14 December 2020

For questions regarding this agenda please ask for Rosie Chase – email: [email protected]

CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY – PLANNING COMMITTEE

A virtual meeting of the Conservancy’s Planning Committee will be held at 10.30am on Monday 14 December 2020. Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic the meeting will be held virtually using Zoom.

Richard Craven Director and Harbour Master

AGENDA

1. Welcome and Apologies

2. Declaration of Interests

Members and officers are reminded to make declarations of pecuniary or personal interests they may have in relation to items on the agenda and to make any declarations at any stage during the meeting if it then becomes apparent that this may be required when a particular item or issue is considered.

3. Minutes

Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 9 November 2020 (page 1)

4. Verbal Updates a. Havant Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission Version with Changes b. Chichester Local Plan: Chichester Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) c. Houseboats at Chichester Marina d. Appeal Decision: Dolphins, Rookwood, West Wittering (page 6) e. Statutory Consultee Status

5. Development Applications a. BI/20/02066/OUT. Land at Koolbergen, Kelly's Nurseries & Bellfield Nurseries, Bell Lane (B2198), Birdham, West Sussex (page 13) b. BI/20/02432/FU. Land at Broadbridge Business Centre, Delling Lane, Bosham, West Sussex (page 40) c. FB/20/02303/FUL. Land at Bethwines Farm and South of Ivy Lodge Blackboy Lane Fishbourne (page 70)

d. WT/20/03047/FULEIA. Baker Barracks, Emsworth Road, Thorney Island, Hermitage, Southbourne, West Sussex (page 91)

6. Table of Delegated Reports from November – December 2020

To note the report from the Principal Planning Officers (page 137)

7. Date of Next Meeting / Committee Elections

Monday 25 January 2020 by Zoom, from 10.30am

______Planning Committee members: Adrian Moss, Ann Briggs, Chris Emery, John Goodspeed, Keith Martin, Heather Baker, Pieter Montyn, Ken Smith, and Alison Wakelin. Agenda Item 3

CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the meeting held on Monday 9 November 2020 via Zoom

Present Keith Martin

Alison Wakelin Ken Smith Adrian Moss Pieter Montyn

Officers

Richard Austin Steve Lawrence David Rothery Rosie Chase (Minutes)

In attendance

John Goodspeed

1.0 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES

1.1 John Goodspeed was welcomed to the meeting, observing proceedings in advance of his formal appointment to the committee by the Conservancy at their meeting that afternoon.

1.2 Apologies for absence were received from Ann Briggs and Chris Emery. Apologies for later attendance were received from Heather Baker who joined the meeting at 10.39am.

2.0 DECLARATIONS ON INTEREST

2.1 There were none.

3.0 MINUTES

3.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 19 October 2020 were agreed as a true record of the meeting.

4.0 VERBAL UPDATES TOURNERBURY WOODS

Certificate of lawfulness and change of use

4.1 The Principal Planning Officer said that Steve Weaver from Havant Borough Council had replied to his email requesting an update on the case. Mr Weaver’s response was that he is still in the process of working through the evidence, the third-party responses and legal advice received regarding this case and that he cannot determine the case at this time. The Principal Planning Officer said he felt the act of parliament, was clear and that the only course of action would be to refuse. He went on to say that the planning application was put forward in 2018 and also noted that the promised bat survey had not been provided and wouldn’t be in the short term because now was not the season to carry out that kind of work. He said that the missing survey would be the only reason he could cite which would delay the Council’s response.

4.2 The representative member from Havant Borough Council said he would follow up with the planning officers at the Council and provide an update at the next meeting of the committee.

1 5.0 CHICHESTER DISTRICT HOUSING AND ECONOMIC LAND AVAILABILITY

Heather Baker joined the meeting (10.39am)

5.1 The AONB Manager presented his report to members, which was designed to introduce the purpose of the assessment. The HELAA is a critical part of the evidence base to inform the Local Plan Review and its primary purpose is to identify all land that is available for potential development for housing or economic development for at least the next 15 years. The AONB Manager said that this was a draft and there would be a final document later.

5.2 A member commented that there was an inconsistency in the plan and that sea level rises had not been applied to all areas.

5.3 A member asked whether the statement that “the other significant change is the approach to remove locational criteria that sites be located within or directly adjacent to an existing settlement boundary” represented an increased threat to the AONB. The AONB Manager said that he had read it in the same way and went on to say that he enquired why the proposed wildlife corridors aren’t in the shaded areas and was told that was because they weren’t currently adopted policy. It was confirmed that if they were adopted then the map would be redrawn.

5.4 The Principal Planning Officer said that the HELAA is part of a call for sites exercise which takes place every five years and that these proposed sites are tested on suitability, deliverability, and availability.

5.5 Members thanked the AONB Manager for the report.

6.0 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS

BO/20/02389/FUL - Cove House, Smugglers Lane, Bosham, PO18 8QP

6.1 The Principal Planning Officer (SL) presented his report to members for an application to demolish an existing dwelling and outbuildings, with the erection of a two-storey detached dwelling including an indoor swimming pool and detached garage.

6.2 A member said that he felt the creek was a special and beautiful area and that the proposed additional bulk would become dominant in the outstanding landscape.

6.3 The Principal Planning Officer said that two willow trees have been removed that the applicant said would be replanted, plus another tree to the front of the property had now gone.

6.4 A member said that the footprint appeared to be double what’s existing in the proposal which is a clear breach of Planning Policy 3 and would have a clear impact on the scenic beauty of the AONB. Members agreed that this should be stated clearly in the response to the LPA. A member expressed particular concern about the sheer bulk at the chimney end which is particularly visible from the creek.

2 6.5 A member suggested including the courtyard in the footprint. The Principal Planning Officer said it would be legitimate to include the courtyard as it is enclosed.

6.6 There was unanimous support for the officer recommendation and members requested that the Principal Planning Officer add detail to strengthen his response to the LPA.

Recommendation

6.7 The Planning Committee resolved to lodge an objection to the proposed development and wished to add an observation to the Officer recommendation listed below that the courtyard design had exacerbated the likely perceived overbearing massing to Furzefield Creek, And that the courtyard should be considered as part of the new ‘footprint’, which would exceed the 50% increase in site footprint set out in the CHAONB SPD guidance and also listed as the Conservancy’s adopted Planning Principle 03.

6.8 Subject to that adjustment, the following was resolved and accepted as the Officer recommendation terms of the above planning application – “That Chichester District Council, as local planning authority be advised that Chichester Harbour Conservancy OBJECTS to the proposed development, on grounds of excessive bulk and two storey eaves massing facing the Harbour, exacerbated by an over dominant chimney feature and unnecessarily tall roof ridge line over the swimming pool .

Langstone Lodge, 1 Langstone High Street, Havant, PO9 1RY

6.9 The Principal Planning Officer (DR) presented his report to members. He corrected a typo to read that the recommendation would be made to Havant Borough Council and not Chichester District Council.

6.10 A member said that the development proposed in the application is tantamount to a new building in the open countryside with additional separate access and as such should be objected to. Another member said that this could end up as separate dwelling if appropriate restrictions aren’t applied.

6.11 A member noted what looked to be a new wall and asked if that had permission. He raised concern that the garage could be turned into a classic car restoration business and a restriction on the change of use should be included

6.12 A member speculated if this was an application for a barn storing agricultural equipment the committee may not object and as such, they should be clear in their reason for objection. The Principal Planning Officer said that the site was fundamentally for domestic use. In agricultural use, the building would be tied to the land, but this does not apply in this case.

6.13 A member said that insufficient references were made in the application to the AONB and it was agreed that the covering email would mention there was disappointingly few references to the AONB.

3 Recommendation

6.14 AONB Protected Landscape Character Assessment. The Planning Committee resolved to raise an objection on the basis that he proposal for a free-standing large outbuilding with associated large manoeuvrability area for use for car parking and storage would amount be contrary to the provisions of Chichester Harbour AONB Planning Principles (Management Plan version April 2019) Planning Principle PP01: Chichester Harbour as a Protected Area; and the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint Supplementary Planning Document (16 May 2017) as adopted by the Council, paras. 15.1 to 15.2 (ancillary buildings) and 12.1 to 12.4 (guidance on size increases), in that the proposal would result in a development which would be physically remote from, being segregated by intervening landscape from and therefore visually separate to, the main dwelling house it is claimed to be ancillary to. It is positioned within the extensive grounds at a distance which is disassociated with the dwelling, with its own independent means of access and lack of clear, and close, internal linkage to the main dwelling being separated by internal field boundaries and planting belts. As a standalone structure, isolated within a separate, an open field division of the grounds, it is of a scale and visual presence that would have a clear visual impact upon the AONB protected landscape. Overall, it therefore represents a building which would have an unnecessary presence, unrelated to its field setting, is disjointed from the main dwelling, and with a noticeable visual impact within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) protected landscape.

6.15 Potential Future use within the AONB. As a standalone structure the proposal represents an isolated building within a separate, open field division of the grounds. It is of a scale and visual presence that would have a clear visual impact upon the AONB protected landscape and could in the future be difficult to oppose if it were proposed to be separated as an independent commercial, tourism related, or residential use from that of the host dwelling. Overall, it therefore represents a building which would have an unnecessary presence, unrelated to its field setting. It is disjointed from the main dwelling, and with a noticeable visual impact within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) protected landscape.

7.0 DELEGATED DECISIONS

7.1 The Principal Planning Officer presented the objections to members.

7.2 Owl and Pheasant Cottage. The Principal Planning Officer said that the application was objected to on the basis that it was contrary to the local plan development strategy. The proposal to convert of holiday lets to a single dwelling was considered by Chichester District Council who favour retaining good quality tourist accommodation as per their tourism policy. An appeal was placed, and the inspector dismissed the appeal.

7.3 Members discussed the application for the track at Tournerbury Woods where no objection was raised by the Conservancy. The Principal Planning Officer said he felt it was a legitimate agricultural track and he had no grounds to object.

4 7.4 Marina Farm. The Principal Planning Officer said the location was unsuitable for the development and was outside of a settlement boundary. He said this was the second application in respect of the site. Neither application was considered to be sustainably located. The second application was more modest in scale, but the site is still outside of a settlement boundary and so the objection remains. This application was refused.

7.4 Little Thatches. The Principal Planning Officer said that plot is a large one, but the mass of the proposed annex and lounge area was too great and visually jarring.

7.5 Malthouse off Viking Lane. He went on to say that the site is tucked away in the AONB Landscape and holds a large dwelling already. An extension was proposed to then subdivide the dwelling into two. The objection was raised as the additional mass was considered too much. This application is pending.

7.6 Hook Creek. The Principal Planning Officer said that the size and the ridge height of the proposed buildings was considered too big and there were questions over whether the hedgerows would survive. If they died away the site would be far more visible and so the objection remained.

7.7 Waders, Smugglers Lane. The Principal Planning Officer said that this is a revisitation of an application for a proposed garage. The objection was raised on the basis of whether trees would survive. There was limited visual impact.

8.0 DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING

8.1 14 December 2020 at 10.30am via Zoom.

The meeting closed at 11.50

Chairman.

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 October 2020

by M Bale BA (Hons) MA MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 November 2020

Appeal Ref: APP/L3815/W/19/3243595 Dolphins, Rookwood Lane, West Wittering PO20 8QH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr George Chapman against the decision of Chichester District Council. • The application Ref WW/18/02708/DOM, dated 14 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 26 November 2019. • The development proposed is steps down through garden to a 1.5 metre long tunnel beneath public footpath rising through another set of steps to the foreshore garden.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for steps down through garden to a 1.5 metre long tunnel beneath public footpath rising through to another set of steps to the foreshore garden at Dophins, Rookwood Lane, West Wittering PO20 8QH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref WW/18/02708/DOM, dated 14 October 2018, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Application for costs

2. An application for costs was made by Mr George Chapman against the decision of Chichester District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Procedural matter

3. The description of development comes from the application form. Reference therein to the foreshore garden is for descriptive purposes and its use in my decision does not clarify, grant permission for, or signify agreement to any use of that land in a particular way. Main Issues

4. The main issues are:

(i) The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the landscape and scenic beauty of the Chichester Harbour AONB (the AONB); and

(ii) the effect on European Sites designated for their nature conservation importance.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/L3815/W/19/3243595

Reasons

Character and appearance

5. Dolphins is located at the edge of Chichester Harbour within the AONB. Land owned by the appellant extends toward the foreshore, bisected by a public footpath. Towards the footpath, on both sides, the land rises up to a bank, but the footpath itself is lower than the immediately adjoining land. Although the tunnel would be an overtly man-made structure, the relative levels and intervening planting would prevent views of it from the footpath.

6. Viewed from the gardens and rear windows of Dolphins and its neighbours, the tunnel entrance would be seen in the side face of the bank within the residential garden environment. In this domestic context it would do no harm to the character and appearance of the area or outlook from these dwellings.

7. On the opposite side of the footpath, the tunnel would lead to land open to the Harbour. The tunnel mouth would be within the top of the bank rather than its side face so it would not be readily visible to anybody on the water, or walking on the foreshore, which are at an appreciably lower level. Views may be possible from higher vessels within the harbour, but there is no substantive evidence that they would come close enough to the shore to have clear views of the tunnel mouth.

8. The plans indicate that a handrail would protrude a short distance above the ground level. However, irrespective of the use of the land between the footpath and the water and any associated paraphernalia, against the landscape backdrop of the harbourside and alongside an existing timber jetty, this small protrusion would be barely noticeable. It would not harm the character and appearance of the area, unique blend of land and sea or sense of wilderness in the seascape that give the AONB its special qualities.

9. The proposal would require a pump to evacuate rainwater, but there is no substantive evidence that it could not be sufficiently quiet or sited so as to avoid noise disturbance to the tranquil area. Full details of its specification, including times of operation, could be secured by planning condition.

10. Policy 43 of the Chichester Local Plan 2014-2029 (LP) allows development affecting the AONB where it can be demonstrated that the natural beauty and locally distinctive features of the AONB are conserved and enhanced; that proposals reinforce and respond to, rather than detract from, the distinctive character and special qualities of the AONB; and that the predominantly open and undeveloped, rural character is preserved. These aims are consistent with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that require great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty, and the statutory purpose of the AONB to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area.

11. Policy 43 also requires compliance with the policy aims of the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan (MP). Like the LP Policy, these include the conservation and enhancement of the landscape and its special qualities, preservation of tranquillity, protection from inappropriate development and avoidance of the dominance of manmade influences. Whilst there are policies in the MP that seek to avoid facilitating access to the Harbour, the proposal would only alter an existing arrangement, so there would be no intensification of

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/L3815/W/19/3243595

activity on the land between the footpath and shore as a consequence. There is also no substantive evidence that use by unsupervised pets would increase.

12. I, therefore, find that the proposal would not conflict with the aims of LP Policy 43. Nor would there be any conflict with the similar aims of LP Policy 44 relating to development around the coast. Policy 44 also requires consideration of various other factors including navigation, opportunities to make improvements to footpaths, and mooring facilities. There is no substantive evidence that the consideration of these interests would result in identifiable harm, so there is no conflict with Policy 44 read as a whole. European Sites

13. The development and effects of construction activities could lead to adverse impacts on the integrity of the Chichester Harbour Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is also designated as the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar, and the Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC) (collectively the European Sites). Appropriate assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 is, therefore, required. This I have undertaken on a proportionate basis, with regard to the Preliminary Ecological Assessment (PEA)1, the Council’s own appropriate assessment, views of the Parish Council and other representations, and the various consultation responses received by the Council from Natural England.

14. Chichester Harbour is a large estuarine basin that is of particular significance for wintering wildfowl and waders and also breeding birds. The Chichester Harbour sites are designated for their support to a variety of species including Dark-bellied brent goose, Common shelduck, Eurasian wigeon, Eurasian teal, northern pintail, Northern shoveler, Red-breasted merganser, Ringed plover, Grey plover, Sanderling, Dunlin, Bar-tailed godwit, Eurasian curlew, Common redshank, Ruddy turnstone, Sandwich tern, Common tern and Little tern.

15. Qualifying features of the Solent Maritime SAC include sandbanks and estuaries, mudflats, coastal lagoons, annual vegetation of drift lines, perennial vegetation of stony banks, and various associated species. The conservation objectives of the European Sites include ensuring that the integrity of the sites are maintained or restored as appropriate, that the sites contribute to achieving the aims of the Wild Birds Directive and favourable conservation status of their qualifying features.

16. Although the character of the foreshore may have historically been wild, the Phase 1 Habitat Survey within the PEA indicates that around the proposed tunnel, the land is closely mown grassland with introduced shrub and scattered trees. With regard to the cumulative impacts of other development that may have gone on at and around the site, the Council and Natural England are satisfied that the site of the tunnel has not been vegetated shingle or intertidal habitat since at least 1991, which predates designation of the SAC and SPA. There is no clear evidence to suggest that Natural England’s position may have been influenced by (rightly or wrongly) considering the land to be residential garden.

1 Arbtech (September 2018) Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Survey. Dolphins, Rookwood Lane, West Wittering, Chichester, West Sussex PO20 8QH https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/L3815/W/19/3243595

17. Therefore, irrespective of the use of the land and even if the tunnel were considered to be within the European Sites designation, the proposal would not lead to any adverse effect as a consequence of direct loss of habitat, alone, or in combination with other development.

18. Nevertheless, the proposal could lead to a decrease in survival rates and populations of wintering birds due to an increase in dust, noise, visual disturbance and water quality impacts caused during the construction of the project. Mitigation measures described within the PEA to control construction activities and times through a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) are, therefore, required. Such can be secured through planning conditions and do not require a planning obligation or other legal agreement to make them enforceable.

19. With a CEMP in place, the proposal would not, in itself, lead to harm to the integrity of the European Sites. It would be an independent operation to anything else that may have gone on at and around the site or within the zone of influence of the European Sites. There is no substantive evidence that any use by unsupervised pets would increase and I have already found that human activity within European Sites would not increase as a consequence. As such, no in combination effects would result.

20. Following appropriate assessment I, therefore, conclude that the proposal, alone and in combination with other development, would have no adverse impact on the integrity of the European Sites. For the same reasons there would be no harm to the SSSI.

21. The above conclusion indicates that there would be no conflict with those aims of Policy 43, Policy 49 or Policy 50 that seek to ensure that development is appropriate to the environmental wellbeing of the area, and protects biodiversity interests, particularly those relating to birds in the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas. Other matters

22. The occupiers of Dolphins already have access to the foreshore via gates either side of the footpath. There is no substantive evidence that this arrangement is inherently unsafe or unsuitable and in that regard there is no need for the proposal. However, a lack of need to does not render the development unacceptable.

23. I understand that the emerging West Wittering Neighbourhood Plan includes a policy resisting the urbanisation and domestication of the foreshore. As I have found no harm to the character and appearance of the area, there would be no conflict with that policy. There has been some suggestion that the proposal would conflict with LP Policy 45 which restricts development in the countryside. However, as it would be well related to the existing dwellings, not prejudice agricultural operations and have minimal impact on the landscape and rural character, I find no such conflict.

24. The environment agency has confirmed that there would be no adverse effects on Flood Risk. I note the numerous concerns expressed about historic development and activity at the site, and those relating to the use of the land. Although it was necessary to take account of other activities in conducting my appropriate assessment, it is not otherwise my role in this appeal to assess

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/L3815/W/19/3243595

these matters and my findings do not prejudice any future consideration of them. For the reasons given, I have found the proposal acceptable on its own merits.

25. A number of other properties in the area also have areas close to the foreshore within their ownership. Whilst I have found that no harm would result in the case of the present proposal, this does not mean that other similar proposals would necessarily be acceptable. I, therefore, attach very little weight to the risk that some form of precedent could be established. Conditions

26. A plans condition is necessary in the interests of certainty. To provide mitigation against adverse impacts upon the European Sites, a CEMP is required. I have amalgamated this with the Council’s recommended conditions regarding compliance with the PEA and timing of works, in the interests of clarity. A landscaping condition is necessary to clarify finished levels and treatment in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and scenic beauty of the AONB. For the same reason, a condition is necessary regarding any tunnel lighting.

27. Conditions are necessary to secure details of the pump to preserve tranquillity. The Council recommended a condition relating to the installation of a gate or barrier within the tunnel to control pet movement. However, I am uncertain about how it could be enforced so as to achieve these aims. For these reasons and as the conclusions of my appropriate assessment were not dependent on such measures, I have not imposed it.

28. I have made minor changes to the recommended conditions in the interests of clarity and to ensure compliance with the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. Conclusion

29. With regard to the above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. M Bale

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 10 Appeal Decision APP/L3815/W/19/3243595

Schedule 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Paper 3, Paper 4, Paper 7, Paper 8, Paper 10, Paper 10a, Paper 11. 3) No development shall commence, until a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved CEMP shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period unless any alternative is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall provide details of the following: (a) How the recommendations within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Survey (Arbtech, September 2018) shall be incorporated throughout the construction period; (b) The timing of works such that construction activity must not be carried out in the months of October to February, inclusive; (c) the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during construction; (d) the provision made for the parking of vehicles by contractors, site operatives and visitors; (e) the loading and unloading of plant, materials and waste; (f) the storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development; (g) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding; and (h) waste management including prohibiting burning. 4) No development shall commence until full details/specifications of the proposed pump including its noise levels and times of operation shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the pump shall only be implemented and operated in accordance with the agreed details and retained and maintained as agreed in perpetuity. 5) No development shall commence until full details of the hard and soft landscaping, together with a timetable for its implementation, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include: (a) A scaled site plan indicating the planting scheme for the site showing the schedule of any plants and positions, species, plant sizes (at time of planting) and proposed numbers/densities; (b) details of finished ground levels; (c) details of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land including details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection during the course of the development. (d) provision for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity on the application site in accordance with recommendations set out in

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 11 Appeal Decision APP/L3815/W/19/3243595

the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Survey (Arbtech, September 2018); (e) details of any proposed hard landscaping showing any hard surfaces and their positions, materials and finishes. The works shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details and timetable and in accordance with the recommendations of the appropriate British Standards or other recognised codes of good practice. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally approved unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 6) Prior to its installation, full details of any lighting for the tunnel together with details of its operation and timings in which it can be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the lighting shall be installed and operated only in accordance with the agreed details and no other lighting shall be installed on the site.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 12 Agenda Item 5a

Local Planning Authority planning application reference: BI/20/02066/OUT

Site: Land at Koolbergen, Kelly's Nurseries & Bellfield Nurseries, Bell Lane (B2198), Birdham, West Sussex

Proposals: Proposed Outline Application with all matters reserved except for access for the erection of 77 houses, B1 floorspace, retail and open space, with the retention of 1 dwelling

Application details: LPA webpage – https://publicaccess.chichester.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QF7QFCERMUA00

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Chichester District Council, as local planning authority be advised that Chichester Harbour Conservancy raises OBJECTION to the proposed development

(b) That the following refusal reasons are applied for development impacting on the AONB.

Refusal Overview

The proposal for this mixed housing / industrial estate / retail development on previously used agricultural land would physically change the character of the site within the

13 countryside area, creating a clearly urban form of development in appearance and form which is out-of-place and out-of-keeping with this countryside location on the fringe of the nearby but visually important AONB.

1: Lack of land use justification in close proximity to the AONB protected landscape

The Conservancy raises an objection to the proposal and recommends the refusal of this planning proposal as it represents an large residential housing estate with small area of employment use and retail shop within the countryside area of Birdham Parish where there is no proven requirement or justification related to the development to be located on this site, or within the immediate surrounding area, or the wider countryside rural environment, in such close proximity to the protected landscape of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), a national landscape area. The proposal would create a built-up urban enclave within this countryside setting which would be visually intrusive outside the recognised settlement boundary and harmful to the rural character and appearance of this locality. Added concern results from the close proximity to the AONB designated protected landscape with the site providing a surrounding peripheral rural belt to the AONB and to the character and visual environment the AONB was designated for and designed to protect. The proposal therefore is considered to be visually unduly prominent so as to be detrimental to the visual character of the AONB protected landscape.

2: Prominent Impact to the AONB protected landscape

The Conservancy raises an objection to the proposal and recommends the refusal of this planning proposal as it represents an large residential housing estate with small area of employment use and retail shop within the countryside area of Birdham Parish where there is no proven requirement or justification related to the development to be located on this land holding, or within the immediate surrounding area, or the wider countryside rural environment, in such close proximity to the protected landscape of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), a national landscape area. The proposal would create a built-up urban enclave within this countryside setting which would generate noise and disturbance from the occupation of the housing units, employment units and retail unit, and the comings and goings of traffic to the site for home, work, and shopping activity which would create additional noise, disturbance and human activity that would be intrusive outside the recognised settlement boundary and harmful to the rural character and tranquillity of the landholding and surrounding area. Added concern results from the close proximity to the AONB designated protected landscape with the site providing a surrounding peripheral rural belt to the AONB and to the tranquil character and environment the AONB was designated for and designed to protect. The proposal therefore is considered to have a prominent impact so as to be detrimental to the character of the AONB protected landscape.

3: Recreational wildlife disturbance within the AONB protected landscape

14 continued pressure on the wildlife that frequent the wider area, their habitats and their foraging areas, from recreational activity and traffic movements, particularly to the nearby Chichester Harbour. The proposal would add to human activity that would be intrusive outside the recognised settlement boundary and harmful to the rural character and wildlife biodiversity of the composite site, and surrounding area. Added concern results from the close proximity to the AONB designated protected landscape with the site providing a surrounding peripheral rural belt to the AONB and to the character and wildlife environment the AONB was designated for and designed to protect. The proposal therefore is considered to have a prominent impact that is detrimental to the wildlife environment of the AONB protected landscape.

Reasoning and policy justification

The proposal would amount to a development which would impact on and is contrary to the provisions of Local Plan Policy 43: Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Policy 45: Development in the Countryside, Policy 42: Flood Risk and Water Management; Policy 48: Natural Environment, Policy 49: Biodiversity, Policy 50: Development & Disturbance of Birds in Chichester & Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas; the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint Supplementary Planning Document (16 May 2017) as adopted by the Council, particularly Part 2: Overarching Principle, Part 8: Landscape, Part 11: Scale and Massing, and Part 30: Dark Skies; and The Chichester Harbour Management Plan 2019-2024 (April 2019 Third Review) particularly Policy 1: Conserving and Enhancing the landscape, and Policy 2: Development Management; The Chichester Harbour AONB Planning Principles (Management Plan version April 2019) particularly Planning Principle PP01: Chichester Harbour as a Protected Area, PP04: Creation of New Dwellings and Residential Institutions, PP09: Dark Skies, and aspects of PP02 and PP07.

Procedural Guidance 1: Use Classes Order

The planning application submission was received by the Local Planning Authority on Monday 17 August 2020 and validated as complete on ‘Sunday’ 27 September 2020. The processing assessment period for this major development proposal is therefore 13 weeks and would runs from the August date, the target determination date (unless agreed for extension) would be Wednesday 4 November 2020 (to take into account publicity notification and consultation requests from appropriate third parties).

The application was submitted prior to changes to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 which came into effect on 1 September 2020. From that date Use Classes A1: shops, A2: financial and professional services, A3: restaurant and cafes, and B1: business use -a) offices, b) research and development, and c) industrial processes were replaced by a new use class,; Use Class E : Commercial, Business and Service, which is subdivided into 11 use categories a) to g). More information can be found at: - https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/9/change_of_use

Procedural Guidance 2: Outline Applications

The current application is for outline permission, seeking agreement to the principal and to the means of vehicular access into the site only. All other matters (including appearance of buildings, landscaping of the site, layout of the development, scale of buildings) are reserved for subsequent decision, usually through a reserved matters application

15 submission. The approval of an Outline permission is not a permission to start work on site. Any favourable outline permission notice will state which matters have been reserved for later approval. Only when all the reserved matters have been approved, work may begin on the site.

Procedural Guidance 3: Planning Approach effecting the AONB

The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty.

The LPA should assess the application carefully as to whether the proposed development would have a significant impact on or harm that statutory purpose. Relevant to this is the duty on public bodies to ‘have regard’ for that statutory purpose in carrying out their functions (Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000). The Planning Practice Guidance confirms that this duty also applies to proposals outside the designated area but impacting on its natural beauty.

The application site lies outside of the designated AONB but within visual sight of the protected landscape.

Chichester Harbour Conservancy, administer and safeguard the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The aim of conserving and enhancing the areas natural beauty requires the Conservancy to consider the proposal on its landscape character aspects and wildlife, ecology, and biodiversity implications. Landscape covers both countryside and coastal areas as well as rural villages and market town urban environments.

16 Conservancy Officers’ comments and reasoned justification

1.0 Chichester Harbour Policy Guidance

The adopted guidance requires a clear demonstration that no harm is caused to the AONB.

Landscape Character

1.1 The Chichester Harbour AONB Landscape Character Assessment (CBA update 2019) prepared for the Conservancy, identifies the site sits alongside (and therefore sharing the common landscape character of the adjacent AONB landscape) the Zone I1: West Manhood Peninsula Landscape Character Area type. As such this area is defined by the exhibiting the following relevant key characteristics: -

 Broadly flat land overlying brickearth, intersected by small steams and rithes  Predominantly open arable farmland with medium to large scale field patterns  Small scale hedged paddocks concentrated around the villages  Overall the area retains a largely rural undeveloped character  Chichester Marina is a major recreational centre

1.2 Landscape condition is moderate. The loss of hedgerows from parts of the arable farmland has eroded visual and ecological character in parts. The sensitivity of the landscape is classed as moderate to high. The coastal edge is particularly sensitive to any built development which would result in the loss of eroded shoreline and intrude on characteristic views. The landscape strategy is stated as conservation and enhancement.

Management Plan

1.3 The Chichester Harbour Management Plan 2019-2024 (April 2019 Third Review) provides an integrated coastal zone management strategy for the Trust Port and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Relevant policies would include Policy 1: Conserving and Enhancing the landscape, Policy 2: Development Management, and Policy 3: Diversity of Habitats), Policy 8 (Thriving Wildlife), and Policy 15 (Historic Environment and Heritage Assets).

1.4 The Conservancy’s Management Plan for the AONB records special qualities of the landscape character as including –

 Unique blend of land and sea, especially the combination of large open water areas, narrow inlets, and intimate creeks  Flatness of the landform accentuates the significance of sea and tide  Wealth of flora/fauna  Unspoilt and unobtrusive beauty  Very special sense of peace and tranquillity.

1.5 The Conservancy’s Management Plan for the AONB has vision and values that seek:

17  The special qualities of the AONB are appreciated and enjoyed by local people and visitors who care for the Harbour, now and in the future  Management that is balanced by ongoing mutual respect shown by different user groups  Diverse habitats and excellent water quality that benefit a rich array of wildlife using the Harbour in harmony with recreational activities

Planning Principles

1.6 The Chichester Harbour AONB Planning Principles (Management Plan version April 2019) provides guidance on development. These principles set a range of criteria to be addressed to warrant a favourable consideration in terms of likely impact within and on the AONB. Planning Principles’ applicable to this proposal include.

1.7 AONB Planning Principle PP01: Chichester Harbour as a Protected Area, sets out the key overarching approach for the AONB, in that the statutory primary purpose is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. Great weight shall be given to the protection of the landscape, the conservation of nature, and the special qualities of Chichester Harbour and its surrounding supporting hinterland.

1.8 AONB Planning Principle PP04: Creation of New Dwellings and Residential Institutions, this requires the proposal to address criteria relating to:-

 the development being within existing settlement boundaries  that enough headroom capacity exists in wastewater treatment works infrastructure to serve the development  recreational disturbance is adequately and appropriately mitigated  that biodiversity net gains are achieved  if there is a local identified social and/or economic need (if in a countryside location)

1.9 The proposal for new dwellings should be within a sustainable location to allow most daily functions to be carried out without reliance on private cars. Development outside defined settlement boundaries may have a significant and long-lasting adverse impact on the character and landscape of the countryside and the AONB. Only clearly justified social / affordable housing, or dwellings for agricultural workers would be considered outside the settlement areas.

1.10 AONB Planning Principle PP09: Dark Skies, that are adjacent to or impact on areas of nature conservation will only be supported in exceptional circumstances. Lighting should be demonstrated to be –

 the minimum needed for security and working purposes,  obtrusive light from glare or light trespass is reduced to an acceptable level,  light beams will not be pointed out of windows,  security lights are fitted with passive infra-red detectors (PIR) and/or timing devices to minimise nuisance  comply with the published best practice guidance from the Institute of Lighting Professionals

18 1.11 The AONB Planning Principles currently do not have any specific planning principle policies relating solely to commercial / industrial development within the AONB protected landscape that is not related to safeguarding marine enterprise, which is covered by PP02, or associated to new / extended farm and woodland buildings, which is covered by PP07.

1.12 AONB Planning Principle PP02: Safeguarding Marine Enterprises, whilst not directly applicable to aspects of the current proposal may offer an acceptable approach whilst technically not being specific to more general employment land uses. PP02, relates to marine based commercial and employment uses, but refers to other appropriate commercial and employment uses which should be considered on the basis of being capable of reversion to marine related use in the future (such as with the retention of features of the building which would allow boats to be easily taken into and out of the building and unimpeded access to tidal waters.

1.13 The AONB Planning Principle PP07: New/Extended Farm and Woodland Buildings, whilst not directly applicable to aspects of the current proposal may be considered to share some characteristics with the proposal in respect of buildings being sought within a countryside setting as proposed. PP07, offers an approach to countryside located buildings for use associated with a rural environment. Acceptable development should demonstrate that it is -

 necessary for the countryside location and use (generally agriculture/silviculture)  sited away from visually exposed locations  sub-ordinate to the host building,  where possible, grouped with other buildings,  adjacent to mature planting and screened using native tree and shrub species,  the materials, design, size, and type of proposal is in accordance with the LPA guidance covering such criteria.

The Conservancy encourages any acceptable development under PP07 to be finished in dark colours, such as dark khaki, blue grey, dark slate grey, to ensure buildings blend into the landscape setting.

- Joint Supplementary Planning Document

1.14 The Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Beauty Joint Supplementary Planning Document (2017) Section 2 indicates four principles that any development proposed in the AONB should be guided by to protect, conserve, and enhance natural beauty and wildlife. The SPD is adopted by both Chichester District Council and by Havant Borough Council as part of their planning policy and development control approach.

1.15 The four principles are –

1. to ensure that all development conserves and enhances the natural beauty of Chichester Harbour

2. to stimulate the highest standards of design, conservation, and development

19 3. to consider where the development will be seen in the wider landscape and from the water and demonstrate how any adverse impacts are positively mitigates to meet point 1.

4. to ensure that development will effectively mitigate any adverse impacts on the AONB and to secure positive, sustainable, social, economic and environmental benefits to fulfil the purpose of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

1.16 The Joint Chichester Harbour AONB Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) provides detailed guidance on the level of acceptable development within the AONB. All development within the AONB should follow the guidance as closely as possible.

1.17 The adopted Chichester Harbour AONB Joint SPD (2017) section-8 (page 17) requires that in designing new development, consideration of the setting of the development in the AONB landscape must be shown as to how the proposal would contribute to the character of the area. A Landscape Visual Impact Assessment may be necessary in sensitive areas of exposed wide landscape character.

Local Planning Authority (LPA) Policy

1.18 Chichester District Local Plan 2014-2029 is the current Local Development Plan produced by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan includes policies for a sustainable development and infrastructure strategy to support local community facilities and to cater for growth and change. Various policies of the plan relate to matters applicable to the AONB, including a specific policy that applies to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

1.19 Policy 43: Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) The impact of individual proposals and their cumulative effect on Chichester Harbour AONB and its setting will be carefully assessed. Planning permission will be granted where it can be demonstrated that all the following criteria have been met:

1. The natural beauty and locally distinctive features of the AONB are conserved and enhanced;

2. Proposals reinforce and respond to, rather than detract from, the distinctive character and special qualities of the AONB;

3. Either individually or cumulatively, development does not lead to actual or perceived coalescence of settlements or undermine the integrity or predominantly open and undeveloped, rural character of the AONB and its setting; and

4. Is appropriate to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area or is desirable for the understanding and enjoyment of the area (where this is consistent with the primary purpose of conserving and enhancing natural beauty); and

5. The policy aims of the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan.

20 Opportunities for remediation and improvement of damaged landscapes will be taken as they arise. https://www.chichester.gov.uk/media/24759/Chichester-Local-Plan---Key- Policies-2014---2029/pdf/printed_version.pdf

1.20 In addition, the LPA have other policies applicable to both the coastal areas and to the countryside.

 Policy 44: Development around the Coast  Policy 45: Development in the Countryside  Policy 48: Natural Environment  Policy 49: Biodiversity  Policy 50: Development & Disturbance of Birds in Chichester & Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas  Policy 42: Flood Risk and Water Management

1.21 Local Plan paragraph 19.13 informs that ”Chichester Harbour AONB is a unique landscape comprising sheltered open water areas with contrasting narrow channels. The movement of the tide exposes bare mudflat and saltmarsh creating a wide, open and remote wilderness. The undeveloped character of the harbour is unique on the south coast and its status as a Ramsar wetland, a Special Protection Area, a Special Area of Conservation and a Site of Special Scientific Interest reflects its importance to nature conservation. The largely flat hinterland includes highly productive farmland, as well as woodlands and hedgerows that contribute to the rural character of the area. The flatness of the landscape makes the AONB particularly vulnerable to visual intrusion from inappropriate development, both within or adjacent to the boundary, which can often be seen from significant distances across inlets, the main harbour channels, or open countryside. The District Council will have particular regard to these characteristics in determining development proposals affecting the AONB.”

1.22 The LPA identified the AONB as a planning constraint to development that needs to be taken into account for all proposals.

2.0 Relevant planning history

2.1 BI/16/00933/OUT – Proposal for the erection of 77 houses, B1 floorspace, retail and open space with retention of 1 dwelling. Commenting on 26 April 2016 the Conservancy raised OBJECTION. The CHC objection to the proposed development was made by the Planning Consultative Committee on grounds of greater visual intrusion outside the recognised settlement boundary, recreational disturbance contrary to the Local Plan and being premature/prejudicial to proper consideration of the neighbourhood plan which is subject to a referendum in May 2016 and does not indicate the site as an extension to the defined settlement boundary. The proposal was REFUSED by the LPA on 17 February 2017. The refusal was appealed, the Appeal was DISMISSED by PINS on 2 November 2018.

2.2 BI/14/02662/OUT - Proposal for the erection of 81 houses, B1 floorspace, retail and open space with retention of 1 dwelling. Commenting on 29 January 2015 the

21 Conservancy raised OBJECTION. The proposal was REFUSED by the LPA on 5 March 2015.

3.0 Site and its context

Contextual Consideration –

3.1 The application site is located outside but close to the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), where development is subject to more stringent planning guidance to ensure that development respects and enhances the inherent qualities of such a sensitive location.

3.2 The red-line application site does not have a boundary with a coastal frontage but is predominantly surrounded by open countryside which adjoins the boundary with the AONB protected landscape.

3.3 The site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is not indicated to be on or close to a building on the scheduled list of buildings of historic or architectural importance. Information has been provided indicating the site as being within Flood Zone 1: Low Probability of flooding (submitted Planning Statement para. 8.2).

3.4 Other designations which are applicable to the site include the Bird Aware Solent Special Protection Area (within the 56km Zone of Influence), Grade 2 Agricultural Land Classification, Light Pollution in the 1-2 NanoWatts/sq.cm/sr area, and within the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone:Surface Water area.

Location and Existing Development –

3.4 The site is located to the west of Bell Lane (A2198 – Chichester to East Wittering route), and south of the main, if fragmented and spatially scattered, village of Birdham. The 2.34ha (8.5acre) site lies outside the urban area as designated in the current Local Plan and within the AONB as also shown on the Local Plan Proposals Map. The site therefore occupies a designated countryside location.

3.5 The red-lined site comprises a combined landholding which appears to have been last in agricultural propagation, primarily under glass. There are two main access points from Bell Lane which run to the rear (west boundary) of the identified site.

3.6 The site is occupied by single storey glasshouses, 2x two-storey dwellings and a farm shop/cafe. The southern part of the site appears unused and overgrown. Existing buildings are set back from the road frontage and provide 44 carparking spaces.

3.7 The land is screened to the rear (west) and south boundaries with hedgerow and tree cover. A narrow hedgerow and tree boundary lies to the north, separating the site from another recent housing estate constructed on former brown-field land use.

22 4.0 Proposed development

4.1 The current application is for outline permission (see procedural guidance note 2 above). The proposal is seeking the agreement of the principle (not necessarily the details other than access into the site) for the construction of up to 77 dwelling houses with roads and parking areas, together with the retained dwelling house and grounds (shown orange on the following plan), business use floorspace and retail use floorspace (shown yellow on the following plan), and communal open space (shown green on the following plan). The purple area appears an unidentified use.

4.2 Development would be at a density of almost 33dph. Affordable housing would be provided by 23 of the houses at a social rent. The Use Class B1 commercial space would occupy approx. 700sq.m in a two-storey unit adjoining Selderns. The Use Class A1 retail space would be provided in a 150sq.m single building located north of the retained dwelling. The development indicates 237 car parking spaces.

4.3 In terms of drainage, foul and surface water drainage sewers/and a new rising main of greater depth fed from a ‘holding facility’ located under the open space will be pumped via a new pumping station to Sidlesham Waste Water Treatment Plant. Perimeter drains and ditches will continue to be used and feed into the existing street frontage drainage ditch. SUDS are proposed to take account for future climate change.

23 5.0 Applicants Approach and Supporting Documents

5.1 The site lies outside but close to the boundary of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The submission has therefore made only superficial consideration of the application proposal within its context and setting of the AONB. Passing reference to the AONB is made in the submitted documents to support the proposal. This infers the importance within the NPPF under para. 172 of the AONB (submitted Planning Statement para 4.2).

5.2 There is no named reference to the AONB Management Plan planning policy document relevant to the consideration of the proposal (see above in Planning Approach section) or the Planning Principles specifically. There is passing recognition made to the LPA Local Plan Policy specifically addressing the AONB (CDC Local Plan Polict 43) and the emerging policy under the Local Plan Review (LPR: Policy DM19) but nothing to the Joint AONB SPD.

5.3 The proposal being outside the defined AONB protected landscape area has therefore given only superficial consideration of the protected status of the AONB. This is regrettable and is disappointingly unfortunate.

5.4 Submitted in support of the application (forms, plans and drawings) is a Planning Statement, a Design and Access Statement, a Heritage Statement, a Biodiversity Survey and Report, a Bat Emergence Survey, a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Roost Assessment Survey, a Tree Survey, an Arboricultural Report, a Foul Sewage and Utilities Assessmessessment Survey, a Transport Statement, and a Road Safety Audit.

6.0 Planning Considerations

6.1 The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty. There is a requirement that the LPA should assess the application carefully as to whether the proposed development would have a significant impact on or harm that statutory purpose. Relevant to this is the duty on public bodies to ‘have regard’ for that statutory purpose in carrying out their functions (Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000). The Planning Practice Guidance confirms that this duty also applies to proposals outside the designated area but impacting on its natural beauty.

6.2 Chichester Harbour Conservancy, administer and safeguard the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The aim of conserving and enhancing the areas natural beauty requires the Conservancy to consider the proposal on its landscape character aspects. Landscape covers both urban environments as well as countryside and coastal areas.

6.3 The overarching principle (PP01, para. 1.7 above) is applicable to the proposal, in that any development in, or affecting the setting of the AONB should be guided by the four principles as indciated in Section 2 of the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint SPD (2017) in order to protect, conserve and enhance natural beauty and wildlife.

24 6.4 The main planning assessment issues to be considered for this site in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty relate to –

1. Principle of the development to the AONB protected landscape 2. Planning Principle policy considerations applicable to the proposal 3. Assessment of proposal details on impact on visual character and tranquillity 4. Wildlife, Biodiversity and environmental affects within the AONB

Principle of the development to the AONB protected landscape

6.5 The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty. The adopted guidance requires a clear demonstration that no harm is caused to the AONB.

6.6 In general planning terms, the principle of – A. the proposed use and activity resulting from the development to the AONB, B. the proposed physical works, appearance and finished treatment to the AONB, C. the proposals design, character, scale, massing and bulk to the AONB Landscape, would require a full and detailed consideration and assessment of potential, possible, and probable impact to the character and appearance of the site and locality of the AONB protected landscape.

6.7 A. The principle of the proposed use and activity is considered to be contrary to the protection of the countryside for its own sake. The proposal seeks a new residnetial and commercial development on the red-line site which is remote from the main settlement area of Birdham village. The impact of activity from the proposal would be significant involving separate and frequent vehicle movements from the 77 households and the employment and retail areas indicated on the illustrative plans.

6.8 A. The principle as it relates to the countryside area must be considered against the need and necessity of the proposal in this rural location, physically separate from the main settlement of Birdham. The proposal represents a separate and stand alone housing estate. It would be segregated from the main village by the A286 (Main Road – Chichester to West Wittering). The use and activity therefore has little relationship to the land is it sited upon or which surrounds it. The proposal fails to satisfy the principle of its location for the use and activity in this respect in terms of the impact on the nearby AONB protected landscape.

6.9 B. The principle of the proposed physical works, finished treatment and appearance would be a significant change from the exisitng open countryside nature of the red- line site and the immediate surrounds and setting. The new development would have a noticable visual appearance on the area, being alongside and taking access off the main B2198 route.

6.10 C. The principle of the proposed physical works and appearance on the character and appearance of the AONB landscape environment would be a clear departure from the exisitng situation. The change would provide a semi-distanced development with associated pressure on the nearby AONB protected landscape. The existing and retained screening surrounding the setting of the red-lined site

25 would partially screen the site from external observation from the AONB boundary. The scale of the proposal would not be suitable within a rural environment, disassociated from the exisitng settlement. The proposal is unacceptable in principle in this clearly countryside location close to the AONB protected landscape.

Planning Principle policy considerations applicable to the proposal

6.11 Planning Principles applicable to this proposal are listed above (Paras.1.7 to 1.13) and reflect the four criteria in the Joint SPD (paras.1.17 to 1.20 above). The proposal can be seen to compromise the aspects of the planning approach applicable to the activity use and the sites location.

6.12 The proposal has no direct relationship to the land or the countryside in which it is proposed to be sited and therefore no requirement to be positioned in this location.

6.13 AONB PP04 requires development to address key criteria. The proposal fails to address these. It does not lie within the existing settlement boundary of Birdham village. It does not clearly identify that there is enough headroom capacity exists in wastewater treatment works infrastructure to serve the development of the housing estete. The proposal fails to establish that the resultant recreational disturbance that is likley to be generated from the activity commensurate with the development use of the site is adequately and appropriately mitigated. The proposal fails to establish that that biodiversity net gains are achieved from the urbanisation of this rural coujtyside site. Finally, the proposal, the third attempt at the development of this countryside site (submitted Planning Statement para.1.1) still fails to provide a clear and justified local identified social and/or economic need within this countryside location.

6.14 AONB PP07 shares aims which are applicable to the characteristics, if not detail, of the submitted proposal. Applicable requirements would show that the proposal is necessary for the countryside location and use. The proposal does not meet this criteria, being unrelated to the use of the land or the character of the rural area it lies within. Applicable requirements would show the proposal to be sited away from visually exposed locations. This is not achieved, the siting being within clear view of Bell Lane along its whole roadside frontage to the B21984.

6.15 AONB PP09 is applicable to proposals within a countryside, coastal or semi-rural location where light illumination would create a visual impact to the AONB protected landscape setting. The lighting specifications of the proposal have not been provided as part of the outline submission. It is however reasonable to assume that there would be lighting provided to the new road network within the site, to individual residential properties and to the employment business uses and the retail element of the proposal. Lighting is also likley to the carparking areas, garages and carport bays. Vehciles visiting the red-line site would also have side lights, head lights and possibly other light displays available when entering, leaving or being viewed on the red-line site during late evening or early morning houtrs.

6.16 AONB PP09 indicates that the impact of lighting without control, as opposed to its preferrable absence within a countryside location, without sound and reasobale

26 justification would be contrary to the Dark Skies Protocol within the AONB protecred landscape. It would have a wider impact and influence than only yo the site itself, and immediate surrounds. The proposal is defficient in this regard and unacceptable within and affecting the AONB protected landscape environment.

Assessment of proposal details on impact on visual character and tranquillity

6.17 The use and activity and the visual physical structures impact on the red-line site and the wider surroundings should also be considered against the character and tranquility of the nearby AONB protected landscape.

6.18 The proposal lies within a generally visually open area within a countryside setting. The impact of the proposal on the general countryside character would be substantial. There would be longer views across fields from the south wast (where there is a public footpath) leading to the A286 from Bell Lane, just south of the closed Bell Inn. The view would be seen partly screened by mature vegetation but the increased physical scale and number of buildings would be noticeable within the wider landscape, outside the AONB.

6.19 With the landscape being significantly altered through the physical prescence, the use and activity associated with noise and general disturbance from the activity associated with 77 dwellings and 700sqm of employment floorspace and a 150sqm retail outlet would be obvious. The employment and retail uses are illustrated to the eastern side of the site and would, by positioning, be more visual and likley to attract business and trade from passing traffic along Bell Lane the B2198.

6.20 The impact of lighting to the proposal, whilst not indicated as part of the outline submission, would introduce an impact during dark evenings and night hours that would undermine and be directly opposed to the Dark Skies Protocol as sought under PP09.

6.21 The proposal acknowledges that there would be light pollution and noise disturbance (submitted Planning Statement para 11.1 -11.2) but infers these are either likley to be reduced (light emissions) or are an inevitable and accepted consequence of such development. This impact to the nearby AONB protected landscape designated area would be harmful when compared to the exisitng situation and, as indicated above, would be contrary to, and would compromise the AONB protected landscape.

Wildlife, Biodiversity and environmental affects within the AONB

6.22 The likley direct effects of the proposal on the wildlife, biodiversity and general environmental quality of the AONB protected landscape environment is considered to be harmful.

6.23 The submitted Habitat Survey (section 4 table conclusions and recommendations) identified bird and bat wildlife as the high impact recipients from the desk-top survey. Additional bat surveys (x3) are indicated as being appropriate.

27 6.23 The submitted preliminary ecological appraisal and preliminary roost assessment survey conclusion (section 4 impacts and recommendations) appears to suggest that mitigation of any wildlife issue as and when it is discovered on the site. There is little put forward to positively enhance the site to acater for wildlife. The Bat Emergence Survey (section 6 conclusions and recommendations) identifies no confirmed bat roosts and a precautionary working methodology on site, to stop work should a roost be discovered. This conclusion also refers to birds in that all works should be carried outside of the bird nesting season (March – August)s and bird life as the high risk of impact species on the site. Finally it suggests a dark buffer to the periphery of the site to minimise lighting impact on wildlife.

6.24 It is understood from caselaw that a local planning authority must not determine an application until the absence of protected species from the site or a method statement where presence is established has been undertaken.

6.25 An submitted Arboricultural Report indicates that there are no trees on the site that are of particular arboricultural or landscape importance. The oaks in the group G7 could be retained along with the trees and hedging on the northern boundary. All the other trees, including the oaks T1 and T2 and the many poplars, would be best removed and replaced with new trees as part of a coordinated landscaping scheme. Such a scheme would be a reserved matter in the case of this oitline proposal.

Mitigate the impact of ecological disturbance at the harbour shoreline

6.26 P.U.S.H. which includes Chichester District Council, have formed a partnership and commissioned studies into recreational impact and an interim mitigation strategy - the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership Definitive Strategy - has been adopted by partners, including the Conservancy, which has the support of Natural England. Under the European Habitats Regulations, such mitigation must be secured before affected development can be supported.

6.27 The proposal increases residential accommodation on the landholding. Therefore, there may be an increased pressure on the rural character of the area through visitations to the red-line site compared to the current situation. The requirement to make an appropriate wildlife mitigation through the Bird Aware initiative is a valid requirement in this situation. Based on the proposal there would be a justified requirement to make contributions to the Bird Aware initiative. The need for a contribution is acknowledged in the proposal (submitted Planning Statement para. 12.1 -12.3) together with identification to new residents of footpath routes in the area to reduce car borne travel to the coastal areas.

Other Considerations

6.28 Waste Water Treatment: The application considers (submitted Planning Statement para.7.2) that the connection of the site by utilising the existing drainage system to the existing wastewater treatment system at Sidlesham, north of Selsey would not change or increase pressure on the treatment plant. The submission indicates that the capacity of the system is capable of accommodating an additional 77 units plus the commercial element. There is no submitted detailed design or flow

28 calculations by qualified engineers to offer certainty on this count or any independent verification of this claim.

6.29 Nitrate Discharge: The proposal also indicates that discharging wastewater from the site to the Sidlesham works will not be affected by the controls now implemented to the Solent area to control Nitrate dispersal. Again there is no independent verification of this claim provided.

6.30 Affordable Housing: The proposal acknowledges the need to provide affordable housing on the site. Reference to the quota identified in the previous dismissed planning appeal is made and an indication to meet this requirement.

6.31 Public Open Space: This has been illustrated on the prospective potential layout. The proposal accepts that open space is to be provided on the site and this could be secure through a legal agreement (submitted Planning Statement para.7.4).

6.32 Employment: The proposals would provide opportunities for local employment, in an area where most must travel to Chichester. Being as a farm shop already exists on the site, the proposed retail floorspace is not contentious and such mixed use proposals could limit the need to travel by car for those who could come to live at the development and those already living locally.

Conclusion

1. The site lies close to the AONB protected landscape and within the supporting wider environment. The development area of the red-line site lies outside of a settlement policy area and therefore within the countryside.

2. The would be increased visual impact arising from the development and general urbanisation of the site, which could be harmful to the character of this part of Bell Lane, where agricultural land is excluded from the government’s definition of ‘previously developed land’ (page 55, NPPF).

3. This impact would be especially noticable at nigh, from street lighting and internal illumination inside dwellings. This would it is summised be an increase in the illumination of the site than the current situation, notwithstanding the agent’s claim that glasshouses are left illuminated during the autumn and spring (submitted Planning Statement para 11.1).

4. The proposal makes inference of positive benefits toward contributions for the Bird Aware Initative, local employment, affordable housing, public open space, and claims satisfactory waste water drainage infrastructure provision would not add to constraints arising from the treatment of foul sewage arising from increased residential development, especially when headroom capacity is only calculated on dry flows and where there are known surface water problems owing to the area’s underlying geology. These aspects have yet to be fully quantified and verified by relevant bodies as being acceptable and agreeable.

29 5. Given its location, the proposal is in physically terms and land use activity terms, not comparable to the character or the appearance of the surrounding countryside, and being close to and within the supporting rural belt to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) protected landscape the proposal is not an accepted setting for a residential urban environment.

6. Overall, the proposal is considered to be unduly prominent and therefore to be detrimental to the character or the appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) protected landscape setting environment.

CHC Planning Committee Process

DR - For 14.12.2020 CHC Planning Committee (meeting via internet) Assessment 02-11-2020 LPA request reply 21 Oct 2020 LPA extension of time has been agreed LPA Planning Case Officer: Jeremy Bushell – Planning Officer Chichester Harbour AONB: David Rothery – Principal Planning Officer

This recommendation is made having regard to the Policy framework:

- Chichester Harbour Landscape Character Assessment (CBA update 2019) - Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan (2019-2024) - Chichester Harbour AONB Planning Principles (Management Plan version April 2019) - Chichester Harbour AONB Joint Supplementary Planning Document SPD (2017) - National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) - National Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014) - Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies (2015)

Visit our webpage – www.conservancy.co.uk/page/planning Chichester Harbour Conservancy manage and advise on the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty One of the UK’s National Landscapes

30 BI/20/02066/OUT – Land at Bell Lane for residential and mixed use development - images 1

Image 1: red line site marked in relation to AONB boundary

Image 2: aerial photograph and illustrative layout on red-line site

31 BI/20/02066/OUT – Land at Bell Lane for residential and mixed use development - images 2

Orange = retention of existing house and garden

ILLUSTRATIVE LOCATIONS

Yellow top = retail unit approx.. 150 sqm

Green = public open space provision

Yellow bottom = employment units approx. 170 sqm over two-floors

Purple = not identified, possibly buffer planting to existing house to south-east corner of site

Image 3: illustrative layout showing various possible development land uses

Image 4: location plan with red line site marked in relation to AONB boundary

32 BI/20/02066/OUT – Land at Bell Lane for residential and mixed use development - images 3

Image 5: site plan showing existing ground cover Image 6: site plan showing habitat survey land use treatments

33 BI/20/02066/OUT – Land at Bell Lane for residential and mixed use development - images 4

Image 7: Photograph of road frontage (part) Image 8: Photograph of road frontage (part)

BI/20/02066/OUT – Land at Bell Lane for residential and mixed use development - images 5

Image 9 : photograph area of derelict greenhouses (no night time light generation from these)

Image 10 : photograph area of amenity grass to existing B1 building

35 BI/20/02066/OUT – Land at Bell Lane for residential and mixed use development - images 6

Image 11 : photograph of greenhouses to north end of the site (Bells Nursery) Image 12 : photograph of open and bare ground to the southern part of the site

36 BI/20/02066/OUT – Land at Bell Lane for residential and mixed use development - images 7

Image 13: photograph of collection of sheds to west of site in use as car workshops

Image 14 : photographs of sheds and mobile home to south of western boundary

37 BI/20/02066/OUT – Land at Bell Lane for residential and mixed use development - images 8

Image 15: photograph of south end of site with boundary trees with overgrown greenhouses Image 16: photograph of south end of site with rundown greenhouses and bare open ground

38 BI/20/02066/OUT – Land at Bell Lane for residential and mixed use development - images 9

Image 17: front of existing B1 and B2 uses on the site (road frontage to northern half)

Image 18 : front of existing B3 use on the site (north of road frontage)

39 Agenda Item 5b

Local Planning Authority planning application reference: BI/20/02432/FUL

Site: Land at Broadbridge Business Centre, Delling Lane, Bosham, West Sussex

Proposal: Erection of a single-storey building comprising a gymnasium and offices (Use Class E), reconfiguration of existing parking area, with associated hard and soft landscaping

Application details: LPA webpage – https://publicaccess.chichester.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QHDHU6ERGQV00

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Chichester District Council, as local planning authority be advised that Chichester Harbour Conservancy raises OBJECTION to the proposed development

(b) That the following refusal reasons are applied for development impacting on the AONB.

Refusal Overview

The proposal for this single-storey building to provide for a gymnasium (approx. 365sqm) and office (approx. 195sqm) development to the western boundary of the wider site and involving the removal of the earth screen bund to the western boundary would clearly be visible when viewed from the surrounding countryside area, and physically change the character of this rural location. The excessive

40 amount of full height glazing would highlight the buildings intrusive nature during evening hours when internal illumination would light up the night sky in this rural location, the building being on the periphery of the sites interface with open countryside. The proposal is both out-of-place and out-of-keeping with this countryside location within the visually important AONB protected landscape.

1: Prominent Impact to the AONB protected landscape : landscape treatment

The Conservancy raises an objection to the proposal and recommends the refusal of this planning proposal as it represents a large building footprint within the countryside area and within the protected landscape of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), a national landscape area. The proposal would create a building that spans the whole western boundary (44m length) and with the removal of the earth screen bund would be visual prominent within the rural landscape. The provision of full height glazing to the western gable facing the open countryside would seriously add to proposed buildings prominence, particularly during low daylight periods. The proposal would be visually intrusive outside the recognised settlement boundary and harmful to the rural character and appearance of this locality. The proposal is visually unduly prominent so as to be detrimental to the visual character of the AONB protected landscape.

2: Prominent Impact to the AONB protected landscape : dark skies protocol

The Conservancy raises an objection to the proposal and recommends the refusal of this planning proposal as it represents a large building with significant areas of glazing located within the countryside area and within the protected landscape of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), a national landscape area. The proposal would create a building with full height glazing to the western gable facing the open countryside and to the eastern long elevation (44 m) facing the parking area and eastern end gable, where glazing rises to the ridge apex, would seriously add to light pollution within the rural night sky and therefore be contrary to the Dark Skies protocols operating within the AONB protected landscape.

3: Prominent Impact to the AONB protected landscape : noise and disturbance

The Conservancy raises an objection to the proposal and recommends the refusal of this planning proposal as it represents a large building with proposed activities which require a full and comprehensive assessment of potential and possible noise and disturbance issues which have not been adequately carried out. The submitted noise assessment report relates to a different building design (two-floor levels with reduced glazing) and in a different position and orientation on the site. The absence of a development specific noise and disturbance assessment would raise concern as to the impact of the proposal on the tranquil character and environment of the locality within the protected landscape of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), a national landscape area. This is one of the key functions that the AONB was designated for and designed to protect.

Reasoning and AONB Policy Justification

The proposal would amount to a development which would impact on and is contrary to the provisions of The Chichester Harbour Management Plan 2019-2024 (April 2019 Third Review) particularly Policy 1: Conserving and Enhancing the landscape, and

41 Policy 2: Development Management; The Chichester Harbour AONB Planning Principles (Management Plan version April 2019) particularly Planning Principle PP01: Chichester Harbour as a Protected Area, PP09: Dark Skies, and aspects of PP02 and PP07 ; The Chichester Harbour AONB Joint Supplementary Planning Document (16 May 2017) as adopted by the Council, particularly Part 2: Overarching Principle, Part 8: Landscape, Part 11: Scale and Massing, and Part 30: Dark Skies; together with the Local Plan Policy 43: Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Policy 45: Development in the Countryside, Policy 42: Flood Risk and Water Management; Policy 48: Natural Environment, Policy 49: Biodiversity, Policy 50: Development & Disturbance of Birds in Chichester & Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas.

Procedural Guidance 1: Use Classes Order

The planning application submission was received by the Local Planning Authority on Monday 28 September 2020 and validated as complete on Thursday 29 October 2020. The processing assessment period for this development proposal is therefore 8 weeks and would run from the receipt date, the target determination date (unless agreed for extension) would be Thursday 3 December 2020 (to take into account publicity notification and consultation requests from appropriate third parties).

The application was submitted following to changes to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 which came into effect on 1 September 2020. From that date Use Classes A1: shops, A2: financial and professional services, A3: restaurant and cafes, and B1: business use -a) offices, b) research and development, and c)

42 industrial processes were replaced by a new use class,; Use Class E : Commercial, Business and Service, which is subdivided into 11 use categories a) to g). More information can be found at:

- https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/9/change_of_use

Procedural Guidance 2: Planning Approach effecting the AONB

The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty. Chichester Harbour Conservancy, administer and safeguard the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The aim of conserving and enhancing the areas natural beauty requires the Conservancy to consider the proposal on its landscape character aspects and wildlife, ecology and biodiversity implications. Landscape covers both countryside and coastal areas as well as rural villages and market town urban environments.

The application site lies within of the designated AONB protected landscape.

Conservancy Officers’ comments and reasoned justification

1.0 Chichester Harbour Policy Guidance

The adopted guidance requires a clear demonstration that no harm is caused to the AONB.

Landscape Character

1.1 The Chichester Harbour AONB Landscape Character Assessment (CBA update 2019) prepared for the Conservancy, identifies the site sits alongside (and therefore sharing the common landscape character of the adjacent AONB landscape) the Zone G4 : Bosham Peninsula Landscape Character Area type. As such this area is defined by the exhibiting the following relevant key characteristics: -

 wide, flat to gently sloping peninsula  mostly large arable fields divided by lines of hedgerow oaks, low hedgerows, and occasional shelter belts  complex irregular and regular field patterns  mostly tranquil rural character

1.2 Landscape condition is moderate. There is strong survival of characteristic features, however ecological and visual condition has been eroded by intensive arable farming. The sensitivity of the landscape is classed as high, due to largely open, rural and

43 tranquil character of the area. The coastal edges are particularly sensitive to any new development that erodes rural character and affects the landscape setting of the harbourside.

Management Plan

1.4 The Conservancy’s Management Plan for the AONB records special qualities of the landscape character as including –

1.5 The Conservancy’s Management Plan for the AONB has vision and values that seek:

 The special qualities of the AONB are appreciated and enjoyed by local people and visitors who care for the Harbour, now and in the future  Management that is balanced by ongoing mutual respect shown by different user groups  Diverse habitats and excellent water quality that benefit a rich array of wildlife using the Harbour in harmony with recreational activities

Planning Principles

44  the minimum needed for security and working purposes,  obtrusive light from glare or light trespass is reduced to an acceptable level,  light beams will not be pointed out of windows,  security lights are fitted with passive infra-red detectors (PIR) and/or timing devices to minimise nuisance  comply with the published best practice guidance from the Institute of Lighting Professionals

1.9 The AONB Planning Principles currently do not have any specific planning principle policies relating solely to business / commercial / industrial development within the AONB protected landscape that are not related to safeguarding marine enterprise, which is covered by PP02, or associated to new / extended farm and woodland buildings, which is covered by PP07.

1.10 AONB Planning Principle PP02: Safeguarding Marine Enterprises, whilst not directly applicable to aspects of the current proposal may offer an acceptable approach whilst technically not being specific to more general employment land uses. PP02, relates to marine based commercial and employment uses, but refers to other appropriate commercial and employment uses which should be considered on the basis of being capable of reversion to marine related use in the future (such as with the retention of features of the building which would allow boats to be easily taken into and out of the building and unimpeded access to tidal waters).

1.11 The AONB Planning Principle PP07: New/Extended Farm and Woodland Buildings, whilst not directly applicable to aspects of the current proposal may be considered to share some characteristics with the proposal in respect of buildings being sought within a countryside setting as proposed. PP07, offers an approach to countryside located buildings for use associated with a rural environment. Acceptable development should demonstrate that it is –

 necessary for the countryside location and use (generally agriculture/silviculture),  sited away from visually exposed locations,  sub-ordinate to the host building,  where possible, grouped with other buildings,  adjacent to mature planting and screened using native tree and shrub species,  the materials, design, size, and type of proposal is in accordance with the LPA guidance covering such criteria.

The Conservancy encourages any acceptable development under PP07 to be finished in dark colours, such as dark khaki, blue grey, dark slate grey, to ensure buildings blend into the landscape setting.

Joint Supplementary Planning Document

1.12 The Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Beauty Joint Supplementary Planning Document (2017) Section 2 indicates four principles that any development proposed in the AONB should be guided by to protect, conserve, and enhance natural beauty and wildlife. The SPD is adopted by both Chichester District Council and by Havant Borough Council as part of their planning policy and development control approach.

45 1.13 The four principles are –

1. to ensure that all development conserves and enhances the natural beauty of Chichester Harbour

2. to stimulate the highest standards of design, conservation, and development

3. to consider where the development will be seen in the wider landscape and from the water and demonstrate how any adverse impacts are positively mitigates to meet point 1.

1.14 The Joint Chichester Harbour AONB Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) provides detailed guidance on the level of acceptable development within the AONB. All development within the AONB should follow the guidance as closely as possible.

1.15 The adopted Chichester Harbour AONB Joint SPD (2017) section-8 (page 17) requires that in designing new development, consideration of the setting of the development in the AONB landscape must be shown as to how the proposal would contribute to the character of the area. A Landscape Visual Impact Assessment may be necessary in sensitive areas of exposed wide landscape character.

- Local Planning Authority (LPA) Policy

1.16 Chichester District Local Plan 2014-2029 is the current Local Development Plan produced by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan includes policies for a sustainable development and infrastructure strategy to support local community facilities and to cater for growth and change. Various policies of the plan relate to matters applicable to the AONB, including a specific policy that applies to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

1.17 Policy 43: Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) The impact of individual proposals and their cumulative effect on Chichester Harbour AONB and its setting will be carefully assessed. Planning permission will be granted where it can be demonstrated that all the following criteria have been met:

1. The natural beauty and locally distinctive features of the AONB are conserved and enhanced;

2. Proposals reinforce and respond to, rather than detract from, the distinctive character and special qualities of the AONB;

5. The policy aims of the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan. Opportunities for remediation and improvement of damaged landscapes will be taken as they arise. https://www.chichester.gov.uk/media/24759/Chichester-Local-Plan---Key- Policies-2014---2029/pdf/printed_version.pdf

1.18 In addition, the LPA have other policies applicable to both the coastal areas and to the countryside.

1.19 Local Plan paragraph 19.13 informs that ”Chichester Harbour AONB is a unique landscape comprising sheltered open water areas with contrasting narrow channels. The movement of the tide exposes bare mudflat and saltmarsh creating a wide, open and remote wilderness. The undeveloped character of the harbour is unique on the south coast and its status as a Ramsar wetland, a Special Protection Area, a Special Area of Conservation and a Site of Special Scientific Interest reflects its importance to nature conservation. The largely flat hinterland includes highly productive farmland, as well as woodlands and hedgerows that contribute to the rural character of the area. The flatness of the landscape makes the AONB particularly vulnerable to visual intrusion from inappropriate development, both within or adjacent to the boundary, which can often be seen from significant distances across inlets, the main harbour channels, or open countryside. The District Council will have particular regard to these characteristics in determining development proposals affecting the AONB.”

1.20 The LPA identified the AONB as a planning constraint to development that needs to be taken into account for all proposals.

2.0 Relevant planning history

2.1 BO/19/02433/FUL – Erection of two-storey building comprising a gym (Use Class D2) at ground floor and office space (Use Class B1(a)) in loft space. Commenting on 23 December 2019 the Conservancy raised no objection. The proposal was APPROVED by the LPA on 31 January 2020.

CHC sought agreement of construction materials; a scheme of ecological mitigation be agreed for the loss of the planted area that would be caused by construction of

47 the new building and this scheme to be implemented before the building is first occupied; limitation of use of the ground floor as a gymnasium only within Class D2; hours of use limited to 06.00 and 22.00; and before any sound amplification equipment is installed in the ground floor unit, that a scheme of noise attenuation works be agreed and that once agree, such works to be fully implemented before the D2 gymnasium use commenced.

Initially CHC raised objection due to the 10m roofline and excessive glazing. Amended plans truncated the roof to reduce overall height and deleted the tall entrance feature to the gym and all rooflights in favour of a discrete number of dormer windows in the front (north) roof slope. Although a big building, earlier consents established that and overall landscape impact was considered to be acceptable, in terms of withdrawing objection to the amended plans.

https://publicaccess.chichester.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=PYAGFQERI7100

2.2 BO/20/00468/NMA - Proposal for on-material amendment to planning permission BO/19/02433/FUL to replace 7 dormer windows with 7 x conservation roof lights, additional fire escapes to ground floor and reconfiguration of entrance doors to create 3 separate doors. CHC were not asked to comment on this revision and it is noted that the new openings did not comply with the previously submitted noise assessment consideration of openings for the building. The proposal was APPROVED by the LPA on 12 March 2020.

2.3 Broadbridge Business Centre is a collection of former agricultural livestock farm buildings which have been converted to business uses. Originally under permission references BO/97/00434/FUL, BO/98/00419/FUL, and BO/00/01682/COU, light industrial / general offices / research and development employment uses (former Use Class BI) were allowed. The site included a farm shop which then extended under permission BO/97/02881/FUL to a retail use (former Use Class A1) Bosham Co-Op convenience store. Other extension under BO/17/01280/FUL for unit 6, and a doctor’s surgery and children’s day nursery (former Use Class D1) under BO/98/02934/FUL, and BO/01/02047/FUL. Storage and distribution warehousing uses were allowed under BO/01/02583/COU.

2.4 Planning refusal BO/16/00068/FUL for the conversion of adjacent offices in units 6 and 7 for form a gymnasium was made on the basis of the loss of employment floorspace.

2.5 The southern boundary of the site, the location of the earlier permission BO/19/02433/FUL for a gymnasium has been subject to various planning proposals. The previous small agricultural building on this boundary which has since been demolished was subject to proposals under BO/99/01939/FUL, BO/08/03561/FUL, and BO/11/03376/EXT for light industrial use (former Use Class B1). Permission in this location was then granted for a nursery school BO/12/04003/FUL, BO/15/03083/FUL. Since then a single-storey building BO/17/01349/FUL was marketed for light industrial / general industrial and community facility uses (former Use Classes B1, B8, D1). This permission was then varied to enable a children’s day nursery.

2.6 The last two permissions gave consent to uproot and remove an area of soft landscape planting to the southern boundary.

3.0 Site and its context

Contextual Consideration –

3.1 The application site is located within the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), where development is subject to more stringent planning guidance to ensure that development respects and enhances the inherent qualities of such a sensitive location.

3.2 The red-line application site does not have a boundary with a coastal frontage but is predominantly surrounded by open countryside in the AONB protected landscape.

3.4 Other designations which are applicable to the site include the Bird Aware Solent Special Protection Area (within the 56km Zone of Influence), Grade 1 Agricultural Land Classification, Light Pollution in the 1-2 NanoWatts/sq.cm/sr area, and within the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone: Eutrophic Water area.

Location and Existing Development –

3.5 The site is located to the south of the A259 Main Road, accessed to the west of Delling Lane, as part of the Broadbridge Business Park. The site is flanked by open countryside to the west and south.

3.6 The red-lined site comprises the existing open area of the business park, which is occupied by an earthen screen bund and carparking to serve the employment units to the east of the site (units 1 to 4), and the supermarket / convenience store (Bosham Co-Op). The access drive from Delling Lane curves to the north of the site. The access drive also gives vehicular access to units (6 to 13 assumed) to the north- west of the main parking area behind units 1 to 4.

3.7 The site provides 76 car parking bays which are unallocated and shared between units 1 to 4 and the convenience store.

3.8 The land is screened to the rear (west) by an earth bund. The height of the bund is approx. 2m and would screen the height of the standard domestic car from external views. The south boundary has a hedgerow to an open field (to the west part) and a neighbouring property’s rear garden (to the east part).

49 4.0 Proposed development

4.1 The current application is for full permission for an L-shaped single-storey building located along the western boundary. The proposal is for use as a gymnasium open to community use and an office for a planning design practice.

4.2 The building is shown with four personnel doors to the rear, western elevation and a glazed full height window bay to the gable end detail to the south-west corner. The internal elevation facing the parking area would have four full height window bays and four door heigh window openings, with a ground to ridge roof apex window detail to the gable end projection. A further full height and door height window would be on the return elevation to the north face and a set of three high level windows to the southern elevation. There are no roof windows indicated.

4.3 The building is designed in five equal width units (5A to 5E). The overall long elevation (east and west) is 44m (144.3ft). The short elevation (south) is 22m long (72ft). The building is shown with a 5.76m ridge height and 2.7m eaves height.

4,4 The location of the L-shaped proposed building would limit the loss of car parking bays to the parking area. The previous permission BO/19/02433/FUL located to the southern boundary involved the loss of 10-12 parking spaces. The current proposal increases parking by 1 space through a reconfiguration of bays (PDAS p7).

4.5 The proposed operating hours for the community gymnasium are indicated as Monday-Friday : 06:00 to 22:00; Saturday : 07:00 to 18:00; and Sunday and public holidays : 09:00 to 14:00.

4.6 The submitted PDAS makes frequent reference to the proposal occupying the same position as the earlier permission. This is incorrect and misleading. The earlier permission was positioned to the southern boundary (as indicated in the planning history section above at section 2). The current proposal is located to the western boundary and involves the removal of the earth screening bund which the earlier permission retained.

5.0 Applicants Approach and Supporting Documents

5.1 The site lies within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The submission has made only superficial consideration of the application proposal within its context and setting of the AONB. Only passing reference to the AONB is made in the submitted documents to make the case for the proposal.

5.2 There is no named reference to the AONB Management Plan planning policy document relevant to the consideration of the proposal (see above in Planning Approach section) or the Planning Principles specifically. There is passing recognition made to the LPA Local Plan Policy specifically addressing the AONB (CDC Local Plan Polict 43) but nothing regarding the the Joint AONB SPD and nothing of the emerging policy under the Local Plan Review (LPR: Policy DM19).

5.3 The proposal being within the defined AONB protected landscape area has therefore

50 given only superficial consideration of the protected status of the AONB. This is regrettable and is disappointingly unfortunate.

5.4 Submitted in support of the application (forms, plans and drawings) is a Planning, Design and Access Statement, a Drainage Strategy, a Habitats Regulations Q-A Assessment, a Noise Assessment (wholey based on the previous scheme) and a Transport Assessment.

6.0 Planning Considerations

6.4 The main planning assessment issues to be considered for this site in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty relate to –

1. Principle of the development to the AONB protected landscape 2. Planning Principle policy considerations applicable to the proposal 3. Assessment of proposals impact on visual character within the AONB 4. Assessment of proposals impact on tranquillity within the AONB 5. Wildlife, Biodiversity and environmental affects within the AONB

Principle of the development to the AONB protected landscape

6.5 The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty. The adopted guidance requires a clear demonstration that no harm is caused to the AONB.

51 would require a full and detailed consideration and assessment of potential, possible, and probable impact to the character and appearance of the site and locality of the AONB protected landscape.

6.7 A. The principle of the proposed use and activity has been considered acceptable in previous planning permissions.

6.8 B. The principle of the physical works as they relate to the countryside area must be considered against the need and necessity of the proposal in this rural location, physically separate from the main settlement of Bosham. The use of the wider site for employment and community based activity, particularly the supermarket and the doctor’s surgery, provide a tie in for the current proposal.

6.9 B. The proposal also represents a separate and stand alone building that is distanced from the other buildings forming the business park which are located to the east boundary of the site. The proposed building position to the western boundary has little relationship to the land is it sited upon or which surrounds it. The proposal fails to satisfy the principle of its location for the use and activity in this respect in terms of the impact on the surrounding AONB protected landscape.

6.10 B. The principle of the proposed physical works, finished treatment and appearance would be a significant change from the exisitng open countryside nature of the immediate surrounds. The proposed building would have a noticable visual appearance on the area, being alongside the western boundary of the site, with the removal of the earth screen bund.

6.11 C. The principle of the proposed physical works and appearance on the character and appearance of the AONB landscape environment would be a clear departure from the exisitng situation. The change would result from a building positioned close to the edge of the site with open agricutural landscape, to be divided by a new ly planted hedgerow instead of the 2m high approx earth bund. The scale of the proposed building is excessive in long elevation as a single structure within the rural environment. The building, disassociated from the exisitng buildings on the wider site provides a disjointed building arrangement on the site, spreading the visual strucure across and visually closer to the open countryside.

Planning Principle policy considerations applicable to the proposal

6.12 Planning Principles applicable to this proposal are listed above (Paras.1.7 to 1.13) and reflect the four criteria in the Joint SPD (paras.1.17 to 1.20 above). The proposal can be seen to compromise the aspects of the planning approach applicable to the activity use and the sites location.

6.13 AONB Planning Principle PP01: Chichester Harbour as a Protected Area. The proposal has no direct relationship to the land or the countryside in which it is proposed to be sited and therefore no requirement to be positioned in this location.

6.14 AONB Planning Principle PP09: Dark Skies. This is applicable to proposals within a countryside, coastal or semi-rural location where light illumination would create a

52 visual impact to the AONB protected landscape setting. The lighting specifications of the proposal have not been provided as part of the submission. It is however reasonable to assume that there would be lighting provided to the internal floor area of the gym and office as well as externally to the entrance door and to any name placques or business name façade.

6.15 The design of the building includes significant areas of glazing, primarily inward facing to the parking area east (and north) of the L-shaped building, but also to the south-western corner of the west elevation looking outward into open countryside. The window openings are full height to door top-cill or to eaves line. The window to the east facing end gable runs upto the gable apex. This amount of glazing would be unlikley to be fully screen blinded or subject to daily correct implementation of blindes or curtain useage given the intended activity proposed.

6.16 e As the car parking area is to be reconfigured (PDAS page 7) and this may include the lighting of the carparking area, though this can not be confirmed from the submitted documents. Vehciles visiting the red-line site currently also have side lights, head lights and possibly other light displays available when entering, leaving or being viewed on the red-line site during late evening or early morning houtrs.

6.17 AONB PP09 indicates that the impact of lighting without control, as opposed to its preferrable absence within a countryside location, without sound and reasobale justification would be contrary to the Dark Skies Protocol within the AONB protecred landscape. It would have a wider impact and influence than only to the site itself, and immediate surrounds. The proposal is defficient in this regard and unacceptable within and affecting the AONB protected landscape environment.

6.18 AONB PP02 shares aims requires development to address key criteria. The proposal fails to address these. It does not lie within the existing settlement boundary of Bosham village. It does not clearly identify that there is enough headroom capacity exists in wastewater treatment works infrastructure to serve the showers and toilets of the gym and office. The proposal fails to establish that that biodiversity net gains are achieved from the further creeping built-up nature of the wider site within this rural coujtyside locality. Finally, the proposal still fails to provide a clear and justified local identified social and/or economic need within this countryside location, however this last point has been accepted through the earleirr planning history associated with the larger site over a considerable period of time.

6.19 AONB PP07 shares aims which are applicable to the characteristics, if not detail, of the submitted proposal. Applicable requirements would show that the proposal is necessary for the countryside location and use (the planning history has reconsiled this issue). The proposal does not meet this criteria, being unrelated to the use of the land or the character of the rural area it lies within. Applicable requirements would show the proposal to be sited away from visually exposed locations. This is not achieved, the siting being distanced from the other buildings on the site and close to the proposed new open boundary (hedgerow indicated to post and rail fence as proposed) to the western boundary and the open agricultural fields beyond.

53 Assessment of proposals impact on visual character within the AONB

6.20 The use and activity and the visual physical structures impact on the red-line site and the wider countryside surroundings should also be considered against the character and tranquility of the AONB protected landscape.

6.21 The proposal lies north of Bosham village and the public footpath network that lies south of the site. The longer views would see the proposed single storey building in the distance. The view would be more noticable due to the removal of the earth bund to the western boundary, the close coupled positioning of the building to the west boundary and from the light emitted from the building through the signifcant areas of full height (and in one instance gable roof apex height) glazing. The increased physical scale on the site’ open countryside boundary and lighting from the buildings would be noticeable within the wider landscape of the AONB.

6.22 With the landscape being significantly altered through the removal of the earth bund and physical prescence of the building close to the boundary would, by its positioning, be more visual. This would be highlighted by the lighting from the proposal, which would introduce an impact during dark evenings and night hours that would undermine and be directly opposed to the Dark Skies Protocol as sought under PP09. This impact to the nearby AONB protected landscape designated area would be harmful when compared to the exisitng situation and, as indicated above, would be contrary to, and would compromise the AONB protected landscape.

6.23 There are a number of small trees within the business park wider site. There are no trees near the proposed building and reconfigured parking area. The submission confirmed that there would be no trees affected. (agent email dated 5 October 2020)

6.24 The submission however does confirm the landowner removed a number of trees during the summer months and the trees that were shown on submitted plans previously were a hangover from this. The trees currently on site are not on the earth band development working areas of the site. There are no trees to the boundary of the development site. (agent email dated 16 October 2020)

Assessment of proposals impact on tranquillity within the AONB

6.25 The submitted noise survey is that as submitted for the earlier proposal BO/19/02433/FUL. This was for a two-storey (ground floor and roofs within the roof slope) gym and office building of approx the same floor area as currently sought. The ealeier proposal was however located to the central area along the southern boundary and retained the earth bund to the western boundary of the site. The submission assumes the findings of this report are transferable (agent email dated 16 October 2020).

6.26 The claim that a new noise survey is not required this time around because the earlier application for a gym and office development raised no noise concerns and were subject to the imposition of conditions on the granted planning permission in exactly the same location (agent email dated 1 October 2020). The report states

54 in (section 3 para.3.1) that “The immediate area is the car park for Broadbridge Business Centre which occupies the land to the North & East. The car park is located immediately to the North of the proposed building, with the building to be situated at the Southern aspect of the site.”, and at para.3.2 “There will be no windows on the Southern & Eastern facades at ground floor level.”

6.27 Clearly, the proposal is not in the same position on the site, the proposal is not in the same buit form as previously proposed, and the proposal has a substantial increase in glazed window opensings than the previous scheme, all of which would have an impact on potential and possible noise generation.

6.28 The claim that this proposal is for the same applicant and that no policies have changed since permission was granted in January, and therefore there is no reason for any different conclusion to be reached, is misleading and factually dubious. Accordingly, it should be necessary to insist on a noise survey in this instance, in accordance with the local list requirements which are in this changed situation justifiably reasonable. The LPA should therefore reconsider the need for an upto date noise survey that is calculated on the basis of the different posiotioning, design and window openings as currently proposed.

6.29 Regarding the acoustic assessment undertaken for the previous scheme, this report indicate that the noise produced from the proposed gym should not be audible at the façade The building showed no windows apparent on the Eastern or Southern elevations. This report has assessed the possible impacts of the proposed noise sources associated with that building on the central southern boundary.

Wildlife, Biodiversity and environmental affects within the AONB

6.30 The likley direct effects of the proposal on the wildlife, biodiversity and general environmental quality of the AONB protected landscape environment is considered not to be harmful. (agent email dated 16 October 2020)

6.31 The submitted Habitats Regulations Assessment Screening Opinion has a conclusion that indicates that the proposed development lies within a buffer area of a European Site protected under the Habitats Directive or linked directives but the development would not result in a significant effect on the qualifying features of a European Site. A further HRA is not required (assessment dated 3 November 2020).

Other Considerations

6.32 Drainage Strategy : Surface water: The LPA Drainage Engineer’s consultation response of 5 November 2019 for the earlier application BO/19/02433/FUL has been reviewd by the applicants. Further liaison in January 2020 with respect to the clarification sought on surface water drainage strategy for the development has lead to submitted illustrations of the surface water strategy proposed pursuant to the surface water discharge hierarchy. The applicants consider the position of the proposed building will not alter the strategy previously agreed (submitted Drainage Statement 1 Sept 2020).

55 6.33 Drainage Stategy : Foul Water: Discharge to public foul water sewer network by extension of the site foul water network, as was proposed in the previous application

6.34 Nitrate Discharge: No information supplied.

6.35 Employment: The proposed gym will directly employ up to 15 persons and the proposed office will likely employ some 25 - 30 persons. (submitted PDAS page 7).

Conclusion

1. The site lies in the AONB protected landscape environment. The development area of the red-line site lies outside of a settlement policy area and therefore within the countryside.

2. The would be increased visual impact arising from the removal of the boundary earth bunda and the proposed building with full height glazed window openings. This would be harmful to the character of this countryside location.

3. This impact would be especially noticable at night, from internal illumination inside building. This would be an increase in the illumination of the site than the current situation.

4. The proposal makes inference of positive sustainable benefits toward the economic, social and environmental welfare of the area (PDAS page 9, 10).

5. Given its location, the proposal is, in physically positioning terms and building design term (due to significant galzing areas) not comparable to the character or the appearance of the surrounding countryside within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) protected landscape.

 44m or 144ft is about twice the length of a cricket square (20.1m) or half as tall as Big Ben (96m) or nine-tenths as tall as Nelson’s Column (51.6m).  22m or 72ft is about two-and-a-half times as long as a London double decker bus (8.38m)

CHC Planning Committee Process

DR - For 14.12.2020 CHC Planning Committee (meeting via internet) Assessment 23-11-2020 LPA request reply 23 Nov 2020 LPA extension of time has been agreed LPA Planning Case Officer: Jane Thatcher – Planning Officer Chichester Harbour AONB: David Rothery – Principal Planning Officer

This recommendation is made having regard to the Policy framework:

56 - Chichester Harbour Landscape Character Assessment (CBA update 2019) - Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan (2019-2024) - Chichester Harbour AONB Planning Principles (Management Plan version April 2019) - Chichester Harbour AONB Joint Supplementary Planning Document SPD (2017) - National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) - National Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014) - Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies (2015)

57 BI/20/02432/FUL – Land at Broadbridge Business Centre for gymnasium building - images 1

Image 1: red line site location Image 2: aerial photograph showing location of site

58 BI/20/02432/FUL – Land at Broadbridge Business Centre for gymnasium building - images 2

Image 3: location plan showing red-line site and blue-line other land in applicants control Image 4: location plan showing existing landscape bund highlighted in green

59 BI/20/02432/FUL – Land at Broadbridge Business Centre for gymnasium building - images 3

Image 5: layout plan – note the removal of the western side earth bund screen Image 6: layout plan showing post and rail fencing enclosure and hedgerow planting

60 BI/20/02432/FUL – Land at Broadbridge Business Centre for gymnasium building - images 4

Image 7: long elevations - east and west facing Image 8: short elevations – north and south facing

Image 9: short elevation – north facing – showing internal driveway ‘street’ scene

61 BI/20/02432/FUL – Land at Broadbridge Business Centre for gymnasium building - images 5

Image 10 : aerial photograph of site – showing site boundary landscaping

Image 11 : floor plan

62 BI/20/02432/FUL – Land at Broadbridge Business Centre for gymnasium building - images 6

Image 12 : aerial image within submitted noise report (based on previous scheme BO/19/02433/FUL) Image 13 : plans within submitted noise report (based on previous scheme BO/19/02433/FUL)

with retained earth bund to western boundary highlighted in green colouring

63 BI/20/02432/FUL – Land at Broadbridge Business Centre for gymnasium building - images 7

Image 14: ground and loft plans of previous proposal BO/19/02433/FUL Image 15 : previous proposal BO/19/02433/FUL elevations (drawing 28 November 2019) CHC no objection

Image 16 : previous proposal BO/19/02433/FUL elevations (drawing 25 October 2019) CHC OBJECTION

64 BI/20/02432/FUL – Land at Broadbridge Business Centre for gymnasium building - images 8

Image 14: previous proposal BO/20/00468/NMA - ground floor layout plans Image 15 : previous proposal BO/20/00468/NMA - elevations (drawing 17 February 2020)

CHC not consulted

65 BI/20/02432/FUL – Land at Broadbridge Business Centre for gymnasium building - images 9

66 BI/20/02432/FUL – Land at Broadbridge Business Centre for gymnasium building - images 10

67 BI/20/02432/FUL – Land at Broadbridge Business Centre for gymnasium building - images 11

68 BI/20/02432/FUL – Land at Broadbridge Business Centre for gymnasium building - images 12

69 Agenda Item 5c

Local Planning Authority planning application reference: FB/20/02303/FUL

Site: Land at Bethwines Farm and South of Ivy Lodge Blackboy Lane Fishbourne

Proposals: Construction of 35 no. affordable residential dwellings for first-time buyers with associated access, parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure

RECOMMENDATION That Chichester District Council, as local planning authority, be advised that Chichester Harbour Conservancy, raises an objection:

Unable to satisfactorily demonstrate that nitrates in the wastewater would not drain to the Chichester Harbour SPA/SAC/Ramsar/SSSI having a significant, harmful effect on water quality and nature conservation interests, contrary to Policies 43, 48 and 49 of the Chichester Local Plan.

Initial observations

The application form sets out that 35 dwellings on a 0.99Ha site are proposed yet the nitrogen budget talks in terms of 25 on a 1.2 Ha in Appendix 1. This may just be a typographical error, or perhaps the more recent iteration of the nitrogen budget report ought to have been submitted but should be confirmed with the applicant and those who produced that report (Plantwork Systems).

The applicant has now confirmed 19.11.20 that this was an error and that the more recent V.2 (22.11.2019) is what is offered for the local planning authority’s consideration.

70 Conservancy Officers’ comments and reasoned justification

1.0 Site and its context

1.1 The 0.99 ha site comprising open, arable land, lies 0.6km north of the Chichester Harbour AONB boundary and is not visible from the AONB. Situated north of the railway line north of the A259, even views from Clay Lane (see below) do not reveal any impact to the setting of the AONB. The development of the site is, however, considered to impact the wider setting of the South Downs National Park, some 2km to the north. Bethwines Close comprises bungalows. Ivy Lodge and housing east of the site is 2 storey in character, with some other bungalows and chalet bungalows north of that. A field drainage ditch runs down the eastern site boundary falling in the direction of Chichester Harbour. Trees covered by 89/00439/TPO, exist on the site

1.2 When Chichester District commissioned a Landscape Capacity Assessment in 2011, this part of that study’s Zone 12 was not even identified as having any capacity worthy of assessment. The most council’s recent Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (August 2018 – Appendix 2, page 4, site HFB0004), land west of Blackboy Lane was partly excluded from consideration to provide new housing because of “Impact on the landscape setting and long distance views”,

71 albeit the mapping and Appendix 4 to the HELAA indicates a 3.4 ha parcel of land comprising 3 agricultural fields (including the current application site) as ‘Achievable’ and deliverable in the first 1 year period of the emerging local plan (see next page). An estimated yield of 81 dwelling is indicated for the 3.4 ha of land.

1.3 At the current time the Fishbourne Neighbourhood Plan is under review, so revisions of its defined settlement boundary have not been set out in the emerging local plan (Preferred approach version), where Policy AL14 sets out that a minimum of 250 dwellings should be constructed in the Fishbourne Parish area up to the year 2035. Strand 5 of that emerging Policy sets out –

“5. Detailed consideration of the impact of development on the surrounding landscape, including the South Downs National Park and Chichester Harbour AONB and their settings. Development should be designed to protect long distance views to the South Downs National Park”.

1.4 Photographs looking south to south east from Clay Lane are shown below.

72 1.5 Other views of the site are shown below.

2.0 Relevant planning history

2.1 Under application 08/02739/OUT an application for ‘Erection of 200 dwellings, proposed country park, access and landscaping provision’, was ultimately withdrawn the same year, relating to the site below.

73 2.2 Under reference 14/00231/EIA, the district council determined (in 2018) that it was not necessary for the applicant to undertake an environmental assessment, were an application for between 25-75 dwellings to be made on the site shown below.

2.3 Since that time, the site owners have sought to promote land at Bethwines Farm for a variety of scales of residential development. The Conservancy has previously opposed such development of the open countryside outside the settlement boundary for Fishbourne. The Conservancy was not consulted on pre-application enquiry 19- 00831-PRESM – the precursor to the last application 19/03141/FUL. The applicant has put the site forward to Fishbourne Parish Council as part of the latter’s (April 2019) ‘call for sites’ exercise in preparing a revised Neighbourhood Plan.

2.4 Application 19/03141/FUL proposed “Construction of 35 no. affordable residential dwellings for first-time buyers with associated access, parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure”. Notwithstanding a favourable recommendation by the Conservancy’s Principal Planning Officer, Members of The Conservancy’s Planning Committee made the following resolution when it met on 2.3.2020 -

74 “Objection: based upon the objections and advice from Southern Water and the Environment Agency.”

The application was subsequently refused by the Council by its Officers under delegated powers for the following reasons on 9 April 2020 -

“1) The proposed development would fail to meet the criteria for an Entry-Level Exception Site (ELSE). At this time, there is minimal evidence to justify the need for low cost home ownership over and above what is already being delivered and met within the authority's area. The evidence clearly shows the greatest need in the plan area is for affordable rented and social rented housing. Furthermore, the proposed mix of low-cost housing, specifically the provision of 4-bedroom dwellings would not meet the requirements of first-time buyers, both in terms of affordability and in terms of the larger size of the dwellings. The proposal does not meet the requirements to be an ELSE and would therefore be contrary to Paragraph 71 of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) and Policy 35 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029.

2) The proposed development by reason of its cramped layout and positioning of the pumping station in a highly prominent location fronting Blackboy Lane, would not constitute high quality development within the countryside and results in a contrived, overdeveloped and incongruous form of development that would detract from the wider semi-rural character and appearance of the locality and takes little account of the existing pattern and form of development within this edge of settlement location. Furthermore, insufficient information has been submitted to determine whether the noise arising from the pumping station is likely to have an adverse impact on residential amenity. As such the proposal would be contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policies 1, 2, 33, 45 and 48 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029, Chichester District Council's Planning Guidance Note No.3: Design Guidelines for Alterations to Dwellings and Extensions (September 2009) and, Chichester District Council's Design Protocol (December 2013).

3) In the absence of information to justify the use of a non-mains system, in circumstances where it may be reasonable for the development to be connected to a public sewer, the proposal would be contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policy 12 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014- 2029, the Position Statement on Managing New Housing Development in the Apuldram (Chichester) Wastewater Treatment Works Catchment and the Surface Water and Foul Drainage SPD; and would therefore contravene the advice of both the Environment Agency and Southern Water.

4) In the absence of information on the submitted plans and accompanying details, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the criteria as set out under Policy 40 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 has been considered. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) and Policy 40 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029.

5) The proposal comprises new development with overnight accommodation, where the treated effluent from the development will discharge into a Solent European site, or any water body that subsequently discharges into such a site. In the absence of suitable information identifying the nitrogen budget for package treatment plants and evidence on the percentage reduction of TN that may be applied as result of treatment, which will depend on the efficiency of the treatment processes employed, it is not possible to assess the increased discharge of nitrogen and phosphorous into the Solent and thereby assess the significance of any impacts from the proposed development and to consider any mitigation measures that might be necessary. Without this information it cannot be established that the proposal would not be likely to have a significant effect on the Solent Special Protection Areas and is therefore contrary to the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019), Policy 50 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 and the Conservation of Habitats and Special Regulations (2017).

6) In the absence of a signed S106 legal agreement the application makes no provision for securing the affordable housing or securing the necessary infrastructure obligations it generates. Furthermore, there is no mechanism to secure the recreational disturbance mitigation for the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area. In failing to secure the necessary affordable housing, infrastructure and mitigation requirements which

76 a development of this size generates, the proposals are contrary to Paragraphs 56 and 71 of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) and Policies 8, 9, 35 and 50 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029, the Conservation of Habitats and Special Regulations (2017) and the Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD.”

2.5 It is notable that none of the above reasons refer to issues of prematurity in terms of considering the emerging local plan, nor any revision to the Fishbourne Neighbourhood Plan which may currently be being prepared.

2.6 The applicant made a pre-application discussion to discuss the refusal of 19/03141/FUL, meeting the Council on 18 April 2020, yet the current application form says no preapplication advice has been sought.

3.0 Proposed development

3.1 Apparent differences to the refused scheme under 19/01341/FUL appear slight -

 The stand-alone sewage package treatment works has been moved from the south-east corner of the site to the south-west corner, also consolidating the position of open space on the site (although this has not been updated on page 48 of the Design and Access Statement, nor page 2/Appendix A, nor the outline drainage strategy plan, nor paragraph 8.1 of the Drainage Strategy document);

 Pedestrian link added from the highway layout to Blackboy Lane bridging across the field ditch;

 Use of black Marley Eternitt tiles has been confirmed in terms of roofing materials;

77  Extra manoeuvring space has been added to the most easterly cul-de-sac spur running parallel with Blackboy Lane;

 The positioning of indicative tree/hedge planting on the western (field) boundary has been altered;  The original September 2019 nitrogen budget document has been submitted, rather than the V2 November 2019 version that the Council had previously received for 19/03141/FUL on 17 March 2020. Flows and loads had been specified at lower levels in the original document, based on an assumption that the site area was 1.2 Ha (It is possible the original document may have been submitted in error for this latest application);

 A noise assessment of the package sewerage treatment plant has been produced, with recommendations of how to mitigate any noise emitted from that plant;

 Housing mix has changed, with no 4 bedroomed properties now being proposed, (albeit paragraph 6.79 on the planning statement has not been updated in this respect), those former units now becoming more 3 bedroomed units;

 Electric vehicle charging points are to be provided in garages as well as the two point in parking bays by the flats previously proposed;

 More explicit recognition of Policy 40 in the Local Plan relating to matters of sustainability is given, specifically setting out that –

“…the proposed development makes efficient use of land; incorporates low-impact and locally sourced materials; will minimise internal water consumption to 105 litres per person per day; will incorporate measures to improve site biodiversity, including biodiverse planting; will ensure air, water and light pollution are minimised as far as possible; will provide access to extensive areas of green and open space; will encourage operational waste management to promote recycling and divert waste from landfill; will utilise a ‘fabric first’ approach to minimise energy demand through the specification of low U-values, low air permeability and low thermal bridging to reduce heat loss; and will achieve a minimum 1.2% reduction in CO2 emissions.”;

 A stronger acknowledgement that the Chichester Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development is not yet formally adopted by the Council;

 In respect of reason for refusal 3 to 19/03141/FUL the applicant’s revised technical note on drainage sets out –

“Investigations have been carried out to determine if an alternative discharge point into an alternative catchment may be feasible. Discussions with Southern Water have been undertaken to determine if a connection to the Tangmere WwTW catchment would be feasible. Appendix D - (of the drainage technical note) - contains emails detailing the feasibility of connecting to the Tangmere WwTW which is another WwTW in the catchment. Southern Water could not confirm capacity for this site to connect into the Tangmere pipeline network. This is because the Tangmere pipeline network has currently only been designed for the strategic sites as set out in Chichester’s Local Plan. This site is not in the Chichester’s local plan. This also confirms that the proposed development is unable to

78 connect to another sewer in the network. Additionally, to connect to this pipeline would require a new pumping station, approximately 2.3km of rising main and to cross under the A27. Therefore, it is considered unfeasible to discharge to this location as it is not practical and considerably costly which would make this development unviable.”; and,

 A written commitment is given to enter into the necessary planning obligations related to the SDMP and affordable housing by submitting draft heads of terms to the Council.

3.2 Full permission is sought for the construction of 35, two storey dwellings, some with attached single storey garages. A mix of 1,2 and 3 bedroomed dwellings is proposed. More particularly, this affordable housing is being promoted as ‘entry- level exception site development’. The proposed layout is shown below, with access taken from Bethwines Close.

3.3 An on-site foul drainage solution is proposed, with a pumping box-like station (elevations submitted in drainage strategy – see below, 2.2m high by 3m long and 2.2m wide, tanks being underground) shown located in the south-west corner of the site and a hydrobrake is to be fitted in the eastern boundary to restrict surplus surface water run-off to 2 litres/second, with permeable paving (shown pink) and garden areas being relied upon to attenuate surface water run-off (albeit soakage tests have indicated use of soakaways is unlikely to be tenable without further investigation. A small pond is proposed in the south-east corner of the site.

3.4 Images of the typical house elevations are shown below. Dwellings are supported by both car (69 spaces) and secure/covered bicycle storage (55 spaces, within garages).

79 3.5 In terms of facing and roofing materials, the following are proposed –

80 3.6 In terms of ‘entry-level housing’, paragraph 71 of the NPPF is reproduced in full at the end of this report. This scheme comprises 100% discounted market sales housing that will be sold at a discount of at least 20% below local market value. The discount may be greater particularly for larger units. Even though there is a discount on the sale price, the purchaser still owns 100% of the property. It is envisaged that mechanisms will be included in the Section 106 agreement to ensure the homes are directed at eligible households and are secured as discount market sale in perpetuity. Section 5 of the submitted Planning Statement sets out the arguments of the need for entry-level housing in the district, based on the Chichester Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) (2018) with the applicant concluding, on their calculations, that 203 low-cost ownership homes are required in the District during the next plan period, per annum.

3.7 The proposal now includes the following revised dwelling mix:

• 8 x one-bedroom flats (23%)

• 13 x two-bedroom houses (37%)

• 14 x three-bedroom houses (40%)

2 No. electric vehicle charging points would be incorporated close to the proposed flats and also fitted in all garages.

3.8 Existing trees would be protected during the build. The eastern boundary is to be sown with a suitable wildflower and meadow seed mix. The southern and western boundary will be reinforced with the planting of a native hedge/new trees.

4.0 Key issues and related Policy framework*

*NPPF – 1-3, 6-12, 28, 30, 34, 38-42; 47-48, 54-56, 59-70, 71, 73-79, 91, 96- 97, 102-103, 105-106, 108-110, 117-118, 122-128, 130-131, 148-150, 155, 163- 164, 170-172, 174-177, 180, 212-213; NPPG - IDs 2a, 3, 4, 6-8, 12, 18a, 20, 57 21a, 21b, 23b, 26, 31, 34, 36-37, 41-42, 50, 56; CLP – 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 12, 33-35, 37, 39-40, 42-43, 45, 47-50, 54; FNP –SD3, D1, E2, ENV2-ENV4, T1-T2; POCLP – S1, S3-S6, S20, S22-S24, S26-S29, AL9, DM2, DM4, DM8, DM16, DM18-DM19, DM22-DM23, DM27-DM31, DM34; CHMP – 1-2; SPG/SPD.

4.1 Safeguarding the setting of the AONB and intrinsic character and beauty of countryside/biodiversity from inappropriate development

4.1.1 The proposed development would not impact the setting of the CHAONB in any meaningful way but does represent a premature application on a site that has not yet been formally allocated in the Fishbourne Neighbourhood Plan nor fully adopted as a site under Policy AL9 of the emerging local plan. Views east would be seen in the context of Fishbourne itself.

4.1.2 There are far more intrusive developments which have been sanctioned in recent times by the council and ratified (at a late stage) in the preparation and adoption of the Site Allocations DPD and subsequently granted planning permission 17/03148/FUL (land at Highgrove Farm, Main Road, Bosham).

4.1.3 The Conservancy has objected to proposals before that were considered premature, but this application is materially different in that wholly only affordable housing is proposed at this site, which is material planning consideration, given a recent Appeal decision at Oving, which called into question the Council’s 5 year housing land supply (15/03720/OUT). The recent adoption of an interim statement (which had been the subject of a public consultation exercise) on housing by the Council must also be considered.

4.1.4 There is very little in the proposed layout that would provide a serious alternative to dog owners not to visit the AONB Harbour shoreline. Only a small parcel of open space is proposed in the south-west corner of the site, where the aforementioned pond is located (see extract of site layout above). The landscaped margin to the site’s eastern boundary is constrained by the ditch running through it, but may also offer some very limited dog exercise space. Overall, the applicant says 1,118 sq.m of incidental ‘public’ open space is to be provided in the layout.

4.1.5 The Conservancy’s Ecologist has made the following comments on the previous submitted application –

“Overall the ecological statement is good and suggests some enhancements which are positive. There is little conservation interest on site at present other as it is an arable field some distance from the harbour, but the boundary has a few large oak trees. As stated in ecological impact assessment, if the proposal goes ahead, it is important that existing trees and hedge on the boundary of the site are retained, and the buildings have bat boxes/bricks, and swift and house sparrow boxes/bricks integral to them. The mature oak trees are of particular value. Again, new planting should be native hedgerow species, and the grassland areas and borders should be planted with native species that encourage pollinating insects. I would expect all these to be secured by condition.”

4.1.6 Another consideration under paragraph 170 (b) of the NPPF is ‘best and most versatile agricultural land’. The whole sub-paragraph reads – “(Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:) (b) recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the

82 economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland”.

4.2 Flood risk and foul drainage

4.2.1 According to the Environment Agency’s flood maps, the site lies within Flood Zone 1 (lowest risk). The applicant’s nitrogen neutrality calculations are set out in the supporting documentation and still claim that the proposed development will not negatively impact on Chichester Harbour and therefore does not represent a constraint on granting planning permission.

4.2.2 The Parish Council supplied the local planning authority of evidence of standing water at the site, during consideration of the last refused application, but surface water flooding issues did not feature in the refusal of 19/03141/FUL.

4.2.3 Southern Water has confirmed that there is currently inadequate capacity within the existing sewerage network to serve the development. The Apuldram works discharge treated effluent into the Chichester Harbour and due to the sensitive nature, the current environmental permit limited has strict limits on nitrogen levels. In respect of the on-site wastewater treatment plant the applicant states that the quality of the effluent is guaranteed to be within compliance of the standard set out within the terms of the specific levels identified with the site consent to discharge, negotiated with the Environment Agency. This treated wastewater would discharge to the adjacent ordinary watercourse (i.e. the drainage ditch within the eastern boundary. The applicant states that calculations by Plantworks demonstrate that the nitrogen neutrality can be achieved and therefore will not impact on Chichester Harbour.

4.2.4 Natural England had an issue with the way the calculation had been undertaken on 19/03141/FUL and The Environment Agency argued the applicant had not explored whether connecting to mains sewerage going to the next closest WWtW was not possible. Its more recent comments on 19/03141/FUL read –

“The nitrogen budget submitted (Plantworks Systems Ltd, 2019) appears to use a level of total nitrogen (TN) in the effluent based on the level required to achieve nutrient neutrality, rather than the level that could be achieved by the package treatment plant (PTP) proposed. Therefore, a nutrient budget calculation should be supplied, using Natural England's updated Advice on Achieving Nutrient Neutrality for new Development in the Solent Region (March 2020). This includes specific advice on calculating the nitrogen budget for package treatment plants, and requires evidence to be presented on the percentage reduction of TN that may be applied as result of treatment, which will depend on the efficiency of the treatment processes employed. Without this information, Natural England may need to object to the proposal... It has not been possible for the LPA to undertake an Appropriate Assessment on this site to assess the impacts likely to arise from the proposed development and to consider any mitigation measures that might be necessary.”

4.2.6 However, having regard to the new technical note on drainage and correspondence with Southern Water, the Environment Agency has decided to withdraw its objection in a letter dated 22 October 2020.

4.2.7 There are no comments from Natural England at this time on this issue, but any that come to light before this meeting will be reported verbally.

4.2.8 Chichester District Council previously concluded the following about the proposed package treatment works –

“This design limit comes out at 4.9mg TN/l. To put this in context the Apuldram WwTW has a consent limit of 8.1 mg TN/l, so the PTP would have to perform considerably better than Apuldram WwTW. No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that this is technically possible or feasible…If the PTP performance cannot be evidenced to that standard, and the nitrogen balance is in fact positive, then the applicant would need to provide a mitigation strategy involving taking nitrogen input out of land elsewhere. The Council does not currently have a Council led mitigation strategy for developments to contribute to and therefore it would be for the applicant to provide their own mitigation strategy.”

4.2.6 Appendix A to this report lists email correspondence with the agent. If any further clarification on this point is made, it will be reported verbally at the meeting.

4.3 High quality, sustainable design

4.3.1 In general terms the position of the access street has driven the tabled layout. The Council was critical of the 19/03141/FUL layout which it considered cramped with very short garden lengths and dwelling separations in some instances. As this does not impact on the setting of the AONB, your Officer will not comment further on this point, but accepts this could be considered unsympathetic to an edge of settlement location.

4.3.2 The elevational treatment has been informed by a detailed contextual analysis, based on the principles of well -defined streets with active frontages and clear defensible spaces.

4.3.3 It is for the Council to determine whether sufficient information has been submitted in relation to sustainable construction, to address the tests of Policy 40 of the Local Plan.

4.4 Carbon reduction and ‘sustainable development’ in terms of economic, social and environmental dimensions of the proposed development

4.4.1 The Council, commenting on pre-application proposals had encouraged the applicant to assess housing need within Fishbourne Parish, as the NPPG does not offer guidance on how to calculate the need for entry level housing. The Council also set out commenting on 19/03141/FUL that the applicant had understated the average amount of affordable housing/annum that had recently been delivered in the District (outside South Downs National Park) by some 48 dwellings. The NPPF says entry level housing ought to be approved – “…unless the need for such homes is already being met within the authority's area”. The Council in refusing 19/03141/FUL asserted that the need was being met.

84 4.4.2 The development sought is outside the defined settlement boundary and in that sense does not comply with Policy 2 of the Local Plan, nor the desire of the NPPF to reduce reliance on the private car. However, Fishbourne Centre and local school are within walking distance and bus services on Main Road and the train station at Fishbourne would provide access to employment, shopping and other amenities in higher order settlements.

4.4.3 Whilst building 5 new homes would provide employment in the construction industry, this would be short term. The proposals could have opportunities to improve the environmental and biological qualities of the site by new soft planted and permeable areas within the site layout. Such environmental enhancements and sustainable construction could be secured by the council, through planning conditions.

4.5 Protection of agricultural land

4.5.1 Policy 45 of the local plan seeks to protect the countryside for its own intrinsic worth and whether there is an exceptional need for development within it. worth and Paragraph 170 of the NPPF makes it clear that best and most versatile agricultural land is a material planning consideration when deciding whether it should be lost. Land at the site is graded 3a and 3b, which is not the highest grading.

4.5.2 The applicant has set out the need for this development in a carefully reasoned statement on housing need in the district, which also fits the criteria set by the Government in paragraph 71 of the NPPF for entry-level housing sites, as distinct from rural exception sites which are driven by evidence of local housing need. The applicant’s analysis indicates a net need for 203 low-cost home ownership properties per year in Chichester District. Delivery rates of intermediate housing in recent years have been running at around a third of the scale of provision needed. Whilst some objectors have criticised the 3 bedroom units proposed, this is to forget that some of those on low incomes and wishing to become first-time buyers do have larger families too.

5.0 Conclusions

5.1 The applicant has maintained their stance in relation to the type of affordable housing to be provided, relying upon the Government’s preferred ideology to encourage people into affordable home ownership, rather than relying upon rented accommodation.

5.2 In terms of the recently commissioned Priority Views Study, the focus of that report has been views out of the AONB in the direction of Chichester Cathedral, especially up the Fishbourne Channel, so the development would not have an adverse visual impact on the setting of the AONB but could have some impact on the setting of the South Downs National Park to the north. View 15 (seen on the next page) is the most relevant view studied looking from the AONB north, towards the site.

5.3 There is a need to provide more affordable homes in the district and the applicant has evidenced this as well as showing compliance with the Government’s strategy

85 to expand the number of first time-buyers under the entry-level housing criteria set out in paragraph 71 of the NPPF. The relatively small loss of productive agricultural land is not seen to outweigh that benefit in planning terms.

5.3 Matters relating to nitrate neutrality and the Council being able to carry out an appropriate assessment under the Habitats Regulations do not yet seem possible and thus a precautionary approach must be taken to make an objection to the application.

SRL - For 14.11.2020 CHC Planning Committee.

Comments requested by 23.10.2020: extension of time given to comment.

*Abbreviations used:

NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework – (March 2012) NPPG – National Planning Practice Guidance – (March 2014) CLP –Chichester Local Plan (adopted 2015) CLP – Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2015 POCLP – Preferred option Chichester Local Plan (2019) CHMP – Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan (2019-2024) Priority Views Study (2019) – commissioned by CHC and SDNPA SPG/SPD – Planning guidance published by Chichester District Council relating to:- ˜ Parking standards and accessibility zones (2007) ˜ Planning Obligations and affordable housing (2010)

Paragraph 71 of the NPPF reads – “71. Local planning authorities should support the development of entry-level exception sites, suitable for first time buyers (or those looking to rent their first home), unless the need for such homes is already being met within the authority’s area. These sites should be on land which is not already allocated for housing and should: a) comprise of entry-level homes that offer one or more types of affordable housing as defined in Annex 2 of this Framework; and b) be adjacent to existing settlements, proportionate in size to them, not compromise the protection given to areas or assets of particular importance in this Framework, and comply with any local design policies and standards.” Annex 2 of the revised NPPF (the Glossary) also makes changes to the definition of affordable housing compared to previous national planning policy; broadening the range of tenures so that it now includes: affordable housing for rent (both social and affordable), starter homes, discounted market sales housing and a range of home ownership options, with the latter two ownership options required to be at a price equivalent to at least 20% below market value.

The following paragraphs are from the emerging local plan for Chichester District –

“4.34 Meeting the housing needs of the plan area and tackling homelessness are key objectives for the Council. The Council is the Housing Authority for the whole of the district and its Housing Strategy seeks to address the changing demands on Council services, whilst increasing the supply of housing to meet local needs. House prices and rents in the Plan area continue to grow and remain high compared to

86 average household incomes. This means housing is unaffordable to many people in the Plan area.

4.35 Given the high levels of current and potential future need for affordable housing, it is important that opportunities are taken to ensure that new residential development (whether from the proposed strategic sites or unidentified sources) contributes to the supply of affordable homes in the plan area, to meet identified local needs in terms of type and tenure. The Council will use up-to-date information from research and the Housing Register to negotiate the provision of affordable housing in new development. Precise requirements will depend on the development and the site in question.”

DEFRA - Best and most versatile agricultural land: In terms of agricultural land classification, Bethwines Farm has previously been classified as either 3a or 3b, where Grade 1 is the best and Grade 5 the worst. Definitions of 3a and 3b are given below –

Subgrade 3a : Good Quality Agricultural Land: Land capable of consistently producing moderate to high yields of a narrow range of arable crops, especially cereals, or moderate yields of a wide range of crops including cereals, grass, oilseed rape, potatoes, sugar beet and the less demanding horticultural crops.

Subgrade 3b : Moderate Quality Agricultural Land: Land capable of producing moderate yields of a narrow range of crops, principally cereals and grass, or lower yields of a wider range of crops or high yields of grass which can be grazed or harvested over most of the year.

87 Appendix A

From: Steve Lawrence

Sent: 19 November 2020 14:43 To: Jane Thatcher ; Hannah Hyland

Cc: Lorna O'Carroll ; Richard Austin ; Rosie Chase Subject: RE: Land at Black Boy Lane/Bethwines Close south of Ivy Cottage - 20/02303/FUL

Thanks Jane.

Has the applicant submitted the wrong (original) Nitrogen Budget document, which in Appendix A only refers to 25 dwellings on a 1.2Ha site?

I see there was a V.2 submitted on 19/03141/FUL, posted online March 2020.

Did the applicant really mean to submit that version, which does accurately tally with application form description of 35 dwellings on a 0.99 Ha site?

Also trying to understand Environment Agency’s position of “to achieve no net increase in flows to the network”, when, as a layperson in such matters, it would seem obvious that if there was to be a net gain in dwellings, then there must be a net gain in flows to the sewerage system, unless this is EA saying it wants no net gains to the Apuldram WWtW, but could entertain the applicant arranging/exploring the possibility to drain to the next nearest WWtW, which I believe would be Thornham, or would it be Tangmere?

By copying to Hannah at the EA, perhaps they could clarify on this point so I can report to Conservancy Planning Committee Members.

Rgds

Steve Lawrence | Chichester Harbour Conservancy MRTPI

88 From: Lorna O'Carroll Sent: 19 November 2020 15:30 To: Steve Lawrence ; Jane Thatcher ; Hannah Hyland Cc: Richard Austin ; Rosie Chase

Subject: RE: Land at Black Boy Lane/Bethwines Close south of Ivy Cottage - 20/02303/FUL

Hi Steve,

Apologies for the confusion – please find enclosed the correct assessment which assesses 35 dwellings.

Kind regards, Lorna

Many thanks Lorna. I thought it was just a minor admin error when submitting supporting documents.

Am I correct in thinking that the plant neutralises the nitrogen embodied in wastewater from the dwellings? If ‘yes’ what happens to the nitrogen – where does it go?

Am I missing something in the V.2 report in terms of taking the agricultural land out of production in terms of nitrogen based fertilizer that might be applied to the land to enhance crop yield/growth, or is that in the calculation?

Sorry to ask these obvious questions, but I want to accurately and fairly report to my Members.

Kind regards

Steve Lawrence | Chichester Harbour Conservancy MRTPI

89 Good morning Steve,

Please see the response below.

In response to Steve Lawrence the Principle Planning officer for Chichester Harbour Conservancy regarding how the nitrate issues are dealt with this application we confirm the following.

1. The scheme is being designed to be nitrate neutral following Natural England guidance policies. This involves considering several elements, the treatment of surface and foul water. Removing the current land use to a more biodiverse solution, by providing SANG, suitable alternative natural green space 2. Surface water it dealt with in a sustainable urban drainage system (SUDS) designed by Motion. Details of this can be found both in the DAS section 11 and Motions document. SUDS will still leave a small nitrate element in the water. 3. The current agricultural use being removed will offset a large amount of nitrate that at present will find its way into Chichester Harbour for example. 4. Further offset of nitrate can be created by suitable alternative natural green space on and around the site. This excludes gardens. For example the 6 metre strip from the ditch on Black Boy lane is considered as SANG. This also increases the biodiversity on the land. Unlike agricultural use that reduces biodiversity. This biodiversity when considered will offset the small nitrate element from SUDS. 5. Final piece of the jigsaw is the on site treatment works that deals with the foul water from the development. This is sized to provide zero nitrate output, unlike Southern Water Apledram treatment works that are not nitrate neutral, and this discharges into Chichester Harbour. The nitrate free water is proposed to simply drain into the existing ditch on Black Boy Lane. The details of this can be found again in the DAS section 11 and 12, Motions documents DOC 05, DOC 06 and DOC 10. 6. The SANG element can extend on land that borders this development where agricultural use is removed and a more biodiverse element is introduced. This land must be kept for perpetuity in this manner. This can also be included in the nitrate offset calculation. This is the same principle that has been developed by Portsmouth City Council, where land has come into the control of the Hampshire and the Isle of Wight wildlife Trust and used to offset developments in the area that do not contain sufficient land to supply a meaningful area of SANG that would otherwise not be considered for housing development. This offset procedure has been agreed with Natural England.

So, with all the elements considered above this is entered into Natural England's calculator (excel spreadsheet, 4 stage calculation) that will confirm that the development is nitrate neutral and will not impact Chichester Harbour. This is the aim of the proposed development.

Kind regards, Lorna

90 Agenda Item 5d

Local Planning Authority planning application reference: WT/20/03047/FULEIA

Site: Baker Barracks, Emsworth Road, Thorney Island, Hermitage, Southbourne, West Sussex

Proposal: Installation of a ground mounted solar photovoltaic array together with associated infrastructure; security fencing; CCTV; access gate; and cable route

Application details: LPA webpage link – https://publicaccess.chichester.gov.uk/online- applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=QKB4G9ERJ0600

RECOMMENDATION

(a) That Chichester District Council, as local planning authority be advised that Chichester Harbour Conservancy raises OBJECTION to the proposed development

(b) That the following refusal reasons are applied for development impacting on the AONB.

Refusal Overview

The proposal for a ground mounted solar array covering 2.58ha would physically change the character of the site within the open, flat area, creating an infrastructure utilitarian development in appearance and form which is out-of-place and out-of- keeping with this countryside location within the visually important AONB protected landscape.

91 1: Prominent Impact to the AONB protected landscape

The Conservancy raises an objection to the proposal and recommends the refusal of this planning proposal as it represents a large expanse of infrastructure equipment occupying an open and flat countryside area, with an extensive visual change to the landscape of the AONB.

2: Wildlife Disturbance and Loss within the AONB protected landscape

The Conservancy raises an objection to the proposal and recommends the refusal of this planning proposal as it represents a loss of un-improved natural grassland and the likely reduced ability of surrounding land used by both native and migratory wildfowl and wildlife, contrary to the protection and conservation of wildlife within the AONB.

Reasoning and policy justification

The proposal would amount to a development which would impact on and is contrary to the provisions of Local Plan Policy 43: Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), Policy 45: Development in the Countryside, Policy 48: Natural Environment, Policy 49: Biodiversity, Policy 50: Development & Disturbance of Birds in Chichester & Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas; the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint Supplementary Planning Document (16 May 2017) as adopted by the Council, particularly Part 2: Overarching Principle, Part 8: Landscape, Part 11: Scale and Massing, and Part 30: Dark Skies; and The Chichester Harbour Management Plan 2019-2024 (April 2019 Third Review) particularly Policy 1: Conserving and Enhancing the landscape, and Policy 2: Development Management; The Chichester Harbour AONB Planning Principles (Management Plan version April 2019) particularly Planning Principle PP01: Chichester Harbour as a Protected Area, PP16: Renewable Energy, and potentially PP09: Dark Skies.

Procedural Guidance : Planning Approach effecting the AONB

The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty. Chichester Harbour Conservancy, administer and safeguard the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The aim of conserving and enhancing the areas natural beauty requires the Conservancy to consider the proposal on its landscape character aspects and wildlife, ecology and biodiversity implications, including the impact on the natural tranquillity of the area. Landscape covers both countryside and coastal areas as well as rural villages and market town urban environments.

The application site lies within of the designated AONB protected landscape.

92 Conservancy Officers’ comments and reasoned justification

1.0 Chichester Harbour Policy Guidance

The adopted guidance requires a clear demonstration that no harm is caused to the AONB.

Landscape Character

1.1 The Chichester Harbour AONB Landscape Character Assessment (CBA update 2019) prepared for the Conservancy, identifies the site sits alongside (and therefore sharing the common landscape character of the adjacent AONB landscape) the Zone G2: Thorney Island Landscape Character Area type. As such this area is defined by the exhibiting the following relevant key characteristics: -

• Low lying land below sea level particularly in the north • Predominantly open grassland peninsula with few field boundaries • Patches of woodland and scrub • Significant areas of low lying and open coastal grazing land

1.2 Landscape condition is moderate. There is good survival of characteristic features and habitats, however visual unity is disrupted by large intrusive buildings. The sensitivity of the landscape is classed as moderate to high, reflecting its visibility in the Harbour landscapes and its landscape qualities. The coastal edge is most sensitive to development and change.

Management Plan

1.3 The Chichester Harbour Management Plan 2019-2024 (April 2019 Third Review) provides an integrated coastal zone management strategy for the Trust Port and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Relevant policies would include Policy 1: Conserving and Enhancing the landscape, Policy 2: Development Management, and Policy 3: Diversity of Habitats), Policy 6 (Water Quality), Policy 8 (Thriving Wildlife), Policy 13 (Prosperous Economy), and Policy 15 (Historic Environment and Heritage Assets).

1.4 The Conservancy’s Management Plan for the AONB records special qualities of the landscape character as including –

1.5 The Conservancy’s Management Plan for the AONB has vision and values that seek:

 The special qualities of the AONB are appreciated and enjoyed by local people and visitors who care for the Harbour, now and in the future

93  Management that is balanced by ongoing mutual respect shown by different user groups  Diverse habitats and excellent water quality that benefit a rich array of wildlife using the Harbour in harmony with recreational activities

Planning Principles

1.8 AONB Planning Principle PP09: Dark Skies, that are adjacent to or impact on areas of nature conservation will only be supported in exceptional circumstances. Lighting should be demonstrated to be – - the minimum needed for security and working purposes, - obtrusive light from glare or light trespass is reduced to an acceptable level, - light beams will not be pointed out of windows, - security lights are fitted with passive infra-red detectors (PIR) and/or timing devices to minimise nuisance - comply with the published best practice guidance from the Institute of Lighting Professionals

1.9 AONB Planning Principle PP16: Renewable Energy, guidance states that small scale micro-renewable energy installations associated with residential properties and small businesses would likely be supported as long as the equipment is discretely sited or out of public view, unobtrusive within the wider landscape setting, and have restricted noise during the installations operation. For other sized renewable energy installations these are likely to be objected to due to the potential visual or other detrimental impacts on the landscape of the AONB.

Chichester Harbour AONB Joint Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

1.10 The Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Beauty Joint Supplementary Planning Document (2017) Section 2 indicates four principles that any development proposed in the AONB should be guided by to protect, conserve, and enhance natural beauty and wildlife. The SPD is adopted by both Chichester District Council and by Havant Borough Council as part of their planning policy and development control approach.

1.11 The four principles are –

1. to ensure that all development conserves and enhances the natural beauty of Chichester Harbour

2. to stimulate the highest standards of design, conservation, and development

3. to consider where the development will be seen in the wider landscape and from the water and demonstrate how any adverse impacts are positively mitigates to meet point 1.

1.12 The Joint Chichester Harbour AONB Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) provides detailed guidance on the level of acceptable development within the AONB. All development within the AONB should follow the guidance as closely as possible.

1.13 The adopted Chichester Harbour AONB Joint SPD (2017) section-8 (page 17) requires that in designing new development, consideration of the setting of the development in the AONB landscape must be shown as to how the proposal would contribute to the character of the area. A Landscape Visual Impact Assessment may be necessary in sensitive areas of exposed wide landscape character.

Local Planning Authority (LPA) Policy

1.14 Chichester District Local Plan 2014-2029 is the current Local Development Plan produced by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan includes policies for a sustainable development and infrastructure strategy to support local community facilities and to cater for growth and change. Various policies of the plan relate to matters applicable to the AONB, including a specific policy that applies to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

1.15 Policy 43: Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) The impact of individual proposals and their cumulative effect on Chichester Harbour AONB and its setting will be carefully assessed. Planning permission will be granted where it can be demonstrated that all the following criteria have been met:

1. The natural beauty and locally distinctive features of the AONB are conserved and enhanced;

2. Proposals reinforce and respond to, rather than detract from, the distinctive character and special qualities of the AONB;

4. Is appropriate to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area or is desirable for the understanding and enjoyment of the area (where this is

95 consistent with the primary purpose of conserving and enhancing natural beauty); and

1.16 In addition, the LPA have other policies applicable to both the coastal areas and to the countryside.

- Policy 44: Development around the Coast - Policy 45: Development in the Countryside - Policy 48: Natural Environment - Policy 49: Biodiversity - Policy 50: Development & Disturbance of Birds in Chichester & Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas - Policy 42: Flood Risk and Water Management

1.17 Local Plan paragraph 19.13 informs that ”Chichester Harbour AONB is a unique landscape comprising sheltered open water areas with contrasting narrow channels. The movement of the tide exposes bare mudflat and saltmarsh creating a wide, open and remote wilderness. The undeveloped character of the harbour is unique on the south coast and its status as a Ramsar wetland, a Special Protection Area, a Special Area of Conservation and a Site of Special Scientific Interest reflects its importance to nature conservation. The largely flat hinterland includes highly productive farmland, as well as woodlands and hedgerows that contribute to the rural character of the area. The flatness of the landscape makes the AONB particularly vulnerable to visual intrusion from inappropriate development, both within or adjacent to the boundary, which can often be seen from significant distances across inlets, the main harbour channels, or open countryside. The District Council will have particular regard to these characteristics in determining development proposals affecting the AONB.”

1.18 The LPA identified the AONB as a planning constraint to development that needs to be taken into account for all proposals.

Other Guidance

1.19 The site forms part of the Site of Nature Conservation Importance / Local Wildlife Site of Thorney Island. This area was designated for its importance for migrant birds, breeding birds, grassland flora and butterflies. (see attached designation).

1.20 The grasslands of the airfield area on Thorney support feeding and roosting Brent Geese and waders in varying numbers depending on management and disturbance levels elsewhere.

2.0 Relevant planning history

96 2.1 WT/20/02344/EIA : Proposed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Scoping Opinion Request for installation of a ground mounted solar photovoltaic array together with associated infrastructure, security fencing, CCTV, access gate and cable route. Commenting on 22 October 2020 the Conservancy raised a schedule of topics for consideration within an Environmental Statement (ES) to be submitted for the expected planning application proposal. On 30 October 2020 the LPA determined what ES scoping topics were necessary.

2.2 WT/20/01925/EIA : Proposed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening Opinion for installation of a ground mounted solar photovoltaic array together with associated infrastructure, security fencing, CCTV, access gate and cable route. Commenting on 9 September 2020 and on 15 September 2020 the Conservancy raised no objection / no requirement for an EIA to be submitted for the expected planning application proposal. On 9 September 2020 the LPA determined that an EIA was required for the planning proposal.

2.3 WT/19/03200/EIA : Proposed Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening Opinion Request - proposed solar farm array for 1.5MWh capacity on 2.58 hectares site. Commenting on 20 January 2020 the Conservancy raised no objection / no requirement for an EIA to be submitted for the anticipated planning application proposal. On 5 February 2020 the LPA determined that an EIA was required for the planning proposal.

2.4 WT/19/01614/PRESM : A pre-application enquiry for a proposed installation of ground mounted solar array with associated infrastructure, security fencing, CCTV and access gate, was considered and a response sent to the LPA on 24 September 2019, CHC raising opposition to the potential proposal.

2.5 In addition, the relevant planning history available for this site includes applications within the Baker Barracks for building works to upgrade the technical and working infrastructure of the site and to provide for residential accommodation for personnel based at the site as well as for reserves undergoing weekend training. These applications are not directly relevant to the current proposal.

3.0 Site and its context

Contextual Consideration

3.2 The red-line application site does not have a boundary with a coastal frontage but is predominantly surrounded by open countryside in the AONB protected landscape which does have a boundary with the coastal waters. The proposal would therefore have an identifiable visual impact to the character of the harbour in this fringe locality but would have some impact on the rural setting surrounding the runways. This is referred to in the Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment document submitted in support of the proposal (para 7.1 to 7.4).

3.3 The site is located within the open countryside area of Thorney Island, south of the mainland settlement of Hermitage, but is outside the nearest settlement of Hermitage, Southbourne. The site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is not indicated to be on or close to a building on the scheduled list of buildings of historic or architectural importance. Information has been provided indicating the site as being within Flood Zone 2 / 3: High Probability of flooding.

3.4 Public Footpaths circle the periphery of Thorney Island. The Sussex Border Path Footpath 202) is a long distance route that follows Public Rights of Way (PRoWs) from Emsworth to Rye in East Sussex. Footpath 202 continues on along the coast connecting up with Footpath 224 that circumnavigates the Chidham Peninsula to the east of Thorney Island. A number of shorter footpaths provide a link between the settlements to the north of Thorney Island and the coastal PRoWs (submitted Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment para 5.5).

3.5 Other designations which are applicable to the site include the Bird Aware Solent Special Protection Area (within the 56km (34.79 miles) Zone of Influence), Site of Nature Conservation Importance / Local Wildlife Site, Light Pollution in the 2-8 NanoWatts/sq.cm/sr area, and nearby to on-site Solent Waders and Brent Goose Network core, primary support and secondary support areas.

Location and Existing Development

3.6 The red-line application site lies within the south area of Thorney Peninsula which is occupied by the Ministry of Defence Baker Barracks. The MOD land covers an area of 590 hectares (approx. 2.27 sq miles). The location within a military encampment means that the site is not open to the general public.

3.7 However, the site can be viewed from the costal footpath that circles the peninsula. The site is distanced from most external viewpoints due to its set back from external boundaries. This gives the proposal a limited visual presence due to distancing within the AONB.

3.8 The red-line site lies between a runway and the marshalling area fronting the military service buildings. The main area of military buildings lies to the western margin of the site. There is a large open expanse of grassland to the north, east and south of the site with only a couple of prominent landscape features.

3.9 The area is relatively flat and level and laid to grass. There are no enclosures on the land or impacting upon its use. There is no existing on-site infrastructure visible on the site. The proposal will therefore create a new and distinctively changed appearance to this area of natural open grassland.

4.0 Proposed development

4.1 The proposal application is a full planning submission for change of use and physical works for the construction of a solar array and associated security and enclosure equipment. The area of the red-line site is indicated as 2.58 hectares (approx. 6.37acres) in ground area.

4.2 The proposal comprises ground mounted solar arrays, the solar panel of typical dimensions 1.63m by 0.97m. These panels would sit on a standing frame approx. 2.80m from the ground, the lower fame clearance 1.15m from the ground and angled at 25 degrees to the horizontal. In addition there would be the necessary switchroom cabin (3m in height), transformer (2m in height) and inverter cabin structures (1.5m in height). The proposed development would have an expected life-span of 30 years, after which the solar park would be dismantled and the site would be returned to its original state.

4.3 The array area would have a 1.95m high stock fenced enclosure on a 2.2m high wood stack fence post, two 3.6m high pole mounted CCTV camera points. Cable services would be trenched underground between 0.3-0.6m below the ground surface beneath the arrays. No floodlighting is indicated.

4.4 It is anticipated that the PV solar panels will generate up to 1.5MW of electricity annually. The on-site first year carbon saving is estimated to equate to a 33% reduction over the existing carbon emissions on site from electricity consumption. Power produced from the solar site will be directly consumed by the barracks with any excess spilt to the grid.

4.5 The submission includes an Environmental Statement (ES). This follows consideration through the EIA Screening and EIA Scoping process (section 2 - Planning History above). Copies of the LPA decisions are attached to this report for reference.

4.6 Submitted in support of the application (forms, plans and drawings) is a Design and Access Statement (DAS), a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP), a Bird Survey Report, a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), A Heritage Statement, an Environmental Statement Figures maps document, and a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP).

99 5.0 Applicants Approach and Supporting Documents

5.1 The site lies within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The applicant/applicant’s agent, has made reference the application proposal within its context and setting of the AONB in the submitted documents for the proposal (submitted Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment paras. 2.2 ; 2.3 ; 2.5; 2.6; 2.7; 2.8).

5.2 There is however no recognition made to the AONB planning policy documents relevant to the consideration of the proposal (section 1 – Policy Guidance). Furthermore, the applicant has made only passing reference to the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Beauty Joint Supplementary Planning Document (LVIA para. 2.7), or to consider the LPA Local Plan Policy specifically addressing the AONB (CDC Local Plan Policy 43).

5.3 The proposal has apparently therefore been made with a limited acknowledgement and consideration of the AONB. This falls short of the expected due professional understanding, care or oversight that would be considered appropriate in this regard. Given the visually large nature of the proposal, this is regrettable and is unfortunate given the protected status of the AONB.

6.0 AONB Planning Considerations

- Development within the AONB

6.1 The statutory purpose of the AONB is to conserve and enhance the area’s natural beauty. The LPA should assess the application carefully as to whether the proposed development would have a significant impact on or harm that statutory purpose. Relevant to this is the duty on public bodies to ‘have regard’ for that statutory purpose in carrying out their functions (Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000). The Planning Practice Guidance confirms that this duty also applies to proposals outside the designated area but impacting on its natural beauty.

6.3 The overarching principle (PP01, para. 1.6 above) is applicable to the proposal, in that any development in, or affecting the setting of the AONB should be guided by the four principles as indicated in Section 2 of the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint SPD (2017) in order to protect, conserve and enhance natural beauty and wildlife.

6.4 The AONB status of the area requires consideration of the local and wider implications of the development on the character, setting, and nature conservation value of the designation of the AONB. The visual impact of the end proposal has

100 therefore to be considered against the normal accepted landscape character of the AONB.

6.5 The main planning assessment issues to be considered for this site in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty relate to –

1. Government Renewable Energy Policy 2. Principle of Renewable Energy Development within the AONB Protected Landscape 3. Planning Principle considerations applicable to the proposal 4. Impact on Visual Character within the AONB 5. Impact on Wildlife, Biodiversity and Environmental Effects within the AONB

- Government Renewable Energy Policy

6.6 Government guidance on Renewable and low carbon energy and particular planning considerations for hydropower, active solar technology, solar farms and wind turbines, states that the deployment of large-scale solar farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment, particularly in undulating landscapes.

6.7 However, the visual impact of a well-planned and well-screened solar farm can be properly addressed within the landscape if planned sensitively. (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/renewable-and-low-carbon-energy)

6.8 The guidance continues by identifying some particular factors, such as encouraging the effective use of land by focussing large scale solar farms on previously developed and non-agricultural land, provided that it is not of high environmental value. It is considered that solar farms are normally temporary structures and planning conditions can be used to ensure that the installations are removed when no longer in use and the land is restored to its previous use.

6.9 Issues such as the proposal’s visual impact, the effect on landscape of glint and glare and on neighbouring uses and aircraft safety, and the need for, and impact of, security measures such as lights and fencing, need to be taken into account, with the potential to mitigate landscape and visual impacts through, for example, screening with native hedges.

6.10 However, as in all consideration of development proposals, the site-specific aspects need to be taken fully into account, as would the setting of any protected environment (listed building etc.) and these may lead to a different outcome..

- Principle of Renewable Energy Development within the AONB Protected Landscape

6.11 It must be recognised that the proposal, in general terms (i.e. the production of electricity from solar arrays), could in principle be provided on other land elsewhere in the wider locality. This could therefore be outside of, and with less impact visual impact to the AONB.

6.12 The proposed development is located on the MoD site to principally facilitate the generation of electricity for use on and within the MoD landholding. There is no

101 indicated primary intention of the power generated by this proposal being sold into the national grid, however any surplus energy would be so disposed. It is on this basis that the proposal is claimed as not being practical to be located elsewhere off- site on land outside the AONB. The premiss therefore is its consideration within the AONB must be assessed

6.13 It must be noted that the principle of installing a solar array across an open stretch of land is generally not supported within the AONB, as it displays a large expanse of equipment unrelated to, and not dependant on, the land on which it is sited (AONB PP01 and PP16).

6.14 The proposal would remove an area of open grassland from the countryside environment. This is likely to have an influence on the availability of the grassland to be used by local wildlife, both ground-based, and air-borne animals.

6.15 The proposal effectively soft-develops a wide area of grassland which contributes to both the visual landscape and as a wildlife habitat. There would need to be provided some beneficial recompense to this loss of natural grassland within the military site. A simple solution could have been suggested through removal of under used or un-used hard standings or runways (some of which are in disrepair) elsewhere on the base. Such land off-setting, whilst not an answer to the unacceptability of the proposal itself, would assist in mitigating and reducing some of the harm that is caused by the proposed installation.

6.16 The visual impact of the end proposal is not considered to be within the normal accepted landscape character of the AONB.

- Planning Principle considerations applicable to the proposal

6.14 Planning Principles applicable to this proposal are listed above (Paras. 1.6 to 1.9) and reflect the four criteria in the Joint SPD (paras. 1.10 to 1.13 above). The proposal can be seen to compromise the aspects of the planning approach applicable to the activity use and the sites location.

6.15 AONB Planning Principle PP01: Chichester Harbour as a Protected Area. The proposal has no direct relationship to the land or the countryside in which it is proposed to be sited and therefore no requirement to be positioned in this location. The only link is that it is to serve the barrack buildings and would use land within the barrack site. Given that this relates to cabled servicing, such servicing could be provided from outside the site and therefore outside the AONB protected landscape.

6.16 AONB Planning Principle PP09: Dark Skies. This is applicable to proposals within a countryside, coastal or semi-rural location where light illumination would create a visual impact to the AONB protected landscape setting. Although no lighting specifications have been provided as part of the submission, it is however reasonable to assume that there would be lighting provided to the security fence line enclosure and to assist the CCTV camera positions indicated along the boundary enclosure.

6.17 AONB PP09 indicates that the impact of lighting without control, as opposed to its preferrable absence within a countryside location, without sound and reasonable

102 justification would be contrary to the Dark Skies Protocol within the AONB protected landscape. It would have a wider impact and influence than only to the site itself, and immediate surrounds. The proposal is deficient in this regard and unacceptable within and affecting the AONB protected landscape environment.

6.18 AONB Planning Principle PP16: Renewable Energy, is supportive of small-scale renewable energy works. The current proposal does not fall within this scale of accepted development within the AONB. In such cases, larger sized renewable energy installations are likely to have both a local and a wider visual impact to the character of the AONB. Such detrimental visual and potential negative impacts for wildlife are not compatible within or impacting upon the AONB environment and protected landscape.

6.19 The submitted supporting documents with the application refer to some of the applicable policy guidance for the AONB. The submitted Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA para. 2.7) acknowledges that The Chichester Harbour AONB SPD 2017 specifically recognises that Thorney Island has a distinct character, largely derived from its military use and that the SPD states 'The LPA will work with the Ministry of Defence to identify areas of the site that are less sensitive for development and to identify measures that might help to mitigate any impact of new military development on the AONB.'

6.20 The submitted LVIA also notes that the SPD also states that renewable energy should meet the following criteria 'be sited discreetly or out of view from public vantage points; be unobtrusive in relation to the wider landscape setting; as far as practicable, there should be minimal impact of the appearance of the installation on the site and/or building;...', and that this is also reiterated within Chichester Harbour Management Plan PP16 Renewable Energy, which adds that micro-renewable energy installations should be 'unobtrusive in relation to the wider landscape setting'.

Impact on Visual Character within the AONB

6.21 The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) comprises the findings of a desktop study, complemented by site survey work undertaken (para. 1.2). This study considers that the site is well contained within the wider landscape due to its location within the low lying, flat area of Thorney Island; and the presence of existing buildings and vegetation (LVIA para. 7.2).

6.22 The study asserts that public views of the site are limited to viewed from public footpath 202 (Sussex Border Path), approximately 0.7km to the east of the site, where the site is visible in front of the adjacent military buildings (LVIA para. 7.6). Further south along the footpath 202 the site is not visible or partly perceivable due to intervening woodland and scrub vegetation, fencing and buildings associated with the barracks (LVIA para. 7.7). In winter, when the trees and shrubs have lost their leaves, there would be less screening by intervening vegetation, but the site would remain only partially visible (LVIA para. 7.8).

6.23 The visual breaks from the footpath allow walkers a view to the Baker Barracks. From the footpath, due to the flat nature of the landscape and the slight rise in topography to the west, the site will be partially visible. This view would principally be along the

103 eastern boundary of the site, the upper parts of the metal frames and the edge of panels, the proposed fencing, the inverter cabin & transformer would be partially visible (LVIA para 9.2).

6.24 To address this the proposal suggests landscape mitigation to assist in screening the proposed site from external views. The mitigation put forward is along the eastern edge of Thorney Island where some new areas of native scrubland could be provided where there are breaks in existing vegetation. Some additional scrub planting along the eastern edge of Thorney Island will help mitigate these partial views of the site.

6.25 The LVIA therefore concludes that should the mitigation be implemented, ideally in advance of construction works, then the likely impacts of the proposed solar development would likely be minimised. The submitted Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) also considers that these landscape mitigation proposals would also assist in contributing to local biodiversity and green infrastructure policy (LEMP paras. 2.7; 9.4).

6.26 Consideration of the application details relating to the protected landscape lead to the outcome that the solar farm is likely to have a negative effect on the red-line site and surrounding open countryside landscape of the airfield. The proposal would introduce a significant coverage of 2.58 hectares of solar array equipment, at a height of 2.8m above ground and with associated enclosures and security features which would have an intrusive impact to the flat and level character of the site when viewed from surrounding public footpath locations.

6.27 Given that the renewable credentials of the proposal could be provided outside of the AONB and cabled into the site, or utilised on less visually obvious areas across the built fabric of the site adds further concern as to the proposals detail consideration. The imposition of such a substantial coverage of land within the AONB protected landscape is harmful to the character and appearance of the AONB countryside and coast.

6.28 The suggested landscape mitigation measures would assist in narrowing the existing open views and reducing the visual impact, but this would not be available through winter months when landscaping screening loses leaf cover. The scale of the solar arrays, notwithstanding their distance from the public footpath vantage points, have a negative visual impact on the character of the AONB protected landscape. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aim and intent of the AONB.

- Impact on Wildlife, Biodiversity and Environmental Effects within the AONB

6.29 The site lies near Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area. The whole application site falls within Thorney Island Local Wildlife Site. The grasslands of the airfield area on Thorney support feeding and roosting Brent Geese and waders in varying numbers depending on management and disturbance levels elsewhere.

6.30 The Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) submitted in support of the application describes the application site as consisting primarily of rank, good quality semi-improved grassland of moderate species richness. The immediate surrounding landscape consists of further rank grassland and airstrips. Beyond that the landscape

104 consists of amenity grassland, tree/shrub planting, residential housing, buildings and roads associated with the army base with arable farmland beyond (LEMP para. 1.6; 1.7).

6.31 The submitted LEMP refers to previous studies (a preliminary ecological appraisal, followed by wintering bird and goose surveys, along with a shadow habitat regulations assessment) which found the site offered habitat opportunities for protected/notable species, most notably breeding birds (including skylark), Brent geese and reptiles. Appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures are suggested to take account of these findings, such as sensitive timings of work, phased vegetation clearance and a watching brief (LEMP paras. 1.9; 1.10).

6.32 The LEMP for the proposal indicates that the development of the solar park has the potential to impact on protected species and/or habitats (LEMP para. 2.3). Landscape mitigation is therefore suggested to balance the potential impact on wildlife and habitats. The wildlife mitigation would include the suggested landscape mitigation to the east of the site close to the coastal footpath referred to above (para 6.22 – 6.23).

6.33 In addition, the wildlife mitigation would also include a replacement grassland area to that to be lost to the solar array. This wildlife mitigation area would be grassland to the north of the red-line site, off-site but within the blue-line site of Baker Barracks landholding ownership and control.

6.34 The wildlife mitigation area for grassland is currently comprised of species-poor semi- improved grassland, part of which is currently being used as a BMX track (LEMP para. 1.8). The suggested mitigation scheme would include an undulating path mown within the mitigation grassland to allow people to enjoy the area without compromising its ecological integrity. The off-site mitigation grassland would also be subject to a relaxed mowing regime with the aim to increase wildflower cover by a third and decrease perennial ryegrass cover to less than a quarter (LEMP para. 3.6).

6.35 The LEMP continues that to ensure that the proposed development will result in valuable long-term benefits to wildlife it is crucial that the mitigation site is monitored to build a detailed evidence base of key indicators and that the results of all monitoring activity are used to inform revisions to this Plan. The Plan is indicated to be a ‘live’ document, with reviewed iterations on a five-yearly basis for the proposed 31-year development lifespan. The initial measures are aimed to cover the construction period and first five years of operation (LEMP para. 3.24).

6.36 Consideration of the application details relating to wildlife and biodiversity lead to the outcome that the solar farm is likely to have a negative effect on the red-line site grassland as well as nearby land parcels, reducing their usefulness to wintering birds. The suggested wildlife mitigation measures are welcomed, necessary and appropriate, however they double up on existing open space grassland which has its own, if existing lesser level, of wildlife potential. The natural improvement of such mitigated land is applauded, but the loss of the red-line site grassland is a net loss of open land available to migrant wildlife. This loss is not considered to be sustainable particularly when other options to provide for solar arrays are possible within the built-up area of the site or off-site to be cabled in.

105 The EIA consideration and the Environmental Statement

6.37 The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is designated a sensitive area, as is the surrounding SSSI. As such, the consideration of the need for an EIA is a manditory consideration for the proposed development project such as this one. The application has therefore been preceded by both an EIA Screening Opinion request and an EIA Scoping Opinion request, as required by the LPA.

6.38 In providing a consulation into the consideration process for these EIA Opinion requests, The Conservancy considered the requests against The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. The EIA Regulations established that the proposals applicable thresholds and criteria (notably that the area of development exceeded 0.5ha) fell within Schedule 2: Category 3A Energy Industry: Part (a) Industrial installations for the production of electricity, steam and hot water.

6.39 The consideration process was to ascertain if an Environmental Statement (ES) was required as part of any planning application for the proposed works. The Conservancy considered that given the scale of the proposed development, an ES was not a requirement, as the proposal was considered to have a local, albit a significant impact, on the site and surroundings, but not a wider impact to the locailty, and that the impacts of the proposal would be covered within the normal assessment of the planning application including those documents as submitted during these stages. The LPA however concluded that an ES was a requirement and as such an Environmental Statement should accompany any planning application.

6.40 The list of documents at para.4.6 above comprise the application package. It is assumed that all the supporting documents form the Environmental Statement, albeit only one document (Environmental Statement Figures) is so named. This document comprises primarily of map images of the site and influences and impacts on it and the surrounding land areas.

6.41 The LPA requirement for an ES, as covered in their letter of 9 September 2020 (the Screening Opinion) identified the following as key to the required ES relevant to the AONB. - localised landscape and visual impact, but as within the AONB further considerations necessary - scope of the equipment to reflect or deflect light should be evaluated - probability of the impacts on the AONB & SPA need further assessment - cumulative impacts from the MoD site on the AONB & SPA need further assessment

6.42 The LPA requirement for an ES, as covered in their letter of 23 Octonber 2020 (the Scopining Opinion) identified the following as key omission that the ES should cover. - impact of the development on biodiversity and protected species (inc birds) - impact of the development on internationally designated sites - the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment

6.43 The submitted proposal and supporting documents are considered to offer a sufficient level of information to assess the proposal and its impact on the surrounding AONB

106 protected landscape and wildlife biodiversity.

Alternative Options

6.44 A more environmentally friendly solution to that of the grassland mounted array would be use existing building roof areas, or the large areas of tarmac/concrete around the site, or municipal grassed areas. Solar carports within the built-up area of the base could provide a more creative solution and remove the impact on the surrounding grassland and limit the spread of the built-up area onto the Local Wildlife Site.

Conclusion

6.45 The location of development is within an MoD army site with no unrestricted public access. The site itself is open, level, grassland. The MoD site has surrounding areas of similar land use within which an airstrip and circulation runways lie. This provides for a relative abundance of available, natural quality land with regenerative capacity.

6.46 The Conservancy consider that the proposal would have environmental implications particular to the AONB protected landascape and wildlife environment. The level of potential impact is considered to be significant and notwithstanding the suggested mitigation measures offeres, unlikley to warrant the proposal to preceed within the AONB.

6.47 The nature of the impact is predominantly visual within the flat open countryside landscape, and to the natural wildlife and vegetation of the site and the immediate surrounds. The ground mounted solar arrays would introduce a visual change from the grassland currently on the identified site. The solar array would reduce the natural flora and fauna available on the site.

6.48 The landscape mitigation and wildlife mitigation measures are welcomed, especially as being of a transboundary nature would all lie wholly within the MoD landholding and control. The mitigatory measures to address the development proposals inherent and identified impacts would not fully address or improve upon the exisitng situation.

6.49 The landscape mitigation would assist in screening the site and reducing views of the 2.58ha area supporting 2.8m high solar array pannels, the site itself distanced from the public footpath vantage points. However, this would not apply during the winter months when hedgerow planting is not in leaf and the stark nature of the arrays are visible.

6.50 The wildlife mitigation would improve the biodiversity of the translocated mitigation land within the blue-line land in the MoD wider landholding. However, this doubles- up the wildlife use of the receptor mitigated land, which has its own wildlife potential, rather than provideds additional land to increase the localitys wildlife capabilities.

107 6.51 The proposal is contrary to the AONB aims and role in protecting the landscape and wildlife. Alternative options could be explored to cater for the proposal without the level of dischord proposed, but this has not been displayed as having been assessed and discounted by the applicant / agent. The proposals impact on the AONB is considered unacceptable and thefore it is not supported.

CHC Planning Committee Process

DR - For 14.12.2020 CHC Planning Committee (meeting via internet) Assessment 07-12-2020 LPA request reply 22 December 2020 LPA extension of time has been sought LPA Planning Case Officer: Jane Thatcher – Planning Officer

Chichester Harbour AONB: David Rothery – Principal Planning Officer

This recommendation is made having regard to the Policy framework and relevant documents: - Chichester Harbour Landscape Character Assessment (CBA update 2019) - Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan (2019-2024) - Chichester Harbour AONB Planning Principles (Management Plan version April 2019) - Chichester Harbour AONB Joint Supplementary Planning Document SPD (2017) - National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) - National Planning Practice Guidance (March 2014) - Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies (2015) - Thorney Island Local Wildlife Site / Site of Nature Conservation Importance (attached) - LPA decision letter 30-10-2020 on EIA Scoping Opinion request (attached) - LPA decision letter 09-09-2020 on EIA Screening Opinion request (attached) - Application images sheet (plans, drawings, photographs, etc.) (attached)

108 WT/20/03047/FULEIA - Solar array on Land at MoD Baker Barracks, Thorney Road - images 1

Image 1: site location aerial image with application site marked Image 2: site position aerial image with red line marked (A-D refer to photo images later in document)

109 WT/20/03047/FULEIA - Solar array on Land at MoD Baker Barracks, Thorney Road - images 2

Images 3: photos across site from viewpoints A – B – C – D

110 WT/20/03047/FULEIA - Solar array on Land at MoD Baker Barracks, Thorney Road - images 3

Image 4: landscape viewpoints (submitted Landscape & Visual Impact Assessment LVIA para 7.1 -7.4) Image 5: aerial image showing red-line site location and surrounding public footpaths (LVIA para 5.5)

111 WT/20/03047/FULEIA - Solar array on Land at MoD Baker Barracks, Thorney Road - images 4

Image 6: proposed site location on OS base map Image 7: elevations of solar array frame

112 WT/20/03047/FULEIA - Solar array on Land at MoD Baker Barracks, Thorney Road - images 5

Image 8: proposed solar array panel frame separation distances Image 9: proposed typical switch-room cabin

Image 10: proposed typical inverter equipment cabinet detail

113 WT/20/03047/FULEIA - Solar array on Land at MoD Baker Barracks, Thorney Road - images 6

Image 11: proposed typical transformer unit Image 12: proposed solar array /fence / CCTV pole cross section Image 13: proposed typical solar panel

Image 14: proposed typical trench detail for cables

114 WT/20/03047/FULEIA - Solar array on Land at MoD Baker Barracks, Thorney Road - images 7

Image 15: proposed stock fence and timber post enclosure detail Image 16: proposed typical access gate to fencing detail

Image 17: photo looking north-west across site to military buildings

115 WT/20/03047/FULEIA - Solar array on Land at MoD Baker Barracks, Thorney Road - images 8

Image 18: proposal arrangement of solar array Image 19: photo looking south-east across site to scrub landscaping to historic church on horizon

116 WT/20/03047/FULEIA - Solar array on Land at MoD Baker Barracks, Thorney Road - images 9

Image 20: aerial image showing site and historic feature to south-east Image 21: aerial image showing possible landscape mitigation area to east of the red-line site

117 WT/20/03047/FULEIA - Solar array on Land at MoD Baker Barracks, Thorney Road - images 10

Image 22: aerial image showing possible wildlife mitigation area to north of the red-line site

Image 23 aerial image showing red-line site location and rest of island

118

Kayleigh Taylor 20/01925/EIA 09th September 2020 Direct Line: 01243 534849 Email: [email protected] BY EMAIL ONLY

Dear Alexis Tysler,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

Screening Opinion under Part II Regulation 5 – Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017.

Screening Opinion for installation of a ground mounted solar photovoltaic array together with associated infrastructure, security fencing, CCTV, access gate and cable route.

Site: Baker Barracks, Emsworth Road, Thorney Island

I refer to the above proposal which the Council has now assessed against the EIA Regulations. This letter now constitutes the Council’s formal Screening Opinion.

Background

This screening opinion request follows a previous screening opinion issued by the Council on 6th February 2020 (Ref: 19/03200/EIA). This concluded overall that the proposal did constitute EIA development due to the environmental conditions at the site and surroundings. The critical issues expected to be addressed in an Environmental Statement would be the impact of the development on biodiversity and protected species (including wintering birds) and internationally designated sites. Further to this the Environmental Statement should consider visual and landscape impacts given the site’s location in the AONB.

This revised request for a Screening Opinion is supported by the following survey reports:

 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (July 2020), The Landmark Practice  Bird Survey Report (July, 2020), The Landmark Practice  Shadow Habitat Regulations Assessment (July, 2020), The Landmark Practice  Flood Risk Assessment Incorporating Sustainable Drainage System (October 2019), Nijhuis Industries.  Construction Environmental Management Plan (Biodiversity) (July 2020), The Landmark Practice  Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (July 2020), The Landmark Practice  Landscape and Visual Impact Baseline Assessment (January 2020), The Landmark Practice

The Site and Its Surroundings

119 P a g e | 2

The application relates to a land parcel of 2.6ha located on the western edge of the former north-to-south runway at the Thorney Island military base. The site of the proposed PV solar installation is on flat, level, open ground and is comprised of tussocky grassland. On the western edge of the proposed site is the access/perimeter road at the former airfield and immediately beyond that are the large brick barrack buildings. By reason of its continued use for military training purposes the site necessarily has restricted public access. There is 1 public footpath hugging the coastline around the perimeter of the Island which is gated to control public access. Similarly, visitors to the site by car are first required to pass through a security checkpoint. Environmentally the site is in a particularly sensitive location. The site is located within the Chichester Harbour AONB and Thorney Island Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). It is surrounded by EU Special Protection Area for the conservation of birds, the Chichester and Langstone Harbour RAMSAR, Chichester SAC and the Chichester Harbour SSSI.

The Proposed Development

Installation of a ground mounted photovoltaic solar array to provide approximately 1.5MW generation capacity together with associated infrastructure, security fencing, CCTV and access gate.

The site boundary would be enclosed by a 2.2m high deer proof fence with pedestrian and vehicle access gates. Solar panels (typically 1.63m x 0.97m) mounted on frames approximately 2.8m high are shown arranged in rows facing south. The solar panel frames would be anchored to the ground via the vertical steels of the framework driven into the ground to a depth pf 1.4m with the existing grassland left in situ in-between. In terms of associated equipment, the proposed drawings show an inverter cabin (typically 0.6m x 0.60m x 1.2m high) on the north- eastern boundary as well as a switchroom cabin (typically 4m x 3m x 3m high) housing the transformer and 2 no. pole mounted infra-red cameras (max height 3.6m), one at each end (N and S) of the development. No floodlighting is proposed. Cabling would be concealed in trenches.

It is anticipated that the PV solar panels will generate up to 1.5MW of electricity annually. The on-site first year carbon saving is estimated to equate to a 33% reduction over the existing carbon emissions on site from electricity consumption. Power produced from the solar site will be directly consumed by the barracks with any excess spilt to the grid.

The proposed development would have an expected life-span of 30 years, after which the solar park would be dismantled and the site would be returned to its original state.

The Council’s Screening Opinion

The Council is satisfied having looked at the Regulations that the proposal is not Schedule 1 development.

The proposal is considered to be development within category 3(a) of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 20117: Industrial installations for the production of electricity, steam and hot water. Given the area of development exceeds the 0.5ha threshold applicable to category 3(a) development, the proposal needs to be screened by the local planning authority to determine whether significant effects on the environment are likely and hence whether an Environmental Impact Assessment is required.

Furthermore, the site is located in a ‘sensitive area’ as defined in regulation 2(1), as it is within an AONB and is approximately 0.3km to a SSSI and SPA, 0.7km to a SAC (European sites).

120 P a g e | 3

Development listed in Schedule 2 requires EIA if it is likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue of factors such as its size, nature or location. This is expanded within Schedule 3 of the Regulations, which provides selection criteria for screening Schedule 2 development. These must be taken into account in determining whether a development is likely to have significant effects on the environment. Not all of the criteria will be relevant in every case. Schedule 3 identifies three broad criteria which should be considered:

1) Characteristics of the development (e.g. its size, cumulative effect with other developments, use of natural resources, quantities of pollution and waste generated); 2) Environmental sensitivity of the location; and 3) Characteristics of the potential impact (e.g. its magnitude and duration)

1. Characteristics of the development

(a) Size and design of the whole development

The application site measures 2.6ha and therefore exceeds the indicative threshold for category 3(a) development of 0.5ha.

(b) Cumulation with other existing development and/or approved development

The site lies within the larger development area of Baker Barracks (total land holding approximately 590ha). There is an extensive planning history for Baker Barraks. The buildings and infrastructure of the barracks lies largely to the west of the site. The land to the north, east and south of the site is predominantly open with grass bisected by former runways and taxiways associated with the barracks.

There are no existing major solar PV developments on Thorny Island.

It is noted that the process of manufacturing the equipment will be resource intensive and natural resources will be required in the construction process and for delivery and installation. The development will however present opportunities to provide significant benefits in terms of energy use over the longer term.

(d) The production of waste

It is considered that waste generated through the construction period could be adequately managed by a Construction and Environmental Management Pan (CEMP).

There would be no anticipated waste by-products from the operation of the solar park. After the life-span of the PV panels, a planning condition could ensure that the solar park would be dismantled and all equipment removed from the site. The panels, metal racking and fencing are all recyclable.

(e) Pollution and nuisances

The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer has commented that given the scale of ground works associated with a development of this type it is not considered that the development

121 P a g e | 4 requires EIA with respect to potential to create or by affected by land contamination. All soil arisings must be disposed of in accordance with relevant Waste Regulations. A previous site investigation at Baker Barracks identified elevated concentrations of DDT contamination in certain locations. A condition should be applied if a future planning application is submitted, to require waste soils to be tested prior to disposal with respect to potential DDT contamination. The potential air quality and noise impacts associated with this type of development do not merit an EIA.

Impacts from noise, dust, waste, fuel storage, lighting and transport can be controlled during the construction phase through a Constructive Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). A condition should be applied to any future planning application to require a CEMP to be submitted.

It is noted that a CEMP has been submitted with this screening opinion request. This would need to be submitted with any future planning application for detailed consideration by officers.

(f) The risk of major accidents and/or disasters relevant to the development concerned, including those caused by climate change, in accordance with scientific knowledge

The site is within flood zones 2 and 3 (high risk), the submitted covering letter sets out the following mitigation measures: Panels being set (where possible) above any anticipated flood level, inverter and DNO substations being set above the outlined flood depths if possible. Sufficient spacing between the piles supporting the panels to minimise flow disruption during a flood event. The security fencing mesh sizing being made as large as reasonably practical to reduce the chance of blockage and obstruction of flow routes.

The conceptual SuDS scheme proposes to reduce the runoff rate to less than the undeveloped (current) runoff rates, as storage and infiltration on site will be improved and a swale system could allow the interception, redistribution and infiltration of the flows from across the site.

The Council’s Coastal Protection and Land Drainage Engineer has reviewed the current submission, including the "Flood Risk Assessment Incorporating Sustainable Drainage System" and is satisfied that the impacts on flood risk / surface water drainage should not be significant, and can be mitigated by the proposals contained in the FRA.

(g) The risks to human health (for example, due to water contamination or air pollution)

Due to the nature of the proposed development, it is expected that the likelihood of risk to human health would be low.

2. Location of the development

(a) The existing and approved land use

Having regard to the Secretary of State’s decision and Planning Inspector’s report for a 41MW solar farm at Wroughton Airfield, Swindon (ref: APP/U3935/V/14/221672), it is considered that the grassland contained within the application site is previously developed land as it is within the curtilage of the former RAF airfield. The proposal would therefore not result in the loss of the highest quality or best and most versatile agricultural land.

122 P a g e | 5

The LPA consulted the safeguarding department for the Ministry of Defence on 19/03200/EIA whom raised no objections to the proposal.

(b) Relative abundance, quality and regenerative capacity of natural resources in the area

The solar panels would face south and be mounted at approximately 25 degrees to maximise renewable energy generation. It is unlikely that there would be material harm to non-renewable natural resources in the area.

Wetlands, Nature Reserves and European sites

The site is within Thorney Island Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). It is surrounded by EU Special Protection Area (SPA) for the conservation of birds, the Chichester and Langstone Harbour RAMSAR, Chichester SAC and the Chichester Harbour SSSI. There are records of overwintering birds such as Brent Geese within 1km of the site. Overwintering birds make extensive use of inland fields for feeding. Through the installation of equipment and change in character and use of the land, the proposed development therefore has the potential to disturb the natural habitat and behaviour of these species, and as a result, the internationally designated sites.

A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Bird Report, and Shadow Habitat Regulations Assessment have been prepared by The Landmark Practice and inform this request for an EIA Screening Direction.

The LPA have consulted Natural England whom have commented that on the basis of the material supplied with the consultation, that there are potential likely significant effects on statutorily designated nature conservation sites or landscapes and further assessment is required.

The Council’s Ecological Strategy Officer has also recommended that an EIA is required in order to determine the impact development of this nature would have on the site and the wider habitat. Due to its location to the SPA a Habitat Regulations Assessment may also be required for this proposal. Following submission the environmental site assessments with this screening option these documents appear to have an appropriate scope and could be considered acceptable for a further application.

The submitted reports could form chapters within an Environmental Statement to accompany any future planning application to be formally considered by officers.

Landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeological significance

The site is with the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The LPA previously consulted Chichester Harbour Conservancy on 19/03200/EIA, whom stated that the Landscape Character Assessment (CBA update 2019) prepared for the Conservancy, identifies the site sits within the Zone G2: Thorney Island Landscape Character area type.

123 P a g e | 6

Whilst the Chichester Harbour Conservancy concluded for 19/03200/EIA that they do not consider EIA necessary, the Local Planning Authority considered that the impact on the immediate surrounding is unknown and there could be a potential impact on the landscape. As such, further information to assess the impact of the development on the landscape would be required in the Environmental Statement.

The revised request for a Screening Opinion is accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment prepared by The Landmark Practice. This identifies medium distant views (0.5 - 1.5km) towards the site are afforded from footpaths in the surrounding area, including footpath 202 (Sussex Border Path) which skirts the edge of Thorney Island. However, these are heavily restricted, with the site well contained by existing vegetation and buildings. Distant, elevated views towards the site are afforded from the South Downs National Park, but at distances of over 5km the site was found to be screened or barely perceptable due to existing intervening vegetation. The report recommends new off-site native scrub planting. Subject to this mitigation the submitted assessment concludes that the site is capable of accommodating the proposed development without harmful adverse effects on views and the landscape character of the site and the wider context, including Chichester Harbour AONB.

This Landscape and Visual Impact Baseline Assessment could form part of the relevant chapters of the Environment Statement. Further consideration would be given at application stage in consultation with Chichester Harbour Conservancy.

The Council’s Archeologist has maintained their view and has commented that there would be little to be gained from the inclusion of archaeology in an assessment of environmental impact. In the absence of any specific information with which to assess the archaeological potential of this site we can only assume that it has a likelihood to contain archaeological interest that is typical of the general area. On this basis it is probably correct to conclude that it has no more than a moderate potential to contain deposits of interest dating from the later prehistoric and Romano-British periods. The effect of the proposed development on any such deposits would be best mitigated through the application of a process of archaeological observation and recording to the most significant ground-works, and this could be secured via a suitable standard condition on a grant of planning permission.

The nearest listed Building is the Grade I Listed Parish Church of St Nicholas, approximately 0.9km from the application site and is in the settlement of West Thorney outside the barrack’s boundary. There is intervening vegetation as such, it is considered that the proposal wouldn’t result in material harm to the setting of this listed building.

3. Characteristics of the potential impact

(a) the magnitude and spatial extent of the impact (for example geographical area and size of the population likely to be affected);

The most significant impacts are expected to be the potential for ecological impacts on the designated European sites as discussed above.

Visually and in landscape terms, the extent of the impact is likely to be relatively localised. Nonetheless, the site is within the AONB and further consideration should be given to landscape views.

WSCC Highways were consulted on the earlier screening request (19/03200/EIA) and commented that the application site is located on an MOD army base were all roads are 124 P a g e | 7 privately maintained, this is accessed off Emsworth Road a 'C' Classified no through Road subject to 40 mph. Construction traffic to and from the site is not anticipated to generate a material increase of trips over existing practices of the base. The Local Highway Authority concluded that it does not consider that this proposal would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety or result in 'severe' cumulative impacts on the operation of the highway network.

Under the consultation for this screening opinion, WSCC Highways noted that:

 A construction traffic management plan will be submitted with the planning application  There will be minimal on-site activity giving rise to road traffic during the operational phase of the development  The road traffic impacts of the decommissioning phase can be managed within guidelines pertaining at the time.

Therefore, the WSCC again concluded that they do not consider that the highway impacts of the development would warrant an EIA.

(b) the nature of the impact;

The nature of the impact would be localised on SPA and AONB, there would be limited impact on the road network. There is unlikely to be impact further afield

The application site, lies wholly within the MOD landholding and control. There would be no transboundary impact as the application site is entirely within Chichester District and the impacts of the development would be localised.

(d) the intensity and complexity of the impact;

The proposed solar equipment is not complex in form or unique in the District or further afield. The scope of the equipment to reflect or deflect light should be evaluated with attention paid to any disturbance or interruption caused to aircraft used by the MOD or others.

(e) the probability of the impact

The probability of the impacts on the AONB and SPA need to considered through further assessment.

(f) the expected onset, duration, frequency and reversibility of the impact;

If the above concerns were satisfactorily addressed and planning permission were to be granted, it is expected that the development would be implemented within 36 months, with adherence to any agreed environmental protection and/or mitigation strategies secured through planning conditions. It is proposed that all equipment will be removed at the end of its operational life, estimated to be around 30 years, and the land restored

(g) the cumulation of the impact with the impact of other existing and/or approved development;

The impact of the proposed development in combination with the existing development on the barracks on the SPA and AONB would need to be further considered.

125 P a g e | 8

(h) the possibility of effectively reducing the impact.

Opportunities to effectively reduce the impact or to mitigate the effects of the impact on the SPA and AONB need to be considered fully.

Summary and Conclusion

This assessment has considered the nature, scale and location of the proposal and the particular environmental conditions of the site and surroundings. Overall, it is considered that the proposal does constitute EIA development and will require the submission of an Environmental Statement (ES) with any planning application. The critical issue expected to be addressed in an ES would be the impact of the development on biodiversity and protected species (including wintering birds) and internationally designated sites. Further to this the ES should consider visual and landscape impacts, given the site’s location in the AONB.

It is noted that a number of reports have been submitted to support this current request for a screening opinion. As outlined above, these could form the relevant chapters of an ES and appear to have an appropriate scope, subject to further review at application stage. If you would want further detailed advice about the content of the ES you should submit a full scoping request.

This screening opinion will be placed on the public register.

Yours sincerely signed Kayleigh Taylor Senior Planning Officer

126

Kayleigh Taylor Direct Line: 01243 534849 Email: [email protected] 23rd October 2020 Our ref: 20/02344/EIA

BY EMAIL ONLY

Dear Alexis Tysler,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

Scoping Opinion under Part 4 Regulation 15 – Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017.

Scoping Opinion for installation of a ground mounted solar photovoltaic array together with associated infrastructure, security fencing, CCTV, access gate and cable route.

Site: Baker Barracks, Emsworth Road, Thorney Island

I refer to the above request, submitted under the provisions of Regulation 15 of the Town and Country Planning Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 2017 (as amended) (EIA Regulations), and Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (Habitat Regulations). The request was received on 15/09/2020.

Background

This scoping opinion follows the Council’s screening opinions ref: 19/03200/EIA issued 06/02/2020 and ref: 20/01925/EIA issued 09/09/2020.

These concluded overall that the proposal did constitute EIA development due to the environmental conditions at the site and surroundings. The critical issues expected to be addressed in an Environmental Statement would be the impact of the development on biodiversity and protected species (including wintering birds) and internationally designated sites. Further to this the Environmental Statement should consider visual and landscape impacts given the site’s location in the AONB.

This request for a Scoping Opinion is supported by the following survey reports:

127 P a g e | 2

 Ecological Impact Assessment (July 2020), The Landmark Practice  Flood Risk Assessment Incorporating Sustainable Drainage System (October 2019), Nijhuis Industries  Construction Environmental Management Plan (Biodiversity) (July 2020), The Landmark Practice  Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (July 2020), The Landmark Practice  Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (January 2020), The Landmark Practice  Request for EIA Screening Opinion Report (July 2020), Public Power Solutions Ltd

The Council’s Scoping Opinion

In accordance with Regulation 15 (6) of the EIA Regulations, before adopting a scoping opinion, the authority must take into account: a) any information provided by the applicant about the proposed development; b) the specific characteristics of the particular development; c) the specific characteristics of development of the type concerned; and d) the environmental features likely to be significantly affected by the development.

Consultations were sent to the following statutory and other consultees:

 Southbourne Parish  Natural England*  The Environment Agency*  Southern Electric*  National Air Traffic Enquiries  Ministry of Defence  The Council For British Archaeology  Chichester Harbour Conservancy*  WSCC Highway Authority*  CDC Archaeology Officer*  CDC Environmental Protection*  CDC Environmental Strategy*  CDC Coastal and Drainage Engineer

Key and relevant points from the advice received from these consultees are referred to, as required, below. Those consultees who provided a response are marked with an asterix*.

The Site and Its Surroundings

128 P a g e | 3 checkpoint. Environmentally the site is in a particularly sensitive location. The site is located within the Chichester Harbour AONB and Thorney Island Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). It is surrounded by EU Special Protection Area for the conservation of birds, the Chichester and Langstone Harbour RAMSAR, Chichester SAC and the Chichester Harbour SSSI.

The Proposed Development

Installation of a ground mounted photovoltaic solar array to provide approximately 1.5MW generation capacity together with associated infrastructure, security fencing, CCTV and access gate.

The proposed development would have an expected life-span of 30 years, after which the solar park would be dismantled and the site would be returned to its original state.

Environmental features likely to be significantly affected

The submitted documents do not include a scoping report, nonetheless the Local Planning Authority has reviewed the submitted information and concludes that the following topics should be scoped in to the ES.

Topics to be scoped in:

1. The impact of the development on biodiversity and protected species (including wintering birds) and internationally designated sites.

A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Bird Report, Shadow Habitat Regulations Assessment and an Ecological Impact Assessment have been prepared by The Landmark Practice and inform this request for an EIA Scoping Opinion.

129 P a g e | 4

The Council’s Environmental Strategy Officer has commented that ‘We have reviewed this application and due to the sites location close to Chichester and Langstone Harbours (SPA) we can confirm an EIA is required to determine the impact development of this nature would have on the site and the wider habitat. Due to its location to the SPA a Habitat Regulations Assessment will also be required for this proposal. Following submission of the Ecological Impact Assessment and Bird Survey Report with this scoping opinion these documents have the appropriate scope and are considered to be acceptable for a further application.’

The LPA have consulted Natural England have provided detailed comments on what the scope of the ES, see section 2 relating to Biodiversity and Geology.

2. Visual and landscape impacts given the site’s location in the AONB.

This Scoping Opinion is accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment prepared by The Landmark Practice. This sets out the methodology used in appendix A which is appropriate in scope. The report identifies medium distant views (0.5 - 1.5km) towards the site are afforded from footpaths in the surrounding area, including footpath 202 (Sussex Border Path) which skirts the edge of Thorney Island. However, these are heavily restricted, with the site well contained by existing vegetation and buildings. Distant, elevated views towards the site are afforded from the South Downs National Park, but at distances of over 5km the site was found to be screened or barely perceptable due to existing intervening vegetation. The report recommends new off-site native scrub planting. Subject to this mitigation the submitted assessment concludes that the site is capable of accommodating the proposed development without harmful adverse effects on views and the landscape character of the site and the wider context, including Chichester Harbour AONB.

The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Baseline Assessment is acceptable in scope and should form part of the ES.

Further guidance can be found in section 3 of Natural England’s consultation response and Chichester Harbour Conservancy’s comments.

3. Climate change adaption

Please see guidance contained in section 6 of Natural England’s consultation response.

Topics that can be scoped out of the ES and dealt with through the planning process:

1. Highways impacts

The WSCC Highway Authority have commented ‘The highway authority does not consider that detailed information on the traffic and transport impacts of the proposal is required within the proposed EIA. An abbreviated statement outlining the likely impacts and consistent with the information provided by the applicant under reference 20/01925/EIA should be sufficient.’

2. Impact on heritage assets

130 P a g e | 5

The Council’s Archaeologist has commented ‘There is no record of any sites or finds of archaeological interest within or in the vicinity of this site, so there would seem to be little to be gained from the inclusion of archaeology in an assessment of environmental impact. In the absence of any specific information with which to assess archaeological potential we can only assume that there is a likelihood for the site to contain archaeological interest that is typical of the general area. On this basis it is probably correct to conclude that it has no more than a moderate potential to contain deposits of interest dating from the later prehistoric and Romano- British periods. The effect of the proposed development on any such deposits would be best mitigated through the application of a process of archaeological observation and recording to the most significant ground-works, and this could be secured via a suitable standard condition on a grant of planning permission.’

3. Land contamination

The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer commented (under 20/01925/EIA) ‘Given the scale of ground works associated with a development of this type it is not considered that the development requires EIA with respect to potential to create or by affected by land contamination. All soil arisings must be disposed of in accordance with relevant Waste Regulations.

A previous site investigation at Baker Barracks identified elevated concentrations of DDT contamination in certain locations. A condition should be applied if a future planning application is submitted, to require waste soils to be tested prior to disposal with respect to potential DDT contamination.’

4. Air quality

The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer commented (under 20/01925/EIA) ‘The potential air quality and noise impacts associated with this type of development do not merit an EIA.’

5. Construction impacts

The Council’s Environmental Protection Officer commented (under 20/01925/EIA) ‘Impacts from noise, dust, waste, fuel storage, lighting and transport can be controlled during the construction phase through a Constructive Environmental Management Plan. A condition should be applied to any future planning application to require a CEMP to be submitted.’

6. Flood risk and drainage

The Council’s Coastal and Drainage Engineer commented (under 20/01925/EIA) ‘We have reviewed the application, including the "Flood Risk Assessment Incorporating Sustainable Drainage System". We have no grounds to require an EIA, as we are satisfied the impacts on flood risk / surface water drainage should not be significant, and can be mitigated by the proposals contained in the FRA.

Further to this the Environment Agency has commented that due to the nature of the

131 P a g e | 6 development and the mitigation measures that have been outlined, they have no objections to the development.

7. Access and Recreation

Notwithstanding section 4 of Natural England’s response, the Local Planning Authority are satisfied given the nature and location of the proposal that there is no need to scope this into the ES.

8. Soil and Agricultural Land Quality

Notwithstanding section 5 of Natural England’s response, the Local Planning Authority are satisfied given the nature and location of the proposal that there is no need to scope this into the ES.

9. Cumulative and in-combination effects

Notwithstanding section 4 of Natural England’s response, the Local Planning Authority are satisfied given the nature and location of the proposal that there is no need to scope this into the ES.

I trust the above advice will be informative in the preparation of the Environmental Statement to accompany a planning application. Please find Natural England’s and Chichester Harbour Conservancy’s consultation responses attached.

Yours sincerely signed Kayleigh Taylor Senior Planning Officer

132 133 134 135 136 Officer Delegated Decisions – 4 November to 7 December 2020. Agenda Item 6

` Application No CHC PO Site Application Details Recommendation 04/11/2020 BO/20/02224/FUL DR MILLMEADOW, STORAGE SHED FOR MAINTENANCE No objection QUAY MEADOW, EQUIPMENT. Suggested considerations: BOSHAM, - matching materials CHICHESTER, - colour finish a dark tone of WEST SUSSEX, green, khaki, brown or black PO18 8LZ 04/11/2020 APP/20/00819 DR 139 EASTOKE APPLICATION FOR LAWFUL DEVELOPMENT No objection - no conditions AVENUE, HAYLING CERTIFICATE RELATING TO THE offered as proposal is for ISLAND CONTINUED SITING Lawful Development OF 2NO. STATIC CARAVANS. Certificate for an existing use 04/11/2020 BO/20/02816/DOM DR ARANA, GREEN PROPOSED SINGLE STOREY REAR No objection LANE, BOSHAM, EXTENSION. Suggested considerations: PO18 8NT - matching materials - tinted glass panels - working internal screen blinds 04/11/2020 APP/20/00828 DR 70 SEA VIEW SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AND No objection (no planning ROAD, HAYLING TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION. condition controls suggested ISLAND, PO11 9PE as retrospective submission) 10/11/2020 APP/20/00949 DR 22 SPINNAKER SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION No objection GROVE, HAYLING Suggested considerations ISLAND, PO11 0SJ - materials to match existing - tinted glazing panels / working internal screen blinds - all external lighting to be cowled

137 ` Application No CHC PO Site Application Details Recommendation 10/11/2020 APP/20/00643 DR 22 KING STREET, RECONSULTATION - DEMOLITION OF No objection EMSWORTH PO10 EXISTING CONSERVATORY, ERECTION OF Suggested considerations: 7AZ SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION. - matching materials ALTERATIONS TO FENESTRATION AND - tinted glass panels NEW BALUSTRADE TO EXISTING BALCONY - working internal screen PARAPET. blinds - wildlife survey prior to demolition - external lighting cowls 10/11/2020 APP/20/00909 DR 12 TOWER FELL 1NO.TREE OF HEAVEN WITHIN No objection STREET, CONSERVATION AREA OF EMSWORTH. Suggested considerations EMSWORTH, PO10 - no works during the bird 7BH nesting season or if evidence of bat roosting 10/11/2020 BO/20/02425/DOM DR BROADFIELD, OLD CANTILIEVERED SIDE EXTENSION. No objection. PARK LANE, Suggested consideration: BOSHAM, - materials to match existing. CHICHESTER, WEST SUSSEX, PO18 8EX 11/11/2020 BO/20/02538/DOM DR 2 HARBOUR 5 NO. REPLACEMENT WINDOWS ON FRONT No objection. VILLAS, SHORE ELEVATION (GROUND AND FIRST FLOORS). Suggested consideration: ROAD, BOSHAM, - materials to match existing CHICHESTER, WEST SUSSEX, PO18 8HZ 11/11/2020 WI/20/02549/DOM DR SHIP COTTAGE, REPLACEMENT OF MODERN REAR No objection THE STREET, EXTENSIONS WITH SINGLE STOREY REAR Suggested considerations ITCHENOR, EXTENSION, MODIFICATION OF - materials to match existing

138 ` Application No CHC PO Site Application Details Recommendation CHICHESTER, FENESTRATION. INTERNAL ALTERATIONS, - internal screen blinds to all WEST SUSSEX. INSTALLATION OF ROOFLIGHT AND PV glazing PANELS TO HIDDEN ROOF VALLEY. - tinted glazing ADDITION OF CAR PORT TO GARAGE. - wildlife survey prior to REPLACEMENT OF GARDEN WORKSHOP demolition WITH SUMMERHOUSE AND REPAINTING OF EXTERIOR. 11/11/2020 CH/20/02027/DOM DR 8 MAYBUSH ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY SIDE/REAR No objection DRIVE, EXTENSION. Suggested considerations. NUTBOURNE, - materials to match existing PO18 8SS - internal screen blinds to all glazing - tinted glazing - wildlife survey prior to demolition 18/11/2020 WI/20/02655/DOM DR ITCHENOR GATE, RE-THATCHING OF THE EXISTING ROOF No objection ITCHENOR ROAD, AND REPAIR AND RAISING OF THE Suggested consideration; – WEST ITCHENOR, CHIMNEY TO 1.8M ABOVE THE RIDGE. - matching materials PO20 7DD 26/11/2020 O/20/02471/FUL SL LAND TO THE ERECTION OF 143 DWELLINGS, WITH Recommendation – Holding SOUTH OF ASSOCIATED ACCESS, PARKING, objection: OVING PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING, - development needs to be ROAD/B2144, EXTENSION TO RESIDENTIAL shown to be nitrate neutral SHOPWHYKE, CURTILAGES OF EXISTING - better pedestrian WEST SUSSEX PROPERTIES ALONG OVING ROAD AND integration between site OTHER ASSOCIATED WORKS. and Chichester - increase in number of bird and bat boxes - additional SRMP mitigation contribution

139 ` Application No CHC PO Site Application Details Recommendation through a S106 - proportionate amount of public open space within the development - foul and surface water drainage - new planting - authorised tree clearance outside bird breeding/nesting season - tree protection - ecological mitigation/enhancement - sustainable urban drainage systems / maintenance - improved design, layout and connectivity with Chichester 30/11/2020 APP/20/00897 DR 7 OYSTER CLOSE, SINGLE STOREY GROUND FLOOR REAR No objection HAYLING ISLAND, EXTENSION Suggested considerations PO11 9FP - materials to match the existing - tinted glass panels - all windows to have internal screen blinds - cowling on all external lighting

140 ` Application No CHC PO Site Application Details Recommendation 30/11/2020 BI/20/02184/DOM DR NIGHTINGALES, 1 SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND No objection FLORENCE CLOSE, CHANGE OF USE OF LOFT TO HABITABLE Suggested considerations: BIRDHAM, PO20 ACCOMMODATION. - matching materials 7DX - tinted glass panels - working internal screen blinds - wildlife survey prior to demolition 30/11/2020 CH/20/02662/DOM DR CANIGOU, COT SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION No objection LANE, CHIDHAM, Suggested considerations: - CHICHESTER, matching materials WEST SUSSEX. - tinted glass panels PO18 8SP - working internal screen blinds - wildlife survey prior to demolition - recent planning permission for ground floor rear extension should be surrendered 30/11/2020 SB/20/02769/DOM DR HARBOUR WAY, REMOVAL OF EXISTING CONSERVATORY No objection. PRINSTED LANE, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE- Suggested considerations: PRINSTED, STOREY, FLAT-ROOF REAR EXTENSION. - matching materials SOUTHBOURNE, - tinted glass panels PO10 8HT - working internal screen blinds - wildlife survey prior to demolition 02/12/2020 APP/20/01024 DR 22 FRANKLAND FIRST FLOOR BALCONY TO REAR WITH No objection. TERRACE, REVISED FENESTRATION. Suggested considerations:

141 ` Application No CHC PO Site Application Details Recommendation EMSWORTH, PO10 - matching materials 7BA - tinted glass panels - working internal screen blinds - external lighting cowls 02/12/2020 WI/20/02636/FUL DR LAND WEST OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC Our application so no objection ITCHENOR GATE ACCESSIBLE CYCLE WAY FOR THE RE- FARM, ITCHENOR ROUTING OF SALTERNS WAY CYCLE WAY, ROAD, WEST TO INCLUDE NEW 2 NO. CULVERTS. ITCHENOR, WEST SUSSEX 02/12/2020 BI/20/02966/DOM DR TIDES REACH, 30 PROPOSED SINGLE STOREY SIDE INFILL No objection GREENACRES, SIDE EXTENSION Suggested considerations: BIRDHAM, - matching materials CHICHESTER, - tinted glass panels WEST SUSSEX, - working internal screen PO20 7HL blinds 02/12/2020 APP/20/01073 DR 1 RIVERSIDE 1NO SILVER BIRCH – REDUCE BY 4M AND No objection TERRACE, RESHAPE Suggested consideration: EMSWORTH, PO10 - no works should be carried 7SS out during the bird nesting season 07/12/2020 SB/20/00397/DOM DR/COM BLACK CAT REVISED PLANS - PROPOSED Objection COTTAGE, MAIN DETACHED OUTBUILDING AS ANNEX ROAD, (ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION TO THE NUTBOURNE, MAIN DWELLING) PO18 8RT

142