a Section 106 securing the provision of the affordable housing. The proposal would, therefore, comply with the NPPF and Policies CP12 of the Core Strategy (2007), Policy DC18 General Development Control Policies (2007), the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD and the Council’s FAD SPD.

Highway Impacts

6.37 Policy CP19 of the Core Strategy (2007) states that development proposals which foster an integrated transport network will be supported and encourage development that is located where there is a choice of transport mode. Policies DC9 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) allow for development that incorporate convenient and safe areas of parking and provide safe and adequate means of access respectively.

6.38 Upper Beeding has a range of local services within 1km of the site together with public transport services providing connections with the wider area including Billingshurst, Horsham and Worthing. The range of services is limited resulting in some need to travel out of the area to higher order services.

6.39 In terms of trip rates, this proposal has been considered cumulatively with application DC/14/1744. Overall the two proposals would result in a total daily trip generation 281 trips. The Local Highway Authority is satisfied that this number of trips can be accommodated on the existing highway network without harming highway and pedestrian safety. In terms of amenity, the site is currently unrestricted in terms of the level of use or type of vehicles that can access the site. Noting the current use of the site there is the potential for large ITEM A2 - 16

agricultural vehicles to be travelling to the site via the surrounding highway network with the potential to interrupt the freeflow of traffic and cause general disturbance. In this context, the proposed number of trips associated with the proposed development, when considered cumulatively with application DC/14/1744, would not harm the amenities of occupiers of surrounding properties.

6.40 The information supporting the application states that visibility splays to the north (2.4m x 33m) and south (2.4m x 32m) are achievable. These splays have been based on the surveys 85th percentile vehicles speeds in Pound Lane. WSCC Highways has raised no objection to this proposal. In the event that permission were to be recommended, conditions to secure the provision of the access, visibility splays and a Construction Management Plan would preserve highway and pedestrian safety.

6.41 The proposal could provide an opportunity to improve pedestrian accessibility along Pound Lane through the provision of a new footway along the existing highway which would improve highway safety along this section of Pound Lane for existing and prospective residents in the area and this could be secured by condition.

6.42 Whilst the layout is indicative at this stage, it demonstrates that car parking could be satisfactorily accommodated within the layout and there would not be any harmful overall impact on the surrounding highway network as a result of overspill car parking.

6.43 The proposal, therefore, complies with the NPPF and Policies CP19 of the Core Strategy (2007) and DC9 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) in this respect.

Drainage and Flood Risk

6.44 Policy CP2 states that development proposals will be carefully appraised to ensure that they reduce the risk of flooding in new development and ensure that flood risk in existing development is not increased. Policy DC7 states that development will not be permitted where it would not incorporate appropriate mitigation measures to help limit any increase in the risk flooding in adjacent or downstream areas.

6.45 The east part of the application site lies in within Flood Zone 3, however, the indicative layout does not show any dwellings located within this area. Following initial objection raised by the Environment Agency, the applicant has prepared a revised Flood Risk Assessment together with additional plans showing the levels on the site. The Flood Risk Assessment considers applications DC/14/1744 and DC/14/1745 to ensure that a holistic approach to flood risk mitigation and management can be delivered. Having considered this information, the Environment Agency has subsequently lifted their objection subject to the measures within the Flood Risk Assessment being secured by condition.

6.46 WSCC as Lead Local Flood Authority has raised no objection to the proposal on the basis that the surface water drainage approach, based on SUDS, reflects the aims and objectives of the NPPF and NPPG, together with associated technical appendices. Furthermore, Southern Water has not objected to the proposal. Both responses recommend that SUDS and its future maintenance are secured by condition along with a condition relating to details of foul and surface water sewerage disposal should the application be recommended for approval.

6.47 Subject to the recommended conditions the proposal would be acceptable in respect to of flood risk and drainage in compliance with the NPPF and Policies CP2 of the Core Strategy (2007) and DC7 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

ITEM A2 - 17

Ecology

6.48 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that the planning system should minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible. Paragraph 118 expands on this stating that local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity when determining planning applications and that opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged.

6.49 The Council’s Ecologist has raised no objection to the proposal subject to details of a Construction Environmental Management Plan, lighting plan, details of drainage and pollution control measures, measures to enhance the habitat value of the site and a management plan to secure the long term viability of new and existing habitats being secured by condition. To ensure that the ecological surveys remain valid, a further condition is recommended requiring those surveys to be updated if more than 24 months elapses between the submission of the Reserved Matters application and the date of the ecological surveys.

6.50 To ensure that overall the biodiversity benefits of the planting on site is preserved, an appropriate landscaping scheme could be considered at Reserved Matters stage through which consideration can be given to the planting of native species.

6.51 Subject to these conditions on any approval, the proposal would preserve biodiversity on the site in compliance with paragraphs 109 and 118 of the NPPF.

Archaeology

6.52 Policy DC10 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) restricts planning permission where it would cause unacceptable harm to important archaeological sites. The site does not contain any listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments, historic parkland/gardens or designated archaeological monuments.

6.53 The application is accompanied by an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment which shows that the site is close to a historic river crossing where there is archaeological potential. In addition, the river has been identified as having high potential for underlying river terrace deposits which are likely to provide evidence of the local early human ancient environment. To ensure that these finds are appropriately preserved, in the event that permission were to be recommended, a condition would be recommended to secure a programme of archaeological work. Subject to this condition the proposal would be acceptable in this respect and comply with Policy DC10 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

Impact on trees and hedgerows

6.54 Policy DC2 states that development will be permitted where it protected and/or conserves and/or enhances the key characteristics of the landscape character area in which it is located, the pattern of woodlands, fields, hedgerows and trees. Policy DC9 aims to protect existing landscape features, including trees.

6.55 There are a number of trees and hedgerows on and around the perimeter of the site that are part of its character and setting. None of the trees are worthy of individual protection and the proposed removal of a number of small species is acceptable subject to replacements being provided through a holistic soft landscaping scheme.

ITEM A2 - 18

6.56 Whilst a number of trees on the site are proposed for removal, the Council’s Arboriculturalist considers that they are poor specimens with little value or merit. In addition, the proposed site access will require a number of beech trees to be removed. It is accepted that the loss of the group will result in the loss of some visual amenity however, the trees are not worthy of individual merit. The proposed arrangement would allow a number of trees to be retained to the south side of the access. Details of the construction method could be secured by condition to preserve the health of trees on the site in the event that permission were recommended.

6.57 The large Ash tree on plot 7 (T21) is considered to be a good quality tree and is proposed to be retained within the indicative layout. The Council’s Arboriculturalist has confirmed that this is achievable without any detriment to the tree. Whilst it is smaller than the Ash, the Field Maple (T19) located east of T21 is considered to be a better specimen. The indicative plans show car parking around this tree, however, the construction methods could be secured by condition to ensure its health would be preserved.

6.58 The existing hedgerow (G9) along the southern boundary of the site is high quality, an important landscape feature and has been well maintained. It is shown to be retained within the indicative layout and would provide an attractive feature along the boundaries of the proposed, indicative adjoining dwellings contributing to the amenity of prospective residents.

6.59 In the event that the proposal was acceptable in all other respects, details of tree protection and construction methods could be secured by conditions. Subject to those conditions the proposal would not result in any harmful impact to trees or hedgerows and complies with the NPPF and Policies DC2 and DC9 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

Public Rights of Way

6.60 Policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) states that development will be permitted where it incorporates the wider transport network, including Public Rights of Way.

6.61 Public Footpath 2767 abuts the site on its western boundary and occupies the full extent of Pound Lane. The provision of an improved footway would assist in enhancing the usability of this route. WSCC PROW officer has requested confirmation regarding the specification of the route, maintenance responsibilities and details of any proposed stiles. These details could be secured by condition.

6.62 In the event that the proposal was acceptable in all other respects, this detail could be secured by condition and would comply with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

Third Party Representations

6.63 Whilst the formation of a Neighbourhood Plan Area has been agreed the Neighbourhood Plan is not currently at a stage where it carries weight and is not, therefore, a material consideration in the determination of this planning application. Other issues raised by third parties have been addressed elsewhere within this report.

Section 106

6.64 Policy CP13 requires new development to meet its infrastructure needs. For this development, contributions would be required towards amenity open space, play and ITEM A2 - 19

recreation areas, indoor and outdoor sports provision, community facilities, libraries, refuse and recycling, fire and rescue and highway improvements.

6.65 All contributions must be justified in accordance with the three tests set out under Regulation 122 of the Community and Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, in so far that they must be; necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development and; fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

6.66 In accordance with the Policies of the Core Strategy and Planning Obligation SPD, the District Council expects that all new residential developments will provide for additional outdoor playing space, play and recreation/sports facilities, community facilities, libraries, refuse and recycling provisions and fire and rescue services, to meet the needs of prospective residents. The Council, therefore, requires a contribution towards the provision and/or improvement of these facilities through the payment of a developer contribution in order that appropriate facilities can be provided in the locality to be secured by a legal agreement.

6.67 The principle of taking developer contributions for each net dwelling gain has been established following the findings of the Planning Inspector at the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy Inquiry (2007), whereby Policy CP1 and Planning Obligation SPD were recommended for adoption. The Inspector considered that such provision would not place an unnecessary burden on developers and landowners and that the requirements were reasonable. The three policy tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 Statutory Instrument 2010/248 were applicable at the time of the Inquiry, albeit they were not statutory tests at that time. It is considered that the District Council’s approach continues to meet the three statutory tests.

6.68 In order to ensure that there are sufficient facilities, services and infrastructure capacity to serve the proposed development, and to ensure that all necessary works are delivered, there is a requirement to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. This requirement is set out in Policy CP13 of the Core Strategy, Policy DC22 of the Horsham Local Development Framework: Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) within the adopted SPD on Planning Obligations and carried forward in policies SD10 and 38 of the HDPF Proposed Submission. Policy CP13 of the Core Strategy (2007) requires that where development places infrastructure pressures on local facilities that this impact is mitigated through the provision of planning contributions. The applicant has confirmed a willingness to enter into such an agreement.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, due to its location outside of, and isolated from, the Built Up Area Boundary of a Category 2 Settlement, where development is considered to be less sustainable, is considered unacceptable. The provision of 23 no. residential units in this countryside location, would conflict with the hierarchical approach of concentrating development to the main settlements, as set out in the Council’s Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document and Policies 2, 3 and 4 of the Horsham District Planning Framework, which requires new developments outside of Built Up Areas to be allocated through the Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plans. The development is not essential to its countryside location and does not support the needs of agriculture or forestry. It is, therefore, contrary to Policies CP1 and CP5 of the Core Strategy (2007), ITEM A2 - 20

Policies 2, 3 and 4 of the Horsham District Planning Framework and Paragraphs 7 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

2. By reason of its location, scale and proximity to the Grade II Listed Pound House Cottage, the proposed development would harm the setting of the listed building. In the context of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework, through which the examining Inspector has confirmed that the District is able to demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing, there are no overriding public benefits of the proposed development which would outweigh the harm to the setting of the listed building. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to paragraph 134 of the NPPF, Policies 1, 2 and 34 of the Horsham District Planning Framework and Policy DC13 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

3. Policy CP12 requires the provision of 40% affordable units on developments involving 15 units or more. Policy CP13 requires new development to meet additional infrastructure requirements arising from the new development. Both the provision of affordable housing, a restriction on the age of future occupiers and contributions to infrastructure improvements/provision must be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. No completed Agreement is in place and, therefore, there is no means by which to secure these Policy requirements. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies CP12 and CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, and the NPPF, in particular paragraph 50 and Policies 16 and 39 of the Horsham District Planning Framework.

Note to Applicant: The reason for refusal relating to infrastructure contributions could be addressed through the completion of a legal agreement. If the applicant is minded to appeal the refusal of this application you are advised to liaise with the Local Planning Authority prior to the submission of an appeal with a view to finalising an acceptable Agreement.

Background Papers:

N/A

DC/14/1745

Pound Lane

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

Scale: 1:3,853

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

Date 04/09/2015 MSA Number 100023865

ITEM A3 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (South) BY: Development Manager DATE: 15/09/2015 Provision of residential development of 31 dwellings comprising 4 no. 1 bedroom apartments, 10 no. 2 bedroom houses, 8 no. 3 bedroom DEVELOPMENT: houses, and 9 no. 4 bedroom houses with associated access provision, roads, parking facilities and open space (Outline Application) SITE: Little Paddocks Pound Lane Upper Beeding West Sussex WARD: Bramber, Upper Beeding and Woodmancote APPLICATION: DC/14/1744 APPLICANT: Rydon Homes Ltd

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA:

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in Section 7.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application in conjunction with planning application DC/14/1745

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

The application seeks Outline planning permission for 31 no. dwellings on land at Little Paddocks, Pound Lane with all matters reserved except for access. Vehicular and pedestrian access is proposed from Pound Lane to the west of the application site. The access would be created to the west of Cornerways which is a residential property orientated north of the south in The Paddocks – a residential street extended west from Pound Lane. Beyond the access, the indicative layout shows the road within the site curving in a south east direction across the site with the majority of residential development located on its south side. To the north of the road it is proposed to provide open space with a series of ponds and a pumping station. Some dwellings are shown to the east of the road as it curves through the site to travel south west. The indicative layout is reflective of the flood zone that affects the north and east parts of the site; the layout has been designed to demonstrate how the proposed quantum of development can be accommodated on the site outside of the areas at high risk of flooding.

At the southern edge of the site the indicative plans for this application, the road is shown to terminate at a ‘T’ junction. However, this application is to be considered concurrently with planning application DC/14/1745 which seeks planning permission on the land beyond the

Contact Officer: Emma Parkes Tel: 01403 215528 ITEM A3 - 2 southern boundary for 23 residential units. Within the layout for that application (DC/14/1745), the access road is shown in the same location, abutting the northern site boundary, in order that a continuous route can be provided through the developments proposed by applications DC/14/1744 and DC/14/1745.

This application is accompanied by a series of supporting information including: - Design and Access Statement - Affordable Housing Statement - Statement of Community Involvement - Site Waste Management Plan - Lighting, Drainage and Utilities Statement - Environmental Performance Statement - Planning Statement - Arboricultural Implications Assessment - Ecological Appraisal - Great Crested Newt Report - Bat Survey - Reptile Survey - Archaeological DBA - LVIA - Flood Risk Assessment - Transport Assessment - Heritage Statement - Parking Survey result

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

Little Paddocks, is located to the east of Pound Lane. The site consists of stables, paddocks, a sand school and pastures for horses and extends over approximately 2ha. The site is approximately 150m long and 148m wide. It fronts onto Pound Lane on the western boundary, which is open and marked mainly by post and rail fencing. It is generally flat but slopes down gently to the north and east. There are hedgerows and trees along the north, east and south boundaries and a hedgerow transects part of the north west corner of the site. There is an industrial complex to the north, further along Pound Lane. The northern and eastern parts of the site lie within the flood plain. There is a range of stable blocks and barns in the centre of the site adjoining the sand school. Cattle Copse, a detached chalet bungalow, lies in the south west corner but outside the application site.

Upper Beeding is a historic village located at the northern end of the River Adur gap in the South Downs. It is a bridging point over the River and on the opposite bank are the settlements of Bramber and Steyning. The village lies at the northern edge but outside of the South Downs National Park. The village provides a range of local facilities including pubs, churches, a supermarket, shops, restaurants, a village hall, sports hall and playing fields. The existing residential development within Upper Beeding is mixed in character in terms age, height and architectural style.

The South Downs National Park lies approximately 250m from the site and covers the hills surrounding the site to the east and west. At its nearest point the northern boundary of the application site is 250m away from the southern boundary of the National Park with the higher elevated areas, around Tottington Mount being 1 – 2km away.

Beyond the application site to the south is an existing field (Land east of Pound Lane) which is the subject of concurrent planning application DC/14/1745 (also to be considered by Members on this agenda). Beyond this is the Grade II Listed Pound House Cottage ITEM A3 - 3

which is a thatched cottage listed in 1980 as a building of architectural interest as an example of a vernacular domestic building from at least the 18th century.

INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF)

- Section 4: Promoting sustainable transport - Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes - Section 7: Requiring good design - Section 8: Promoting healthy communities - Section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change - Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

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

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) polices:

- CP1: Landscape and Townscape Character - CP2: Environmental Quality - CP3: Improving the Quality of New Development - CP5: Built-Up Areas and Previously Developed Land - CP8: Small Scale ‘Greenfield’ Sites - CP12: Meeting Housing Needs - CP13: Infrastructure Requirements - CP15: Rural Strategy

2.4 Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)

- DC1: Countryside Protection and Enhancement - DC2: Landscape Character - DC5: Biodiversity and Geology - DC6: Woodland and Trees - DC7: Flooding - DC8: Renewable Energy and Climate Change - DC9: Development Principles - DC18: Smaller Homes/Housing Mix - DC22: New Open Space, Sports and Recreation - DC40: Transport and Access

2.6 Local Development Framework: Supplementary Planning Documents:

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

ITEM A3 - 4

2.7 Upper Beeding Parish Council are progressing a Neighbourhood Plan, however, it is at an early stage and is not yet a material consideration.

2.8 The Proposed Submission version of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was approved by Council in April 2014 as the Council’s policy for planning the future of the District for the period 2011-2031, and was submitted to the Government in August 2014. The Examination of the HDPF was undertaken by an independent Planning Inspector in November 2014, and the Inspector published his Initial Findings in December 2014. The Inspector considers the overall strategy of the plan to be sound as is made clear in paragraph 4 of his Initial Findings:

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

2.10 The Inspector suspended the Examination of the HDPF to allow time for the Council to show how the District’s overall housing provision can be increased to provide for a minimum of 750 dwellings per annum (15,000 over the plan period). Main Modifications were then prepared and consulted upon. An additional Examination Hearing took place on 3rd July 2015 to consider only the issues outlined in the Initial Findings. The Inspector published a Note to the Council on 21st July 2015 stating that the housing requirement for the plan period should be raised to 800 dwellings per annum (16,000 dwellings over the plan period). The Inspector also indicates that an early review (to begin within 3 years of adoption) of the Plan to provide for these additional dwellings will be required, and that a modification to Policy 36 (Strategic Policy: Appropriate Energy Use) to account for the recent written ministerial statement concerning wind energy development will be necessary. Given the Inspector’s Initial Findings and recent Note, the emerging plan is therefore considered to be a material consideration of considerable weight in terms of the overall strategy.

2.11 It should be noted that the whilst the required number of dwellings in the HDPF has been increased from 750pa to 800pa, the most recent trajectory for the plan period (2011-2031) clearly demonstrates that the HDPF will provide a sufficient housing land supply from existing allocations and commitments to meet this requirement until at least 2021. The early review mechanism will enable the Council to ensure sufficient land supply is secured to meet the needs after this period.

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/14/1745 Provision of residential development of 23 dwellings Pending comprising 3 no. 1 bed apartments, 7 no. 2 bedroom houses, 9 no. 3 bedroom houses and 4 no. 4 bedroom houses with associated access provision, roads, parking facilities and open space (Outline application)

ITEM A3 - 5

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

Strategic Planning (summary): Raise objection. Having received the Planning Inspector’s Note shortly after the close of the Examination Hearings into the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF); the Council considers the weight given to the HDPF as a material consideration has increased, and the document should now be afforded considerable weight in the determination of planning applications.

At present, through the existing suite of adopted development plan documents, the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply sufficient to meet identified need. However when adopted, the HDPF will be able to demonstrate a full 5-year HLS to meet an identified need of 800 dwellings per annum.

As the proposed site is not allocated for development within the emerging HDPF, nor is it allocated in a Neighbourhood Development Plan, it is considered that the site is in conflict with the emerging Development Plan. Taking all of these factors into account, the proposal should be recommended for refusal.

It should be noted that these comments do not necessarily preclude the site from coming forward as part of an allocation in a future Local Development Plan or indeed through allocation in the Upper Beeding Neighbourhood Development Plan in order to accommodate required growth in smaller settlements across the District as per provisions in Policy 15 (part d) of the HDPF.

In light of the stage in production of the Upper Beeding Neighbourhood Development Plan and the HDPF, these comments may be subject to change, and should be treated as ‘interim advice’ at this stage.

Housing Officer (summarised): No objection The Facilitating Appropriate Development DPD states: Up to 40% of the dwellings are required to be ‘affordable’ dwellings, and a mix including smaller units is required by policy DC18. The applicant has submitted an Affordable Housing Statement which concludes: The Provision of much-needed affordable housing as part of this proposal is a significant public benefit weighing in favour of the grant of consent (point 9) The Planning Statement paragraph 7.14 Social (benefit) states that the development will provide: …new, high quality affordable housing to contribute to meeting the local housing needs of those unable to compete in the private sector housing market Affordable housing should be secured by means of a legal agreement and not by condition.

The application proposes a mix of 4 no. one bedroom units, 6 no. two bedroom units and 2 no. three bedroom units. The Council expects a Policy compliant tenure mix of 62.5% Affordable rent and 37.5% shared ownership. Although these are outline applications Housing Officers would urge the applicant to discuss the potential schemes with an affordable housing provider as soon as possible, in order to secure future funding arrangements for the affordable homes and ensure the layout and specifications of the affordable units meet the provider’s requirements.

Arboricultural Officer: No objection The site is bounded by an extensive hedgerow system which appears tatty and unmanaged, but is of considerable value. It is pleasing to see it being retained. In time it ITEM A3 - 6 would benefit from some traditional hedgerow maintenance. A small percentage of the hedgerow bisecting the site close to the northern boundary, running north to south to the site of the existing stable block, will be lost. However, in stark contrast to the field edge hedgerows, that must be of considerable age, this hedge consists of solely two species (hawthorn and elder) and was clearly planted quite recently. Although it is in good condition, it is not special in any way, and there are no concerns regarding the two small parts targeted to be removed. The other small trees targeted for removal are very poor and of no consequence.

Conservation Officer (summary) Raise objection. As with planning application DC/14/1745, the site remains outside the development boundary for Upper Beeding and within the countryside. It is therefore subject to countryside policies of restraint. Although further to the north, the site is considered to fall within the setting of the Grade II listed building referred to as Pound Cottage. Although the fabric of the listed building would not be harmed and its current garden area would remain unchanged, as stated in previous communications, the site forms part of its setting and therefore its role in contributing to significance is a significant material consideration. The west side of the Pound Road and the south side of Smugglers Lane form strong boundaries to the built up area of Upper Beeding. Apart from the historical presence of Pound Cottage, the east side has been devoid of development until the mid 1940s. The scene and character of the area remains rural. Therefore the setting of the listed building is rural which I consider contributes to its significance. The presence of the listed building is noted and noticeable and would be held in one’s memory when progressing northwards along the lane and in reverse, travelling southwards toward it. It reads as a dwelling, set within its own grounds and separated from those development to the west and south. The presence of the two dwellings that currently exist to the north do not justify development of the land to the north or east nor to the extent shown which individually and cumulatively (having regard to the scheme submitted under reference DC/14/1744) would negatively interject into the countryside, reading as a discordant and detrimental extension of surburbia in to the rural scene and detriment to the rural setting of the listed building. If combined with the development proposed under DC/14/1745, the harm would be greater. In that respect and albeit less than substantial, the harm that would arise is significant and would detract from not only the rural environment but the rural context and setting of the listed building. The development as presented as in noting that it is in outline form, the application is not supported from a heritage point of view. Having regard to the NPPF, it is considered that the harm would be less than substantial, paragraph 134 refers.

Landscape Officer (summary) Whilst it is recognised that the scheme would be slightly less damaging to landscape and visual interests than the earlier proposal, there remain sufficient concerns such that the amended proposal cannot be recommended for approval on account of the remaining adverse landscape and visual effects predicted to arise. The landscape and visual effects would be exacerbated when considered together with those likely to arise from DC/14/1745. As previously advised, if a reduced overall level of development, augmented by a more comprehensive mitigation strategy, were to be advanced, it is possible that some of the significant adverse effects could be reduced if not avoided. Whilst this has been partly responded to, the recommendation remains that a further reduction in unit numbers is required to introduce the flexibility to address the landscape concerns more satisfactorily such that a scheme design of appropriate quality might be delivered, should planning permission be a subsequently granted (assumed to be on the basis of consent also being granted for the adjacent scheme). Even so, the development would remain divorced from the settlement edge at Smugglers Lane south of the southern site.

ITEM A3 - 7

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

WSCC Highways No objection. WSCC in its capacity of LHA requested further information from the applicant on traffic flows along Hyde Lane. As requested this information was submitted in November 2014. The survey was taken over 3 day period during the week. The survey showed that there were on average 319 two-way movements in the AM Peak and 554 two-way movements in the PM Peak along Hyde Lane/Pound Lane. It is anticipated that the development trips for this period equated to 25 trips during the AM peak and 18 during the PM peak. Based on this data LHA were satisfied that the proposal was not likely to result in any highway capacity concerns. The latest proposals are supported by a revised Technical Note by the applicants Transport Consultant. This latest application consists of a reduction in the number of proposed units at both sites by 11 dwellings in total. This application sees a reduction in 4 dwellings in total from the original allocation with the other 7 dwellings reduced from DC/1745/14. The other aspect of the proposed developments that has altered is the access to Little Paddocks, which has been relocated approximately 3m northwards. The Stage 1 RSA (Road Safety Audit) has been amended to reflect the relocation of the access point.

Visibility splays of 2.4 by 32 metres and 2.4 by 33 metres are available. The proposed visibility splays as shown are considered acceptable taking into account the 85th percentile speeds recorded within the speed survey. The access has been the subject of a revised Stage One RSA. This has not recorded any problems or changes to the recommendations from September 2014. The access arrangement is considered acceptable.

The Design and Access Statement and TS (Transport Statement) consider access from the site to services by other non-car modes. There are a limited range of services within Upper Beeding, however there is a reasonably sized food retail shop. Those services that are available are within reasonable walking distance with there being continuous footway links provided on the western side of the carriageway. An improvement is proposed to provide a length of footway along the eastern side of Pound Lane along with suitable dropped pedestrian crossing points. Such works can be secured via condition. Given the limited range of services, inevitably residents would need to travel outside of the village to access any significant range of services. Bus services are available from the centre of the village, which link to Shoreham, Brighton and Worthing. An hourly service is available that operates during the early morning and late evening. This service is considered to provide a realistic alternative to the use of the private car for some trips. Given the location, future residents would be dependent upon the private car for some trip purposes. However given the available bus service, this realistically could be used to replace some trips.

The new TRICS report suggests that, across applications DC/14/1744 and DC/14/1745, there will be 29 two way movements in the morning and with 30 two way movements in the evening peak hours. In comparison to the previous scheme this equates to 6 less trips in the AM peak and 7 less trips in the PM peak. The sites used are considered to be comparable in terms of planning use class and location to that proposed, in accordance with TRICS Best Practice Guidance. As such the trip rate generated provides a realistic indication of likely trip generation from the new dwellings. It is recognised that this proposal would give rise to a more intensive use of Pound Lane; however, this proposal is not anticipated to result in a severe cumulative impact on the operation of the local network in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Conditions relating to access, a construction management plan and visibility are recommended.

WSCC Drainage (Lead Local Flood Authority) (summary) ITEM A3 - 8

No objection. The proposed surface water drainage approach meets the requirements of the NPPF, PPG and associated guidance documents. However as no detailed plans have been submitted the proposal should be subject to a condition securing details. If the intention is to dispose surface water via infiltration, this should be shown to be suitable through an appropriate assessment carried out under BRE Digest 365 (or equivalent) before any conditions are discharged. A further condition relating to maintenance and management of the SUDS system is recommended.

Environment Agency No objection subject to a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment.

Southern Water No objection subject to conditions relating to SUDS and foul and surface water sewerage disposal together with informatives relating to the requirement for the approval of Southern Water to be obtained before connections are made to the existing system and the need for sewerage infrastructure.

Ecology No objection subject to a condition requiring additional details to be submitted at Reserved Matters stage.

Archaeology (summary) No objection on archaeological grounds is raised to the proposals, subject to suitable archaeological safeguards to ensure the investigation, recording, and reporting where appropriate of archaeological heritage assets within the site.

WSCC PROW Officer The application affects public footpaths 2767 and 2768. 2767 abuts the site on its western boundary and occupies the full extent of Pound Lane. Details of any surfacing, maintenance and future stiles would be required. 2768 crosses the site and whilst it does not physically exist on the ground at present, it exists in law. They layout would need to accommodate it and the footpath should be at least 2m wide.

South Downs National Park Raise objection. Following is the formal consultation response of the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA) on the above application. The above revised applications are both Outline with only access being sought for approval at this stage. The two sites are outside the development boundary are adjoined and are located on the north east side of Upper Beeding. The nearest point of the two development proposals to the boundary of the South Downs National Park (SDNP), is the south-eastern corner of the lower/southerly site (DC/14/1745) At this point the SDNP boundary is approximately 200m away.

Notwithstanding the DC/14/1744 site is within an area identified as SA053 on the Horsham DC SHLAA, both this and the DC/14/1745 site are, nevertheless, relatively exposed and publically visible from elevated points within the National Park, particularly from the public footpath leading north from Windmill Hill; the setting of the nearby National Park in this location is elevated rolling Downland. Notwithstanding the reduction in residential units from a total of 65 down to a total of 54, as stated in the SDNPA consultation response under the above reference numbers, the village of Upper Beeding would still be expanded by this proposed development to a degree which would introduce a significant addition to the existing urban form east/south-east toward the National Park, in an area that is currently rural agricultural land. Notwithstanding the existing trees and hedging around the sites, due to the public views from the elevated downs, the SDNPA remain to be convinced that this would adequately screen the resulting urban development with associated roads and lighting. In the event that Outline planning permission were to be granted, it would be ITEM A3 - 9 appropriate to ensure that the existing trees and vegetation were supplemented with additional tree and other planting to ensure an appropriate and effective soft scape/green transition from urban to rural and help to minimise the visual impact of the urban expansion of Upper Beeding toward the National Park. It should be noted however that for the reasons given, the SDNPA remain to be convinced that any transitional screen buffer would be sufficient to outweigh the visual impact and increasing urbanisation of the locality between Upper Beeding and the National Park, with the total of 54 houses proposed.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

South Downs Society Raise objection. The sites (DC/14/1744 and DC/14/1745) are not within the South Downs National Park but are very close to its border. Many parts of Upper Beeding are concealed when looking in the direction of the two application site from the public footpaths inside the Park, but the village that would be created by the building of dwelling on Little Paddocks and the adjoining land would create a severe eyesore in the middle of the view from Beeding Hill, Windmill Hill and other footpaths. The development of the sites should be resisted.

Upper Beeding Parish Council Raise objection. The proposed development is sited on agricultural land outside the built-up area of the village. The only access routes between the site and the village, and onto the main transport network, are via Hyde Lane and Saltings Way, both of which are narrow and already overutilised. We are not satisfied that sufficient consideration has been given to the ongoing strain on road capacity which will be generated by significant additional housing. We are not satisfied that sufficient consideration has been given to the disposal of surface water at a site adjacent to the flood plain of the river Adur, and already known to be significantly prone to flooding. We are not satisfied that sufficient consideration has been given to the disposal of sewage, given that the foul drainage disposal system in the vicinity is already known to be overstretched beyond capacity. We are not satisfied that sufficient consideration has been given to the provision of education and health facilities for the proposed increased population. Given the number of species considered rare or endangered within a kilometre radius from the proposed site, as listed by the biodiversity report, we would strongly suggest expert scrutiny of the ecology and wildlife reports as part of the consideration of these applications. We believe that the application is premature insofar as it is pre-emptive of the Neighbourhood Plan currently under development, and that the developers have failed to engage adequately with the local community.

322 no. letters of objection received raising the following issues:

- Overdevelopment and harmful impact on the character of the village - Harmful visual impact on National Park - Awkward and incongruous character of development - Design is out of keeping with the character of development - Loss of general amenity - Impact on privacy - Harmful impact from additional lighting and noise - Flooding – The site is adjacent to a flood plain - Congestion – The roads are not able to cope with the increased development - Increased risk of danger to pedestrians and other highway users - Sewerage – The sewage network can’t cope with the issues - Village facilities – Pressure on existing educational facilities / medical facilities / etc - Harmful impact on the landscape and trees - Harmful impact on ecology ITEM A3 - 10

- Impact on the setting of the adjoining listed building

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 development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The key issues for consideration in relation to this proposal are:

• The principle of the development • Impact on the character and appearance of the South Downs National Park • Impact on setting of Listed Building • Impact upon the amenities of nearby and future residents • Housing mix, affordable housing & tenure • Highway impacts • Drainage and Flood Risk • Ecology • Archaeology • Impact on trees and hedgerows • Public Rights of Way • Third Party Representations • S106 obligations

The principle of the development

6.2 The Council is required, through the NPPF (paragraph 47) to ‘identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional 5% buffer to ensure choice and competition in the market for land’.

6.3 Paragraph 49 of the NPPF indicates that, in the absence of a demonstrable five year housing supply, relevant policies for the supply of housing should be considered out-of- date. In light of this, the proposal should also be considered in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development given in paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

6.4 The application has been considered against the adopted Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007), which includes the Core Strategy and the General Development Control Policies. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is also a key material consideration along with the Planning Inspector’s Initial Findings into the Examination of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF).

6.5 In light of the Council’s historic position in relation to the shortfall of housing supply, in 2009 the Council adopted the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD which allows for ITEM A3 - 11

flexibility in the location of development, in order to facilitate provision of housing and expansion of settlements in a sustainable way during the life of the Core Strategy.

6.6 As the Council is required to maintain a five year housing supply, the application could be considered in relation to the FAD SPD which allows for greater flexibility to ensure that there is sufficient housing supply during the life of the Core Strategy. 6.7 The emerging Horsham District Planning Framework is gathering increasing weight and in his most recent Note on the Examination of the Framework (July 2015) the Inspector noted that he considered that the District had capacity to accommodate 16,000 dwellings over the plan period (2011 – 2031) equating 800 dwellings per annum. 6.8 The application site lies in the countryside, adjacent to but outside of the Built Up Area Boundary of Upper Beeding as defined by the Proposals Map (2007). Upper Beeding is a Category 1 Settlement as defined by Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy (2007). Being contiguous with this boundary, the proposal meets the first criterion of the FAD SPD.

6.9 Upper Beeding is a categorised as a Category 2 Settlement and a ‘Smaller Village’ within Policy 3 of the Horsham District Planning Framework, where the provision of residential development, outside the Built Up Area Boundary, would conflict with the hierarchical approach of concentrating development to the main settlements, as endorsed by the Planning Inspector at the recent Public Examination. Such settlements are identified as having limited services, facilities and social networks, with residents reliant on larger settlements to access most of their requirements. This is supported by the Preliminary Results of the Horsham District Council Settlement Sustainability Study, which identifies Lower Beeding as having a lack of local services and a large reliance on the use of the car. The results conclude that high levels of development would perpetuate these unsustainable travel patterns. The adjacent bus stops only provide a limited service and it is unlikely that prospective occupiers could be reasonably expected to utilise this form of transport in order to travel to work. The development would be contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy 4 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework, which relates to settlement expansion and requires new developments outside of Built Up Area boundaries to be allocated through the Local Plan or through a Neighbourhood Plan. Lower Beeding does not have a Neighbourhood Plan nor is it an allocated site in the existing or emerging local plans and the application site has not, therefore, been identified as suitable for development.

6.10 The application site, along with application reference DC/14/1745, occupies a clear, edge of settlement location and does not have a defensible boundary with the surrounding open countryside. These physical characteristics, which show that the site is not currently integrated with the settlement, together with the limited facilities available in the village, as confirmed by the categorisation of the settlement as Category 2, demonstrate that the site is unsustainable. The emerging HDPF is at an advanced stage of preparation. In his recent Note (July 2015), the Inspector concluded that the District has sufficient housing land allocations to cover the period until 2021. It is, therefore, considered that the HDPF should be given significant weight when determining this application. The HDPF strategy aims to concentrate growth in the main settlements of Horsham, Southwater and Billingshurst and this approach is considered sound by the Planning Inspector in his Initial Findings. For this reason, and taking all of the above matters into account, the principle of the proposed development, due to its location outside of the Built Up Area Boundary of a Category 2 Settlement, where development is considered to be less sustainable, is considered unacceptable and contrary to the NPPF, Policies 2, 3 and 4 of the Horsham District Planning Framework, Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy (2007) and the Council’s FAD SPD.

ITEM A3 - 12

Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and South Downs National Park

6.11 The application is Outline with all matters reserved except for access. However, the Council is still required to determine whether the quantum of development can be satisfactorily accommodated on site that achieves a high quality environment without adversely affecting the character of the area.

6.12 Paragraph 57 of the NPPF states that ‘the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. It is important to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes’.

6.13 In respect of National Parks, paragraph 115 of the NPPF states that ‘great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks...... which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads’.

6.14 Core Strategy (2007) policy CP1 allows for activities that may influence character where the landscape and townscape character is protected, conserved or enhanced taking into account key landscape characteristics and where protected landscapes are conserved. Policy DC2 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) allows for development where is protects the key characteristics of the landscape character including the pattern of fields and topography of the area.

6.15 The high value placed on the designation of the National Park is established through National (Natural England), Regional (WSCC) and Local (HDC) Landscape Character Assessments.

6.16 In response to initial concern raised by officers and consultees, the applicant reduced overall quantum of development proposed on this site from 35 units to 31 units. In addition, the concurrent application on the land to the south (DC/14/1745) has been reduced from 30 to 23 units, totalling an overall reduction in the number of units proposed across the two sites of 11 units (from 65 to 54).

6.17 The application is also accompanied by a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) which includes ‘before’ and ‘after’ views of the site from a range of directions. The site is visible in distant views from the National Park, however, as demonstrated within the LVIA, due to the existing natural undulations of the land to the east and existing development to the west, the greatest area of visual influence is to the north of the site. The existing buildings on the site mean that the site, to some extent, already reads as part of the built up area of the existing settlement. Nevertheless, it remains fact that the site lies outside of the Built Up Area Boundary and the site is currently characterised by dispersed outbuildings which are rundown in appearance.

6.18 The indicative plans submitted in respect of both application DC/14/1744 and DC/14/1745 demonstrate that a large area of green space could be retained around the south, east and northern perimeters of the combined sites along with trees and ponds which will form part of the SUDS strategy for the development. This area of land lies within an area at risk of flooding and is not, therefore, suitable for residential development thereby lending itself to performing the role of drainage and open space and forming a natural boundary to development. It is considered that this arrangement could result in an appropriate transition with the urban fringe, were the development to be acceptable in all other regards. ITEM A3 - 13

6.19 The indicative plans show a layout that seeks to reflect the historic clusters of farm buildings on the two sites. The layout seeks to be unique and does not follow a rigid pattern. Whilst layout is not a consideration at this stage, the indicative plans demonstrate an appropriate approach to accommodating the proposed quantum of development on the two sites at the periphery of the settlement. The characteristics of the suggested layout, which does not follow a formal pattern or appearance, together with the area of open space and SUDS basis around the north and eastern perimeters would provide a high quality solution to providing residential development without having a harsh or harmful impact on the character of the area or character of the National Park. Soft landscaping could be secured through a Reserved Matters application to ensure that perimeter of the development is softened to reflect the character and existing pattern of the fields adjoining the sites boundaries and National Park beyond, were the development to be acceptable.

6.20 The two applications have been submitted separately due to a technicality relating to land ownership. However, it is intended that the sites would be developed concurrently. Due to the peripheral location of the sites within Upper Beeding, and their location in the context of views from the National Park, it is important that the piecemeal development of either of the sites is restricted. This could lead to isolated forms of development, on either site, that do not link physically or visually and do not appropriately take into account the special location of the site on the periphery of the settlement in view of the National Park.

6.21 In the event that the proposal were to be acceptable in all other respects, the concurrent development of the two sites could be secured by Section 106 agreement and the proposal would comply with the NPPF and policy CP1 of the Core Strategy (2007) and DC2 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

Impact on the setting of the Listed Building

6.22 Paragraph 128 of the NPPF requires applicants to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by its setting. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be afforded to the asset’s conservation (paragraph 132). Paragraphs 133 and 134 expand to set out the consideration process in respect of heritage assets where there would be substantial harm or less than substantial harm respectively.

6.23 Policy DC13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) states that development affecting a Listed Building will not be permitted unless it has no adverse effect on the special architectural or historic character and appearance of the building or its setting.

6.24 Beyond the application site of concurrent application DC/14/1745 is Pound House Cottage which stands at the corner of Pound Land and Smugglers Lane. This building is Grade II listed and is currently visible in limited views through the existing vegetation along the boundaries of its curtilage. The immediate setting of the building comprises the largely open green space of the garden directly associated with the current domestic use of the house. This space is almost square and includes an unattractive modern garage structure immediately to the north of the house. It is clearly defined by boundaries to the modern made up roads of Pound Lane to the west, Smugglers Lane to the south and the adjoining fields / paddock to the north east, comprising mature vegetation of trees and hedgerow.

6.25 The extended setting of the listed building beyond the immediate defined garden of the houses includes areas of both established townscape and open green landscape. The building is sited at the junction of modern made up roads and alongside the built up suburban residential area of modern Upper Beeding. A mid and late 20th century layout of housing extends to the south west across Pound Lane and Smugglers Lane. To the north ITEM A3 - 14

of the building further 20th century suburban development has occurred to the east of the historic line of Pound Lane (i.e. Cattle Copse and Emery Lodge).

6.26 The immediate setting of Pound House Cottage will be retained. The proposal would alter the wider context of the site, however, the application site is already occupied by a number of farm buildings within more industrial style buildings beyond to the north. As set out above the indicative plans demonstrate that the proposed quantum of development could be accommodated on the site in a non-uniform pattern that would offer interest and variety and reflect the sensitive peripheral location of the site in Upper Beeding and being visible from the National Park. This similarly applies to the setting the Pound House Cottage and overall, in the context of the existing buildings on the site, it is not considered that the proposed development would have a harmful impact on the setting of the listed building.

6.27 In terms of long views along Pound Lane, the proposal would introduce an alternative entrance as compared to the existing arrangement, however, this would be further north than the existing site access thereby increasing the separation distance between access to the site and Pound House Cottage. Application DC/14/1745 also proposes a new access from Pound Lane in closer proximity to the Pound House Cottage. This is considered in greater detail in the respective report. Notwithstanding this, it is not considered that the cumulative impacts of the proposed access points would harm the wider setting of the Listed Building.

6.28 The final appearance and materials of the proposed development could be assessed at Reserved Matters stage to ensure that the quality of the development is satisfactory so as to preserve the wider setting of the Cottage.

6.29 In this respect, the proposal would not, therefore, have any adverse effect on the historic character and appearance of the building or its setting and would comply with paragraph 134 of the NPPF and policy DC13 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

Impact upon the amenities of nearby and future residents

6.30 Policy DC9 relates to Development Principles and requires development, amongst other matters, to recognise any constraints that exist, to not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding occupiers through overlooking or noise having regard to the sensitivities of surrounding development.

6.31 There is an existing level of activity on the site associated with the existing unrestricted use of the site. Outdoor activities, including the use and movement of agricultural and other vehicles, already take place outdoors on the site.

6.32 The proposal would alter the pattern and type of activity that could take place on the site. However, in the context of the existing surrounding residential development, it is not considered that the proposal, either in isolation or concurrently with application DC/14/1745, would have a harmful impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the surrounding residential properties as a result of harmful noise and disturbance. The amenities of the immediate neighbours at Cattle Copse and Emery Lodge could be preserved through the use of boundary treatments and landscaping, both of which could be secured under detailed Reserved Matters applications. Similarly, any impacts associated with overshadowing, overbearing or privacy could be assessed at Reserved Matters stage.

6.33 Turning to the amenities of prospective occupiers, the indicative layout demonstrates that the proposed quantum of development could be accommodated on the site with each property having access to private amenity space, car parking, a reasonable quality of outlook together with on site public open space. The proposal would therefore, comply with aims and objectives of policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies (2007). ITEM A3 - 15

Housing mix, affordable housing & tenure

6.34 Policy DC18 of the General Development Control Policies (2007), states that planning permission will be granted in appropriate locations provided that the housing mix and type meets the identified need for smaller homes (1 and 2 bed properties). Policy CP12 of the Horsham Core Strategy (2007) requires an appropriate proportion of affordable homes, with the target being 40% of the total, in order to meet the proven needs of people who are not able to compete in the general housing market.

6.35 The application proposes 4 no. one bedroom, 6 no. two bedroom houses and 2 no. three bedroom affordable units on the site which meet the requirement to provide 40% affordable units on the site. The Housing Manager is supportive of the proposed mix which would contribute towards addressing local need for affordable housing in accordance with criteria 3 of the FAD SPD.

6.36 The indicative layout demonstrates that the suggested mix could be appropriately accommodated on the site and, in the event that all other matters were acceptable, the proposal would be acceptable in this respect subject to a Section 106 securing the provision of the affordable housing. The proposal would, therefore, comply with the NPPF and Policies CP12 of the Core Strategy (2007), Policy DC18 General Development Control Policies (2007), the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD and the Council’s FAD SPD.

Highway Impacts

6.37 Policy CP19 of the Core Strategy (2007) states that development proposals which foster an integrated transport network will be supported and encourage development that is located where there is a choice of transport mode. Policies DC9 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) allow for development that incorporate convenient and safe areas of parking and provide safe and adequate means of access respectively.

6..38 Upper Beeding has a range of local services within 1km of the site together with public transport services providing connections with the wider area including Billingshurst, Horsham and Worthing. The range of services is limited resulting in some need to travel out of the area to higher order services.

6.39 In terms of trip rates, this proposal has been considered cumulatively with application DC/14/1745. Overall the two proposals would result in a total daily trip generation 281 trips. The Local Highway Authority is satisfied that this number of trips could be accommodated on the existing highway network without harming highway and pedestrian safety. In terms of amenity, the site is currently unrestricted in terms of the level of use or type of vehicles that can access the site. Noting the current use of the site there is the potential for large agricultural vehicles to be travelling to the site via the surrounding highway network with the potential to interrupt the freeflow of traffic and cause general disturbance. In this context, the proposed number of trips associated with the proposed development, when considered cumulatively with application DC/14/1745, will not harm to the amenities of occupiers of surrounding properties.

6.40 The information supporting the application states that visibility splays to the north (2.4m x 33m) and south (2.4m x 32m) are achievable. These splays have been based on the surveys 85th percentile vehicles speeds in Pound Lane. WSCC Highways has raised no objection to this proposal. In the event that permission were to be recommended, conditions to secure the provision of the access, visibility splays and a Construction Management Plan would preserve highway and pedestrian safety.

ITEM A3 - 16

6.41 The proposal could provide an opportunity to improve pedestrian accessibility along Pound Lane through the provision of a new footway along the existing highway which would improve highway safety along this section of Pound Lane for existing and prospective residents in the area and this could be secured by condition.

6.42 Whilst the layout is indicative at this stage, it demonstrates that car parking could be satisfactorily accommodated within the layout and there would not be any harmful overall impact on the surrounding highway network as a result of overspill car parking.

6.43 The proposal, therefore, complies with the NPPF and Policies CP19 of the Core Strategy (2007) and DC9 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) in this respect.

Drainage and Flood Risk

6.44 Policy CP2 states that development proposals will be carefully appraised to ensure that they reduce the risk of flooding in new development and ensure that flood risk in existing development is not increased. Policy DC7 states that development will not be permitted where it would not incorporate appropriate mitigation measures to help limit any increase in the risk flooding in adjacent or downstream areas.

6.45 The east part of the application site lies in within Flood Zone 3, however, the indicative layout does not show any dwellings located within this area. Following initial objection raised by the Environment Agency, the applicant has prepared a revised Flood Risk Assessment together with additional plans showing the levels on the site. The Flood Risk Assessment considers applications DC/14/1744 and DC/14/1745 to ensure that a holistic approach to flood risk mitigation and management can be delivered. Having considered this information, the Environment Agency has subsequently lifted their objection subject to the measures within the Flood Risk Assessment being secured by condition.

6.46 WSCC as Lead Local Flood Authority has raised no objection to the proposal on the basis that the surface water drainage approach, based on SUDS, reflects the aims and objectives of the NPPF and NPPG, together with associated technical appendices. Furthermore, Southern Water has not objected to the proposal. Both responses recommend that SUDS and its future maintenance are secured by condition along with a condition relating to details of foul and surface water sewerage disposal should the application be recommended for approval.

6.47 Where the application to be recommended for approval, conditions could be imposed to ensure the proposal would be acceptable in respect of flood risk and drainage and comply with the NPPF and Policies CP2 of the Core Strategy (2007) and DC7 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

Ecology

6.48 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that the planning system should minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible. Paragraph 118 expands on this stating that local planning authorities should aim to conserve and enhance biodiversity when determining planning applications and that opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments should be encouraged.

6.49 The Council’s Ecologist has raised no objection to the proposal subject to details of a Construction Environmental Management Plan, lighting plan, details of drainage and pollution control measures, measures to enhance the habitat value of the site and a ITEM A3 - 17

management plan to secure the long term viability of new and existing habitats being secured by condition. To ensure that the ecological surveys remain valid, a further condition would be recommended requiring those surveys to be updated if more than 24 months elapses between the submission of the Reserved Matters application and the date of the ecological surveys.

6.50 To ensure that overall the biodiversity benefits of the planting on site is preserved, an appropriate landscaping scheme could be considered at Reserved Matters stage through which consideration can be given to the planting of native species.

6.51 Subject to the imposition these conditions on any approval, the proposal would preserve biodiversity on the site in compliance with paragraphs 109 and 118 of the NPPF.

Archaeology

6.52 Policy DC10 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) restricts planning permission where it would cause unacceptable harm to important archaeological sites. The site does not contain any listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments, historic parkland/gardens or designated archaeological monuments.

6.53 The application is accompanied by a Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment which shows that the site is close to a historic river crossing where there is archaeological potential. In addition, the river has been identified as having high potential for underlying river terrace deposits which are likely to provide evidence of the local early human ancient environment. To ensure that these finds are appropriately preserved, in the event that permission were to be recommended, a condition would be recommended to secure a programme of archaeological work. Subject to this condition on any approval, the proposal would be acceptable in this respect and comply with Policy DC10 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

Impact on trees and hedgerows

6.54 Policy DC2 states that development will be permitted where it protected and/or conserves and/or enhances the key characteristics of the landscape character area in which it is located, the pattern of woodlands, fields, hedgerows and trees. Policy DC9 aims to protect existing landscape features, including trees.

6.55 There are a number of trees and hedgerows on and around the perimeter of the site that are part of its character and setting. None of the trees are worthy of individual protection and the proposed removal of a number of small species would be acceptable subject replacements being provided through a holistic soft landscaping scheme.

6.56 It is proposed to retain the majority of the native hedgerows on and around the site which is visually important in the context of the wider landscape setting of the site. It is proposed to remove a short section of the hedgerow in the north west corner of the site, however, this is noted as having been planted quite recently and the ecologist has not objected. These works are, therefore, considered to be acceptable particularly, as set out above, the implementation of a soft landscaping scheme, which could be secured by condition, will ensure that there is no overall loss of trees and hedgerows on the site.

6.57 In the event that the proposal was acceptable in all other respects, to ensure that trees proposed to be retained (principally T19 and T21) would be protected during construction works, conditions could be used to secure tree protection measures and the details of trenches. Subject to those conditions on any approval, the proposal would not result in any ITEM A3 - 18

harmful impact to trees or hedgerows and complies with the NPPF and Policies DC2 and DC9 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

Public Rights of Way

6.58 Policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) states that development will be permitted where it incorporates the wider transport network, including Public Rights of Way.

6.59 The application affects public footpaths 2767 and 2768. 2767 travels along the western boundary of the site and occupies the full extent of Pound Lane. The provision of an improved footway would assist in enhancing the usability of this route. The indicative layout shows dwellings set back from the highway to ensure that the footpath can be retained within the layout. WSCC PROW officer has requested confirmation regarding the specification of the route, maintenance responsibilities and details of any proposed stiles. These details could be secured by condition if the application was acceptable in all other respects.

6.60 Footpath 2768 crosses the site, however, it does not physically exist on the ground at present. The indicative layout submitted with this application does not show the footpath, however, with some minor adjustments to the proposed development in the northern section of the site, the footpath could be accommodated within the layout. On the basis that the currently application seeks Outline planning permission and layout is a Reserved Matter, it is not considered that the approval of this proposal would prejudice the future provision and retention of this Public Right of Way. Furthermore, on the basis that the footpath does not physically exist on the ground at present, this proposal represents an opportunity to enhance and improve access to it.

6.61 In the event that the proposal was acceptable in all other respects, this detail could be secured by condition and would comply with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies (2007).

Third Party Representations

6.62 Whilst the formation of a Neighbourhood Plan Area has been agreed the Neighbourhood Plan is not currently at a stage where it carries weight and is not, therefore, a material consideration in the determination of this planning application. Other issues raised by third parties have been addressed elsewhere within this report.

Section 106

6.63 Policy CP13 requires new development to meet its infrastructure needs. For this development, contributions would be required towards amenity open space, play and recreation areas, indoor and outdoor sports provision, community facilities, libraries, refuse and recycling, fire and rescue and highway improvements.

6.64 All contributions must be justified in accordance with the three tests set out under Regulation 122 of the Community and Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, in so far that they must be; necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development and; fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

ITEM A3 - 19

6.65 In accordance with the Policies of the Core Strategy and Planning Obligation SPD, the District Council expects that all new residential developments will provide for additional outdoor playing space, play and recreation/sports facilities, community facilities, libraries, refuse and recycling provisions and fire and rescue services, to meet the needs of prospective residents. The Council, therefore, requires a contribution towards the provision and/or improvement of these facilities through the payment of a developer contribution in order that appropriate facilities can be provided in the locality to be secured by a legal agreement.

6.66 The principle of taking developer contributions for each net dwelling gain has been established following the findings of the Planning Inspector at the Local Development Framework: Core Strategy Inquiry (2007), whereby Policy CP1 and Planning Obligation SPD were recommended for adoption. The Inspector considered that such provision would not place an unnecessary burden on developers and landowners and that the requirements were reasonable. The three policy tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 Statutory Instrument 2010/248 were applicable at the time of the Inquiry, albeit they were not statutory tests at that time. It is considered that the District Council’s approach continues to meet the three statutory tests.

6.67 In order to ensure that there are sufficient facilities, services and infrastructure capacity to serve the proposed development, and to ensure that all necessary works are delivered, there is a requirement to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. This requirement is set out in Policy CP13 of the Core Strategy, Policy DC22 of the Horsham Local Development Framework: Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) within the adopted SPD on Planning Obligations and carried forward in policies SD10 and 38 of the HDPF Proposed Submission. Policy CP13 of the Core Strategy (2007) requires that where development places infrastructure pressures on local facilities that this impact is mitigated through the provision of planning contributions. The applicant has confirmed a willingness to enter into such an agreement.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development, due to its location outside of, and isolated from, the Built Up Area Boundary of a Category 2 Settlement, where development is considered to be less sustainable, is considered unacceptable. The provision of 31 no. residential units in this countryside location, would conflict with the hierarchical approach of concentrating development to the main settlements, as set out in the Council’s Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document and Policies 2, 3 and 4 of the Horsham District Planning Framework, which requires new developments outside of Built Up Areas to be allocated through the Local Plan or Neighbourhood Plans. The development is not essential to its countryside location and does not support the needs of agriculture or forestry. It is, therefore, contrary to Policies CP1 and CP5 of the Core Strategy (2007), Policies 2, 3 and 4 of the Horsham District Planning Framework and Paragraphs 7 and 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

2. Policy CP12 requires the provision of 40% affordable units on developments involving 15 units or more. Policy CP13 requires new development to meet additional infrastructure requirements arising from the new development. Both the provision of affordable housing, a restriction on the age of future occupiers and contributions to infrastructure improvements/provision must be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. No completed Agreement is in place and, therefore, there is no means by which to secure these Policy requirements. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies CP12 and CP13 of the Horsham ITEM A3 - 20

District Local Development Framework: Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, and the NPPF, in particular paragraph 50 and Policies 16 and 39 of the Horsham District Planning Framework.

Note to Applicant: The reason for refusal relating to infrastructure contributions could be addressed through the completion of a legal agreement. If the applicant is minded to appeal the refusal of this application you are advised to liaise with the Local Planning Authority prior to the submission of an appeal with a view to finalising an acceptable Agreement.

Background Papers:

N/A DC/14/1744

Little Paddocks

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

Scale: 1:3,853

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

Date 04/09/2015 MSA Number 100023865

ITEM A4 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (South) BY: Development Manager DATE: 15th September 2015 Outline planning permission for demolition of the existing kennels and cattery, associated buildings and structures including three of the four DEVELOPMENT: existing residential dwellings with Old Clayton retained and redevelopment of the site to provide up to 41 dwellings with new vehicular access (All matters other than access to be reserved) SITE: Old Clayton Boarding Kennels Storrington Road Washington Pulborough WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/15/1737 APPLICANT: Abingworth Strategic Limited

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: This is a Major planning application

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse the application

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application is made in outline with details of access only for consideration at this stage. Matters of scale, layout, landscaping and appearance reserved for subsequent consideration, although indicative layout, scale and landscaping are provided. The existing listed building Old Clayton, and its associated outbuildings, are proposed to be retained in use as a dwelling. The proposal would demolish the remainder of buildings within the site (kennel buildings, two staff dwellings and the dwelling known as West Clayton), and proposes the erection of 41 new dwellings, served by a proposed access about 35 metres east of the retained garden of Old Clayton. This application is submitted following the refusal of application DC/14/0921.

1.2 The area of the site is 2.10 hectares, equating to a density of 20 dwellings per hectare. The indicative housing mix set out in the Design and Access Statement comprises 12no 2- bedroom flats, 4no 2-bedroom houses, 9no 3-bedroom houses 9no 4-bedroom houses and 7no 5-bedroom houses. Of these, 40% are proposed to be affordable, comprising 12no 2- bedroom flats and 4no 3-bedroom houses.

1.3 Although the application is made in outline with only access for consideration at this stage, the applicant has provided indicative layout drawing and site sections showing indicative

Contact Officer: Rosemary Foreman Tel: 01403 215561 ITEM A4 - 2

elevations for the dwellings. While these drawings are not binding at the outline stage, they provide a good indication of the Applicant’s intentions for the detailed design of development and provide an example of how the number of units proposed could be accommodated within the site. The proposed layout shows a single main access route running north-south through the site, with a number of short off-shoots providing access to small groups of dwellings, including rear access to the retained listed dwelling. The layout shows mainly detached dwellings, with five pairs of semi-detached dwellings and two buildings comprising flats. The Design and Access Statement describes ridge lines of approximately 8 metres, although the Landscape Visual Assessment states 1 to 2 storey buildings of up to 10 metres, describing single storey dwellings set back from the road. The indicative sections show buildings with mainly fully hipped roofs, gable features and dormers that break the eaves.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 The application site lies to the west of the village of Washington on the northern side of the A283. The site lies within Washington Parish, but is very close to Storrington and Parish, to the west. The site is roughly rectangular in shape. The South Downs National Park boundary lies adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site and opposite on the southern side of the A283. The neighbouring site to the west is being developed to provide 78 dwellings (see outline planning permission DC/10/1457 and reserved matters application DC/13/0609). The neighbouring development is set down at a lower ground level than the application site. Other than the adjacent new development, the majority of the surrounding area is characterised by sporadic residential development. The dwelling Old Clayton is a grade II listed building, and a number of the existing outbuildings are therefore curtilage listed.

1.5 The application is supported by a number of detailed studies, which include:-

• Design and Access Statement • Arboricultural Impact Assessment • Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment • Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment • Phase 1 Assessment (Desk Study) (Land Quality) • Drainage Feasibility Study • Air Quality Assessment • Planning, Heritage and Affordable Housing Statement • Flood Risk Assessment • Transport Statement • Noise Impact Statement • Heritage Statement • Ecology Report

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), sections 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY ITEM A4 - 3

2.3 The development plan consists of the Core Strategy (CS) (2007), the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD, the Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) DPD and the Proposals Map (2007). Other relevant local development documents are the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD (May 2009) and the Planning Obligations SPD.

2.4 Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP11, CP13 & CP19 of the Core Strategy and Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC18 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document are relevant to the determination of the application.

2.5 The Proposed Submission version of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was approved by Council in April 2014 as the Council’s policy for planning the future of the District for the period 2011-2031, and was submitted to the Government in August 2014. The Examination of the HDPF was undertaken by an independent Planning Inspector in November 2014, and the Inspector published his Initial Findings in December 2014. The Inspector considers the overall strategy of the plan to be sound as is made clear in paragraph 4 of his Initial Findings:

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

2.6 The Inspector suspended the Examination of the HDPF to allow time for the Council to show how the District’s overall housing provision can be increased to provide for a minimum of 750 dwellings per annum (15,000 over the plan period). Main Modifications were then prepared and consulted upon. An additional Examination Hearing took place on 3rd July 2015 to consider only the issues outlined in the Initial Findings. The Inspector published a Note to the Council on 21st July 2015 stating that the housing requirement for the plan period should be raised to 800 dwellings per annum (16,000 dwellings over the plan period). The Inspector also indicates that an early review (to begin within 3 years of adoption) of the Plan to provide for these additional dwellings will be required, and that a modification to Policy 36 (Strategic Policy: Appropriate Energy Use) to account for the recent written ministerial statement concerning wind energy development will be necessary. Given the Inspector’s Initial Findings and recent Note, the emerging plan is therefore considered to be a material consideration of considerable weight in terms of the overall strategy.

2.7 It should be noted that the whilst the required number of dwellings in the HDPF has been increased from 750pa to 800pa, the most recent trajectory for the plan period (2011-2031) clearly demonstrates that the HDPF will provide a sufficient housing land supply from existing allocations and commitments to meet this requirement until at least 2021. The early review mechanism will enable the Council to ensure sufficient land supply is secured to meet the needs after this period.

2.8 The relevant Policies of the HDPF are: 1 (Sustainable Development), 2 (Strategic Development), 3 (Development Hierarchy), 4 (Settlement Expansion), 7 (Economic Growth), 9 (Employment Development), 15 (Housing Provision), 16 (Meeting Local Housing Needs), 25 (The Natural Environment and Landscape Character), 26 (Countryside ITEM A4 - 4

Protection), 27 (Settlement Coalescence), 30 (Protected Landscapes), 31 (Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity), 32 (Quality of New Development), 33 (Development Principles), 34 (Cultural and Heritage Assets), 35 (Climate Change), 36 (Appropriate Energy Use), 37 (Sustainable Construction), 38 (Flooding), 39 (Infrastructure Provision), 40 (Sustainable Transport) and 41 (Parking).

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

2.9 The Washington, Storrington and Sullington Neighbourhood Plan has been through public consultation and has been submitted to Horsham District Council and consultation commenced 28th August 2015.

PLANNING HISTORY

WS/7/01 Erection of 13 kennel units and kitchen Permitted

WS/53/03 Stationing of mobile home no1 occupied by kennel staff Permitted

DC/04/2084 Erection of 2 staff dwellings in replacement for 2 existing Permitted, mobile homes subject to a Legal Agreement restricting occupation to kennel staff only.

DC/14/0915 Listed Building Consent for Demolition of Outbuildings Withdrawn around 'Old Claytons'

DC/14/0921 Outline planning permission for demolition of the existing Refused kennels and cattery, associated buildings and structures including three of the four existing residential dwellings with Appeal Old Clayton retained and redevelopment of the site to submitted provide up to 41 dwellings with new vehicular access (All matters other than access to be reserved)

2.10 The above application DC/14/0921 was refused for the following reasons: 1 The proposed development is located in the countryside, outside of and not contiguous with the defined built-up area boundary and development of the extent proposed would result in harm to the open and rural landscape character of the area and to the setting of the South Downs National Park. Residential development of the amount proposed would not respect of reflect the pattern of rural development in and around the South Downs National Park and would result in the urbanisation of the site, to the detriment of the character of the area. Furthermore, the site is in an unsustainable location, remote from local services and centres, conflicting with the aims of sustainable development, the need to minimise travel, and the ability to reduce the reliance on the private car. The proposal therefore represents an unacceptable form of development in the countryside contrary to Policies CP1, CP3, CP5 and CP19 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy and Policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies and Criteria 1, 3, 6, 11, 14 and 17 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD.

2 The development of the site would harm the historic setting of Old Clayton and the experience of the heritage asset which is currently within a predominantly isolated and rural landscape. The proposed amount of residential development would ITEM A4 - 5

dominate the current semi-rural setting of the building and diminish its value as a farmstead of historic interest. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC13 of the Horsham LDF: General Development Control Policies.

3 The proposed development would result in the loss of an economic development use which generates employment. This would therefore result in the loss of local employment opportunities, reducing the ability of the District to meet existing employment needs, and anticipated employment needs in light of residential growth in the District, increasing reliance on out-commuting to other sites. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CP11 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and to the NPPF, in particular chapters 1 and 3.

4 Policy CP12 requires provision of 40% affordable units on developments involving 15 units or more. Policy CP13 requires new development to meet additional infrastructure requirements arising from the new development. Both the provision of affordable housing and contributions to infrastructure improvements/provision must be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. No completed Agreement is in place and therefore there is no means by which to secure these Policy requirements. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CP12 and CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), to the Horsham District Local Development Framework Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, and to the NPPF, in particular paragraph 50.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

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

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.2 HDC Technical (drainage): No objection, subject to conditions requiring details of drainage design.

3.3 HDC Parks and Countryside: Accept that there is no recreational green space within the development, subject to all appropriate off-site contributions made towards the Sandgate Country Park.

3.4 HDC Environmental Health Officer raises no objection, subject to conditions in respect of investigation of land quality. In respect of noise issues, the EHO comments include the following points: • The same Noise Impact Assessment has been used as the previous application, which showed high levels of noise affecting the application site and was carried out prior to erection of the noise barrier. • Noise from operations at the kennels are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on the dwellings adjacent. • The Inspector determining the application at the adjacent site required a scheme of noise mitigation to protect the new residential development from noise from the kennels. A three metre high acoustic fence is being installed in this respect. • The 3 metre high acoustic fence, coupled with land level differences results in an effective barrier to protect upper storeys of the majority of properties on John Ireland Way. • It is unlikely that noise from the kennels would be the source of actionable statutory nuisance to occupiers of the adjacent development.

ITEM A4 - 6

3.5 The Council’s Landscape Architect raises objection to the proposal. The consultation response includes the following points: • Policy DC1 sets out that development outside of built-up area boundaries must be of a scale appropriate to the countryside location and must not lead to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside. • SDNP Management Plan promotes the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and special qualities of the landscape and its setting as well as the sense of tranquillity and dark night skies. • HDC Landscape Character Assessment identifies the site as in an area of good landscape condition and high sensitivity to change. • Existing vegetation on the eastern boundary helps to soften the existing low density development. • Existing buildings are mostly located in the western two thirds of the site and therefore set well back from the SDNP boundary. • HDC Landscape Capacity Assessment identifies the area as of moderate landscape capacity for development. • The site is visible from a range of short and long distance views from rights of way within the SNDP. • Revisions to the landscape plan addresses some of the previous concerns, providing a green buffer outside of private gardens, providing some reassurance that this buffer is to be retained and managed long-term. • Some of the individual trees and groups of category B and C trees will still be lost. While some loss of vegetation is inevitable with new development, the development should provide a more robust planted buffer that helps to soften the proposals and be more in- keeping with the existing low density buildings. • Existing tree group G5 should be retained as providing biodiversity benefits and providing a visual buffer to Millford Grange. • Reference is made in the Landscape Visual Assessment and the Landscape Design Strategy to the opportunity to include single storey buildings immediately to the north of the A283 to maintain the character of this part of Storrington Road, but there is no indication of this on the proposed site sections. This should form part of proposals to mitigate the visual effect of development along the A283. • Notwithstanding the adjacent development Millford Grange, the development is not of an appropriate scale to its setting. • Cumulatively, the development would have a significant increase in the overall activity level in the countryside, in contradiction of Policy DC1 and HDPF Policy 26. • The reduction in number of dwellings along the eastern side and the north of the site would mitigate this concern. • Concern regarding the cumulative effect of the proposal on the tranquillity and dark night skies objectives of the SDNP. • Consider the proposal is contrary to Development Plan policies CP1, DC1 and DC2 and to Policy 26 of the HDPF.

3.6 HDC Heritage Consultant: Recommends refusal. The consultation response includes the following points: • Quantum of development would harm the rural setting of the heritage asset. • The buildings are evident of a surviving post-medieval regular courtyard farmstead. • Proposed development would have a significant urbanising impact on the site, the rural environment and setting of the heritage asset both in the immediacy and from within the SDNP. • The harm would be substantial and permanent and would fail to enhance the setting of the listed building, changing the dynamics of the relationship with the site and both views to and from it. ITEM A4 - 7

• Scheme differs from previous application by retention of courtyard group and three parallel ranges to the north eastern side. • Indicative layout instils a sense of suburbia, as opposed to a scheme benefitting and respectful of a formal courtyard grouping in a rural environment. • Removal of more modern buildings to the north and north west of the listed group is acceptable, but the proposed replacement would not meet the requirements of the Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act 1990 for the LPA to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building and its setting. Removal of these buildings would better reveal the heritage asset. • The NPPF extols the protection of heritage asset and their setting as being a component of sustainable development. • Given the confines of the site, how it is experienced and how it is seen in the landscape, the development would not cause substantial harm to the listed building itself, but it would harm its setting. • Due to the close relationship between the heritage asset and the land associated with it, the proposal would result in less than substantial harm, but harm which is demonstrable and significant. • The presence of negative elements (i.e. existing modern buildings within the site) does not justify the introduction of new and more development in its place, as is proposed here. • Any new development to replace those buildings proposed for demolition should be significantly reduced in extent and quantum. • The removal of existing buildings which harm the setting of the listed building cannot be relied upon to bring forth 41 new dwellings across the site. • Reliance cannot be placed on the adjacent development at the former RMC Cement site (Millford Grange). • Disagree with the Applicant’s opinion that a much less urban approach has been applied than previously. • Between Old Clayton and East Clayton Farm (to the east), there has been little in the way of development and the arrangement of fields and the rural scene to the east has remained largely unchanged and unaltered, reinforcing the sense of a detached post-medieval farmstead. • The extent of proposed development across the site would affect the perception of how the farmhouse is currently experienced, introducing an estate development within an indicative pattern of development that bears no relationship to the historic evolution of the site or East Clayton Farm. • The proposal fails to take opportunities to respond positively to the heritage assets and at some points within the proposed development, the presence of the heritage assets will not be readily acknowledged or capable or being experienced. • The proposal would also bring with it additional residential activity and residential paraphernalia closer to and around the majority of the site. • Proposed planting would not alleviate or provide sufficient mitigation of the harmful effects of development. • The harm identified should be balanced against the wider public benefits of development. However, harm to the heritage asset should be given considerable weight. • Two recent appeals in the District (North of Melton Drive, Storrington and North of The Rise, ) have been dismissed as a result of residential development harming and encroaching on the setting of heritage assets. In this case, the relationships would be more direct.

3.7 The HDC Strategic Planning Officer recommends refusal of the application. The consultation response includes the following points: • Site is outside of the built-up area boundary, where countryside Policies apply. • The pre-submission Neighbourhood Plan does not allocate this site for development. ITEM A4 - 8

• The HDPF should be afforded considerable weight in determination of planning applications. • Inspector’s Final Report is anticipated to state that the HDPF (amended) is sound. • The HDPF will be able to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. • Proposals not in accordance with the emerging HDPF should be recommended for refusal as per paragraph 12 of the NPPF. • The site is not allocated for development in the HDPF, nor is it allocated in a Neighbourhood Development Plan. The development is therefore not in accordance with the emerging Development Plan and should be recommended for refusal. • While the owner may intend to relocate the existing business, little evidence has been submitted to suggest that new premises have been established. There is therefore doubt that the existing employment use would be replaced. • Loss of the employment site would be detrimental to the local rural economy. • The Core Strategy seeks to protect valued employment sites in order to ensure there are sufficient local employment opportunities to meet the needs of the District. • The loss of this employment site would be detrimental to the economy of the District. • The Inspector’s Initial Findings expressed concern that other than a proposed business park in North Horsham, the HDPF does not allocate further employment sites to meet the District’s projected growth. Therefore, the Council cannot justify the loss of existing employment sites without first identifying enough land to satisfy the projected need. • Objection in principle does not preclude the site from coming forward as an allocation in a future Local Development Plan or Neighbourhood Plan.

3.8 The HDC Collections Supervisor: Highlights the importance of ensuring adequate width of roads and provision of turning areas to ensure refuse vehicles can service the site, and sets out the requirements for location of refuse storage.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.9 The South Downs National Park Authority: Object to the proposal for reasons including: • Widened vehicular access results in an urbanising effect in the SDNP. • Erection of 41 dwellings with associated infrastructure such as access roads and lighting would exacerbate the urbanising of this predominantly rural location. • Although made in outline, the principle of such intensive development in this rural location has the potential to be harmful to the special qualities of the SDNP. • Existing and proposed planting is not sufficient to provide an appropriate, essential and effective transition from the proposed urban form to open rural countryside on both the southern and eastern boundaries. • The result would be substantial urban built form impact on the fringe of the countryside setting of the SDNP. • The new development would be seen clearly from elevated access land approximately 1.6- 1.8 km south of the site. • Traffic and lighting associated with the development would be harmful to the SDNP setting.

3.10 Environment Agency: No comments to make due to type and location of development.

3.11 Historic England: Do not consider it necessary for Historic England to be notified of this application.

3.12 Archaeology Consultant: No objection, subject to condition

3.13 West Sussex County Highway Authority raise concern regarding the accessibility of the site by sustainable modes of transport and raise no objection to the proposed vehicular access arrangements, subject to condition. The consultation response includes the following points: ITEM A4 - 9

• Highway Authority previously raised no objection to the proposed access arrangements. • There have been no material changes in the local highway network which would alter this view and the access arrangement therefore remains acceptable. • Acceptability of the development is dependent on the 50mph speed limit being moved east, and this should be a requirement of any S106 agreement. • The Highway Authority remains concerned regarding the accessibility of the site by sustainable modes of transport. • There are very few services within 2km walking distance of the site and although Storrington could be reached by cycle, traffic conditions on the A283 are not conducive to encouraging less experienced or vulnerable cyclists. There is no specific provision for cyclists on surrounding roads. • There are reasonably frequent passenger transport services from the site to and from Storrington, which could provide an alternative for some journeys. • For the majority of trips, there will be a reliance on the private car.

3.14 West Sussex County Council Strategic Planning has provided a breakdown of infrastructure contributions required as a result of the proposal.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.15 Washington Parish Council None received at time of drafting report

3.16 Storrington and Sullington Parish Council None received at time of drafting report

3.17 Five letters of objection have been received, which include the following points: • Inspector determining the appeal at the Millford Grange site required erection of acoustic fencing to prevent noise, which was not erected by the developer in a timely fashion. • Removal of trees from within the application site has not helped mitigate noise from the kennels. • Purchasers of houses on Millford Grange were well aware of the adjacent kennels. • Proposals represent an overdevelopment of the site, especially when added to Millford Grange. • The site has been rejected in the Neighbourhood Plan. • Permitting the development would render the Neighbourhood Plan process pointless. • Traffic generated by the proposal will exacerbate existing traffic and pollution problems on the A283. • There have been two major accidents since the change in road layout due to the Millford Grange development. • There are frequently 1 mile tailbacks heading into Storrington. • Millford Grange is not completed and therefore the impact on highways is likely to be greater once this is fully occupied. • Speed limit from Storrington to the Washington roundabout should be reduced to 30mph and HGVs banned from using this section of road. • Most of the houses will have at least two cars each, and traffic movements will be much higher than suggested by the Applicant. • Children are likely to be taken to school by car. • Local amenities already struggle to cope with the current local population. • One doctors surgery (Millstream) has closed, leaving only The Glebe. • Development of Waitrose in Storrington is understood not to be proceeding. • The proposal might not deliver 40% affordable housing. • Many of the letters of support of the previous application are from addresses some distance from the proposal site. • The application is, for all intentions, the same as previously refused.

ITEM A4 - 10

3.18 One letter of support has been received, which includes the following points: • The neighbouring site (Millford Grange) was always going to be developed. • The site lies adjacent to Millford Grange and therefore lends itself to being developed. • The eastern side of the kennels site is a perfect end to development as it adjoins open fields. • The acoustic fence at Millford Grange is ugly and of limited efficacy and could be removed if the kennels site were developed. • The proposed site could use the access road for Millford Grange, with limited impact on the highway. • Millford Grange is highly visible from the SDNP footpaths and the proposed smaller development would not notably add to this.

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 development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

Main Issues 6.1 The principal issues in the determination of the application are whether the proposal is acceptable in principle having regard to central government guidance, local Development Plan policies and any other material considerations. This application follows the refusal of application DC/14/0921, which also proposed the erection of 41 dwellings and was also made in outline with access only for consideration. The reasons for refusal of that application are set out in full in the Planning History section. The main considerations in assessing this application are therefore whether the revised scheme addresses the previous reasons for refusal and whether there have been any other changes, for example to the on-site situation or to the Policy context, since the previous refusal which would warrant a different view being taken.

Changes Since Previous Refusal 6.2 Since the previous refusal, the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 has superseded the previous Development Management Procedure Order. The new Order has reduced requirements in respect of the information to be submitted at the outline stage. The previous Order required outline applications with matters of scale and layout reserved to be accompanied by information stating the approximate location of buildings, routes and opens spaces (i.e. an indicative layout) and the upper and lower limit for the height, width and length of each building (i.e. scale parameters). The 2015 Order does not require this level of detail to be submitted at the outline stage, and specifically states that an application for outline planning permission does not need to give details of any reserved matters. However, the Applicant in this case has provided an indicative layout plan, and scale parameters are shown on the indicative site sections.

6.3 The previous application was also for 41 dwellings, and was also made in outline with all matters except access reserved. The Applicant sets out in the Design and Access Statement (page 7) what the differences between the current application and the previously refused scheme are. Many of these relate to changes to the indicative layout and ITEM A4 - 11

indicative appearance of dwellings, rather than to matters for consideration at the outline stage, and therefore do not materially change the proposal in comparison to the previously refused application. A material change since the previous refusal is the retention of a greater proportion of the outbuildings associated with Old Clayton. Other changes to the drawings which relate to detailed matters and therefore remain indicative at this stage include: • Relocation of buildings away from the listed building and the SDNP boundaries on the indicative drawings. • Reducing the indicative scale of buildings. • Inclusion of a landscape buffer zone to the east and south and additional planting to the north. • Increased green space and verges. • Re-orientation of buildings in relation to SDNP boundaries, to increase spacing in these areas.

6.4 In terms of other changes since the previous refusal, the neighbouring residential development has progressed, but remains uncompleted and construction works are still underway. Since the previous refusal, the weight afforded to the HDPF in decision making has increased in light of the Inspector’s Note of July 2015. When adopted, the HDPF will demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. In addition, the Parishes of Storrington and Sullington and Washington have prepared a draft Neighbourhood Plan which has been out to public consultation. The Neighbourhood Plan can be afforded limited weight in decision making as it has not been to referendum and has not been adopted.

Consideration of the First Reason for Refusal of DC/15/0921 6.5 The first reason for refusal of DC/14/0921 related to the unsustainable location of the development and the landscape harm arising from it. The site location has not changed and it remains in an unsustainable location where residents would rely on private vehicles for most journeys, and this concern is raised in the WSCC Highway Authority consultation response. This was also confirmed by the Inspector determining the appeal at the neighbouring site, now Millford Grange, who attributed substantial weight against that proposal due to the unsustainable location and poor access to services and facilities other than by private car. The Inspector’s decision sets out that he reached that conclusion despite the Appellant’s proposed enhancements to local bus services, however there were other benefits arising from the Millford Grange proposal, such as the contribution of a substantial area of land to the Sandgate County Park (a Policy objective), and the landscape harm arising from development was more limited than the current proposal, given the topography of the neighbouring site. The Applicant responds to the Council’s concern regarding the unsustainable location of development by referring to bus stops close to the site and that the previous Inspector determining the Millford Grange appeal considered that the significant need for housing outweighed the concerns of transport and accessibility. As set out above, this position has materially changed since the consideration of DC/14/0921. At the time of determination of the Millford Grange appeal, the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, as required by the NPPF, and the HDPF had not reached a stage where sufficient sites were allocated to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, and the Inspector attributed significant weight to the delivery of housing in the balancing of harm and benefit in determination of the Millford Grange appeal. The Council also could not demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply when determining DC/14/0921, and while Officers acknowledged that the provision of new housing weighed substantially in favour of the previous proposal, it was concluded that this benefit was not outweighed by the harm arising from the proposal. In light of the current Policy context, the HDPF can demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply and therefore, the provision of new housing no longer holds substantial weight in decision-making, with greater weight attributed to resisting development in unsustainable locations such as this. As such, the objection in respect of the principle of development of this site remains, and it ITEM A4 - 12

is not considered that the provision of housing outweighs the harm arising from the location of the proposal, when considered under the current adopted Development Plan.

6.6 As the HDPF makes provision for sufficient allocations to meet a 5-year housing land supply, this means that only those proposals in accordance with the strategy for growth set out in the HDPF should be permitted, i.e. those that accord with the development hierarchy of concentrating development in the main settlements of Horsham, Southwater and Billingshurst with some development in villages in accordance with Neighbourhood Plans. This site some distance from the main settlements and is not within or adjacent to any smaller settlement boundary. The site is not allocated in a Neighbourhood Plan. As such, the Proposal is contrary to Policy 4 of the HDPF, and the current Policy position strengthens the Council’s previous objection in principle to the proposal. The HDC Strategic Planning Officer has assessed the current Policy context and has recommended refusal of the application as it is contrary to the strategy for growth set out in the HDPF. In light of the increased weight of the HDPF and the non-allocation of this site in the draft Neighbourhood Plan, it is not considered that the Applicant’s arguments in relation to the need for sites for new housing hold sufficient weight to warrant permitting development of a site in an unsustainable location such as this.

6.7 To expand further on the Neighbourhood Plan position, the Storrington and Sullington and Washington Neighbourhood Plan was in the early stages of preparation when DC/14/0921 was determined. Since the previous refusal the Neighbourhood Plan has progressed and while it is not a strong material consideration as it has not been to referendum and adopted, it does represent a good indication of local aspirations for development in the area. The application site was put forward for consideration for allocation as residential development site in the Neighbourhood Plan, but it scored poorly on the site appraisals, and has not been allocated for development as a result. The Storrington and Sullington and Washington Housing Need survey identified 97 households with a local connection in need of housing. The Neighbourhood Plan allocations seek to strike a balance between meeting local housing need and contributing to meeting District-wide housing needs and the draft Plan allocates sites for around 300 dwellings. As such, local housing need (as well as District-wide housing need) is being addressed through the HDPF and the drafting of Neighbourhood Plans, and there is not sufficient justification for permitting new dwellings on un-allocated sites in unsustainable locations such as this.

6.8 The first reason for refusal of DC/14/0921 also made reference to landscape harm and harm to the setting of the SDNP, which directly abuts the eastern boundary of the site and also the opposite side of the A283. To address this concern, the Applicant now proposes a landscaped buffer area of 5-10 metres which they propose to control by a management company under the terms of a S106 Agreement. It must be noted that layout and landscaping were reserved matters of DC/14/0921, and remain so for this application. Therefore, the Council is still effectively considering the same proposal, but with a revised indicative layout and scale parameters. While a landscaped buffer may go some way to soften the appearance of the development, it would not completely disguise it, particularly when viewed from the site access and from higher ground within the SDNP. Although the site is bordered to the north and west by new residential development at Millford Grange, that site is set at a much lower level than the application site, reducing the prominence of buildings therein. The SDNP raise similar objections to the proposal as those set out in their response to DC/14/0921, as the proposed landscaped buffer would not address the concerns previously raised by the SDNP. The Council’s Landscape Architect notes the proposed amendments to the indicative layout, but remains concerned in respect of the visibility of the development, particularly in views from the SDNP. Objection is raised in particular in respect of the number of units proposed, which would result in development close to site boundaries, and in respect of the indicative heights of dwellings shown on the site sections, which do not indicate any reduced height in the more prominent parts of the site, as recommended by the Applicant’s Landscape Visual Assessment. In addition, the ITEM A4 - 13

existing site is largely undeveloped, with most buildings concentrated to the south west of the site, and these being mainly single storey. The proposal represents a significant departure from the existing rural layout, with residential development proposed across the vast majority of the site. It must be noted that the NPPF definition of previously developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land, it also clearly states that it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed. As such, there is insufficient justification for development of the extent proposed on this site which currently contains a very limited number of small- scale buildings. In light of the landscape concerns, and the unsustainable location of the site, first reason for refusal of the previous application has not been addressed and remains applicable.

Consideration of the Second Reason for Refusal of DC/14/0921 6.9 The second reason for refusal of DC/14/0921 related to harm to the setting of the listed building Old Clayton. The proposal now shows a greater proportion of the outbuildings associated with Old Clayton being retained, which were previously identified by the Council’s consultant as contributing to the setting of Old Clayton in terms of the historic use and development of the site. However, the quantum of development remains as previously proposed, and while the indicative drawings show buildings located further from the listed building, the proposal still represents a significant change to the setting of Old Clayton by reason of the replacement of a collection of small, single storey buildings and a large open area with 41 dwellings, which (regardless of the amended indicative drawings accompanying this application) would result in an alien, urban setting for the listed building. The presence of the adjacent development at Millford Grange is noted, but this is set at a much lower level and therefore is not as prominent in the setting of the listed building. While it is accepted that some of the more modern buildings within the site currently adversely affect the setting of the listed building, and their removal would result in a benefit to the listed setting, the proposed replacement of these building with 41 dwellings would be more harmful to the setting, and development of the quantum proposed could not be accommodated within the site without significant harm to heritage assets. As such, Officers remain concerned that the proposal involving the erection of 41 units would fail to maintain the setting of the listed building and therefore would be harmful to its significance. In addition, in assessing the previous application Officers balanced the benefit of providing housing in an area where a 5-year housing land supply could not be demonstrated against the harm to the setting of the listed building. Although it was considered that the harm did not outweigh the benefits, the current Policy context means that little weight can be attributed to the provision of new housing as a benefit of the development, strengthening the objection in respect of harm to the listed building setting. The second reason for refusal of the previous application therefore remains applicable.

Consideration of the Third Reason for Refusal of DC/14/0921 6.10 The third reason for refusal of the previous application related to the loss of the existing kennels as an employment generating use. The Applicant maintains that the use of the kennels is no longer appropriate for the site, given the proximity to the adjacent residential development and the potential for noise disturbance to residential properties from barking dogs. The Environmental Health Officer raises no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions. On further discussion with the EHO, he has advised that the acoustic fence as approved pursuant to conditions of the adjacent development will serve to protect the neighbouring properties from noise disturbance, however the dwellings at the south eastern corner of the Millford Grange development do not benefit from the same significant difference in land levels as the remainder of the development, and therefore the upper storeys are not as well protected from noise as the majority of the development. At the time of determination of the previous application DC/14/0921, there had been no recent complaints in respect of noise from the kennels. The EHO has advised of one new compliant since determination of DC/14/0921, which has led to internal noise testing being carried out at one of those properties which does not benefit from protection from land level ITEM A4 - 14

changes as well as the acoustic fence. With bedroom windows closed, it was found that there was no noise impact and levels were well within World Health Organisation guidelines for noise levels at night time in a bedroom. With bedroom windows open, barking was noticeable, but the noise levels were still within WHO guideline levels and therefore, the complaint did not result in an actionable nuisance. In addition, it must be noted that the Planning Practice Guidance advises that where a new residential development is sited close to an existing noise generating development (such as the Millford Grange development sited adjacent to the existing and well-established kennels), appropriate mitigation should be considered by the developer, such as optimising the sound insulation provided by the new development’s building envelope and the installation of alternative means of ventilation where the adverse effects of noise can be completely removed by closing windows. In light of the EHO’s findings, i.e. that the noise generated by the kennels is not at the level considered to be an actionable nuisance, and in light of the established use of the site as kennels, it is considered that the relationship between the two sites is not objectionable. As such, the matter of noise generated by the kennels is not sufficient justification to permit the loss of the employment generating use.

6.11 The Applicant also submits that the residential scheme adjacent has been detrimental to the welfare of animals boarded at the site, and this has resulted in the business suffering and the number of employees declining (although no detail is provided in respect of the reduced number of employees). In addition, the applicant considers that the deaths of two animals may be linked to the construction process. The disturbance generated by the construction process is for a temporary period, and it would be premature to determine this application on the basis of noise disturbance from the construction period harming the viability of the kennels business, as consideration must be given to the long-term situation, i.e. a completed residential development neighbouring the kennels and set at a lower ground level than it and separated from it by an acoustic fence. As such, the matter of noise generated by the construction process at the Millford Grange site is not sufficient justification for the loss of the employment use.

6.12 Notwithstanding the arguments put forward by the applicant in respect of noise impacts, the Design and Access Statement indicates the kennel operator’s intention to relocate to an alternative site within the District. There is no alternative site put forward, and it is not clear that one is available or acceptable in planning terms for use as kennel of comparable scale to that currently operating from the site. As such, there is no means by which to secure the alternative site for kennels use as part of this application and the proposal must therefore be considered on the basis of the change of use to residential resulting in the loss of the kennels use. The Applicant also makes reference to the kennels not being viable to sell to another operator because buyers would be deterred by the proximity to the neighbouring residential development and the potential for the kennels to cause disturbance to neighbouring residents. However, as set out above, the EHO has advised that noise levels from the kennels do not appear to result in unacceptable noise levels in neighbouring dwellings. Therefore, this argument holds little weight in determining the application.

6.13 The Applicant indicates an intention to create four dwellings for holiday lets within the existing outbuildings to be retained, advising that this will provide employment and economic activity. This proposal does not form part of the proposal, which as set out on the application forms is for 41 new dwellings and does not involve subdivision of the existing building to create additional dwellings. As such, this proposal does not form part of the consideration of the current application. Notwithstanding this, it is not clear that the management of four holiday lets would provide the same level of employment as a kennelling operation accommodating in the region of 240 dogs and cats and necessitating two staff dwellings in addition to the owner’s accommodation at Old Clayton.

ITEM A4 - 15

6.14 In conclusion on the matter of the loss of employment and an economic development use therefore, the proposal does not address the previous concerns, and third reason for refusal of the previous development remains applicable.

Consideration of the Fourth Reason for Refusal of DC/14/0921 6.15 The fourth reason for refusal of the previous application related to the absence of a Legal Agreement to secure affordable housing and infrastructure contributions. While the Applicant does propose to provide these, there is no completed Legal Agreement in place and therefore these policy requirements have not been secured at the time of determining the application. It should be noted that the Core Strategy CP12 would require 40% of the units to be affordable, while the HDPF would require 35% to be affordable. As such, the fourth reason for refusal of the previous application remains applicable.

Other Matters 6.16 As set out above, the main consideration of this application is whether the previous reasons for refusal have been addressed by the revised scheme. Previously, no objections were raised in respect of other matters such as highways (note that the Officer’s report of DC/14/0921 sets out a highway objection, but the Highway Authority withdrew their objection in light of additional information received prior to determination of the application), ecology, archaeology and amenity of neighbouring residents. The proposal is not materially different in these respects and therefore, no objection is now raised with regard to other matters not previously referred to in the reasons for refusal.

Conclusion 6.17 In light of the above assessment, it is considered that the proposal does not address the previous reasons for refusal and these remain applicable. It must however be noted that in respect of the first and second reasons for refusal, the evolved Policy context since the previous refusal has resulted in the background to these reasons changing slightly. The greater strength afforded to the objection in principle to residential development of this site as a result of the now weight attributed to the HDPF is set out above, and the objection in principle on the basis of the emerging HDPF is set out in a new reason for refusal as a result. Similarly, the previous objection in respect of harm to the listed building setting is also strengthened, as the provision of new housing is no longer a material consideration in favour of the development.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would be located outside of a built-up area boundary on a site not allocated for development within the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework, or in an adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan. The proposed development would therefore be inconsistent with the overarching strategy for development set out within the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007), Policies 2, 3 and 4 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

2. The proposed development is located in the countryside, outside of and not contiguous with the defined built-up area boundary. In this location, development of the extent proposed would result in harm to the open and rural landscape character of the area and to the setting of the South Downs National Park. Residential development of the amount and scale proposed would not respect of reflect the pattern of rural development in and around the South Downs National Park and would result in the urbanisation of the site, to the detriment of the character of the ITEM A4 - 16

area. Furthermore, the site is in an unsustainable location, remote from local services and centres, conflicting with the aims of sustainable development, the need to minimise travel, and the ability to reduce the reliance on the private car. The proposal therefore represents an unacceptable form of development in the countryside contrary to Policies CP1, CP3, CP5 and CP19 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy and Policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District LDF: General Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007), Criteria 1, 3, 6, 11, 14 and 17 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD and to Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 25, 26, 27, 30, 33 and 40 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework.

3. The development of the site would harm the historic setting of Old Clayton and the experience of the heritage asset which is currently within a predominantly isolated and rural landscape. The proposed amount of residential development would dominate the current semi-rural setting of the building and diminish its value as a farmstead of historic interest. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC13 of the Horsham LDF: General Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007) and to Policy 34 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework.

4. The proposed development would result in the loss of an economic development use which generates employment. This would therefore result in the loss of local employment opportunities, reducing the ability of the District to meet existing employment needs, and anticipated employment needs in light of residential growth in the District, increasing reliance on out-commuting to other sites. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CP11 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and to the NPPF, in particular chapters 1 and 3 and to Policies 1, 7 and 9 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework.

5. Policy CP12 requires provision of 40% affordable units on developments involving 15 units or more, while Policy 16 of the HDPF requires 30% of units to be affordable in a scheme of this size. Policies CP13 and 39 require new development to meet additional infrastructure requirements arising from the new development. Both the provision of affordable housing and contributions to infrastructure improvements/provision must be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. No completed Agreement is in place and therefore there is no means by which to secure these Policy requirements. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CP12 and CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), to the Horsham District Local Development Framework Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to the NPPF, in particular paragraph 50 and to Policies 16 and 39 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework.

Note to the Applicant 1: The reason for refusal in respect of affordable housing provision and infrastructure contributions could be addressed by the completion of a Legal Agreement. If the Applicant is minded to appeal the refusal of this application, you are advised to liaise with the Local Planning Authority prior to the submission of an appeal with a view to finalising an acceptable Agreement.

Note to Applicant 2: The Design and Access Statement and Planning Statement make reference to the change of use of part of the kennel/cattery building to four dwellings for holiday lettings. This proposed change of use was not included in the description of development on the application forms and therefore, that change of use has not been considered as part of the assessment of this planning application. In addition, ITEM A4 - 17

given that the building identified for change of use to four dwellings for holiday lettings is curtilage listed, listed building consent would be required for that proposal.

Background Papers: Report of DC/14/0921

ITEM A4 - 18

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee BY: Development Manager DATE: 17th February 2015 Outline planning permission for demolition of the existing kennels and cattery, associated buildings and structures including three of the four DEVELOPMENT: existing residential dwellings with Old Clayton retained and redevelopment of the site to provide up to 41 dwellings with new vehicular access (All matters other than access to be reserved) SITE: Old Clayton Boarding Kennels Storrington Road Washington Pulborough WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/14/0921 APPLICANT: Abingworth Strategic Limited

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: This is a Major planning application

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application as originally submitted sought outline planning permission for the demolition of all outbuildings and two staff bungalows within the kennels site and the dwelling and outbuildings within the West Clayton Farm site, with the retention of only the listed dwelling Old Clayton. In light of concern raised by the Heritage and Conservation Consultant, the Applicant amended the scheme to retain a number of courtyard buildings to the west and north west of the listed building. However the proposed development remains the construction of up to 41 dwellings. This will result in a total of 42 dwellings on the site, with the retention of the existing dwelling Old Clayton. Details of access are submitted for approval at this stage, with matters of scale, layout, landscaping and appearance reserved for subsequent consideration, although indicative layout, scale and landscaping are provided.

1.2 The area of the site is 2.10 hectares, equating to a density of 20 dwellings per hectare. The indicative housing mix set out in the Design and Access Statement comprises eleven 5-bedroom dwellings, nine 4-bedroom dwellings, twelve 3-bedroom dwellings and nine 2- bedroom dwellings. 40% of the new dwellings are proposed to be affordable, comprising six 3-bedroom dwellings and nine 2-bedroom dwellings. However, the revised indicative layout necessitates the removal of one of the larger 5-bed dwellings, and replacement of ITEM A4 - 19

one of the affordable dwellings with two 1-bed flats. The revised scheme would retain the level of 40% affordable housing.

1.3 The development would be served by a new vehicle access in approximately the same location as the existing eastern site access.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE 1.4 The application site lies to the west of the village of Washington on the northern side of the A283. The site lies within Washington Parish, but is very close to Storrington and Sullington Parish, to the west. The site is roughly rectangular in shape. The South Downs National Park boundary lies adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site and opposite on the southern side of the A283. The neighbouring site to the west is being developed to provide 78 dwellings (see outline planning permission DC/10/1457 and reserved matters application DC/13/0609). Other than the adjacent new development, the majority of the surrounding area is characterised by sporadic residential development. The dwelling Old Clayton is a grade II listed building, and a number of the existing outbuildings are therefore curtilage listed.

1.5 The application is supported by a number of detailed studies, which include:-

• Design and Access Statement • Planning and Heritage Statement • Archaeological Desk Based Assessment • Transport Statement • Landscape Appraisal • Drainage Feasibility Study • Flood Risk Assessment • Noise Impact Design Development Note • Environmental Noise Survey and Site Suitability Assessment • Air Quality Assessment • Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey • Sustainability Statement • Arboricultural Impact Assessment • Phase 1 Assessment (Desk Study) (land investigation)

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012), sections 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The development plan consists of the Core Strategy (CS) (2007), the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD, the Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) DPD and the Proposals Map (2007). Other relevant local development documents are the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD (May 2009) and the Planning Obligations SPD.

ITEM A4 - 20

2.4 Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP11, CP13 & CP19 of the Core Strategy and Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC18 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document are relevant to the determination of the application.

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

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

The Inspector has suspended the Examination of the HDPF until June 2015 to allow time for the Council to show how the annual housing provision can be increased to provide for a minimum of 750 dwellings per annum (15,000 over the plan period). It is important to note that the Examination will re-open to consider only the issues outlined in the Initial Findings. Given the Inspector’s findings the emerging plan is therefore a material consideration of considerable weight in terms of the overall strategy.

2.6 PLANNING HISTORY

WS/7/01 Erection of 13 kennel units and kitchen Permitted

WS/53/03 Stationing of mobile home no1 occupied by kennel staff Permitted

DC/04/2084 Erection of 2 staff dwellings in replacement for 2 existing Permitted, mobile homes subject to a Legal Agreement restricting occupation to kennel staff only.

DC/14/0915 Listed Building Consent for Demolition of Outbuildings Pending around 'Old Claytons' consideration

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Where consultation responses have been summarised, it should be noted that Officers have had consideration of the full comments received, which are available to view on the public file at www.horsham.gov.uk. ITEM A4 - 21

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.2 HDC Engineering Section: No objection in respect of flood risk. Recommend conditions in respect of drainage.

3.3 HDC Parks and Countryside: No objection, subject to a contribution to off-site green space provision, to be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. The area of Sandgate Park that the Council already owns is nominated for an off-site green space contribution towards access and habitat enhancements.

3.4 HDC Environmental Health Officer: No objection, subject to conditions in respect of further investigation of contaminated land. Concludes that it is unlikely that noise from the kennels would be the source of an audible statutory noise nuisance to occupiers of the Millford Grange development.

3.5 The Council’s Landscape Consultant raised no objection in their initial consultation response. On receipt of further information, the Council’s Landscape Consultant issued a further consultation response, which raises objection to the scheme and includes the following points: • The development would have an adverse urbanising impact on the attractive rural landscape character and quality of the SDNP, particularly the open rural landscape to the east and the attractive setting of the SDNP as perceived along the A283. • The landscape impact is likely to be cumulative when considered in combination with adverse impact resulting from the adjacent new development. • The proposal will erode two of the identified special qualities of the SDNP, namely Tranquil and Unspoilt Places and Diverse Inspirational Landscapes. • There will be some adverse impacts in short, middle and long distance views from local rights of way within the SDNP. • Failure to show retention of mature trees and sections of hedgerow which contribute to the character of the site and locality demonstrates poor design. • The indicative layout does not show any robust planted buffer at the SDNP boundary and does not take account of or respond to the existing settlement and townscape character within the SDNP and nearby. • Proposal is not considered to meet the environmental role of planning set out in the NPPF and is contrary to section 7 of the NPPF (Requiring Good Design). • A key statutory purpose of the SDNP is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape. The proposal is considered to be contrary to this.

3.6 HDC Heritage Consultant: Objection. Summary of response to the initial scheme:

Recommend refusal of listed building consent for demolition on the grounds that the case for substantial demolition of the courtyard buildings to the west and northwest, forming part of a post medieval regular courtyard farmstead, are significant in terms of their heritage value and association with the main listed building, is unjustified and unwarranted. Their demolition would harm the historic setting and experience of the heritage assets within this predominantly isolated and rural landscape. It would also remove the historical association of the farm house with its farm buildings and practically eradicate the significance of the farm group.

The applicants have failed to explore other options for the retention of the courtyard buildings as set out in paragraph 133 of the NPPF The substantial loss of the courtyard buildings and harm to the significance of the heritage asset is not outweighed by substantial public benefits in respect of the heritage asset, due to the demonstrable that would arise. ITEM A4 - 22

Recommend refusal of planning permission for residential development on the grounds that the proposed redevelopment of the site would detract from the significance of the heritage asset, Old Clayton, not only through the loss of its historic courtyard but the historical relationship between farm house and farm building, and would severe its current association with the rural landscape.

The proposed residential development would have a significant urbanising impact on the site, the rural environment and setting of the heritage asset both in the immediacy and from within the South Downs National Park. The harm that would arise would be substantial and permanent and would fail to enhance the setting of the listed building, changing the dynamics of the relationship with the site, and both views to and from it.

The Heritage Consultant has also considered the revised scheme, which retains the western courtyard buildings and part of the northern courtyard buildings. Comments in respect of the revised scheme include the following points: • Previous comments still stand. • Existing reception/shop appears to have been in existence prior to 1948. • No historic or design justification for the proposed quantum of development, further intensification of the site and its urbanity. • There does not appear to be any case for ‘enabling’ development here associated with maintenance of the listed building.

3.7 The HDC Strategic Planning Officer highlights the lack of a 5-year housing land supply, and the recent Inspector’s initial findings arising from the Horsham District Planning Framework examination in public, in which he set out that the concentration of growth in the main settlements of Horsham, Southwater and Billingshurst to be sound, rather than greater dispersal around the district which he considered to be less sustainable. Given that the overall strategy is considered sound, it is recommended that great weight is afforded to it, and therefore the proposal for development in an unsustainable location is not considered to be necessary at the current time in order to contribute to the 5-year supply. Concern is also raised in respect of loss of employment associated with the kennel use, noting that the Inspector’s findings expressed concern in respect of employment uses within the District.

3.8 The HDC Collections Supervisor raises concern in respect of the detail of the indicative layout, in terms of its width and construction.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.9 West Sussex County Council- Monitoring and Records: A S106 contribution of £325,525 for education, libraries, waste, fire and transport should be sought.

3.10 The South Downs National Park Authority: Objects. Summary of response (no change in respect of amended plans): • The existing access would need to be widened and visibility splays improved, which would have an urbanising impact on the setting of the SDNP. • The introduction of 41 dwellings on this site, with associated urban layout of access roads, domestic gardens, lighting etc in this rural location outside the settlement boundary would exacerbate the urbanising of this predominantly rural location. • The principle of such intensive urban development in this rural location on the edges of the National Park has the potential to be harmful to the special qualities and landscape setting of the SDNP. • The SDNPA are concerned that existing planting, together with new planting is not sufficient to provide an appropriate, essential and effective soft-scape transition from the ITEM A4 - 23

proposed urban form to open rural countryside on both the southern and eastern boundaries, resulting in substantial urban built form impact on the fringe of the countryside setting of the SNDP. • The development would be clearly visible and open viewed against the predominant rural landscape of the locality and the wider open countryside setting of the SDNP from the elevated bridleway leading up to the South Downs Way National Trail and nearby open access land on the Downs, approximately 1.6-1.8km to the south. • The lighting seen at night from various places in the SDNP has the potential to be detrimental to the dark night skies objective of the SDNP, and potentially on wildlife within the SDNP.

3.11 Environment Agency: No comments provided due to the low risk of the development type and location.

3.12 English Heritage: Advise that they do not consider that it is necessary for this application to be notified to English Heritage under the relevant statutory provisions.

3.13 West Sussex County Council Archaeologist: No objection, subject to conditions.

3.14 West Sussex County Highway Authority: Initially responded 21st August 2014 requesting additional information, and have been in discussion with the Applicant’s Transport Consultant in respect of the application. However, despite additional information and amended drawings being received, the Highway Authority remain concerned due to an increased risk to highway safety and likely obstruction to the free flow of traffic on the A283. It is recommended that a full right-turn lane is provided, or the current site access should be retained as the sole access to the site, but no agreement has been reached on this matter.

3.15 Storrington and Sullington Parish Council raise a strong objection, including the following points: • The proposed development is extremely dense, particularly adjacent to the new Millford Grange site and is out of character with the area. • The proposals would mean that the listed building (Old Clayton) would be completely surrounded. The listed building Chanctonbury Lodge (about 180 metres west on Storrington Road) should also be taken into consideration. • The access from the A283 is unacceptable. • The site is not included in HDC’s Local Plan which is currently under inspection nor is it included in the list of sites in our emerging Neighbourhood Plan and of course is outside the built-up area. • Members also agree with all of Washington Parish Council’s objections. • Members question the fact that the site would be sustainable, owners would not be able to walk to the village to purchase their weekly shopping and very much doubted that they would cycle. • Whilst the site is technically brownfield, it is indeed outside of the built-up area and not in Horsham’s Plan and is not an allocated site. • In fact, what has become apparent whilst conducting Neighbourhood Plan surveys is that residents of all surrounding villages want to protect the gaps between each individual village. • Members felt that it should be noted that the kennels had not received any noise complaints before the new development (Millford Grange) had been built, and that these had only resulted since residents had moved into the new development. The kennels had been in existence for many years before the development had been approved.

3.16 Washington Parish Council strongly object on the basis that: • Traffic flow will be increased onto a major arterial road at peak times. ITEM A4 - 24

• The creation of a 4th entrance/exit in close proximity to 3 others will increase congestion and compromise safety. • The proposed development is premature and does not take into account the provisions of the Emerging Local Plan or the proposed Neighbourhood Plan. • The proposal contradicts the reasons given for the reduction in homes by the Inspector on the neighbouring development and is therefore contradictory to an existing finding. The proposal has an adverse impact on the rural environment both in terms of ecology and view. The housing would be clearly visible from the SDNP. • The provision for ‘affordable housing’ is neither guaranteed in respect of number, availability to local people or affordability and therefore provides no benefit or support to the proposal. • Washington and the proposed site is not a Category A site and the proposal constitutes overdevelopment and unnecessary urbanisation. There is a real danger of “ribbon development” along the A283, diminishing the countryside between Storrington & Washington. • The proposed development does not constitute part of the existing development (‘keys seamlessly’) but is a further and separate isolated development. • There is no provision for facilities within the site itself or its surrounds for the impact on infrastructure that the further increase in housing will create in terms of health, leisure and education. • Air quality will be further compromised. • Light pollution will be increased in a no light area. • No changes to original comments in light of amended plans.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.17 Twenty seven letters of objection have been received, which include the following points: • Overdevelopment of the site. • Density is higher than the surrounding area. • Further ribbon development, contrary to Neighbourhood Plan guidelines. • Proposal would decrease the strategic gap between settlements. • Unsustainable site with, no facilities without a car journey. • The kennels are a working business. • Traffic onto the A287 is already a nightmare, and the development will exacerbate this. • Will create a traffic rat-run through Heath Common. • Development at Millford Grange already increased usage of Hampers Lane, a quite single- track road. • No traffic calming is proposed. • The listed building will not sit well in an estate environment. • Development will enclose and over-power the listed building. • Urbanisation of a rural area. • Field to the rear is used for exercising dogs and is not a brownfield site. • Light pollution in an area with no street lighting. • Noise and pollution not inkeeping with current schemes to reduce pollution in Storrington. • Overburdening of local services, particularly schools and medical facilities. • Adjacent development does not set precedent for the proposal. • Adjacent site included benefits such as delivery of community land east and west of Hampers Lane, direct access to the Heath Common network of bridleways and an extensive Unilateral Undertaking. • Noise mitigation should be put in place in accordance with the permission at the adjacent Cemex site. • Anyone purchasing a house at the adjacent site will be aware of the kennels. • The kennels are a welcome amenity to Washington and the surrounding area. ITEM A4 - 25

• The application should not be considered until all of the Highway Authority’s queries are answered. • Many of the letters of support referring to plight of the kennels are from addresses some distance from the kennels. • 10% reduction in CO2 emissions would be counteracted by the increase in traffic and pollution transporting children to schools. • Loss of existing employment use. • Parking problems in the area will be exacerbated. • There is sufficient new housing in the area. • Future residents are likely to want fences adjacent to Washington Road. • The site should be used for community business and facility if the kennel were to close. • Loss of habitat.

3.18 Twenty eight letters of support has been received, which includes the following points: • Continuation of the kennels in this location is impossible. • Complaints from new occupants have already been received. • The kennels causes new residents of the adjacent site more noise than imagined. • Construction works distress boarding dogs. • Lights and traffic at night at the adjacent site will distress boarding dogs. • Noise levels will increase as more people move in and dogs are unsettled by the noise of new neighbours. • The kennels would relocate to a new site without loss of jobs • The kennelling service is vital to the community and should continue at a more suitable site. • Proposal compliments the adjacent scheme. • Support the provision of affordable housing for people with a local connection and local workers. • The arguments that allowed the adjacent site apply to this proposal. • Proposal will reduce traffic compared to the kennels and reduce congestion. • There are links to public amenities and a regular bus service, which is due to be improved in connection with the adjacent development. • Tree planting would enhance views. • The day care part of the kennels business should be extended and developed. • Growing kennels business would benefit from a larger site. • Developing smaller sites will share the need for new homes across the District without having the significant local disruption big sites cause. • Scheme appears very well thought through.

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

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

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The principal issues in the determination of the application are whether the proposal is acceptable in principle having regard to both central government and local Development Plan policies, highway safety, and the effect of the development upon the character and ITEM A4 - 26

appearance of the area. The site has been put forward for consideration in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, and has been assessed as deliverable given the single ownership and the landowners intention to develop, but development would still need to be subject to the development management process including consideration of relevant planning considerations, and the site is not allocated for development by the Council. The SHLAA is a theoretical exercise to show what sites could potentially be available for planning permission in the District. It does not preclude the normal planning application process nor does it allocate sites for development. The SHLAA forms a useful starting point for the consideration of sites that may be suitable for allocation for residential development in Neighbourhood Plans. However this site is not allocated for development at the current time in a Neighbourhood Plan. Therefore, although the site is included in the SHLAA, it is not allocated for development and consideration must be given to the principle of development.

6.2 Members will be aware that the District is currently experiencing a shortfall in housing land supply. Recent appeal decisions within the District suggest that any shortfall in a five year land supply is an important material consideration that carries significant weight in decision making. This imposes an even stronger presumption in favour of planning permission being granted for sustainable development. In cases where there may be other issues or harm arising from a proposed development, the provision of new housing must be balanced against the harm identified when assessing whether development is sustainable and appropriate. In light of the identified shortfall of housing supply, the application should be considered in relation to the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD which allows for flexibility in the location of development outside of the built-up area boundaries, to ensure that there is sufficient housing supply during the life of the Core Strategy, and provides guidance as to the location and size of developments that could be appropriate.

6.3 The FAD SPD sets out the requirements against which those planning applications for development on sites (both greenfield and brownfield) which adjoin defined settlement boundaries in the District will be considered, and contains a number of criteria which must be complied with in order for a proposal to be considered ‘appropriate’. Although Storrington is a category 1 settlement, where the FAD SPD allows for cumulative development of up to about 150 dwellings outside of built-up area boundaries, appropriate development sites should be contiguous with the built-up area boundary, which this site is not. The site is between Storrington and Washington, and although the eastern extreme of the current application site does not extend beyond that of the new development at the adjacent site to the north and west, its location closer to the road than the new development and set at a higher ground level than it (there is a substantial difference in land levels towards the north of the site), would make the proposed development more prominent in public viewpoints, particularly from the A283, than the adjacent development. The prominence of the proposal would also result in perceived encroachment towards the settlement of Washington, reducing the visual break between Storrington and Washington. The site is not located in a sustainable location, with poor access by public transport and few services or facilities located in walking distance of the site. As such, the location of the site is not in accordance with the FAD SPD. Furthermore, the NPPF sets out that new development should be located and designed to give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements and have access to high quality public transport facilities, and that the social role of sustainable development involves creating a high quality built environment with accessible local services. The unsustainable location of the site therefore does not weigh in favour of the proposal. In addition, the Inspector’s initial findings in respect of the examination of the emerging HDPF (19.12.2014) advises that the overall strategy to concentrate growth in the main settlements of Horsham, Southwater and Billingshurst is sound, rather than the alternative strategy of greater dispersal around the District, which he considered to be less sustainable. This site is somewhat distant from the settlement of Storrington, which is about 1 km from the built-up boundary further west along the Washington Road. The Strategic Planning Officer advises that although the HDPF is ITEM A4 - 27

therefore not yet adopted and the Council do not have a 5-year housing land supply, the acceptance of the Council’s overall strategy as sound by the Inspector is a material consideration and should be afforded great weight. As such, the Strategic Planning Officer does not consider it necessary for this site to be developed for residential use at the current time, given the unsustainable location. Intensification of the residential use of this site is therefore contrary to Policy DC1 and the FAD SPD.

6.4 The Heritage Consultant highlights the relevant legislative framework in respect of development and heritage assets such as listed buildings. In particular, the duty of the Local Planning Authority to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest is noted. The NPPF sets out that the environmental role of sustainable development includes contributing to protecting and enhancing the built and historic environment. The demolition of curtilage listed buildings is dealt with separately by application DC/14/0915 (also on this agenda). However, that demolition is integral to the proposal, given that it is required in order to achieve the density of development proposed. The Heritage Consultant raised concern in respect of the loss of the courtyard buildings, which reflect the medieval farmstead pattern and are integral to the setting of the listed building. In light of this concern, the Applicant revised the indicative layout to show the retention of courtyard buildings to the west of the main dwellinghouse. However, the Heritage Consultant remains of the opinion that the proposal would be harmful to the listed building and its setting, particularly given the removal of part of the northern courtyard group which appears in some form on maps dating from 1843 and therefore is curtilage listed, in addition to the western courtyard which is now proposed to be retained. In contrast to the existing scattered assortment of single storey buildings on the site, the proposed development of 41 dwellings would necessitate development in much closer proximity to the listed building, with the indicative layout showing new development to the rear and side of the listed building, and set further forward than the new development at the adjacent site, which is set back from the highway by over 40 metres, allowing the listed building to be the more prominent feature of the street scene. Although the proposed layout is indicative only, it gives a good indication of the type of development which the developer expects to bring forward at the reserved matters stage, and in this case the number of units being sought, along with the indicative scale, is likely to involve fairly high buildings in close proximity to the listed building, as the indicative site sections show the new buildings to be greater in height than the listed dwelling. The proposed amount of the development would therefore not only swamp the immediate setting of the listed building, reducing its significance particularly when viewed from the south, it would also create a more intensive and higher density development, removing the rural setting of the listed building to the detriment of its significance in the landscape. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC13.

6.5 In terms of the impact of the proposal on landscape character, as well as the Heritage Consultant’s concern in respect of the rural setting of the listed building being important to its value and significance as a heritage asset, the SNDPA and the Council’s Landscape Consultant also comment on the impact of the proposal on landscape character. The SDNPA identify the urbanising of this predominantly rural location on the edge of the National Park, the existing and proposed boundary planting which is insufficient to provide an appropriate transition from the urban to rural areas, the increase in traffic and the additional external lighting affecting the Park’s dark skies objectives as resulting in harm to the SDNP. The Council’s Landscape Consultant did not initially raise objection to the proposal, but on receipt of additional information their view is that the proposal would result in landscape harm, when viewed from the SDNP.

6.6 The site is currently occupied by a number of buildings, concentrated mainly towards the western side and south, with more open areas to the east and north. The NPPF is clear that although previously developed land is land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure and includes the curtilage of the developed land, it should not be assumed that ITEM A4 - 28

the whole of the curtilage should be developed. As such, the presence of existing buildings on parts of the site is not justification alone for development across the entire site. In this case, existing development is concentrated towards the western part of the site, away from the SDNP boundary to the east. Furthermore, the existing buildings to be demolished are all single storey in height, with the only two storey building (the listed dwelling Old Claytons) being retained. Replacing a scattered assortment of modest single storey buildings, concentrated mainly to the western part of the site, with dwellings of at least two storeys in height (indicative details show up to 2.5 storeys) across the entirety of the site, including adjacent to the SDNP boundary, results in a significant impact on the character of the site and its value as part of the rural landscape and setting of a heritage asset. Although the site is adjacent to a number of dwellings under construction, most of the adjacent site is set at a much lower land level, and therefore the rear part of the adjacent site is screened by land levels as opposed to vegetation, particularly from the SDNP to the east. As a result of the topography of the area, the extent of the adjacent development is not as prominent in the landscape as the current proposal would be. The Landscape Consultant highlights the importance of boundary screening to soften the appearance of development when viewed from the SDNP, however the indicative layout and landscaping schemes show loss of some existing mature trees and hedgerows, and do not allow sufficient space for substantial boundary planting outside of residential curtilages, with no parts of the site indicated as being reserved for screening planting or landscape buffer areas. The reduction of developable area would result in a more cramped layout for the 41 dwellings proposed than that shown on the indicative drawing, which would have a more urban appearance than that currently shown. The proximity of buildings to the SDNP boundary is of particular concern given the indicative scale of buildings proposed, up to 10 metres in height, which would create a harder, more urban edge to the SDNP, and would not respect the smaller scale of farmhouses, cottages and other dwellings associated with the strongly rural character of the SDNP, or the low height, low density development in larger plots in nearby Health Common. The Landscape Consultant notes that the adjacent new development is set back from the boundary with the SDNP, is separated by a communally managed, structure planted buffer and is set down at a lower ground level in comparison to the proposed scheme. When viewed from the road, the new development would affect the setting of the SDNP due to loss of trees and hedgerows and the proximity of large dwellings to the SDNP boundary. In addition, there are highway works underway in connection with the adjacent development, and some additional highway works likely to be necessary to accommodate this proposal. The Landscape Consultant highlights these works as contributing to the cumulative urbanising effect of the development.

6.7 In conclusion therefore on the matter of the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, there are clear and harmful implications of the urbanisation of this site in terms of landscape character and the setting of the SDNP, the setting of a heritage asset and the reduction of the gap between the settlements of Storrington and Washington. While it is noted that the proposed layout and scale are indicative only, the indicative information submitted at the outline stage serves to provide a good indication of the developer’s intention for the layout they expect to bring forward at the reserved matters stage. Furthermore, the concerns above relate to the amount of development, which could not be satisfactorily addressed through an alternative layout. As such, the proposal would result in harm to the open and rural character of the area and to the setting of the SDNP. The proposal therefore does not fulfil the environmental role of sustainable development and is contrary to the NPPF and to Policies CP1, DC1 and DC2.

6.8 The County Highway Authority has objected to the proposal on the basis of increased risk to highway safety and likely obstruction to the free flow of traffic on the A283. Although solutions have been suggested by the Highway Authority, these have not been incorporated into the proposal by the Applicant. In the absence of clear information to demonstrate that the proposal would be acceptable in highway safety terms, Officers cannot conclude that there would be no harm to highway safety arising from the ITEM A4 - 29

construction of 41 dwellings on this site, and the proposal is contrary to Policies CP19 and DC50. The concern of the HDC Collections Supervisor are noted in respect of the width, alignment and construction of the access road for collections vehicles, however layout is a reserved matter and the number of units proposed could be accommodated while ensuring suitable access for collections vehicles.

6.9 The application site is set at a higher level than the adjacent residential dwellings under construction. However, the spacing between the buildings means that the proposal would not result in an overbearing or visually intrusive appearance when viewed from those neighbouring dwellings. The layout of the adjacent development is such that the dwellings under construction face the application site and are separated from the application site by their access road. As such, the proposal would not involve direct overlooking of any private gardens and no objection is raised in terms of the privacy of neighbouring residents.

6.10 The supporting information submitted with the application sets out that part of the reasoning behind this proposal is the need for the kennels to relocate as a result of noise complaints from occupiers of the adjacent new development, which is still under construction. The matter of the relationship between residential development and the existing kennels was considered by the Inspector determining DC/10/1457, who observed that the sound of barking dogs was only audible in the part of the site adjacent to the kennels, and considered that acoustic fencing should reduce, if not eliminate, the risk of disturbance to future occupiers by boarded dogs and vice versa. He therefore included condition 16 in his decision notice, which requires a scheme of acoustic mitigation including along the northern and western boundaries of the kennels site to be approved and installed prior to occupation of the dwellings. It is noted that acoustic barrier fencing has only been erected on part of the boundary thus far and details pursuant to condition 16 of DC/10/1457 are currently under consideration. However, the Council’s Environmental Health Officer does not consider it likely that noise from the kennels would become the source of an actionable statutory nuisance to occupiers of the new development, and confirms that there have been no noise complaints since 2012 (which was not substantiated and therefore did not progress to formal action). Furthermore, the supporting information indicates that the construction works at the adjacent site have resulted in stress being placed on the animals residing at the kennels. The additional stress during construction could therefore result a greater level of barking than post-construction. As such, to conclude that the kennels cause amenity issues to such a significant degree as to require cessation of the kennels before construction works have been completed, before the acoustic mitigation measures are fully in place and before the development is completely occupied, would be premature and the impact of removal of the kennels use on the amenity of neighbouring residents is considered to be a neutral consideration, which does not weigh either in favour or against the proposal.

6.11 Although the re-location of the kennels to another local site is referred to in the supporting information, details of the alternative site are not provided, and it is therefore not clear that existing local employees could be retained, that the location of the site would be suitable to serve the existing customer catchment area, or that the establishment of a kennels at the alternative site would be acceptable in planning terms. As such, although many third party representations have referred to support for an alternative local site, it is not certain that the proposal will achieve this outcome. As there is no mechanism by which to secure the alternative location, the proposal would result in both the loss of a local employer and the loss of a facility used by both the local and wider community. While the Core Strategy contains policies designed to protect existing employment uses, and defines employment floorpsace as offices, industrial uses, warehousing and other commercial industrial uses within Classes B1, B2 and B8, paragraph 4.62 of the Core Strategy goes on to confirm that other uses such as retailing and leisure also provide employment opportunities, even though they are not included within the definition. The NPPF, and prior to that Planning Policy Guidance 4 (Economic Development), moved away from the former view that ITEM A4 - 30

employment uses encompassed the B-classes and similar uses only, and included a much wider range of uses which generate employment when considering proposals involving economic development. The emerging Horsham District Planning Framework acknowledges this, and does not include a definition of employment use. Therefore the emerging Policies in respect of employment and economic development would apply to any use that generates employment or an economic output. The existing kennels use is a sui generis use, and is an employment generating use to which Policy CP11 applies. This Policy sets out that development which would result in the loss of existing employment sites or premises will not be permitted where their retention is justified by the need to protect the stock of premises in the area. In this case, although the site is not in a sustainable location, the kennels use is one which is often found outside of the built-up area, given the space required for kennelling and also for outdoor exercise of the animals, and could be considered to be a rural enterprise. The HDPF lists size priority themes for the Council, the first of which is Economic Development (to plan for a successful local economy with high levels of employment). One of the key spatial objectives set out in the HDPF is to “promote a living and working rural economy where employment opportunities exist which reduce the need for residents to travel, including reducing commuting distances”. It acknowledges (paragraph 5.7) that there is a shortfall of employment space to meet the future needs of the District over the plan period, and at paragraph 5.17, the ongoing need to maintain and enhance the rural economy is highlighted. In light of this need and the identified shortfall, Policy 8 of the HDPF requires redevelopment of employment sites and premises outside Key Employment Areas to demonstrate that the site/premises is no longer needed and/or viable for economic use, a similar requirement to Policy CP11. In this case, the kennels are currently functioning as a business and does not appear to be unviable. There is significant support for the kennels, as set out in letters of support, both in terms of provision of a useful facility for customers and provision of employment, indicating that the use is still needed. The Inspector’s initial findings of the examination of the HDPF (19.12.2014), sets out that the annual housing target set out in the submission document should be increased. In turn, the additional increase in new dwellings in the District will place greater importance on the need to plan for the retention and growth of employment uses over a variety of Use Classes. Therefore, in light of the change of emphasis away from considering only the B-Class uses to be the employment generating uses in National policies, and as this has been carried through to the emerging HDPF, it is considered that the loss of employment use at this site is objectionable and contrary to Policy CP11 of the Core Strategy and to chapters 1 and 3 of the NPPF.

6.12 Although the application is put forward as including the provision of 40% affordable dwellings, this must be secured by way of a Legal Agreement, as do the infrastructure contributions requested by the County Council and the contribution to open space requested by the Council’s Parks and Countryside team. The proposed development has the potential to give rise to contributions totalling £97,865, part of which could be used for these projects, should permission be forthcoming. At the time of determination of this application, there is no completed Legal Agreement to this effect in place and therefore no means by which to secure these contributions. The proposal therefore does not secure any affordable housing and does not make sufficient provision for infrastructure and open space.

6.13 The submitted Sustainability Statement makes reference to the development providing at 10% reduction in CO2 emissions, as well as numerous other sustainability measures that will be incorporated at the detailed design stage. While the sustainability of the construction of the buildings themselves could therefore be in accordance with the relevant Policy requirements, this is not considered to outweigh the harm arising from the unsustainable location of the development.

6.14 The supporting information makes reference to precedent set by other development in locations outside of the built-up area boundaries, including the adjacent development at the ITEM A4 - 31

former Cemex site, which adjoins the application site. The Inspector determining that application identified the various benefits and harm arising from that proposal. Benefits included a contribution to housing and affordable housing provision in the District, highway safety benefits from the improvement of visibility at the access of the Kennels and Hamper’s Lane and the provision of a right-turning lane into the kennels, funding for a limited period of improvements to bus services, and the provision of 12 hectares of public access land for the Sandgate Country Park. Although the Inspector identified harm arising from the impact on rural character and appearance of the area generally (and not to any particular landscape characteristic), this was considered in light of the topography of the site, which is at a lower level than surrounding land due to the former excavation works, and concluded to be moderate, decreasing to a neutral impact in the longer term as a result of tree planting. The Inspector attributed substantial weight against the proposal due to the unsustainable location and poor access to services and facilities other than by private car, and this conclusion was reached despite the Appellant’s proposed enhancements to local bus services. The Inspector balanced these factors, concluded that the benefits outweighed the harm and therefore granted planning permission.

6.15 In comparison to the adjacent Cemex development discussed in the preceding paragraph, although the current proposal would also contribute to housing provision, including affordable housing, the benefit of contributing to a long-term Policy objective in the form of securing land for the Sandgate Country Park is absent in this case, and there are no highway benefits coming forward. Although there is a request from the Council’s Parks and Countryside team for contributions to improve access and habitat within Sandgate Park, this does not hold the same weight in Policy terms as the contribution to the expansion of the park (a long-term Council objective set out in Policy AL19). In addition to the harm arising from the unsustainable location of the development, there is further harm arising in this case in respect of landscape harm and the setting of a listed building, and the impact of the proposal on the visual amenities of the area is greater than that which was present in the Cemex case, given the greater prominence of the application site and the closer proximity of buildings to the southern boundary, and harm to highway safety. The harm to the setting of the listed building has been assessed by the Conservation and Design Consultant as being substantial. In terms of heritage assets, the NPPF advises that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets, as they are irreplaceable and any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. In cases such as this, where substantial harm has been identified, the NPPF requires the Local Planning Authority to refuse the application unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm to, or loss of, a listed building is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. It is therefore considered that great weight should be afforded to the harm to the listed building in this case. The NPPF states (at paragraph 14) that the presumption in favour of sustainable development means that permission should be granted without delay unless specific Policies in the Framework indicate that development should be restricted. In this case, the Policies set out in chapter 12 of the NPPF (conserving and enhancing the historic environment) indicate that development should be restricted in cases where there is substantial harm to a heritage asset, and therefore there is no presumption in favour of granting permission in this case. In conclusion, it is considered that the harm (unsustainable location with poor access to services, substantial harm to the setting of a listed building, landscape harm and harm to the visual amenities of the area) does not outweigh the benefits (provision of housing, including affordable housing) in this case.

6.16 The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the three dimensions of economic development (i.e. the economic, social and environmental roles), and it is clear (paragraph 8 of the NPPF) that these roles should not be undertaken in isolation because they are mutually dependant and in order to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains must be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. In this case, the unsustainable location of the development means that it does not ITEM A4 - 32

fulfil the social or environmental roles, and the harm to landscape character and a heritage asset means that it does not fulfil the environmental role. As such, the proposal is not sustainable development and there is no presumption in favour of granting permission. Therefore, although substantial weight is attributed in the decision making process to the delivery of new housing, this does not outweigh the harm identified above does not above, and therefore on balance, Officers recommend the refusal of this application.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development is located in the countryside, outside of and not contiguous with the defined built-up area boundary and development of the extent proposed would result in harm to the open and rural landscape character of the area and to the setting of the South Downs National Park. Residential development of the amount proposed would not respect of reflect the pattern of rural development in and around the South Downs National Park and would result in the urbanisation of the site, to the detriment of the character of the area. Furthermore, the site is in an unsustainable location, remote from local services and centres, conflicting with the aims of sustainable development, the need to minimise travel, and the ability to reduce the reliance on the private car. The proposal therefore represents an unacceptable form of development in the countryside contrary to Policies CP1, CP3, CP5 and CP19 of the Horsham District LDF Core Strategy and Policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies and Criteria 1, 3, 6, 11, 14 and 17 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD.

2. The development of the site would harm the historic setting of Old Clayton and the experience of the heritage asset which is currently within a predominantly isolated and rural landscape. The proposed amount of residential development would dominate the current semi-rural setting of the building and diminish its value as a farmstead of historic interest. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC13 of the Horsham LDF: General Development Control Policies.

3. The proposed development would result in the loss of an economic development use which generates employment. This would therefore result in the loss of local employment opportunities, reducing the ability of the District to meet existing employment needs, and anticipated employment needs in light of residential growth in the District, increasing reliance on out-commuting to other sites. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CP11 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and to the NPPF, in particular chapters 1 and 3.

4. The proposed development would result in increased risk to highway safety and likely obstruction to the free-flow of through traffic on the A283. As such, the proposal does not provide a safe means of access and does not maintain and improve the existing transport system. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP19 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and DC50 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

5. Policy CP12 requires provision of 40% affordable units on developments involving 15 units or more. Policy CP13 requires new development to meet additional infrastructure requirements arising from the new development. Both the provision of affordable housing and contributions to infrastructure improvements/provision must be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. No completed Agreement is in place and therefore there is no means by which to secure these Policy requirements. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CP12 and CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy ITEM A4 - 33

(2007), to the Horsham District Local Development Framework Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, and to the NPPF, in particular paragraph 50.

Note to the Applicant: The reason for refusal (above) in respect of affordable housing provision and infrastructure contributions could be addressed by the completion of a Legal Agreement. If the Applicant is minded to appeal the refusal of this application, you are advised to liaise with the Local Planning Authority prior to the submission of an appeal with a view to finalising an acceptable Agreement.

DC/15/1737

Old Clayton Boarding Kennels

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

Scale: 1:3,853

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

Date 04/09/2015 MSA Number 100023865 ITEM A5 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (South) BY: Development Manager DATE: 15th September 2015

Outline planning application for up to 19 dwellings with access from DEVELOPMENT: Smock Alley, landscaping, parking, public open space and a new public footpath link.

SITE: Land West of Smock Alley Haglands Lane West Chiltington West Sussex WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/15/1389 APPLICANT: Mr M Stephens

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE 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 outline planning permission for the erection of up to 19 No. dwellings with associated access, landscaping, parking, open space and a footpath link. The application seeks approval for the principle of development in this location along with the means of access only, with all other matters (namely appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) reserved for subsequent detailed consideration within a reserved matters application.

1.2 The proposed development would be accessed from Smock Alley with a new vehicular access point proposed towards the northern edge of the site, in a position opposite The Oaks, Smock Alley. The access is proposed as a T-junction and would replace the existing field gate is this location. Layout is not a matter for consideration at this stage, however, an indicative site layout plan has been provided which shows the access road leading into the site and forming a loop towards the centre. A separate spur is indicated to extend from the access road southwards parallel to Smock Alley.

1.3 As the scale of development is a reserved matter no definitive housing mix is provided, however, the application does indicate that the development would provide a mix of 1 bed, 2 bed, 3 bed and 4 bed dwellings. The application proposes 8 No. of the 19 No. dwellings

Contact Officer: Helen Lowe Tel: 01403 215346 ITEM A5 - 2

as affordable, of which 4 No. would be 1 bed houses, 2 No. would be 2 bed houses and 2 No. would be 3 bed houses.

1.4 The indicative plans submitted show how the 19 No. proposed dwellings could be accommodated within the site along with associated car parking provision, a balancing pond towards the eastern side, an area of open space towards the centre and an ecological area to the south western corner. The plans also indicate the provision of a footpath link to the north western corner of the site to connect through the woodland to the existing public right of way (Footpath 2468) which runs in a roughly north-south direction.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5 The application site lies to the north east of West Chiltington Common and is situated adjacent to the built-up area boundary of West Chiltington to the south and east. West Chiltington is identified as a Category 2 Settlement in the Horsham District Local Development Framework, and is categorised as a Medium Village in the settlement hierarchy of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF).

1.6 The site extends to an area of approximately 1.3 hectares and is currently formed by an open field of rough grassland. There is an expanse of woodland, known as Haglands Copse, to the west of the site. This area is covered by a Tree Preservation Order. The site is enclosed by means of a mature hedgerow along the majority of the northern boundary, by a line of mature trees with understorey growth to the site frontage (east), by a mix of a hedgerow and undergrowth to the southern boundary and by the woodland to the west.

1.7 The ground level of the site slopes up fairly significantly, by around 10m across the site, from the level of Smock Alley towards the woodland at the western boundary. This level change reflects that of the adjacent road, The Hawthorns, however, the residential property to the immediate south of the site, Lavender Cottage, sits at a lower level.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF)

- Section 4: Promoting sustainable transport - Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes - Section 7: Requiring good design - Section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change - Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment - Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

2.3 Planning Practice Guidance (2014) (PPG) Technical Guidance to the NPPF (2012)

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) policies:

- CP1: Landscape and Townscape Character - CP2: Environmental Quality ITEM A5 - 3

- CP3: Improving the Quality of New Development - CP4: Housing Provision - CP12: Meeting Housing Needs - CP13: Infrastructure Requirements - CP15: Rural Strategy - CP19: Managing Travel Demand and Widening Choice of Transport

2.5 Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) policies:

- DC1: Countryside Protection and Enhancement - DC2: Landscape Character - DC3: Settlement Coalescence - DC5: Biodiversity and Geology - DC6: Woodland and Trees - DC7: Flooding - DC9: Development Principles - DC13: Listed Buildings - DC18: Smaller Homes/Housing Mix - DC22: New Open Space, Sports and Recreation - DC40: Transport and Access

2.6 Local Development Framework: Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD):

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

2.7 Horsham District Planning Framework:

The Proposed Submission version of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was approved by Council in April 2014 as the Council’s policy for planning the future of the District for the period 2011-2031, and was submitted to the Government in August 2014. The Examination of the HDPF was undertaken by an independent Planning Inspector in November 2014, and the Inspector published his Initial Findings in December 2014. The Inspector considers the overall strategy of the plan to be sound as is made clear in paragraph 4 of his Initial Findings:

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

The Inspector suspended the Examination of the HDPF to allow time for the Council to show how the District’s overall housing provision can be increased to provide for a minimum of 750 dwellings per annum (15,000 over the plan period). Main Modifications were then prepared and consulted upon. An additional Examination Hearing took place on 3rd July 2015 to consider only the issues outlined in the Initial Findings. The Inspector published a Note to the Council on 21st July 2015 stating that the housing requirement for the plan period should be raised to 800 dwellings per annum (16,000 dwellings over the plan period). The Inspector also indicates that an early review (to begin within 3 years of adoption) of the Plan to provide for these additional dwellings will be required, and that a modification to Policy 36 (Strategic Policy: Appropriate Energy Use) to account for the ITEM A5 - 4

recent written ministerial statement concerning wind energy development will be necessary. Given the Inspector’s Initial Findings and recent Note, the emerging plan is therefore considered to be a material consideration of considerable weight in terms of the overall strategy.

It should be noted that the whilst the required number of dwellings in the HDPF has been increased from 750pa to 800pa, the most recent trajectory for the plan period (2011-2031) clearly demonstrates that the HDPF will provide a sufficient housing land supply from existing allocations and commitments to meet this requirement until at least 2021. The early review mechanism will enable the Council to ensure sufficient land supply is secured to meet the needs after this period.

- Policy 1: Strategic Policy: Sustainable Development - Policy 3: Strategic Policy: Development Hierarchy - Policy 4: Strategic Policy: Settlement Expansion - Policy 15: Strategic Policy: Housing Provision - Policy 16: Strategic Policy: Meeting Local Housing Needs - Policy 24: Strategic Policy: Environmental Protection - Policy 25: Strategic Policy: The Natural Environment and Landscape Character - Policy 26: Strategic Policy: Countryside Protection - Policy 27: Strategic Policy: Settlement Coalescence - Policy 31: Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity - Policy 32: Strategic Policy: The Quality of New Development - Policy 33: Development Principles - Policy 34: Cultural and Heritage Assets - Policy 38: Strategic Policy: Flooding - Policy 39: Strategic Policy: Infrastructure Provision - Policy 40: Transport

RELEVANT NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICY

2.8 The West Chiltington Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2015 is currently at pre-submission stage and is currently out to consultation.

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/14/2248 Outline planning application for the development of 21 REFUSED dwellings (13 market and 8 affordable) with access from (Currently at Smock Alley, vehicle parking, public open space (including Appeal) balancing pond and 1.5 hectares of woodland), wildlife corridors, landscaping and upgrading of public footpath to village centre

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

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

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

Arboricultural Officer: No objection Refers to comments provided in relation to previous application DC/14/2248: • This development will not result in the loss of any trees of merit or value in the local landscape; ITEM A5 - 5

• The treeline along Smock Alley is retained, and although an access will need to be created between trees T58 and T59 there is ample space to allow this, and moreover suitable ground protective measures have been put forward as set out on the submitted Tree Protection Plan (drawing number: CAS19140-03). This drawing should be subject to condition to ensure compliance; • The rear gardens of the plots at the western end of the site face the adjacent woodland, an area protected under Tree Preservation Order number 1051, confirmed on the 11th September 2000. If the houses are set in overly close proximity to this wooded boundary, pressure will arise for lopping, felling, etc, as evening sunshine from the west is compromised. However, the plots have been sited, in my view, at a good and fair distance from the tree line, even the smallest garden exhibiting a depth of in excess of 16m. This appears satisfactory, as post development pressure on the trees to the west has been minimised. Although there is a measure of lateral overhang across the rear gardens to these plots, the degree of overbearance is reasonable, and compliant with BS 5837 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations' [2012].

Archaeology (summarised): No objection subject to condition • Whilst there are no identified archaeological remains within the site, there are a number of records relating to Prehistoric and Romano-British activity to the south of the site. These records include a number of findspots for artefacts, but most significantly there is a record in the Sussex Archaeological Collections for 1857 of two barrows on West Chiltington Common “adjoining Nutbourne”. The location of these barrows has been identified as on, or close to, Crossway, a little way south- west of the proposed development; • In light of this information, it is considered that the site has some potential for archaeological remains to be present. There is currently insufficient information to determine any likely impacts on archaeological remains and further works are warranted; • There are a number of grade II listed buildings relatively near to the site. The potential effects of construction and landscaping on the setting of these have not been assessed. The historic buildings advisor is best placed to assess any potential impacts; • It is recommended that a condition requiring an agreed programme of archaeological works to assess the archaeological potential of the site be added to any approval.

Ecology (summarised): No objection subject to conditions • Updated ecology surveys need to be completed to inform and support any reserved matters application, this should include an updated badger survey; • All existing hedgerow and scrub should be retained. In the event that any scrub or tree removal is required, a dormice presence/likely absence survey would be required to inform any reserved matters application and to meet licensing requirements; • If the link path through the woodland is to be created, this must be guided by detailed ecological surveys (including a botanical survey if appropriate) to inform any reserved matters application; • Any reserved matters application should also be supported by: a Construction Environmental Management Plan; a reptile mitigation method statement with reptile population survey; a lighting plan showing measures to avoid illumination of boundary habitats and areas of open space; details of ecological enhancements, including the planting of fruit trees and off-site mitigation that may result from the updated surveys; a long-term management plan.

Environmental Health (summarised): No comment

ITEM A5 - 6

Environmental Services (summarised): No comments received

Landscape Architect (summarised): Objection • The development is currently a pastoral field on the north east edge of West Chiltington Common outside but adjacent to the settlement boundary; • The site slopes downward from west to east with a 10.5m level change; • Smock Alley has a generally rural countryside character with ribbon development to the east; • The proposal would utilise and widen an existing farm gate, located in the north east corner of the development site; • The off-site woodland to the west of the development site is identified as being visually significant and contains the settlement of West Chiltington Common from the open countryside to the north and north east. The importance of the woodland to the amenity of the area is recognised by its protection by Tree Preservation Order No. 1051 (confirmed on 11th September 2000). It is considered the development would breach this containment in this elevated location and this distinctive characteristic of the settlement would be lost, this being the ‘extensive woodland and/or heath at the settlement edge forms an essential part of the setting’ as identified in the HDC character assessment; • Although an outline application, with only the detail of the access for approval, concerns are raised regarding the illustrative layout compounded by the sloping nature of the site, as to whether a scheme with 19 No. dwellings is feasible without having an adverse impact on the rural countryside character; • The mass, scale and layout of the proposed dwellings around a cul-de-sac road is considered to have a urban character and not respond sympathetically to the traditional street patterns of West Chiltington Common; • Taking account of these issues, it is recommended that this application be refused on landscape, visual and design grounds. It is considered to be contrary to certain core planning principles and design policies, including paragraph 64 as set out in the NPPF, to policy CP1 of the Core Strategy and policies DC1, DC2 and DC9 of the General Development Control Policies.

Parks & Countryside Services (summarised): No comments received

Strategic Housing Manager (summarised): Support • The current proposal is for 19 No. units. 40% of this would be 7.6 No. units and the applicant would deliver 8 No. units, this is welcomed; • The proposed housing would be a mix of 1 bed, 2 bed and 3 bed units with a policy compliant tenure split; • The amount of affordable housing, mix and tenure split are supported; Refers to comments in relation to previous application (DC/14/2248): • The 2014 Housing Needs Survey carried out by Action in Rural Sussex identified 32 No. households in housing need who have a local connection; • The breakdown of types of households in need is: 53.1% single adults; 3.1% single elderly person; 15.6% adult couple; 6.3% older couples; 21.9% families with children; • The affordable housing need for West Chiltington appears to have increased since the last survey in 2009 which identified 28 No. households in need; • The latest survey shows a strong demand for smaller units for rent.

Strategic Planning (summarised): Objection • Given the HDPF Inspector’s Initial Findings and Note, the emerging Plan is considered to be a material consideration of considerable weight in terms of the overall strategy; • The site is not identified in the West Chiltington Parish Neighbourhood ITEM A5 - 7

Development Plan, which is currently out to public consultation; • At present, through the adopted development plan documents, the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, however, when adopted, the HDPF will be able to demonstrate a full 5 year supply to meet the identified need. Given the advanced stage in its production the HDPF can be afforded considerable weight; • The site is not allocated for development in the emerging HDPF, or within the emerging West Chiltington Neighbourhood Development Plan and is therefore in conflict with the emerging Development Plan; • It is considered that the proposed development of up to 19 No. dwellings in a countryside location is inconsistent with Policy CP5 of the adopted Core Strategy and with the overarching strategy set out in the emerging HDPF and should be refused.

Technical Services (Drainage) (summarised): No objection subject to condition • The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) describes how flood risk to the proposed development site would be managed, including taking account of climate change; • No overall objections to the drainage strategy proposed, however drainage conditions should be applied to ensure the submission of detailed design information at the appropriate stage.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

Environment Agency: No comments received

Natural England (summarised): • The details of the application, as submitted, will not damage or destroy the interest features for which Hurston Warren has been notified. Therefore, the authority is advised that this SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application; • Natural England does not wish to comment in relation to protected landscapes and have not assessed this application for impacts on protected species; • The application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance biodiversity if permission is granted.

Southern Water (summarised): No objection subject to conditions and informatives • There is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewerage disposal to service the development. Additional off-site sewers or improvements to existing sewers/mains will be required to provide sufficient capacity. These can be addressed through Section 98 of the Water Industry Act 1991; • Southern Water can provide a water supply to the site and a formal application for a connection would need to be made by the developer; • Suitable arrangements for the implementation and future ongoing maintenance of any SuDS proposed will need to be considered; • Should any sewer be found during construction works, an investigation of the sewer would be required to ascertain its condition, the number of properties served and potential means of access before any further works could commence on site.

WSCC Drainage: No objection subject to condition • The proposed surface water drainage approach meets the requirements of the NPPF, PPG and associated guidance documents, however, as no detailed design plans have been submitted these should be secured by condition. ITEM A5 - 8

WSCC Highways (summarised): No objection subject to conditions • The current application is essentially a revised re-submission of the earlier scheme (DC/14/2248) reducing the number of dwellings from 21 No. to 19 No.; • The West Chiltington Submission Local Plan has since been released which sets out a vision and framework for the future development of the area setting out needs and opportunities in relation to infrastructure; • The application is supported by a revised Transport Statement, Speed Survey and Stage One Road Safety Audit; • A new vehicular access onto Smock Alley is proposed and is shown as having a kerb radii of 6m and the access road being a width of 5m. Visibility splays of 2.4m by 64m to the north and 65m to the south are shown and are based on the 85th percentile wet weather vehicle speeds. The visibility splays are based on Manual for Streets 2 guidance and this is considered appropriate. The access arrangement has also been subject to an independent safety audit, which raised no concerns; • There would be a requirement for the applicant to enter into a Section 278 agreement to cover any works within the existing highway and a Section 59 agreement to cover any damage to the highway as a result of the development; • The Transport Statement estimates potential vehicle trip generation and suggests that there will be 10 No. two way movements in the morning and evening peak hours. It is not considered that the proposal would result in any highway capacity concerns that could be considered severe under paragraph 32 of the NPPF; • A comprehensive Construction Management Plan would be needed be ensure the safety of users of the public highway during both construction and operation and control deliveries; • The internal layout and parking are only indicative at this stage, however, the formation of a 5m wide shared surface is considered appropriate given the low speed and lightly trafficked nature; • The Local Highway Authority acknowledge that there are a limited range of services and facilities within West Chiltington, but that only the village store could realistically be used to meet some day-to-day needs. Opportunities to travel by passenger transport are limited, with the walking distance to the nearest bus stop being 950m away, which exceeds the recommended 400m distance; • There is limited dedicated infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists in the local area, which is reflective of the rural nature of the location. There is no evidence to suggest that the existing arrangements are inadequate or result in safety issues; • Conditions are recommended along with contributions to be secured through a legal agreement.

WSCC Public Rights of Way (summarised): No objection Refers to comments provided in relation to previous application DC/14/2248: • To the west of the site lies an area of woodland with West Chiltington FP2468 running along the far western boundary; • WSCC would welcome the opportunity to discuss the proposals to landscape and upgrade the public footpath further. This section of FP2468 is, in places, quite narrow and the surface would benefit from improvements. Additional width and resurfacing is requested in consultation with WSCC; • The fencing is also in a poor condition in places and improvements should be considered; • Further improvements to the path beyond the applicant’s ownership would also be requested; • The provision of a path linking to the public footpath from the development is welcomed to enable residents access to the wider rights of way network.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS ITEM A5 - 9

West Chiltington Parish Council (summarised): No objection, but subject to securing a full social housing allocation and a legal agreement to include contributions to youth facilities (including scouts), pre-school, before and after school and other youth activities and a reduction in the number of properties to a maximum of 15.

Officer Comment: Emphasis above added as the application seeks permission for up to 19 No. dwellings and needs to be determined on that basis.

A total of 140 No. letters of representation have been received in relation to the proposed development, including comments from CPRE Sussex Countryside Trust, the Badger Trust, a local badger group, the British Horse Society and a report by transport consultants Russell Giles Partnership on behalf of an objector. These letters object to the proposed development and raise the following summarised concerns:

• Would lead to further increase in traffic on country roads that are not suitable; • Lanes are too narrow and are hazardous to cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians; • Roundabout Lane which takes all the traffic to and from Storrington cannot cope with current traffic levels; • There is no legal agreement for infrastructure improvements; • The Roundabout Lane / Common Hill junction is dangerous; • Single carriageway roads are not suitable for an increase in traffic; • Roads shouldn’t be widened, including to allow footpaths, as this would be out of character with the rural area; • High traffic volumes already exist, and the local areas would not be able to cope with an increase in volumes; • The increased level of traffic on the roads will cause greater road traffic noise; • There are existing capacity problems on the village roads and they will be gridlocked at peak hours; • There are no plans to improve the narrow lanes in the immediate vicinity of the site; • There are no streetlights along the nearby roads or footpaths, which is dangerous; • Air pollution would result from the increase in vehicles; • The parking of site vehicles will not be possible without causing safety issues; • The road infrastructure is inadequate for access for the implementation or upgrading of Utility supplies i.e. water, gas, electricity, telephone and sewage; • There is a lack of highway verges to retreat onto away from traffic; • The surrounding roads have poor carriageway surfacing; • There is no dedicated cycling infrastructure in the locality; • The nature of the surrounding road are such that they cause poor forward visibility; • The submitted Transport Statement does not take into account the site’s unique character and limited potential for sustainable travel; • The stopping distance values and visibility splays were calculated incorrectly in the submitted Transport Statement; • Increased visibility splays would necessitate the removal of a considerable number of trees, this is not shown in the Transport Statement; • There are no suitable footpaths along Smock Alley or surrounding road, and residents are forced to walk along the roads which are dangerous; • A footpath through the TPO woodland should not be allowed; • The suggested footway improvement scheme to link to the village centre would be undeliverable due to the narrow extent of public highway; • There is limited public transport in the area; • There is an over-reliance on private cars due to the lack of public transport options; • The nearest bus stop to the proposed site is over the recommended walking distance; ITEM A5 - 10

• There are no nearby bus services to key employment centres; • The proposal would be an over-development on an inappropriate scale; • Approval of the development would set a precedent for further development on adjacent land; • There is no requirement or need for more properties in the local area; • The development would result in overshadowing of, and an overbearing impact upon, neighbouring houses; • There would be a loss of privacy for neighbouring occupiers; • There would be an adverse visual impact on the landscape and wider rural character of the area; • The proposed density is far too high in relation to the existing housing in the village; • The density and size of plot would be out of keeping with the rest of the village; • The proposed density is three times that of other properties in the village; • The design of the development is out of character with the surrounding area and local styles and dwelling sizes; • The site is an unsustainable location for new housing; • New development should be use brownfield sites; • Smock Alley has already had a lot of development over the past few years; • The noise levels from 19 No. properties and associated activities would be unacceptable in this rural location and cause disturbance to residents; • There would be significant harm to the rural landscape; • There would be an overbearing and dominating visual impact on the landscape; • The elevated housing to the western part of the site would be highly visible and out of keeping; • The application does not recognise or take into account the intrinsic beauty of the locality’s countryside; • Significant landscape harm would occur from the proposed development; • Development in this location would lead to settlement coalescence between West Chiltington Common and West Chiltington Village; • The proposed site layout is poor; • Residential developments surrounding the proposed site are all detached properties; • The design and construction proposed is not compatible with existing properties in the locality; • The development will be very visible and dominant in the landscape having a substantial negative impact on this part of the village, including at night, given the light pollution that would arise from this number of dwellings; • The application documents show misleading site topography; • There appears to be a loss of woodland area for public space; • The site is greenfield agricultural land outside the Built-Up Area; • The development of the site would cause erosion of the countryside; • The removal of green space would increase the risk of flooding for all existing properties in the area; • The site is in an area of high flood risk; • Drainage issues already exist along neighbouring roads; • Ditches are often blocked in the surrounding area; • Threals Lane, Smock Alley and Haglands junction are prone to flooding; • Southern Water states an increased risk of flooding would occur from unmaintained SuDS; • The surface water run-off from this steep field is already considerable and the drainage ditch regularly overflows into the road; • Existing wildlife living in the area would suffer due to a loss of habitat; • Environmental and ecological damage would occur from the proposed ITEM A5 - 11

development; • Damage would occur to badger sett environments; • Animals would not necessarily use routes specifically designed for their use after years of having access to the area and the proposed corridors are inappropriate; • The new development would isolate woodland patches; • Water shortages exist in the local area; • The development would cause a loss of vital habitat for endangered and local species including badges, bats, owls, dormice, birds, bees, butterflies, moths and reptiles; • The proposal would destroy much needed agricultural land; • There are recorded badger runs and activity across the site and the development would clearly displace these badgers from their habitat; • Badgers at the site will become isolated and will lose key foraging habitat causing them to more into private gardens; • The proposed planting would not add suitable food sources to the area; • The development would be detrimental to the flora and fauna of the area; • Badger proof fencing would be necessary if an active sett is to be closed by Natural England, which would not be considered until after permission is given; • Displaced badgers can cause conflict with other established groups already existing in the local area; • The ecological mitigation measures proposed are wholly unsuitable; • It is not clear what a ‘no dig zone’ is in the Ecological Appraisal; • There are inconsistencies within the submitted Ecological Appraisal; • Evidence of dormice has now been found on the site; • Extra housing would put a further strain on local services; • The village school is full and cannot accommodate more pupils; • There are few employment opportunities available in the village for the new population; • There are limited shopping / parking facilities for the new residents; • Lack of school bus funding for new students who would need to travel to school outside the village; • Existing sewers back up due to poor wastewater infrastructure in the area; • There are no youth facilities for new residents; • The bin carry distances exceed the maximum 55m for some dwellings on the site; • The application is contrary to the West Chiltington Neighbourhood Plan; • Sites for development have already been identified in the draft Neighbourhood Plan; • The application is contrary to the HDPF emerging policies 2 and 3; • The application proposal is contrary to paragraphs 7 and 17 of the NPPF; • The proposal does not include 40% affordable housing; • The developers have not carried out statutory pre-application consultation with the residents, which is a breach of the planning consultative process; • The development is contrary to the Localism Act 2011 • There is no identified need for market housing in the locality; • The affordable housing need is already met at other sites in the village; • There are inaccuracies in the housing needs survey for the area; • Local affordable housing provision is made in development being approved in Thakeham; • The development would be contrary to Core Strategy; • West Chiltington Common is not a main settlement in the District’s hierarchy of settlements; • The submitted landscape and visual impact assessments are flawed; • The proposal appears to be speculative rather than one driven by local people and ITEM A5 - 12

local needs; • The development proposal is contrary to the Inspectors Initial Findings in respect of the HDPF; • Information submitted with the application is misleading as the site is not vacant and there are protected and priority species affected by this proposal; • Safety and security is not addressed within the application, and the development will create a risk of crime and anti-social behaviour; • The submitted plans are inaccurate and misleading.

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 development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. BACKGROUND

6.1 The current application follows the previous refusal of DC/14/2248, which sought outline planning permission (with means of access and layout considered), for 21 No. dwellings. This previous application was considered by the Committee at the March 2015 meeting and subsequently refused for the following reasons:

1. The site by reason of its location, limited accessibility to sustainable modes of transport, distance to local services and reliance on the private car is considered to be unsustainable and does not therefore accord with the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out within Paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. The proposal is therefore contrary to the adopted Core Strategy 2007 and the emerging strategy within the Horsham District Planning Framework which is to concentrate growth within the main settlements. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy (2007), Policies 2 and 3 of the Horsham District Planning Framework and paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

2. The site is currently an agricultural field forming a steep slope and is bounded to the west by an area of woodland subject to a TPO Order. Given the site characteristics the development is considered to isolate the woodland area to the west and result in a prominent form of development which would result in significant landscape harm. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy (2007) and paragraph 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

3. Policy CP12 requires provision of 40% affordable units on developments involving 15 or more. Policy CP13 requires new development to meet additional infrastructure requirements arising from the new development. Both the provision of affordable housing and contributions to infrastructure improvements/provision must be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. No completed Agreement is in place and therefore there is no means by which to secure these Policy requirements. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy CP12 and CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, and the NPPF in particular paragraph 50.

ITEM A5 - 13

6.2 Since the determination of the application the emerging HDPF has been subject to further consideration by the appointed Inspector following the re-convening of the Examination in Public in July 2015. The Council has now received a further Note from the Inspector, pending his final report, regarding the District’s housing allocations and it is now considered that the previous application is also contrary to the policy requirements of both the Core Strategy and the emerging HDPF. As this decision has now been appealed by the applicant to the Planning Inspectorate the Council has considered it appropriate to add a further reason for refusal to address this. Therefore, the additional reason below has been added and will be defended at the forthcoming appeal hearing:

4. The proposal would result in development inconsistent with the overarching strategy for development set out in the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework and would be best placed to be considered through the neighbourhood plan process. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy (2007), Policies 2 and 3 of the Horsham District Planning Framework and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

6.3 The current application submitted also seeks to establish the principle of residential development at this site, although only the means of access is for detailed consideration at this stage. The current proposal seeks outline permission for up to 19 No. dwellings (a reduction in 2 No.) and this report considers whether this revised scheme addresses the previous reasons for refusal and whether there have been any material changes to planning policy or circumstances that would warrant a different decision being made in this case.

7. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

7.1 The key issues for consideration in the determination of this application are:

• The principle of the development • Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area • Impact upon the amenities of nearby and future residents • Affordable housing provision • Highway impacts • Ecology, drainage, contamination and archaeology • Legal obligations

Principle of development

7.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that this should run through both plan-making and decision-taking (paragraph 14). Paragraph 7 of the NPPF establishes that there are three dimensions to the achievement of sustainable development, these being economic, social and environmental. In terms of the determination of planning applications this presumption should mean the approval of sustainable developments that accord with the development plan without delay, and that where the development plan is silent or relevant policies are out of date, that permission be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or policies of the NPPF indicate otherwise. It should be noted that the presumption in favour of development set out in paragraph 14 only applies to proposals that are considered to be sustainable, i.e. paragraph 7 first needs to be satisfied in order for the presumption to be applicable.

7.3 The NPPF further requires, at paragraph 47, that Local Planning Authorities should identify, and update annually, a supply of deliverable sites sufficient to meet their housing ITEM A5 - 14

requirements for a 5 year period with an additional buffer of 5%. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that ‘housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development’ and that ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.’

7.4 Whilst Horsham District does not currently have an adopted plan showing a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land, the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) will address this issue. The HDPF Inspector has advised, in his Initial Findings, that the Council’s strategy of concentrating development in the main settlements of the District (Horsham, Southwater and Billingshurst) is sound and is preferable to, and more sustainable than, a greater dispersal of development throughout the District. Furthermore, in his Note to the Council in July 2015, the Inspector indicates that the additional housing numbers required over the plan period (800 per year rather than the 750 per year set out in the HDPF) should be provided through an early review of the Plan. Given that the most recent trajectory for housing delivery will provide sufficient housing land from allocations and commitments to meet the increased (800 rather than 750) housing land supply requirements until at least 2021, this will demonstrate a full 5 year supply of housing land. Therefore, whilst not yet adopted, the emerging HDPF will be able to demonstrate housing land to provide the required 800 dwellings per annum for a 5 year period and this can be afforded considerable weight following the Initial Findings and Note from the Inspector.

7.5 In light of the increasing weight to be applied to the emerging HDPF it is not considered that the Council’s housing supply policies should be viewed as out-of-date, but rather, where they accord with the requirements of achieving sustainable development, as required by the NPPF, they should be apportioned appropriate weight. Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy states that priority will be given to locating new development within the defined built-up areas of Horsham town in the first instance and then other settlements of the District in accordance with the settlement hierarchy set out within this policy. West Chiltington Common and Village have defined built-up areas and are categorised as Category 2 Settlements within this policy. Category 2 Settlements are those with a more limited level of services which should accommodate only small-scale development or minor extensions that address specific local needs.

7.6 Policy 2 of the emerging HDPF sets out the overarching development strategy for the District over the forthcoming Plan period, and has been found to be sound by the Inspector in his Initial Findings. HDPF Policy 2 seeks to focus development in and around Horsham, as the key settlement, and also to bring forward strategic development sites at North of Horsham, West of Southwater and South of Billingshurst. This policy also states, at points e) and f) respectively, that developments should be of an appropriate scale to retain existing settlement patterns, and prevent the merging of settlements to protect rural character.

7.7 Policy 3 of the HDPF then sets out the updated settlement hierarchy for the District and categorises West Chiltington (both Common and Village) as ‘Medium Villages’. Policy 3 states that any infilling and redevelopment within defined settlements will be required to demonstrate that they are of an appropriate nature and scale to maintain the characteristics and function of the settlement in accordance with the hierarchy. HDPF Policy 4 then goes on to set out the circumstances in which the expansion of settlements will be supported. This policy states ‘the expansion of settlements will be supported where;

a) The site is allocated in the Local Plan or in a Neighbourhood Plan and adjoins an existing settlement edge.’

7.8 Whilst the application site lies adjacent to the built-up area boundary of West Chiltington Common it does not lie within the defined settlement envelope. The proposed development ITEM A5 - 15

would be viewed as an extension to the settlement and as the site is not shown to be allocated within the emerging HDPF, or within the draft West Chiltington Parish Neighbourhood Plan, it cannot be considered to comply with the requirements of Policy 4 of the HDPF.

7.9 In addition, as discussed above, the Inspector has found the overarching strategy of the HDPF (to concentrate development to the larger, more sustainable, settlements of the District) to be sound and indicated in his Note that the increased housing requirement of 800 dwellings per year can be accommodated throughout the plan period through an early review of the Plan. The most recent trajectory shows that at least 800 dwellings can be delivered per year until 2021 and the early review (to commence within the first three years) will ensure sufficient delivery later in the plan period. Given this position and the considerable weight of the HDPF, the proposed development is not considered to accord with the requirements of policy CP5 of the Core Strategy or the overarching strategy, and specifically policies 2, 3 or 4, of the emerging HDPF.

7.10 The previous application was refused on the grounds that the location of the site would lead to an unsustainable form of development, given the proximity of local facilities and services and limited access to modes of sustainable transport. This current application seeks development on the same site and therefore suffers from the same issues in terms of accessibility of facilities and services as the previous scheme. As mentioned above, paragraph 7 of the NPPF sets out the three strands of sustainability as being economic, social and environmental.

7.11 The proposed development would result in additional housing within the area leading to a small increase in overall population numbers, which could, in turn, provide additional support and usage of local services and facilities to supplement the local economy. The social benefits of the proposed development would arise from the provision of 8 No. affordable homes which would assist in providing accommodation for those in housing need within the District who are unable to compete on the open market. However, this benefit and the overall sustainability of the site is diminished, as a result of its location, by the limited level of local services and facilities that would be available to these residents, who are more likely to have below average levels of car ownership than occupiers of market dwellings.

7.12 The location of the site is such that it lies approximately 1km from the village centre and the facilities that are available there. Whilst this distance is not inherently unrealistic by foot or cycle, the form of the routes is such that these options may not be appealing to many residents. The routes have restricted visibility and are, for their majority, without a pavement. In addition, Haglands Lane is a single width lane with hedgerows along much of its length that would limit opportunities for pedestrian or cycle refuge. It is considered therefore that these routes would be unlikely to encourage residents to access local facilities and services by foot or cycle and that residents are more likely to rely upon trips by private motor vehicle.

7.13 It is acknowledged that the application indicates the provision of a footpath connection through the area of woodland to the immediate west of the site to link up with the existing footpath which runs in a north-south direction, and which could provide a link to the village centre. However, this existing footpath is unmade and in parts is somewhat overgrown and steep and unlit. Whilst it is accepted that this footpath, and the proposed link, may provide some recreational opportunities for any future residents, it is not considered that this would equate to a realistic alternative route for trips to access the village services. Furthermore, bus stops are located at varying distances from the site (which are greater than the recommended distances as derived from The Institution of Highways & Transportation publication ‘Providing for Journeys on Foot’) and provide only limited services in terms of destinations and frequency. ITEM A5 - 16

7.14 The facilities available to residents in the local area; the accessibility of these facilities and; the limited opportunities for trips by modes of sustainable transport all limit the sustainability of the site. This less than ideal level of sustainability was discussed within the Officer’s report to Committee in relation to the previous application on this site. It is acknowledged that that previous report did not recommend refusal of that proposal on the grounds on unsustainability, however, the policy context in which that application was considered differs from the current position and the weight that can be attributed to the Council’s housing land supply policies. At that time the connectivity and accessibility of the site was weighed in the planning balance of the proposal against the 5 year housing land supply issue.

7.15 West Chiltington Common is currently defined as a Category 2 settlement in the Core Strategy and is considered a ‘Medium Village’ in the emerging HDPF. Furthermore, the HDPF Inspector has found that the strategy of concentrating development to the larger settlements in the District be more sustainable than dispersing development to lower order settlements in the hierarchy, such as West Chiltington. For these reasons, and given the weight now afforded to the emerging HDPF, it is not considered that the application site represents a sustainable location for residential development and as such the proposal does not amount to sustainable development (as set out within the NPPF) and subsequently cannot benefit from the presumption in favour of such development established in paragraph 14 of the NPPF.

7.16 In summary, the proposal seeks to provide 19 No. dwellings in a greenfield location outside the built-up area boundary of West Chiltington on a site that is not allocated for development in the emerging HDPF, or in the draft West Chiltington Parish Neighbourhood Plan. The strategy for development set out in the emerging HDPF (Policies 2, 3 and 4) has been found to be sound and the Inspector has indicated that the allocations and commitments within the HDPF will provide a sufficient housing land supply for the District of a five year period (until 2021). As the emerging HDPF, and in particular these elements, can now be afforded considerable weight, it is not considered that the housing supply policies of the Development Plan should be viewed as out-of-date. In addition, it is not considered that the proposal would constitute sustainable development and this reason for refusal of the previous application has not therefore been overcome. Consequently, the application is contrary to the NPPF, policy CP5 of the Core Strategy and Policies 2, 3 and 4 of the emerging HDPF.

Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area

7.17 It is acknowledged that the Officer’s report considering the previous application on this site did not recommend that that proposal be refused on the grounds of landscape impact. However, that report did identify that concerns did remain in respect of landscape impacts arising from the then proposed 21 No. dwellings, but that those concerns needed to be weighed against the potential benefits of the development and whether those would outweigh the harm identified. At that time, the Officer report attributed greater weight to housing land supply than to the harm to landscape impact. Notwithstanding this, the previous application was refused on the grounds that the site characteristics are such that the development would isolate the woodland area to the west and result in a prominent form of development causing significant landscape harm. This previous application was considered to be contrary to policy CP1 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF.

7.18 The application site is formed by an existing open field situated to the north eastern edge of West Chiltington Common. Whilst the built-up area of West Chiltington Common lies to the immediate south of the site and to the eastern side of Smock Alley opposite the site, to the north lie further open fields and to the west, an expanse of woodland. Within the Horsham District Landscape Character Assessment 2003 the application site falls within Character ITEM A5 - 17

Area E1: Parham and Storrington Wooded Farmlands and Heaths. Area E1 is characterised as having a ‘rolling landform of sandy ridges cut by small narrow stream valleys’ and ‘small mostly well hedged pasture fields with mature hedgerow oaks’. In addition, the West Chiltington Common area is characterised as an ‘estate of detached houses set in large plots with a distinctive well wooded informal character’ and that ‘extensive woodland and/or heath at the settlement edge forms an essential part of setting’.

7.19 It is acknowledged that this current application seeks outline permission for 19 No. dwellings, 2 No. fewer than the previously refused scheme, and does not seek approval of layout at this stage. However, the indicative layout submitted indicates that the reduction in dwelling numbers has arisen, certainly in part, through the substitution of 4 No. semi- detached dwellings towards the western (highest) part of the site with 2 No. detached dwellings of a similar overall scale. The indicative layout shows that these westernmost dwellings could be located approximately 3.4m further into the site, i.e. away from the woodland edge, and set at a slightly lower level than those of the previous scheme.

7.20 Notwithstanding this, or the indicative only nature of the layout submitted, the application seeks permission for 19 No. dwellings within the site area which would be accompanied by necessary associated works such as internal roads, car parking, gardens and open space, together with the ecological area which is to be retained towards the south western corner. The provision of this level of accommodation within the site would necessitate the location of built form across the higher ground levels where it is considered that the dwellings would have a greater level of visibility from the surrounding area, particularly during winter months, and cause an urbanising impact to this open rural area.

7.21 Although the site lies adjacent to the existing edge of the settlement with some views of properties along The Hawthorns possible from within the site, the site itself provides an expanse of open land which enables views towards the woodland situated to the west of the site. As detailed above, the character of the surrounding area is defined by the setting that the expanses of woodland create around the edge of the settlement, which help to contain existing developments and differentiate between the established settlement and the more open rural countryside to the north and north east. It is considered that the positioning of extensive built form (which would result from 19 No. dwellings plus associated facilities) within the application site would significantly impact upon the visibility and prominence of this expanse of woodland in the setting of this part of the village edge.

7.22 Development in this location would result in the woodland to the west of the site being largely surrounded by built form and becoming somewhat detached and isolated from the open countryside with which it currently forms the setting to the village edge. The impact of this separation of the woodland from the surrounding open countryside is exacerbated by the change in levels, both across the site and to the north, and it is considered that this would adversely impact upon the landscape character of the locality.

7.23 Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy and policy DC2 of the General Development Control Policies, along with Policy 25 of the emerging HDPF, seek to protect and conserve the landscape character of the District and state that developments should take account of key landscape and settlement characteristics. Whilst the application proposes some enhancement of existing hedgerows surrounding the site itself, the overall effect of the development would be detrimental to the wider landscape character, including elements which form part of the identified local character. Furthermore, it is not considered that the proposed development would accord with the environmental strand of sustainability set out in paragraph 7 of the NPPF, which seeks development to contribute towards protecting and enhancing the natural environment.

Impact upon the amenities of nearby and future residents

ITEM A5 - 18

7.24 The nearest residential properties to the proposed development would be Lavender Cottage and Little Meadow, which are both located to the south of the site. Whilst the property of Little Meadow is located approximately 12m from its northern boundary Lavender Cottage is located much closer to the boundary of the site, is set at a lower ground level when compared to the application site and has its rear windows facing directly towards the application site. As this current application does not seek approval for layout only an indicative layout for the site has been provided. This shows the nearest dwelling to Lavender Cottage being situated approximately 14.5m away. The relationship between Lavender Cottage and this closest dwelling would be a back-to-side relationship where a general separation distance of 12.5m is considered to be reasonable. Whilst this is indicative only, this relationship is not considered to be unreasonable and it is not considered that the proposal would necessitate a layout that would be likely to lead to an unsatisfactory relationship between this closest neighbouring dwelling and the new properties. It is not therefore considered that the proposal would have a significantly harmful impact on the amenities of the occupiers of Lavender Cottage by way of an overbearing impact.

7.25 Any potential overlooking impacts from the proposed dwellings towards neighbouring existing properties could be controlled through restrictions on glazing and the floor and slab levels for dwellings could be adequately controlled through an appropriate condition at the reserved matters stage. It is acknowledged that the outlook from the adjacent properties and a number of those along The Hawthorns would be altered as a result of this proposal, however, this is not in itself justification for refusal of planning permission. Given the distances that could be achieved between the proposed dwellings and the existing neighbouring properties it is not considered that the development would result in a harmful impact on the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupants of these properties.

7.26 Whilst the layout of the site, together with its landscaping and the appearance of the dwellings are not to be considered at this stage, it is considered that these could be appropriately designed to ensure that the amenities of any future residents are at an acceptable standard. Therefore, at this outline stage, the proposal adequately conforms with policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies and the detail could be controlled through reserved matters submissions, had this application been otherwise acceptable.

Affordable housing provision

7.27 The application proposes the provision of 42% of the 19 No. dwellings as affordable homes. This equates to 8 No. properties and slightly exceeds the 40% target set out in policy CP12 of the Core Strategy. Although a dwelling mix for the market units has not been provided, the application does state that the 8 no. affordable units would be provided as follows:

- 4 No. 1 bed rented houses; - 1 No. 2 bed rented house; - 1 No. 2 bed shared ownership house; - 2 No. 3 bed shared ownership houses.

7.28 This mix of dwelling sizes would provide an appropriate number of smaller units to assist in meeting the greatest need for such homes, as identified through the most recent housing needs survey. Furthermore, the proposed split between rented units and shared ownership units would comply with the policy target. The Council’s Strategic Housing Manager is supportive of the number, mix and tenure split of the proposed affordable units and it is considered that the proposed provision would accord with the requirements of policy CP12.

ITEM A5 - 19

7.29 In order to secure the provision of these units on site, and their future retention as affordable, a legal agreement is required. Whilst a draft undertaking has been received by the Council, this does not currently adequately address this issue and this is therefore reflected within the recommendation.

Highway impacts

7.30 The NPPF, at section 4, along with policies CP19 of the Core Strategy, DC40 of the General Development Control Policies and Policy 40 of the emerging HDPF seek to promote sustainable transport through developments being adequately and safely accessed, well integrated with the public transport network and taking the opportunities to promote non-car modes of travel. The sustainability of the site has been discussed above and is not repeated here, except in relation to the proposed footpath link.

7.31 The application is supported by a Transport Statement (TS) and proposes the creation of a new vehicular access to the north eastern corner of the site, in place of an existing field access point. The access would form a T junction with Smock Alley with a maximum width of 6m and a width of 5m along the access road. The submitted TS details that visibility splays of 2.4m by 64m and 65m (to the north and south respectively) would be provided. The County Highway Authority have advised that these splays are appropriate given the recorded vehicle speeds along this stretch of road. In addition, the proposed access arrangement has been subject to a Stage One Road Safety Audit, which did not highlight any concerns with visibility.

7.32 The submitted TS also states that the likely number of vehicular movements that would be generated by the proposed development would be approximately 10 No. two way movements in both the morning and evening peak hours. These figures are not disputed by the Highway Authority, who recognise that the development would give rise to some additional use of Smock Alley, but that this is not anticipated to result in any highway capacity concerns that could be considered to be severe.

7.33 As the internal layout of the site and scale of development are matters reserved for future determination, there can be no detailed consideration of car parking provision or the suitability of the internal road layout. However, the applicants have stated that the parking within the site would accord with the West Sussex County Council parking demand calculator and have indicated that the internal roads would provide a shared surface. Given the form of the proposed development and the likely levels of vehicular movements, it is considered that a shared surface arrangement could be suitable.

7.34 The application also proposes the creation of a footpath link from the north western corner of the site through the adjacent area of woodland to connect with the existing Public Rights of Way Network. It is proposed to create a 1.2m wide path through the woodland, which is under the same ownership as the application site, using ‘no dig’ methods of construction. The County Public Rights of Way Officer welcomes this link and the proposed improvements to local footpaths, however, as the path would pass through a woodland area protected by a Tree Preservation Order, the exact positioning and construction of this path would need to be carefully considered at the detailed design stage, should outline approval be granted. Works in this area would also need to be consider any potential ecological impacts.

7.35 It is noted that a transport report by RGP (on behalf of an objector) has been submitted in relation to this application. This report was also submitted in connection with the previous application on this site and has been reviewed by the Highways Authority.

7.36 Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that ‘development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe’ ITEM A5 - 20

(Officer’s emphasis). The Highways Authority have not raised any objection to the proposed development in terms of any impact upon highway capacity or safety issues and a satisfactory means of access can be ensured through appropriate conditions if the development had been otherwise acceptable. It is therefore considered that the proposal could accord with the requirements of the NPPF and with policies CP19 of the Core Strategy, policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies and Policy 40 of the emerging HDPF.

Ecology, drainage, contamination and archaeology

Ecology

7.37 The NPPF and policy DC5 of the General Development Control Policies require that developments should conserve or enhance biodiversity, and that if significant impacts cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or compensated for, then development should be refused. In addition, paragraph 118 of the NPPF states that ‘planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland’…‘unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss’.

7.38 As discussed above, the application site is comprised of an open arable field but enclosed by existing hedgerows and adjacent to an area of woodland to the western side. In terms of biodiversity, the submitted Ecological Appraisal concludes that the site supports badgers and foraging and commuting bats and that it has potential to support breeding and foraging birds, roosting bats and reptiles. The Council’s consultant Ecologist is of the opinion that badger activity at the site appears to have increased since the survey to inform the Ecological Appraisal was carried out and that there appears to be new evidence, from local residents, that dormice may be present on site. In addition, there have also been reports of great crested newts and reptiles (namely grass snake and slow worm) within the vicinity of the site.

7.39 Whilst this information differs from that used to inform the Ecological Appraisal it is considered that suitable mitigation measures could be achievable following updated surveys. As the application seeks only outline permission with all matters, except for access, to be considered at a later stage through reserved matters applications(s), it is considered appropriate that additional surveys to inform appropriate mitigation measures could be submitted at that time. The Council’s consultant Ecologist has advised that these could be secured through suitable conditions, had the application been otherwise acceptable.

Drainage

7.40 The application site lies within Flood Zone 1, as defined by the Environment Agency’s Flood Map, which is land with the lowest probability of flooding. Residential development is considered to be appropriate development within Flood Zone 1, as established in the Technical Guidance to the NPPF. The application has been submitted with a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) which concludes that the site has a negligible risk of fluvial flooding.

7.41 The existing site is considered to be greenfield with surface water runoff being discharged through infiltration, evaporation and overland flow to the existing ditch which runs along the eastern edge of the site. The proposed development would inevitably increase the level of impermeable surfacing across the site and the level of infiltration is therefore likely to be impacted upon. The submitted FRA states that sustainable methods of drainage for surface water disposal would be implemented, with an attenuation basin being proposed towards the north eastern corner of the site. The attenuation basin would provide sufficient water ITEM A5 - 21

storage capacity to limit the runoff rate from the developed site to that of the greenfield rate, including an allowance for climate change.

7.42 The Council’s Drainage Engineer and the County Flood Risk Management team have raised no objections to the proposed drainage strategy subject to full details being submitted at the appropriate stage. Whilst Southern Water have indicated that additional capacity would be required within the local foul sewerage network, the developer would be required to upgrade this network as necessary under the Water Industry Act 1991.

7.43 The submitted FRA adequately demonstrates that the site would not be at undue risk from flooding and that the development can be adequately drained and controlled to attenuate run-off. It is therefore considered that the proposed development, had it been otherwise acceptable, could be conditioned to ensure compliance with the NPPF, policy DC7 of the General Development Control Policies and Policy 38 of the emerging HDPF.

Contamination

7.44 Given the agricultural nature of the site it is considered to represent a low risk in terms of land contamination. Therefore, had the application been considered to be otherwise acceptable, a general condition relating to contamination would be proposed.

Archaeology

7.45 Policy DC10 of the General Development Control Policies states that planning permission will not be granted for developments where they would cause unacceptable harm to important archaeological sites and that where there is evidence of archaeological remains, the Council will require the submission of an appropriate assessment prior to the determination of the application. Furthermore, paragraph 141 of the NPPF states that developers should be required to record and advance the understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost (wholly or in part) in a manner that is proportionate to their importance and the impact.

7.46 The site is not located within an area identified as having a high potential for archaeological importance, however, there are a number of records relating to prehistoric and Romano- British activity to the south of the site, including a record of barrows at West Chiltington Common. Therefore, the site is considered to have some potential for archaeological remains to be present and further works to establish this would need to be carried out prior to any development taking place. As this application is outline in form, the Council’s consultant Archaeologist has advised that a programme of archaeological works would need to be agreed, but that this could be satisfactorily ensured through an appropriate condition, had the application been acceptable in all other respects.

Legal obligations

7.47 In order to ensure sufficient infrastructure capacity to serve the proposed development, the applicant has been advised that there would be a requirement to enter into a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure appropriate contributions towards such infrastructure provision or improvements. This requirement is set out in policy CP13 of the Core Strategy and within the adopted SPD on Planning Obligations. Policy 39 of the emerging HDPF also requires that there is sufficient infrastructure to meet the needs of new development.

7.48 In order for a contribution to be sought under a planning obligation (i.e. through a Section 106 legal undertaking) it needs to meet all of the tests set out within Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (CIL Regs) and reiterated within ITEM A5 - 22

paragraph 204 of the NPPF. These tests require that an obligation should only be sought where they are:

• Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; • Directly related to the development; and • Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

7.49 The proposed development seeks up to 19 No. residential dwellings, with 11 No. open market units and 8 No. affordable units. It is considered that the proposed development would lead to additional pressures on community facilities; open space, sport and recreational facilities; education infrastructure; libraries; fire and rescue infrastructure; and, transport infrastructure within and around West Chiltington. As this application is outline in form, no definitive mix of dwelling types and sizes has been provided and as such the exact amount of contribution that would be required to mitigate the impacts of the development is not known.

7.50 In such an instance a formula based approach is taken such that an appropriate level of contribution would be secured based on the final number and mix of dwellings that are delivered. This formula can be set out within the necessary legal agreement to ensure that such contributions would be payable at an appropriate stage in the development. In addition, the legal agreement would secure the provision and retention in perpetuity, of the affordable units, the provision and maintenance of open space and the drainage attenuation basin.

7.51 The applicant is aware of these requirements and a draft unilateral undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act has been received. However, at this stage, this document does not cover all the aspects referred to above and is not therefore agreed. Consequently, as the application is recommended for refusal on other grounds, it is considered appropriate that a reason for refusal relating to the current failure to secure the necessary infrastructure improvements and affordable housing provision be imposed.

Conclusion

7.52 In conclusion, the proposal seeks to provide 19 No. dwellings in a greenfield location outside the built-up area boundary of West Chiltington on a site that is not allocated for development in the emerging HDPF, or in the draft West Chiltington Parish Neighbourhood Plan. In addition, it is not considered that the proposal would constitute sustainable development and consequently, the application is contrary to the NPPF, policy CP5 of the Core Strategy and Policies 2, 3 and 4 of the emerging HDPF, which can now be afforded considerable weight.

7.53 Furthermore, it is considered that the overall effect of the development would be detrimental to the wider landscape character of the area, including elements which form part of the identified local character within the Horsham District Landscape Character Assessment 2003. The proposal would result in a severance and isolation of the expanse of woodland to the west of the site which would result in significant harm to the landscape contrary to the NPPF, policy CP1 of the Core Strategy, policy DC2 of the General Development Control Policies and Policy 25 of the emerging HDPF.

7.54 Whilst a draft legal obligation has been submitted by the applicant to secure the necessary infrastructure contributions, this does not cover the provision of affordable housing units and is not currently in an agreed form.

7.55 For the reasons set out above, it is not considered that this current application overcomes the reasons for refusal of the previous application at this site, and furthermore, there has ITEM A5 - 23

been a material change in planning policy since that decision was taken, as reflected within the additional reason which has subsequently been added to the associated appeal.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 It is recommended that planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development would be located outside of a built-up area boundary on a site not allocated for development within the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework, or an adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan. The proposed development would therefore be inconsistent with the overarching strategy for development set out within the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007), Policies 2, 3 and 4 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

2. The proposed development would, by virtue of its location, have limited accessibility to sustainable modes of transport and access to local services, and residents would have a reliance upon the private car. The proposal is therefore considered to be unsustainable development that would not accord with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework or the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The proposed development would be inconsistent with the overarching strategy for development set out in the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework, which seeks to concentrate development in the most sustainable settlements of the District. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policy CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policies 2, 3 and 4 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework.

3. The site is currently an open field and forms a steep slope leading up to an area of woodland adjacent to the western boundary, which is subject to a Tree Preservation Order. The characteristics of the site are such that it is considered that the proposed development would isolate the woodland area to the west and create a prominent form of development which would result in significant landscape harm. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policy CP1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007), Policy DC2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) and Policy 25 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework.

4. Policy CP12 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy requires the provision of 40% affordable units on developments involving 15 or more residential units. Policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy requires new development to meet additional infrastructure requirements arising from the new development. Both the provision of affordable housing and contributions towards infrastructure improvements/provision must be secured by way of an appropriate legal agreement. No completed agreement is in place and therefore there is no means by which to secure these Policy requirements. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies CP12 and CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007), the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2009), the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Policy 39 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework.

Background Papers: DC/15/1389 & DC/14/2248 DC/15/1389

Land West of Smock Alley

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

Scale: 1:3,853

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

Date 04/09/2015 MSA Number 100023865 ITEM A6 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (South) BY: Development Manager DATE: 15 September 2015 Redevelopment of site to provide new tyre, exhaust and MOT centre, 11 DEVELOPMENT: no. dwellings and 1 no. retail shop, served by two new accesses onto High Street (outline application) SITE: Setyres Ltd High Street Henfield West Sussex WARD: Henfield APPLICATION: DC/15/1318 APPLICANT: Firststeady LTD

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: This is a Major planning application

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse the application

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application is made in outline with access for consideration now. Matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are reserved for later consideration. The application proposes the redevelopment of the site to provide a tyre, exhaust and MOT centre, 11 dwellings and a retail shop.

1.2 All existing buildings within the site would be demolished. The application proposes two new accesses- a northern access to serve the residential element and a southern access to serve the car repair garage. There would be a resident’s car park to the rear of the car repair garage building.

1.3 As the application is made in outline, the details of layout, scale and appearance are for later consideration. However, the Applicant has provided illustrative drawings which provide a good indication of the Applicant’s expectations for the detailed development. These show the dwellings arranged in two terraces, one terrace of five dwellings with their front elevations immediately on the High Street, and one terrace of 6 dwellings set behind the front terrace, with a footpath providing access to the rear gardens of the front terrace and the front gardens of the rear terrace. Both terraces are two storeys, with an additional level of accommodation in the loft served by dormer windows in some of the units. The car repair garage is shown as a single storey building with mezzanine floor comprising five roller-shuttered bays fronting the road, and an ancillary area. The retail shop is shown as a

Contact Officer: Rosemary Foreman Tel: 01403 215561 ITEM A6 - 2

small unit of 47.5sqm located on the ground floor of the northernmost of the terraced units, with a flat above.

1.4 The Application is accompanied by a number of supporting documents including: • Planning Statement • Transport Statement • Noise Assessment • Ground Contamination Risk Assessment Report • Site Investigation • Heritage Appraisal

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5 The site is located within the Henfield High Street retail area, which is a Conservation Area, and opposite a number of listed buildings. The site currently contains a car sales business, a car repair garage, car accessories shop and a car wash building, served by three separate accesses. The existing buildings within the site are not typical of the Conservation Area, although the car sales building is one of the older buildings within the site, and does appear to have once been a dwelling, although it has been altered to convert it to a petrol filling station shop and subsequently a car sales centre.

1.6 The Proposals Map includes the site within the Village Centre boundary and identifies the frontage of the buildings as being within the Primary Shopping Frontage.

1.7 The site is generally flat and adjoins residential sites to the rear, which are mainly single storey dwellings. There is a mix of commercial and retail uses close to the application site. To the north, the adjacent retail shop has been extended to the rear and has first floor flat windows overlooking the site. To the south, lies a Class A3 restaurant building, which has residential accommodation above, and is set back from the highway by a large lawn.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 Government policy is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and is relevant to the determination of the application. Regard must also be had for the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance. The relevant chapters of the NPPF include: 1 (Building a strong, competitive economy), 2 (Ensuring the vitality of town centres), 4 (Promoting sustainable transport), 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes), 7 (Requiring good design) and 11 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment).

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The Development Plan for Horsham District comprises the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and Adopted Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007). Other relevant local development documents are the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD (May 2009) and the Planning Obligations SPD.

2.4 The relevant Polices of the Core Strategy include: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP11, CP12, CP13 and CP17. The relevant Polices of the Horsham District Local Development ITEM A6 - 3

Framework General Development Control Policies (2007) include: DC8, DC9, DC12, DC13, DC14, DC18, DC19, DC34, DC36 and DC40.

2.5 The Proposed Submission version of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was approved by Council in April 2014 as the Council’s policy for planning the future of the District for the period 2011-2031, and was submitted to the Government in August 2014. The Examination of the HDPF was undertaken by an independent Planning Inspector in November 2014, and the Inspector published his Initial Findings in December 2014. The Inspector considers the overall strategy of the plan to be sound as is made clear in paragraph 4 of his Initial Findings:

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

2.6 The Inspector suspended the Examination of the HDPF to allow time for the Council to show how the District’s overall housing provision can be increased to provide for a minimum of 750 dwellings per annum (15,000 over the plan period). Main Modifications were then prepared and consulted upon. An additional Examination Hearing took place on 3rd July 2015 to consider only the issues outlined in the Initial Findings. The Inspector published a Note to the Council on 21st July 2015 stating that the housing requirement for the plan period should be raised to 800 dwellings per annum (16,000 dwellings over the plan period). The Inspector also indicates that an early review (to begin within 3 years of adoption) of the Plan to provide for these additional dwellings will be required, and that a modification to Policy 36 (Strategic Policy: Appropriate Energy Use) to account for the recent written ministerial statement concerning wind energy development will be necessary. Given the Inspector’s Initial Findings and recent Note, the emerging plan is therefore considered to be a material consideration of considerable weight in terms of the overall strategy.

2.7 It should be noted that the whilst the required number of dwellings in the HDPF has been increased from 750pa to 800pa, the most recent trajectory for the plan period (2011-2031) clearly demonstrates that the HDPF will provide a sufficient housing land supply from existing allocations and commitments to meet this requirement until at least 2021. The early review mechanism will enable the Council to ensure sufficient land supply is secured to meet the needs after this period.

2.8 The relevant Policies of the HDPF are: 1 (Sustainable Development), 2 (Strategic Development), 3 (Development Hierarchy), 4 (Settlement Expansion), 7 (Economic Growth), 9 (Employment Development), 12 (Vitality and Viability of Existing Retail Centres), 13 (Town Centre Uses), 15 (Housing Provision), 16 (Meeting Local Housing Needs), 25 (The Natural Environment and Landscape Character), 32 (Quality of New Development), 33 (Development Principles), 34 (Cultural and Heritage Assets), 35 (Climate Change), 36 (Appropriate Energy Use), 37 (Sustainable Construction), 38 (Flooding), 39 (Infrastructure Provision), 40 (Sustainable Transport) and 41 (Parking).

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

2.9 The Henfield Neighbourhood Plan has been publicly consulted on and subject of Examination, which recommended the Plan proceeds to referendum subject to ITEM A6 - 4

amendments. This is due to take place 22nd September 2015. The site is allocated by Policy 3 for mixed commercial and residential use.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.10 The site has a long history of planning applications dating from the 1950s relating to various uses of the site including a petrol filling station, car wash, car repair garage and shop. The following application related to the change of use of the site:

DC/14/2737 Redevelopment of garage site to provide 14 no. dwellings Withdrawn and one no. shop unit

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

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

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.2 The HDC Heritage Consultant objects to the proposal. The consultation response includes the following points: • The Conservation Area is characterised by infill developments. Larger premises would have historically been detached with a clear visual symmetry and later infills resulting in semi-detached premises. • Outer edges of the Conservation Area still portray larger premises, only part of which is occupied by shopfronts, particularly to the eastern side of the High Street. • All buildings face directly onto the pavement, and any setback in building frontage is a result of the alignment and orientation of the High Street. Where properties become solely residential, these are set back behind low walls with hedging and small trees introduced. • Properties on the east side have only subtle changes in ridge heights. Architectural detailing and fenestration provides definition of each individual building and contributes to the richness of the street. • The western side is less well-defined, and the proposal appears incongruous to the existing street scene being designed as a street-facing terrace of residential properties, the end of terrace being the only premises to have a retail shopfront. • The form and design interrupts and visually confuses the rhythm and form of the street scene, and is exacerbated by inclusion of dormer windows and firewalls rising above the roof slope. Both of these features exist in the Conservation Area, but are not the prevalent detail and are generally subservient in the form and scale. • Majority of buildings surrounding the site are two storey with only the chimneys rising up through the roofline. • The proposed commercial building is set back from the road and in-line with the adjacent building line (a later infill). • The proposed commercial building is devoid of any architectural merit or detail. • The Applicant identifies the negative impact the existing arrangement has on the Conservation Area in respect of forecourt parking, but does not mitigate against this in the proposed layout, with a large forecourt area in front of the commercial building. This results in harm to the setting of listed buildings and the special character of the Conservation Area. • The existing detached building retains vernacular detailing in the form of chimney stacks, clay tiled roof and traditional double hung sash windows. The loss of this existing building and replacement with a commercial building devoid of any architectural definition would further harm to the setting of the listed building and discord with local and national policy. ITEM A6 - 5

• The rear block of terraced dwellings would be seen in views and vistas along the street scene and will have an impact on the setting of listed buildings opposite and the character of the Conservation Area. This impact is negative, adding to the cumulative harm of the proposal. • Object on the basis that the proposal is an over-development of the site, giving undue regard to the setting of listed buildings and the typology of the immediate area, which provide the sense of place and contributes to the special character of this part of the Conservation Area.

3.3 HDC Environmental Health Officer raises no objection, subject to conditions relating to contaminated land and noise.

3.4 HDC Strategic Planning Officer raises concern and includes the following points in the consultation response: • Neighbourhood Plan can be attributed limited weight until it has been formally ‘made’. • Considerable weight is to be attributed to the HDPF in decision making. • The principle of mixed-use development on this site is acceptable. However, the development involves residential development at ground floor level facing the High Street, and a net reduction in employment floorspace. • Indicative layout shows a single shop and a break in the retail frontage, resulting in an unconnected retail frontage contrary to DC34. • Although a mixed use is presented, this particular proposal is not acceptable as it does not meet Policy requirements.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.5 WSCC Highway Authority initial consultation raises objection to the proposal, as there is insufficient information to demonstrate that the site can be served by safe vehicle access. The Applicant submitted further information and continued negotiations with the Highway Authority. However, at the time of drafting this report, the Highway Authority were not satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated that the proposal would not increase the risk to road safety as a result of the design of the development. The main concerns raised include the following: • Lack of turning space within both the housing and garage sites. • Turning head for the housing element is obstructed by parking spaces. • It has not been demonstrated that acceptable visibility splays can be achieved. • Distance of parking spaces to houses is likely to result in residents parking on the High Street in front of their houses, resulting in increased risk to other road users. • No turning space provided for service vehicles to manoeuvre within the garage site. • Insufficient parking within the garage area. • Detailed trip rate information has not been provided. • Previous highway authority comments have not been taken into account.

3.6 WSCC Lead Local Flood Authority raise no objection to the proposal

3.7 WSCC Strategic Planning raise no objection subject to collection of financial contributions for infrastructure.

3.8 Southern Water raise no objection, subject to a condition requiring approval of details of foul and surface water drainage.

3.9 The Environment Agency raise no objection, subject to conditions relating to contaminated land.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS ITEM A6 - 6

3.10 Henfield Parish Council raise objection, as the application fails to comply with Policies DC19, DC34, DC36 and CP19.

3.11 27 letters of objection have been received, which include the following points: • Proposal does not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. • Overdevelopment. • Residential properties on a High Street is not appropriate. • Proposal does not comply with the Neighbourhood Plan, which seeks residential use only [Officer Note: An earlier version of the neighbourhood plan allocated the site for residential use, but the latest version allocates it for mixed use] • Amended Neighbourhood Plan has not been subject of public consultation. • Site should be redeveloped for residential only. • Proposal will result in increased noise levels for existing residents. No acoustic barrier is provided to protect existing properties from noise disturbance. • The 3m high soundproofing wall comes right up to the edge of the public footpath and will restrict visibility on entering and exiting the site • Insufficient parking provided. Only 10 spaces are provided for the car repair garage, but there are regularly over 20 cars parked within the site, rising to 30 plus at times. • Question whether SETyres can function with only 10 parking spaces, as the additional vehicles will overspill to on-street parking. • There is inadequate parking provision for the new dwellings. • There is already significant pressure for on-street parking in this area. • Location of the residential access will result in conflict with vehicles reversing out of the residential driveway, opposite. • No provision for manoeuvring of lorries and large vehicles has been made. Concern that the proposed access will not be sufficient and will result in delivery vehicles parking on the road, rather than in the site. • Concern in respect of access to the site for emergency services. • Access road is not wide enough for vehicles to pass each other, particularly large vehicles such as delivery lorries and refuse collection vehicles. • Proposed access is too close to the existing bus stop. • Lighting should be provided on the access road. • Existing entrance to the car showroom is often used as a passing place, as the High Street is reduced to single lane by parked vehicles. The proposal will remove this and result in greater congestion. • Loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. • Loss of light to neighbouring properties. • Rear terrace will tower over bungalows to the west. • Proposed residents’ car park will result in disturbance to adjacent residents. • Very small gardens are provided, with no children’s play area for these 3-bedroom family homes. • New car repair garage detracts from the character and appearance of listed buildings. • The existing car repair garage does not directly front the High Street. • Concerned that the appearance of the site has been allowed to deteriorate in order to gain approval for redevelopment. This leads to concern that the new development, if permitted, would also be allowed to deteriorate. • Proposal would result in the unnecessary loss of small businesses. • Cloud 9 Car Wash is one of the best businesses in the High Street. It is always busy and there is nothing else like this nearby, whereas there are other car repair and tyre places. • Cloud 9 Car Wash is used not only by Henfield residents, but those from further afield too. • Displacement of businesses would result in the loss of an amenity. ITEM A6 - 7

• Forcing a thriving business such as Cloud 9 Car Wash to close has a negative effect on the community. Rural communities offer very limited employment. • The proposal underestimates the number of jobs generated by the site and does not adequately ensure retention of jobs. For example, the car accessories shop employs five people, not two as stated by the Applicant. • Development of commercial sites results in the loss of much required local services and loss of work for local residents. • Demand for commercial and retail units in the village centre is already high. • New residential development in the village will increase the requirement for retail units. • Cloud 9 Car Wash generates a great deal of business for the village and attracts people to the High Street. Closure will affect other businesses, for example shops where people browse and cafes that people visit while their cars are valeted. • Question whether the new SETyres building will be viable, given its proximity to residential properties which could lead to complaints about noise and nuisance. • Have been advised that CPA car parts shop may be offered the proposed retail shop, but this has no parking provision and CPA currently uses on-site parking for up to 4 vans, members of staff and customers. • Concern regarding drainage, as water often pools in the area between the bus stop between the bus stop and the car showroom entrance.

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 development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

Main Issues 6.1 The main considerations for this application are the principle of development, particularly in terms of the loss of employment and the impact on vitality and viability of the village centre, the impact on the character and appearance of the locality and the amenity of neighbouring residents and highways impacts, including parking provision. The starting point for consideration of a planning application is the adopted Development Plan, but consideration must also be given to other material considerations. In this case, the emerging HDPF is a material consideration of considerable weight, as described in section 2, above.

Vitality and Viability of the Village Centre 6.2 The proposal site is located within the built-up area wherein the Development Plan seeks to direct new development. The current adopted Development Plan seeks to ensure that role of village centres is maintained and enhanced. The Core Strategy (paragraph 4.77) notes that while the emphasis for these areas has in the past been on shopping facilities, it is clear that the centres are much more than merely a collection of shops; they also perform a valuable role in meeting the needs of local communities and visitors. The existing use of the site is not a retail use, or an A-Class use normally associated with primary shopping frontages. However, its inclusion within the primary shopping frontage designation on the ITEM A6 - 8

Proposals Map indicates the contribution that these uses make to the vitality and viability of the village centre.

6.3 The Applicant’s Planning Statement puts forward their view that as the site is not in Class A1 retail use, its loss would not harm the vitality and viability of the retail offer in the village centre, which meets convenient shopping needs. The site’s current uses as a car sales garage, car repair garage, car wash and car accessories shop contributes to the provision of local services and, as highlighted in third party representations, creates linked trips by visitors utilising shops, cafes and other services in the village while waiting for cars to be serviced/valeted and in connection with viewing cars for sale. The existing uses therefore do make a contribution to the vitality and viability of the village centre and it is appropriate to include the site within the Primary Shopping Frontage designation for this reason. The proposal would retain a building for car repairs (the Applicant advises that this business does well here and they want to continue to operate locally, but have been unable to find a suitable alternative site), but the other uses within the site would be lost with no alternative site provided. The Applicant advises that the car sales business is in rent arrears due to poor sales (a pattern which has affected previous car sales businesses occupying the site). It may be the case that this element of the existing use is not viable from a small site such as this, and alternative uses for the car sales building and forecourt which are appropriate to the village centre/primary shopping frontage designation and retain a commercial element could be explored. In terms of the other uses, the Applicant advises that the car wash is let on license and the car accessories shop employs only two people and is let on a short lease with uneconomic terms. However, third party representations have indicated that these businesses employ greater numbers than this, provide a valuable local service and are successful. Although the proposal includes a replacement for the car repair garage and a small retail unit of 47.5sqm (no end user appears to be in place), the other businesses would be lost. Although Policy DC36 seeks to prevent the loss of A-Class uses within town and village centres, the explanatory text clearly acknowledges the value that other uses, such as the existing car wash, car repair garage and car sales centre, can make to vitality and viability.

6.4 In addition to the adopted Development Plan, the HDPF seeks to support and enhance retail centres, recognising that the role of retail centres is changing and that centres should be made up of a variety of uses, although still maintaining a high level of retail use. Henfield is identified as one of the secondary retail centres in Policy 12, which states that the promotion and encouragement of activities in village centres so they continue to be the focus of community life will be achieved by maintaining a diverse range and choice of suitable uses including retail, leisure, entertainment, sports and recreation, arts, culture, business and commercial uses, as well as residential use. As such, the emerging HDPF clearly recognises the value that these non-Class A1 economic development uses make to the vitality and viability of town and village centres. Therefore, although the proposal makes provision for a replacement car repair garage and a small retail shop, the net loss of commercial floor space including the car accessories shop, car wash and car sales enterprises and the replacement of part of the active Primary Shopping Frontage with residential buildings would not achieve the Policy aim of supporting and enhancing the retail centre.

6.5 In addition, the indicative layout separates the retail shop and car repair garage by a terrace of dwellings, serving to create a non-commercial frontage on part of the site. This leads to the dilution of the commercial function of the southern end of the Primary Shopping Frontage. Policy DC34 seeks to permit new retail development within defined village centres. While a small retail unit is proposed here, the retail use and commercial use proposed do not cover the whole of the Primary Shopping Frontage within the site. It therefore does not relate and connect well to the defined primary shopping area, as required by DC34. Furthermore, the small size (47.5sqm) of the retail unit and the absence of any designated loading area, brings into question its viability as a commercial retail unit ITEM A6 - 9

and therefore the quality of the contribution to the vitality and viability of the retail centre that it will make.

Local Employment Considerations 6.6 In addition to the retail function of a town centre, Class A1 and other commercial uses also provide local employment, which is important for the sustainability of a settlement and to reduce out-commuting. Therefore, in addition to those Policies seeking to maintain the vitality and viability of town and village centres, those Policies applicable to employment uses must also be considered. As set out above, the proposal would result in the net reduction of commercial premises through the loss of three business premises (car wash, car sales and vehicle accessories shop), and provision of a small retail shop and a replacement car repair garage. The application forms indicate that the existing site employs 16 people and that the proposed development will employ 8 people (6 in the repair garage and anticipated 2 in the retail shop). The Core Strategy defines ‘employment floorspace’ as offices, industrial uses, warehousing and other commercial uses within classes B1, B2 and B8 of the Use Classes Order. The existing mixed use contains elements of a B2 car repair workshop, an A1 car parts and vehicle accessories shop and sui generis car wash and car sales. The sui generis uses here are those that create employment and generate an economic output. Policy CP11 seeks to protect from the loss of employment sites or premises, with no specific reference to ‘employment floorspace’, and therefore Policy CP11 applies to this proposal, which involves employment generating uses. Policy DC19 seeks to prevent the loss of commercial land, other than where the Council is satisfied that the commercial unit is no longer needed or viable for employment use, adequate access is provided and the proposal would result in significant environmental improvements. In this case, the Applicant advises that the car wash and car showroom have been marketed many times over the last five years, with tenants being found, but businesses failing in a fairly short space of time. However, the units are all currently occupied and the successful marketing, attracting tenants each time the site is marketed indicates that there is a demand for units such as this. In addition, third party representations indicate that the car wash has been established for at least three years and is a successful business. The Applicant advises that the existing buildings are specific to motor vehicle activities and not viable for other employment uses. However, this is not to say that redevelopment for alternative employment use, or for improved buildings to accommodate the existing businesses, would not be a viable alternative to the loss of three existing employers from the site.

6.7 The HDPF does not define ‘employment’, acknowledging that employment is generated by a multitude of uses, not just the B-Class uses which are often thought of as the main employment generating uses. Policy 9 of the HDPF requires redevelopment of employment sites and premises outside of Key Employment Areas to demonstrate that the site/premises is no longer needed and/or viable for employment use. Although the SETyres element is proposed to be retained, the other commercial elements are not provided for in the redevelopment, resulting in a net reduction of commercial floorspace used for employment generating purposes, and no alternative site for the other businesses within the site is provided. Although the Applicant has submitted that the car sales business is currently in rent arrears, and that this has been a pattern for previous businesses occupying that part of the site, it does not appear as though other alternative employment-generating uses for this part of the site have been explored by the Applicant.

6.8 Policies of the adopted Development Plan and the emerging HDPF do allow for mixed use developments in village centres and on employment sites, but such proposals should seek to intensify uses in an acceptable way to ensure the village centre function and the level of employment are not diminished while creating residential development, for example through the construction of flats above commercial uses. This proposal results in a reduction in commercial space, and an associated reduction in the number of business premises within the site, and therefore does not achieve the Policy aim of intensifying use ITEM A6 - 10

of existing sites. The Inspector’s Initial Findings of December 2014 (paragraph 9) identifies that, other than a business park at North Horsham, the HDPF does not allocate any other major employment sites. This highlights the importance of ensuring any net loss of employment floorspace is robustly justified. As such, the proposal results in the loss of employment uses and the creation of residential sites on a Primary Retail Frontage, resulting in harm to the vitality and viability of the village centre and reducing local employment opportunities. This is contrary to Policies CP11, CP17 and DC19 of the Development Plan, as well as Policies 12 and 9 of the HDPF.

Heritage Assets and Townscape Character 6.9 The site lies within a Conservation Area, and there are also a number of listed buildings opposite the site. The Council’s Heritage Consultant has raised objection to the proposal, considering the proposed quantum of development harmful. The Heritage Consultant notes the lack of retail shopfronts in the proposed development, with only a small shopfront in one end-of-terrace unit. The lack of continuous commercial frontage reduces the integration of the site into the High Street location. The indicative drawings show the proposed eleven dwellings arranged in two terraces, one directly on the highway and a second to the rear, separated by a total distance of about 10 metres, which includes a rear garden for the frontage dwellings, a front garden for the rear row of dwellings and associated access. The close proximity of the two terraces will be apparent in the street scene due to the site layout, with the smaller scale car repair garage sited to the south of the two terraces. Although the High Street exhibits a historic pattern of infill development, this very close relationship between two storey buildings is not characteristic of the layout of the Conservation Area and results in a cramped appearance. While the proposal is made in outline with only access for consideration now, the site is fairly small, and the development of 11 dwellings plus a car repair garage within it would result in a cramped overdevelopment of the site regardless of layout. As such, concerns are raised in respect of the proposed amount of development, which would not result in a layout which integrates satisfactorily with the pattern of development in the area, and particularly within the Conservation Area. Concern is also raised in respect of the indicative drawings, which show firewalls and dormer windows projecting above the roofline. This is not a prevalent design detail in the Conservation Area, and would not be supported by the Heritage Consultant. While these drawings are indicative, they do show the Applicant’s intentions for the detailed stage, and the Planning Statement clearly indicates the intention to incorporate dormer windows in the scheme.

6.10 It is acknowledged that the site currently does not make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, as a result of the extent of parking within the site and the utilitarian nature of the car wash building. The car sales building is the prominent building within the site, and the Heritage Consultant identifies this as retaining some vernacular detailing. The current car repair garage is set at an angle to the highway, reducing its visibility, but it does have a functional appearance, as does the car wash. The Heritage Consultant raises concern with the loss of the two storey car sales building and its replacement with a commercial building with a lack of design detailing and a large parking forecourt, which results in harm to the setting of listed buildings and the Conservation Area. While the proposal would remove the utilitarian car wash building, the replacement with a development which retains a large area of car parking to the front of the garage, results in a cramped overdevelopment incorporating a terraced building of inappropriate appearance and orientates the garage building to front the highway would also not make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and the Heritage Consultant has identified the proposal overall as harmful to the Conservation Area and setting of Listed Buildings. It is also considered that the proposed demolition of the unlisted car sales building, without an acceptable replacement proposed, results in harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposal therefore fails to conserve or enhance the special character of the Conservation Area and is harmful to the setting of listed buildings. ITEM A6 - 11

6.11 In conclusion on the matter of the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and the setting of heritage assets, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed amount of development can be accommodated within the site in an acceptable layout, scale and appearance which would conserve and enhance the special character of the Conservation Area and ensure that the setting of listed buildings is not harmed. This is contrary to Policies CP1, CP3, DC9, DC12 and DC13.

Amenity of Neighbouring Residents 6.12 The proposal site is bordered by single storey dwellings to the rear (west), with flats above both commercial sites to the north and south. The proposed quantum of development (11 dwellings plus a shop and a car repair garage) on this small site leads to concern in respect of the impact of the proposal on adjacent occupiers. The number of units would necessitate development fairly close to the boundary with the dwellings to the rear, The Coach House and The Bumbles. Indeed, the indicative layout shows two storey dwellings sited only about 5 metres from the boundary with the short rear garden of The Coach House. Although the proposal would site a parking area adjacent to The Bumbles, this area currently forms part of the yard of the car repair garage and therefore, the use for parking would not be materially different. While the indicative layout also sites dwellings fairly close to the rear garden of Woodawn on Cagefoot Lane, that dwelling has a fairly large rear garden, which would also retain a private area to the west of the main house. The proposal would involve the erection of two storey dwellings close to the northern boundary of the site, given the number of units proposed. The adjacent building to the north has a large two storey rear extension providing residential accommodation at first floor level, with windows overlooking the application site. The erection of two storey buildings in such close proximity to these windows, separated only by the driveway of the adjacent building, would result in an overbearing and visually intrusive appearance when viewed from the adjacent flat. In conclusion on the matter of the impact of the proposal on neighbouring residents, the proposal would result in harm to the amenity of occupiers of The Bumbles, The Coach House and of the first floor of Albourne House, contrary to Policy DC9.

6.13 There are also dwellings on the opposite side of the road, but these are a sufficient distance from the site to prevent the proposed development appearing overbearing or visually intrusive. In addition, the Environmental Health Officer does not raise objection in respect of noise impacts of existing neighbouring residents, recommending conditions to ensure that any external plant incorporates attenuation measures. While the concerns of third parties are noted in respect of the noise impacts of the proposed garage building, this is an existing historic use within the site, and it would not be reasonable to refuse an application for development of a building for the existing use.

Amenity of Future Occupiers 6.14 As set out above, the EHO recommends conditions to control noise from the garage, which would also serve to protect future occupiers from noise disturbance. The Applicant’s Noise Assessment concludes that a 3m high barrier between the car repair garage and the proposed residential development is installed to surround the rear yard, continuing around the side of the garage site up to the point where the site meets the footway. Given the necessary height of this barrier and its likely extent across the site, this would exacerbate the harm identified by the Heritage Consultant, and would also impact on the visibility splays which can be achieved. Therefore, it is not clear that the necessary noise mitigation measures can be delivered in an acceptable way which does not harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and maintains highway safety.

6.15 The proposal incorporates very small amenity spaces for the proposed units, of around 5 metres deep. The boundary with the dwellings to the rear currently comprises mature vegetation, which appears to lie within the adjacent residential properties. As a result of ITEM A6 - 12

the proposed very short rear gardens, the rear terrace of dwellings would be dominated by this vegetation to a harmful degree, and while this could be removed by the owners of the boundary planting, this would remove what little existing screening there is between the two sites. The proximity of the two terraces of dwellings means that the rear gardens serving the front terrace would be severely overlooked by the rear terrace, and both dwellings would suffer mutual overlooking due to the separation of only about 10 metres between the two buildings. The proximity of the buildings would also result in the rear building dominating the outlook from the rear of the front building and vice versa. This results in a poor outlook for future occupiers of both terraces. While it is noted that the proposal provides only indicative layout and elevations, the quantum of development proposed is such that a lack of suitable amenity space and problems relating to overlooking and dominating outlooks would arise regardless of the proposed layout. There is an outdoor area shown indicatively to the rear of the northernmost of the terraced units, which is intended to accommodate a retail shop with flat above. It is not clear from the indicative details whether this is intended to be a yard area serving the retail shop or a garden area serving the flat above. Should a yard area be provided here, it would be in very close proximity to surrounding dwellings, and the use of the area for storage of commercial refuse or deliveries would result in a poor level of amenity for adjacent residents. Similarly, if this area is intended as a garden for occupiers of the flat, it would be immediately adjacent to the rear of the retail shop, and any plant necessary for its operation. This would not provide a satisfactory outdoor amenity area for future occupiers. The proposal therefore does not provide a good level of amenity for future occupiers and is contrary to Policy DC9.

6.16 The indicative layout shows a terrace of dwellings directly adjoining the pavement. In terms of the amenity of future occupiers, this arrangement would not provide sufficient privacy, given the close proximity in which pedestrians will pass the site. The indicative floorplans show kitchens to the front of the dwellings, rather than living rooms, which will reduce the impact of the proposed layout on future occupiers. As the layout and floorplans are indicative only at this stage, the layout and floorplans are subject to change at the reserved matters stage, but the need to site dwellings with their frontages directly on the pavement of a High Street indicates that the amount of development for which permission is sought will be difficult to accommodate within the site.

Parking and Highways 6.17 Parking within the site as existing is fairly ad-hoc, although there are areas indicated for parking in connection with specific businesses only. In addition to the site frontage and the surfaced area to the rear of the car wash building, there is an extensive surfaced yard to the rear of the existing vehicle sales building which can provide parking/loading facilities. In all, the application forms indicate that there are over 50 parking spaces currently available within the site.

6.18 The indicative layout provides 10 parking spaces to the front of the car repair garage, to serve a 5-bay fast-fit centre. Given that customers may leave their vehicles to be serviced during the day, and the need for staff car parking, it is likely that the proposed use would generate the need for more than 10 parking spaces. The highway authority has confirmed that this is not sufficient parking provision. In addition, there is no provision for the parking and turning of service and delivery vehicles within the garage site, and there is no loading or delivery area provided for the retail shop. This would result in large vehicles parking and turning on the highway, or having to exit the site in reverse gear, causing danger to other highway users and users of the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC40.

6.19 Fourteen spaces are provided for the proposed residential element of 11 dwellings. This equates to one space per dwelling plus three visitor spaces, although it is not clear whether one or more of the spaces is intended to serve the retail shop. The site is within the village ITEM A6 - 13

centre, close to local shops and services and while the Highway Authority do not object to the level of car parking proposed for the residential element, they do raise concern in respect of the location of parking, and the lack of turning space for vehicles within the layout. The indicative layout does not provide for bicycle parking for future residents. While the indicative layout does provide each residential unit with a garden area, as set out above these are very small and the erection of individual bicycle storage sheds within these spaces would further diminish their function as amenity spaces. As such, given the quantum of development proposed, it is not clear that suitable covered and secure bicycle parking can be provided within the site to serve the proposed dwellings.

6.20 The Highway Authority also raise concern regarding visibility spays and trip rates, as insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that these matters would be acceptable. In conclusion on the matter of parking and highway safety, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed accesses are capable of serving the site safely and conveniently, and the lack of suitable parking and manoeuvring space (resulting in on- street parking, including service and delivery vehicles, and vehicles potentially reversing onto the highway), results in danger to users of the highway and of the development. In addition, the inability of the site to accommodate sufficient parking and turning space for the proposed uses indicates an overdevelopment of the site as a result of the amount of development proposed.

Land Quality and Drainage 6.21 The site has been in use as a garage for many years, with the planning history indicating previous use as a petrol filling station. The application is accompanied by a Preliminary Ground Contamination Risk Assessment, which did not explore inaccessible parts of the site. As such, the Environmental Health Officer recommends conditions to require full investigation of the site, plus a remediation scheme. These conditions are also recommended by the Environment Agency.

6.22 The Council’s drainage officer raises no objection to the proposal. Southern Water request a condition requiring full details of foul and surface water disposal prior to commencement in order to ensure satisfactory drainage of the site. West Sussex County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority raise no objection, but highlight that the High Street is shown to be at high risk from surface water flooding. In this case, there is very little unsurfaced space within the existing site, and the proposal would result in the creation of limited landscaped areas, allowing for greater permeability of the site. As such, no objection is raised in respect of flood risk and drainage.

Affordable Housing and Infrastructure Contributions 6.23 The application proposes the provision of 11 dwellings. The current Development Plan Policy CP12 requires provision of 40% affordable units on sites of 15 or more units. The draft HDPF included Policy 16 which proposed a sliding scale of affordable housing provision, seeking 20% of dwellings on sites of between 5 and 14 dwellings to be affordable, rising to 35% on sites of 15 or more dwellings. In light of government guidance issued after publication of the submission version of the draft HDPF to the effect that affordable housing provision should not be required on sites of less than 10 units, the Council proposed a modification of the HDPF to require provision of 35% affordable units on sites of 11 or more dwellings. The Government have since revoked the guidance which prevented LPAs seeking affordable housing on schemes of less than 10 units. As such, the Council has requested that the Inspector considers the affordable housing provision requirements as set out in Policy 16 as originally drafted, i.e. with a provision of 20% affordable units on sites between 5 and 14 dwellings. As the HDPF is being afforded considerable weight in decision making, and Policy 16 is intended to meet local housing need, it is considered that this development should provide 20% affordable housing in line with the Council’s preferred wording of the emerging Framework. For this site of 11 units, this equates to 2 units. These would need to be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. ITEM A6 - 14

6.24 Policy CP13 and Policy 39 seek to ensure that there is sufficient capacity in local infrastructure to meet the additional requirements arising from new development. The Planning Obligations SPD set out that the District Council will calculate the available contribution amounts using a standard formula set out in the Contributions Calculator, which is based on the size of units. As this application is made in outline, there is no confirmation of the size of the proposed units. However, the indicative floor plans show a two-bedroom flat and the remaining dwellings a mix of two and three bedroom houses. Using this as an indicative housing mix, the proposal could require £21,679 subject to suitable projects directly related to the additional units proposed as part of this application being identified. Infrastructure contributions would need to be secured by way of a Legal Agreement.

6.25 There is currently no completed Legal Agreement in place to secure the required affordable units and infrastructure contributions and therefore, the proposal is contrary to Policies CP12 and CP13 of the Core Strategy and to Policies 16 and 39 of the HDPF

Neighbourhood Plan 6.26 While the Neighbourhood Plan seeks to support a mixed use development at this site, it does not specify the type of non-residential use anticipated, other than that the current owners have elected to retain their business use on the site. The Neighbourhood Plan is not adopted and holds limited weight in decision making, but it does indicate the direction of local opinion. Although there is support therefore for the mixed use development of this site through the Neighbourhood Plan, Policy 3 of the Neighbourhood Plan requires any mixed use development here to sustain and enhance the historic significance and character and setting of the heritage assets opposite on the High Street and the character of the Conservation Area, and to have regard to the amenities of adjoining commercial and residential properties. In light of the discussion above, it is considered that the proposal does not achieve these aims and therefore is not consistent with the submission version of the Neighbourhood Plan. In addition, Policy 1 of the Neighbourhood Plan states that development proposals within the built-up area boundaries will be supported where they accord with the Horsham Development Plan which, for the reasons set out above, this proposal does not.

Conclusion 6.27 As referenced throughout the preceding sections of this report, the application is made in outline with only access for consideration now, although indicative site layout, plans and elevations have been provided. Some of the concerns highlighted above, for example the lack of deign detailing to the car repair garage building and the inappropriate appearance of the terraced dwellings relate to details which will come forward at the reserved matters stage. The Council’s decision must only relate to the matters for consideration now, i.e. access and the principle of locating 11 dwellings, a retail shop and a car repair garage and necessary ancillary facilities such as vehicle and bicycle parking, loading, noise mitigation barriers, refuse storage and amenity space. In addition to the concerns regarding the net loss of commercial/employment floorspace and the impact of the proposal on the retail function of the village centre, given the proposed quantum of proposed development Officers consider that it would not be possible to arrive at an acceptable layout which sites the proposed uses plus ancillary facilities within the site without resulting in harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the setting of listed buildings and the amenity of neighbouring residents. The lack of sufficient parking provision and amenity space as shown on the indicative layout drawings is symptomatic of the overdevelopment of the site adds weight to the conclusion that the principle of the amount of development proposed is not acceptable here.

ITEM A6 - 15

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 To refuse the application for the following reasons:

1. The proposed development results in a net reduction in commercial and employment-generating floorspace, and the associated loss of existing businesses within the site, which would reduce local employment opportunities. The proposal also results in the loss of commercial uses which contribute to the vitality and viability of the village centre, and introduces residential buildings into the street- facing ground floor of the defined Primary Shopping Frontage, further harming the function of the village centre. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policies CP11 and CP17 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), Policies DC19 and DC34 of the Adopted Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007) and Policies 7, 9, 12 and 13 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework.

2. Having regard to the amount of development proposed and the necessary ancillary facilities such as vehicle and bicycle parking, loading, noise mitigation measures such as barriers, refuse storage and amenity space, the proposal would necessitate a layout and built form which would not integrate well with the character and appearance of the locality, and would not conserve or enhance the special character of the Conservation Area, as well has harming the setting of nearby listed buildings. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies DC9, DC12 and DC13 of the Adopted Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007) and to Policy 34 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework.

3. Having regard to the amount of development proposed and the necessary ancillary facilities such as vehicle and bicycle parking, loading, noise mitigation measures such as barriers, refuse storage and amenity space, the proposal would necessitate a layout and built form which would result in harm to the privacy and amenity of neighbouring residents, in particular occupiers of The Bumbles, The Coach House and of the first floor of Albourne House, would not allow sufficient provision of amenity space or turning/manoeuvring space for future occupiers and would be likely to result in overlooking and a poor level of privacy for dwellings and gardens within the development, resulting in a poor level of amenity for future occupiers. The proposal therefore represents an overdevelopment of the site and is contrary to Policies CP1 and CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), Policy DC9 of the Adopted Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007) and to Policies 32, 33, and 41 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework.

4. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development will provide sufficient visibility splays to serve the development with safety and convenience and it has not been demonstrated that the trip rate generation of the proposed development can be acceptably accommodated in the local highway network. In addition, the proposed amount of development would not allow for the provision of sufficient parking spaces, turning/manoeuvring space and loading space within the site, including for service and delivery vehicles. The proposal would therefore result in on-street parking and loading, as well as not allowing vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward gear. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), DC40 of the Adopted Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007) and to Policies 40 and 41 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework.

ITEM A6 - 16

5. Policy CP12 requires developments to provide a mix of tenures to meet the needs of the District’s communities. Policy 16 requires provision of 20% affordable units on developments involving 5-14 units. Policies CP13 and 39 require new development to meet additional infrastructure requirements arising from the new development. Both the provision of affordable housing and contributions to infrastructure improvements/provision must be secured by way of a Legal Agreement. No completed Agreement is in place and therefore there is no means by which to secure these Policy requirements. As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy CP12 and CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), to the Horsham District Local Development Framework Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, to the NPPF, in particular paragraph 50 and to Policies 16 and 39 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework.

Note to the Applicant 1: The reason for refusal in respect of affordable housing provision and infrastructure contributions could be addressed by the completion of a Legal Agreement. If the Applicant is minded to appeal the refusal of this application, you are advised to liaise with the Local Planning Authority prior to the submission of an appeal with a view to finalising an acceptable Agreement.

Background Papers: None DC/15/1318

Setyres Ltd

1

Scout Bank 8 2 8 Hut 3 A For Business use only -Highdene not for distribution to the general public Tel Ex

6 Brick Lane 3

Myrtle Ho Car Park 11 35 33 7 1 El Sub Sta t PARK ROAD f Ansty Ho o FURNERS MEAD

The e r 1

e

3 s c Studio h d y s Elm Lodge l u g i a u e 0 o i a Caudle 1

i e f o 4 l H s

H Street 4

c

r

h

k H

a

e g y Sub Sta a l i s e

c y

l

e

r l i

l O H d l

A

o

h

n o

M

v

s Tooley St a Hall

H l y

r 5 A

w

e 4 Club

o Museum TheGrey House

e

R s D y War Meml e CAGEFOOT LANE PH n 32.9m m i Wellbrook h

C Cherry 0

9

n

5

4 Mead n w

o

a

t

l

s

l n West East d

e u

o

r

Park Park a

o

ir

lly k House House S Brook u

e a W

q House v

O

S 58 lo

d

C t a

o ot r The Rus C Chattels B e Coach Ho Hous s t t Garage w o

o se t C Sidleigh ia Hou Newtimber Lavender nol e House ag us M s Cottage o u D The h 30.9m M o N Bumblest r h R t

o E se a l lan Providence d H g a

S a I G M T e The Haven

T L H Day Centre I W Moustows Kushimbi g 1 to 1 T E an 2 LB E Manor 3 en H P 1 The Green E Westlea R

T

S Forges H 7 6 Cher EW ry Tree Hou ITTS 31.3m Kentwyns se GOLDEN The Golden Hen SQUARE Challens 2 1 St Marys 0 4 Solva Alma Cottages Prospect7 Cottage 3

0

2 Chatfields S A

T

El T I Deans Sub Ganders

W Sta 4 Coach 17 E s 2 y H House a s Bramblings n w 1 Dumana e h l Whaphams t s t e r u s a Tudor o H o Fire g t S o g H Posts S a Station R y e ling Oak Rapley B Cottage Cottage El Sub Sta ley Little NEP TOWN ROAD Cran Patchings Whaphams 13 18

1 1 Scale: 1:1,927

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

Date 04/09/2015 MSA Number 100023865

ITEM A7 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (South) BY: Development Manager DATE: 15th September 2015 Demolition of commercial buildings, cessation of commercial use and the DEVELOPMENT: erection of a pair of semi-detached cottages on commercial yard adjoining The Barn SITE: The Barn West Chiltington Lane Billingshurst West Sussex WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley APPLICATION: DC/15/1107 APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs James Ray

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Number of letters received contrary to Officer’s recommendation

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site, the cessation of the current uses, and the construction of two semi-detached two bedroom dwellings.

1.2 The proposed dwellings would be two storey in height with Horsham stone walls and clay roof and hip tiles. Each of the proposed dwellings would be 10.4 metres wide, and 6.54metres deep at the furthest point, with a height to the ridge of 6.97 metres. Each dwelling would have a separate access with the northern most dwelling utilising the existing entrance to the north, and the southernmost property benefitting from a new access onto West Chiltington Lane. The application also seeks permission for the construction of a refuse and cycle store to the rear of each property. The store would be 1.2 metres long, 0.8 metres wide and 1.3 metres high.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The site is located on the western side of West Chiltington Lane. The site is outside of the defined built up area boundary in a rural location. West Chiltington Lane is characterised by sporadic linear residential development. To the east of the site is the residential property of Duncan’s Lodge which is a detached single storey property. Adjacent to

Contact Officer: Nicola Mason Tel: 01403 215289 ITEM A7 - 2

Duncan’s Lodge are a pair of semi-detached two storey properties known as Homestead Cottages. To the north of the site is Willowcroft which has a garage situated close to the shared boundary. On the boundary to West Chiltington Lane is a panel fence screened by hedgerow planting limiting views into the site. To the west of the site are open fields.

1.4 Within the application site is a mobile home and various outbuildings. There are also building materials and equipment stored in the open. The access to the site is in the north western corner of the site. To the south of the site is a one and half storey residential dwelling, and a detached garage with accommodation within the roof space known as The Barn (which is also owned by the applicant).

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF)

NPPF6 - Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes NPPF7 - Requiring good design NPPF8 - Promoting healthy communities

2.3 Planning Policy Guidance 2014

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policy CP1 (Landscape and Townscape Character), CP2 (Environmental Quality) CP3 (Improving the Quality of New Development), CP5 (Built up Areas and Previously Developed Land) and CP16 (Inclusive Communities).

2.5 General Development Control Policies DC1 (Countryside Protection and Enhancement), DC2 (Landscape Character), DC3 (Settlement Coalescence), DC9 (Development Principles), DC28 (House Extensions, Replacement Dwellings and Ancillary Accommodation) and DC32 (Gypsies and Travellers) are also considered relevant to this application.

2.6 The Proposed Submission version of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was approved by Council in April 2014 as the Council’s policy for planning the future of the District for the period 2011-2031, and was submitted to the Government in August 2014. The Examination of the HDPF was undertaken by an independent Planning Inspector in November 2014, and the Inspector published his Initial Findings in December 2014. The Inspector considers the overall strategy of the plan to be sound as is made clear in paragraph 4 of his Initial Findings:

‘On balance, I consider the overall strategy to concentrate growth in the main settlements in the hierarchy, starting with Horsham as a first order centre, followed by Southwater and Billingshurst, to be sound. The proposal for some development in villages, in accordance with Neighbourhood Plans (NP), is also justified and accords with government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). As will be explained in some more depth in my final report, the alternative strategy of greater dispersal to smaller settlements would be likely to lead to a less sustainable pattern of development with regard to transport patterns ITEM A7 - 3 related to provision of employment opportunities, retail facilities and social and community services..’

The Inspector suspended the Examination of the HDPF to allow time for the Council to show how the District’s overall housing provision can be increased to provide for a minimum of 750 dwellings per annum (15,000 over the plan period). Main Modifications were then prepared and consulted upon. An additional Examination Hearing took place on 3rd July 2015 to consider only the issues outlined in the Initial Findings. The Inspector published a Note to the Council on 21st July 2015 stating that the housing requirement for the plan period should be raised to 800 dwellings per annum (16,000 dwellings over the plan period). The Inspector also indicates that an early review (to begin within 3 years of adoption) of the Plan to provide for these additional dwellings will be required, and that a modification to Policy 36 (Strategic Policy: Appropriate Energy Use) to account for the recent written ministerial statement concerning wind energy development will be necessary. Given the Inspector’s Initial Findings and recent Note, the emerging plan is therefore considered to be a material consideration of considerable weight in terms of the overall strategy.

It should be noted that the whilst the required number of dwellings in the HDPF has been increased from 750pa to 800pa, the most recent trajectory for the plan period (2011-2031) clearly demonstrates that the HDPF will provide a sufficient housing land supply from existing allocations and commitments to meet this requirement until at least 2021. The early review mechanism will enable the Council to ensure sufficient land supply is secured to meet the needs after this period.

PLANNING HISTORY

BL/104/01 Certificate of lawful use for agricultural barn as a dwelling PER Site: The Barn West Chiltington Lane Billingshurst

BL/102/91 Retention of agricultural buildings PER Site: The Nurseries West Chiltington La Billingshurst

DC/08/2603 Replacement dwelling (4-bed). REF

DC/09/0657 Regularisation of residential curtilage PER

DC/09/1138 Replacement 3 x bed dwelling. PER

DC/11/1588 Erection of a double garage/garden tool/cycle/refuse/recycling PER store with storage area in the roof

DC/11/1599 Erection of a double garage/garden tool/cycle/refuse/recycling REC store with storage area in the roof

DC/12/1437 Erection of a single stable with associated store PER

DC/14/0634 Change of use of land and demolition of existing REF commercial/agricultural buildings to form a gypsy/traveller site consisting of 3 mobile homes and associated amenity blocks

DC/14/2023 Change of use of land and removal of existing REF commercial/agricultural building to form a permanent gypsy/traveller site consisting of three mobile homes and associated landscaping

DC/15/0162 Change of commercial use, removal of associated buildings and PDE storage to a permanent residential caravan site

ITEM A7 - 4

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

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

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Technical Services – No comment to make on proposal.

3.2 Strategic and Community Planning (summarised) – Objection to the proposal as contrary to policy.

3.3 Public Health and Licensing – comments are awaited and will be reported verbally to committee.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.4 West Sussex County Council Highways (summarised) – no objection following receipt of additional information.

3.5 Southern Water (summarised) – No public foul sewer in the area of the site, the applicant is advised to examine alternative means of foul sewage disposal.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.6 Billingshurst Parish Council has raised no objection to the application but were concerned that there is no plan for dealing with foul sewage.

3.7 Ten letters have been received supporting the application noting that the proposal would provide much needed accommodation and be more in keeping than the existing commercial site.

3.8 One letter has been received commenting on the application noting that the application is an improvement, but two dwellings would still be too many, and a second vehicular entrance may cause problems.

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 development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The key issues for consideration in relation to this proposal are:

ITEM A7 - 5

• The principle of the development • Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area • Highway impacts

Background

6.2 This application site is currently the subject of a separate full planning application (DC/15/0162) which seeks to change the use of the existing site, to form a mobile home site for gypsies and travellers. The application is a resubmission of two previously refused applications for the change of use of the land to form a gypsy/traveller site. The application the subject of this report seeks to provide 2 market dwellings in a countryside location.

Principle of the development

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

6.4 The application site lies in the countryside outside of the identified built-up area of any settlement. The proposed development does not, therefore, constitute the provision of residential development within or immediately adjacent to either a Category 1 or Category 2 settlement, as identified within policy CP5 of the Core Strategy. Given this location, the initial principle of the proposal moves to be considered in the context of paragraph 55 of the NPPF, policy CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

6.5 Paragraph 55 of the NPPF states that new isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances. Consistent with this, Policy CP15 states that any development should be appropriate to the countryside location and should contribute to sustainable farming enterprises; other countryside based enterprises, the wider rural economy and/or promote recreation or the enjoyment of the countryside. This policy also requires development to be contained within existing buildings, within an existing rural industrial estate, or result in substantial environmental improvements. Policy DC1 states that ‘outside built-up area boundaries, development will not be permitted unless it is considered essential to its countryside location and in addition meets one of the following criteria: a) supports the needs of agriculture or forestry; b) enables the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste; c) provides for quiet informal recreational use; or, d) ensures the sustainable development of rural areas.’

6.6 The proposed development of the site for residential purposes would not constitute a development which is essential to this countryside location, neither is it considered that the proposal would contribute to existing rural enterprises, activities or recreational opportunities. The proposal does not involve the conversion of existing rural buildings. The proposal therefore fails to accord with the NPPF and with policies CP15 and DC1.

6.7 The Council has adopted the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD; the aim of which is to provide the flexibility to ensure that there is sufficient housing supply during the life of the existing adopted Core Strategy. The FAD SPD sets out the requirements against which planning applications for development on greenfield and brownfield sites which adjoin defined settlement boundaries will be considered. It is limited to sites which adjoin ITEM A7 - 6

settlement boundaries as the proximity to existing Category 1 and Category 2 settlements is used as an indication that sites in these areas are more likely to have attributes of sustainability, such as access to community facilities, employment opportunities and means of public transport.

6.8 As the application site does not adjoin an existing settlement boundary, but rather is located in an area classified as open countryside, the application of the FAD SPD is not applicable.

6.9 The emerging Horsham District Planning Framework is also a material consideration in the determination of the application with considerable weight. Whilst the required number of dwellings in the HDPF has been increased from 750pa to 800pa, the most recent trajectory for the plan period (2011-2031) clearly demonstrates that the HDPF will provide a sufficient housing land supply from existing allocations and commitments to meet this requirement until at least 2021.

6.10 The site lies outside of the built-up area boundary of a town or village as defined in emerging Policy 3 of the HDPF. Emerging Policy 3 seeks to locate appropriate development, including infilling, redevelopment and conversion within built-up area boundaries, with a focus on brownfield land. As the site is outside of the built-up area boundary of a town or village it would not meet the requirements of Policy 3 of the HDPF.

6.11 Emerging policy 4 of the HDPF relates to settlement expansion and states that; “Outside built-up area boundaries, the expansion of settlements will be supported where; a.the site is allocated in the Local Plan or in a Neighbourhood Plan and adjoins an existing settlement edge. b.the level of expansion is appropriate to the scale and function of the settlement type. c.the development is demonstrated to meet the identified local housing needs and employment needs or will assist the retention and enhancement of community facilities and services. d.the impact of the development individually or cumulatively does not prejudice comprehensive long term development, in order not to conflict with the development strategy; and e.the development is contained within an existing defensible boundary and the landscape and townscape character features are maintained and enhanced.”

The site has not been allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan or the Local Plan and it is not considered that the proposal has demonstrated how it would meet identified housing needs, and would not maintain or enhance the localities landscape character features. It is considered that the proposal does not comply with emerging policy 4 and therefore is contrary to both the existing and emerging policy frameworks..

Existing Site Condition

6.12 It is acknowledged that a number of letters have been received in support of the application relating to the need for accommodation and the improvement to the existing site condition. It could be considered that the proposed removal of the existing structures across the site and their replacement with two residential properties may result in a visual improvement to the surrounding area. However, due to the existing screening of the site and the nature of its use it is not considered that the existing site is in such a condition that a decision otherwise in accordance with the development plan could be supported.

Design, scale and layout

6.13 Notwithstanding the objections to the principle of the development in this location, the design, scale and layout of the proposed dwellings is considered to be acceptable. The ITEM A7 - 7

dwellings would be modest in their size, constructed in appropriate materials and would reflect the style of houses within the locality. Adequate car parking provision is proposed and each property would have an adequate level of private amenity space.

Conclusion

6.14 In summary, the proposed development of the site for open market housing would not constitute a development which is essential to this countryside location, neither is it considered that the proposal would contribute to existing rural enterprises, activities or recreational opportunities. It is therefore considered that the proposed dwellings would be contrary to Policy CP15 of the Core Strategy, DC1 of the General Development Control Policies and emerging polices 3 and 4 of the Horsham District Planning Framework.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission is refused for the following reason;

1. The site lies within a rural location outside the limits of any existing settlement and does not constitute a use considered essential to such a countryside location. The proposal would therefore conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework, and in particular with paragraph 55, and with Policies CP1, CP5 and CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) Policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007), and emerging Policies 3 and 4 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (Preferred Strategy).

Background Papers: DC/15/0162, DC/14/2023, DC/14/0634 DC/15/1107

The Barn

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

Lower Hook Farm

Willowcroft

43.0m

Duncan's Duncans Lodge Pond

Homestead 1 Cottages The Barn 2 Duncans Granary

42.8m

Pond

Scale: 1:1,927

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

Date 04/09/2015 MSA Number 100023865 ITEM A8 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (South) BY: Development Manager DATE: 15th September 2015 Change of commercial use, removal of associated buildings and storage DEVELOPMENT: to a permanent residential caravan site SITE: The Barn West Chiltington Lane Billingshurst West Sussex WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley APPLICATION: DC/15/0162 APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs James Ray

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Application deferred from 21st April 2015 committee.

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application was first considered by the Committee in April 2015. The previous committee report is appended for Member’s information. At that time the application was deferred to allow members to be briefed in more detail on whether the Council was meeting its need to provide mobile home sites in the District.

1.2 Following the committee meeting in April 2015, the applicant has submitted a separate application for the cessation of the existing uses on the site and the construction of 2 semi- detached market dwellings on the site (DC/15/1107).

1.3 With regards to planning policy the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework has progressed since the April meeting. The Proposed Submission version of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was approved by Council in April 2014 as the Council’s policy for planning the future of the District for the period 2011-2031, and was submitted to the Government in August 2014. The Examination of the HDPF was undertaken by an independent Planning Inspector in November 2014, and the Inspector published his Initial Findings in December 2014. The Inspector considers the overall strategy of the plan to be sound as is made clear in paragraph 4 of his Initial Findings:

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

Contact Officer: Nicola Mason Tel: 01403 215289 ITEM A8 - 2

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

The Inspector suspended the Examination of the HDPF to allow time for the Council to show how the District’s overall housing provision can be increased to provide for a minimum of 750 dwellings per annum (15,000 over the plan period). Main Modifications were then prepared and consulted upon. An additional Examination Hearing took place on 3rd July 2015 to consider only the issues outlined in the Initial Findings. The Inspector published a Note to the Council on 21st July 2015 stating that the housing requirement for the plan period should be raised to 800 dwellings per annum (16,000 dwellings over the plan period). The Inspector also indicates that an early review (to begin within 3 years of adoption) of the Plan to provide for these additional dwellings will be required, and that a modification to Policy 36 (Strategic Policy: Appropriate Energy Use) to account for the recent written ministerial statement concerning wind energy development will be necessary. Given the Inspector’s Initial Findings and recent Note, the emerging plan is therefore considered to be a material consideration of considerable weight in terms of the overall strategy.

It should be noted that the whilst the required number of dwellings in the HDPF has been increased from 750pa to 800pa, the most recent trajectory for the plan period (2011-2031) clearly demonstrates that the HDPF will provide a sufficient housing land supply from existing allocations and commitments to meet this requirement until at least 2021. The early review mechanism will enable the Council to ensure sufficient land supply is secured to meet the needs after this period.

1.4 National Planning Policy has also been updated with regards to Planning Policy for Travellers Sites in August 2015. The Councils Strategic and Community Planning Team have considered the updated guidance and noted that there are two changes which may need to be reconsidered with regards to the current application. These changes can be summarised as follows

1. The guidance asks councils to very strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside 2. The guidance amended the definition of Traveller to ensure that this applied to people who undertook a nomadic lifestyle (but not those who have permanently stopped a nomadic habit of life).

The changes to national guidance are considered as part of the planning assessment below.

2. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

2.1 Government guidance requires Local Planning Authorities to establish need and identify, and up-date annually, a supply of specific deliverable sites to provide 5 years’ worth of sites against locally set targets, along with a supply of sites or broad locations for growth to 6 to 10 and where possible 11 to 15 years for Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation.

2.2 The Council’s Strategic and Community Planning Team have noted the recent changes to national guidance identified above but remain of the view that the site is not within open countryside (as identified in the earlier consultation response), and that there remains an identified need for Gypsy sites in the district to meet future requirements and the existing ITEM A8 - 3

backlog (as set out in the previous consultation response and in reference to the background evidence supporting the Horsham District Planning Framework). The change in legislation with particular reference to the definitions of a traveller would not have been addressed in the 2012 evidence and it may be that a few residents may not now meet the definition of Gypsy or Traveller. However, there is such a large unmet need and backlog that it is unlikely that it could be concluded that there is no longer a need for additional sites in the district that would justify refusing this application. The site could only be occupied by those who meet the national definition.

2.2 With regards to need (in accordance with government guidance), the Council undertook a Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessment. This assessment established a requirement for the provision of an additional 39 pitches up until 2017. As part of this requirement there is an existing need for 29 pitches to address the current backlog of accommodation need arising from sites which may be unauthorised or subject to temporary permissions or through overcrowding. The Needs Assessment revealed that there is an additional accommodation need for a further 10 pitches due to expected new family formations over the period 2012 -2017. An additional need for 18 pitches has been identified between 2018 – 2022 and a need for 21 pitches identified between 2023 – 2027.

2.3 Emerging policy 20 identifies the need for the provision of 39 additional permanent residential pitches for Gypsies and Travellers within the period 2011-2017. As part of the policy and in order to help fulfil the current backlog of unmet and future need five sites are identified for allocation for traveller site development. These sites are at Rowfold Nurseries (10 pitches), Oaklands, (3 pitches), Southview, Five Oaks (4 pitches), Land adjacent Hillside Park, Small Dole (12 pitches), Lane Top, Nutbourne (3 pitches). Six pitches have also been granted on sites since the Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessment was undertaken.

2.4 The provision of sites from 2018 would be provided through windfall sites that are in accordance with emerging policy 23, as well as through the redevelopment and redesign of existing sites, allocation of sites in strategic development sites or stand alone allocations, the use of public owned land for publically managed traveller provision or through the release of public owned land to be used as a site available to be purchased and occupied by Gypsy and Travellers.

2.5 In summary therefore the Local Planning Authority has allocated within the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework 38 sites up to 2017. The Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessment indicates that 98 additional sites would be required by 2027. It is consequently considered that there remains a need for a minimum of 60 pitches by 2027. However it should be noted that the number of sites required within the District is not static and the sites identified within policy 20 may not come forward within the plan period which would result in further need for windfall sites.

2.6 Policy 23 sets out the criteria for the consideration of both allocated and unallocated land for Gypsy and Traveller sites. The criteria is similar in approach to existing policy DC32 and requires that; a There must be no significant barriers to development exist in terms of flooding, poor drainage, poor ground stability or proximity to other hazardous land or installation where conventional housing would not be suitable; b. The site is served by a safe and convenient vehicular and pedestrian access. The proposal should not result in significant hazard to other road users; c. The site can be properly serviced and is supplied with essential services, such as water, power, sewerage and drainage, and waste disposal. The site must also be large enough to provide adequate vehicle parking, including circulation space, along with residential amenity and play areas; ITEM A8 - 4

d. The site is located in or near to existing settlements, or is part of an allocated strategic location, within reasonable distance of a range of local services and community facilities, in particular schools and essential health services; e. The development will not have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the landscape and the amenity of neighbouring properties, and is sensitively designed to mitigate any impact on its surroundings. It is considered that the criteria above would be met by the applicant site as identified in the previous committee report.

2.7 However, although new policies are emerging through the HDPF the Council is currently reliant on Policy DC32 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 as the most up to date development plan policy and NPPF policies through the Planning Policy for Travellers Sites. Paragraph 21 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites document states that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. In addition Policy DC32 states that:

“Proposals for sites for caravans for Gypsies and Travellers will be granted planning permission provided that:

a) the Council is satisfied that a need for site provision exists locally and is clearly demonstrated and that the proposal represents an adequate way of meeting the established need; b) the identified local need cannot be met at any alternative suitable existing sites within or outside existing settlements.

If the need cannot be met at any alternative suitable sites as set out above, the following criteria will apply:

1) the site must be reasonably located for schools, shops and other local services and community facilities; 2) a satisfactory means of access can be provided and the existing highway network is adequate to serve the site; and 3) the proposed site accommodates adequate space for parking and turning of vehicles and provides easy access for service and emergency vehicles.”

2.8 As noted in the previous report in respect to the first criterion, the site is outside of the built- up area and as such is classified as being within a rural location but, is not within open countryside. The nearest settlement is Billingshurst, defined in the Local Development Framework as a Category 1 settlement and therefore having a good range of services and facilities.

2.9 In terms of sustainability the site is located within a rural location with access to limited services and facilities, however the site is approximately 650 meters from the existing Gypsy and Traveller site at Greenfield Farm, Valewood Lane and approximately 1000 meters from Kingfisher Farm. In the Kingfisher Farm appeal decision the Inspector concluded that “even if not ideal in terms of proximity to services the location of the appeal site is nevertheless a reasonable one” (para 30). The Inspector also specified that “issues of sustainability should not only be considered in terms of transport mode and distance from services. A settled base for gypsies would bring about general and wider benefits of easier access to GPs and other health services and allowing any children to attend school on a regular basis” (para 28).

2.10 Therefore after taking into consideration current national guidance, policy DC32 of the General Development Control Policies, Policy 23 of the Horsham District Planning Framework and relevant appeal decisions within the District it is considered that the proposal accords with criterion (b) and (1) of Policy DC32 and criterion (d) of Policy 22 of ITEM A8 - 5

the HDPF. Concern has been raised with regards to the need for the site to respect the scale of the nearest settled community and this concern is reflected within paragraph 23 of the NPPF Planning Policy for Traveller Sites which recognises that Local Planning Authorities should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing undue pressure on the local infrastructure. It is recognised that there are two Gypsy and Traveller sites nearby at Kingfisher Farm and Greenfield Farm however, it is not considered that the addition of three further pitches would dominate the nearest settled community.

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

3.1 It is therefore recommended that the application is approved subject to the conditions set out in the previous committee report dated the 21st April 2015.

Background Papers: DC/15/0162 ITEM A8 - 6

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (South) BY: Development Manager DATE: 21st April 2015 Change of commercial use, removal of associated buildings and storage DEVELOPMENT: to a permanent residential caravan site

SITE: The Barn West Chiltington Lane Billingshurst West Sussex WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley APPLICATION: DC/15/0162 APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs J Ray

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Number of letters contrary to Officer’s recommendation.

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission subject to conditions and the provision of a detailed landscape layout plan to meet the concerns of the Councils Landscape Architect conditions

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the change of use of the existing site, to form a mobile home site for gypsies and travellers. The application proposes the positioning of three mobile homes on the site, a parking and turning area and a children’s play area. The existing buildings to the north of the main dwelling would be removed as part of the proposal.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The site is located on the western side of West Chiltington Lane. The site is outside of the defined built up area boundary in a rural location. West Chiltington Lane is characterised by sporadic linear residential development. To the east of the site is the residential property of Duncan’s Lodge which is a detached single storey property. Adjacent to Duncan’s Lodge are a pair of semi-detached two storey properties known as Homestead Cottages. To the north of the site is Willowcroft which has a garage situated close to the shared boundary. On the boundary to West Chiltington Lane is a panel fence screened by hedgerow planting limiting views into the site. To the west of the site are open fields.

Contact Officer: Nicola Mason Tel: 01403 215289 ITEM A8 - 7

1.3 Within the application site is a mobile home and various outbuildings. There are also building materials and equipment stored in the open. The access to the site is in the north western corner of the site. To the south of the site is a one and half storey residential dwelling, and a detached garage with accommodation within the roof space known as The Barn (which is also owned by the applicant).

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National planning policy aims are embodied in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. Paragraph 14 tells us that at its heart is a ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking’.

Paragraphs 17 and 109 advocate the recognition of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and the need to protect and enhance valued landscapes.

The Government also published ‘Planning Policy for Traveller Sites’ in March 2012 alongside the NPPF. Policy H advises on the determination of planning applications for traveller sites. Of particular relevance to this application are:

• Paragraph 21 which states that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. • Paragraph 23 which states that ‘Local planning authorities should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan’. • Paragraph 24 which states that weight should be given to the effective use of previously developed land and sites being well planned or soft landscaped in such a way as ‘to positively enhance the environment’. • Paragraph 25 states that if a local planning authority cannot demonstrate an up-to- date supply of deliverable sites, this should be a significant material consideration in any subsequent planning decision when considering applications for the grant of temporary planning permission. However, Policy I: Implementation, paragraph 28, makes it clear that this only applies to applications for temporary planning permission for traveller sites made 12 months after this policy came into force.

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

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 Relevant policies within the Core Strategy 2007 include CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP13, CP15, CP16 and CP19.

2.5 Relevant policies within the General Development Control Policies 2007 include DC1, DC2, DC9, DC32 & DC40. ITEM A8 - 8

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

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

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

PLANNING HISTORY

There have been a number of applications on the site the most recent of which are outlined below;

BL/104/01 – A certificate of lawful use for the occupation of an agricultural barn as a dwelling house was agreed in June 2002.

DC/08/2603 – An application for a replacement dwelling was refused in February 2009.

DC/09/1138 – An application for a replacement three bed dwelling was approved in August 2009.

DC/11/1588 – An application for the erection of a double garage /garden tool /cycle/ refuse /recycling store with a storage area in the roof was permitted in October 2011.

DC/14/0634 – An application for the change of use of land and demolition of existing commercial/agricultural buildings to form a gypsy/traveller site consisting of 3 mobile homes and associated amenity blocks was refused in July 2014.

DC/14/2023 – An application for the change of use of land and removal of existing commercial/agricultural building to form a permanent gypsy/traveller site consisting of three mobile homes and associated landscaping was refused in December 2014.

ITEM A8 - 9

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

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

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

Strategic and Community Planning (summarised) - the Council cannot currently meet the identified backlog of unmet gypsy and traveller accommodation need or future need in accordance with policy DC32 of the General Development Control Policies and emerging policies in the HDPF. Although the Council is proposing to allocate sites through the HDPF this is yet to be tested fully through the examination process. In light of this it is considered that although the application site is located within the countryside it is considered to be within a reasonable distance from services and facilities and can be suitably accommodated on an existing untidy site, therefore it is considered that the principal of development for 3 gypsy and traveller pitches is considered acceptable and in accordance with Policy DC32 of the General Development Control Policies DPD, emerging Horsham District Planning Framework and the Planning policy for traveller sites (PPTS).

Public Health and Licensing (summarised) has raised no objection to the application subject to conditions.

Technical services – No comments

Gypsy Liaison - comments are awaited and will be reported verbally to committee.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

West Sussex County Council Highways (summarised) has raised no objection to the application.

Southern Water (summarised) has noted that there is no public foul sewer in the area of the site, and an alternative means of foul sewage disposal will be required. The Councils technical staff and the relevant authority for land drainage consent should comment on the adequacy of the proposals to discharge surface water to the local pond/lake.

Environment Agency has stated that the site is located in Flood Zone 1 defined in the National Planning Policy Framework as having a low probability of flooding. In this instance, the Environment Agency have taken a risk based approach and will not be providing bespoke comments or reviewing the technical documents in relation to this proposal.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

Billingshurst Parish Council (summarised) – has strongly objected to the application on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site, unsustainable location not reasonably located for services or facilities, detrimental to the rural character of the area, will increase vehicle movements on rural road, there are two sites nearby for gypsy and travellers, there are no means of disposal of foul drainage and there is no foul sewer in the area.

Nine letters have been received supporting the application noting that the proposal would improve the visual appearance of the site and provide needed accommodation.

Six standard letters have been received objecting to the application on the following grounds; overdevelopment of the site, applicants no longer living a traveller lifestyle, site ITEM A8 - 10

not environmentally or socially acceptable, existing site agricultural not commercial, proposal contrary to policy.

Eight further letters have been received objecting to the application on the following grounds; proposal would double the size of the population within the hamlet and would damage the nature of the local community, site in breach of permission, increased risk of accidents, lane has no footpath or streetlights, noise from dogs and machinery.

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 development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 It is considered that the main issues in the determination of the application are the need for the proposed mobile homes, the effect of the proposal upon the character of the landscape and street scene, and the amenities of neighbouring properties. The application is a resubmission of two previously refused applications for the change of use of the land to form a gypsy/traveller site. The current application has been submitted to try and overcome the Landscape Architects concerns relating to DC/14/2023, and members concerns with regards to the previously proposed amenity blocks.

Principle

6.2 The main aim of the National Planning Policy Framework is to achieve sustainable development. The document sets out three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. It seeks to create a high quality built environment with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well being and contributes to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment. The document makes a presumption in favour of sustainable development which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan making and decision taking.

6.3 In March 2012, the government published its ‘Planning Policy for Traveller Sites’ to be read alongside the NPPF. Policy H of the guidance relates to the determination of planning applications for traveller sites. At paragraph 21, it states that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. In this respect, the site is outside of the built-up area and the nearest settlement is Billingshurst, defined in the Local Development Framework as a Category 1 settlement which in terms of Core Policy CP5 is defined as being a town or village with a good range of services and facilities. The built up area boundary of Billingshurst is approximately 2km away from the site as the crow flies. Also in determining planning applications for gypsy and traveller sites paragraph 22 of the Planning Policy Guidance requires the Local Planning Authorities to consider the existing level of local provision and need.

ITEM A8 - 11

6.4 Emerging local policy is considered a material consideration in determining the application. The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Proposed Submission was submitted by Horsham District Council to the Planning Inspectorate on 8th August 2014. A series of Examination Hearings took place in November 2014 to allow the appointed Planning Inspector to test the soundness and legal compliance of the proposed plan. The Inspectors initial findings were received by Horsham District Council on 19th December 2014. The Inspector reveals in this letter that he considers the overall proposed strategy to concentrate growth in the main settlements in the hierarchy to be sound, rather than the alternative strategy of greater dispersal around the District which he considers to be less sustainable. The examination is currently suspended where it is due to resume in summer 2015.

6.5 Within the HDPF the following policies would apply to the application site, Draft Policy 20 identifies a number of sites that are proposed for use as permanent traveller sites to meet the existing need within the District, Policy 21 sets out criteria when allocating sites for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation and Policy 22 which is a criteria based policy relates to planning applications on non-allocated sites. Policy 20 and 22 would apply to this site and would contribute to the supply of gypsy and traveller accommodation.

6.6 It is accepted that the Council has not met the local need for pitches identified in the 2012 Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people Accommodation Needs Assessment. The assessment established a requirement for the provision of an additional 39 pitches. As part of this requirement there is an existing need for 29 pitches to address a current backlog of accommodation need arising from sites which may be unauthorised or subject to temporary permissions or through overcrowding. The assessment also revealed that there is an additional need for a further 10 pitches due to expected new family formations over the next five year period (2012 – 2017).

6.7 To meet the identified need from the existing backlog and future need up until 2017 HDPF Draft Policy 20 identifies 5 sites to be allocated for permanent Gypsy and Traveller accommodation, which in total identifies 32 pitches. The Council will rely on Draft Policy 20 to allow appropriate windfall sites to come forward through the planning application process on non-allocated sites. In addition to this when considering this application particular regard needs to be had to the fact that the Council has a duty to consider the need to provide for the backlog of gypsy and traveller sites beyond 2017. The 2012 Gypsy and Traveller Needs Assessment identified that there was a need for additional pitches over and above the 39 pitches required up until 2017, therefore additional sites will be required between 2017 and 2027. Therefore this application would help to address the existing backlog and future need for additional gypsy and traveller pitches across the district.

6.8 In the most recent appeal decision at Deer Park Farm, Hampers Lane (DC/10/1974 – March 2014) the Inspector noted with regards to the provision of sites that “there has been a consistent undersupply of traveller sites in Horsham District since at least 2007 and it cannot therefore, be assumed that this will necessarily change in the future, given that there is still no demonstrable 5 year supply” (paragraph 51). This also reflects an earlier gypsy appeal decision at Kingfisher Farm (December 2011), where the Inspector concluded that “The harm to the character of the area would not be great. On the other hand, the general need for sites in Horsham is significant and this is unlikely to be addressed in the near future. There is currently a lack of available alternatives and because progress in making planned provision for sites has been slow this is likely to remain the case for some time to come. Taken together these factors and the benefits arising from meeting a proportion of the unmet need for gypsy sites at Kingfisher farm outweigh the harm that would arise.”

6.9 Although new policies are emerging through the HDPF the Council is currently reliant on Policy DC32 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 as the most up to date ITEM A8 - 12

development plan policy and NPPF policies through the Planning Policy for Travellers Sites. Paragraph 21 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites document states that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. In addition Policy DC32 states that:

“Proposals for sites for caravans for Gypsies and Travellers will be granted planning permission provided that:

a) the Council is satisfied that a need for site provision exists locally and is clearly demonstrated and that the proposal represents an adequate way of meeting the established need; b) the identified local need cannot be met at any alternative suitable existing sites within or outside existing settlements.

If the need cannot be met at any alternative suitable sites as set out above, the following criteria will apply:

1) the site must be reasonably located for schools, shops and other local services and community facilities; 2) a satisfactory means of access can be provided and the existing highway network is adequate to serve the site; and 3) the proposed site accommodates adequate space for parking and turning of vehicles and provides easy access for service and emergency vehicles.”

6.10 In respect to the first criterion, the site is outside of the built-up area and as such is classified as being in a countryside location. The nearest settlement is Billingshurst, defined in the Local Development Framework as a Category 1 settlement and therefore having a good range of services and facilities.

6.11 In terms of sustainability the site is located within a rural location with access to limited services and facilities, however the site is approximately 650 meters from the existing Gypsy and Traveller site at Greenfield Farm, Valewood Lane and approximately 1000 meters from Kingfisher Farm. In the Kingfisher Farm appeal decision the Inspector concluded that “even if not ideal in terms of proximity to services the location of the appeal site is nevertheless a reasonable one” (para 30). The Inspector also specified that “issues of sustainability should not only be considered in terms of transport mode and distance from services. A settled base for gypsies would bring about general and wider benefits of easier access to GPs and other health services and allowing any children to attend school on a regular basis” (para 28).

6.12 Therefore after taking into consideration the current situation and other appeal decisions within the District it is your Officers view that the proposal accords with criterion (b) and (1) of Policy DC32 and criterion (d) of Policy 22 of the HDPF. Concern has been raised with regards to the need for the site to respect the scale of the nearest settled community and this concern is reflected within paragraph 23 of the NPPF Planning Policy for Traveller Sites which recognises that Local Planning Authorities should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing undue pressure on the local infrastructure. It is recognised that there are two Gypsy and Traveller sites nearby at Kingfisher Farm and Greenfield Farm however, it is not considered that the addition of three further pitches would dominate the nearest settled community.

ITEM A8 - 13

Landscape and Street Scene . 6.13 It is clear that a need for site provision exists and it is considered that the proposal could represent an adequate way of meeting an established need. Landscape comments were received relating to an application similar to that currently proposed where it was noted that; “The present site is unattractive and despoiled by building materials, rubble, hardstandings, poor quality outbuildings, broken down / scrapped vehicles / plant and a parked lorry.” It was considered by the Landscape Architect that with “modification and further development of the detail, a layout that could be supported in landscape and visual terms could be devised. Subject to the proposal being suitably modified, detailed and appropriately implemented and managed thereafter, it is considered that there might be a localised visual and landscape enhancement as compared with the site in its present state.” The site is located in an area already characterised by linear groupings of residential properties, and indeed on the site are existing former agricultural buildings which would be removed as part of the proposal. It is considered therefore that with the benefit of additional landscape details the proposal would not appear unduly prominent in its landscape setting, in so much as the open nature of the immediate area has already been compromised to some extent by existing residential properties.

Amenities of Neighbouring Properties

6.14 With regard to the impact on neighbouring occupier’s amenities, it is acknowledged that there are residential properties within close proximity. Willowcroft is located to the north of the site, whilst Duncan’s Lodge and Homefield Cottages are located on the opposite side of West Chiltington Lane and face towards the site. It is considered that the mobile homes due to their height would be screened by the planting to the front of the site, and consequently there would be limited visibility into the site from West Chiltington Lane. However, it is also considered that due to the single storey nature of the mobile homes the proposal would not result in overlooking of neighbouring properties. The applicant is also willing to supplement the existing landscaping in order to screen the development.

Highways

6.15 The Highway Authority has raised no objections to the scheme and therefore a refusal on highway grounds could not be justified. The County Surveyor has noted that the site has limited access to facilities except by car. However, the County Surveyor has stated that this would be the case for any small residential development at this location. The Authority therefore does not consider that an objection on the basis of accessibility could be sustained for a development of only 3 caravans. It is also considered that there is room on site for the parking and turning of vehicles with easy access for service and emergency vehicles.

Drainage

6.16 Concerns have been raised relating to drainage issues on the site. The Environment Agency were consulted regarding the application, and it is considered that a condition could be placed on the proposal which would require details of drainage to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to ensure that the site is properly managed in terms of foul drainage.

Conclusion

6.17 In conclusion, it is considered that the Council cannot currently meet the identified backlog of unmet gypsy and traveller accommodation need or future need in accordance with policy DC32 of the General Development Control Policies and emerging policies in the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF). Overall it is considered that although the application ITEM A8 - 14

site is located within the countryside it is considered to be within a reasonable distance from services and facilities. Furthermore the proposal would result in a visual enhancement of the existing site, through the removal of the existing building materials and equipment. Therefore it is considered that the principal of development for 3 gypsy and traveller pitches is considered acceptable and in accordance with Policy DC32 of the General Development Control Policies DPD, emerging Horsham District Planning Framework and the guidance within the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 2012.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that the application be granted, subject to the following conditions and the provision of a detailed landscape layout plan to meet the concerns of the Councils Landscape Architect:

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) This permission does not authorise use of the land as a caravan site by any persons other than Gypsies and Travellers, as defined in Annex 1 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (Department for Communities and Local Government 2012). Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the use of the site and in accordance with Policy DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007.

3) There shall be no more than 3 pitches on the site with no more than one caravan (as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968) stationed on each pitch at any time. Reason: To avoid an overcrowded appearance and to secure satisfactory standards of space and amenity in accordance with Policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007.

4) No industrial, commercial or business activity shall be carried on from the site, including the storage of materials. Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007.

5) No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on the site. Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007.

6) Details of any external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to installation. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007.

7) No development shall take place until details of storage provision for refuse and recycling have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local ITEM A8 - 15

Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the pitches. Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of refuse and recycling facilities in accordance with Policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy 2007.

8) No development shall be commenced unless and until a schedule of materials and samples of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for external walls and roofs of the proposed mobile homes have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

9) No development shall take place until details of screen walls, gates and/or fences have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no mobile home shall be occupied until such screen walls, gates and/or fences associated with them have been erected. Thereafter the screen walls and/or fences shall be retained as approved and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

10) No works or development shall take place until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any plants which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

11) No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturdays, and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

12) No burning of materials shall take place on the site. Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

13) The mobile homes shall not be occupied until the access drive has been constructed to a specification submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The access shall thereafter be constructed to the approved agreed specification. ITEM A8 - 16

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

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

15) Full details of means of foul and surface water drainage to serve the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing on the development hereby approved. The scheme agreed shall be implemented strictly in accordance with such an agreement unless subsequent amendments have been agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained.

16) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted all existing buildings shall be demolished (including the removal of foundations) and all materials arising from such demolition removed from the site. Reason: The site lies in an area where, under policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), permission for new development would not normally be granted.

Informative; The caravan will need to be issued with a Caravan Site Licence if permission is granted

Background Papers: DC/14/0634, DC/14/2023 DC/15/0162

The Barn

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

Lower Hook Farm

Willowcroft

43.0m

Duncan's Duncans Lodge Pond

Homestead 1 Cottages The Barn 2 Duncans Granary

42.8m

Pond

Scale: 1:1,927

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

Date 04/09/2015 MSA Number 100023865

ITEM A9 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (South) BY: Development Manager DATE: 15th September 2015 To demolish former agricultural buildings, construct 3 dwellings with DEVELOPMENT: parking. Temporary construction access SITE: Farm Buildings Brighton Road Shermanbury West Sussex WARD: Cowfold,Shermanbury and West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/15/0916 APPLICANT: Messrs Gordan and Newman

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Number of letters at variance to Officer’s recommendation

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of the existing buildings on the site and the construction of three detached dwellings. The proposed dwelling on the eastern edge of the site named The Coach House by the applicant would be a four bedroom property with accommodation within the roofspace. The dwelling would be “L” shaped and 19.4 metres wide and 12 metres deep at its furthest point, with a height to the ridge of 6.5 metres. The proposed dwelling would be timber clad with clay rooftiles. A garden area would be provided to the front of the property, with parking provided to the west of the building for two cars.

1.2 The two dwellings proposed on the western part of the site named Wychwood Barns 1 and 2 would be four bedroom detached properties. The dwellings would be similar in design and would be 15.7 metres wide, 10.2 metres deep at its furthest point and 6.8 metres in height to the ridge. The dwellings would be constructed with brick work to the ground floor, timber cladding to the first floor and a clay tile roof. A temporary construction access would be provided to the north of the site from Brighton Road.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

Contact Officer: Nicola Mason Tel: 01403 215289 ITEM A9 - 2

1.3 The application site is situated outside the built up area boundary on the northern side of Wychwood Lane, which is a private access road, and public footpath. Brighton Road is located to the eastern end of the track. The application buildings to be demolished consist of 5 former agricultural buildings in differing states of repair with associated hardstanding. To the east of the farm buildings is the residential dwelling Tudor Lodge, whilst to the south is the access track and the residential dwellings of Rivermede Cottage, Wychwood Place (converted barns) and Wychwood Farm House (which was formally the farm house for the original farm and has now been converted into a pair of semi-detached dwellings). To the west of the site is a field. To the north of the site of the proposed building described as The Coach House is a further building which is attached to the barn which is utilised by the owner of Tudor Lodge.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

The following sections of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), hereinafter referred to as the ‘Framework’, are relevant to the consideration of this application (Note: This list is not exhaustive and other paragraphs of the Framework are referred to where necessary within the contents of the report):

NPPF 6 – Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes NPPF 7 – Requiring good design

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

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

Local Development Framework (Core Strategy 2007):

CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character CP3 – Improving the Quality of New Development CP4 – Housing Provision CP5 – Built-up Areas and Previously Developed Land CP15 – Rural Strategy

Local Development Framework (General Development Control Policies 2007):

DC1 – Countryside Protection and Enhancement DC2 – Landscape Character DC9 – Development Principles DC24 – Conversion of Agricultural and Rural Buildings for Industrial, Business or Residential Uses DC40 – Transport and Access

Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD)

Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD ITEM A9 - 3

The Proposed Submission version of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was approved by Council in April 2014 as the Council’s policy for planning the future of the District for the period 2011-2031, and was submitted to the Government in August 2014. The Examination of the HDPF was undertaken by an independent Planning Inspector in November 2014, and the Inspector published his Initial Findings in December 2014. The Inspector considers the overall strategy of the plan to be sound as is made clear in paragraph 4 of his Initial Findings:

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

The Inspector suspended the Examination of the HDPF to allow time for the Council to show how the District’s overall housing provision can be increased to provide for a minimum of 750 dwellings per annum (15,000 over the plan period). Main Modifications were then prepared and consulted upon. An additional Examination Hearing took place on 3rd July 2015 to consider only the issues outlined in the Initial Findings. The Inspector published a Note to the Council on 21st July 2015 stating that the housing requirement for the plan period should be raised to 800 dwellings per annum (16,000 dwellings over the plan period). The Inspector also indicates that an early review (to begin within 3 years of adoption) of the Plan to provide for these additional dwellings will be required, and that a modification to Policy 36 (Strategic Policy: Appropriate Energy Use) to account for the recent written ministerial statement concerning wind energy development will be necessary. Given the Inspector’s Initial Findings and recent Note, the emerging plan is therefore considered to be a material consideration of considerable weight in terms of the overall strategy.

It should be noted that the whilst the required number of dwellings in the HDPF has been increased from 750pa to 800pa, the most recent trajectory for the plan period (2011-2031) clearly demonstrates that the HDPF will provide a sufficient housing land supply from existing allocations and commitments to meet this requirement until at least 2021. The early review mechanism will enable the Council to ensure sufficient land supply is secured to meet the needs after this period.

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/14/2496 Prior Notification for Change of use of Agricultural Building Withdrawn to a single dwelling with the demolition of part, re roofing the frame of the building, retaining the walls as a fixing for weatherboarding and two car parking spaces.

DC/14/2495 Prior Notification for Change of use of Agricultural Building REF to a single dwelling with the demolition of part, re roofing the frame of the building, retaining the walls as a fixing for weatherboarding and two car parking spaces.

ITEM A9 - 4

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

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

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.2 Environmental Services – No objection

3.3 Public Health and Licensing ( summarised) – The contamination report submitted with the application is a first step in assessing contamination risks on the site. Further detail would be required which could be required by condition.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.4 West Sussex County Council Highways (summarised) – has noted on balance after consideration of all evidence given, that the proposal for three dwellings would not have a severe impact on the operation of the Highway network, and therefore is not contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 32), and that there are no transport grounds to resist the proposal.

3.5 Southern Water (summarised) – A water main crosses the site and therefore its position should be identified on site prior to the layout of the development being finalised. It is possible a connection could be made to the public sewer. There are no public surface water sewers in the area therefore an alternative means of draining surface water would be required.

3.6 Environment Agency (summarised) – No comments to make as the application falls outside current working arrangements.

3.7 Public Rights of Way (summarised) – No objection subject to conditions

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.8 Shermanbury Parish Council – No objection however to satisfy neighbours’ concerns about the future use of additional land the Parish Council would suggest that restrictions are placed on the land to restrict its use for gardens or agricultural purposes only.

3.9 Twenty six letters were received supporting the application on the following grounds; • HDC does not have a five year housing supply • Other buildings have been converted and the buildings are now out of character • Site not isolated • Residential use more appropriate • Good use of brownfield site • Barns no longer appropriate for agricultural use • Proposal would remove unsightly buildings and improve conditions for neighbouring occupiers

3.10 Twenty six letters were received objecting to the application (with eight writers writing more than once) on the following grounds; • Increase in noise and traffic ITEM A9 - 5

• Access is narrow and exit onto main road dangerous • Over development of site • Lack of parking • Houses in lane are all individual the application shows barns 1 and 2 as identical in design • Proposal out of keeping • Permission would not be given by Wychwood Lane Ltd • Lack of parking for proposed development • Overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.

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 development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The key issues for consideration in relation to this proposal are:

• The principle of the development • Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area • Highway impacts

Principle of development

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

6.3 The application site lies in the countryside outside of the identified built-up area of any settlement. The proposed development does not, therefore, constitute the provision of residential development within or immediately adjacent to either a Category 1 or Category 2 settlement, as identified within policy CP5 of the Core Strategy. Given this location, the initial principle of the proposal moves to be considered in the context of paragraph 55 of the NPPF, policy CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

6.4 Paragraph 55 of the NPPF states that new isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances. Consistent with this, Policy CP15 states that any development should be appropriate to the countryside location and should contribute to sustainable farming enterprises; other countryside based enterprises, the ITEM A9 - 6

wider rural economy and/or promote recreation or the enjoyment of the countryside. This policy also requires development to be contained within existing buildings, within an existing rural industrial estate, or result in substantial environmental improvements. Policy DC1 states that ‘outside built-up area boundaries, development will not be permitted unless it is considered essential to its countryside location and in addition meets one of the following criteria: a) supports the needs of agriculture or forestry; b) enables the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste; c) provides for quiet informal recreational use; or, d) ensures the sustainable development of rural areas.’

6.5 The proposed development of the site for residential purposes would not constitute a development which is essential to this countryside location, neither is it considered that the proposal would contribute to existing rural enterprises, activities or recreational opportunities. The proposal therefore fails to accord with the NPPF and with policies CP15 and DC1.

6.6 The Council has adopted the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD; the aim of which is to provide the flexibility to ensure that there is sufficient housing supply during the life of the existing adopted Core Strategy. The FAD SPD sets out the requirements against which planning applications for development on greenfield and brownfield sites which adjoin defined settlement boundaries will be considered. It is limited to such areas as the proximity to existing Category 1 and Category 2 settlements is used as an indication that sites in these areas are more likely to have attributes of sustainability, such as access to community facilities, employment opportunities and means of public transport.

6.7 As the application site does not adjoin an existing settlement boundary, but rather is located in an area classified as open countryside, the FAD SPD is not applicable.

6.8 The emerging Horsham District Planning Framework is also a material consideration in the determination of the application with considerable weight. Whilst the required number of dwellings in the HDPF has been increased from 750pa to 800pa, the most recent trajectory for the plan period (2011-2031) clearly demonstrates that the HDPF will provide a sufficient housing land supply from existing allocations and commitments to meet this requirement until at least 2021.

6.9 The site lies outside of the built-up area boundary of a town or village as defined in emerging Policy 3 of the HDPF. Emerging Policy 3 seeks to locate appropriate development, including infilling, redevelopment and conversion within built-up area boundaries, with a focus on brownfield land. As the site is outside of the built-up area boundary of a town or village it would not meet the requirements of Policy 3 of the HDPF.

6.10 Emerging Policy 4 relates to settlement expansion and states that; “Outside built-up area boundaries, the expansion of settlements will be supported where; a.the site is allocated in the Local Plan or in a Neighbourhood Plan and adjoins an existing settlement edge. b.the level of expansion is appropriate to the scale and function of the settlement type. c.the development is demonstrated to meet the identified local housing needs and employment needs or will assist the retention and enhancement of community facilities and services. d.the impact of the development individually or cumulatively does not prejudice comprehensive long term development, in order not to conflict with the development strategy; and e.the development is contained within an existing defensible boundary and the landscape and townscape character features are maintained and enhanced.”

The site has not been allocated in the Neighbourhood Plan or the Local Plan and it is not considered that the proposal has demonstrated how it would meet identified housing ITEM A9 - 7

needs, and would not maintain or enhance the localities landscape character features. It is therefore considered that the proposal does not comply with emerging policy 4.

6.11 The applicant’s agent has stated that the removal of the existing buildings on the site would represent an improvement to the overall appearance of the site. However, it is not considered that the proposed removal of the existing structures across the site and their replacement with three residential properties would lead to any significant benefit in terms of visual improvement to the surrounding area. The existing buildings, whilst sizeable, are not unduly prominent within their surroundings and would not be unexpected in a rural location. It is considered that they have a functional appearance appropriate to the countryside, and do not cause significant harm to the character or appearance of the area.

6.12 The site does not fall within the definition of "previously developed land" as the definition of such land excludes land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings. The site would therefore be classified as green field. It is also considered that the "fall back position" identified as being the use of the buildings for their lawful planning use (as agricultural buildings and barn 4 for B8 storage uses) would not constitute a use which would represent a harmful activity which would justify the erection of three detached dwellings for which there is no planning policy support.

Highway safety

6.13 The Highways Authority at WSCC has reviewed the proposed access to the site and has not raised any objections to the proposed development. Similarly, no objection is raised by the Highway Authority in relation to traffic movements and highway capacity or safety. The car parking shown would provide 6 No. spaces. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that 'development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.' It is not considered that the proposed development would lead to impacts upon the highway that could be considered severe. The Highways Authority are satisfied that the proposed site can accommodate development at the scale proposed, would not cause any significant impact in terms of an increase in traffic movements within the vicinity of the site and that car parking would accord with the WSCC Parking Calculator. It is therefore considered in this respect the proposal complies with policy DC40.

Design, scale and layout

6.14 The proposal seeks permission for the construction of three detached properties to replace five agricultural buildings. Section 7 of the NPPF provides guidance relating to design and states that good design is a "key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people." It also notes in paragraph 64 that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

6.15 Notwithstanding the concerns raised with regards to the principle of the application it is considered that the appearance and siting of the Coach House may be appropriate in the context of its immediate setting.

6.16 However, it is considered that the proposed dwellings named as Wychwood Barns 1 and 2 by reason of their size, siting and design would appear out of keeping with the rural character of the area. The properties within the immediate vicinity are considered to be individual in style and the provision of two identical dwellings as proposed would result in a form of development that would not be locally distinctive in character, and would be urban in form. It is considered that the scale of the proposed dwellings would dominate the buildings in the immediate vicinity and would not reflect the domestic scale of the adjacent ITEM A9 - 8

buildings to the south of the site. The applicant’s agent has indicated that if the principle of the development could be established the applicant could be flexible with regards to the design and proposed materials for the proposed dwellings. Nevertheless a design has been provided for consideration, and the Local Planning Authority can only consider the details submitted as part of the application. It is therefore considered that the proposal does not comply with Policy DC9 or the design requirements reflected in the NPPF, and therefore does not meet the environmental role required to be considered sustainable development.

Conclusion

6.17 In summary, the proposed development of the site for residential purposes would not constitute a development which is essential to this countryside location, neither is it considered that the proposal would contribute to existing rural enterprises, activities or recreational opportunities. It is therefore considered that the proposed dwellings would be contrary to Policy CP15 of the Core Strategy and DC1 of the General Development Control Policies. It is also not considered that the proposed dwellings would not be in keeping with the rural character of the area and the proposal would also be contrary to policy CP3 of the Core Strategy and DC9 of the General Development Control Policies, and emerging Policies 3 and 4 of the Horsham District Planning Framework.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission is refused for the following reasons;

1. The site lies within a rural location outside the limits of any existing settlement and does not constitute a use considered essential to such a countryside location. The proposal would therefore conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework, and in particular with paragraph 55, and with policies CP1, CP5 and CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007), and Policies 3 and 4 of the Horsham District Planning Framework (Preferred Strategy).

2. The proposed dwellings by reason of their size, scale, siting and design would be out of keeping with the character of the area and would represent a form of development which would be detrimental to the rural character and appearance of the area. The proposal therefore conflicts with paragraph 64 of the National Planning Policy Framework, policy CP1 and CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC2, and DC9, of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies

Background Papers: DC/14/2495, DC/14/2496 DC/15/0916

Farm Buildings

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

Scale: 1:3,853

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

Date 04/09/2015 MSA Number 100023865

ITEM A10 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (South) BY: Development Manager DATE: 15th September 2015 DEVELOPMENT: Retention of single storey ancillary garden building SITE: 4 Clays Hill, Bramber, Steyning, BN44 3WD WARD: Bramber, Upper Beeding and Woodmancote APPLICATION: DC/15/1471 APPLICANT: Mr R Healy

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Referred to Planning Committee (Representations)

RECOMMENDATION: Grant Planning Permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks retrospective planning permission for a single storey outbuilding positioned to the far south of the rear garden of the property, which is proposed to be used as ancillary accommodation incidental to the use and enjoyment of the dwelling.

1.2 The building is positioned directly adjacent to the south and west boundaries, and measures to a width of 7.6m and a depth of 3.8m. The building incorporates a hipped roof measuring to a total height of 3.36m, with an eaves height of 2m. It is built of clay tiles with timber cladding that has been stained.

1.3 Due to the sloping nature of the ground, a brick and concrete paved area has been constructed, levelling off the ground and infilling the space between the sloping ground.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.5 The application site is a detached dwelling that lies to the south of Clays Hill, within the built up area of Steyning.

Contact Officer: Tamara Dale Tel: 01403 215 166 ITEM A10 - 2

1.6 The site is surrounded by properties of similar size and appearance, with the neighbouring properties built along a relatively uniform build line. The sloping nature of the ground levels means that a number of the surrounding properties are set at various ground levels, with the application site stepped slightly above the neighbouring property to the east.

1.7 The rear garden is bound by a 1.8m high fence to the west, and a 2m high fence to the east and south, with scattered shrubbery along the boundary of the rear garden, as well as along the boundaries of the neighbouring properties.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (2012):-

Section 7 (Requiring Good Design) Paragraphs 7 and 14 (Presumption in favour of sustainable development)

2.3 National Planning Policy Guidance (2014)

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 Policies CP 3 of the Core Strategy (2007)

2.5 Policy DC 9 (Development Principles) of the General Development Control Policies (2007)

OTHER RELEVANT GUIDANCE

2.6 HDC Design Guidance Advice Leaflet No. 1 House Extensions (2008)

PLANNING HISTORY

2.7 No relevant planning history

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

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

ITEM A10 - 3

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 N/A

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 N/A

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 Parish Council Consultation, consulted on the 15 July 2015. The response received 31 July 2015 can be summarised as follows: Objection on grounds of: • Over development – too large for the site • Effect on the neighbour’s privacy • Setting of a precedent • If approved, a condition to ensure screening and planting is recommended

3.4 Comments were received from Cllr. Staines offering an objection based upon the following: • Overdevelopment of site • Proximity to neighbouring properties • Effects on privacy and noise generation • Out of character and could lead to the setting of a precedent

3.5 9 letters of objection were received from 5 different households, and these can be summarised as follows: • Out of character and has no relation to the small sheds and greenhouses within other gardens • Of a siting, size and position, on a raised terrace, that is intrusive • Unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy • Possible noise and light pollution • Setting of a precedent • Overhanging nature to south and west boundaries • Impact on water and drainage systems

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 development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

ITEM A10 - 4

6 PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The key issues for consideration in relation to this proposal are:

• The principle of the development • Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area • Amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties

Principle of Development

6.2 The property is located within the defined built up area of Steyning where there is a presumption in favour of development.

Design of Development and Character of the Street Scene

6.3 Policies CP3 and DC9 promote development which is of high quality and design, and is sympathetic to the character of the dwelling and surroundings.

6.4 The proposed building measures to a width of 7.6m and a depth of 3.8m, and incorporates a hipped roof measuring to a height of 3.3m. The building is positioned adjacent to the southern and western boundaries, and is set above the neighbouring sites due to the sloping nature of the ground level.

6.5 Whilst providing a prominent addition within the rear garden because of the varied ground levels, it is recognised that the surrounding area is characterised by various outbuildings and sheds of similar design and appearance to the building, albeit at a smaller scale. As such, the form of the building is considered to be of an appearance and form that sufficiently reflects the character of the surroundings, and is not considered to result in harm to the context of the residential area.

6.6 Furthermore, the materials used are considered to correspond sympathetically to the nature of the surroundings, so that the building is sufficiently sympathetic to the character of the dwelling and surroundings.

6.7 Therefore, the ancillary garden building is considered to be of a design, scale and form that would be sufficiently sympathetic to the character of the area, in accordance with policy CP3 of the Core Strategy (2007) and policy DC9 of the Horsham District General Development Control Policies (2007).

Residential Amenity

6.8 As stated within policy DC9, any development should have consideration for scale, density, and orientation.

6.9 Whilst this contributes to a prominence within the context of the site and its surroundings, which as expressed within the objection letters leads to a perceived form of overlooking and loss of privacy, the nature of the building as an ancillary garden room should be taken into account. The agent has confirmed that the use of the building would be ancillary space incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling, and would predominantly be used as a games room and storage area. As such, the building would not be in continual use, but would rather be used for temporary periods of time.

6.10 Following on from a site visit, although recognised that the building is slightly raised above the neighbouring ground levels, it is sited at the end of the rear garden, away from the principal garden areas that are most likely to be used by the neighbouring occupiers. In ITEM A10 - 5

addition, whilst appearing prominent within the site, when viewed from neighbouring properties, the existence of the 1.8m high fence and scattered shrubbery on the site boundaries mitigates potential views of the building. Therefore, it is considered that the distance between the building and the rear elevations of the neighbouring dwellings, at a distance of approximately 28m, mitigates any potential impact upon the neighbouring properties through outlook and loss of privacy. Whilst, the 1.8m high fencing around the perimeter, as well as the scattered hedging and shrubbery, is considered to sufficiently restrict views into and out of neighbouring gardens.

6.11 Therefore, on balance, whilst the elevated location of the building may be considered to result in a degree of perceived impact on the amenities of the neighbours, the use of such building as ancillary games room and store, as well as the distance between the building and rear elevation of the dwellings, is considered to be sufficient so that the ancillary building does not result in a detrimental impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties, in accordance with policy DC9.

Other Matters

6.12 It should be noted that had the garden building been positioned further than 2m away from the boundary, it could have been built under permitted development.

6.13 Concern has been raised regarding the overhanging nature of the boundary. The agent has confirmed that the building would not include guttering, and therefore the current extent of the roof overhang, which sits in line with the existing boundary, is considered acceptable.

Conclusions

6.14 The garden outbuilding is considered to be of a design, form and appearance that would be sympathetic to the character of the dwelling and surroundings, whilst of a siting and distance that would not have a severe detrimental impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties, in accordance with policies CP3 and DC9.

7. RECOMMENDATION

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

1 The building hereby permitted shall be used solely for purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the existing property as a dwelling and shall not be occupied as an independent planning unit of residential accommodation.

Reason: The use of this building would be contrary to Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Background Papers: DC/15/1471

DC/15/1471

4 Clays Hill

H R m 1 .9 For0 Business use only - not for distribution to the general public

Bramber

P f a e th Lake D (u m )

Guide Post 15.5m

re me ela D ene ind Wh d e n d imo Hill i Cr View s 8.3m

m d l s a n r e y e i d f n a e B s g Es w n lm i n 1 o r lh e a p Le e den S r 4 Lex G 8 e ous 2 ft H Cro M on A gd U in Hill D G

L n r to B e I n N y e r e ld M M A n e L B 1 o c a b A e u h r a e D t N r n id n l s g H e E y t o k a h a t W B w o s s i A n u o n p n s A s e t i i o g s d

n e h e n 11

ne rsto the Fea ir Fluellen S F es e re r T a h d F n o SE wo LO r C e Lox LYN Apple UD s A E M h

Trees d G f i g e r ity e e l ip d d h e en s r Windyridge i n e l S l ARK w AUDLYN P M o o Pippins High Trees d

T L S Derrynane h o r p T n e i n a g e n m l E l e P e l y m i a n C d s e r s o f t Scale: 1:1,927

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

Date 04/09/2015 MSA Number 100023865