Park North, North Street, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1RL Tel: (01403) 215100 (calls may be recorded) Fax: (01403) 262985 DX 57609 HORSHAM 6 www.horsham.gov.uk

Chief Executive - Tom Crowley

Personal callers and deliveries: please come to Park North

E-Mail: [email protected] Direct Line: 01403 215465

Development Control (South) Committee TUESDAY 21ST AUGUST 2012 AT 2.00p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM

Councillors: David Jenkins (Chairman) Sheila Matthews Vice-Chairman) Roger Arthur Ian Howard Adam Breacher Liz Kitchen Jonathan Chowen Gordon Lindsay Philip Circus Chris Mason George Cockman Brian O’Connell David Coldwell Roger Paterson Ray Dawe Sue Rogers Brian Donnelly Kate Rowbottom Andrew Dunlop Jim Sanson Jim Goddard

Tom Crowley Chief Executive

AGENDA

1. Apologies for absence

2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 17th July 2012 (attached)

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

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

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

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

Paper certified as sustainable by an independent global forest certification organisation

Item Ward Reference Site No. Number A1 Chanctonbury DC/11/1924 Calluna Nyetimber Lane West Chiltington

A2 Billingshurst and DC/12/0521 & Former Garden of Cedars Farmhouse Shipley DC/12/0522 Parbrook Billingshurst

A3 Cowfold,Shermanbury DC/12/1305 The Dairy Sake Ride Farm Wineham Lane and West Grinstead Wineham

A4 Chantry DC/12/0611 High Larches Melrose Place Storrington

A5 Chantry DC/12/1022 Springwood Sandgate Lane Storrington

A6 Cowfold,Shermanbury DC/12/1120 Smallham Farm Barns Kennel Lane West and West Grinstead Grinstead

A7 Chanctonbury DC/12/0885 Roundabout Hotel Monkmead Lane West Chiltington

A8 Cowfold,Shermanbury DC/12/1143 Wealden Barn Coopers Farm Bolney Road and West Grinstead Cowfold

A9 Chantry DC/12/0474 Storrington Club 28 West Street Storrington

A10 Pulborough and DC/12/0932 Old Manor The Street Nutbourne Coldwaltham

A11 Pulborough and DC/12/0815 Land Rear of 1 To 6 Aston Rise Pulborough Coldwaltham

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

DCS120717

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 17TH JULY 2012

Present: Councillors: David Jenkins (Chairman), Roger Arthur, Adam Breacher, George Cockman, David Coldwell, Brian Donnelly, Jim Goddard, Ian Howard, Liz Kitchen, Gordon Lindsay, Chris Mason, Brian O’Connell, Sue Rogers, Kate Rowbottom

Apologies: Councillors: Sheila Matthews (Vice-Chairman), Jonathan Chowen, Philip Circus, Ray Dawe, Andrew Dunlop, Roger Paterson, Jim Sanson

DCS/19 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 19th June 2012 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

DCS/20 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

There were no declarations of interest.

DCS/21 ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

DCS/22 APPEALS

Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No Site Appellant(s)

DC/12/0327 The Barn, Stable Cottage, Mr and Mrs B Stern Wheatsheaf Road, Henfield DC/12/0326 The Barn, Stable Cottage, Mr and Mrs B Stern Wheatsheaf Road, Henfield DC/12/0325 The Barn, Stable Cottage, Mr and Mrs B Stern Wheatsheaf Road, Henfield DC/09/1704 Wabblegate Farm, Blackgate Lane, Mr J Scrase Pulborough DC/12/0463 Plot 1, Bramblefield, Crays Lane, Mr Ian Hollerin Thakeham

Appeal Decisions

Ref No Site Appellant(s) Decision

DC/11/1348 Siesta, The Bostal, Upper Mrs Christine Allowed Beeding Hatchett Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/22 Appeals (cont.) Appeal Decisions (cont.)

DC/11/2373 Mitchbourne Farm, Mr John Gibert Allowed Malthouse Lane, Ashington EN/12/2011 The Holt, Merrywood Mrs J Gamble Dismissed Lane, Thakeham EN/11/401 Site 2, Land South of Mr R and Mrs L Dismissed Little Rooklands, New Hall Gilbert Lane, Small Dole DC/11/2412 The Maples, Hampers Mr and Mrs B Allowed Lane, Storrington and W Ratcliffe DC/11/1630 Land West of Downsview, Mr K Vangelov Dismissed New Hall Lane, Small Dole

DCS/23 DECISIONS ON LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATES

DC/12/0656 Roma Farm, Wineham Lane, Wineham - for Modified Certificate the use of land at Roma Farm for commercial issued for stables equestrian, full and DIY Livery, stud and and livery only training yard for the training of horses and riding lessons. SDNP/ Stream Farm, Woodmancote - for the use of Granted 12/00023/LDE a converted barn as a unit of residential accommodation

DCS/24 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/1654 - DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AND REDEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE UP TO 550 DWELLINGS (CLASS C3), LAND TO ACCOMMODATE A NEW PRIMARY SCHOOL AND LAND TO ACCOMMODATE A DENTIST'S SURGERY AND CRÈCHE (FALLING WITHIN CLASS D1), WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS AND PLAY SPACE. SUCH DEVELOPMENT TO INCLUDE PROVISION OF STRATEGIC LANDSCAPE, PROVISION OF NEW VEHICULAR, CYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ROUTES, ANCILLARY ENGINEERING AND OTHER OPERATIONS (OUTLINE) SITE: LAND EAST OF BILLINGSHURST TO NORTH AND SOUTH OF A272, BILLINGSHURST APPLICANT: DEVINE HOMES PLC, RESIDE DEVELOPMENTS LTD, BELLWAY HOMES (SOUTH EAST) LTD AND RYDON GROUP LTD

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought outline permission to establish the principle of development to provide up to 550 residential dwellings, land to accommodate a new primary school and land to accommodate a dentist's surgery and crèche with associated access and play space. Such development would include strategic landscape provision as

2 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/24 Planning Application: DC/11/1654 (cont.)

well as the provision of new vehicular, cycle and pedestrian access routes and ancillary engineering operations. The application had been amended since its initial submission and full consultation had been undertaken on both the original and amended plans. As this was an outline application, details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale would be reserved for a future application with the access being the only matter for which approval was partially sought at this stage. The application sought to establish a number of parameters as set out in a document dated April 2012, which updated that originally submitted with the application. Other supporting documents submitted with the application included a Design & Access Statement (amended in April), Soil and Agricultural Assessment, Outline Energy Strategy, Utilities Assessment, Phase 1 Environmental Study (amended in April), Sustainability Statement, Statement of Community Involvement (addendum provided in April) and detailed Environmental Statement with Non-Technical Summary with some addendums provided in April.

The application site was located outside the built-up area as defined by the Horsham District Local Development Framework and consisted of an almost wholly undeveloped greenfield site, except where the A272 crossed the site in an east-west direction as it entered Billingshurst. Existing residential development in Billingshurst was located to the west of the site and residential development currently being constructed at land to the south of Hilland Farm would border the application site on its western and northern boundaries. In general, the application site was more open on its northern side. It was noted that the Billingshurst Conservation Area was adjacent to that part of the application site which was immediately to the north of the A272 and a listed building was located next to the boundary of part of the proposed housing site. Details of the landscape character of the site were reported.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF); South East Plan Policies SP3, CC1, CC2, CC4, CC6, CC7, H1, H2, H3, H5, C5, BE1, BE2 and SH8; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP8, CP9, CP12, CP13, CP14, CP17 and CP19; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC12, DC13, DC18, DC21, DC22 and DC40, together with guidance contained within the Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document (2009), the Planning Obligations SPD and the Billingshurst Design Statement, were relevant to the determination of this application. Emerging policy also needed to be taken into account, including the consultation document on the amount of housing required in the District, which was a response to the Localism Act and the early stages of the Core Strategy Review.

There was no relevant planning history in respect of the site.

The Landscape Architect objected to the application. The Design &

3 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/24 Planning Application: DC/11/1654 (cont.)

Conservation Officer, Strategic Planning, Public Health & Licensing, Engineering Section, Arboricultural Officer, Housing Strategy & Development Manager, West Sussex County Archaeologist, West Sussex County Ecologist, West Sussex County Council Highways, Environment Agency, Natural England, Southern Water raised no objections, subject to conditions in a number of cases, and their comments were noted. The comments of the Billingshurst Action Initiative Team, Sussex Police were noted. The Parish Council strongly objected to the application. 286 letters of objection had been received in respect of the original application and a further 70 had been received in respect of the amended plans. Two letters of support and two of comment had been received. Three members of the public and a representative of the Parish Council spoke in objection to the proposal and three members of the public addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy stated that priority would be given to locating new development within towns and villages which had defined built-up areas. The current application site was located outside the built-up area and had therefore been advertised as a ‘departure’ application from LDF policies.

Whilst Billingshurst was defined as a Category 1 settlement, defined as towns and villages with a good range of services and facilities as well as some access to public transport – capable of sustaining some expansion, infilling and redevelopment, the application site was located outside the built-up area of the settlement.

Criterion 3 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD stated that development permitted under the document should not exceed 150 dwellings to accord with the aims of policies CP1, CP3, CP8, CP9, CP15, CP19 and DC9. Quite clearly, the current proposal would vastly exceed such a total and indeed the total had already been exceeded in Billingshurst as a result of successful appeals. However, the Council had resolved to respond to applications on an ad hoc basis, following the decision to reject the draft Interim Statement approach.

It was acknowledged that the current five year housing land supply requirement for the District was a material consideration. However, Members considered that the current proposal was contrary to the NPPF, as it did not constitute sustainable development.

Members also considered that the scale of the proposed development would have a significant impact upon the character of the area, particularly as the site was located in the countryside.

Whilst the requirement for the provision of land for a Primary School would form part of any planning agreement, it was noted that the proposed development would have additional impacts upon education provision at early years,

4 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/24 Planning Application: DC/11/1654 (cont.)

secondary school and sixth form levels which could not be accommodated within existing establishments. Members therefore considered that there was inadequate infrastructure within the village to support the additional requirements of the proposed development.

Members also considered that the proposal was premature, as wider development options in the District had not yet been considered.

Members therefore considered that the proposal was unacceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/1654 be refused for the following reasons:

01 The proposed development site forms part of a much larger area east of Billingshurst which is presently one of a number of sites that Horsham District Council is considering as a potential strategic development site through the local plan process. Consequently this proposed development is considered contrary to the aims and principles of the Localism Act and the National Planning Policy Framework because the proposed development of the site, which is unallocated and outside of the existing defined built-up area, is not plan led and the local community has not been given the opportunity to shape its surroundings in line with the principles of Localism and the National Planning Policy Framework.

02 The proposed development by virtue of its location outside of the defined built-up area, the extent and scale of the proposed housing development and the provision of a spine road would cause significant material harm to the visual character and amenity of the area, in particular failing to maintain its landscape character and adversely affecting the setting of the Billingshurst Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings. The proposal is therefore contrary to government policy contained within the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular the core principles outlined in paragraph 17 relating to the conserving and enhancing the natural environment and heritage assets and Sections 6, 11 & 12 and policies CP1, CP3, CP5, CP13 and CP15 of the Core

5 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/24 Planning Application: DC/11/1654 (cont.)

Strategy (2007) and policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC12 and DC13 of the General Development Control Policies Development Plan Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.

03 The proposed development would not accord with national policy objectives concerned with the promotion of thriving, inclusive and sustainable communities having regard to the accessibility of jobs and other services from the application site by modes of transport other than the private car and is therefore considered unsustainable as it is not considered there is sufficient local capacity in existing local infrastructure in terms of accessibility to jobs as well as the availability of secondary education places, to meet the requirements arising from the new development, and that insufficient arrangements have been made to provide the necessary improvements in infrastructure. The proposed development therefore fails to comply with policies CP13 & CP19 (e) of the Core Strategy of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.

The meeting closed at 12.49pm having commenced at 11.30am.

CHAIRMAN

6 DCS120717

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 17TH JULY 2012

Present: Councillors: David Jenkins (Chairman), Roger Arthur, Adam Breacher, Philip Circus, George Cockman, David Coldwell, Brian Donnelly, Andrew Dunlop, Jim Goddard, Ian Howard, Liz Kitchen, Gordon Lindsay, Chris Mason, Brian O’Connell, Sue Rogers, Kate Rowbottom, Jim Sanson

Apologies: Councillors: Sheila Matthews (Vice-Chairman), Jonathan Chowen, Ray Dawe, Roger Paterson

DCS/25 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

There were no declarations of Members’ interests.

It was noted that Rod Brown, the Head of Planning & Environmental Services had declared an interest in planning application DC/12/1004 as he was a School Governor at St Peters School Henfield, which was interested in obtaining s106 funding from this development should permission be granted. He confirmed that he had and would take no part in the processing or determination of the application.

DCS/26 ANNOUNCEMENTS

There were no announcements.

DCS/27 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/1004 - THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE FOR UP TO 102 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING, OPEN SPACE AND ACCESS (OUTLINE) SITE: LAND EAST OF MANOR CLOSE HENFIELD APPLICANT: MR R THOMAS

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application was identical to application DC/11/1962, which had gone to appeal on the grounds of non-determination and which was to be heard by way of a Public Inquiry. The Committee meeting had resolved not to contest this appeal as there was not considered to be any justification for a refusal of the application on planning grounds (Minute No DCS/183 (15.5.12) refers).

The current application again sought to establish the principle of developing the site with residential development of up to 102 dwellings. Matters for consideration under this outline application comprised the principle of the development and the access. The appearance of the buildings, landscaping, layout of the site and scale would be dealt with as subsequent reserved matters. Vehicular access to the proposed development was proposed from an existing access point at the north-western corner of the site, off Wantley Hill Estate. A second access point from Benson Road, in the southern part of the site, would be for pedestrian and cycle access only. Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/27 Planning Application: DC/12/1004 (cont.)

The application site was located outside any built-up area as currently defined by the Horsham District Local Development Framework and the proposal had been submitted under the terms of the Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which sought to deliver small housing sites capable of delivering housing in the short term and to maintain the Council’s rolling five year housing land supply. The site was to the east of Manor Close and was bounded to the south by residential development in Furners Lane. A recreation ground was situated adjacent to the northern boundary and the eastern boundary was formed of ditches, hedgerows and individual trees, with significant gaps in the vegetation and open countryside beyond.

National Planning Policy Framework 2012 – Delivering Sustainable Development Sections 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC18 and DC40; and South East Plan policies SP1, CC1, CC2, CC3, CC4, CC5, H1 and H3 were relevant to the determination of this application, together with the guidance contained within the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD and the Planning Obligations SPD.

Relevant planning history included:

HF/55/91 Erection of a doctor’s surgery/medical centre Withdrawn & car parking (outline) HF/61/91 Erection of a doctor’s surgery and associated Refused car parking (outline) HF/65/91 Erection of 10 village houses, village car park Refused and reserve for extension of medical facilities or village housing phase 2 (outline) HF/25/92 Erection of 10 social & 66 dwellings, car park Withdrawn extension, public open space and toddlers play area, health centre with parking DC/11/1962 The erection of up to 102 residential dwellings Appeal together with associated landscaping, open submitted on the space and access (outline) grounds of non- determination

The comments of the Head of Strategic & Community Planning, the Housing Strategy & Development Manager, the Design & Conservation Adviser, the Council’s Technical Officer, the County Archaeologist, Southern Water, NHS Sussex, the Environment Agency and Sussex Police were noted. The Council’s Landscape Architect, whilst raising no objection to the proposal in principle, objected to the scheme in its current form. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer raised no objection to the proposal. The County Surveyor, the County Ecologist and the Environmental Health Officer raised no objections to the application and their comments were noted. Henfield Community Partnership and CPRE Sussex

2 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/27 Planning Application: DC/12/1004 (cont.)

Countryside Trust objected to the application. The Parish Council strongly objected to the proposal and 336 letters of objection had been received. Three members of the public and a representative of the Parish Council addressed the Committee in objection to the proposal.

It was considered that the principal issues in the consideration of the application were whether the proposal was acceptable in principle, having regard to Government and development plan policy; the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the area; and highway safety.

The application had been submitted under the auspices of the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD, which had arisen from the need to provide flexibility to ensure that there was sufficient housing supply during the life of the existing adopted Core Strategy. However, whilst potentially the application site could fall within the remit of the SPD, Members considered that it did not meet all the criteria set out within the SPD.

Also, in view of the scale of the proposed development, Members considered that there was insufficient infrastructure to accommodate the additional requirements of the proposal.

Members therefore considered that the proposal was unacceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/12/1004 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the local Members, the Chairman of the Committee and the Cabinet Member for Living & Working Communities, to allow the formulation of appropriate reasons for refusal. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be refused.

DCS/28 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0747 - DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DERELICT GREENHOUSES AND PARTS OF THE EXISTING BOUNDARY WALL (TO PROVIDE ACCESS) AND THE ERECTION OF 41 NEW (2-BED DWELLINGS) FOR RETIRED PEOPLE (INCLUDING 16 AFFORDABLE FLATS) PLUS GARAGES AND PARKING ON LAND ADJACENT TO ST JOSEPH'S ABBEY SITE: LAND NORTH EAST OF ST JOSEPHS ABBEY, CHURCH STREET, STORRINGTON APPLICANT: BEECHCROFT DEVELOPMENTS

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing derelict greenhouses and parts of the existing boundary wall (to provide access) and the

3 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/28 Planning Application: DC/12/0747 (cont.)

erection of 41 2-bed dwellings for retired people (including 16 affordable flats), plus garages and parking, on land adjacent to St Joseph's Abbey. There was an extant planning permission and Conservation Area Consent dating relating to the site. However, following the issuing of the permission and as conditions were beginning to be discharged it was found that ecological mitigation measures would need to extend beyond the site boundary and, therefore, a revised application would be required to include the additional site area. The applicant then decided to amend parts of the scheme, most notably relating to the design of the proposal. The only existing access to the site was via a narrow entrance in Browns Lane. Given that this would be unsuitable as the sole access to a development of this nature (although the access will remain to serve two of the proposed units and three visitor spaces), a new access from Church Street was proposed which would involve demolition of part of the wall.

The majority of the application site (and all of the proposed housing) was located within the built-up area as defined within the Local Development Framework. However, the additional area of land south east of the proposed dwellings, required for additional ecological mitigation, was located outside the built-up area. That part of the site located within the built-up area had been allocated for development under policy AL10 of the Site Specific Allocations of Land Document. The western extent of the site was within the Storrington Conservation Area and an Area of Archaeological Importance. A number of neighbouring properties were clearly visible from within the application site.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP12, CP13, CP16 and CP19; and Local Development Framework General Development Control DC2, DC5, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC12, DC18, DC31 and DC40, together with Policy AL10 of the Site Specific Allocations of Land Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework, were relevant to the determination of this application.

Planning permission and Conservation Area Consent had been granted for the demolition of existing derelict buildings and part of boundary wall (to provide access) and the erection of 40 new dwellings (comprising 10 x 2-bed, 13 x 3-bed, 1 x 4-bed, 1 x 2-bed flat and 16 x 2-bed units of sheltered accommodation) for retired people with managers accommodation, garaging and access in 2011 (DC/09/2025 & DC/09/2028). Almost identical applications for planning permission and Conservation Area Consent had been submitted in 2008 but had been withdrawn when the applicants at that time had gone into administration (DC/08/0238 & DC/08/0239).

The comments of the Design & Conservation Officer, the Engineering Section, the Landscape Architect, the Arboricultural Officer, Strategic Planning, Natural England, Southern Water, Sussex Police and West Sussex County Council Highways were noted. The Environment Agency and the County Archaeologist

4 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/28 Planning Application: DC/12/0747 (cont.)

raised no objections to the proposal. Save our Storrington objected to the application. The Parish Council strongly objected to the proposal and 28 letters of objection, together with a petition containing 85 signatures objecting to the application, had been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the proposal and the applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application.

It was considered that the main issue in the determination of the application was, having regard to the extant permission which was a material consideration, whether there were sufficient reasons to depart from the previous decision to grant planning permission.

The application site was allocated for development under policy AL10 of the Site Specific Allocations of Land Document. Also, at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It was therefore considered that the principle of the application was acceptable.

The effect upon the amenities of neighbouring properties, as before, remained an important consideration. However, there had been no change to Block C which was nearest to the residential properties to the east of the site, while the footprint of Block A was almost identical to that previously permitted and there would not be any additional impact upon neighbouring properties to the north from that previously considered acceptable.

The other requirements of policy AL10 including the provision of a publicly accessible garden adjacent to the frontage with Church Street; the retention of the stone boundary walls to Church Street and Browns Lane other than where access was required; and the retention of the Burmese gate into Browns Lane were included in the current application and an archaeological assessment had been submitted.

Whilst the additional area of land fell outside the built-up area boundary, no building was proposed on this part of the site and its requirement to be included within the application was for ecological purposes, it was therefore not considered that there was any justification to resist the development on this basis.

If the application were approved, it was proposed that the wording of suggested condition 3 would be amended in consultation with the highways authority.

The NPPF required a high quality of design to be achieved and it was considered that the previously approved scheme had met this aim. However, the current proposals did not appear to reflect the high standards of the previous proposal and it was therefore considered that improvements to the current scheme should be sought.

5 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/28 Planning Application: DC/12/0747 (cont.)

Members considered that the proposal would meet identified requirements for housing provision on an allocated site and was therefore acceptable in principle, subject to the satisfactory resolution of the concerns raised regarding the design of the proposed development.

RESOLVED

(i) That a planning agreement be entered into to restrict the occupancy of the buildings and to secure the provision of affordable units; the use of the car park and garden for public purposes; the restoration of the Burmese Gate; and appropriate financial contributions towards infrastructure.

(ii) That, subject to (i) above and the receipt of amended plans in respect of design and consideration of the amendment of condition 3, application DC/12/0747 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCS/29 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0491 - ERECTION OF A 4,310SQM HORTICULTURAL GLASSHOUSE, INSTALLATION OF A RAIN WATER STORAGE TANK AND NEW OIL TANK SITE: OLD BARN NURSERIES WORTHING ROAD DIAL POST APPLICANT: THE GARDEN CENTRE GROUP

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the erection of a block of horticultural glasshouses, comprising an area of 4,310sq.m; the installation of an additional rainwater collection tank; and a new oil tank.

Old Barn Nurseries was sited in a countryside location off the A24 at Dial Post and was bounded by Grinders Lane to the east and Honeybridge Lane to the south. The surrounding area was predominantly rural in character.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP15; and Local Development Framework General Development Control DC1, DC25 and DC38 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Old Barn Nurseries had been developed since the grant of planning permission for the erection of 2,000 square metres of glasshouses in 1990 and the site now incorporated the former Honeybridge mushroom farm, which formed the southern part of the site. There had been numerous planning applications for development at the site and most recently planning permission had been granted for the replacement of an existing sewage treatment plant (DC/12/0438).

6 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/29 Planning Application: DC/12/0491 (cont.)

The comments of the Head of Corporate Support Services and the Agricultural Adviser were noted. The County Surveyor raised no objections to the proposal, subject to conditions, and his comments were noted. The Parish Council strongly objected to the proposal and six letters of objection had been received. One member of the public and a representative of the Parish Council spoke in objection to the proposal and the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the application.

It was considered that the main issues in the determination of this application were the effect of the proposed development on the character and visual amenities of the area and highway safety.

The application site was currently in horticultural use and it had been stated that the glasshouses were required to provide protected growing space for nursery stock in order that the Garden Centre Group could produce greater levels of own grown stock for sale at Old Barn Nurseries and the Group’s other centres. The proposed covered area would enhance operational efficiency and would allow Old Barn Nurseries to grow a wider variety of plants than the existing open area.

The nursery currently used vehicles delivering goods to the garden centre for the collection of plants to be taken off-site and, as these were not at present used to full capacity, it was stated that there would be no increase in the number of delivery vehicles to the site as a result of the proposal.

The proposed additional oil storage tank would allow more fuel to be delivered to the site each trip rather than increasing the frequency of deliveries, should fuel be needed to heat the proposed glasshouse building.

The Agricultural Consultant had confirmed that the glasshouses were reasonably necessary for the purposes of horticulture within the business and would increase the output from the site.

Whilst policy sought to minimise the amount and scale of new building in the countryside, the proposed glasshouses would be erected on land which was within the existing boundaries of the site. Additionally, the application site was reasonably well screened by an earth bund which ran along the periphery of this area of the site and mature trees from Grinders Lane to the east and Honeybridge Lane to the south. Old Barn Nurseries was a long established business and now formed part of the Garden Centre Group, which was a national concern. Having regard to Government advice and the Agricultural Consultant’s comments, it was considered that the glasshouses would contribute to the horticultural enterprise at the site and thus be compatible with the aim of rural economic development.

Members, whilst supporting the proposal in principle, expressed some concern regarding traffic movements associated with the enterprise and requested further information regarding the proposed use of the glasshouses.

7 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/29 Planning Application: DC/12/0491 (cont.)

RESOLVED

That application DC/12/0491 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the local Members, following the receipt of a traffic management plan and further clarification regarding the proposed use of the glasshouses. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCS/30 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/0794 - REPLACEMENT DWELLING SITE: DUNCANS LODGE WEST CHILTINGTON LANE, BILLINGSHURST APPLICANT: MR P MORRIS

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of a replacement dwelling, with associated landscaping works. The dwelling would be re-built further to the south east of the site, approximately four metres from the site boundary abutting the private lane and West Chiltington Lane. The detached garage east of the building and the summer house within the garden would be retained.

The application site was located in the open countryside, in a small hamlet of properties.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP5, CP12 and CP13; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC9, DC28 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.

Planning permission had been granted for the erection of a single dwelling and garage in 1972 (BL/160/72).

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application and a petition of support containing six signatures had been received. The applicant and the applicant’s agent spoke in support of the application.

Policy stated that applications for replacement dwellings in the countryside would only be permitted on a one for one basis and where it could be demonstrated that the property was not derelict. Also, applications for replacement dwellings should not be disproportionate to the size of the existing dwelling. Whilst the proposed replacement dwelling would be larger than that currently on the site, Members considered that it would not be out of keeping with other properties in the locality.

However, while the principle of a replacement dwelling was acceptable, Members considered that amendments were required in respect of the siting of

8 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/30 Planning Application: DC/11/0794 (cont.)

the proposed dwelling, its height and the design of the roof, in order to reduce its impact.

RESOLVED

That application DC/12/0794 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the local Members, following the receipt of satisfactory details in respect of the siting, height and roof design of the proposed dwelling. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCS/31 PLANNING APPLICATIONS: DC/12/0521 & DC/12/0522 - DETACHED 3-BED DWELLING TOGETHER WITH DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE ON LAND TO THE EAST OF CEDARS FARMHOUSE (PLANNING AND LISTED BUILDING CONSENT) SITE: FORMER GARDEN OF CEDARS FARMHOUSE PARBROOK BILLINGSHURST APPLICANT: MR N GRINSTED

Deleted from the agenda.

DCS/32 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0688 - THE ERECTION OF AN EQUIPMENT STORAGE BARN ON AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDING SITE: FORMER BRAMCOTE FARM, BRAMLANDS LANE, WOODMANCOTE APPLICANT: MR & MRS ANDREW HOLDEN

Application withdrawn.

DCS/33 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0068 - CONSTRUCTION OF A STORAGE UNIT SITE: THE WINERY SOUTHLANDS LANE WEST CHILTINGTON APPLICANT: MR M BENNETT

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the construction of a storage building approximately 10 metres long, 9 metres wide and 4.46 metres high to the ridge. The building would be metal clad and used for the storage of display units.

The application site was located outside the built up area of West Chiltington, on the western side of Southlands Lane. The site was within an area of small commercial activity with the applicant’s business premises and a further building to the north east, abandoned greenhouses to the north, a nursery with associated greenhouses to the east and south east and a single storey timber

9 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/33 Planning Application: DC/12/0068 (cont.)

building associated with the vineyard to the east, close to the access. There were three dwelling houses in close proximity to the site, to the south and west and a public footpath ran through the site from east to west. Access to the site was shared by the adjoining nursery, residential properties and vineyard.

The National Planning Policy Framework – sections 11 and 12; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP10, CP13 and CP15; and policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC20, DC25 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document were relevant to the determination of the application.

Relevant planning history included:

WC/132/03 Change of use of buildings to B1 (offices) Granted WC/11/04 Internal and external alterations to the Granted previously approved permission for change of use to B1 DC/07/0737 Demolition of the existing workshops and Granted the erection of a single storey workshop with link to office building

West Sussex County Council Highways raised no objections to the application. The Parish Council supported the application and their comments were noted. Four letters of objection had been received in respect of the application. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Local Development Framework policy indicated that proposals for development that delivered economic benefits to the rural area would be permitted where they were related to the needs of the local economy, were essential to the operation of an established business, were of a suitable scale for the level of activity proposed, could be accommodated satisfactorily within the existing employment site boundary and where car parking requirements could be accommodated satisfactorily within the immediate surrounds of the buildings.

The proposed ancillary building would be used for the storage of exhibition display stands, which were currently stored within the existing building or in temporary storage containers. The applicant’s agent had stated that the proposal would provide a short term benefit to the construction industry and long term viability to the company, providing employment for two additional members of staff.

The proposed building would be sited within the existing employment site boundary, on an area of land to the south of the main building, and it was

10 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/33 Planning Application: DC/12/0068 (cont.)

considered that the size of the proposed unit would be of a suitable scale for the level of activity proposed. The application also sought to provide an additional eight car parking spaces and one disabled space, resulting in a total of 16 parking spaces.

Members therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/12/0068 be granted, subject to the following conditions:

01 A2 Full Permission 02 D10 Flood Lighting 03 G3 Parking, Turning and Access 04 The development hereby approved shall be used for B8 (storage) purposes only ancillary to the operation of the adjoining B1 unit known as “The Winery” and for no other purpose in any class in the schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended. 05 L1 Hard and Soft Landscaping 06 M6 Prescribed Materials 07 O1Hours of Working

REASONS

ICTN1 The proposal would not be obtrusive in the landscape or harmful to the visual quality of the area. IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.

DCS/34 PLANNING APPLICATIONS: DC/12/0829 & DC/12/0830 - RETROSPECTIVE PERMISSION FOR REPLACEMENT 2.4 METRE BOUNDARY FENCE (FULL PLANNING AND CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT) SITE: RED OAKS LODGE, CAGEFOOT LANE, HENFIELD APPLICANT: MR JOE ABBOUDI

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission and Conservation Area consent for the retention of a replacement fence measuring 2.4 metres in height along the northern boundary of this site. The fence had been erected in place of the previous fence which, according to the supporting information in the application and from the previously approved plans, had been 2 metres in height.

This site comprised a detached, 2-storey, Grade II Listed Building and was

11 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/34 Planning Applications: DC/12/0829 & DC/12/0830 (cont.)

located within the designated Conservation Area of Henfield. A twitten, known locally as Lovers Walk, ran along the northern boundary of the dwelling, adjacent to the replacement fence. A three metres high flint wall ran along the remainder of the footpath adjacent to the replacement fence and also formed the rear/side boundary of Red Oaks Lodge.

The National Planning Policy Framework; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies CP1 and CP3; and policies DC2, DC9, DC12 and DC13 of the General Development Control Policies Document were relevant to the determination of the application.

In 1998, planning permission had been granted for the erection of a two metres high close boarded fence (HF/68/98) and, in 1994, listed building consent had been granted for replacement of the windows and doors (HF/33/94).

The Council’s Design and Conservation Adviser objected to the application. The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. One letter of objection had been received. The applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application.

This application had been submitted on the grounds that the increase in height of the replacement fence and the additional safety and security measures would reduce the incidents of crime and anti-social behaviour that had taken place at this property. The measures put in place had all been suggested to the applicant by the Police. The applicant had stated that the application site was a unique situation, compounded by the surrounding high walls, dense hedges and footpath network, which had contributed to the opportunity for crime and a fear of crime.

Members considered that, when viewed in conjunction with the adjoining three metres high flint wall, the fence as erected did not have a negative effect on the character of the area or have an imposing effect upon those using the twitten.

Members therefore considered that the application was acceptable in principle, subject to the views of the Design and Conservation Adviser as to whether the fence should be stained a darker colour.

RESOLVED

That applications DC/12/0829 and DC/12/0830 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Service, following consultation with the Design and Conservation Adviser as to whether a condition requiring the fence to be stained a darker colour was required. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

12 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/35 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/12/0832 - PROPOSED 3-STOREY EXTENSION TO EXISTING NURSING HOME, REAR CONSERVATORY, NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS, CAR PARK & BUNDS SITE: HOMELANDS NURSING HOME, HORSHAM ROAD, COWFOLD APPLICANT: MEDICREST LTD

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for a three-storey extension to the existing nursing home, measuring 31.4 metres wide by 11.1 metres deep, with a ridge height of 10.5 metres. A rear projection was also proposed which would measure 14.5 metres deep by 13.6 metres wide, also with a ridge height of 10.5 metres. A conservatory on the rear elevation measuring 9.8 metres by 8 metres, with a ridge height of 4.8 metres, was also proposed. A new vehicular access and car park were also proposed, together with bunds along the southern and eastern boundaries.

The application site was located within a countryside location, approximately 0.6 mile north of the centre of Cowfold Village. The nursing home was approached from the front of the property and the drive also gave access to five other residential properties in separate ownership. The care home was operated in the main house and from the Coach House, which was located 45 metres to the north-west of the main building. The Coach House was in a poor state of repair and the proposal was to discontinue the use of the Coach House and incorporate all lost bedrooms and the kitchen within Homelands.

Guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework; Horsham District Council Core Strategy policies CP1 and CP15; and General Development Control policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC31 were relevant to the determination of the application.

Relevant planning history included:

CF/17/68 Proposed change of use to nursing home Granted CF/26/68 Change of use to general medical and Granted nursing home for the nursing of acute, chronic and convalescent patients of any age DC/08/2290 3 storey side extension and rear Granted conservatory DC/09/1721 3 storey side extension and rear Granted conservatory DC/11/2630 To form and construct 2 additional Granted dormers on south rear elevation of main building

13 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/35 Planning Application: DC/12/0832 (cont.)

The comments of Public Health & Licensing were noted. The West Sussex Highways Authority objected to the application. The Parish Council raised no objection to the proposal. Five letters of objection and one of no objection had been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the proposal.

The proposed extension would double the width of the building and would create more than 100% additional floor space to that of the existing building, including the extension permitted under DC/09/1721. The extension would mean that the nursing home could provide 60 bedrooms in total. Whilst it was acknowledged that the care home needed to modernise its existing facilities to provide accommodation for its residents that met Health Care Commission Guidelines, it was considered that the proposed extension was overly large in scale and would not be viewed as a subservient element to the existing building. The extension would not complement the existing building in terms of scale, massing or design, contrary to the aims of Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007. It was also considered that the design of the proposed extension was poor, as the rear projection would have a large flat roof with the third floor built into the roof space in order to give maximum floor area internally. The proposed rear projection did not have any design merit and failed to pick up on any of the characteristics of the existing building.

It was also noted that no information had been supplied indicating what the intentions were for the existing Coach House Annex once its current use ceased.

West Sussex Highways Authority had objected to the proposed access, as it had not been demonstrated that the access was safe and in accordance with current design guidance. Also, inadequate information had been provided in order to demonstrate that adequate visibility to the necessary standard could be achieved from the proposed access point.

It was considered that the proposed car park appeared overly large and would be prominent within the landscape. It was also considered that earth bunds were not essential to their countryside location and, in particular, the two metres high bund running along the eastern boundary would cause harm to the visual amenities and landscape character of the area.

Members therefore considered that, whilst it was acknowledged that the care home needed to be upgraded and extended due to an increase in resident numbers, the current proposal was unacceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/12/0832 be refused for the following reasons:

01 The proposed extension by reason of its size, siting

14 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/35 Planning Application: DC/12/0832 (cont.)

and design would represent an unsympathetic form of overdevelopment, which would cause material harm to the character of the existing building and visual amenities of the area, contrary to policies DC9 & DC31 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) and Policies CP1 and CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007). 02 The earth bunds are not considered to be essential to their countryside location and by reason of their size and siting would result in development which would cause material harm to the visual amenities and landscape character of the rural area contrary to policies CP1 and CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC1, DC2 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 03 The proposed car park by reason of its size, siting and design would constitute an intrusive and dominant feature within this countryside location contrary to Policies DC1, DC2 & DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) and Policies CP1 and CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007). 04 The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that adequate visibility (to the necessary standard) can be achieved from the proposed access point contrary to Policy DC40 of the Development Control Policies 2007.

DCS/36 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/11/2260 - MANÈGE LIGHTING SITE: BROWNHILL HOUSE NORTH LANE ASHINGTON APPLICANT: MRS CAROL TYLER

The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the erection of lighting to the existing sand school. The original proposal had sought to erect four lights on the western side of the sand school. A lighting survey had then been requested to assess the impact of the proposal on the wider landscape and amended plans had been submitted showing a total of six lights, three each on the east and west sides of the sand school. The proposed poles would be located on retractable columns which would have a maximum height of 4.8 metres and could be stored at a reduced height of approximately 2.6 metres.

15 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/36 Planning Application: DC/11/2260 (cont.)

The application site was located outside the built-up area in a predominantly rural area and there were footpaths running to the north and the east of the site. North Lane was also a public footpath and another footpath was located approximately 350 metres to the south of the sand school. To the west of the site, the boundary was relatively well screened by mature trees and planting. Neighbouring properties were located approximately 50 metres to the west and 80 metres to the north-west of the existing sand school.

Guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework; policies CP1 and CP3 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy; and policies DC1, DC9 and DC29 of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Policies Document were relevant to the determination of the application.

Relevant planning history included:

WX/9/84 Erection of stable block Granted WX/4/88 Continued use without complying with Refused condition 4 on WX/9/84 relating to non business use of stables WX/8/89 Change of use from agricultural to Granted industrial and installation of equine swimming pool in building WX/2/90 Extension of permission WX/8/89 Granted WX/3/95 Permanent change of use from agricultural Granted to industrial and installation of equine swimming pool in building WX/11/90 Erection of stables Granted WX/3/96 Change of use of equine therapy unit to Granted research and development use for a two year temporary period WX/7/97 Change the use of the stables and store to Refused recording studio WX/6/97 Change of use of outbuilding to mixing Refused room WX/10/97 Change of use of the former equine Refused therapy building to recording studio WX/11/99 Change of use of outbuilding to mixing Granted room and of stable block to store and recording studio WX/2/00 Removal of conditions attached to Granted WX/11/99 DC/06/1361 Erection of a replacement dwelling Granted

The comments of Environmental Health were noted. The Parish Council raised no objections to the proposal and two letters of comment had been received.

16 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/36 Planning Application: DC/11/2260 (cont.)

In order to minimise the impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and the visual impact on the wider landscape, it was considered that the hours of use of the lights should be restricted to between 16:00 and 19:00 hours and the months to November to February inclusive. In addition to restricting the hours of use, measures had also been taken to significantly reduce the overall wattage of the lights to further reduce the impact on amenity. It was acknowledged that there was likely to be some light spillage into the wider landscape, although it was considered that by restricting the hours and months of use the impact on the wider landscape would be more limited. It was also noted that the sand school was in close proximity to the main dwelling house, which would naturally have some light spillage during winter months.

The visual impact of the lighting poles was considered more limited, given the location of the sand school relatively close to the main dwelling house, the screening on the western boundary and a number of large trees in close proximity to the site.

Members therefore considered that the application was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That application DC/11/2260 be granted subject to the following conditions:

01 A2 Full Permission (3 Years) 02 M6 Prescribed Materials 03 The manège lighting hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the lighting report by Highlights Flooding LTD based on 6 Phillips OptiFlood 250w Luminaries mounted on 6 lighting columns 4.8m high, dated stamped 12 March 2012. Thereafter the lighting shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the lighting report, unless agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority by way of a planning application. 04 The manège lighting hereby permitted shall only be used for private, domestic purposes in association with the use of ‘Brownhill House’ as a dwelling and shall not be let out or used for commercial purposes or in connection with any form of riding establishment. 05 The floodlighting hereby approved shall only be used in the months of November to February inclusive and between the hours of 16:00 and 19:00 and there shall be no illumination of the manège except between these hours. 06 The lighting shown on the approved plans shall be

17 Development Control (South) Committee 17th July 2012

DCS/36 Planning Application: DC/11/2260 (cont.)

shielded to prevent glare or any threat to highway safety or detriment to amenity. All lighting fixtures shall be installed at an angle to prevent light emitting directly above the horizontal plane unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON

ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

The meeting closed at 4.45pm having commenced at 2.00pm.

CHAIRMAN

18 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 21ST AUGUST 2012 REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

APPEALS LODGED

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

1. Written Representations/Householder Appeals Service

DC/11/2490 Demolition of existing buildings (47-55 High Street) (Conservation Area Consent) 47 High Street, Billingshurst, RH14 9PP For: Weald Estates Limited

DC/11/2489 Demolition of existing buildings and erection of building comprising retail units and eight (5 x 1 bed and 3 x 2 bed) flats (47-55 High Street) (Full Planning) 47 High Street, Billingshurst, RH14 9PP For: Weald Estates Limited

DC/12/0168 Roof extension to provide an additional 1 bed flat Merrywood House, Merrywood Lane, Thakeham For: Weald Estates Limited

DC/12/0354 Partial demolition of existing rear/side extensions, construction of a two storey rear extension and new front porch Timbers, Fir Tree Lane, West Chiltington, Pulborough, RH20 2RA For: Mrs L Bennett

DC/11/2518 Development of unused site, to include the erection of a detached chalet-bungalow style dwelling with associated off-street parking. Land South of Dukes Row, Pulborough Road, Cootham For: Mr K McCrone

DC/10/1457 Outline planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and construction of up to 78 residential units, associated ground preparation works, highways, access and the first phase of the Sandgate Country Park RMC Engineering Services Ltd Workshops, Storrington Road, Washington, Pulborough, RH20 4AG For: Cemex

DC/11/2490 Retrospective permission for allotment shed Plots 5 and 6, Bramblefield, Crays Lane, Thakeham For: Mr and Mrs B Knight

2. Informal Hearings

DC/11/2460 Refurbishment of one existing building (Block A), redevelopment of an existing building (Block B), demolition of remaining former poultry rearing buildings and the erection of 5 new buildings all for B1 (Business) and/or B8 (Storage or Distribution) uses (Blocks C to G) with associated parking and landscaping (Outline Planning) Castle Farm Estate, The Hollow, Washington, Pulborough, RH20 3DA For: Hargreaves Management Ltd

APPEALS DECIDED

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

DC/11/1210 Construction of a tennis court with associated landscaping works (South Downs National Park) Bellows, Bramlands Lane, Woodmancote, Henfield, BN5 9TG For: Mrs K Robbins Appeal: ALLOWED (Delegated)

DC/11/2271 New dwelling and detached garage in rear gardens of West Winds and Tillington, Melton Drive West Winds, Melton Drive, Storrington, Pulborough, RH20 4BL For: Whittington Homes Ltd Appeal: ALLOWED (Delegated)

DC/12/0062 Ground floor extension and first floor extension over existing garage block with internal alterations (South Downs National Park) Locks Barn, Shoreham Road, Upper Beeding, Steyning, BN44 3TU For: Mr C Meyler Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/11/1480 Erection of 3 (2-storey x 5-bed) houses (Outline planning permission with some Reserved Matters) (South Downs National Park) Land South of, Kingsmead Close, Bramber For: Mr R Maile Appeal: DISMISSED (Committee)

DC/11/1249 Construction of new split level five-bedroom residential dwelling house with double garage, basement, new access driveway, landscaping and associated services and demolition of existing 3/4-bed cottage upon completion of the proposed works The Acorn, Fryern Road, Storrington, Pulborough, RH20 4BJ For: Mrs L Sekotill Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/11/2045 Amendment to replacement dwelling granted under reserved matters DC/06/1529, to include an amendment to the roof design to incorporate first floor living accommodation. The Orchard, Storrington Road, Thakeham For: Mr J Mills Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/11/2271 Surgery to 1 x Pine tree Woodnote, Hillside Walk, Storrington, Pulborough, RH20 3HL For: Mr A Chandler Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

DC/11/1878 Demolition of the existing commercial units and redevelopment of the site for 4 detached houses, garages and associated works (South Downs National Park) Enterprise House Unit 1, Horton Hill, Henfield Road, Small Dole, Henfield, BN5 9XH For: Mr C Boardman Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)

APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South

BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services

DATE: 21st August 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Demolition of existing property Calluna and the erection of seven dwellings consisting of two pairs of semi detached dwellings, and three detached dwellings SITE: Calluna, Nyetimber Lane, West Chiltington

WARD: Chanctonbury

APPLICATION: DC/11/1924

APPLICANT: Mr Michael Stephens

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Officer referral

RECOMMENDATION: To amend the resolution of the committee dated 15th May 2012 so that the precise details of the legal agreement required as part of DC/11/1924 can be agreed in a period of delegation with the Local Members (which includes the Chairman) and the Cabinet Member

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

1.1 This application was first considered by the Committee in May 2012 when the committee resolved to approve the application subject to a planning agreement being entered into to ensure that the proposed dwellings are marketed to residents of West Chiltington Parish for a minimum period of six months and any resales within five years of initial occupation are subject to the same period of marketing.

1.2 The applicant has raised concerns with regards to the proposed requirements of the legal agreement and consequently the application needs to be referred back to committee to amend the proposed terms. The previous committee report is appended for member’s information.

Contact: Nicola Mason Extension: 5289 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2.

ASSESSMENT

1.3 The application has been submitted to meet a defined local need as West Chiltington is a Category 2 settlement as defined in Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy. This policy states that only small-scale development or minor extensions that address specific local needs should be permitted. Policy CP5 identifies that local need, in relation to Category 2 settlements, will be assessed on the basis of the contribution to meeting identified local requirements for housing, including affordable housing, the retention or enhancement of community facilities and services, and the extent to which the addition of new development will not reinforce unsustainable patterns.

1.4 Prior to the submission of the application the Parish Council had undertaken a Housing Needs Survey to ascertain what the specific needs of the Parish were. The Housing Needs Survey identified a number of issues with the current application specifically meeting the needs of local residents to be able to downsize and remain within the Parish. The application was considered by the committee giving due consideration to the policy background and the involvement of the Parish Council.

1.5 Due to the specific circumstances of the application and the requirements identified by the Housing Needs Survey the application was recommended for approval subject to the marketing of the units to local residents for a period of 6 months in the first instance and any resale within five years of initial occupation subject to the same period of marketing.

1.6 The period of marketing to local residents is considered integral to the integrity of the scheme as it is this element which ensures that the scheme meets the needs of local residents as required by policy CP5 of the Core Strategy. If the marketing of the properties to local residents were not undertaken with sufficient veracity the application may not meet the provisions of the Local Development Framework policies and most certainly will act as a precedent for development elsewhere in the District in Category 2 settlements. It appears a matter of fact that the shorter the time period of marketing to local residents, the more likely it is that a unit could be purchased by someone from outside of the village. If this were the case, then the proposal would be contrary to policy and permission should be refused.

1.7 Proposals to meet housing need in West Chiltington is not restricted to the current application at Calluna, as there is a further scheme at Bracklyn and a proposed affordable housing scheme in Steele Close. It appears necessary that the legal agreements should secure similar obligations in terms of marketing since there appears no obvious reason why the marketing period of one of the sites should be different to the other.

1.8 Your Officers have considered carefully the requirements of the legal agreement following the committee resolution, and as discussions have progressed the period of time required for the marketing of any resale properties to local residents has been reduced to a period of 3 months. However the applicant is concerned that such a stipulation would not meet the requirements of lenders today and would prevent many purchasers from obtaining a mortgage. It has therefore been APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3.

suggested by the applicant that any requirements on resale should be limited to a 2 year period and then the marketing to local residents should only be for 1 month.

1.9 Whilst the views relating to resale are noted it is your officer’s view that if the resale element was only limited to a 2 year period then the justification for the application to meet the policy requirement of meeting a local need is weakened. It is considered that a period of 5 years provides the balance between ensuring the integrity of the scheme and allowing for any changes in policy or circumstance which may arise in the locality. With regards to the length of the marketing period it is considered on balance due to the particular circumstances of the site and within the context of the work carried out by the Parish Council that a period of marketing of 1 month for any resale may be appropriate subject to the retention of the 5 year period.

1.10 Your officers have been involved in detailed negotiations with all parties in respect of the application and the original recommendation to grant permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement reflected an appreciation of the detailed work the Parish Council has undertaken and the greater prominence given to neighbourhood planning in the National Planning Policy Framework. Nonetheless, this is a proposal which will potentially act as a precedent and have wider policy implications across the District and therefore the consequences of the decision made in respect of this application should not be under estimated. The terms of an appropriate legal agreement are difficult and it cannot be said that the developer and officers have reached a point of agreement which can be considered fully acceptable in planning policy terms. Accordingly, it is recommended that the resolution of the committee should be amended so that the precise details of the legal agreement will be agreed in a period of delegation with the Local Members (which includes the Chairman) and the Cabinet Member.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 It is recommended that the resolution of the committee dated 15th May 2012 should be amended so that the precise details of the legal agreement will be agreed in a period of delegation with the Local Members (which includes the Chairman) and the Cabinet Member.

3. REASONS

3.1 The proposal meets a specific identified housing need as required by policy CP5 of the Core Strategy of the Horsham District Local Development Framework

Background Papers: DC/11/1924 Contact Officer: Nicola Mason APPENDIX 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services DATE: 15 May 2012 DEVELOPMENT: Demolition of existing property Calluna and the erection of seven semi detached dwellings SITE: Calluna, Nyetimber Lane, West Chiltington WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/11/1924 APPLICANT: Mr Michael Stephens

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Officer referral

RECOMMENDATION: To GRANT planning permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement securing financial contributions towards community and transport infrastructure and ensuring that for a length of time, to be agreed, the proposed dwellings are marketed to West Chiltington residents and prevented for re-sale to those outside of the Parish.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks full permission for the demolition of the existing property known as Calluna and the erection of 7 dwellings. The application has been amended during the course of its determination, having originally proposed 8 dwellings.

1.2 The layout of the proposed dwellings would consist of 2 x 2 pairs of semi-detached dwellings at the front of the site and 3 detached dwellings to the rear.

1.3 The context of the application is that it attempts to meet an identified housing need in West Chiltington (which is a Category 2 settlement as defined by policy CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework) and therefore has been the subject of detailed negotiation both prior to and during the determination of the application in which West Chiltington Parish Council has been fully involved.

Contact: Gary Peck Extension: 5172 APPENDIX 2.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 The application site is within the built-up area as defined by the Horsham District Local Development Framework and is to the western side of Nyetimber Lane, almost opposite its junction with Nyetimber Copse.

1.5 Calluna shares a boundary with 8 different properties to the south, north and west as Silverwood, Silverwood Copse and a small private road serving 3 properties off Nyetimber Lane almost encircle the subject dwelling. Calluna is currently unoccupied and cannot be said to be a property of intrinsic visual character to West Chiltington being a standard chalet bungalow with dormers to the front, a large gable and attached single storey garage.

1.6 As is common with this part of West Chiltington, the site contains a number of trees some of which are preserved along the site frontage. Although properties to the south are screened by existing trees, this is partially offset by the slope in Nyetimber Lane which means those neighbouring properties to the south are at a much lower level. The character of the properties within the immediate vicinity of the site is mixed in design and style, with a predominance of single storey bungalows, interspersed with two storey dwellings. Screening is more intermittent in places along the site boundary to the north and in the north western corner of the site.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 Relevant government policies are contained within the National Planning Policy Framework which was published in March and has replaced guidance contained within PPG’s and PPS’s. The section on neighbourhood planning, amongst others, is considered relevant to the proposal and therefore the provisions of the Localism Act are also relevant.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Policies CP1, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13 and CP19 of the Core Strategy of the Local Development Framework are relevant to the determination of the application.

2.4 Policies DC9, DC15 & DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document are also relevant to the determination of the application.

2.5 The West Chiltington Village Design Statement is also considered relevant to the application.

PLANNING HISTORY APPENDIX 3.

2.6 There is no planning history relevant to the determination of the application.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Strategic Planning originally commented:

The proposal seeks the demolition of the existing property, Calluna, and the erection of eight semi detached dwellings. The application needs to be considered against the Local Development Framework particularly the Core Strategy 2007 and the General Development Control Policies 2007.

The site lies within the built up area boundary of West Chiltington, a Category 2 settlement as defined by Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy 2007, which sets out that priority will be given to locating new development within towns and villages which have defined built up area boundaries and that Category 2 settlements are the villages with a more limited level of services which should accommodate only small- scale development or minor extensions that address specific local needs. It also identifies, however, that local need, in relation to Category 2 settlements, will be assessed on the basis of the contribution to meeting identified local requirements for housing, including affordable housing, the retention or enhancement of community facilities and services, and the extent to which the addition of new development will not reinforce unsustainable patterns.

On the matter of local need, the applicant states in the Design and Access Statement that ‘the proposed development would make better use of the land and meet the identified need for smaller dwellings for local people to trade down.’ This need is clearly identified in the West Chiltington Parish Housing Needs Survey undertaken by Action in Rural Sussex in 2009 which states that ‘43 (10 per cent) of the respondents to the survey said they would like to have a smaller home as their current property has become too large to manage.’

As there appears to be a clear local need identified through the Housing Needs Survey, although the Council usually seeks 100 per cent affordable housing in Category 2 settlements, no policy objection is raised in principle to this proposal, but we would suggest that there is a S106 Agreement that ties the ownership of the properties to qualifying local residents for a period of 10 years, for example.

Further policies that need to be taken into account are Policy DC8 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 which favours developments which ensure that measures are incorporated that reduce the impact of climate change and carbon dioxide emissions; and also Policy DC9, of the same document, which sets out various development principles which permissions need to take account of to ensure high quality development. As the case officer you are the best person to assess these issues.

APPENDIX 4.

The site specific matters raised above are best judged by you as a case officer after a site visit and we suggest that you are mindful of the aims of the relevant policies and the above comments. I would be happy to offer further guidance if necessary.

3.2 Further comments from Strategic Planning have subsequently been received:

In light of the objections to the proposals and concerns raised, it is considered appropriate to make further comment on the policy issues in respect of this application.

The application is required to conform with the development plan and the policies therein.

Firstly, therefore, the scheme needs to be acceptable in terms of design, density, amenity, landscaping (including impact on existing TPO trees), traffic and highway safety in accordance with policies in the Core Strategy (2007) and the General Development Control Policies (GDCP) (2007). It is noted that the site is within the West Chiltington Character Area which is subject to a specific policy in the GDCP (2007); Policy DC15. It is understood that amended plans, including details of levels, are to be submitted which will overcome current objections to the proposals. It is your job as case officer to give consideration to these matters, taking into account any relevant expert advice.

I would also make reference here to this Government’s removal of minimum density requirements and exclusion of private residential gardens from the definition of ‘brownfield’ land – see PPS3, Housing (June 2010) which also needs to be addressed. The reason for the changes was set out in the letter from the Chief Planner, DCLG (15 June 2010): Together these changes emphasise that it is for local authorities and communities to take the decisions that are best for them, and decide for themselves the best locations and types of development in their areas. Consideration of this application is not a case of “make better use of undeveloped urban land” (Planning, Design & Access Statement) then. This needs to be clear as it has implications for other applications across the District.

Secondly, the acceptability of the scheme in principle also needs to be examined. Policy CP5 identifies West Chiltington as a Category 2 settlement, that is, a village with a more limited level of services which should accommodate only small scale development or minor extensions that address specific local needs. It states: ‘Local need’ in relation to Category 2 Settlements will be assessed on the basis of the contribution to meeting identified local requirements for housing, including affordable housing, the retention or enhancement of community facilities and services, and the extent to which the addition of new development will not reinforce unsustainable patterns. The Inspectors’ Report on the Examination into the Core Strategy recognised that “there may be occasions – rarely in our view - where minor extensions on to greenfield sites would be acceptable within the Built Up Area Boundaries of Category 2 settlements, when properly justified by demonstrated local need”. It also strongly supported the view that “development in Category 2 settlements must be supported by robust evidence of local need and proper analysis that the proposed development would actually achieve the desired outcomes”. APPENDIX 5.

In this case the Housing Needs Survey Report by AiRS offers the background evidence to possibly support a development for open market housing, on the basis of ‘local needs’. It indicates that West Chiltington has a high proportion of detached dwellings and a high proportion of owner occupiers. 443 households responded to the questionnaire (a 39% response rate) : of those 43 respondents (10%) indicated that they would like to have smaller properties as their homes had become too large to manage, whilst 100 respondents indicated a need to move within 5 years. The survey also asked residents what other housing if any was needed to ensure the parish remains a sustainable community. The responses suggested a range, although housing to meet the needs of two key groups of people seemed to be considered of most importance: one being affordable starter homes for young people and families, and the other accommodation to suit the needs of older people; bungalows, sheltered housing, courtyard style development or flats. When considering this proposal it is the latter we are concerned with.

Part of the consideration of this application is then, if there is a need for other accommodation to suit the needs of older people to enable them to downsize, does the proposed development fulfil this need and contribute to a mixed sustainable community of differing unit sizes? This is not a straightforward question to answer and it has to be asked on at least two levels.

Firstly, are the dwellings of a size and type to offer appropriate accommodation to the intended occupiers? The development has no bungalows, or flats and is not a courtyard style development. However, it is accepted that there are older, able people, who do seek to downsize into houses smaller than their own. The proposal does not, though, specifically cater for over 55’s or offer sheltered accommodation. Secondly, then, is it possible to exert control as far as is possible to ensure that the dwellings are occupied by those people within West Chiltington wishing to downsize? Legal advice has been sought in this respect. In our original comments a S106 Agreement that ties the ownership of the properties to qualifying local residents for a period of 10 years, for example, was suggested. I will say that in my opinion the applicant’s proposal of restricting marketing for a period of 3 months would not be sufficient.

These issues do need to be thought through otherwise the proposal could set a precedent to demolish large houses within the village and replace them with higher density development as potentially a way round existing planning policy: not complying with normal planning policy or meeting the needs of the local community. The Parish Council is intending to submit a statement of the ‘comprehensive approach to meeting housing needs in West Chiltington’ to support the application; this approach would have its roots embedded in ‘localism’ and the principles of ‘neighbourhood planning’. This scheme represents one of three, which together are considered, in the view of the Parish Council, to fulfil the housing needs of West Chiltington. In principle, and on a pragmatic level, as there is not one single site in the village where the entire village’s affordable and downsizing needs can be met, it is my view that the local planning authority could support the three proposals together in the spirit of the new national approach. It is for the case officer to balance this against the detail of the scheme and the mechanism of control. APPENDIX 6.

To this end, I will still make reference to Policy CP12 here as it is important that you and Members are aware of all the issues. As a stand alone scheme the proposal will not comply with Policy CP12 which states: …. In settlements with a population of less than 3000, permission will only be granted for schemes providing 100% affordable housing unless it is demonstrated that market housing is required under Policies CP5 or CP8. In such cases the target of 40% provision will apply to developments of five dwellings or more (on sites of 0.16 hectares and above). This proposal is over the 5 dwelling threshold and therefore 40 % affordable housing would normally be expected to be provided on site, or “in exceptional circumstances where there are overriding site constraints, where site specific issues inhibit the provision of affordable housing, or where provision can be better met on an alternative site in the District, off-site contributions may be accepted as an alternative” (paragraph 4.71 –Core Strategy (2007)).

The proposal does not include provision of affordable housing on site nor is a contribution to off- site provision to be forthcoming.

The justification for not complying with this policy relies on the ‘comprehensive approach’ coming forward in its totality. To date we can only say whether it is a realistic proposition. My understanding is that the Bracklyn site is already subject of an application and that it has been established that the potential obstacles to bringing forward the Steele Close (affordable) site are no longer there. In such circumstances, it can be argued that the affordable housing will be provided and overall 40% of the total number of houses under the ‘comprehensive approach’ would be affordable.

To conclude, this is a complex case which will act as a precedent for applications within Category 2 settlements across the District. It relies on other schemes coming forward within West Chiltington as part of a ‘comprehensive approach’ to meeting housing needs in the village. The needs survey and the Parish Council’s support offer justification to approve an application; however, I would advise particular caution in relation to the mechanism of control and whether what is being proposed will ensure a local need being met.

3.3 The Housing Strategy & Development Officer comments:

Housing officers have considered the extensive analysis of the application by the Strategic Planning Officer and fully support the conclusions reached.

It is therefore only necessary to emphasise certain points.

The Strategic Planning Officer refers to Policy CP12 and to the fact that this application makes no provision for affordable housing. The Housing Strategy and Development Manager has worked with the parish council over time on a comprehensive approach to provide housing that meets identified local need.

Three sites have been supported by the parish council – one for local needs affordable housing and two for schemes of open market dwellings to meet a further specified and identified housing need. The survey carried out by Action in Rural Sussex was modified to draw in those wishing to downsize from larger properties to APPENDIX 7.

smaller homes that better suited their needs, of which there were very few for sale in the parish.

Housing officers support this comprehensive and proactive method of delivering housing that meets local need and it is expected that the parish council will submit its own statement setting out the rationale behind this approach. As the parish council has driven this project forward over the last three years, and remains committed to its delivery, in this particular case housing officers do not object to this application making no provision for affordable housing, as the three sites should be considered in the round. In fact, the parish is commended on its innovative approach to development.

However, housing officers had always understood that the homes would be provided for those of increasing age (over 55) who were finding it increasingly difficult to manage larger properties and gardens. There is no restriction to this effect in the proposal.

It is for the case officer to determine whether this application adequately meets the identified need set out in the housing need survey report.

The Strategic Planning Officer raises the fundamental issue of how the properties will be restricted to local purchasers. Housing officers support tying the properties to local ownership for a certain period of time, and would be guided by legal advice on how long that period should realistically be, and agree with the Strategic Planning Officer that a marketing period of three months is insufficient. It is hoped that the Committee Report will be appended with a draft legal agreement for members to consider, bearing in mind that the reason behind this application has always been to provide homes needed by existing residents of West Chiltington.

3.4 Public Health & Licensing raises no objection.

3.5 The Arboricultural Officer made the following comments in respect of the original proposals:

Further to your instructions, I visited the site on 11th November 2011 and report accordingly. I have examined the relevant submitted plans, principally including the amended site plan (drawing No. 11.04.01, revision D, dated October 2011) and the Tree Survey. I note the following:

Background to arboricultural issues:

 You will be aware that a number of trees on this site are protected by a TPO. On 5th September 2006 an e-mail was received from West Chiltington Parish Council noting that it had been “heard on the grapevine that an application is being considered to put up eight houses on the site of Calluna in Nyetimber Lane, RH20 2ND. As it now seems the norm that all trees are felled prior to an application being submitted would you consider protecting the trees before that happens”. It was clear from this e-mail that perhaps the Parish Council considered that the placing of a TPO on a site might prevent development; a common misconception. APPENDIX 8.

 Unfortunately, felling commenced prior to my visit, and following an emergency telephone call from the Parish Council regarding the matter, I rushed to the site on 18th October 2006 by which time at least half of the large trees in the rear garden had been felled.  I found 12 principle specimens adjacent to Nyetimber Lane either side of the access driveway of clear amenity value, and these were accordingly protected under TPO/1330 on the same day, the Order being subsequently confirmed on 27th March 2007. These trees remain.  Notwithstanding this, I also formed the view from my inspection that although within the site there remained a number of relatively large Scots pines and other specimens, overall these to the rear of the dwelling had relatively low amenity value compared to those at the front. A further TPO request, again from West Chiltington Parish Council, was received on 13th November 2007 in regard to the rest of the trees on the site, but was accordingly rejected.

Development proposals:

 The development scheme, suitably controlled by the provisions included in the submitted Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS), will have no adverse impact on the TPO trees at the front of the site.  Save for the need to remove the remaining Scots pine tree on plot H3, none of the building footprints impinge upon the RPA’s of any important retained trees. Some of the parking areas and an attendant garage block fall foul, but proposals have been put forward to deal with this using ‘no-dig’ foundations and ground protection. This meets with the recommendations at BS 5837 'Trees in Relation to Construction' (2005) and is satisfactory.  The loss of the Scots pine in plot H3 is regrettable in that it is a tall and noticeable specimen from the property ‘Saramar’ in Silverwood, to the south, but it is otherwise not especial, and has little landscape amenity value from elsewhere. I remain of the view that it is a specimen unworthy of a TPO, and accordingly register no objection to its removal. There is also a relatively small willow tree in the centre of the site to be removed; though of fair quality, this tree also has insufficient amenity value to justify its protection.  Light levels and the opportunity for direct sunlight on the plots, material to the planning process, appears satisfactory in regard to plots H5 – H8 inclusive, on the northern boundary of the site. However, I am concerned at the proximity of the two southern blocks to the full and extensive tree-line along the southern boundary, which will cast heavy shade and badly restrict both light and direct sunshine. Plots H1 and H4 appear satisfactory, but in my view plots H2 and H3 – despite the slight rotation of block H3/H4 – will be badly affected.  To the immediate south of H2, off-site, those trees surveyed and included in the submitted Tree Survey are up to 15m in height, are predominantly coniferous and thereby evergreen. Only very slightly to the south are even larger trees. The existing dwelling on site is around 12m to the north of the southern boundary; the proposed block comes within 4.7m. This is inadequate, and will result in post development pressure for works to heavily cut back and or fell the trees in the property adjacent. Planning for a problem is poor planning; and this places the scheme in conflict both with chapter 6.3 of BS 5837 'Trees in Relation to Construction' (2005) as well as the advice at paragraph 5.11(ii) of the publication Tree Preservation Orders - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, APPENDIX 9.

March 2000), which stresses the need to avoid layouts where trees cause unreasonable inconvenience, leading inevitably to requests to fell, anticipates that conflict with trees may arise, and aims to prevent it.  The problem is worse on plot H3, where the tall trees on the southern boundary are augmented by those on the western boundary; indeed, it is hard to see how this property will get anything like a reasonable level of light and direct sunshine. The property to the immediate south of this plot, Saramar, benefits from the extensive foliar cover along the boundary which will provide considerable screening of the new dwellings. However, as the bulk of the trees here are coniferous, and have coalesced, or touching, crowns, any new resident in H3 would have the opportunity to utilise Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and raise a ‘high hedges’ complaint against the owners. Given that these trees will clearly cause extensive shading of the new property, the Council would be in no position to resist this. A standard height reduction of up to 50%, not unusual in high hedge cases, would badly open up views into the Calluna site, and hence this consideration is material to the application.  I must therefore conclude that this proposal represents an over-development of the site in regard to the need to place the southern residential blocks in such close proximity to the southern tree line.

I therefore feel that at this stage I must raise an OBJECTION to this scheme, as although it respects the TPO’d trees on the site, and ensures their retention and protection, the siting of the southerly residential blocks so close to the southern tree line places the scheme in conflict with the recommendations and guidance noted above, and accordingly foul also of Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Framework document (December 2007). To comply with these directives, it would be necessary in my view to avoid the siting of dwellings any closer than 12m of the southern site boundary line.

3.6 Following the submission of further information from the agent, the Arboricultural Officer further commented:

The BRE guidance referred to is indeed used in cases where levels of daylight and sunlight are of concern on development sites. Whilst I accept that "many local authorities have adopted this guide, so that the criteria set out therein can form the basis for granting or refusing planning permission", please be aware that the document itself states that it "should not be seen as an instrument of planning policy". I note the following in regard to the submitted information:  The three plans include shading only from a number of the trees along the southern and western boundaries of this site which will affect the garden amenity areas to the plots H2 and H3. It is these two plots that my concerns on this subject relate to (ref: my previous report to you, dated 17 Nov 11). On the southern boundary, trees T14 - T20 inclusive have been omitted from the model, and yet in the late afternoons and early evenings it is clear that these trees will have an adverse affect on sunshine and light on the garden to H2. Similarly, no modelling has been undertaken in regard to trees T35, T36 and T37 on the western boundary. Although principally affecting the garden to H4, T35, the most southerly of the three, is likely to have some effect on H3; but this is not recorded. APPENDIX 10.

 Furthermore, only the surveyed trees in very close proximity to the boundaries have been modelled. In reality, there are other trees - particularly along the southern boundary - further to the south, in the neighbouring gardens, which form a robust and dense tree belt. Much of this is non-deciduous, too. Hence in my view the shading caused by these trees will be far worse than modelled here.

 The modelling that has been done takes account only of the shading likely in the four months of May through to August, when the sun is at its highest in the sky. While I accede that these are the months of high summer when garden amenity areas are likely to be principally enjoyed, this omits the rest of the year, including the months of April and September, which in recent years have been particularly sunny and bright. In these months, further from the summer solstice when the sun reaches its zenith in the sky, shadows will of course be longer than shown on the modelling exercise, and therefore a greater percentage of each plots' garden area shaded out. And on bright sunny cold days in December, for example, the gardens to both plots are likely to remain in almost complete darkness throughout the day. This challenges the guidance set out in the BRE publication that "people like sunlight" (Chapter 3.1), and is unacceptable.

 It is also noted that the latest modelling in the day is undertaken for 3 o'clock, when many people are still at work. Experience has shown that much of the pressure to fell or trim trees restricting sunlight arises from the period after work in summer evenings from 5 p.m onwards. No modelling has been carried out in respect of this. In my judgement, the modelling submitted gives a distorted and incomplete picture of the degree of shading caused by the trees along the southern and western boundaries of this site. Indeed, if it achieves anything it appears, from the limited modelling provided, to CONFIRM my fears that the two plots will be unacceptably dark and shaded, in conflict with the recommendations and guidance referred to in my previous report. Accordingly I maintain my OBJECTION to this scheme for the reasons previously given.

3.7 Further comments from the Arboricultural Officer in respect of the amended plans will be reported verbally at the meeting.

3.8 The Design & Conservation Officer originally commented:

The existing dwelling is a large one and a half storey detached dwelling, with single storey attached garage, constructed in the mid 1970s. It is set back from the street behind a timber post and rail fence partially hidden by hedge, scrub and tree screening. To the rear is a large mature garden. The site is surrounded by large detached properties, set back from the road in extensive gardens, and this largely characterises the development pattern of Nyetimber Lane and most of the rest of West Chiltington Common. Most dwellings in the vicinity are a variety of one, one and a half or two storeys, in a number of architectural styles, including modern “Sussex vernacular” plus contemporary and modern styles, traditional and period architecture, as well as the arts and crafts “Wells Cottages”. This pattern of development gives the area a green and low density, suburban character. There APPENDIX 11.

are a few plots that have been divided up/infilled, where small closes, or two or three houses have been accommodated on one larger plot.

Turning to the development proposals, existing house is not considered to be of architectural merit, warranting preservation and therefore a case could be made for the redevelopment of the site. The proposed cul de sac and 8 semi detached dwellings however would be at odds with the pattern of development in the surrounding area and would appear to be an over development of the plot, compared with the neighbouring plots and those in the nearby vicinity.

The architectural style picks up on the Wells Cottage style of some of the dwellings found in West Chiltington. Wells Cottages generally vary from house to house in terms of their facing materials, architectural features and roof materials for example most differ from each other in small ways. Most are small cottages, as they were originally built for the holiday let market, although some larger properties do exist. Most are detached – there are few, (possibly no?) examples of semi detached Wells Cottages. Proposals for the 8 houses would represent a facsimile of a style, picking up on a general architectural trend distinctive to the Wells Cottages, but not quite achieving the same attention to detail. For example, the proposed elevation changes are slightly different from each other, but the similar height, bulk, size and uniformity of the semi detached character of this proposal is disappointing. It also detracts from the largely exclusive use of the Wells Cottages style in West Chiltington, watering down the uniqueness. There is also concern regarding the loss of a mature green space, with particular reference to the proposal for a private drive to serve 8 dwellings.

In conclusion, the application does not meet the criteria 3 and 4 of DC9 and therefore I raise an objection.

Notwithstanding the above, a case could be made for the redevelopment of plot, including an increase over one dwelling with a possible limit at 3 dwellings. This would be more likely to reflect the pattern of the surrounding area. In terms of architectural style, the Wells Cottage style has proved difficult to successfully copy and meet the high expectations of modern living – the architects DAS states “whilst the Wells Cottages are aesthetically pleasing they are in many respects not very practical to live in by modern standards” - perhaps therefore an alternative style, for example a contemporary style could be appropriate for this site. This would reflect the changing in housing trends and desires in the eclectic architectural character of West Chiltington Common.

3.9 Further comments from the Design & Conservation Officer will be reported verbally at the meeting.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.10 West Chiltington Parish Council commented:

No objection to the application which has the full support of the Parish Council having worked with the developer to present a proposal to meet the Housing needs of the residents of West Chiltington expressed in the Housing Needs Survey for APPENDIX 12.

smaller market value homes to enable residents to downsize without leaving the parish. We believe the development is of a high quality in keeping with the area and great care has been taken to maintain and improve the landscaping to minimise the impact on local residents. As standard with larger developments and to safeguard the amenities of neighbours we would like some conditions imposed during the construction process and thereafter as follows:

a) Hours of work to be restricted to: Monday – Friday from 8.00am to 6.00pm, Saturday from 9.00am to 1.00pm and no Sunday or Bank Holiday working.

b) All construction plant, vehicles and materials to be stored on site, not on the public highway.

c) All landscaping, both existing and new, to be subject to maintenance and replacement for a period of 5 years. That adequate protection be given to all trees subject to TPO’s and to those trees and hedging which are to be retained.

d) That to prevent further extension of the homes without permission all Permitted Development Rights be withdrawn.

e) That for an initial period of three months following completion the homes are only marketed to existing West Chiltington residents to enable them to downsize in accordance with the requirements of the survey.

3.11 The Environment Agency raises no objection.

3.12 West Sussex County Council comment:

The site is located on the western side of Nyetimber Lane in West Chiltington Common. Nyetimber Lane is a classified road (D113) running through West Chiltington Common subject to a 30mph speed limit. The application is for demolition of the existing property and construction of 8 semi-detached properties using the existing access for a private access road.

Nyetimber Lane currently has no pavement provision on either side however there is a wide grass verge on the eastern side. The development proposes an internal pedestrian pavement on the private driveway which would be excessive given the location and proposed use of the drive. This would not connect with any pedestrian provision along Nyetimber Lane. Consideration should be given to making the Private Drive a shared space concept using Manual for Streets as a basis.

Parking is proposed to be provided through the use of garages and driveways, with approximately 2 spaces per dwelling. In accordance with PPS3 residential car parking provision should take account of expected levels of car ownership, ensure high quality design and efficient use of land. The expected level of car ownership is not specified but would be estimated to be 2 per dwelling which is being provided, but the provision should include some element for visitor parking. There is potential for overspill parking along the Private Drive or Nyetimber Lane which would be of concern to the Highway Authority. There is no indication of any separate provision APPENDIX 13.

for cycle parking within the development, which under standards should be a provision of 2 spaces per dwelling.

Trip generation from the site has not been identified; therefore it is difficult to assess the impact on the road network. The development would generate additional trips compared to the existing use onto the local network especially at the junction between Nyetimber Lane and Nyetimber Copse which is almost opposite the proposed entrance. The site is within 500m of the bus stops on The Common and Pulborough Station is 2 miles away providing good sustainable links. Visibility along Nyetimber Lane is good in both directions with the proposed visibility splay within standards.

An infrastructure contribution is being sought for this development, which would comprise £17,292 for secondary education, £4,051 for 6th form education, £625 towards fire and rescue services and £11,025 for transport infrastructure.

Overall, the Highway Authority does not object to the application subject to the confirmation of above points and conditions.

3.13 Southern Water raises no objection subject to condition

3.14 West Chiltington Rural Preservation Society objects to the application on the grounds of lack of need, overdevelopment of the site and adverse impact upon access and parking.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.15 3 letters of support have been received as well as 1 further letter of support subject to adequate screening and the properties only being sold to residents of West Chiltington.

3.16 30 letters of objection and 10 further letters of objection to additional information have been received on the following grounds:

- adverse impact upon the character of the area - increased traffic - extra pressure on parking - lack of need for the proposed dwellings - loss of privacy - noise and disturbance - adverse impact upon trees - the consultation process from the Parish Council has been inadequate - the properties are not suitable for downsizing - the application should not be determined in isolation from other proposed schemes at Bracklyn and Steele Close

3.17 Any further representations received in respect of the most recent set of amended plans will be reported verbally.

APPENDIX 14.

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 the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.

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

5.1 It is not considered that the proposal will have an adverse impact upon crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 It is considered that the main issues in the determination of the application are whether the proposal is acceptable in terms of its effect upon the visual character of the area and the amenities of neighbouring policies and if it complies with national policy and the policies of the Local Development Framework.

6.2 Dealing with the site specific aspects of the application at the outset, members will be aware that West Chiltington is subject to policy DC15 of the General Development Control Policies Document which states that planning permission will be only be granted for proposals that retain the unique semi-rural character of the area, presently created by low density development set in large plots. As will be explained in more detail later in the report, the housing need identified by the Parish Council in relation to this proposal is that a number of residents in West Chiltington have expressed a preference to ‘downsize’ and therefore live in smaller properties on reduced size plots. It could be said that this necessity is explained by the character of the area as described in policy DC15 which confirms that there is a predominance of dwellings in large plots in the West Chiltington Common Area. Nonetheless, the requirements of the policy are a material consideration in the determination of the application.

6.3 The application site is the largest in its immediate area being surrounded by a number of smaller, though well sized residential plots. In general, plot sizes tend to become smaller in a northerly direction along Nyetimber Lane.

6.4 Given the size of surrounding plots and the width and depth of the application plot, some redevelopment of the site in site specific terms, is clearly achievable notwithstanding the requirements of DC15. Indeed, given that two properties are located respectively along the northern and southern boundaries of the application site and it is wider than the plots to the rear, it is not considered that, as a principle, there could be an objection to a development on the site which creates an increased number of residential units than the single unit currently on the site.

6.5 There are, however, some constraints on the site, principally the high amount of tree cover including preserved trees to the front of the site and a drop in site levels APPENDIX 15.

to the south. Having regard to these factors, therefore, your officers considered that the originally proposed scheme for 8 dwellings was excessive and related unsatisfactorily to the tree cover on the site. This, in turn, had the potential to adversely affect the amenities of residential occupiers especially to the south, while the proposed design approach of 4 similarly designed pairs of semi-detached dwellings was not considered reflective character of the area.

6.6 Having regard to the Parish Council support for the scheme, your officers have attempted to negotiate a compromise solution and while it is considered that a scheme of 6 dwellings would be the optimum level of development on the site, having regard to the Parish Council position and the developers wish to proceed with a 7 unit scheme, a compromise has been sought. Having seen a number of options for a 7 unit scheme, it is felt that on balance, a proposal where 2 pairs of semi-detached units are located at the front of the site and three detached units at the rear would be the best solution for the site if a 7 unit scheme is to be pursued.

6.7 There would clearly be an impact upon the visual character of the area, though the screening to the site would limit this and there a number of instances in West Chiltington prior to the adoption of the Local Development Framework (and hence policy DC15 but when a similar policy in the old Local Plan, WC1, was in existence) where a similar level of development was found to be acceptable. The front pairs of dwellings could be read as single houses in the street scene given their design and accordingly the number of units proposed should not be seen as the sole determinant of whether the proposal could meet the requirements of policy DC15 but rather the design and scale of the dwellings themselves.

6.8 If the site specific aspects of the development can be considered as acceptable, therefore, then the application needs to be assessed against the policy position. The site lies within the built up area boundary of West Chiltington, a Category 2 settlement as defined by Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy. A Category 2 settlement is that with a more limited level of services which should accommodate only small- scale development or minor extensions that address specific local needs. Policy CP5 identifies that local need, in relation to Category 2 settlements, will be assessed on the basis of the contribution to meeting identified local requirements for housing, including affordable housing, the retention or enhancement of community facilities and services, and the extent to which the addition of new development will not reinforce unsustainable patterns.

6.9 As stated in the initial comments from Strategic Planning, the applicant states in the Design and Access Statement that ‘the proposed development would make better use of the land and meet the identified need for smaller dwellings for local people to trade down.’ Such a need was identified in the West Chiltington Parish Housing Needs Survey undertaken by Action in Rural Sussex in 2009 which states that ‘43 (10 per cent) of the respondents to the survey said they would like to have a smaller home as their current property has become too large to manage.’ It is therefore considered that, as further stated by Strategic Planning, as there appears to be a clear local need identified through the Housing Needs Survey, there is no policy objection in principle to the proposal, though any permission would need to be subject to a S106 Agreement that ties the ownership of the properties to APPENDIX 16.

qualifying local residents, with a period of 10 years, for example, being originally suggested in the policy response from Strategic Planning.

6.10 Subsequent to the submission of the application, both the National Planning Policy Framework and Localism Act have been respectively been published and enacted which give a greater priority to neighbourhood planning. Paragraph 183 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that neighbourhood planning gives communities direct power to develop a shared vision for their neighbourhood. As such, therefore, the work of the Parish Council undertaken thus far could be seen to be very much in the spirit of neighbourhood planning and the government’s localism agenda and can be seen as a material consideration to the determination of the application.

6.11 The Parish Council have stated as background:

“The Parish Council has always made it clear that this development is for smaller Market Value homes to meet the housing needs of existing residents who wish to remain in West Chiltington but are unable to find properties which are built to a high standard but on modest plots as they no longer want to have to maintain large gardens. They would have a minimum of 2 bedrooms to allow relatives/grandchildren to stay.

The properties would be marketed to existing residents exclusively for a 3 month period and by limiting supply it is hoped to maintain demand so there is always an existing West Chiltington resident ready to buy when one becomes available. It is anticipated that the occupants will be older couples or perhaps widows/widowers wishing to downsize and think it unlikely younger couples with or without children will be attracted to this development if they already live in West Chiltington as the house sizes are probably smaller than that which they currently occupy.”

6.12 Given this background, it could be said that the proposal meets an identified local housing need. It should be noted that while the dwellings in terms of plot size and, to a lesser extent, their actual footprint, are smaller than many others in West Chiltington (and thus potentially attractive to existing occupiers of the village wishing to downsize) their style and design as advanced by the developer do not necessarily limit themselves to the identified need, nor are reflective of a specific occupier (eg they could be suitable for occupation by a young family for example albeit noting the Parish Council comment above). Any permission, therefore, and mindful of the fact that very few permissions for market value sections within Category 2 settlements have been granted since the adoption of the Local Development Framework, would have to be subject to the completion of a legal agreement and the provisions of the legal agreement would quite clearly be critical to the determination of the application.

6.13 The Parish Council consider that a marketing period of 3 months to West Chiltington residents would be adequate and the developer has stated that he would not be willing to consider a longer time period. As can be seen from both the Strategic Planning Officer and the Housing Strategy and Development Officer’s respective responses, they both consider that the length of time proposed is APPENDIX 17.

inadequate and clearly quite different to the originally suggested 10 year qualifying period to local residents as suggested by the Strategic Planning Officer.

6.14 Despite the efforts of your officers to consider a longer period of marketing, the developer has consistently stated he is unwilling to consider a longer time period. Given the apparent demand for the proposed properties is such that, according to the Parish Council, they would be all taken by local residents within the time period it appears difficult to understand as a result why the developer is not willing to accept a longer time period.

6.15 Members will, therefore, need to consider the marketing period very carefully since this proposal cannot be considered acceptable if it does not meet the provisions of Local Development Framework policies and most certainly will act as a precedent for development elsewhere in the District in Category 2 settlements. It appears a matter of fact (notwithstanding the evidence from the Parish Council) that the shorter the time period of marketing to local residents, the more likely it is that a unit could be purchased by someone from outside of the village. If this were the case, then the proposal would be contrary to policy and permission should be refused.

6.16 Members will also note that the meeting of housing need in West Chiltington is not being considered in isolation on this site and the current application at Bracklyn (which also appears in the agenda) and a proposed affordable housing scheme in Steele Close. It appears necessary that the legal agreements should secure similar obligations in terms of marketing since there appears no obvious reason why the marketing period of one of the sites should be different to the other.

6.17 Similarly, the question as to the mechanism of controlling the re-sale of the properties also needs to be considered. The applicant has stated:

“It has been suggested that on subsequent resale owners should give the Parish Council four weeks’ notice of their intention to sell so the Parish can inform those local residents that have expressed or registered an interest in the houses before they are put to the open market. The Parish Council have passed a resolution to change their Standing Orders so they can hold a list of residents interested in purchasing one of the properties. This could be achieved by way of informative but would not be acceptable in a S106 agreement as it would not be acceptable to a purchaser’s solicitor or to a mortgage lender.”

6.18 Your officers do not agree that some form of restriction on re-sale could not be included in the Section 106 agreement and members will be aware that an informative holds little effective weight. Your officers are investigating whether it would be possible, for example, to prevent the re-sale of any properties within 2 years of the first sale without another local marketing period taking place in the first instance before the property is sold. Without some of restriction secured by legal agreement on this issue, the compliance of the proposal with planning policy appears more difficult to establish.

6.19 In the context of the above, including the developer’s comments, it should also be noted that the policy position in respect of sites in Category 2 settlements is that, APPENDIX 18.

unless market housing can be demonstrated to be required, 100% affordable housing should be provided or if market housing can be justified then 40% provision is required. No affordable housing is proposed as part of this application due to the comprehensive approach as outlined in the Strategic Planning Officer’s comments. Having regard to the Parish Council’s input in the comprehensive development approach, it is felt that the lack of affordable housing provision on this site, in lieu of provision at Steele Close could be justified if, as well, it can be fully demonstrated that identified housing needs are met as part of the current proposal.

6.20 Your officers have been involved in detailed negotiations with all parties in respect of the application and the recommendation to grant permission subject to the completion of a legal agreement reflects an appreciation of the detailed work the Parish Council has undertaken and the greater prominence given to neighbourhood planning in the National Planning Policy Framework. Nonetheless, this is a proposal which will potentially act as a precedent and have wider policy implications across the District and therefore the consequences of the decision made in respect of this application should not be under estimated. While the basis for the application is the West Chiltington Housing Needs Survey, the mechanisms for securing an appropriate legal agreement are difficult and it cannot be said that the developer and officers have reached a point of agreement which can be considered fully acceptable in planning policy terms. Accordingly, it is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a legal agreement, the precise details of which will need to be agreed in a period of delegation with the Local Members (which includes the Chairman) and the Cabinet Member.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the completion of a legal agreement ensuring that for a length of time to be agreed, the proposed dwellings are marketed to West Chiltington residents and prevented for re-sale to those outside of the Parish and the following conditions:

01 A2 Full Permission

02 No dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied until the car parking spaces have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with a detailed construction plan to be submitted to and approved by the planning authority. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated use. Reason: To provide the maximum level of car parking for the development in accordance with the District Council car parking standards with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document. 03 No dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied until covered secure cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with a detailed construction plan to be submitted to and approved by the planning authority. Reason: To provide alternative travel options to the use of the car in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document. Note to applicant: A formal application for connection to public sewerage system is required in order to service this development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St APPENDIX 19.

James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (Tel 01962 858688) or www.southernwater.co.uk

04 D6 Finished Floor Levels 05 E3 Fencing 06 J10 Removal of Permitted Development 07 L1 Hard and Soft Landscaping 08 M1 Approval of Materials 09 O1 Hours of Working 10 S1 Restriction on occupation…drainage… 11 S4 Surface Water Details…option A… 12 G6 Recycling 13 M8 Sustainable Construction 14 H4a On Site Parking 15 H4b Construction Material Storage 16 H6 Wheel Washing 17 L2b Protection of Trees 18 O3 Site Clearance 19 Prior to the implementation of the development hereby approved details relating to the management of highway drainage, including the maintenance of roadside ditches shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local planning Authority. The work shall be undertaken as per the agreed details unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason as per S4 20 O2 No Burning

8. REASONS

8.1 The proposal meets a specific identified housing need as required by policy CP5 of the Core Strategy of the Horsham District Local Development Framework

Background Papers: DC/11/1924 Contact Officer: Gary Peck APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 21st August 2012

Detached 3-bed dwelling together with detached double garage on DEVELOPMENT: land to the east of Cedars Farmhouse (Planning and Listed Building Consent)

Former Garden of Cedars Farmhouse SITE: Parbrook Billingshurst WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley APPLICATION: DC/12/0521 and DC/12/0522 APPLICANT: Mr N Grinsted

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission and listed building consent subject to conditions and the removal of a rooflight on the rear elevation, and the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement securing a financial contribution towards transport and community infrastructure.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks full planning permission and listed building consent for the construction of a detached three bedroom property, on an area of land that was previously the garden of Cedars Farmhouse. The proposed dwelling has been amended during the progress of the application in terms of both size and design details. A layby to the front of the site has also been provided.

1.2 The amended property would be a L shaped building with oak boarded elevations on a brick plinth with a clay tile roof. The property would have accommodation within the roofspace, and has been designed to appear as a converted agricultural building. The proposed building would be approximately 14.5 metres long and 11

Contact: Nicola Mason Extension: 5289 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2.

metres wide at its widest point. The height of the building would be approximately 7.4 metres.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The application site is situated on the western side of Stane Street, within the built up area boundary of Billingshurst. The site is accessed via a shared driveway to both Cedars Farmhouse and the properties known The Cedars to the rear. The site consists of an area of land which was formerly the garden of Cedars Farmhouse. Cedars Farmhouse is a Grade 2 Listed Building. The property is a two storey early eighteenth century building constructed in red brick with a half hipped roof of Horsham stone slabs.

1.4 To the rear of Cedars Farmhouse are a range of outbuildings and beyond these are three detached properties built in the late 1990’s. To the north of the site is a retaining wall, beyond which are modern residential properties which due to the difference in the height of the land have direct views over the site and beyond. To the east of the site is an area of green space screening Cedars Farmhouse from public view points.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.5 DC/11/1372 – In August 2011 an application for the construction of a detached four bedroom dwelling together with detached double garage was withdrawn.

DC/11/1373 – In August 2011 an application for Listed Building Consent for the construction of a detached four bedroom dwelling together with detached double garage was withdrawn.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 Town & Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 Relevant government policies are contained within the National Planning Policy Framework which was published in March and has replaced guidance contained within existing PPG’s and PPS’s.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policy CP1 (Landscape and Townscape Character), CP2 (Environmental Quality) CP3 (Improving the Quality of New Development), CP5 (Built Up Areas and Previously Developed Land), CP13 (Infrastructure Requirements) and CP19 (Managing Travel Demand and Widening Choice of Transport) are considered relevant to this application.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3.

2.4 General Development Control Policies DC2 (Landscape Character), DC9 (Development Principles), DC13 (Listed Buildings) and DC40 (Transport and Access) are also considered relevant to this application.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 The Councils Design and Conservation Adviser has considered the application and raised a number of concerns relating to the need to reduce the scale of the building, to fully consider its setting, and relating to specific details of design. The applicant has since amended the scheme to try and overcome the Councils Design and Conservation Adviser’s comments. The comments on the revised scheme are as follows; “Whilst the proposed development is still quite sizable I believe that it is unlikely that any further reductions in size would be considered. Therefore the aim therefore is to ensure that the detailing of the building is simple, retaining a utilitarian character and ensure that the design of the building is subservient in form and mass to the listed farmhouse. The loss of the projecting porch is welcomed and it is noted that there is the insertion of 2no. rooflights within the slope to provide natural light to the lading. It would appear from the drawings that the previously shown veranda to the rear has been removed which is welcomed but there appears to be no reconfiguration and /or reduction in the number of rooflights to the rear elevation. Whilst it is noted that the building is intended as a family home the form most appropriate to the context and setting of the adjacent listed building is a character and form which replicates the existing outbuildings. Previous concerns have been raised regarding the number of rooflights proposed and the form which they take being very domestic in character. I would therefore recommend that as there is no requirement under building regulations for natural daylight provision in a bathroom that further concessions are necessary with this regard. The proposed garage in its revised form is considered supportable on the principle that the building is utilitarian in character and form, subservient to the proposed new dwelling and in the context of the setting of the listed building. The landscaping scheme has also be revised again to reflect the utilitarian character of the proposed development I therefore conclude that in general the proposed new dwelling with detached garage concurs with HDC Policy 13 and the National Planning Policy Framework Section 12 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. However there are some aspects of the detail of the development which still need to be addressed as mentioned above. If the rooflights within the bathrooms are removed then the recommendation would be to approve subject to subject to any approval being carefully conditioned to control the development.”

3.2 The Councils Public Health and Licensing Officer has raised no objection to the application but has suggested a number of conditions.

3.3 If the application were to be approved a contribution of £2,387 would be required by the Local Planning Authority towards community infrastructure. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.4 Southern Water has stated that a formal application would be required for any new connection to the public foul sewer and have suggested an informative is attached to any consent. Southern Water has noted that the Environment Agency or the Councils technical officers should comment on the adequacy of soakaways. Southern Water have noted that their comments remain valid for the amended application.

3.5 The Principal Ecologist at West Sussex County Council has noted that he is not aware of any ecological issues which would warrant a refusal of permission. He has also made additional comments with regards to the site and Great Crested Newts; “It has been brought to my attention that a small pond, known as Cedars Pond, which lies across a minor road approximately 25m from the boundary of the application site may support great crested newts. A report produced for Horsham District Council entitled “Waterbody Account” mentions that eggs of great crested newt were found in the pond on 20th April 2007. This report states: “By late summer the pond had dried up and this would appear to be a seasonal phenomena considering that 2007 was not a particularly dry year. It is likely therefore that great crested newt eggs laid in this pond probably did not have sufficient time to metamorphose and a limited amount of deepening of this pond in one area, which would allow the pond to hold water for longer, would be appropriate.”

I have not seen any more recent records of great crested newts.

The great crested newt is fully protected under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and Schedule 2 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 making it an European Protected Species. Natural England’s Standing Advice sheet on great crested newts can be found at: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/images/greatcrestednewts_tcm6-21705.pdf

My understanding is that the application site comprises garden of low suitability for great crested newts. Thus it would appear that the likelihood of a detrimental impact on great crested newts is low. Given this, I do not consider that great crested newts warrant a reason for refusal of this application.

Thus I do not wish to raise objection on ecological grounds.”

3.6 Following the receipt of amended plans West Sussex County Council Highways have noted that; “given that the access arrangements are existing and serves four dwellings, notwithstanding it's current limitations in terms of width, it would be difficult to resist a further dwelling as this is not likely to significantly alter the current situation in terms of traffic flows nor add any significant safety detriment to the situation that already exists, hence would not justify a highway safety objection. I have advised that whilst Adam's comments remain valid, should there be the need to add anything else or substitute these with some further comments, then I'm happy to do that. Nevertheless, I do agree that more rigorous measures could and should be required to control construction traffic, particularly to ensure construction traffic does not arrive or depart during school picking up and dropping off times and APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5.

to ensure some form of warning signage is included either on the access road or on the public highway to warn emerging construction vehicles of pedestrians or vice versa. Such measures should be included within a construction management plan to be agreed prior to development commencing.”

3.7 The comments of the County Archaeologist are awaited and will be reported verbally to the committee.

3.8 If the application were to be approved West Sussex County Council would request a financial contribution of £2,000 consisting of a contribution of £110 towards fire and rescue and £1890 towards transport improvements in the vicinity. .

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.9 Billingshurst Parish Council has objected to the application on the grounds of its impact on the listed building, and that a previous condition on an earlier development for the properties to the rear of the site has not been discharged relating to the access. Billingshurst Parish Council have maintained their objection to the amended plans on the following grounds;  The plan is little different to the original  The significant impact that this property will have on a Grade II listed building  The location of other properties nearby  Concerns that had been raised by residents locally with regards to the height of the property and the impact of development in the area on local neighbours  The dwelling could impact on the adjacent orchard which is part of the Great Crested Newt migration path to the pond and which should be protected  The remaining undischarged planning condition relating to the access road from Stane Street agreed at the time of previous development should be rectified the Parish have also suggested that Horsham District Council commission a further survey relating to the presence of Great Crested Newts.

3.10 DC/12/0521 One letter has been received commenting on the application noting that the new dwelling would have an impact on the writers property as it is close to their garden, and that reducing the buildings height, lowering land levels and setting as far away from the boundary would be appreciated.

3.11 Two letters have been received objecting to the application on the following grounds;  The proposal would damage the significance of the listed building and the division of the garden does not have permission.  The area of land has been used as a garden and was not overgrown as stated by the applicants.  The single track access drive already serves four properties and improvements required by the planning permission for three of the dwellings on the site were never undertaken. The road is therefore narrow, with no passing places and further development would have serious safety implications  Great Crested Newts and bats have been discovered on land adjoining the site

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6.

3.12 One further letter has been received objecting to the application following the receipt of amended plans on the grounds that the chimney of the proposed new property would result in pollution to neighbouring properties.

3.13 DC/12/0522 Two letters have been received objecting to the application on the following grounds;  The proposal would damage the significance of the listed building and the division of the garden does not have permission.  The area of land has been used as a garden and was not overgrown as stated by the applicants.  The size of the dwelling would be intrusive on the neighbouring property  The Cedars access is limited with no passing places  Trees and landscaping have already been removed from the site  The proposal would block views of the heritage asset and an area of outstanding natural beauty.

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

Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.

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

It is not considered that the proposal will have any material impact on crime and disorder issues.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 This application seeks full planning permission and listed building consent for the construction of a 3 bedroom detached dwelling house on an area of land to the front of Cedars Farmhouse. The application site is located within the category 1 settlement of Billingshurst as defined in the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Policies where it is considered that development may be permitted subject to normal development management criteria.

6.2 The current application has been amended during the application process resulting in a reduction in the size of the property and changes to its overall design. The applicant is also now suggesting a passing bay can be provided to the front of the property to overcome the deficiencies of a previous application for the dwellings to the rear of the site. The proposed garage has also been amended to encompass the outside staircase which would result in the refuse store being integral with the garage building and so creating a building which is more visually appropriate and reducing the incidence of modern domestic “clutter” on the site.

APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7.

6.3 Due to the location of the application site and its proximity to Cedars Farmhouse any application will have an impact on the listed buildings setting. As the area has become progressively residential the land surrounding the farmhouse has become less open with modern development to the north and east. Consequently any development of the area to the west would need to be sensitive so as to preserve the listed buildings setting and character. The design of the proposed building has therefore been submitted in the form of an agricultural outbuilding and would be lower in both form and height than Cedars Farmhouse. The proposed building would be set down into the site and would be set back from the driveway so as to restrict views of the new dwelling in context with the listed building. The proposed building has been designed to have an unobtrusive appearance so as to reduce any visual competition between the buildings.

6.4 The application site is situated at a lower level than the adjoining properties to the north, and as part of the application the new dwelling would be set into the site by approximately a metre. It is therefore considered that the proposed dwelling due to the difference in land levels would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties with regards to loss of privacy or light. It is also considered due to the distance between Cedars Farmhouse and the new dwelling and its position off set from the main frontage that the building would not compromise the setting of the Listed Building to the extent that planning permission could be refused.

6.5 The proposed dwelling has been designed to reflect the agricultural outbuilding to the rear of Cedars Farmhouse, and therefore typically residential features such as window openings, have been reduced so as to retain the simple form of an agricultural barn. It is considered following the receipt of amended plans that the proposed design would no longer visually compete with Cedars Farmhouse and would in itself still be a building that is in keeping with the overall appearance of the locality. The Councils Conservation Adviser has consequently concluded “that in general the proposed new dwelling with detached garage concurs with HDC Policy 13 and the National Planning Policy Framework Section 12 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment. However there are some aspects of the detail of the development which still need to be addressed as mentioned above. If the rooflights within the bathrooms are removed then the recommendation would be to approve subject to subject to any approval being carefully conditioned to control the development”.

6.6 The County Surveyor has noted that a previous condition relating to the construction of the dwellings to the rear of Cedars Farmhouse requiring the access to be widened and a passing bay provided has not been undertaken, and therefore has suggested that a passing bay is constructed as part of the current application. The applicant has indicated that this can be achieved to the front of the site. The County Surveyor has not raised an objection to the use of the access for the proposed dwelling and it is considered therefore that it would be difficult to object to the application on the grounds of highway safety if a passing bay can be provided.

6.7 With regards to the position of the site and its proximity to protected species, the County Ecologist has been consulted on the proposal and has taken into account an Aquatic Survey which was undertaken by Horsham District Council. However the County Ecologist does not consider due to the background to the use of the site that the proposal could be resisted on ecological grounds. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8.

6.8 In conclusion therefore the site is situated within the built up area boundary of Billingshurst on an area of garden land to the front of Cedars Farmhouse, a grade 2 listed building. The application site is situated in a location which forms part of the setting of the listed building. It is considered that the current application which has been amended during the application process to reduce its size, and simplify its design would now on balance not have an adverse impact on the setting of the listed building and would not compete visually with regards to its impact from outside views. It is considered that the proposed building is of a scale that would not harm the amenities of adjoining properties and therefore it is recommended that planning permission and listed building consent are granted subject to conditions.

7. RECOMMENDATION

7.1 It is recommended to grant planning permission and listed building consent subject to conditions, the removal of a rooflight on the rear elevation, and the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement securing a financial contribution towards transport and community infrastructure and the following conditions;

DC/12/0521 1. A2 – Full Permission 2. D10 – Flood Lighting 3. E2 – No Fences 4. E3 – Fencing 5. G6 - Recycling 6. G3 – Parking, Turning and Access 7. H10 – Cycling Provision 8. J10 – removal of Permitted Development - Dwellings 9. H4a – On Site Parking 10. H4b – Construction Materials Storage 11. D6 – Finished Floor Levels 12. L1 – Hard and Soft Landscaping 13. L2b – Protection of Trees 14. M5 – Timber and Wall Treatment 15. M1 – Approval of Materials, “including details of windows and external doors” 16. M8 – Sustainable Construction 17. O2 – Burning of Materials 18. S4 – Surface Water (option A) 19. O1 – Hours of Working 20. S2 – restriction on occupation (sewage disposal) 21. Before works commence, details of all new and replacement joinery, including windows (which shall be single glazed flush-fitting (single rebate) with both fixed and opening lights having common sight lines) and doors, and stairs shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority at a scale of 1:10 elevations with full size (1:1) sections through cills, heads, frames and opening lights, including glazing bars and mullions, banisters, rails, tread and other decorative elements, etc., showing relationship to the existing structure and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and only those approved details employed within the development and thereafter retained. Any existing historic glass should be APPENDIX A/ 2 - 9.

retained and reused in position(s) to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the architectural and historic character and setting of the Listed Building is adequately protected. 22. Before works commence, details of the rooflights to be inserted, which shall all be of a ‘conservation’ style pattern to be flush with the roof plane, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and only such rooflights as approved shall be inserted and thereafter permanently retained as such to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure the architectural and historic character and setting of the Listed Building is adequately protected. 23. Before works commence, details of the proposed external flues, vents and rainwater good shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the works carried out in accordance with the approved details. No further external flues, vents or bathroom plumbing/drainage systems shall be installed in the future without agreement in writing of the Local Planning Authority Reason: To ensure the architectural and historic character and setting of the Listed Building is adequately protected. 24.Construction Management Plan 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 method of access by construction vehicles during construction the parking of vehicles by site operatives and visitors, the loading and unloading of plant, materials and waste, the recycling, removal and disposal of waste materials including an agreed traffic route for the waste vehicles, the storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development, the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, the erection of site offices and ancillary buildings, the provision of wheel washing facilities, the measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition and construction, lighting for construction and security. Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area. 25. L9 – Wildlife Protection 26. Q4 – Archaeological Safeguards 27. Q5 – Archaeological Safeguards 28. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until a layby has been provided at the front of the site in accordance with details to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Note to applicant: A formal application for connection to public sewerage system is required in order to service this development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH (Tel 01962 858688) or www.southernwater.co.uk APPENDIX A/ 2 - 10.

The applicant is reminded that any tree or shrub clearance should be undertaken outside of the breeding season.

The applicant is reminded that a licensed waste removal contractor must be employed for clearance of waste materials from the site.

DC/12/0522 1. LB1 – Listed Building Time Limit 2. M1 – Approval of Materials” including details of windows and external doors”

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 DC/12/0521

ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.

DC/12/0522

ILBC5 The proposal would not cause any adverse impact on the setting of the Listed Building.

Background Papers: DC/12/0521. DC/12/0522 Contact Officer: Nicola Mason

WK3/DC071028/46 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 21st August 2012 DEVELOPMENT: Replacement dwelling and car port for two cars SITE: The Dairy, Sake Ride Farm, Wineham Lane, Wineham WARD: Cowfold, Shermanbury and West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/12/1305 APPLICANT: Mrs Jacqui O'Connell

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Applicant is wife of local member Councillor Brian O’Connell

RECOMMENDATION: To permit the application

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 This application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of a replacement dwelling of the same footprint and in the same location as the existing dwelling. The existing dwelling was the subject of a lawful development certificate granted in 2011. The application also proposes the erection of a 2-car timber framed carport, and a landscaped courtyard.

1.2 Amended plans have been received during the consideration of this application. The amendments comprise the reduction in the ridge height of the proposed replacement dwelling, and a reduction in the scale of the proposed 2-storey element on the front elevation.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 This site is located outside of any designated built-up area, and as such any proposed development is subject to the relevant countryside policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (LDF). The surrounding area is predominantly rural in character with open fields and farmland.

1.4 The application site originally formed part of a larger holding known as Sake Ride Farm which is located on the western side of Wineham Lane. The existing building, The Dairy

Contact Officer: Lisa Da Silva Tel: 01403 215633 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2.

was granted a certificate of lawfulness as a dwelling under reference DC/11/2378. The application site also comprises a detached office building, a domestic garden, and a small area of agricultural land. There is an existing vehicular access to this property from Wineham Lane which is shared with the applicant’s property of Sake Ride Farm.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Section 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the natural Environment, in particular paragraph 109. Section 7 – Requiring Good Design, in particular paragraphs 56 -57.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant Policies of the LDF General Development Control Policies (2007) are DC1, DC9 & DC28.

2.4 The relevant policies of the Horsham District Council’s LDF Core Strategy are CP1 & CP3.

PLANNING HISTORY

In 2011 a certificate of existing lawful use was permitted under DC/11/2378 for the change of use of a building to a single residential unit.

The following applications refer to Sake Ride Farm and no references were made to The Dairy building.

DC/12/0599 – Planning permission was granted for the Certificate of Lawful Development – Existing for the non compliance of condition 7 of consent SH/10/93 - Agricultural occupancy condition DC/09/1896 - Change of use of two buildings to indoor stables and indoor turn out area, retention of sand school, livery use and amend Condition 7 on Consent SH/10/93 (agricultural occupancy condition) to include a person working in equestrian employment – Application Withdrawn

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 None received.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 None received.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 Shermanbury Parish Council has verbally stated that they have no objection to this proposal. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3.

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

Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of The First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out below.

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

It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The principal issues are the scale and form of the development and the effect of the development on the character of this predominantly rural area.

6.2 This application seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing single-storey dwelling on this site which was the subject of a recently approved lawful development certificate (DC/11/2378) and the erection of a replacement 1 & ½ storey dwelling. The proposed works also comprise the creation of a landscaped courtyard and the erection of a timber framed carport.

6.3 The existing property is a former agricultural building with a very simple linear form with single brickwork and a low pitched roof of corrugated material. This building was converted to a dwelling from its previous use as an outbuilding and as such the building is of poor quality with a lack of insulation and heating. The applicant has advised that the proposed replacement dwelling would be a more sustainable building with a grey water system, an energy efficient heating system and use of recycled materials where appropriate.

6.4 The existing dwelling is a 4 bedroom property, the proposed replacement dwelling would have the same number of bedrooms and would have the same footprint as the existing dwelling, the replacement dwelling would be sited in roughly the same location as the existing dwelling but would be moved approximately 1m to the west within the site, the applicant has advised that the reason behind this is to separate the replacement dwelling from the existing outbuildings, and that this would provide a means of access all around the building for maintenance purposes.

6.5 The existing dwelling has an external floor area measuring 178.6m² and the proposed dwelling would have the same footprint at ground floor level but would have approximately 29m² of additional floor area at first floor level. The incorporation of this first floor level would result in a building which would measure 5.8m in height, which is an increase in 1.9m in height from the existing dwelling which currently measures 3.9m in height. Whilst this is an increase in the scale of the dwelling it is not thought to be disproportionate to the size of the existing dwelling. There is some concern about the 2-storey element on the front elevation, however, following discussions with the applicant this has been reduced in scale, and on balance the overall design of the proposed dwelling is considered acceptable. It is considered that the proposed replacement dwelling would be in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling and the neighbouring dwellings in the wider area.

6.6 There is an existing area of land to the east of the existing dwelling which is proposed to be the domestic garden of the proposed replacement dwelling, this area of land has been in domestic use in connection with the existing dwelling, and this land has fruit trees, a greenhouse and a garden shed in situ. There is a small strip of agricultural land which is APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4.

included in the site area for this dwelling. Alterations are proposed to the existing shared access road, visitor parking would be provided along the existing driveway, an access gate would be provided to Sake Ride Farm further along the driveway and a new entrance to The Dairy would be created along the existing fence in order to access the proposed carport

6.7 The proposed 2-car carport would be a timber framed structure with 2 open parking bays. This structure would be situated adjacent to the existing office building on site and would have the same eaves height as the existing office building. The proposed carport would measure 5m in width and 4.95m in depth, the carport would be slightly higher than the existing office measuring 3.6m in height. The proposed carport is considered to be of a design and scale that is in keeping with the character of this site, and would be read in conjunction with the other outbuildings currently on site.

6.8 There are no public footpaths within the vicinity of this site and this site is well screened from Wineham Lane by the existing mature and substantial hedge which is situated along the roadside (eastern) boundary of the site. There are also rows of mature trees and hedgerows to the north and south of this site. As such it is not thought that the proposed replacement dwelling or the other works proposed would be visible from outside of this site

6.9 The proposed replacement dwelling has no immediate neighbours other than the applicants adjoining house. The applicants dwelling is located approximately 25m to the west of the proposed dwelling, given this separation distance and the replacement nature of this proposal it is not thought that there would be any adverse effects upon the existing residential amenities of the occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling. The proposed replacement dwelling would be sited on the footprint of the existing dwelling and would be rebuilt with appropriate materials; as such it is not thought that the proposal would detract from or have any adverse impact upon the existing character of this countryside location.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

01. A2 Full Permission 02. M1 Approval of Materials 03. J10 Removal of Permitted Development - Dwellings 04. O2 Burning of Materials 05. M8 Sustainable Construction (Residential Development)

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 ICTN1 The proposal would not be obtrusive in the landscape or harmful to the visual quality of the area.

ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

Background Papers: DC/11/2378 & DC/12/1305 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 21st August 2012 DEVELOPMENT: Proposed rear and first floor extensions SITE: High Larches Melrose Place Storrington Pulborough WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/12/0611 APPLICANT: Mr K Zamian

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: This application has been taken back to Committee in order to clarify to Members the correct dimensions of the proposed ground floor area increase.

RECOMMENDATION: To GRANT planning permission.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This application was first reported to May’s Committee Meeting whereby the application was delegated with a view to approval to seek amendments to the scheme reducing the size of the extension in consultation with the Local Members. A copy of May’s Committee Report can be found within Appendix A of this report.

1.2 A site meeting was subsequently arranged with Officers and two of the local members, this would enable the Local Members as this would enable the Local Members to view the site and consider any amendments that they thought should be made to the scheme submitted.

1.3 Subsequent to the Committee Meeting and prior to the site visit, the Council received a request from the Chairman of the Melrose Place Residents Association who wished to attend the site meeting. As the Local Members were to represent the views of the Residents Association and neighbouring residents at the site meeting, a separate meeting at the Council Offices was held with the Chairman of the Residents Association and the neighbouring occupier of Wynfold to express their concerns to Members prior to the site visit. Within the meeting the Chairman of the Residents Association and the neighbour raised concerns in relation to inaccuracies in the quoted ground floor increases and the impact of the proposed extensions on neighbouring properties, the street scene, character of the area and the hedge planting along the northerly and southerly boundaries of the site.

1.4 The site meeting subsequently took place on the 21st June 2012 with Officers and two of the Local Members. After a visit to the application property, the neighbouring properties of

Contact Officer: Rebecca Tier Tel: 01403 215382 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2.

Tintells to the south of the site and The Spinney to the north of the site were also visited to enable Members to assess the potential impact of the scheme on the adjacent neighbouring properties either side.

1.5 At the site meeting, the Local Members considered that the proposed scheme would not have a detrimental impact on the appearance of the street scene or the character of properties within the area. The two Local Members therefore agreed that a reduction in the scale of the extensions were not considered necessary on planning grounds. At the site meeting the Local Members however raised concerns regarding the impact of the southerly dormer on the neighbouring property at Tintells and therefore suggested that this should be removed. Amended plans have subsequently been received which have repositioned this southerly dormer on the front westerly elevation of the dwelling. The Parish Council and neighbouring residents have been consulted on the amended plans and their comments will be reported in Section 4 of this report.

1.6 It was also agreed at the site meeting to consult the Council’s Arboricultural Officer in relation to whether the northerly boundary hedge could be retained in conjunction with the development and whether any additional planting could be positioned in the void area further along the northern boundary. The Arboricultural Officer’s comments are included in Section 4 of this report.

1.7 Furthermore it has come to the officer’s attention that an incorrect figure for the total ground floor area of the proposed extensions was originally quoted in the Design & Access Statement submitted and repeated in May’s Committee Report. Officers have requested that the agent recheck his original measurement and submit a revised Design & Access Statement amending the previous incorrect measurement. The proposed total ground floor area has been double checked by Planning Officers and the total footprint is 378.29 square metres and not 289 square metres as originally stated. Whilst there was an inaccuracy quoted in the Design & Access Statement, nevertheless the submitted plans are drawn to scale and accurately reflect the correct figure.

1.8 A further meeting has subsequently taken place with all three Local Members, Officers and the Chairman of Melrose Place Residential Association. Following the discussions and notwithstanding the views of the two Local Members, it was agreed that a reduction in the size of the extensions should be formally sought with particular focus on reducing the larger northerly rear wing of the proposed extension in accordance with the resolution of the May Committee.

2. INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

2.1 In addition to the consultation responses already received as outlined in May’s Committee Report within Appendix A of this report, the Council’s Arboricultural Officer has given the following comments on this proposal.

Viability of northerly boundary hedge

 The line of small beech trees forming the hedge are sited in a straight line approximately 700mm south of the site boundary, marked by the old fence. This sets them 1.7m north of the flank wall of the existing dwelling.  The hedge is fully foliated on its northern side and on its top, and, despite some recent very heavy lopping on the southern side, appears to be in generally good health; it has high vitality. Considerable re-sprouting on the lopped southern side has taken place of late.  The proposed building works take development no closer to the hedge than at present. The trees have very small average stem diameters, giving RPA's, as set out within BS 5837 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations' [2012], of less than 1m. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3.

 Between the dwelling and the trees, within the 1.7m gap, it is proposed to set a drainage line, requiring trenching even closer to the trees. However, I do not assess that this is likely to cause any serious harm, and take note that where a trench already exists in the same proximity to the trees (it contains an electricity conduit and a water pipe), no harm has resulted.  I do not find this surprising, as the youthful vigour and size of these trees making up the hedge would suggest that they would be able to cope with quite a considerable degree of pruning and root severance quite successfully. As already shown, they are also likely to be able to readily handle the loss of light to the southern edge which the erection of the flank wall will result in.  Hence I conclude that the construction of the proposed adjacent extension is not likely to cause the loss of these trees. Helpfully, enough space has been allowed for access for regular lateral pruning.

Further planting along the northern boundary

 I noted that, just to the east of the final tree forming the hedge, eight new small beeches have been recently planted. Despite the hot weather, they are well established and I see no reason why they should not thrive.  Further planting is therefore possible. However, I noted that further into the rear garden the boundary in question is fairly densely foliated already, and some of this would require removal to facilitate further planting. Is this necessary? Given that the existing plants are well established (beech, rhododendron, bamboo and others), I would say let well alone. Collectively, I considered that the existing foliar cover provided an acceptable level of screening of the proposed new building from the established property to the north.

In summary, as the hedge is in my judgement more than likely to survive the construction process and beyond, the scheme appears to fulfil the requirements of Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Framework document (December 2007). I therefore find, in arboricultural terms, NO OBJECTION to it.

3. PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.1 The Parish Council and neighbouring residents have been consulted on the amended plans received which show the formerly southern dormer repositioned on the front westerly elevation of the dwelling.

3.2 Washington Parish Council have advised that they continue to have no objection to this application.

3.3 Eight letters of neighbouring representation have been received in objection to the amended plans; the following concerns have been raised:

 Loss of privacy and noise impact that the increased dwelling will cause to neighbouring occupiers.  The proposal represents overdevelopment of the site that is not proportionate in terms of size to the existing bungalow.  The proposal will appear out of keeping in terms of scale and character with other properties within Melrose Place and within Heath Common.  The increased demands that the enlarged property will have on infrastructure.  The extension would impact on boundary planting and screening.  There is no garage or other provision for off-road parking and there is a risk that the narrow road will be regularly blocked by parked vehicles.  The plans are inaccurate and do not show measurements. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4.

 Proposed extensions would cause further flooding within the area  The proposal does not accord with the Heath Common Village Design Statement and does not accord with policy DC15 of the HDC General Development Control Policies (2007).

4. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

4.1 It is acknowledged that whilst the proposed extensions will substantially increase the floor area of the dwelling, it should be noted that the application site is located within the built up area where there are no set restrictions on the scale of proposed extensions unlike within the countryside. Officers remain of the view that the proposed increase in the height and floor area of the building will not cause any harm on the appearance of the street scene, character of the Heath Common area or the amenity of neighbouring properties for the reasons set out in the original Committee Report. It is considered that there is insufficient justification to refuse this application on planning grounds.

4.2 Following the site visit with the two local members, the issues raised by Councillors Mason and Sanson in relation to the overlooking of the southerly dormer window have been addressed by the amended plans which have repositioned the dormer to the front westerly elevation of the dwelling. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has advised that the proposed extension is not likely to cause the loss of the line of small Beech trees along the northern boundary of the site which will therefore continue to screen the majority of the northern elevation of the extension from view of the neighbouring property The Spinney. The Arboricultural Officer has also advised that further planting would be possible along the northern boundary of the site in addition to the planting of eight small Beech trees which has already taken place.

4.3 It is however acknowledged that the resolution of the Committee at May’s Meeting was to seek a reduction in the size of the extension. Also, following the concerns raised by Councillor Dawe in relation to the large size of the proposed extension in comparison to other properties within the road, it was considered that a reduction in the size of the extensions should be sought with particular focus on reducing the larger northerly rear wing of the proposed extension. The Case Officer has therefore requested that the proposed extension is therefore reduced in size in accordance with the local members request and Officers are currently awaiting a response from the agent in relation to this matter. The agent’s response and any amended plans received showing a reduction in the size of the extension will be reported to the Committee at the meeting.

5. CONCLUSION

5.1 On this basis of the above assessment, the clarification of the accurate floor area increase of the proposed extensions and in light of the discussions that have taken place with the local members, it is considered that this application should be recommended for approval.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 It is recommended that permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

01. A2 Full Permission (3 years)

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5.

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

02. M1 Approval of Materials

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 buildings(s) 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).

03. O1 Hours of Working

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).

04. O2 Burning of Materials

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).

05. S4 Surface water details

Full details of means of surface water drainage to serve the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to [OPTION A works commencing on development] [OPTION B change of use taking place]. The scheme agreed shall be implemented strictly in accordance with such agreement unless subsequent amendments have been agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained.

06. D4 Obscured Glass

The roof lights in the northerly and southerly roof slopes of the building shall at all times be glazed with obscured glass precise details of which, together with details of any opening, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before installation. The approved glass and any agreed opening details shall be maintained at all times.

Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6.

07. D5 No Windows

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

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining residential properties and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

08. L1 Hard and soft landscaping

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).

7. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

Background Papers: DC/11/2245 & DC/12/0611

APPENDIX A

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 15th May 2012 DEVELOPMENT: Proposed rear and first floor extensions SITE: High Larches, Melrose Place, Storrington WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/12/0611 APPLICANT: Mr K Zamian

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak

RECOMMENDATION: To GRANT planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks planning permission to raise the ridge height of the dwelling from 6 metres to 7 metres and incorporate accommodation within the roof space of the property. The application also proposes to demolish the existing flat roofed garage and increase the footprint dwelling. The rear extension will incorporate two wings with accommodation at ground and first floor levels, the northerly wing extends 16.5 metres from the rear elevation and the southerly wing extends 11.5 metres from the rear elevation of the existing building.

1.2 The proposals seek to alter this existing three bedroom single storey property to a six bedroom chalet style bungalow to provide accommodation for the applicant’s family and his elderly father.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 The application site is situated within the built up area and is located within the Heath Common Character Area as designated within the Council’s Local Development Framework. The Heath Common area incorporates a unique semi-rural residential character which predominantly comprises low density development set within large plots.

1.4 The application site comprises a sizable plot located towards the southerly end of Melrose Place. The property is a detached bungalow with a flat roofed garage attached to the

Contact Officer: Rebecca Tier Tel: 01403 215382 APPENDIX A

northerly side of the dwelling. The property benefits from a spacious rear garden which is lined with trees and planting to the northern, southern and eastern boundaries of the site.

1.5 Other properties within the road comprise a mixture of detached single storey properties and chalet style bungalows. There are neighbouring properties surrounding the site to the north, south and east.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 - Section 1 (Delivering Sustainable Development) and Section 7 (Requiring Good Design).

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework, Core Strategy (2007) – CP3 & CP5.

2.4 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework, General Development Control Policies (2007) – DC9 & DC15.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 DC/11/2245 – This planning application for proposed rear and first floor extensions was withdrawn.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.1 Washington Parish Council have raised no objection to this application and have requested that conditions relating to additional planting, no burning of materials and restricted hours of construction and delivery are imposed on any recommendation for approval in order to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties.

3.2 Southern Water’s comments will be reported verbally at the Planning Committee meeting.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 The Chairman of Melrose Place Residents Association has requested that Southern Water be consulted on this application as concerns have been raised in relation to whether the foul drainage arrangements in Melrose Place can cope with the increased demand from the current proposal as well as the larger approved properties in recent years.

3.4 Heath Common Residents Association has raised the following concerns and considers that the proposal should be reduced in scale:

 The primary matters for consideration are the scale of the proposal, in relation to the existing and nearby properties, as well as the street scene impact of the proposal. APPENDIX A

 Further approval on a similar scale to Tintells, would set a precedent, or rather a revised design standard, for what constitutes an appropriate size for properties within the Close.  The size of the proposal is significant and will impact on the character of properties within the Close.  The proposal negatively impacts on the Heath Common Character Area and does not remain in accordance with policy DC15.

3.5 Eight letters of neighbouring objection have been received; the main concerns are outlined below:  Loss of privacy and noise impact that the increased dwelling will cause to neighbouring occupiers.  The proposal represents overdevelopment of the site that is not proportionate in terms of size to the existing bungalow.  The proposal will appear out of keeping in terms of scale and character with other properties within Melrose Place and within Heath Common.  The increased demands that the enlarged property will have on infrastructure.  The extension would impact on boundary planting and screening.  There is no garage or other provision for off-road parking and there is a risk that the narrow road will be regularly blocked by parked vehicles.  The plans are inaccurate and do not show measurements.

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 the application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out below.

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

5.1 It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The principal issues are the effect of the development on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and the character of the area.

6.2 The application site is located within the built up area where the scale, massing and appearance of development proposals are required to be of a high standard design and layout which relates sympathetically with the built surroundings. In line with policy DC15, the proposed development is also required to retain the unique character of the Heath Common area which is presently created by low density development set in woodlands and commons. Melrose Place comprises a mixture of detached single storey properties and chalet bungalows set within spacious plots, some have also been extended with additions to the rear and side. It is therefore considered that the principle of extending the bungalow to create accommodation within the roof space and to the rear is acceptable subject to the development remaining in keeping with the appearance of properties within the street scene and having no adverse impact on the neighbouring properties located to the north, east and south of the site.

6.3 The proposed extensions will increase the size of the ground floor area from 146.05 square metres to 289 square metres. Whilst the proposed extensions will considerably increase APPENDIX A

the floor area of the dwelling, it is noted that the existing bungalow is set within a large plot with a lengthy rear garden extending 55 metres to the east. A distance of 2.4 metres will be maintained between the dwelling and the northern boundary of the site and a distance of 3.4 metres will be maintained between the dwelling and the southern boundary of the site. It is therefore considered that the increased scale of the proposed dwelling will not appear cramped within the plot.

6.4 On this easterly side of the road, the land slopes from south to north, the southerly neighbouring dwelling Tintells therefore sits at an elevated land level in comparison to the application site, High Larches is similarly elevated from its northerly neighbour, The Spinney. A street scene elevation has been submitted with this application at the request of the Case Officer in order to assess the impact of the extended ridge height on the appearance of the street scene. The proposed extension will increase the ridge height of the dwelling from approximately 6 metres to 7 metres at the highest point. The street scene elevation shows that the extended dwelling would sit approximately 1.2 metres above the ridge line of Tintells to the south and 2 metres above the ridge line of The Spinney to the north. It is therefore considered that the proposed increased height of the dwelling will not appear out of proportion with the adjacent neighbouring properties or other chalet bungalows within the road. As the extended dwelling is not considered to appear out of keeping with other chalet bungalows within the road and will be adequately accommodated in the plot, officers are of the view that the development would have little impact on the character of low density development within the Heath Common area.

6.5 The northern, eastern and southern boundary of the site are mostly well screened by trees, hedging and planting ranging from 3 metres to 6 metres in height. There is currently a visual break in this screening along the northern boundary towards the easterly end of the garden. The agent has advised that further landscaping will provided along this boundary in conjunction with the proposed development. The rear extension will incorporate two wings with balconies that will face each other and incorporate an internal courtyard area. The layout of properties within the road varies and it is therefore considered that the extended design and form of the dwelling will not appear out of keeping among other properties within the road.

6.6 The ground floor windows and doors on the southern and northern elevations will be screened by the planting along these boundaries. At first floor level, two roof lights will be situated in the northerly and southerly roof slopes and will serve two ensuite bathrooms. These roof lights will be required to be obscure glazed and incorporate a restricted opening in order to protect the privacy of neighbouring occupiers on either side of the site. On the southern elevation, a dormer serving a bedroom is proposed; this will however be set towards the west of the property and will therefore overlook the front driveway of Tintells which is not considered to be private amenity space as this area is visible over the close boarded boundary fence currently located along the southern boundary. To the east the neighbouring garden serving Oak House will be distanced by approximately 39 metres and the proposed extension will be well screened by the tall trees and planting along this rear boundary.

6.7 Concerns have been raised by neighbouring residents in relation to the inaccurate scale of the plans and the lack of measurements shown. Officers have checked the plans and can advise that the plans are to scale and provide accurate measurements when using a scale ruler. The issue of inadequate provision for car parking has been raised; however the plans submitted show that off road parking will be provided in the area to the west of the dwelling.

6.8 In conclusion, it is considered that the extended dwelling will be adequately accommodated within the plot, cause no loss of amenity to neighbouring occupiers and will not appear duly prominent or out of keeping within the street scene.

APPENDIX A

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

01. A3 Full Permission (3 years)

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.

02. M1 Approval of Materials

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 buildings(s) 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).

03. O1 Hours of Working

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).

04. O2 Burning of Materials

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).

05. S4 Surface water details

Full details of means of surface water drainage to serve the development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to [OPTION A works commencing on development] [OPTION B change of use taking place]. The scheme agreed shall be implemented strictly in accordance with such agreement unless subsequent amendments have been agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained.

06. D4 Obscured Glass

The roof lights in the northerly and southerly roof slopes of the building shall at all times be glazed with obscured glass precise details of which, together with details of any opening, APPENDIX A

shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before installation. The approved glass and any agreed opening details shall be maintained at all times.

Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

07. D5 No Windows

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

Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining residential properties and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

08. L1 Hard and soft landscaping

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).

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

Background Papers: DC/11/2245 & DC/12/0611 APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 21st August 2012 DEVELOPMENT: Erection of detached 3-bed dwelling with detached garage (Outline) SITE: Springwood Sandgate Lane Storrington Pulborough WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/12/1022 APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Giordano

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak.

RECOMMENDATION: To GRANT planning permission.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the outline planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of 1 x 3 bedroom dwelling and a detached garage within an area of garden land situated to the south of the residential property Springwood.

1.2 All matters including the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are reserved on this outline application and these details will need to be submitted and considered under the subsequent reserved matters application. This outline planning application therefore seeks permission as to whether the principle of one new dwelling on the site is acceptable.

1.3 Some indicative plans have however been submitted with this application which show a detached 3 bedroom chalet bungalow property incorporating a ground floor area equalling 74.48m2 and a total ridge height of approximately 6 metres. The dwelling incorporates a pitched roof and dormer windows in the south and northern roof slopes. A detached garage incorporating a pitched roof and measuring approximately 4.6 metres in height is shown to the east of the proposed dwelling.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 The application site is located within the built up area boundary and within the Heath Common Character Area. The application site comprises one of three residential plots situated within the loop at the easterly end of Sandgate Lane. The existing detached two

Contact Officer: Rebecca Tier Tel: 01403 215382

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2.

storey property is situated within the northerly portion of the site and has a spacious rear garden which slopes from north to south. The vehicular access to the property is gained from the south, a detached garage and parking area is located opposite the house to west.

1.5 At the southern end of the garden there are two single storey outbuildings which are well screened from the host dwelling and Sandgate Lane to the south by hedging and planting. There are neighbouring properties located to the east and southern sides of the site, the vehicular access to these properties are also at the southerly ends of the plots.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 – 1 (Building a strong, competitive economy), 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes), 7 (Requiring good design), 10 (Meeting the challenge of climate change and flooding).

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy 2007 – CP3 and CP5.

Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007 – DC8, DC9, DC15 & DC40.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.4 DC/10/1849 – Planning permission was granted in 2010 for a non material amendment to application DC/10/0091 for revised design of first floor dormers.

DC/10/0091 – Planning permission was granted in 2010 for a two storey rear extension.

SG/37/97 – Planning permission was refused and subsequently allowed on appeal in 1997 for the retention of a detached garage.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has been consulted on this application and has given the following comments:

 “The site is within an area of clearly acidic heathland soils, which have given rise to ericaceous foliar cover, typically Scots pine, Silver birch and rhododendron. It is out-of- the-way, Sandgate Lane having a very low level of public access.  I do not feel that there are any trees on the site of particular or especial merit, nor any of public amenity value. Along the eastern boundary is a line of four typically drawn up Scots pines, which have some minor collective merit. However, they are not in any way especial, and have very limited public amenity value, realistically only being visible from the property next door (Hurst Lodge) and, in places, from the little-used lane. I do not APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3.

consider that these trees in any way meet the criteria for a Tree Preservation Order. A far larger Scots pine appears to have quite recently been felled on the site, an event notable only by the deafening silence of public response.  Should it be considered desirable, I do not see any problem in retaining these four pines within the development site. The proposed garage will be within the RPA of the most southerly of them; but this tree is the worst of the four, having been over-pruned and badly lopped. I would recommend in the circumstances that it would best be felled.  The scheme will result in some loss of foliage along the southern boundary. However, this is poor quality rhododendron, of little particular worth.

In summary, this proposal will have no detrimental effect on any tree of particular worth in the area, and accordingly I register no objection.”

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 West Sussex County Council have requested a total financial contribution of £2,723 (£273 libraries, £110 Fire & Rescue & TAD £2,340) in conjunction with this proposal.

WSCC Highways department have made the following comments in relation to this application:

“I refer to your consultation in respect of the above planning application and would provide the following comments. A site survey was conducted on 04/07/2012.

This proposal as described above will be accessed from Sandgate Lane, which is a private road. Consequently, these comments are for your advice only.

WSCC has been consulted previously regarding highways matters for Sandgate Lane, most recently of which concerned the erection of a detached dwelling adjacent to Little Downs which is located in close proximity to this application site. These consultations were dealt with under planning application numbers DC/04/2265, DC/05/0654 & DC/05/1860. These applications concluded with No Objection being raised and the application for a single dwelling being permitted by the Local Planning Authority.

I can advise that the vehicular parking of three spaces would be considered appropriate for a development of this size in this location. A cycle parking provision large enough for 2 cycles should also be included; this can be secured via condition. I would not consider a turn on site essential for a dwelling in this location, considering the slow road speeds expected on Sandgate Lane.

With regard to visibility onto Sandgate Lane, splays of 2 x 17 metres would be considered appropriate given the slow road speeds experienced.

I have also checked the most recently available verified accident records, which reveals there have been no personal injury accidents in the vicinity of the proposed point of access or at Sandgate Lanes junctions with Hillside Road or Water Lane, which are the only access points which adjoin the public highway.

From the information provided and having regard for the latest comments made by WSCC and the Planning Inspectorate about single dwelling developments on Sandgate Lane I believe this application would be difficult to resist from a highway safety perspective. If the LPA are minded to grant planning consent I would advise that that following conditions be included.

 Access  Construction plant and materials  Cycle Parking APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4.

 Parking  Visibility (2 x 17 metres)

INFORMATIVE The applicant is advised to contact the proprietor of Sandgate Lane to obtain formal approval to carry out the site access works on the highway.”

3.3 Southern Water have raised no objection this application, yet the have made the following comments:

“The applicant has not stated details of means of disposal of foul drainage from the site. Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the public sewer to be made by the applicant or developer.

We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following informative is attached to the consent: A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH, or www.southernwater.co.uk) . The Council’s Building Control Officers should be asked to comment on the adequacy of the soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.

Southern Water’s current sewerage records do not show any public sewers to be crossing the site. However due to changes in legislation that came into force on 1st October 2011 regarding the future ownership of sewers it is possible that a sewer now deemed to be public could be crossing the above property. Therefore, should any sewer be found during construction works, an investigation of the sewer will be required to ascertain its condition, the number of properties served, and potential means of access before any further works commence on the site. The applicant is advised to discuss the matter further with Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH, (Tel 01962 858688).

3.4 Storrington & Sullington Parish Council have raised no objection to this application and have commented that there is plenty of room and adequate access onto Sandgate Lane. They have also commented that there are no overlooking issues and plenty of Rhododendron hedging to remain.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.5 Four letters of neighbouring objection have been received from the occupiers of Little Stoke, Little Acre, Hurst Lodge and Pine Rise. The main concerns raised by the neighbouring occupiers comprise the following:

 The dwelling will increase traffic in this part of the road which is in poor condition and parking pressures where there is no off road parking.  Loss of privacy caused by the first floor side windows into the neighbouring gardens of Little Stoke & Hurst Lodge.  The proposal would result in the loss of trees which would impact on the semi-rural character of this wooded area.  The proposed dwelling and size of the plot would be unsympathetic to the general nature of properties within Sandgate Lane and the Heath Common area.  The dwelling would appear cramped within the plot.  The construction of the dwelling is likely to involve the blocking of the loop road which will is the only route for larger vehicles such as refuse and emergency vehicles to turn round and exit onto Water Lane.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 5.

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

4.1 Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of The First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out below.

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

5.1 It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The principal issues are the effect of the development on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and the character and appearance of the area.

6.2 The area of land to the south of Springwood is located within the built up area of Storrington which is a Category 1 settlement where infill development is acceptable in principle subject to other Development Plan policies. Category 1 Settlements are classified as towns and villages capable of sustaining some expansion with a good range of services and facilities as well as some access to public transport. Whilst the site is within a Category 1 defined built up area, this does not necessarily indicate that it is suitable for development, this proposal would therefore need to meet the criteria within the Council’s other development plan policies.

6.3 The application site is also located within the Heath Common Character Area which corresponds to policy DC15 of the HDC General Development Control Policies (2007). This policy specifies that planning permission will only be granted for proposals that retain the unique character of the area presently created by predominantly low density residential development set within this semi-rural environment. Heath Common is typically characterised by detached dwellings within spacious plots.

6.4 The plot size of the application site has been increased from 816 square metres to 895 square metres in size since the submission of the original plans. This increase in size will provide the dwelling with a more spacious private rear amenity space to the north which is characteristic of properties within Sandgate Lane. It is also noted that the recently constructed property Gossamers which has been built within the grounds of Little Downs and is located to the north-east of Springwood incorporates a similar plot size to the application site. It is therefore considered that the increased plot size is more in keeping with other plots within Sandgate Lane and the Heath Common area.

6.5 The host dwelling Springwood is located towards the northerly end of the site and has a large rear garden which slopes on a steep gradient from north to south. At the southerly end of the garden there are two single storey outbuildings which are located between rhododendron hedging to the northern side and southern boundary with Sandgate Lane. It is planned to demolish the existing outbuildings and erect a new dwelling with a detached garage. Whilst the appearance, layout and scale of the dwelling is reserved for the later reserved matters stage, drawings which have been submitted with this application show a detached 3 bedroom chalet style building incorporating accommodation within the pitched roof space of the dwelling. The dwelling shown measures 12.6 metres by 7 metres and incorporates an approximate ridge height of 6 metres. The garage is shown to the east of the proposed dwelling and comprises a single storey structure incorporating a pitched roof and a total height of 4.6 metres. APPENDIX A/ 5 - 6.

6.6 Within Sandgate Lane there are a mixture of detached two storey dwellings and bungalow properties, some of which are more visible from within the street scene than others due to their respective locations within the plots and planting to the roadside elevations. The dwelling will face the southerly end of the loop, along this side of Sandgate Lane there are three substantial ancillary outbuildings which are located within the rear gardens of Springwood and Hurst Lodge and adjacent to Sandgate Lane. It is considered that the principle of a chalet style bungalow would be in keeping with the character and appearance of properties within the road.

6.7 The illustrative plans that have been submitted with this application show that one first floor window will be located to the eastern and western elevations of the proposed dwelling. The plans illustrate that the eastern window would be located approximately 6 metres from the neighbouring boundary and the westerly window will be located approximately 20 metres from the neighbouring boundary. Both windows are however shown on the plans as being obscure glazed. Whilst external design and appearance is not for determination at this stage the drawings submitted have demonstrated that a development of the scale and design as illustrated would not cause an adverse impact on the private amenity of neighbouring properties.

6.8 Some concerns have been raised by neighbouring residents regarding the parking implications associated with the proposed dwelling and potential blocking of the narrow lane for other vehicles. Whilst it is noted that West Sussex County Council Highways department have raised no concerns in relation to highways safety, it is noted that the application site is situated adjacent to a section of the road which enables vehicles to turn around the loop within Sandgate Lane which then exits onto Water Lane. It is therefore considered that a condition which requires all vehicles and materials associated with the development to be stored within the site. The parking arrangements for the dwelling will also be conditioned as per the request of the County Council Highways Authority.

6.9 The trees and planting within the Heath Common area are considered to form part of the character of this semi-rural area. Within the application site there are four Scots Pine trees located along the eastern boundary which are proposed for retention and a rhododendron hedge along the southern boundary frontage of the site which will be mostly retained in conjunction with the proposed development. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has been consulted in relation to the impact of the proposal on these trees and the hedge. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer considers that the four Scots Pine trees have some minor collective merit and that the trees can be retained in conjunction with the development. He also considers that the rhododendron hedge to the front boundary is poor quality. Taking into account the Tree Officer’s comments, it is considered that a landscaping condition will ensure that a suitable planting scheme which remains in keeping with the Heath Common Character area will provided in conjunction with the proposed dwelling.

6.10 In conclusion, it is considered that the erection of a 3 bedroom detached dwelling would, subject to its scale and design as illustrated by the material submitted in support of this application would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the development within the Heath Common area and would not cause any adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that permission be APPROVED subject to the conditions set out below and a legal agreement securing the financial contributions required by the Local Planning Authority and West Sussex County Council.

1) A1 Outline Permission

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 7.

(a) Approval of the details of the layout of the development, the scale of each building, the appearance of each building, access to and within the site and the landscaping of the development (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

(b) Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition (a) above, relating to the layout of the development, the scale of each building, the appearance of each building, access to and within the site and the landscaping of the development, shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority and shall be carried out as approved.

(c) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

(d) The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2) 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 buildings(s) 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).

3) The access to the proposed development from the public highway shall be designed, laid out and constructed in all respects in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall include visibility splays/sight lines defined as follows:-

1) 2 metres by 2.4 metres on each side of the proposed access based on the existing highway boundary, together with sight lines defined by:-

2(a) A line 2 metres long measured along the centre line of the proposed access from the line of the nearer edge of the carriageway of Sandgate Lane.

(b) Lines 17 metres long on each side of the access measured along the nearer edge of the carriageway of Sandgate Lane from their intersection with the centre line of the proposed access.

No other work shall be carried out on the site until the above-mentioned sight lines and splay area have been provided and thereafter the said sight lines and splay areas shall be kept free from any obstruction to visibility in excess of 0.6 metres above the level of the adjoining carriageway.

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

4) The building shall not be occupied until the crossing between the boundary of the site and the adjoining carriageway has been constructed to a specification to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. APPENDIX A/ 5 - 8.

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)

5) No development shall be commenced until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan showing the layout of the proposed development and the provision of car parking spaces for vehicles. The areas of land so provided shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reason: To control the development in detail in the interests of amenity and 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 dwellings/buildings 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 APPENDIX A/ 5 - 9.

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) The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless and until provision for the storage of refuse/recycling bins has been made within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

12) No development shall take place until an initial design stage assessment by an accredited assessor for the Code for Sustainable Homes and an accompanying interim certificate stating that each dwelling has been designed to achieve Level 3 of the Code has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. No dwelling shall be occupied until it has been issued with a final Code certificate of compliance. Reason – To ensure the construction of a sustainable form of development and to take into account the impact of climate change in accordance with policy DC8 of the Horsham District LDF: General Development Control Policies.

13) Full details of means of 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 development. The scheme agreed shall be implemented strictly in accordance with such agreement unless subsequent amendments have been agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained.

14) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (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.

Reason – In the interest of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.

15) 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).

16) Deliveries, loading and unloading shall be restricted to 0800 hours and 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays inclusive, 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and no deliveries, loading or unloading shall be undertaken on Sundays or public holidays.

APPENDIX A/ 5 - 10.

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

17) 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).

Informative

1. A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH, or www.southernwater.co.uk) . The Council’s Building Control Officers should be asked to comment on the adequacy of the soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.

2. Southern Water’s current sewerage records do not show any public sewers to be crossing the site. However due to changes in legislation that came into force on 1st October 2011 regarding the future ownership of sewers it is possible that a sewer now deemed to be public could be crossing the above property. Therefore, should any sewer be found during construction works, an investigation of the sewer will be required to ascertain its condition, the number of properties served, and potential means of access before any further works commence on the site. The applicant is advised to discuss the matter further with Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH, (Tel 01962 858688).

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

Background Paper: DC/12/1022

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 21 August 2012 DEVELOPMENT: Conversion of existing barns to a live/work unit with stables and hay store SITE: Smallham Farm Barns Kennel Lane West Grinstead West Sussex WARD: Cowfold, Shermanbury and West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/12/1120 APPLICANT: Mr Edward Hartnett

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Agent request to speak

RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks to convert the existing barns to a live-work unit. The proposal would result in the conversion of the three barns into a dwelling house, garage/ workshop and stables/ store.

1.2 Building A is double storey in height measuring 7.6metres by 10.4metres with a ridge height of approximately 7.7metres. Presently this building has double height doors on the eastern elevation, and a catslide roof on the western elevation with double doors, the building has a tiled roof with horizontal weatherboarding and timber doors. The proposal seeks to convert this building into a dwelling house; the proposal would see the existing floor level dug out to create additional headroom internally. The internal layout would see the creation of two mezzanine levels with a central staircase linking the two elements. Internally the space would see the creation of 2 bedrooms and bathrooms on the first floor level, at ground floor level the space would contain a kitchen, lounge, utility and bathroom. Externally the proposed changes would see the insertion of a number of doors and windows at ground and first floor level on the north and south elevations. The double height doors on the east elevation would be fully glazed with two additional windows at ground and first floor level, and two roof lights. The western elevation would have glazed doors with three roof lights and a window at ground floor level.

1.3 Building B is ‘L’ shaped and single storey in height. The building measures 15.1metres in length and 3.7metres in width, extending to approximately 9metres in width at the southern end of the building, this building has a maximum height of approximately 4.4metres.

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

Presently this building has double doors on the western elevation and open bays on the southern elevation. The proposal would result in the building divided into a workshop, office and 2 bay carport. There would be a number of windows inserted on the east elevation and an additional window on the west elevation. This would have a B1 use.

1.4 Building C lies to the north of the other buildings. This building measures 15.1metres in width and 4.4metres in depth, with an overall height of approximately 4.5metres reducing to 3.4metres. The proposal seeks to keep the western section as it is by turning this into a hay store. The eastern section would be subdivided into stables.

1.5 The proposal also seeks to add 1metre ranch style fencing around the boundary and there are 4 car parking spaces shown on the block plan.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

The application site is located outside of the built up area. There are footpaths located to the west of the site.

The application site is in a rural location at the end of Kennel Lane and is approached via a single track. The site is made up of a cluster of barns sited in a ‘Z’ shape, the barns themselves are timber framed with timber weatherboarding and tiled roofs. Building A is two storeys in height with large full height doors on the east elevation and double doors on the west elevation. Building B is ‘L’ shaped, single storey in height with two open bays and an enclosed bay. Building C is located to the north of the other buildings and contains two sections, each with doors opening to the south.

There are barns located to the south of the application site which belong to the neighbouring property. To the south west of the application site are the Crawley and Horsham Kennels. There is a property located approximately 55metres to the south of the application site, and a number of other properties sporadically located down Kennel Lane. To the north, east and west of the application site are open fields.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012: Achieving Sustainable Development, Section 3 (Supporting a prosperous rural economy), Section 4 (Promoting Sustainable Transport), Section 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes), Section 11 (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment)

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007): Policies CP1 (Landscape and Townscape Character), CP2 (Environmental Quality), CP3 (Improving the Quality of New Development), CP5 (Built up Area and Previously Developed Areas) and CP13 (Infrastructure Requirements)

2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007): DC1 (Countryside Protection and Enhancement), DC2 (Landscape Character), DC5 (Biodiversity and Ecology), DC9 (Development Principles), DC24 (Conversion of APPENDIX A/ 6 - 3.

Agricultural and Rural Buildings for Industrial, Business or Residential Uses) and DC40 (Transport and Access)

PLANNING HISTORY

WG/41/90 Conversion of redundant barn to one residential unit with garaging REFUSED Site: Smallham Barn Kennel La West Grinstead

WG/28/91 Conversion of redundant barn to one residential unit with garaging REFUSED Site: Smallham Barn Kennel La West Grinstead

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Environmental Health: First Consultation The above application is proposing introducing a residential unit adjacent to the Crawley and Horsham Kennels. This Department has received two complaints this year of noise from dogs barking at the kennels. The two separate residential properties in which the complainants live are over 300m away from the kennels. The proposed live/work unit will be approximately 60m from the nearest building at the kennels (the meat preparation room), 125m from the main kennelling building and 90m to the nearest outside run. The Noise Impact Assessment prepared by EAS Ltd submitted with the application is therefore welcomed. The following comments are made with reference to this document. Please note that I have not carried out any noise monitoring myself.

The noise monitoring by EAS was carried out in January 2012. A continuous monitoring period of 24 hours spanning two days was recorded and additional short-term monitoring was undertaken. A noise peak (up to Laeq 64 dB and Lamax 88 dB) was identified at 1800 hours and was attributed to the feeding of the dogs.

I made a visit to the kennels to enquire about the dog feeding programme through the year. The information supplied can be summarised as follows:

Time period Time of feeding and other noise producing activities November to end 2 to 3 days a week 1800 (feeding) March 4 to 5 days a week 0700 (feeding) March to July 0600 (feeding) August to October 0430 (dogs taken for exercise) 1100-1200 (feeding)

The above schedule concurs with the results of the noise monitoring as it is likely that the noise monitoring happened to coincide with one of the 1800 feeding times (monitoring carried out in January).

From the above, it is my view that the potential for noise disturbance has been underestimated in the report as it does not make mention nor include an assessment of the impacts of the activities at 0700 in November to March, 0600 between March and July and 0430 between August and October, all of which are likely to be accompanied by dogs barking and consequent disturbance at this sensitive time of the day.

If the development proceeds, there are also likely to be short term environmental impacts on nearby residents from construction activities (noise, dust, waste). However, these could be controlled by a construction environmental management plan (CEMP). If you are minded to permit the application I recommend a condition requiring a CEMP to be submitted, approved and implemented. APPENDIX A/ 6 - 4.

Further comments were received in relation to the revised noise report: Further to the revised Noise Impact Assessment dated July 2012 submitted in support of the above application I make the following comments.

The report makes reference to PPG 24 and the noise exposure categories contained within it. It also states that the peak LAmax level of 88 dB(A) was recorded and was attributable to dog barking during feeding time. As noted in the original report paragraph 5.5, PPG 24 stated that for night-time noise levels, which covers the period 2300-0700, sites where individual noise events regularly exceed 82 dB LAmax several times in any hour should be treated as being in NEC C regardless of the LAeq, 8hour. The data indicates that dog barking at the time the dogs are fed will exceed 82 LAmax and this is likely to occur a number of times in a one hour period. Given that feeding and exercising occurs throughout the year between 0430 and 0700, this indicates that the development site should be considered to lie in NEC C for the night-time hours 2300-0700.

My concerns therefore remain that noise from the kennels could have a detrimental impact on residential amenity of the proposed dwelling on account of night-time noise. However, should you be minded to approve the application the recommendations in the report to mitigate against noise

3.2 Building Control: I have looked at the above planning application for the scheme at Smallham Farm and have the following comments. Please note that no site visit has taken place and therefore these comments are only based on the information supplied.

The two storey barn A would not comply with Building Regulations if it was to be converted as the first floor bedrooms are classed as inner rooms and therefore need windows suitable for means of escape to ensure they comply with the Fire Safety part of Building Regulations. The windows to the Southern Bedroom are too small to comply with this requirement. They need to have a minimum openable area of 0.33m2 and have a minimum opening width or height of 450mm (which then requires the other dimension to be a minimum of 730mm). To achieve this clear openable area the structural opening will need to be larger.

I have looked at the Structural Assessment provided with the application and this appears to indicate that the barns can be converted without major structural rebuilding.

Provided the window openings are addressed in Barn A, the scheme would be suitable for conversion subject to a suitable Building Regulations application being made.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3 WSCC Ecology: Ecological objection, there is not enough information to allow a suitable determination.

The barn is well connected to the wider countryside and is surrounded by optimum habitat for bats. With regard to Gov’t Circular 06/2005 paragraphs 98 & 99 there is a reasonable likelihood of bats being present within the buildings to be converted and an ecological survey for bats should support the application. The survey should also include details of proposed mitigation and all recommended additional surveys must be complete. Should bats be found the conversion design must be modified to ensure bats can be accommodated in the long term and thereby maintain their conservations status. Please also refer to Natural England’s Standing Advice, National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 118 and The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations (2010)

3.4 WSCC Highways: This application has been dealt with in accordance with the Development Control Scheme protocol for small scale proposals which include up to 5 APPENDIX A/ 6 - 5. residential units or extensions to single units accessed from roads that do not form part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN). As such the comments provided by Local Development should be considered to be advice only, with respect to this planning application.

I refer to your consultation in respect of the above planning application and would provide the following comments. A site survey was conducted on 01/08/2012.

The application as described above is accessed via Kennel Lane, which is a private road. Kennel Lane has been designated as a definitive public right of way, F.P.1813.

Kennels Lane is a narrow lane, however it would appear that there are opportunities to pass using various access drives. The lane has a metalled surface for approximately 280 metres at its southern end where it adjoins the A272. I have checked the most recently available verified accident records for this point of access onto the A272. There has been one personal injury accidents in the vicinity of the access point however did not involve vehicles using this point of access. This suggests the access operating safety at present. Visibility on site was also observed to be appropriate.

It was noted on site that the most northern 50 metres of access drive leading to the site itself is in a poor condition when compared to the other sections of the access drive, improvements to this section of the drive would be advisable.

The conversion of the existing barn would provide a 2 bed live/work unit comprising of office space a workshop area, two stables and a hay store. Vehicle parking for 2 cars would be provided within the barn conversion in the form of a carport. It is noted from the proposed floor plans that the depth of the proposed car port is 3.6 metres, while this would not be considered appropriate to fully cover a vehicle any overhang will be on private land and not considered detrimental. From inspection of the plans provided it would also appear there is sufficient space on the hard standing area of the site to turn and park additional vehicles as required.

With regard to traffic movements the existing barn is being used for domestic storage purposes, however presumably the barn would be able to operate an agricultural use without planning consent. Any agricultural use would be likely to generate a number of vehicular movements. When considering the number of vehicular movements that could be present at the site in comparison to what this proposal would generate we believe it would be difficult to substantiate that the movements created by this proposal would be of detriment to highway safety.

Safe & convenient public access is to be available at all times across the full width of the PROW (F.P.1813). The path is not to be obstructed by vehicles, plant, scaffolding or the temporary storage of materials and/or chemicals. If the path surface is considered damaged as a result of the development then the applicant may be required to make good the surface to a standard satisfactory to West Sussex County Council’s Rights of Way team.

From the information supplied we believe this application would be difficult to resist form a highway perspective.

If the LPA are minded to grant planning consent I would advise conditions securing the following are included.

 Parking and Turning  Cycle Parking APPENDIX A/ 6 - 6.

Summary of Contributions: WSCC would also seek contributions of £2,232, this would break down to £242 for Libraries, £90 for Fire and Rescue, and £1,900 for TAD

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.5 West Grinstead Parish Council: No Objection

3.6 Neighbour comments: Six letters of objection have been received from five addresses ‘1 Kennel Lane’: The kennel staff collect fallen stock from around the area to prepare in the flesh shed for the hounds and the smells from this process are not pleasant and drift to Smallham Farm. We run a commercial operation and residential so close to our operation will cause noise and smell complaints to the council and affects future sale of the house.

‘Huntsmans Cottage’: Object to the application at Smallham Farm Barns because the nature of keeping working dogs that need feeding, cleaning and exercising makes lots of disruptive barking and other noise which has caused disruption to residents. I understand that an application was made in 1991 which was turned down. At that time we had approximately 81 hounds, we now have 101 and use the flesh house more frequently. The kennel is run as a business picking up and disposing of fallen stock through the Defra system and with this number of hounds they do bark day and night. We have had complaints from people living over 250metres away. Object because having a residential unit so close will affect their ability to live in a peaceful environment and will mean more noise complaints to environmental services.

‘Bowshotts’: There is not enough room at the proposed site for a livery yard as there is no additional land. The smell coming from the flesh house is consuming and the noise from the hounds would be enough to put off any potential buyers

‘The Kennels’: The kennels is run as a business and with this number of hounds they do bark during the day and night. We keep this noise to a minimum but this is a kennels. I object to the application because a residential unit so close will affect their ability to live in a peaceful environment- this isn’t a residential area and will mean more noise complaints. I am also concerned about the extra traffic that may use Kennel Lane and the already dangerous access point on to the A272.

‘Smallham Farmhouse’: Two letters received from this address. Concerns that the survey submitted by the application shows barking once in a 24hour period for a short time, which in my experience does not happen. It seems to be a number of times a day and sometimes it may go on for at least 40minutes or so. Also noticed that I am unable to walk in the field behind Smallham Farm Barns which was previously open to the public. Access is on a very narrow unmade farm track where the dustman refuses to collect rubbish and from outside our house and the track is unsuitable for regular or heavy traffic. Kennel Lane itself is a single file track with no passing spaces other than private driveways and therefore additional traffic on this lane would not be tenable. The proposed plans will overlook our yard as the bedrooms are metres away from our boundary where we keep animals and we’re sometimes up early making noises as well as the animal noises and smells. The same smell exists that declined the application in 1991 harming the amenity of potential future owners. The site is too small to graze horses or other animals. Also note that no bat survey has been conducted, we live next door to the site and bats fly around us in darkness. APPENDIX A/ 6 - 7.

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 the application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out 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

Principle of Development 6.1 The application site is located outside of the Built up Area, where development and proposed dwellings in the countryside are strictly controlled. Therefore the application would be assessed against DC24 which states that

Outside the defined built up areas, conversion of agricultural, forestry or rural buildings for business, commercial or residential development will be permitted where: a) The building is suitably located in that it is not in an isolated position in relation to infrastructure, amenities and services b) The building is of a suitable scale for the level of activity proposed, and of suitable construction which is not so derelict as to require substantial reconstruction, and for proposals for residential use, is of tradition construction and/or architectural/historic interest; c) The buildings are proved to have been in use for a period of 10 years or more d) The proposed use will maintain or enhance the agricultural character of the their settings; and, e) The proposed use can be accommodated in the existing buildings and car parking requirements can be accommodated satisfactorily within the immediate surroundings of the buildings.

Proposals for the conversion of buildings to business and commercial uses will be considered favourably over residential in the first instance. The loss of either existing commercial or agricultural uses to residential is dependent on an examination of the sustainability and suitability of the location and whether the building would best preserved through the conversion to residential.

6.2 The barns are located in a rural area at the end of a single track road. Kennel Lane, exits onto the A272 which is one of the key routes going east-west in the district. The nearest category 2 settlement (Cowfold) is located approximately 2.5kilometres away ‘as the crow flies’. Planning policy at both the national and local level seeks to ensure that development is located in sustainable locations and that priority is given to pedestrian and cycle movements. Given the location of the proposed development, it is considered that the proposal fails to meet the aims of DC24(a) given its location, as the occupiers of the property would have a significance reliance on the private car to access services.

6.3 In terms of the information supplied as part of the application, the method statement submitted as part of the application, suggests that the building is suitable for conversion. Building Control have been consulted on the application have suggested that the method statement appears to indicate that the barns could be converted without major structural rebuilding. However they have stated that the Building A would not comply with building regulations as the windows would need to be suitable for means of escape. It should be noted that a site visit was not carried out by building control. APPENDIX A/ 6 - 8.

6.4 Whilst it is noted that one of the barns on the site would be converted to a work unit, there is no guarantee that this would be utilised by a future occupier of the site. Much of the information supplied in the Design and Access Statement suggests that the conversion of the unit to residential would result in fewer traffic movements than if the buildings were reverted back to an agricultural use. However, the barns were originally erected for agricultural purposes. At the time of the site visit, and within the supporting evidence, it has been stated that the barns are used for the storage of furniture. However no application has ever been submitted for the change of use of the barn to the storage of furniture and as such it is recommended that this issue is raised with the compliance team.

Proximity to the Kennels 6.5 Planning permission for conversion of the barns into a residential unit has previously been sought on the site under WG/41/90 and WG/28/91. WG/41/90 reason for refusal was “In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the residential use of this barn is inappropriate in this location as future occupiers would suffer from an unacceptable degree of noise and smell nuisance from the adjoining commercial kennels”. This application was later dismissed at appeal. Application WG/28/91 was refused for the same reason.

6.6 The application currently under consideration proposes a live-work unit and has been accompanied by a noise report in an attempt to address the issues with the kennel. Environmental Health were consulted on the noise report and suggested that the potential for noise disturbance has been under estimated as it does not include an impact of all the activities at the kennels. A further noise report has been submitted during the application process and Environmental Health have commented that their concerns remain that the noise from the kennels could have a detrimental impact on residential amenity of the proposed dwelling on account of night time noise. It should also be noted that Environmental Health has received two complaints this year because of noise from complainants who live over 300metres away from the kennels.

6.7 Whilst planning policy may have changed in the period since the application was originally submitted, the relationship of the buildings to the kennels and the use of the kennels have not changed. In addition to this, a number of letters of objection have been received which make reference to both noise and the proximity of the application site to the ‘Flesh House’ which is used to prepare meat for the hounds from fallen stock collected from farmers and the smells which linger in that area.

6.8 The original Inspectors report on the site stated that “I conclude that the noise disturbance experienced by future occupiers of the appeal property would be unacceptable and that the site is therefore unsuitable for residential purposes”. The application currently under consideration has contended that the noise issue has been addressed by the placement of windows on east elevation away from the kennels. However the originally refused plans (WG/41/90) also showed minimal windows on the west elevation, and it is therefore concluded that the comments made in the original Inspectors report are still valid.

6.9 Policy DC9 seeks to ensure that any development does not “cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers/ users of nearby property and land, for example through overlooking or noise”. Given the proximity of the site to the kennels and the noise nuisance likely to occur, it is considered that the proposal does not meet the requirements of DC9(b).

Design 6.10 The Design of the proposed barn conversion is also a key consideration. The two storey barn on the site is a traditional Sussex timber framed barn and the other two barns are also of traditional style. Presently the only openings in the barns are for the double doors. The proposal seeks to add a number of windows to Building A, which would result in a cluttered elevation and impact adversely on the local distinctiveness of the Sussex Barn. Building B would also have a significant number of windows along the eastern elevation of the barn, APPENDIX A/ 6 - 9.

which would further detract from the agricultural appearance of the buildings. The proposed changes to Building C are more limited.

6.11 Within the wider landscape, it is considered that the proposed conversion would appear overly domestic in appearance which would ultimately detract from the cluster of barns and impact adversely on the rural location in which it sits.

Impact on Neighbour Amenity 6.12 In terms of the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties, the application sits in a rural location and therefore the key consideration would be the impact on Smallham Farmhouse which sits to the south of the site. There are two windows proposed on the first floor south elevation, however these are shown on the plans as being obscure glazed and non-opening. Given that there would be approximately 65metres between the application site and Smallham Farmhouse, the impact on neighbour amenity is considered limited.

Access/ Parking 6.13 In terms of the parking provision for the site, there are four spaces shown on the block plan, which is considered acceptable. With regards to the access, the Highways Authority has been consulted on the application, and has not raised an objection in terms of access or parking. They have however commented that access to the public right of way which runs through the access track should be available at all times.

Other Issues 6.14 In addition to the issues outlined above, the County Ecologist has objected to the application, on the grounds that no bat survey has been submitted. The site is located in a rural area where there is a high likelihood of bats being present. Without the benefit of a bat report, it has not been possible to accurately assess the proposals and it is therefore considered that the proposal does not meet the aims of Policy DC5, which seeks to ensure that development contains measures to protect, conserve or enhance the biodiversity of the district.

6.15 There is also a need for financial contributions. The contributions required for the proposed development are £1467 for Open Space, Sport and Recreation, £324 for Community centres and halls, £162 for recycling making a total of £1953. In addition to this further contribution for TAD (£1,900), Fire and Rescue (£90), Libraries (£242) and Fire Hydrants (TBC) would need to be taken into account. A S106 agreement would need to be entered into as part of the application, which has not been done as part of this application.

Conclusion 6.16 Overall, given that accommodation for a residential unit on the site has been previously refused at appeal on noise grounds and that Environmental Health has already received a number of noise complaints from properties further from the kennels than the application site, it would be unacceptable for the Local Planning Authority to grant permission for development when there is a strong argument that it would have an adverse impact on the amenity of future occupiers of the site.

6.17 In addition to this, the proposed development is located in a rural unsustainable location, which would result in over reliance of the private car. Furthermore the design of the proposed conversion is considered overly domestic in appearance which would have an adverse impact on both the character of the barn and wider landscape in which it sits. As a result it is considered that the proposal does not meet the aims of planning policy and it is recommended that planning permission is refused.

APPENDIX A/ 6 - 10.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 That planning permission is refused

1. The proposal would result in inappropriate development outside the Built up Area in an isolated and unsustainable countryside location and would lead to changes to the existing buildings which would result in a cluttered appearance which would detract from the agricultural character and distinctiveness of the barns. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies CP1, CP2, CP3 and CP5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DC1, DC2, DC9, DC24 and DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

2. The applicant has failed to provide information to assess the effects of the development on protected species together with any proposed prevention, mitigation or compensation measures and to thereby demonstrate that the development would not cause a net loss of biodiversity. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies CP1 of the Horsham District Framework Core Strategy (2007) and DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

3. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that future occupiers of the site would not be adversely affected by noise nuisance from the adjoining commercial kennels. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

4. The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to transport infrastructure, open space, recycling and community facilities. The proposal is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) as it has not been demonstrated how the infrastructure needs for the development would be met.

Background Papers: DC/12/1120 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 21 August 2012 Extension to lower ground floor to form conference room with roof terrace DEVELOPMENT: and balustrade over SITE: Roundabout Hotel Monkmead Lane West Chiltington Pulborough WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/12/0885 APPLICANT: Chapman Group Ltd.

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Member request (Councillor Circus)

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks permission for a single storey extension to the rear of main section of the hotel to provide additional function facilities. The proposal would include a terrace area above the proposed extension with associated balustrade and steps to the existing main ground level terrace area.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The site consists of a 4 star country house hotel, located along Monkmead Lane in West Chiltington. The hotel has 26 en-suite bedrooms with bar area as well as a restaurant and additional reception and meeting rooms. There is also an outside terrace and garden area.

1.3 The hotel is located along Monkmead Lane, a busy thoroughfare of the village with residential properties along either side of the road. The hotel is also located to the north of Sunset Lane. The property is therefore located within the defined built up area boundary of West Chiltington.

Contact Officer: Doug Wright Tel: 01403 215522 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 2.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework – Section 1, Building a Strong Competitive Economy; Section 7, Requiring Good Design

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant Local Plan Policies are DC9, DC15 & DC39 in Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007) and CP2, CP3 in the Core Strategy (2007).

PLANNING HISTORY

2.4 WC/91/96 2-storey extension for dining room & PER additional bedroom WC/30/98 Extension to the car park to give 3 PER extra spaces WC/6/98 Extension to car park PER DC/06/2151 Erection of hotel managers dwelling REF

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Public Health & Licensing had no adverse comments to make.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 West Sussex County Council, Highways department made the following comments:

“Whilst it is appreciated that the purpose of the proposal is to improve the wedding service currently offered, it remains that there is an extension to the floor area which increases the number of guests which could be catered for.

WSCC Parking Standards require 1 parking space per 5 seats. The extension will provide seating for an additional 20 guests, which equates to an additional 4 parking spaces in total.

No information in plan format has been submitted by the applicant with regards to parking. However, looking at the red lined area on the location plan, there appears to be scope to increase the parking provision. This may require a rationalisation of the existing parking arrangements or the creation of an additional area, the applicant will need to demonstrate that some additional parking can be accommodated within the site boundary.

No objection subject to the submission of a plan showing the increased parking provision.”

APPENDIX A/ 7 - 3.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 33 letters of representation have been received from 26 households with 8 having general comment and the remaining being objections. The following is a summary of the main reasons for objection.

 Applicants not being honest about their proposals  The proposed extension would increase the number of guests  Increase noise due to larger numbers at weddings and other functions  Increase traffic along Monkmead Lane  Parking congestion along Monkmead Lane and outside residential properties

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

Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of The First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out below.

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

It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The principal issue is the effect of the development on the semi rural character of the surrounding area and the occupants of the neighbouring dwellings.

6.2 The Roundabout Hotel has recently reopened under new management and forms part of the RelaxInnz chain, which has 24 hotels across the South of England. The hotel had been closed for a period of time following ownership under the Best Western hotel chain.

6.3 The hotel has a number of function rooms used for a variety of events with weddings being the main undertaking. The current facilities are located on the lower ground floor with the layout consisting of a bar area, leading onto two rooms of varying size. Each room has access to the outside terrace and garden area to the rear of the hotel. The proposed extension would run adjacent to the smaller of the function rooms, which is 7.6m in length with a proposed width of 3.8m. The proposed extension is smaller than the existing adjacent room, which has a greater width of 5m for most of the room with a narrower section at the entrance point of the room at 3.5m for a length of 2m. This aspect of the room would remain, thereby separating this section of two rooms with the remaining part using partition doors with options for the room sizes or screening. Therefore whilst increasing the floor space capacity, there would be a limit to the layout of the room and does not double in size the existing room, as has been suggested.

6.3 The application shows the proposed extension would increase the potential capacity of a function by approx 20 persons, when seated at a round table. However further capacity may be allowable for a non-seating function or the evening reception of a wedding. West Sussex County Council, Highways department have no objection to the proposed extension, however would require an additional 4 parking spaces to be provided on top of the 38 already in place. Therefore a reconfiguration of the existing parking area would be required to satisfy WSCC. A further location plan has been submitted, which shows the APPENDIX A/ 7 - 4.

provision of 43 parking spaces, an increase of 5 from the existing 38 spaces. This therefore meets the requirements of the WSCC Highways department.

6.4 The hotel is located along Monkmead Lane amongst many residential dwellings within, large spacious plots. The properties all have off-road parking with roadside grass verges, forming part of their private land. There are no pedestrian pavements along this part of Monkmead Lane, as well as no street lighting. It is therefore considered that parking alongside or over the verges would not be appropriate, given the lack of suitable access on foot and street lighting. However providing the parking doesn’t intrude private verges or restrict access to and from residential dwellings, there could be little control over parking along the lane.

6.5 A large proportion of the objections to the proposed extension, consider the additional capacity would increase the noise levels of functions at the venue and thereby having a detrimental impact upon what is considered a semi- rural or country setting as well as the amenities of the surrounding residential properties. The hotel currently holds a variety of functions within its existing facilities and has done so for a number of years. Whilst the proposed additional guests gives potential to an increase in noise levels, it is considered that this number in comparison to the existing capacity would not attribute to a vast increase in noise that may arise from current functions. The issue of noise has not concerned the Council’s Public Health & Licensing department. It should also be noted that whilst the proposed extension would allow for an increase in guest numbers, its occupation may be subject to a change in the hotel’s current premises licence.

6.6 In conclusion, the proposed extension, which modest in size and given the existing facilities, would not be considered to have an adverse effect upon the residential amenities of neighbouring dwelling. In terms of its proposed use, any additional noise levels would be considered minimal against the existing arrangements. Parking facilities within the site of the hotel are considered to be lacking, however the further provision of spaces would overcome any issues. It is therefore considered for the reasons given above that the proposed building is acceptable in terms of the relevant policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies Document (2007).

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

01. A2 Full Permission 02. M4 Matching Materials

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

ICAB1 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.

ICAB3 The proposal does not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene or locality.

Background Papers: DC/12/0885 APPENDIX A/ 8 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 21st August 2012 DEVELOPMENT: Single storey infill extension SITE: Wealden Barn, Coopers Farm, Bolney Road, Cowfold WARD: Cowfold, Shermanbury and West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/12/1143 APPLICANT: Ms C Powell

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Agent request to speak

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 planning permission for the erection of a single-storey extension at this converted barn. The proposed extension would be situated on the southern elevation of this dwelling and would comprise an extension to the kitchen area by creating a breakfast area.

1.2 The proposed extension would measure 11m in width which would mimic the existing building and 5.75m in depth. The extension would have a flat roof with a ridge height of 3m and the roof would be designed to have 2 roof lanterns over.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.3 This site comprises a dwelling which is a former agricultural building which was granted planning permission to be converted from redundant farm buildings to a dwelling in 1991, a condition was imposed to remove the permitted development rights to this dwelling as part of the permission. There are additional outbuildings on site which are ancillary to the residential use of the main dwelling, including an office space for the applicant. There is a large amount of agricultural land which is in the applicants ownership to the north of the site and a formal landscaped area with a courtyard at the rear of this building.

1.4 This site is located at the end of a long access drive which is situated on the northern side of Bolney Road. This site is located outside of any designated built-up area, and as such any proposed development is subject to the relevant countryside policies of the Horsham

Contact Officer: Lisa Da Silva Tel: 01403 215633 APPENDIX A/ 8 - 2.

District Local Development Framework (LDF). The surrounding area is predominantly rural in character with open fields and farmland, however, there are other residential properties in this area and this dwelling is one of a cluster of approximately 4 residential properties in this locality.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Section 11 – Conserving and Enhancing the natural Environment, in particular paragraph 109. Section 7 – Requiring Good Design, in particular paragraphs 56 -57 & 64.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant Policies of the LDF General Development Control Policies (2007) are DC1, DC9, DC24 & DC28.

2.4 The relevant policies of the Horsham District Council’s LDF Core Strategy are CP1 & CP3.

PLANNING HISTORY

In 2008 a planning application was submitted under DC/08/1473 but was subsequently withdrawn for the erection of a single-storey rear extension.

In 2006 planning permission was granted under DC/06/2418 for a single-storey extension, alterations and enclosure of the existing covered porch.

In 2006 planning permission was refused under DC/06/0031 for the erection of a single- storey extension and enclosure of the existing porch.

In 2005 planning permission was granted under DC/05/0208 for alterations to the existing building to form an ancillary games room.

In 2003 planning permission was approved under CF/20/03 for the conversion of building into ancillary work space (office) accommodation. A subsequent application was approved in 2004 under DC/04/2659 for an amendment to previous approval CF/20/03.

In 1991 planning permission was approved under CF/6/91 for the conversion of redundant farm buildings to one dwelling and carport with store.

In 1993 planning permission was approved for the temporary siting of mobile home whilst the adjacent barn is converted to residential use.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 The Council’s Design and Conservation Adviser has been consulted on this application and her comments will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.

APPENDIX A/ 8 - 3.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 None received.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 Cowfold Parish Council has stated that they have no objections or observations about this application.

3.4 The occupier of a neighbouring dwelling has stated that it is their view that the proposed extension would significantly alter the nature of the original barn conversion, involving the removal of a large part of the original structure, and that the proposal would be out of character for this type of building. Nevertheless, they also state that they do not have a view on this application as it is a matter for local planning policy. However, if planning permission is granted they would request that construction traffic be restricted to the Wealden Barn track only because of the dangerous access onto the busy road of the A272 from the other driveway.

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

Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of The First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out below.

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

It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The principal issues are the scale and form of the development and the effect of the development on the character and appearance of this converted barn property and this countryside locality.

6.2 This dwelling and a carport were converted from redundant farm buildings in 1991. As a result of this permission a condition was imposed removing all permitted development on this site. This is common practice with barn conversions in order to control the development and retain the character of the building. In addition, there is a general presumption against extensions to converted barn properties as consideration would have been given at the time of the proposed conversion whether the proposed residential use can be accommodated in the existing buildings, and car parking facilities can be accommodated satisfactorily within the immediate surrounds of the building. It is however noted that previous planning applications have been approved for works at this site and for extensions to this property; however, these extensions are considered to be small additions which were subservient to the main dwelling and did not detract from the overall character of this converted barn property.

6.3 This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a single-storey extension on the rear elevation of this converted barn property. The extension would be located on the middle section of this building which has the appearance of a link type structure. This part of the converted building is likely to have been a cart-shed or piggery as it is a subservient building constructed against the wall of the other larger barn buildings which form part of this conversion. These outbuildings provide important evidence of how the original farm would have evolved over time, and it is important to assess the value and retention of APPENDIX A/ 8 - 4.

these structures to maintain a coherent picture of how the original farmstead would have evolved.

6.4 The proposed extension would follow the width of the existing link building and would measure 11m in width, the extension would measure 5.75m in depth and 3m in height to the ridge. The proposed extension would have a flat roof with 2 roof lanterns located within the proposed flat roof. The proposed extension would create a breakfast room which would enlarge the existing kitchen which is currently accommodated in this link type structure. Whilst it is noted that the height of the proposed extension is subservient to the existing main dwelling, the proposed extension is considered to be excessive in width at 11m and due to its siting along the whole of the rear elevation of this link structure it has the effect of removing the simple character of the original building by masking this important and integral part of this converted barn building.

6.5 The design of the proposed extension is considered to be overtly domestic which is alien in character to the existing building and uncharacteristic of the simple form of this type of traditional barns. The barn as converted is considered to have a simple, vernacular, agrarian form. It is considered that the proposed extension would not retain the simple architectural form of the converted barn and would not reflect the character of the existing building, and would thereby detract from the character of this building and would also detract from the surrounding landscape.

6.6 There are neighbouring properties located to the south and southeast of this dwelling, these dwellings are all located approximately 55m from the site of the proposed works, the occupiers of these dwellings would not have any views of the proposed extension due to the position of other outbuildings and hard landscaping works on the site which obscure any views as they are situated between the proposed extension and the neighbouring dwellings. As such, it is not thought that the proposed extension would have any adverse impact upon the existing residential amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings. There are no public footpaths around this site and as such the proposed works would not be visible from outside of this site.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

8.1 The proposed extension by virtue of its siting, size and design would fundamentally alter the simple original form and design of this dwelling and would thereby not preserve the existing character of this converted building. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies DC1, DC9, DC24 & DC28 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (2007).

Background Papers: DC/08/1473 & DC/12/1143 APPENDIX A/ 9 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 21 August 2012 Retrospective permission for erection of air conditioning units on rear flat DEVELOPMENT: roof SITE: Storrington Club 28 West Street Storrington Pulborough WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/12/0474 APPLICANT: Mr David Grinham

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Member Request (Councillor Sanson)

RECOMMENDATION: To grant planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application seeks permission for the retention of 5 air condition units, which are located on the roof of the Storrington Club.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The site is located along the northern side of West Street. The building which houses the club, has recently been divided into two uses with the front part being converted into a retail unit for Southdown Bikes with rear element remaining as the Storrington Club, having previously occupied the whole building. The rear of the site backs onto a row of dwellings within North Street. The site is located within the built area boundary of Storrington & Sullington.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

Contact Officer: Doug Wright Tel: 01403 215522 APPENDIX A/ 9 - 2.

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant Local Plan Policies are DC9 in Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).

PLANNING HISTORY

2.4 DC/11/0573 PER Retrospective permission for a change of use of the front room area to A1 retail whilst keeping the back rooms as a community club DC/11/1419 PER Installation of signage on front and side elevations (Advertisement Consent)

DC/11/1418 PER Proposed shop front alterations and installation of air conditioning condenser units sited to side of unit SR/46/01 PER Single-storey extension to provide additional

SR/44/96 PER One illuminated fascia and 2 post signs

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Horsham District Council, Public Health & Licensing department made the following comments:

“Due to the close proximity of neighbouring properties this department has serious concerns over the retrospective application in relation to potential noise disturbance.

The applicant should be able to demonstrate that noise impact associated with the plant shall be controlled such that the Rating Level, measured or calculated at 1 m from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive premises, shall not exceed 5 dB(A) below the existing LA90 background noise level. Rating Level and existing background noise levels shall be determined as per the guidance provided in BS4142: 1997 Method for Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas.

Details of the proposed hours of use of the plant should also be submitted.”

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 Storrington & Sullington Parish Council objects to the application and make the following comments:

“The units are within feet of neighbouring properties. Because of the high, exposed position the noise will be unacceptable to nearby residents.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 3 letters of objection from the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings with the following reasons

 The units overlook residential gardens APPENDIX A/ 9 - 3.

 They are an eyesore  Will create noise disturbance

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

Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of The First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is an integral part of the planning assessment set out below.

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

It is not considered that the proposal would have a material impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The principal issue is the effect of the development on the surrounding area, in particular the neighbouring dwellings to the rear of the site.

6.2 The application is for the retention of 5 air conditioning units on the rear roof of the Storrington Club. The units are positioned on the flat roof at the rear of the building and sit towards the parapet wall of the rear elevation. Planning permission was granted in 2011 (DC/11/0573) to divide the building into two separate uses with the rear remaining as the Storrington Club and front being used for A1 retail use and currently occupied by Southdown Bike Store, moving from their smaller unit along West Street, a further application (DC/11/1418) included air conditioning units on the side elevation for the retail unit.

6.3 The rear elevation of the Storrington Club runs parallel to the rear boundaries of dwellings along North Street with a narrow path providing a small distance between the building and its boundary. The units whilst visible when viewed from the rear of the building, also are partly screened by the parapet wall and additional screening could be implemented to remove any visual impact. Further details should be provided in line with comments made by Public Health & Licensing to establish noise impact and details of hours of use. Ensuring this information is provided it would enable control over the use of the units and minimise its impact upon the surrounding area. It would therefore be considered that the retention of the units would not have an adverse impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring dwellings.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

01 The 5 air-condition units hereby permitted shall be removed within 1 month of the date of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out in (i) and (ii) below:-

(i) Within 1 month of the date of this permission or such extended time as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority details shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority to demonstrate that noise impact associated with the plant shall be controlled such that the Rating Level, measured or calculated at 1 m from the façade of the nearest noise sensitive premises, shall not exceed 5 dB(A) below the existing LA90 background noise level. Rating Level and existing background noise levels shall be determined as APPENDIX A/ 9 - 4.

per the guidance provided in BS4142: 1997 Method for Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial Areas.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenities by ensuring an acceptable noise level for the occupants and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

(ii) Within 1 month of the date of this permission or such extended time as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority details of working hours of the air conditioning units shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenities by ensuring an acceptable noise level for the occupants and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

01. Within one month of the date of this permission or such extended time as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority details of soft landscaping works along the northern boundary of the site, shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All (soft landscape works) required under the approved scheme shall be carried out within three months following approval from the Local Planning Authority. Any plants, which within a period of five years from the date of this permission die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planning season with other 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 and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers or the character and visual amenities of the locality.

Background Papers: DC/11/0573, DC/12/0474 APPENDIX A/ 10 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 21st August 2012 DEVELOPMENT: Provision of new vehicle and wheelchair access SITE: Old Manor, The Street, Nutbourne WARD: Pulborough APPLICATION DC/12/0932

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Neighbour request to speak

RECOMMENDATION: To grant Planning Permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT: To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The proposals are to remove part of the wall to Nutbourne Lane and provide a driveway to the front door of the property. The section of the wall in question is located immediately at the entrance to Nutbourne Place and set back from the street, on the secondary frontage of the property, away from the immediate view of the wall on the approach from the south. It would create a driveway showing a curved design, of no more than 8 metres in length and 6 metres in width.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The property is located in the Nutbourne Conservation Area, a village hamlet surrounded by dwellings of individual merit.

1.3 The site is occupied by a two storey detached dwelling, set on a raised level of ground to the Lane.

1.4 The property is served by an existing double garage on the site southern elevation.

1.5 The main dwelling is accessed by a steep path abutting the garage leading to a path and the front entrance.

Contact: Stuart Corbey Extension: 5173 APPENDIX A/ 10 - 2.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town & Country Planning Act 1990

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework. – section 7 – Requiring Good Design and section 12 – conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.3 The relevant Policies of General Development Control Policies Document 2007 include DC9 &DC12

2.4 The relevant policy of the Core Strategy is CP5.

PLANNING HISTORY

2.5 No relevant history

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 The Councils Conservation and Urban Design Advisor comments ‘although the existing arrangement will part remove the wall and provide a driveway into a mature garden, the proposals are discreet enough not to conflict with DC12, and are located away from the significantly visual part of the conservation area. They therefore are considered to preserve the character of the conservation area as per the requirements of the NPPF. I raise no objection to the approval of this application’.

3.2 The Council Arboricultural Officer advised the following under a pre inquiry. ’I can advise that, should you wish to proceed with your scheme for a new driveway, the tree would need to be removed, as the degree of root severance which would result would be likely to kill it. My colleague noted that the tree is in poor condition, and considered that, though visible from The Street, it was a specimen adding only marginally to the character and amenities of the Conservation Area. Accordingly I do not feel that it is a specimen that meets the criteria for formal protection under a Tree Preservation Order at this stage. I have therefore advised the Planning team that I would raise NO OBJECTION to its removal as part of any application subsequently submitted’.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.3 The County Surveyor raises no objection to the proposal on the basis of the level of information provided by the applicant through the - ‘traffic survey’. It is still the APPENDIX A/ 10 - 3.

opinion of WSCC that visibility at the access is poor, however taking into consideration the newly provided information, which demonstrates that The Street is extremely lightly trafficked nature, WSCC as the Highways Authority would consider this application difficult to resist in highway safety terms and therefore would offer No Objection to the proposal.

3.4 Billingshurst Parish Council raise no objection to the application following alterations submitted under plan reference west view amended – 30th July 2012.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.5 Three objections have been received on the following grounds:  Adverse impact on highway safety  Impact on the visual quality of the conservation area  Impact on the tree

3.6 Five letters in support of the application were received.

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

4.1 Article 8 (right to respect of private and family life) and Article 1 The First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of human rights is integral part of the part of the planning assessment set out in Section 6 below.

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

5.1 It is not considered that the proposed development would have any material impact on safety and security issues.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The principal issues relating to this proposal are the effect of the development on the character of the Nutbourne Conservation Area street scene, the highways safety and the impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties.

6.2 The Councils Conservation and Design Officer and Arboricultural Officer report no objections to the proposal acknowledging that the works would be discrete enough not to impact on the character of appearance or the conservation area and whilst a tree would be removed, the specimen is not worthy of protection by a tree preservation order.

6.3 The removal of the tree is necessary due to the need to accommodate the new access. The location of the access has been amended, siting it away from the existing gated entrance. Although the proposal would result in some increase in activity at the site, given that the access is set back from the entrance to Nutbourne APPENDIX A/ 10 - 4.

Manor, it is not considered that there would be any material impact upon the amenities of neighbouring occupiers by virtue of proximity or highways safety.

6.4 The officers consider on balance that by virtue of the design and location it is not considered to detract from the character of Nutbourne Conservation Area nor unreasonably detract from the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Therefore for these reasons the proposal overall is in accordance with Policy DC9 and DC12 or the LDF General Development Control Policies adopted 2007

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

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

01 A2 Full Permission 02 M6 Prescribed materials 03 Prior to the commencement of development, details should be submitted for the approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority, indicating a suitable drainage method to be installed to prevent water surface run off onto the public highway. Reason: In the interests of road safety.

8. REASONS

8.1 ICAB2 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers or character and visual amenities of the locality.

8.2 ICAC3 The proposals which include redevelopment of the site would preserve the character of the Conservation Area.

Background Papers: DC/12/0932 Contact Officer: Stuart Corbey

APPENDIX A/ 11 - 1.

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management (South) Committee

BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services

DATE: 21st August, 2012

DEVELOPMENT: Surgery to two poplar trees.

SITE: Land to rear of 1 – 6 Aston Rise, Pulborough.

WARD: Pulborough & Coldwaltham.

APPLICATION: DC/12/0815

APPLICANT: Horsham District Council.

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Application by Horsham District Council.

RECOMMENDATION - To grant consent.

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application proposes surgery to two poplar trees.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.2 The trees are sited on the western edge of a wooded area owned and managed by Horsham District Council Leisure Services between London Road and the Aston Rise development in Pulborough.

PLANNING HISTORY

1.3 The trees are protected by virtue of their position within the area designated as A1 of the Tree Preservation Order number 129, confirmed on 24th April 1969.

Contact: Will Jones Extension: 5515 APPENDIX A/ 11 - 2.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 As protected trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order, it is a legal requirement that any person wishing to undertake works to any live part make an application to the Local Planning Authority under Part VIII of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 Members are advised of the principles of good practice set out in the publication TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000).

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.1 No letters of objection have been received in regard to this application. Pulborough Parish Council has indicated no objection.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION PROMOTES HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) of the Human Rights Act 1998 is relevant to this application. Human rights issues form part of the planning assessment below.

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

Not applicable in this case.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

6.1 The two trees are multi-stemmed poplars at the western edge of the wooded area. Though not of any especial merit, they are visible from London Road, and have a measure of amenity value.

6.2 Both trees have previously been pollarded. This has created a weak point in the trunk of each, from which new growth has been most vigorous, the resultant crowns becoming congested and increasingly heavy above the pollard point. In this species, the branch junctions at the pollard point are notoriously weak, and as a result require ongoing management. It is therefore proposed to give these trees a 30% crown reduction to deal with this problem.

6.3 The proposed works will considerably alter the look of these trees, though this in itself will not result in any great loss of amenity to the area. It is also assessed that the works are necessary and prudent in arboricultural terms, save for both trees becoming top-heavy and hazardous. APPENDIX A/ 11 - 3.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended that the application be granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. TR2 Time limit 2. TR3 Treeworks limit  Undertake tree surgery works exactly as set out in specification submitted as part of application. INF7 Works limitations INF8 Wildlife protection

8. REASONS

ITRE3 The proposal will have an adverse impact upon the character and amenities of the local area for a limited period, but is justified in this case and represents best arboricultural practice.

Background Papers: DC/12/0815 Contact Officer: Will Jones.