PLANNING COMMITTEE 24th June 2015

Report of Head of Planning Services

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPEALS, COURT AND POLICY MATTERS

This report updates Committee Members on current appeals and other matters. It would be of assistance if specific questions on individual cases could be directed to officers in advance of the meeting.

Note for public viewing via District Council web site: To read each file in detail, including the full appeal decision when it is issued, click on the reference number (NB certain enforcement cases are not open for public inspection, but you will be able to see the key papers via the automatic link to the Planning Inspectorate).

WR – Written Representation Appeal H – Hearing I – Inquiry ( ) – Case Officer initials * – Committee level decision

1. NEW APPEALS

Reference/Procedure Proposal

BO/14/03168/COUPJ The Mill Ham Farm, Main Road, , Chichester WR (C Boddy) West , PO18 8EH - Part 3, Class J: Change of use from B1(a) office to C3 residential.

CH/14/00181/CONMHC Field West Of Five Oaks, Newells Lane, West Ashling I (S Archer) - Stationing of mobile home.

SI/14/04249/ELD Magnolia Cottage, Cloverlands, Chalder Lane, , WR (P Kneen) Chichester, West Sussex, PO20 7RJ- To continue use of building as a single dwelling.

SB/14/03134/OUT Outline application (access only). Provision of 150 dwellings I (J Bell) comprising 14 no. 1 bed apartments, 38 no. 2 bed houses, 75 no. 3 bed houses, 13 no. 4 bed houses and 10 no. 5 bed houses, together with associated access, roads, garages and parking spaces, open amenity space and play areas. Provision of 2 no. sports facilities and changing facilities. 2. DECISIONS RECEIVED

Reference/Decision *SDNP/14/01085/FUL Wassell Barn, , , GU28 9LD – Replacement WR (D Price) dwelling. Ebernoe DISMISSED

" The appeal is dismissed, The main issues are: - whether the loss of Wassell Barn, a non designated heritage asset, is justified having regard to its significance and, - whether the proposed development would conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the South Downs National Park. ... There is a consensus that Wassell Barn was an intrinsic element of this managed landscape over a considerable period of time and the historical importance of that landscape, I consider that the building derived significance as a heritage asset from its long-standing association with it. ... I attach little weight to the fact there are other and possibly better examples of field barns in the immediate area or the wider National Park. None of these other examples share the unique relationship of Wassell Barn to the managed landscape with which it is associated. In that context, Wassell Barn is an irreplaceable resource in the context of paragraph 126 of the Framework. ... Consequently, although the outcome of the residential conversion is not without defect, the objective of securing the long-term future of a building of historic interest that was behind the grant of planning permission to a residential use has been achieved. this is a matter to which I attach considerable weight. I conclude that the loss of the non designated heritage asset is not justified having regard to its significance. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be contrary to Policies RE1, BE4, BE11 and H12 of the Local Plan First Review 1999. ... I therefore consider that the proposed replacement dwelling is, by reason of its size, height, bulk and overall design, not appropriate in this rural location. I accept that the proposed building would not be widely visible in the landscape although I observed on my site visit that the existing Wassell Barn is clearly visible from Streels lane and on approach to the site itself. ... I conclude that the proposed development would fail to conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the South Downs Nation Park. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be contrary to Policies RE1, BE11 and H12 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999. ... In overall terms, I conclude that the harm resulting from the proposed development in terms of the environmental dimension significantly outweighs any benefits in relation to the social and economic dimensions. I therefore conclude that the proposed replacement dwelling would not constitute a sustainable form of development, and therefore does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the Framework."

SDNP/14/05310/HOUS 4 Wellfield Cottages, Tipper Lane, , Petersfield WR (C Cranmer) West Sussex, GU31 5QN - Loft conversion with rear dormer Petworth and front porch amendment to refused application DISMISSED SDNP/14/03063 rear dormer reduced in size.

"... The roofs of the terrace appear far more prominent and visually intrusive viewed from Tipper Lane. ... The terrace which is seen from, and in views into, the adjacent conservation area. ... The character or appearance of an area can be sensitive to change arising from development outside of the designated area, as this contributes to the wider setting. ... Its elevated position above Tipper Lane means that its visual impact on the host building would be significant and detrimental. ... Large and dominant feature on the roofslope. ... the development would detract form views on approach to the historic area. ... It is not evident that flat roofed dormer windows of the size, scale and proportion relative to the roofslope, are prevalent in the vicinity. ..." PS/14/01968/OUT Land west of The Lane, , – residential WR (P Kneen) development comprising 4 dwellings with associated car DISMISSED parking and landscaping. Formation of new access from The Lane.

" The appeal is dismissed. ... The main issue is whether or not the development is acceptable, having regard to its location and proposed density, the development plan, the Framework and other material considerations....The appeal site comprises an open agricultural field currently laid to pasture.... To the north of and beyond the built-up part of the village of Ifold, outside the SPA, its character is distinctly rural. ...In my view the site is somewhat divorced from the main built up area and the built development would in fact be separated from it by the open back gardens of the adjoining properties to the south and by the belt of preserved trees which forms the southern part of the site. ... To my mind the proposed development would not relate well to the existing built form or pattern of the village but would result in an illogical built incursion into the surrounding countryside resulting in significant harm to its intrinsic character and beauty thus failing to take account of its role and character, contrary to the Framework and to LP Policy BE11. ... In my view, the area within which the appeal site is located displays an attractive rural character to which the appeal site contributes by virtue of the many mature trees within it, its natural field boundaries and agricultural character. To my mind, despite its low density and the retention of some of these features, the residential development proposed would harm that character and appearance, contrary to LP Policy RE5. ... The adverse impacts would be such as to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development, notwithstanding that in the light of the lack of a five year supply, such benefits are given significant weight. I therefore conclude that this appeal should be dismissed."

PS/14/02579/FUL Kings Copse, Loxwood Road, Plaistow, Billingshurst, RH14 WR (M Tomlinson) 0PE - Construction of tennis court with 2.7m high chain link DISMISSED fence

"... It is evident from the planning history of the site that the replacement dwelling required a reconfiguration of the residential curtilage of Kings Copse in order to accommodate a larger building in a less intrusive location further back from the highway. Although I have not been provided with details of the exact areas involved, I have been provided with a copy of the Section 106 Agreement, together with the associated plans showing the areas to be transferred into and out of the residential curtilage. It is evident from these plans that the loss and gain of residential curtilage were effectively balanced, such that there would be no significant overall change in the residential curtilage of this dwelling in the countryside. This represents a logical reason for the Section 106 Agreement and a logical approach to protecting the countryside. Approximately 90% of the tennis court now proposed would be within the area of land identified in the Section 106 Agreement as being returned to a paddock. This would effectively extend the residential curtilage of Kings Copse into an area which, in accordance with the terms of the Section 106 Agreement, should be within the countryside and used for a purpose appropriate in the countryside. Not only would this in part negate the prime objective behind the Section 106 Agreement, it would also result in an incongruous and inappropriate use in the countryside. I attach no weight to the fact that the tennis court could not be located at the rear of the house, which provides no justification for extending the residential curtilage into the countryside. The appellant seeks to defend the proposal by pointing out that the tennis court would be viewed in connection with the dwelling, such that it in visual terms it would appear logical and well related to the house. However, that is precisely the cause of the harm to the rural character of the location resulting from this proposal, insofar as it would extend what is clearly a residential use into the countryside, contrary to the principle in both national and local policy that residential use is not appropriate in rural areas. In addition to being an inappropriate use in the countryside, the proposed tennis court would be surrounded by a 2.7 metre high chainlink fence. By reason of its height, length and galvanised metal finish, this fence would be a visually intrusive feature. I accept that views from Loxwood Road would be limited by the boundary treatment, including the solid timber gates to the vehicular access. However, the proposed tennis court would be clearly visible in views from the public footpath that runs to the west of the site which, due to the rising ground level, affords clear views into the appeal site through the insubstantial boundary treatment and gaps in the tree cover. In these views, the proposed tennis court would be seen in conjunction with the main dwelling and would therefore increase the visual impact of the residential curtilage as a whole when seen from within the countryside. I acknowledge that the appellant is prepared to plant additional landscaping, but it would not be prudent to rely upon such landscaping to screen a structure that would be inherently harmful to the rural character of the area without it or should it fail. The appellant contends that the area surrounding the appeal site does not exhibit any special landscape quality, citing the fact that it was excluded from inclusion within the South Downs National Park. I do not agree. This area exhibits a mixture of open fields and woodlands, set amongst undulating ground levels. Although not of the outstanding quality of that in the South Downs National Park, in my view that combination of attributes results in an attractive rural landscape that is worthy of protection. The appeal proposal would, for the reasons set out above, be harmful to that attractive landscape..."

WR/14/01365/FUL Winterfold, Durbans Road, – replacement WR (M Tomlinson) dwellinghouse to copy existing building with original external ALLOWED finishes (as amended by granted WR/13/01722).

"... harm is outweighed by the considerable public benefits of the proposal namely the removal of unsightly elements of the existing building, the development of a building more in keeping with its neighbours in terms of appearance and the creation of a dwelling to meet modern accommodation and environmental standards. As an unlisted building identified as being a positive building of townscape merit the significance of the asset is limited, although the impact of the proposal would be significant. Nevertheless, I conclude that the harm to the building though its demolition would be outweighed by other considerations. Furthermore, the less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would be outweighed by the benefits of the proposed development. Consequently the proposal would not be contrary to Policies BE4, BE6, BE11 and RE5 of the Local Plan which seek to ensure that development does not detract from its surroundings and preserves or enhances the character or appearance of a conservation area. The proposed development would also meet the objectives for the historic environment set out in the Framework..."

WR/14/01765/FUL Westholme Farm, Newpound, Wisborough Green, WR (M Tomlinson) Billingshurst, West Sussex, RH14 0QJ - Removal of condition DISMISSED no.7 of application 05/04886/FUL.

"...The appeal is dismissed. The existing bungalow was the subject of an agricultural occupancy condition which was removed by the Council in 2001. Thereafter planning permission was granted in respect of two different applications to demolish the bungalow and erect a new dwelling over its footprint. In addition planning permission was given to use a parcel of agricultural land as part of the domestic garden. Then in 2006 planning permission was refused in respect of a proposal to demolish the bungalow and replace it with a new dwelling located to the south west. The subsequent appeal was allowed in 2007 subject to Condition 7 which required the existing bungalow to be demolished before the new dwelling was occupied. This appeal seeks to remove Condition 7 in order to keep the existing bungalow for occupation by relatives of the appellant as there is a shortage of housing and the existing bungalow has a minimal impact on the openness of the countryside... I therefore consider that the main issues in this appeal are i) whether or not the proposed removal of the condition would comply with the relevant planning policies for permanent residential development outside the defined development boundaries; ii) if not, whether there are any material considerations which would justify a departure from development plan policy; and iii) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the rural area in which it is situated... The key consideration in this case is the location of the site. There is no definition of 'isolated' in the Framework as this needs to be looked on a fact and degree basis. The appellant has concentrated on the need to provide a home for elderly parents which would reduce the number of trips currently made to where they live at present in order to care for them. However the bungalow is poorly served by public transport and is not within walking distance of any facilities. Therefore whilst the elderly parents could live next door, which would make it easier to pop in and out, there would still be a need for them to make trips for shopping, appointments and social activities. Given the location this would inevitably be by car. The appellant also submits other arguments to support his case, namely the modest impact of the bungalow within the landscape, its secluded position and being only glimpsed by virtue of the established roadside hedge. Policy BE11 of the LP requires new development to have regard to its setting within the landscape. Whilst I find the bungalow is less visible than the new dwelling, I consider its retention would nevertheless add to the built form along the access track, the sporadic development in the area and would result in a slight reduction in the open character of the area. As such I find it would not accord with Policy BE11. The appellant's argument could also be repeated elsewhere where residential development is sparse and fragmented with a cumulative adverse impact on the character and appearance of the rural area. I therefore give it limited weight... The thrust of the appellant's justification for retaining the bungalow is the national shortage of housing and that the proposal is sustainable development that accords with the Framework. However I consider that the presumption in favour of development would not apply in this case given the resultant harm to the countryside. Condition 7 is therefore reasonable and necessary to prevent the creation of unsustainable dwellings in the countryside. In addition I also conclude that the removal of the condition could have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, having regard to the special quality of the landscape..." 3. OUTSTANDING APPEALS

Reference/Status Proposal

BI/14/23356/PLD Martins Lea, Martins Lane, , Chichester, PO20 7AU WR (F Stevens) - Construction of driveway to Lock Lane, in connection with In progress additional hard surfacing.

BO/14/03124/OUT Ruddles, Sunnyway, Bosham, Chichester, PO18 8HQ - WR (P Kneen) Construction of chalet bungalow in part of garden. In progress

*CC/14/02201/FUL Garage Compound South Of 39 To 45, Cleveland Road, WR (P Kneen) Chichester, West Sussex - Proposed residential In progress development to form 3 no. 3 bedroom detached houses with associated gardens and garages.

CC/14/02551/FUL Land Adjacent To 1 Kings Avenue, Chichester, West Sussex WR (C Boddy) PO19 8EA - Proposed 2 bedroom detached house. In progress

*CC/14/02308/FUL 36 Stirling Road, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 7DT - WR (M Tomlinson) Replacement of redundant old garage with a single dwelling In progress of chalet design.

CC/14/03359/PDE 18 Juxon Close, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 7AA - WR (H Chowdhury) Single storey rear extension (a) rear extension - 4.0m (b) Awaiting decision maximum height - 3.7m (c) height at eaves - 2.3m.

CC/14/03646/TPA 7 Donegall Avenue, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 6DE - WR (H Whitby) Fell 1 no. Lime tree (tag T642) within Group, G1 subject to In progress CC/06/00025/TPO.

CH/13/03978/FUL Land On The East Side Of Cot Lane, Chidham - Residential WR (S Harris) development comprising 25 no. dwellings, change of use of In progress land to form area of off-site public open space and associated work.

CH/14/01342/FUL Buildings B C And D Lion Park, Broad Road, Hambrook I (N Langford) Chidham, Chichester, West Sussex, PO18 8RG - In progress Development of 25 no. dwellings (4 no. 1 bed and 21 no. 2 Public Inquiry to be held bed) with associated parking and amenity space, in place of 6-9 October 2015 at commercial blocks B, C and D approved under 10am, CDC, Committee 09/04314/OUT and 11/01764/REM (resubmission of Room 2 13/00984/FUL).

CH/14/02138/OUT Land East Of Broad Road, Hambrook, West Sussex - I (J Bell) Residential development of 120 single and two storey In progress dwellings comprising 48 affordable homes and 72 market Public Inquiry to be held price homes, garaging and parking together with retail unit, 22-25 September 2015 at sports pavilion, community facility, new vehicular and 10am, WSCC pedestrian access to Broad Road, emergency and pedestrian access to Scant Road West, sports facilities, 2 tennis courts, football pitch and 4 cricket nets, children’s play area, public open space and natural green space on a site of 9.31 ha. Reference/Status Proposal

* EWB/14/01806/OUT Land East Of Barton Way, Clappers Lane, I (J Bushell) West Sussex - The erection of 110 residential dwellings, In progress new vehicular access, open space, and other ancillary Public Inquiry to be held works. 8-10 December 2015 at 10am, Plazza Suite

SDNP/14/03530/HOUS Baldwins, Ropes Lane, , Haslemere, West Sussex WR (C Cranmer) GU27 3JD – Erection of detached outbuilding. Furnhurst In progress

* LX/13/03809/OUT Land south of Loxwood Farm Place, High Street, Loxwood – I (N Langford) erection of 25no residential dwellings comprising of 14no Public Inquiry to be held private residential dwellings and 11no affordable residential 8-11 Sept, CDC Com Rm dwellings, associated private amenity space and parking. 2 at 10 am

LX/14/01214/FUL Brewhurst Mill House, Brewhurst Lane, Loxwood, WR (M Tomlinson) Billingshurst, West Sussex, RH14 0RJ - Part conversion of In progress Brewhurst Mill to dwelling.

LX/14/01215/LBC Brewhurst Mill House, Brewhurst Lane, Loxwood WR (M Tomlinson) Billingshurst, West Sussex, RH14 0RJ - Part conversion of In progress Brewhurst Mill to dwelling.

SDNP/14/04890/HOUS & Wheelwrights House, Hill Grove, , Petworth, SDNP/14/04891/LIS GU28 9EW - Demolition of existing two storey addition and WR ( C Cranmer) conservatory; erection of two storey extension and Lurgashall conservatory at rear. In progress

SDNP/14/02271/HOUS The Old Cottage, , , GU29 0JB – Midhurst Conservatory WR (M Mew) Linked to SDNP/14/02272/LIS In progress

SDNP/14/02272/LIS The Old Cottage, Bepton, Midhurst, GU29 0JB - Midhurst Conservatory WR (M Mew) Linked to SDNP/14/02271/HOUS In progress

SDNP/14/03765/FUL Fairleads, Wheatsheaf Enclosure, Liphook, WR (M Mew) GU30 7EJ - Replacement dwelling substituting existing 4 bed house to create a 5 bed home. In progress

SDNP/13/04972/FUL Hillgrove Stud Farm, Road, , West Northchapel Sussex, GU28 9EQ - Retention of agricultural workers H (J Saunders) mobile home for temporary period of 3 years. In progress Reference/Status Proposal

SDNP/14/00373/OPDEV Stillands, Shillinglee Road, Shillinglee, Northchapel WR (R Hawks) Godalming, West Sussex, GU8 4SX - Creation of a bank. Petworth In progress

SDNP/14/04194/HOUS Tollgate Cottage, Durleigh Marsh, Petersfield, Hampshire GU31 5AX - Single storey rear extension and various works. WR (M Mew) Linked to SDNP/14/04195/LIS In progress

SDNP/14/04195/LIS Tollgate Cottage, Durleigh Marsh, Petersfield, Hampshire Rogate GU31 5AX - Single storey rear extension and various works. WR (M Mew) Linked to SDNP/14/04194/HOUS In progress

SI/14/00012/CONMHC Willowdene, Fletchers Lane, Sidlesham, Chichester, West WR (R Hawks) Sussex, PO20 7QG – Mobile home. In progress

SI/14/04214/DOM Bird Pond Cottage, Road, Sidlesham, Chichester WR (M Tomlinson) West Sussex, PO20 7NF- Erection of outbuilding comprising In progress double garage and workshop with games over.

SB/14/02843/OUT Land East Of, Breach Avenue, Southbourne, Hampshire - WR (V Colwell) Development of up to 34 dwellings, access, retention of In progress orchard, public open space and other associated works on land at Breach Avenue.

SB/14/03611/DOM 1 Kings Court, Emsworth, Hampshire, PO10 8FD - Open WR (M Tomlinson) glassroom and open glazed canopy. In progress

*WE/14/00911/FUL Land On The North Side Of Long Copse Lane, Westbourne I ( J Bushell) West Sussex - Erection of 16 no. dwellings, vehicular and In progress pedestrian access, car and cycle parking and landscaping Public Inquiry to be held 27-29 October 2015 at 10am – venue to be confirmed

WE/14/01217/FUL Land West Of Harwood, Cemetery Lane, Woodmancote H (P Kneen) Westbourne, West Sussex - Provision of 5 Gypsy and Hearing to be held 20 Traveller pitches incorporating the re-design of an existing August 2015 at 10am, pitch (including the removal of stables granted in permission CDC Committee Room 2 WE/13/03867/FUL) and the use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes for an additional 4 no. gypsy pitches, together with the formation of additional hard standing and utility/ dayrooms ancillary to that use. WH/14/03736/LBC 6 Old Place Lane, , Chichester, PO18 0NL - WR (S Locke) Proposed 4 no. Conservation rooflights along with minor In progress alterations.

WW/13/00232/CONCOM Bramber Plant Centre, Chichester Road, – WR (S Archer) Portacabins being used as office – appeal against In progress Enforcement Notice.

WW/14/03344/FUL 34 And 34A Marine Drive, West Wittering, Chichester WR (P Kneen) West Sussex, PO20 8HQ - Demolition of existing residential In progress property (two flats) and erection of 2no. 4 bedroom dwellings.

WR/14/02859/FUL Roosters Store, Durbans Road, Wisborough Green, WR (M Tomlinson) Billingshurst, West Sussex, RH14 0DG - Removal of In progress condition 4 of planning permission WR/99/00567/FUL.

4. VARIATIONS TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS NONE

5. CALLED IN APPLICATIONS

Reference Proposal Stage

NONE

6. COURT AND OTHER MATTERS

Injunctions

Site Breach Stage

Land at Premier Stable and other 11 June 2015: At a Court hearing - Site, Birdham preparatory works in the undertakings (supported by Road AONB without planning imprisonment) given by defendants not permission. to carry out any further development during planning application process. Next hearing date to be in February 2016.

Prosecutions Site Breach Stage

Nell Ball Farm, Failure to comply with Prosecution was prepared, but due to Plaistow Planning Enforcement the ill health of the defendant the Notice matter was suspended. A planning application has now been refused and legal instructed to prosecute. Final warning issued. Compliance not achieved by 5 May as required. Prosecution proceedings under way. Prosecutions

Site Breach Stage

Dean Ale and Failure to comply with Matter adjourned to 12 June 2015 Cider House, Planning Enforcement pending compliance works being West Dean Notice started.

12 Second Failure to comply with Matter adjourned to September 2015 Avenue, s.215 notice. pending compliance works being Emsworth started.

Kellys Farm, Bell Failure to comply with Trial set for 10 July 2015. Lane, Birdham Planning Enforcement Notice

The Barnyard Display of unauthorised Matter adjourned to 28 August 2015 adverts. pending consideration of further planning application.

The Court apologise to the Council that the paperwork in the above adjourned matters had not been processed in a timely manner and noted the impact this has upon operation of the Councils planning function.

High Court

Site Matters prohibited by the Stage Order

Planning injunction:

NONE Magistrates Court

Site Breach Stage 2 White Hart Appeal against s.215 First appeal hearing held. Application Cottages notice by subject of that statements lodged with Council 17th notice. March 2015. Following exchange of evidence case postponed until July as undertaking given to comply.

7. POLICY MATTERS