Notice of Meeting Agenda

NOTICE OF MEETING

East Pallant House East Pallant Chichester West Sussex PO19 1TY Telephone: 01243 785166 Website: www.chichester.gov.uk

MEETING PLANNING COMMITTEE

DATE/TIME Wednesday 17 September 2014 at 10.00am

VENUE The Council Chamber East Pallant House East Pallant Chichester

CONTACT Katherine Jeram –Member Services Officer Direct line: 01243 534674 E-mail: [email protected]

8 September 2014 JOHN WARD Head of Finance and Governance Services

AGENDA This agenda should be retained for future reference with the minutes of this meeting

PART I

1. Chairman’s Announcements

Any apologies for absence which have been received will be noted at this point

The committee will be informed at this point of any items in the schedule of planning applications ie agenda item 5 which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting

2. Approval of Minutes

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on Wednesday 20 August 2014 and appear herewith as pages [M1] to [M27]

3. Urgent Items

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 7 (b) 4. Declarations of Interests

For details of members’ personal interests arising from their membership of parish councils or West Sussex County Council or from their being Chichester District Council or West Sussex County Council appointees to outside organisations or members of outside bodies or from being employees of such organisations or bodies, please refer to the notes at the end of this agenda

Such interests are hereby disclosed by each member in respect of agenda items in the schedule of planning applications where the Council or outside body concerned has been consulted in respect of that particular item or application

Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests are to be made by members of the Planning Committee in respect of matters on the agenda for this meeting

5. Schedule of Planning Applications (pages 1 to 66)

The Planning Committee will consider the schedule of planning applications

6. Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters (pages 67 to 84)

The Planning Committee will consider the monthly schedule updating the position with regard to planning appeals, litigation and recent planning policy publications or pronouncements

7. Late Items

The Planning Committee will consider any late items as follows:

(a) Items added to the agenda papers and made available for public inspection

(b) Items which the chairman has agreed should be taken as matters of urgency by reason of special circumstances to be reported at the meeting

PART II

Items for which the press and public are likely to be excluded

The press and public may be excluded from the meeting during any item of business whenever it is likely that there would be disclosure of exempt information as defined in section 100I of and Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 197

NONE

Members of the Planning Committee

Mr A R H Smith (Chairman) Mrs P A Hardwick (Vice Chairman)

Mr G A F Barrett Mr D J Myers Mr M J Bell Mr S J Oakley Mr Q J R Cox Mr H C Potter Mrs J E Duncton Mr J Ridd Mr J F Elliott Mr F Robertson Mr R J Hayes Mrs J A E Tassell Mr G V McAra Mrs P M Tull Mr J A P Montyn Mr M Woolley

Personal Interests - Membership of Parish Councils

The following members of the Planning Committee declare a personal interest by way of their membership of the parish councils stated below in respect of the items on the schedule of planning applications where their respective parish councils have been consulted:

• Mr M J Bell - Chichester City Council (CC) • Mr R J Hayes - Southbourne Parish Council (SB) • Mr G V McAra - Midhurst Town Council (MI) • Mr S J Oakley - Tangmere Parish Council (TG) • Mr H C Potter - Boxgrove Parish Council (BX) • Mr J Ridd - Donnington Parish Council (D) • Mr A R H Smith - Chichester City Council (CC) • Mrs P M Tull - Sidlesham Parish Council (SI) • Mr M Woolley - Chichester City Council (CC)

Personal Interests - Membership of West Sussex County Council

The following members of the Planning Committee declare a personal interest by way of their membership of West Sussex County Council in respect of the items on the schedule of planning applications where that local authority has been consulted:

• Mrs J E Duncton - West Sussex County Council Member for the Petworth Division • Mr G V McAra - West Sussex County Council Member for the Midhurst Division • Mr J A P Montyn - West Sussex County Council Member for The Witterings Division • Mr S J Oakley - West Sussex County Council Member for the Chichester East Division

Personal Interests – Membership of Outside Organisations and Public Bodies

The following member of the Planning Committee declares a personal interest as a member of the outside organisation stated below in respect of those items on the schedule of planning applications where that organisation has been consulted:

• Mr M Woolley - Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee

Personal Interests - Chichester District Council Representatives on Outside Organisations and Membership of Public Bodies

The following members of the Planning Committee declare a personal interest as Chichester District Council appointees to the outside organisations or as members of the public bodies below in respect of those items on the schedule of planning applications where such organisations or bodies have been consulted:

• Mr G A F Barrett - Chichester Harbour Conservancy • Mr Q J R Cox - Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee • Mr D J Myers - Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Personal Interests – West Sussex County Council Representatives on Outside Organisations and Membership of Public Bodies

The following member of the committee declares a personal interest as a West Sussex County Council appointee to the outside organisation stated below in respect of those items on the schedule of planning applications where that organisation has been consulted:

• Mr J A P Montyn - Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee in the Council Chamber East Pallant House East Pallant Chichester West Sussex on Wednesday 20 August 2014 at 11:03

Members (18)

Mr A R H Smith (Chairman)

Mr G A F Barrett Mr D J Myers Mr M J Bell Mr S J Oakley Mr Q J R Cox Mr H C Potter Mrs J E Duncton Mrs J A E Tassell Mr G V McAra Mrs P M Tull Mr J A P Montyn

were present (12)

Planning Committee Members Absent

Mr J F Elliott Mrs P A Hardwick (Vice-Chairman) Mr R J Hayes Mr J Ridd Mr F Robertson Mr M Woolley

Chichester District Council Officers Present for All or Specific Agenda Items

Miss J Bell – Development Manager (Majors and Business) (agenda items 05 (6) and (9) and 06) Mr J Bushell – Principal Planning Officer (agenda item 05 (1)) Mr A Frost – Head of Planning Services Miss N J Golding – Principal Solicitor and Monitoring Officer Miss S Locke – Planning Officer (agenda item 05 (8)) Mr J Saunders – Development Manager (National Park) (agenda item 05 (10) and (11)) Mr G Thrussell - Senior Member Services Officer Mr T Whitty - Development Manager (Applications) (agenda item 05 (2) to (5), (7), and (8))

West Sussex County Council Officer Present for Agenda Item 05 (1)

Mr D Smith – Planner Strategic Planning

112 Chairman’s Announcements

As stated on the front page of the agenda, this meeting commenced an hour later than normal because of a preceding private briefing session for elected members of Chichester District Council to consider the draft report of the Planning Task and Finish Group’s (PTFG) findings and provisional recommendations following its recent review of the first year in operation of (a) the single Planning Committee (which replaced the former two area development management committees) and (b) the delegation to officers of [PC M1] decisions in respect of householder development planning applications where a parish council had lodged an objection. The agenda business for this meeting was not considered at that briefing session. Following the briefing session the PTFG convened to discuss the outcome of the briefing session which led to a slight delay in the start of this meeting.

Mr Smith apologised for the later start as he welcomed members of the public and the press representative to the meeting. He referred to the emergency evacuation arrangements on the screens and outlined the speaking procedure for the meeting.

He explained that as a result of the coming into force on Wednesday 6 August 2014 of The Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 SI No 2095, which brought into effect section 40 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, visual and/or audio recordings of this meeting could be made by those present. He requested that anyone who made such a recording should do so discreetly in order not to cause a disturbance to the proceedings.

Mr Smith advised that there were no items in the schedule of planning applications (agenda item 05) which had been deferred or withdrawn.

It was noted that apologies for absence had been received from Mr Elliott, Mrs Hardwick, Mr Hayes, Mr Ridd, Mr Robertson and Mr Woolley.

All other members of the committee were present for this meeting.

113 Approval of Minutes

On behalf of Mr Elliott (who was unable to be present) Mr Potter sought clarification of para (iv) on page [M7] in relation to planning application SDNP/13/04033/FUL (STED) – Minsted Farm Minsted Lane Minsted Stedham. He referred to a recent letter from the Douglas Briggs Partnership, the agent for the applicant, which expressed regret that the minutes did not correctly reflect views which had been expressed by members during the debate about the demolition of the Midhurst Whites Dairy building and the construction of a new-build fourth building.

Mr Smith said that he considered that the minutes correctly recorded the committee’s wish that as an alternative to the demolition of the Midhurst Whites Dairy building the officers should have the opportunity to negotiate with the applicant as to whether instead of solely demolishing that structure it could be replaced with an alternative building. The minutes as worded left open the option of the applicant submitting a revised application for a replacement structure following demolition.

Mr Frost acknowledged that there had been debate about having a replacement building. He reminded the committee that he had advised members that they should be careful not to be seen to be prejudging that issue which might be the subject of a separate planning application in due course. It had been open to the agent to discuss with his client the members’ views expressed at that meeting and, if instructed, to submit revised plans for a replacement building. Accordingly, the committee had resolved (as correctly recorded in the minutes) to defer the application to negotiate with the applicant as to demolition.

Mr Smith agreed with Mr Frost’s advice. He did feel, however, that in the third line of para (iv) ‘concerning’ should be replaced with ‘reflecting’ and the committee agreed that there should be such an amendment.

[PC M2] RESOLVED

That subject to the third line of para (iv) in relation to planning application SDNP/13/ 04033/FUL (STED) – Minsted Farm Minsted Lane Minsted Stedham on page [M7] being amended by substituting ‘reflecting’ for ‘concerning’ the Planning Committee approves the minutes of its meeting on Wednesday 23 July 2014.

114 Urgent Items

There were no urgent matters for consideration under agenda item 08 (Late Items).

115 Declarations of Interests

The obligation to make declarations of interests related to agenda items 05 and 06.

A – DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS

Disclosable pecuniary interests have been introduced by section 30 of the Localism Act 2011 and are set out in paras 3 to 7 of Part 3 of the Council’s Code of Conduct adopted on Tuesday 9 October 2012. They are interests that either the member has or is aware that his or her partner has. Where such an interest exists, the member concerned must declare it. Unless the member has previously received a dispensation to do so from the Monitoring Officer, he or she may not participate in any discussion of or in any vote taken on that item of business. The member concerned must move to the public seating area for the duration of the item of business in question and from that area he or she may make representations, answer questions or give evidence relating to that item of business, provided that he or she has received a dispensation from the Monitoring Officer to do so.

There were no declarations of a disclosable pecuniary interest made at this meeting.

B - PERSONAL INTERESTS

Personal interests are defined in paras 8 and 9 of Part 4 of the Council’s Code of Conduct adopted on Tuesday 9 October 2012. They include (as set out on the third and fourth yellow pages of the agenda for this meeting) membership of parish councils, West Sussex County Council, outside organisations or public bodies where those local authorities, organisations or bodies have been consulted in respect of an item in the schedule of planning applications or another relevant agenda item.

There were ten members who informed the meeting of the following personal interests:

 Mr Barrett declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications WE/14/ 00911/FUL, WI/14/01626/FUL and WT/14/01157/FUL listed within agenda item 05 as a Chichester District Council appointed member of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy (he also sat on its planning committee).

 Mr Barrett declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 06 (Update on Planning Appeal APP/L3815/A/14/2219554 Land to the South of Clappers Lane Bracklesham Bay West Sussex) as a Chichester District Council appointed member of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy (he also sat on its planning committee), which was a consultee on planning application EWB/14/00457/OUT which was the subject of the aforementioned appeal.

[PC M3]  Mr Bell declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/13/ 03775/OUT, CC/14/01833/LBC and CC/14/02096/DOM listed within agenda item 05 as a member of Chichester City Council (he did not sit on its planning committee).

 Mr Cox declared a personal interest in respect of planning application CC/14/ 01833/LBC listed within agenda item 05 as a Chichester District Council appointed member of the Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee.

 Mrs Duncton declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/ 13/03775/OUT, WE/14/00911/FUL, WE/14/01217/FUL and WT/14/01157/FUL listed within agenda item 05 as a member of West Sussex County Council.

 Mrs Duncton declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 06 (Update on Planning Appeal APP/L3815/A/14/2219554 Land to the South of Clappers Lane Bracklesham Bay West Sussex) as a member of West Sussex County Council, which was a consultee in respect of highways and infrastructure matters on planning application EWB/14/00457/OUT which was the subject of the aforementioned appeal.

 Mr McAra declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/13/ 03775/OUT, WE/14/00911/FUL, WE/14/01217/FUL and WT/14/01157/FUL listed within agenda item 05 as a member of West Sussex County Council.

 Mr McAra declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 06 (Update on Planning Appeal APP/L3815/A/14/2219554 Land to the South of Clappers Lane Bracklesham Bay West Sussex) as a member of West Sussex County Council, which was a consultee in respect of highways and infrastructure matters on planning application EWB/14/00457/OUT which was the subject of the aforementioned appeal.

 Mr Montyn declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/13/ 03775/OUT, WE/14/00911/FUL, WE/14/01217/FUL and WT/14/01157/FUL listed within agenda item 05 as a member of West Sussex County Council.

 Mr Montyn declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 06 (Update on Planning Appeal APP/L3815/A/14/2219554 Land to the South of Clappers Lane Bracklesham Bay West Sussex) as a member of West Sussex County Council, which was a consultee in respect of highways and infrastructure matters on planning application EWB/14/00457/OUT which was the subject of the aforementioned appeal.

 Mr Montyn declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications WE/14/ 00911/FUL, WI/14/01626/FUL and WT/14/01157/FUL listed within agenda item 05 as a West Sussex County Council appointed member of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy (he also sat on its planning committee).

 Mr Montyn declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 06 (Update on Planning Appeal APP/L3815/A/14/2219554 Land to the South of Clappers Lane Bracklesham Bay West Sussex) as a West Sussex County Council appointed member of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy (he also sat on its planning committee), which was a consultee on planning application EWB/14/00457/OUT which was the subject of the aforementioned appeal.

[PC M4]  Mr Myers declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications WE/14/ 00911/FUL, WI/14/01626/FUL and WT/14/01157/FUL listed within agenda item 05 as a Chichester District Council appointed member of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy (he also sat on its planning committee).

 Mr Myers declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 06 (Update on Planning Appeal APP/L3815/A/14/2219554 Land to the South of Clappers Lane Bracklesham Bay West Sussex) as a Chichester District Council appointed member of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy (he also sat on its planning committee), which was a consultee on planning application EWB/14/00457/OUT which was the subject of the aforementioned appeal.

 Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/13/ 03775/OUT, WE/14/00911/FUL, WE/14/01217/FUL and WT/14/01157/FUL listed within agenda item 05 as a member of West Sussex County Council.

 Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of agenda item 06 (Update on Planning Appeal APP/L3815/A/14/2219554 Land to the South of Clappers Lane Bracklesham Bay West Sussex) as a member of West Sussex County Council, which was a consultee in respect of highways and infrastructure matters on planning application EWB/14/00457/OUT which was the subject of the aforementioned appeal.

 Mr Smith declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/13/ 03775/OUT, CC/14/01833/LBC and CC/14/02096/DOM listed within agenda item 05 as a member of Chichester City Council.

 Mrs Tull declared a personal interest in respect of planning application SI/14/01742/ FUL listed within agenda item 05 as a member of Sidlesham Parish Council.

C - PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS

A personal interest which is also a prejudicial interest is defined in para 12 of Part 4 of the Council’s Code of Conduct adopted on Tuesday 9 October 2012.

Where a member has a prejudicial interest he or she must declare it and move to the public seating area for the duration of the relevant item. That member may not participate in any discussion of or vote taken on that item. The member is entitled, however, to make representations, answer questions or give evidence relating to that item of business on the basis that the public is allowed to attend the meeting for that same purpose.

There were no declarations of a prejudicial interest made at this meeting.

116 Schedule of Planning Applications

No items had been deferred or withdrawn from the schedule of planning applications (copy attached to the official minutes).

The committee considered both the schedule of planning applications circulated with the agenda and the agenda update sheet which had been published in the afternoon of the previous day and distributed at the meeting (copy attached to the official minutes). The latter document summarised the observations and amendments which had arisen since the despatch of the agenda.

Officers provided oral updates to the agenda update sheet where appropriate. [PC M5] During the presentations by officers of the applications, members viewed photographs, plans, drawings, computerised images and artist impressions which were displayed on the screens or, where permitted by the chairman, shown or circulated by speakers.

RESOLVED

That the Planning Committee makes the following decisions subject to the observations and amendments below:

Application No Page No Location

CC/13/03775/OUT 5 Land between Westhampnett Road and Barnfield Drive Chichester West Sussex

(i) Mr Bushell presented this outline application in respect of phase two of the redevelopment of the former quarry and landfill site, through the erection of one Class A1 retail warehouse building measuring a total of 7,184 m2, two ancillary Class A3/A5 units measuring a total of 520 m2, a petrol filling station, car parking and access arrangements, and amendments to Westhampnett Road and associated landscaping works. The proposal was described in greater detail in para 3.1 on page 7 of the agenda report.

(ii) Mr D Smith of West Sussex County Council Highways (WSCCH) was present by invitation to answer members’ highways-related questions.

(iii) During the course of his presentation Mr Bushell referred to a sequence of slides shown on the screens, which consisted of (a) an aerial view photograph of the site and its surrounding location (the principal landmarks were identified); (b) a location plan (with reference to which the salient aspects or components of the outline application were explained); (c) an indicative colour master-plan; (d) photographs of the site including the cycleway and the adjacent Westhampnett Road on which a new roundabout was to be constructed pursuant to the previously granted Portfield Football Club ground residential development planning permission; (e) a drawing of that roundabout; (f) a drawing of the highway network improvements required as part of this application; (g) a coloured plan of the signage proposals for the A27 and Westhampnett Road which would be required for this development.

(iv) Mr Bushell identified the two principal issues for consideration in this matter as being (a) retail use impact ie whether the proposals would have a harmful impact on the vitality and viability of the city and (b) highway impact ie whether the proposals would have a harmful impact on the highway network in terms of traffic congestion. Those two issues were addressed in detail in the following sections of the agenda report respectively: paras 8.4 to 8.20 and 8.21 to 8.25 (which he summarised). The report also addressed in paras 8.26 to 8.29 the issues of visual impact, residential amenity, flood risk and ecology. The officer recommendation in support of the application was set out in paras 8.33 to 8.35 of the agenda report.

(v) The agenda update sheet reported (a) additional information from the agent about the potential difference in timing between the date of the new store opening and the mitigation works to Westhampnett Road and (b) additional comments by West Sussex County Council Highways (WSCCH) by way of answers to four questions asked of it by planning officers.

(vi) The following members of the public addressed the committee on this application:

[PC M6] (a) Mrs L Friel (the chairman of the Westhampnett Road and Church Road Residents Association) – objector

(b) Mrs T Chapman (Swanfield Residents Neighbourhood Group) - objector

(d) Mr M Sobic – agent for the applicant

(vii) The applicant’s agent in para (vi) (d) answered a member’s clarification question.

(viii) During the debate members expressed concerns and asked questions about a range of matters which included the following:

 The proposed signage routes for the A27 and Westhampnett Road which would be required as a result of phase two of this development (with reference to the coloured slide on the screens depicting those routes).

 The nature and extent of the landscaping to be provided along the site’s boundary with Westhampnett Road having regard to the existing green buffer along this entrance into the city. There should be a green barrier width of at least 10 m between the diverted river Lavant and the new buildings.

 The height of the culverting of the new roundabout on Westhampnett Road.

 The highways impact on existing traffic congestion on Westhampnett Road of vehicles entering and leaving the site via the new roundabout rather than Barnfield Drive.

 The inherent contradiction in contending that as a result of the development there would be a relief in the traffic impact on Westhampnett Road and on the Sainsbury’s roundabout.

 The impact of the highway works to Westhampnett Road and whether the requisite funding could be made available to enable the new mini-roundabout to be built and improvement works to the Sainsbury’s mini-roundabout to be carried out before the new retail unit was built (its anticipated opening date was December 2016).

 The drawing shown on the screens suggested that the new Westhampnett Road roundabout was smaller than the Sainsbury’s mini-roundabout.

 The ability of the surrounding road network to cope with additional traffic generated by the development of the second phase of this site, which would increase not only by virtue of the retail facilities on the site itself but also as a result of the strategic development location site at Tangmere and to the east of the city envisaged by the emerging Chichester Local Plan and also the potential development in the Barnham/Five Villages area of Arun District.

 The need to assess the impact of developing other retail units on this site in the future.

 The rationale for selecting 2023 as the assessment modelling year for traffic levels. [PC M7]  The traffic impact on the ability of bus service schedules to be maintained.

 The length of the monitoring period for the use of Church Road, which was seemingly used by drivers as a rat-run between the A27 and Westhampnett Road, and whether the A27 access to and from that road would be closed.

 The need to implement the A27 improvement works in order to reduce congestion along the city’s road network especially Westhampnett Road which was caused by traffic including articulated lorries avoiding the A27.

 The need to continue monitoring of this site for gas migration in view of land contamination (as addressed by condition 17 (landfill gas)).

 The extant cycle/pedestrian path which crossed the site had its point of entry into Swanfield Park and a reassurance should be given that this would not be altered.

 The opportunity afforded by this development to create a cycle path along Westhampnett Road should not be missed.

 The proposed linear park feature, which was strongly promoted when the phase one application was being considered by the committee, should still be accorded due emphasis as an integral part of this overall development.

(ix) During the debate Mr Bushell, Mr D Smith (WSCCH) and Mr Frost responded to members’ questions and among the points made were the following:

 The specialist consultant (GVA) advice was that the minimum unit size should be 1,000 m2 as a policy stipulation laid down by Chichester District Council for out of city centre retail units and not 697 m2 originally proposed by the applicant.

 The grant of planning permission should include an additional informative advising the applicant (a) that the diversion of any right of way crossing the site to enable the proposed development to take place would need to be the subject of a separate application and (b) that the current point of termination on the western boundary of the Swanfield Park estate should not be altered.

 The linear park element continued to be regarded by officers as a key part of the phase one and two development and was fully expected to be delivered as originally proposed by the applicant.

 The existing site landscaping adjacent to Westhampnett Road was an important feature and this vegetation screen would be retained or replaced (where trees had to be removed as part of the development). The indicative master-plan showed a service yard and a deep belt of green space between the buildings and the diverted course of the river Lavant. It would be possible at the reserved matters stage to adjust the position of the nearest unit to achieve the desired ten metres setback. The intention was to create a pleasant landscaped frontage.

 The rationale for selecting 2023 as the assessment point for the modelling exercise undertaken by the applicant was that it took into account the anticipated developments envisaged in the draft Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-submission 2014-2029 as well as the Shopwyke Lakes and [PC M8] Graylingwell developments. The assessment had not included the impacts of units D, G, H and I in this second phase because those units had been withdrawn from the scheme.

 The Westhampnett Road works were expected to be scheduled for 2017 ie after the main phase two retail units had opened. Conditions would require the construction of the Barnfield signals and the Church Road roundabout prior to first occupation. The need to close Westhampnett Road during all or part of the road works period would be a construction traffic management issue which would be addressed at the appropriate time. It was the longer- term traffic impact of the development ie later in the Chichester Local Plan period rather than the shorter-term impact of the road works which was significant.

 The additional traffic generated by this development was considered by WSCCH to be acceptable with the provision of and a contribution towards mitigation works. Where possible traffic would be directed to quieter instead of busier roads.

 The schematic drawing on the screens which depicted the roundabout sizes was purely illustrative and was not drawn to scale.

 The height of the new Westhampnett Road roundabout as a result of the culverting works was not available at this meeting but could be provided.

 Construction traffic to the retail units would be via the north of the site and not from Westhampnett Road, secured through a construction management plan.

 The monitoring of traffic use of Church Road would last for 12 months from the date of first use of the new large unit. An informal consultation had not shown any obvious evidence of rat-running along Church Road but the situation would be kept under review. Developments such as Madgwick Lane or Tangmere strategic sites would be expected to mitigate their own impact.

 The case for closing the Church Road access onto and from the A27 in the context of the approved Portfield Football Club site development had already been explored and had been the subject of an informal consultation undertaken by the applicant. Objections were raised to closure by local residents who did not consider it to be necessary. A 12-month period of monitoring and the provision of funds to enable future closure, if required, had been proposed, to be secured through the section 106 agreement.

 The funding of highways improvements was expected to be achieved by contributions from applicants/developers via the Local Plan.

 The journey times for bus routes 55, 85, 85A, 95 and 99 were expected to undergo little if any change as a result of this development.

 The issue of cycle path provision on the northern edge of Westhampnett Road along the south side of the site had been investigated by the applicant at WSCCH’s request. Land ownership, highway boundary and Environment Agency covenants meant, however, that it would not be possible to secure a cycle path under a planning permission for this development. [PC M9]  The committee should assess this application positively and proactively, seeking to identify solutions to enable approval rather than reasons for refusing it. Although some negative impacts of the scheme had been identified, there were no significant adverse retail and/or highway impacts to justify refusal. The scheme would achieve the redevelopment of a waste site on the city’s perimeter, the economic regeneration of that part of Chichester, an increase in consumer choice, the creation of some 300 jobs, a significant contribution to highways improvements, and the provision of amenity benefits such as a linear park and a cycle path. On weighing the competing considerations officers had felt able to recommend this scheme for approval.

(x) At the end of the debate a majority of the committee was in favour of this proposal.

(xi) Recommendation to defer for secretary of state referral and revocation order (if necessary) and section 106 agreement then permit with extra informative 6 (diversion of right of way (with same termination point on western boundary) to be subject of separate application) agreed.

CC/14/01833/LBC 29 The Deanery Canon Lane Chichester West Sussex PO19 1PX

(i) Mr Whitty introduced this proposal with respect to a Grade II* listed building to widen a door opening within an internal partition and to create a new partition to a bathroom at second floor level.

(ii) Mr Whitty referred first to the relevance of and read out the material parts of paras 132, 133 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (conserving and enhancing the historic environment) as they applied to this application.

(iii) Mr Whitty described the proposal with reference to a series of slides shown on the screens namely plans (ground and first floors of a previous application and those for this proposal) and internal photographs. Having regard to the opinion of Chichester District Council’s Historic Buildings Adviser (set out in para 6.3 of the report), he explained the basis for the officer recommendation that the proposal should be refused. Although the architect’s proposal was understood, it would amount to harm to this designated heritage asset and it could not be shown that that harm was outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal.

(iv) The agenda update sheet provided a summary of the applicant’s supporting statement, one further letter of support and further comments from Chichester District Council’s Historic Buildings Adviser.

(v) The following member of the public addressed the committee on this application:

(a) Mr R Meynell – agent for the applicant

(vi) There were no members’ clarification questions for the agent in para (v) (a).

(vii) Mr Smith explained that the application had been referred to the committee for a decision as a result of a red card issued by Mr Woolley, who was unable to attend this meeting because of a pre-arranged holiday. Mr Woolley had sent him a short statement explaining his reasons for invoking the red card procedure, in which he had made the following remarks:

[PC M10] ‘I have red-carded this application as there is an important point of principle to be determined: namely where does one draw the line between preserving/conserving old buildings and adapting them for 21st century usage?

Our Historic Buildings Adviser thinks the floor plan of the Deanery attic should be retained as originally designed, because that is how it was originally designed. This proposal is to widen a doorway (at the cost of a very small amount of original fabric) in order to bring daylight to an internal hall and thus make the house more attractive and suited to modern living. It is proposed to leave ‘nibs’ of wall on either side (and a beam across the ceiling) so the original layout will remain apparent. This seems a perfectly reasonable minor suggestion to me, particularly in a remote region of the house. The best way to conserve old buildings is to make them attractive to modern occupiers.

The only thing to add is that the “original fabric” is not obviously valuable – a modern hardboard door in a modern frame set in a wall which (to judge from the amount of new plaster around it) is largely modern itself.

Conservation is important, and I respect the work of our Historic Buildings Adviser, but I don’t think he’s got it quite right in this instance. I urge you to pass the plan ably prepared by Richard Meynell and submitted by the Dean and Chapter.’

(viii) During the discussion Mr Whitty responded to members’ questions and comments on points of detail regarding (a) the nature of the proposed alteration works (which involved the removal of an internal wall, not merely the enlargement of a doorway); (b) the importance of preserving the interior as much as the exterior of heritage assets; (c) the nature of the harm ie the change to the spatial arrangement/internal spaces layout of the Grade II* listed building by departing from the Georgian cellular concept of much smaller rooms; (d) the approach to assessing the public benefits of the proposal in this case where the personal preference of future occupants of The Deanery for having a more functional family space had to be balanced against the great weight which should be accorded to the conservation of the heritage asset.

(ix) In discussing the application a majority of members were in sympathy with the view expressed by Mr Woolley and favoured approving the application notwithstanding the officer recommendation to refuse it. Whilst expressing a customary respect for the Historic Building Adviser’s views, they also acknowledged the established experience and skill of the architect. They felt that the proposed alterations would improve the heritage asset and the use of the property for contemporary living and such harm as there might be (which was not considered to be significant) would (a) be outweighed by the public benefit of improving the viability of the property for modern living and (b) in any event not be visible to the general public. It was said that a photographic record should be made before the works were undertaken.

(x) A minority of members expressed concern that the proposal did not respect the conservation of the heritage asset, that there would be views of the Cathedral whether or not the works were executed and that there was a troubling ambiguity in the applicant’s proposal as to whether it amounted to an enlargement of a doorway or the removal of most of an internal wall.

(xi) At the end of the debate it was proposed by Mr Montyn and seconded by Mr Barrett that the application should be permitted on the grounds that the changes would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset and there was a public benefit in securing the most viable use of this property by its occupants (which could include a family) in the twenty-first century. [PC M11] (xii) This proposal was carried on a vote being taken.

(xiii) Permit with the following conditions:

 (1) The works for which listed building consent is hereby granted must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this consent.

• Reason To comply with section 18 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended).

 (2) The works for which listed building consent is hereby granted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan: DC.884.06B.

• Reason To accord with the terms of the application and in the interests of the character of this listed building.

 (3) The works for which listed building consent is hereby granted shall be carried out using the materials specified in the submitted application form and no variation shall be made without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.

• Reason To secure harmonious architectural treatment.

 (4) Upon the carrying out of the work for which listed building consent is hereby granted any damage caused to the fabric of the building shall be made good.

• Reason To preserve the special character of the building for the future.

[Note This decision was contrary to the planning officer’s recommendation]

CC/14/02096/DOM 35 3 Durham Gardens Chichester West Sussex PO19 5DR

(i) Mr Whitty introduced this proposal for a single storey side and rear extension, which was before the committee because the applicant was a member of staff. He drew attention to plans, drawing and photographs displayed on the screens.

(ii) There were no entries in the agenda update sheet in respect of this matter.

(iii) No members of the public addressed the committee regarding this item.

(iv) The committee did not discuss this application.

(v) Recommendation to permit agreed.

EWB/14/01263/FUL 40 Beech Hut 20 Tamarisk Walk East Wittering Chichester West Sussex

(i) This retrospective application for a replacement beach hut was described by Mr Whitty while showing slides on the screens of a location/block plan, photographs and elevation drawings. It was considered that the scale and design of the beach hut did not harm the character of the rural and coastal landscape. [PC M12] (ii) There were no entries in the agenda update sheet in respect of this matter.

(iii) The following members of the public addressed the committee on this application:

(a) Mr R Tranchant (East Wittering and Bracklesham Parish Council) – parish representative (in objection)

(b) Mr M Gillott – objector

(iv) The speaker in para (iii) (b) answered a member’s clarification question.

(v) During the committee’s discussion Mr Whitty and Mr Frost answered members’ questions on various points including:

 The dimensions of the beach hut - there were no regulations governing size of beach huts - and whether it lay within the applicant’s land ownership.

 The approach to assessing the impact of the beach hut on the surrounding area, neighbour amenity and the Bracklesham Bay Site of Special Scientific Interest.

 The refusal of permission would need to be for reasons of demonstrable harm on planning grounds caused by this particular beach hut. It was not relevant that this beach hut was or might be the largest in the line of huts or that its dimensions had reduced the space used for car parking between it and the neighbouring hut.

(vi) Some members expressed concerns about the proposal even if in visual terms it was or might be acceptable. It was felt that the construction of a large beach hut such as this could result in an incremental change in the size and appearance of the beach huts in this location, including for example the addition of lean-to structures which could cause harm to the surrounding area and/or have an adverse impact on neighbourhood amenity. The reduction in the size of the spaces between huts, traditionally used for car parking, and the consequent parking of vehicles on the shingle in front of beach huts could constitute a loss of amenity.

(vii) It was proposed by Mr Cox and seconded by Mr Oakley that the application should be refused on the grounds of amenity by reason of the loss of or reduction in the car parking facility adjacent to the beach hut. This proposal was not carried on a vote being taken.

(viii) The committee then voted on the officer recommendation to permit. A majority of members were in favour of the application being approved.

(ix) Recommendation to permit agreed.

SI/14/01742/FUL 47 Holborow Lodge Chalder Lane Sidlesham Chichester PO20 7RJ

(i) Mr Whitty presented this proposal for the demolition of an existing greenhouse and for a proposed extension to the existing building. He drew attention to slides displayed on the screens showing a location plan, elevation drawings and photographs. [PC M13] (ii) There were no entries in the agenda update sheet in respect of this item.

(iii) The following members of the public addressed the committee on this application:

(a) Mrs P Fitzsimons – supporter

(b) Miss M Turk – on behalf of the applicant

(iv) There were no members’ clarification questions for the speakers in para (iii).

(v) In the course of its discussion all but one of the members supported the application. They considered that the proposed extension would be a suitable replacement for the existing greenhouse, which they accepted was unsuitable for storage of wood, hutches, tables and chairs (used for fundraising events) in relation to the use of the adjoining buildings as a rescue facility for the boarding and care of cats and rabbits. It was noted that condition 4 (use of building) would permit storage use only.

(vi) Recommendation to permit agreed.

[Note After this item there was a lunch adjournment between 13:37 and 14:05]

WE/14/00911/FUL 54 Land on the North Side of Long Copse Lane Westbourne West Sussex

(i) During the course of the presentation by Miss Bell of this proposal for the erection of 16 dwellings, vehicular and pedestrian access, car and cycle parking and landscaping, members viewed an aerial photograph, site photographs, colour site plans (previous and current), colour street frontages and a black and white detail drawing of typical units.

(ii) There were no entries in the agenda update sheet in respect of this item.

(iii) The following members of the public addressed the committee on this application:

(a) Ms S James – West Sussex County Council member (Bourne Division)

(b) Mr D Todd – objector

(d) Mrs V Dowling – objector

(e) Mr D Neame – agent for the applicant

(iv) Mr Smith consented to the speaker in para (iii) (c) circulating some photographs for members and officers to view while he addressed the committee.

(v) There were no members’ clarification questions for any of the speakers in para (iii).

(vi) During the committee’s debate members expressed several concerns about this proposal including:

[PC M14]  The prominence of the development in the landscape by virtue of the northeast to south-east gradient of the site, which was elevated above North Street at its eastern boundary, and how the proposed scheme might affect the character and appearance of the village and its setting.

 The significance of a reduction of the strategic gap between Westbourne and Emsworth in view of the amount of development on the Hampshire border area, to which a development such as this would contribute (a concern in fact expressed by Havant Borough Council in its consultation response in para 6.7 of the agenda report, in spite of its having permitted development which had encroached into the strategic gap).

 The reason for this site having been included in Chichester District Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) in view of the appeal decision in December 2013.

 The risk or prospect that the 0.36 ha of retained paddock area on the site might subsequently be developed.

 The need for greater clarity as to the arrangements for the surface and foul water drainage, particularly given (according to the West Sussex County Council representative who had earlier addressed the meeting) the apparent acknowledgement by Southern Water in a report not yet made available to the committee that there were wastewater infrastructure capacity issues in this area.

 The difficulty in distinguishing (notwithstanding what was said in the agenda report) between this scheme and that for 22 houses on the same site which had been refused permission on appeal by a planning inspector in December 2013.

(vii) Miss Bell and Mr Frost replied to members’ questions and comments as follows:

 The consultation response by Southern Water was set out in para 6.4 of the agenda report. Officers had not seen the document mentioned by one of the public speakers. The issue was not headroom capacity for this development at Thornham wastewater treatment works but how the foul drainage from the site would be conveyed to Thornham, which was addressed by informative 5 (Southern Water).

 The decision letter in the dismissed appeal in December 2013 for 22 houses on the same site was summarised and its relevance to a decision on this application explained in paras 8.1 to 8.5 and 8.10 to 8.16 of the agenda report. The planning inspector had accepted the principle of development of this site in the context of the shortfall of the five-year housing land supply but had refused the application on the sole ground of the considerable harm that the scheme would cause to the character and appearance of the village and its setting. This scheme had addressed the planning inspector’s concerns by reducing the number of dwellings by six to 16, opening up views through the site, and decreasing the height of the houses and the density of the scheme. West Sussex County Council’s landscape section did not object to the proposal on the basis of imposing detailed planting and landscaping proposals. The new scheme also addressed the rural aspect of the village to which emphasis was given in the Westbourne Parish Village Design Statement. [PC M15]

 The weight which could be given to the village’s emerging neighbourhood development was limited as explained in para 8.7 of the agenda report.

 The fact that the site appeared in the SHLAA document (the latest version of which had been published in May 2014) was because it had been proposed as a candidate for inclusion. This entry did not per se accord the site any planning status. In dismissing the appeal for the larger scheme the planning inspector had not objected to the principle of development of this site. It was for the committee to determine whether the differences in this scheme had overcome the concerns expressed by the inspector in her decision letter.

(viii) At the end of the discussion it was proposed by Mr Oakley and seconded by Mr Montyn that (in view of the gradient of the site and the proximity of housing developments on the Hampshire border) this application should be deferred for members to make a site visit. They agreed with suggestions by two other members that in view of the proposed site visit the opportunity should be taken during the deferral period to obtain from Southern Water its statement on wastewater treatment works infrastructure capacity, to ask it to explain how it would improve the foul drainage arrangements for this area, to invite a Southern Water representative to attend this committee’s meeting at which it next considered this application and to obtain a map of recent housing developments on the Hampshire border in the area near to this site.

(ix) On a vote being taken a majority of the committee supported a deferral of this application for all of the foregoing reasons.

(x) Defer (a) for a site visit by members, (b) to obtain the Southern Water statement on wastewater treatment works infrastructure capacity, (c) to request Southern Water to explain how it would improve the foul drainage arrangements for this area, (d) to invite a Southern Water representative to attend this committee’s meeting at which it next considers this application and (e) to obtain a map of recent housing developments on the Hampshire border in the surrounding area to this site.

WE/14/01217/FUL 75 Land West of Harwood Cemetery Lane Woodmancote Westbourne West Sussex

(i) At the committee’s previous meeting on Wednesday 23 July 2014 this application had been deferred for officers (a) to seek clarification from West Sussex County Council’s (WSCC) Gypsy and Traveller Manager regarding the cumulative impact and sustainability of five pitches and (b) to provide an interpretation of national government advice as to acceptable levels of concentration of gypsy and traveller sites within an area. The additional information obtained during the deferral period was denoted by the use of bold text on pages 82, 84 and 87 of the agenda report.

(ii) Mr Whitty explained this application for the re-design of an existing pitch including the removal of stables granted in permission WE/13/03867/FUL and the additional use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes for four gypsy pitches together with the formation of additional hard standing and utility/dayrooms ancillary to that use. During his presentation members viewed photographs (including an aerial view) and plans (site location and site block) on the screens.

(iii) Mr Whitty drew attention to (a) the WSCC Gypsy and Traveller Manager’s response on page 82, which showed that she had no concerns insofar as four additional [PC M16] pitches on this site were concerned and which moreover she did not consider would significantly increase the number of traveller sites and pitches in each particular area and (b) the table in para 8.12 showing current provision of gypsy and traveller pitches within the Westbourne and Southbourne areas. With regard to (b) and paras 8.17a and 8.17b of the agenda report, he drew attention to a map shown on the screens which indicated the locations of pitches in the area.

(iv) The agenda update sheet set out a revised description for this proposal namely:

‘Provision of 5 Gypsy and Traveller pitches incorporating the re-design of an existing pitch (including the removal of stables granted in permission 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.’

(v) The following members of the public addressed the committee on this application:

(a) Mr D Todd (Westbourne Parish Council) – parish representative (in objection)

(b) Mr N Green – agent for the applicant

(vi) Mr Smith consented to the speaker in para (v) (a) circulating a copy of the refusal decision notice in respect of planning application WE/14/01132/FUL (the Old Army Camp) for members and officers to peruse while he addressed the committee.

(vii) The speaker in para (v) (b) answered a member’s clarification question.

(viii) In discussion members referred to (a) the unacceptable and inappropriate increase in the built environment within the open countryside which this proposal would cause; (b) how some if not all of the reasons for refusal of permission on the adjacent Old Army Camp site (WE/14/01132/FUL) were in their view applicable also to this proposal eg reasons (2) cumulative provision given gypsy and traveller site already in immediate area and (3) traffic movements; (c) the risk to human health of locating pitches in close proximity to power lines which crossed this site.

(ix) During the discussion Mr Whitty responded to members’ questions as follows:

 The grounds for the refusal of application WE/14/01132/FUL (the Old Army Camp) could be distinguished from this proposal. That location would have been adjacent to a public transit site; the geographical location here was different (it was further along Cemetery Lane), there were far fewer pitches and there would be a greater level of screening.

 The planning permission for one pitch on this site in March 2014 (WE/13/ 03867/FUL) had been made on the basis that the committee had delegated the decision to officers to investigate the health and safety aspects of the overhead power lines which crossed the site and subject thereto to permit. It should be noted that in the event there had been no objection by Chichester District Council’s environmental health section.

 The application was for five pitches, which included the single pitch already permitted on the site in March 2014. In order to ensure that there would be only five pitches in total and not six, officers would expect in the event of the grant of permission for the applicant to agree to a revocation order in respect [PC M17] of planning permission WE/13/03867/FUL (the applicant’s agent was present and he indicated his consent to such a revocation).

(x) A vote on whether to approve the recommendation to permit was not carried.

(xi) The committee discussed the grounds on which the application should be refused, a proposal to that effect by Mr Oakley and seconded by Mr Cox having been made. It was agreed that a refusal should include the cumulative impact of five pitches constituting unacceptable harm in the open countryside and to Cemetery Lane.

(xii) A proposal by Mr Barrett and seconded by Mrs Tassell to add as an additional reason for refusal the proximity of the pitches to power lines crossing the site was not carried on a vote being taken.

(xiii) Mr Oakley’s proposal as set out in para (xi) was supported by a majority of members on a vote being taken.

(xiv) Refuse for the following reasons:

 (1) The site is in close proximity to a large established gypsy and traveller site comprising 17 pitches and an existing travelling showperson's plot. The cumulative provision of 23 pitches and plots on the periphery of the modest historic village of Westbourne is considered unacceptable. Contrary to promoting peaceful and integrated co- existence between the site and local community, as advised by the Planning policy for traveller sites (PPfTS), the cumulative provision would dominate the existing settled community and give rise to an increased likelihood of social tension both with the settled community and between occupiers on neighbouring sites. The proposal therefore conflicts with policy 36 of the submitted Chichester Local Plan Key Policies Pre-Submission 2014-2029 (with modifications) and para 23 of the PPfTS.

 (2) The village cemetery and associated chapel to the south of Cemetery Lane is considered a non-designated heritage asset, its rural context and the setting of which contributes to the experience of the asset for its particular purpose. The proposed additional four gypsy and traveller pitches above the existing authorised provision, would result in the intensification of the use of Cemetery Lane and lead to detrimental increases in levels of activity and traffic, noise and disturbance in the immediate vicinity of the cemetery. These changes to the setting of the cemetery are likely to be harmful to the quality of people's experience which at present is one of quiet serenity befitting a place of rest and reflection. The proposal therefore does not comply with policies 47 and 48 of the submitted Chichester Local Plan Key Policies Pre-Submission 2014-2029 (with modifications) and section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 (3) The provision of five gypsy and traveller pitches in this open landscape would lead to an erosion of its rural character, to the detriment of the amenities of the area. Consequently the proposal is therefore contrary to policy RE1 of the Chichester District Local Plan: First Review, policies 1 and 48 of the Chichester Local Plan Key Policies Pre-Submission 2014-2029 (with modifications) and section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework. [PC M18] [Note This decision was contrary to the planning officer’s recommendation]

WI/14/01626/FUL 91 Greenleas Itchenor Road West Itchenor Chichester West Sussex PO20 7DA

(i) Mr Whitty introduced this proposal for a replacement dwelling with guest lodge and garage with reference to a series of slides shown on the screens consisting of a location plan, an aerial photograph of the site and surrounding area, photographs of various views of the site, the substitute application plan and the proposed elevation drawings.

(ii) The agenda update sheet reported one additional comment received from a neighbour.

(iii) There had been circulated to each committee member at the start of the meeting a statement by West Itchenor Parish Council on a double-sided A4 sheet which set out its objections to the proposal and requested that the application be refused. This statement was the substance of the address to the committee given by the parish representative in para (v) (a) below.

(iv) Mr Whitty identified the following principal issues in this matter:

 The appropriateness of the design and the impact of the replacement dwelling (its height, silhouette and footprint) on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) having regard inter alia to the Design Guidelines for New Dwellings and Extensions - Chichester Harbour AONB (Harbour Conservancy), the West Itchenor Village Design Statement (second edition) and a range of national and local planning policy and guidance (paras 8.2 to 8.7 of the agenda report).

 The principle of the annexe, which the applicant stated would be used only as ancillary to the main house by family members and would not be used as a separate unit of accommodation (paras 8.8 to 8.10).

 The impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers having regard to distances and landscaping (para 8.11).

The basis of the recommendation to permit was in para 8.13 of the agenda report.

(v) The following members of the public addressed the committee on this application:

(a) Mr A Spencer (West Itchenor Parish Council) – parish representative (in objection)

(b) Mr S Andrews – agent for the applicant

(vi) The speaker in para (v) (b) answered members’ clarification questions.

(vii) In discussing this application members expressed various concerns about the development namely:

 It did not conform to para 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the text of which had not been cited in the agenda report).

[PC M19]  The questionable basis on which the Chichester Harbour Conservancy had withdrawn its original objection to the proposal.

 The proposed use of the annexe and whether it might in fact be used as a separate dwelling or would set a precedent in this area.

 The size of the property – a large main house with a separate garage and annexe - would increase the built environment in the AONB and this was inappropriate per se and landscape screening was insufficient mitigation because trees would not last forever (some members thought that this was not an issue given the extent of the site itself).

 The quality of the design of the main house in particular was unsatisfactory and unbalanced in its proportions.

(viii) During the debate Mr Whitty replied to members’ questions and comments as to:

 The view to be taken of the annexe. An annexe could be either attached to a property, as existing, or detached, as proposed. This annexe should be treated solely and simply as the applicant proposed, namely an ancillary use only to the main house. That use would be governed by condition, which could be enforced in the event of any proven breach of planning control.

 The officer assessment of the silhouette and footprint dimensions of the replacement dwelling.

 The proposed materials: not all the details eg colours were yet known (as the report stated) but they would be the subject of a condition.

 The competing national and local policy considerations including the Design Guidelines for New Dwellings and Extensions - Chichester Harbour AONB (Harbour Conservancy): these had been carefully assessed by officers. The reference to policy H12 in the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 in the agenda report (it was also mentioned by the agent in his address to the committee) was incorrect as that policy did not apply in this case.

 The advice and comments regarding design issues made by Chichester District Council’s Historic Buildings Adviser in para 6.3 of the agenda report.

(ix) At the conclusion of the debate a vote on the recommendation to permit was not carried.

(x) It was proposed by Mr Montyn and seconded by Mrs Tull that the application should be refused on the grounds that the development, by reason of its excessive scale, its unsatisfactory and unbalanced design and its site coverage, would be (a) harmful to the AONB and (b) contrary to para 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Guidelines for New Dwellings and Extensions - Chichester Harbour AONB (Harbour Conservancy) and the West Itchenor Village Design Statement (second edition). This proposal was supported by a majority on a vote being taken.

(xi) Refuse for the following reason:

The proposed development would, by reason of its scale, mass, unbalanced design and overall footprint, have a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty contrary to paras 64 and [PC M20] 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Guidelines for New Dwellings and Extensions - Chichester Harbour AONB and the West Itchenor Village Design Statement (second edition).

Informative:

This decision relates to plans: 53_P001, 53_P002 Rev A, 53_P003 Rev A, 53_P010, 53_P110, 53_P111, 53_P112, 53_P120, 53_P121, 53_P122, 53_P130 Rev A, 53_P140.

[Note This decision was contrary to the planning officer’s recommendation]

[Note At the end of this item there was a short adjournment from 16:10 to 16:17]

WT/14/01157/FUL 102 Baker Barracks Emsworth Road Thorney Island Emsworth West Sussex PO10 8DH

(i) Miss Bell explained this proposal, with reference to the geographical and constraint features of its setting on Thorney Island, for the construction of one two-storey and two three-storey accommodation buildings for active service personnel, associated landscaping and flood mitigation measures, which was illustrated by slides shown on the screens consisting of plans (location and existing/proposed ground floor), elevation drawings and photographs for each of the three accommodation units.

(ii) The agenda update sheet reported a revised condition 2 (no departure from plans) with officer comment thereon.

(iii) No members of the public addressed the committee in respect of this matter.

(iv) Members discussed (a) the loss of trees; (b) the impact of the siting of the officers’ accommodation block so close to the 1930s period officers’ mess; (c) design issues including the use of landscape rather than portrait windows and whether plain tiles (as on other extant buildings) could be used instead of the proposed pan tiles.

(v) In her response to members, Miss Bell gave advice regarding (a) the trees which would be affected by the development (as stated in para 3.5 of the report); (b) the siting of the accommodation blocks being influenced by the need to ensure they were subordinate to the rest of site (the officer mess was not a listed building) and to avoid the development being spread too widely over the site; (c) the orientation of the windows had already been discussed but landscape had to be used; (d) the use of plain tiles would be raised with the applicant under proposed condition 3.

(vi) After the debate, a majority of members voted to approve this application.

(vii) Recommendation to permit with condition 3 (materials/finishes) to require use of plain rather than pan tiles if possible agreed.

SDNP/14/02213/HOUS 119 1 Raughmere Court Raughmere Drive Lavant Chichester West Sussex PO18 0DT

(i) This application together with the related and immediately following proposal SDNP /14/02214/LIS had been referred to the committee for a decision under a red card issued by Mr Smith. [PC M21] (ii) Mr Saunders introduced this proposal to enlarge an existing rear conservatory, which he explained from photographs, plans and drawings shown on the screens. He summarised the basis for the officer recommendation to refuse the application.

(iii) There were no entries in the agenda update sheet in respect of this item.

(iv) The following members of the public addressed the committee:

(a) Mr I Hutton (Lavant Parish Council) - parish representative (in support)

(b) Mr N Moore – agent for the applicant

(v) There were no members’ clarification questions for either speaker in para (iv).

(vi) Save for one member, the committee expressed support for this proposal in the ensuing discussion. Members felt that that both within its immediate setting and in the wider landscape neither previous nor the proposed alterations to this and other converted farm buildings in the courtyard had caused or would cause harm. The extension would, it was considered, read as part of a converted agricultural building. The design was considered to be appropriate.

(vii) Mr Saunders explained that the officer recommendation was to refuse this and the related listed building consent application on the grounds that the proposed extension would, by virtue of its size and form, appear as an unsympathetic addition and such an incremental change would thereby further erode the rural character of this grade II listed building. The rationale for the recommendation was set out in detail in paras 8.2 to 8.6, 9.1 and 10.1 of the agenda report. He referred to the terms of paras 132 to 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (conserving and enhancing the historic environment) and the approach to be adopted as set out in those sections.

(viii) At the conclusion of the debate it was proposed by Mrs Tull and seconded by Mrs Duncton that the proposal should be permitted, which was supported by all but one of the members.

(ix) Permit with the following conditions:

 (1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:

Plan Type Reference Version Date on Plan Status

Plans - DRG-005 30.04.2014 Approved Location Plan Plans - Site DRG-004 V2 30.04.2014 Approved Block Plan Plans - DRG-003 V2 30.04.2014 Approved Detailed plan Plans - DRG-002 V2 30.04.2014 Approved Elevations Plans - DRG-001 V2 30.04.2014 Approved Ground Floor Plan

[PC M22] • Reason For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

 (2) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

• Reason To comply with the provisions of section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); to comply with section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

 (3) The development hereby permitted shall be constructed using external materials to match those on the existing building in colour, texture, form and composition unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

• Reason In the interests of amenity.

[Note This decision was contrary to the planning officer’s recommendation]

SDNP/14/02214/LIS 126 1 Raughmere Court Raughmere Drive Lavant Chichester West Sussex PO18 0DT

(i) This application together with the related and immediately preceding proposal SDNP/14/02213/HOUS had been referred to the committee for a decision under a red card issued by Mr Smith.

(ii) Mr Saunders introduced this proposal to enlarge an existing rear conservatory, which he explained from photographs, plans and drawings shown on the screens. He summarised the basis for the officer recommendation to refuse the application.

(iii) There were no entries in the agenda update sheet in respect of this item.

(iv) The following members of the public addressed the committee:

(a) Mr I Hutton (Lavant Parish Council) - parish representative (in support)

(b) Mr N Moore – agent for the applicant

(v) There were no members’ clarification questions for either speaker in para (iv).

(vii) Mr Saunders explained that the officer recommendation was to refuse this and the related planning application on the grounds that the proposed extension would, by virtue of its size and form, appear as an unsympathetic addition and such an incremental change would thereby further erode the rural character of this grade II listed building. The rationale for the recommendation was set out in detail in paras 8.2 to 8.6, 9.1 and 10.1 of the agenda report. He referred to the terms of paras 132 to 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (conserving and enhancing the [PC M23] historic environment) and the approach to be adopted as laid down in those sections.

(viii) At the conclusion of the debate it was proposed by Mrs Tull and seconded by Mrs Duncton that the proposal be permitted, which was supported by all but one of the members.

(ix) Permit with the following conditions:

 (1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:

Plan Reference Version Date on Plan Status Type Plans - DRG-004 V2 30.04.2014 Approved Location Plan Plans - DRG-005 30.04.2014 Approved Site Block Plan Plans - DRG-001 V2 30.04.2014 Approved Detailed Plan Plans - DRG-002 V2 30.04.2014 Approved Elevation Plan Plans - DRG-003 V2 30.04.2014 Approved Ground Floor Plan

• Reason For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

 (2) The works hereby consented shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

• Reason To comply with the provision of section 18 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended).

• Reason In the interests of amenity.

 (4) No development shall take place until details of the windows and doors to be installed have been submitted and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be undertaken in accordance with the agreed details.

• Reason In the interests of the character of the listed building.

[Note This decision was contrary to the planning officer’s recommendation]

[PC M24] 117 Update on Planning Appeal APP/L3815/A/14/2219554 Land to the South of Clappers Lane Bracklesham Bay West Sussex

The committee considered the agenda report (copy attached to the official minutes).

Miss Bell presented the report and made the following points:

 The committee had considered at its meeting on Wednesday 25 June 2014 how it would have determined planning application EWB/14/00457/OUT - Land South of Clappers Lane Bracklesham Bay West Sussex if the applicant had not lodged an appeal by way of a public inquiry against the failure of the local planning authority to determine this application within the prescribed 13-week period for a major application. The committee had agreed with the officer recommendation that the appeal should be contested because the application would have been refused permission. The grounds of the refusal were four-fold, as set out in para 3.3 of the agenda report. The committee had added an additional reason to the three advised by officers namely lack of sustainability namely reason 3) in para 3.3 aforesaid.

 The position had altered since that meeting in that (as explained in paras 3.4 and 3.5 of the agenda report and the letter appended thereto) the Highways Agency was no longer objecting to the scheme provided that the development would contribute towards the A27 junction improvements required by the draft Chichester Local Plan. This meant that the Highways Agency would no longer support reason 2) for the refusal and thus officers were recommending that that reasons be amended by the deletion of the second sentence as shown in the following extract:

‘The development fails to satisfy paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework in that it fails to demonstrate that the residual cumulative impact of the development on the operation of the B2201 and A286 Birdham Road arms of the A286/B2201 junction and the A286 Stockbridge Road approach to the A27 Stockbridge Roundabout would not be severe or that improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that would cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Furthermore the development fails to demonstrate that it would not result in a material impact upon the safety and operation of the strategic road network, in particular the A27/A286 Stockbridge roundabout at the end of the Local Plan period. The development is therefore contrary to the NPPF including paragraphs 14 and 32 and policy 39 of the now submitted Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-Submission (with modifications) 2014-2029.’  The position of West Sussex County Council Highways (WSCCH) as an objector was unaltered.

 The recommendations in consequence of this change of circumstances were set out in paras 2.1 and 2.2 of the report.

Members debated this development and received advice from Mr Frost and Miss Bell.

Mr Frost explained that it was not unusual for applicants to undertake further work on an application after the inception of the appeal process and for consultees to alter their position in the light of new information brought to light. The Highways Agency had chosen to change its stance from objection. Whatever members’ views on (a) the appellant’s highway consultant’s further findings on the impact of (i) the development on the A27 and (ii) traffic on the A27/A286 junctions at the end of the Local Plan period and (b) the Highways Agency’s reaction, it was incumbent on the local planning authority to respond to the reality of that change of circumstances, hence this report. The local planning [PC M25] authority would be unable to find a highway consultant to support its case on this aspect given the Highway Agency’s contention set out in the penultimate para of the appended letter. WSCCH adhered to its original position.

Miss Bell said that officers were endeavouring to obtain the applicant’s further highways technical evidence which had been submitted to the Highways Agency.

Mr Montyn informed the committee that as the WSCC Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport he would be meeting with WSCCH the next day at which the highways-related aspect of this appeal would be a point for discussion.

The committee agreed that in addition to making the resolutions requested of it in paras 2.1 and 2.2 of the agenda report, it would also resolve that officers should obtain the applicant’s specialist junctions operations assessments.

RESOLVED

 That the second ground for contesting the appeal relating to highway matters in respect of planning appeal APP/L3815/A/14/2219554 regarding the site Land to the South of Clappers Lane Bracklesham Bay West Sussex (planning reference EWB/14/00457/OUT) is revised following the letter received from the Highways Agency dated 7 August 2014.

 That the Planning Inspectorate is advised of the proposed amendment to the second ground for contesting the appeal and informed that the Highways Agency will no longer be participating in the planning appeal.

 That development management officers should obtain a copy of the applicant’s operational junction assessment of the A27/Stockbridge roundabout as submitted to the Highways Agency.

118 Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters

The committee considered and noted the schedule of planning appeals, court and policy matters which had been circulated with the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes).

The agenda update sheet contained no entries in respect of the schedule.

Mr Smith said that no member had advised him of a wish to raise an item in this schedule.

Mr Frost referred members to:

Section Two – Decisions Received

 BI/12/04141/OUT – Land South East of Coppice Barn Church Lane Birdham

Miss Golding updated the committee with regard to the following prosecutions entry:

Section Six – Court and Other Matters

Prosecutions

 Decoy Farm Aldingbourne – the defendant had entered a not guilty plea on Wednesday 13 August 2014 and the court had set a trial date of Tuesday 18 November 2014.

[PC M26] 119 Late Items

There were no late items considered at this meeting.

120 Exclusion of the Press and the Public

The committee agreed to pass the resolution set out on the third page of the agenda front sheets to exclude the press and the public from the meeting during the consideration of agenda item 09 in para 121 below.

RESOLVED

That in accordance with section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (the Act) the public and the press be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of agenda item 09 for the reason that it is likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted that there would be disclosure to the public of “exempt information” being information of the nature described in Paragraph 5 (information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings) of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

121 Land South of 118 St Pancras Chichester West Sussex PO19 7LH – Judicial Review Proceedings

There was no written agenda report in respect of this item.

Members received an oral report from Miss Golding regarding an application which had been made by a member of the public who was seeking a judicial review of the committee’s decision made at its meeting on Wednesday 28 May 2014 to permit planning application CC/13/00181/FUL – Land South of 118 St Pancras Chichester. She identified the three main grounds of the application. Pursuant to the delegated powers conferred on him by Chichester District Council’s (CDC) constitution, Mr Frost had authorised the entering of a defence by CDC to the judicial review proceedings.

The applicant had first to obtain the court’s leave to seek a judicial review. One of the preliminary issues to consider was whether the time limits for making the application had been observed.

The committee was requested to endorse Mr Frost’s decision that CDC should defend the case and, furthermore, that he should have authority, together with CDC’s Legal Services section, to conclude this matter (including a claim for costs).

RESOLVED

That the Planning Committee endorses (a) the action already taken by the Head of Planning Services to enter a defence to the judicial review proceedings in respect of the decision by the local planning authority to permit with conditions planning application CC/ 13/00181/FUL and (b) all further steps which need to be taken by him in conjunction with Legal Services to conclude the matter including seeking a costs order.

[Note The following two members abstained from voting: Mrs Tull on the basis that she had originally voted to refuse the planning application and Mr Oakley because he had not been present at the meeting when the planning application had been approved]

[PC M27]

[Note The meeting ended at 17:13]

______

CHAIRMAN

______

DATE

[PC M28] AGENDA ITEM 5

Chichester District Council

Planning Committee

17th September 2014

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

THE BACKGROUND PAPERS RELATING TO THIS REPORT CONSIST OF REPRESENTATIONS FROM THIRD PARTIES, REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND OBSERVATIONS FROM STATUTORY AND OTHER CONSULTEES

RECOMMENDATIONS APPEAR IN CODED FORM. THE FULL TEXT OF CONDITIONS OR REASONS IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST AT THE COUNCIL OFFICES OR CAN BE VIEWED ONLINE AT WWW.CHICHESTER.GOV.UK QUOTING THE APPLICATION REFERENCE NUMBER.

Planning Committee 1 How Applications are referenced:

a) First 2 Digits = Parish b) Next 2 Digits = Year c) Next 5 Digits = Application Number d) Final Letters = Application Type

Application Type Committee report changes appear in bold text. Application Status

ADV Advert Application AGR Agricultural Application (following PNO) ALLOW Appeal Allowed CMA County Matter Application (eg Minerals) APP Appeal in Progress CAC Conservation Area Consent APPRET Invalid Application Returned COU Change of Use APPWDN Appeal Withdrawn CPO Consultation with County Planning (REG3) BCO Building Work Complete DEM Demolition Application BST Building Work Started DOM Domestic Application (Householder) CLOSED Case Closed ELD Existing Lawful Development CRTACT Court Action Agreed FUL Full Application CRTDEC Hearing Decision Made GVT Government Department Application CSS Called in by Secretary of State HSC Hazardous Substance Consent DEC Decided LBC Listed Building Consent DECDET Decline to determine OHL Overhead Electricity Line DEFCH Defer – Chairman OUT Outline Application DISMIS Appeal Dismissed PLD Proposed Lawful Development HOLD Application Clock Stopped PNO Prior Notification (Agr, Dem, Tel) INV Application Invalid on Receipt REG3 District Application – Reg 3 LEG Defer – Legal Agreement REG4 District Application – Reg 4 LIC Licence Issued REM Approval of Reserved Matters NFA No Further Action REN Renewal (of Temporary Permission) NODEC No Decision TCA Tree in Conservation Area NONDET Never to be determined TEL Telecommunication Application (After PNO) NOOBJ No Objection TPA Works to tree subject of a TPO NOTICE Notice Issued NOTPRO Not to Prepare a Tree Preservation Order CONACC Accesses OBJ Objection CONADV Adverts PCNENF PCN Served, Enforcement Pending CONAGR Agricultural PCO Pending Consideration CONBC Breach of Conditions PD Permitted Development CONCD Coastal PDE Pending Decision CONCMA County matters PER Application Permitted CONCOM Commercial/Industrial/Business PLNREC DC Application Submitted CONDWE Unauthorised dwellings PPNR Planning Permission Required S64 CONENG Engineering operations PPNREQ Planning Permission Not Required CONHDG Hedgerows REC Application Received CONHH Householders REF Application Refused CONLB Listed Buildings REVOKE Permission Revoked CONMHC Mobile homes / caravans S32 Section 32 Notice CONREC Recreation / sports SPLIT Split Decision CONSH Stables / horses STPSRV Stop Notice Served CONT Trees STPWTH Stop Notice Withdrawn CONTEM Temporary uses – markets/shooting/ VAL Valid Application Received motorbikes WDN Application Withdrawn CONTRV Travellers YESTPO Prepare a Tree Preservation Order CONWST Wasteland

Planning Committee 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CDC APPLICATIONS

Item Application No. Site Address / Proposal Page No. No. 1. WW/14/02191/FUL Wee Kendia 21 Marine Close West 4 Wittering Chichester West Sussex PO20 8HG

Demolition of existing property and construction of two new replacement dwellings.

2. WW/14/02253/FUL Chambon Rookwood Road West Wittering 14 Chichester PO20 8LT

Detached 3 bedroom dwelling.

3. WH/14/01447/FUL Chichester Contract Services Stane Street 22 Westhampnett Chichester West Sussex PO18 0NS

Erection of building for use as HGV testing centre, with new vehicular and pedestrian access from Stane Street.

4. S B/14/01907/DOM 18 New Road Southbourne Emsworth 33 PO10 8JX

Proposed two storey side extension.

5. CC/14/02309/COU 1 Lime Close Chichester West Sussex 39 PO19 6SW

Change of use to house in multiple occupation.

SDNPA APPLICATIONS

6. SDNP/14/02693/FUL (LURG) Playing Field East Of Jubilee Cottage 45 High Hamstead Lane Lurgashall West

Sussex

Change of use of part of field to permit car parking and installation of hard surface on car parking area.

7. SDNP/14/02937/LIS (MID) Wheatsheaf Inn Wool Lane Midhurst 59

West Sussex GU29 9BX

External decoration scheme which includes new colours for the walls, windows and existing signage. Replacement front door frame and front window.

Planning Committee 3

Parish: Ward: West Wittering West Wittering

1 WW/14/02191/FUL

Proposal Demolition of existing property and construction of two new replacement dwellings.

Site Wee Kendia 21 Marine Close West Wittering Chichester West Sussex PO20 8H

Map Ref (E) 479319 (N) 96937

Applicant Mr Allan Gibbins

RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT

Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced NOT TO from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the SCALE controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803

Planning Committee 4

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The application site lies on the southern side of Marine Close, a residential street adjacent to the foreshore and only a short walk from the centre of East Wittering, where there are a wide range of facilities and services.

2.2 There is a varied mix of house types in close proximity to the site including bungalows, chalet bungalows, 2 storey dwellings along Marine Close, and a 4 storey flatted development to the east, known as Seagate Court. The use of materials and the architecture of the dwellings are also mixed, including the use of brick, painted render and cladding on dwellings of varied height and scale and from modern to traditional design. The streetscene is therefore eclectic and devoid of a strong predominant form of development. Many dwellings do, however, respond to the seafront location in their design and use of materials.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 This application seeks permission for: - 1 x 3 bed dwelling; 14m (d) x 6.6m (w) x 6.5m (h) on the western plot (Plot A) - 1 x 4 bed dwelling; 16.65m (d) x 6.5m (d) x 7.1m (h) on the eastern plot (Plot B) Each dwelling would be afforded 2 off-road car parking spaces and a garage adjacent to Marine Close, and a garden on the southern side adjoining the foreshore.

4.0 History

No relevant planning history

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area NO AONB NO Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO SFRA Flood Zone NO - Flood Zone 2 NO - Flood Zone 3 NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO

Planning Committee 5 6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

The Parish Council objects to this application. Please refer to the West Wittering VDS Policy 43 which seeks to maintain spaces between properties in this location. The proposed height and bulk is excessive and in the Council's opinion constitutes overdevelopment of the plot.

6.2 WSCC - Strategic Planning

Each dwelling will have a driveway for 2 parking spaces which meets the demand for a development of this size in this area. Both dwellings will also have a garage for bike storage. The development does not provide the ability for a vehicle to turn within the site, however given the nature of the road and the visibility available on the road, there would be no concerns about this.

Based on the information submitted no concerns would be raised from a highway perspective, subject to conditions securing the parking and cycle parking.

6.3 Chichester Access Group

In line with future proofing good practice and to improve access, the Chichester Access Group (CAG) requests that level access is provided to at least one entrance of the new Dwellings, together with the fitting of 900mm doorways, and that regard is given to the height of the fitting of electrical outlets, in line with Part M. CAG also requests that one of the Ground Floor En-suites in each dwelling is provided as a Wet Room or Wheelchair Accessible Shower Room, to facilitate access to wheelchair users and other disabled residents and visitors.

6.4 13 Third Party Objections (2 have written twice);

a) overdevelopment; b) development further forward on plot; c) overlooking of flats and neighbouring bungalow; d) excessive height; e) compromises existing pattern of development; f) building line different; g) orientation prevents maximising solar gain; h) too dense; i) proximity of Seagate Court isn't clearly shown; j) overshadowing; k) plot size too big and different to adjacent properties; l) roofs running north to south are not in keeping with existing designs; m) overbearing; n) adverse effect on character of area; o) smoke from chimneys will blow into Seagate Court; p) access too narrow; q) cause problems with refuse collection; and r) blind exit putting pedestrians at risk.

Planning Committee 6 6.5 1 Third Party Support;

a) the north - south orientation is sympathetic to retaining view of sea; and b) will provide an attractive transition from Seagate Court to Marine Close sea front.

6.6 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information

The agent has submitted additional information in support of the application which seeks to demonstrate that the proposal would not cause harm, and outlines the following; a) notable gaps will be retained between dwellings and gardens comparable in size with neighbouring properties; b) plot widths vary from 9-16m, with the application site being the largest at 16m; c) pre-application advice was sought and LPA advised 2 no. 2 storey dwellings, of which the western plot should be lower, would be acceptable in principle, and it would be preferable to have two different designs to take the opportunity available to improve the character and appearance of the locality; d) a review of relevant planning policies, and as a result of a lack of 5 year housing land supply the Council's housing policies are out of date; e) presumption in favour of sustainable development in NPPF; f) surrounding area is typified by detached dwellings on similar sized plots, and form varies from bungalows to 4 storey flatted development; g) proposal would not set a precedent because each application is assessed on its own merits; h) building heights vary. Proposal would be lower than Seagate Court and 27 Marine Close and would be in keeping with heights of surrounding developments; i) existing building line is varied. Staggered rear elevation responds to the forward position of Seagate Court whilst front elevation is set back from Marine Close and reflects the varied positioning of nearby properties fronting onto Marine Close; and j) site is located within highly sustainable area, the proposal is acceptable in all respects, and should be approved in line with the NPPF.

7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan

7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 and all adopted neighbourhood plans. There is no adopted neighbourhood plan for West Wittering at this time.

7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:

Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:

BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE11 New Development BE13 Town Cramming BE16 Energy Conservation TR6 Highway Safety H1 Dwelling Requirement

Planning Committee 7 7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant.

Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 4: Housing Provision Policy 5: Parish Housing Sites 2012- 2029 Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 50: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas

National Policy and Guidance

7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted.

7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraphs 17 (Core Planning Principles), 49, 57, 58 and 96

7.6 The government's New Homes Bonus (NHB) which was set up in response to historically low levels of housebuilding, aims to reward local authorities who grant planning permissions for new housing. Through the NHB the government will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built. As a result, councils will receive an automatic, six-year, 100 per cent increase in the amount of revenue derived from each new house built in their area. It follows that by allowing more homes to be built in their area local councils will receive more money to pay for the increased services that will be required, to hold down council tax. The NHB is intended to be an incentive for local government and local people, to encourage rather than resist, new housing of types and in places that are sensitive to local concerns and with which local communities are, therefore, content. Section 143 of the Localism Act which amends S.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes certain financial considerations such as the NHB, material considerations in the determination of planning applications for new housing. The amount of weight to be attached to the NHB will be at the discretion of the decision taker when carrying out the final balancing exercise along with the other material considerations relevant to that application.

Planning Committee 8

Other Local Policy and Guidance

7.7 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance and Interim Statements are material to the determination of this planning application:

- Interim Statement on Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours - West Wittering Village Design Statement

7.8 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:

B1 - Managing a changing environment B2 - Greener living D1 - Increasing housing supply D3 - Housing fit for purpose

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Principle of development ii) Impact upon residential amenity iii) Impact upon visual amenity and character of area iv) Impact upon highway safety v) Sustainability vi) Ecology

Assessment i) Principle of development

8.2 The NPPF requires new development to be approved without delay where it is in accordance with the development plan. The application site lies within the West Wittering Settlement Policy Area (SPA) as defined by policy B1 of the Local Plan (LP) where new development will be permitted provided it is otherwise in accordance with the Local Plan. West Wittering benefits from a range of services and facilities and is designated as a service village in Policy 2 of the draft submission Local Plan. Service villages will be the focus for new development outside of Chichester City and Settlement Hubs, and there is a presumption in favour for development within the settlement boundaries. Furthermore, the application site lies less than 90m from the edge of East Wittering which is designated as a Settlement Hub in Policy 2 of the draft submission Local Plan, and less than 0.5km from the settlement centre.

8.3 Paragraph 7 of the NPPF defines three strands of sustainability; an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. The application site lies in a highly sustainable location close to a range of shops, services and facilities where there is a need for housing. Therefore the proposal meets the economic, social and environmental strands of sustainability as set out in the NPPF. The proposal would therefore constitute a sustainable form of development. The construction of 2 dwellings in this location is acceptable in principle, subject to an assessment of other relevant material planning considerations, below.

Planning Committee 9 ii) Impact upon amenity

8.4 The NPPF states in paragraph 17 that planning should ensure a good quality of amenity for all existing and future occupiers of land and buildings, and policy BE11 of the LP and policy 33 of the emerging LP include requirements to protect the amenities of neighbouring properties. A number of objections have been received in relation overlooking and overbearing impacts as a result of the development. These comments have been considered and the issues addressed below.

8.5 The proposed development has been designed with limited fenestration on the flank walls, with only utility room, stairwell and WC windows facing no. 23 Marine Close and Seagate Court. There are mainly bathroom windows on the flank walls facing each new dwelling. The exception would be a study/bedroom window on Plot B facing Plot A, which could be adequately mitigated by the proposed boundary treatment between the dwellings. Each dwelling includes a balcony at first floor level with a staircase from the garden, however these have been designed with the staircases located adjacent to the shared boundary and the provision of obscure glass screens to the sides adjacent to 23 Marine Close and Seagate Court to prevent overlooking of the neighbouring properties. The views to the rear from both the fenestration and the balconies are acceptable given the open character of the gardens alongside the public beach, and the presence of windows and balconies on Seagate Court that already result in a degree of overlooking. Therefore the proposal would not result in an unacceptable level of overlooking or loss of privacy.

8.6 The proposed dwelling on Plot B would be 7m from the nearest block comprising part of Seagate Court (which is adjacent to the foreshore) and approx. 22m from the nearest part of the second block (which runs along the northern and eastern side of Seagate Court). The dwelling on Plot B would be located primarily adjacent to a parking area, with only a small part of the building overlapping the northwest corner of the closest block, and its ridge height would be 7.1m. The windows on the nearest block of flats are orientated to the northwest, however they would not directly face the proposed dwellings, and the windows of the block to the north east of the site would be approx. 22m from the proposed development. Given the orientation of the proposed development, its distance from the neighbouring residential properties within Seagate Court and the height of proposed dwellings, the proposal would not have an oppressive or overbearing impact and would not result in a material loss of light.

8.7 The proposal would not have a significant impact upon the amenities of the neighbours along the northern side of Marine Close due to the distance between the properties. The neighbouring dwelling to the west (no. 23 Marine Close) is a very low bungalow with flat roof outbuildings adjacent to Marine Close and a fully glazed lean-to on the rear. The dwelling has high level glass blocks on its eastern elevation facing the application site, however these are secondary to the main fenestration across the rear elevation of the bungalow. Although the proposed dwellings would extend beyond the rear elevation of no. 23, given the expanse of glazing across the rear elevation and the position of the development to west the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of light. Furthermore, the staggered approach to the rear elevation ensures that the proposal would not have an overbearing impact upon the occupiers of no. 23 Marine Close.

8.8 For the reasons set out above the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbours as a result of overlooking, loss of light or being overbearing.

Planning Committee 10 iii) Impact upon visual amenity and character of area

8.9 Policy 7 of the NPPF requires good design that improves the overall quality of the area and policy. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that "good design is indivisible from good planning" and paragraph 60 states that planning decisions "should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative". Policy BE11 of the LP states that new development should not detract from the surroundings, taking into account its effect on the environment, its design, scale, materials, siting and layout among other factors. Policy 33 of emerging LP also requires new development to meet the highest standards of design. The application site lies within Area 3 (South East Marine) of The West Wittering Village Design Statement (VDS). Policy 40 of the VDS states that the character of the area is eclectic and presents few limitations on the style of any new development, although Policy 43 which is specific to Marine Close states that any new development should maintain the spaces between buildings and reflect the height of adjacent properties.

8.10 The proposed sub-division of the plot into 2 units would result in plots of similar width to many along Marine Close and as such the proposal would not be out of character with the predominant form of development in the locality. In addition, the gaps retained between the proposed dwellings and the existing buildings is not dissimilar to the gaps between other properties in the vicinity. Therefore the siting of the dwellings and the spaces between the existing and proposed buildings are considered to be acceptable. The block of flats to the east is sited much closer to the foreshore than the current property on the application site. However, there are examples of dwellings further west along Marine Close extending closer to the foreshore also. The footprint of the proposed dwellings would not be so different to the surrounding development as to be an incongruous form of development. Therefore the subdivision of the existing site and the layout of the proposal would not result in overdevelopment of the plot and would not be harmful to the visual amenity of the locality.

8.11 The proposed dwellings are both of individual design, which is considered appropriate for the varied streetscene. This approach is also an effective way to ensure that the proposal responds well to the context of the development; the tall block of flats to the east and the lower dwellings to the west, because it provides a lower building on the western plot (Plot A) which is adjacent to an existing bungalow. The buildings will be higher than the neighbouring bungalow, however the heights are not dissimilar to other properties along Marine Close, and therefore the proposal accords with the West Wittering VDS. The height and scale of the buildings would therefore not have a detrimental impact upon the visual amenity of the surrounding area.

8.12 The dwellings are detailed with a number of interesting design features and materials including the seamed roof covering, porthole windows, weatherboarding and balconies all of which respond to and reflect the coastal location of the dwelling. In addition the elevations are broken up by a mix of fenestration styles which provides interesting articulation of the elevations, particularly the gable ends. Many of the dwellings in the vicinity are ridged east- west, however there is a mix of gable ends, hipped ends, dormer windows and flats to the east are flat roofed. As such there is no predominant roof form in the locality and the proposed north-south ridge would not be harmful to the visual amenity of the streetscene.

8.13 The proposal also provides parking and garages adjacent to Marine Close. The position of the garages is in keeping with the approach to outbuildings along Marine Close, and the massing of the buildings has been kept to a minimum. As such, these elements would not be incongruous within the street scene.

Planning Committee 11 8.14 The proposed dwellings would provide 2 properties that add to the eclectic mix of dwellings in the vicinity, and by reason of their layout, scale and design would not detract from the character and visual amenity of Marine Close or the wider surrounding area. The proposal therefore complies with national and local policy requiring high quality design. iv) Impact upon highway safety

8.15 The Highways Authority has advised that the proposed access and parking arrangements are sufficient for the development with adequate visibility. Although turning is not provided on site the Highways Authority is satisfied that this is acceptable because the highway is a one-way 30mph. The proposed development is therefore acceptable in respect of its impact upon the highway, subject to conditions requiring the provision of parking and cycle storage. v) Sustainability

8.16 Policy 10 of the NPPF and policy BE16 of the LP require new development to incorporate energy efficiency measures to minimise energy consumption and the impact upon climate change. The proposal maximises solar gain to the main living areas of the dwellings due to the amount of glazing on the south elevation and photovoltaic or solar panels are proposed to provide renewable energy on site. A condition is recommended requiring a sustainable construction statement prior to commencement of development to manage the details of the solar panels and the use of sustainable construction methods. vi) Ecology

8.17 The application site lies within 5.6km of the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area (SPA) and therefore a contribution towards mitigating the impact of the development upon the SPA is required. The application has agreed to the contribution and the signed unilateral undertaking and the financial contribution is currently awaited.

8.18 The Council's records do not indicate that there are any protected species on or near the site, and given that the garden is laid to lawn with ornamental planting it is considered the proposal would not have an adverse impact upon ecology. The application involves the demolition of a dwelling and therefore an informative is recommended making the developer aware that they must not kill, injure or otherwise harm any protected species during the works.

Significant Conditions

8.19 A number of conditions controlling the development are recommended including; the removal of permitted development rights to prevent the enlargement of the dwellings or the insertion of windows and details of the levels to ensure that the heights of the buildings are as shown on the plans.

Conclusion

8.20 Based on the above it is considered that the proposed dwellings would assist in meeting the housing need of the area by providing a net additional dwelling within a sustainable location and by virtue of its design and appearance the proposal would also add to the overall quality of the area whilst protecting the amenities of neighbours. The proposal complies with development plan policies BE1, BE11, BE12, BE13, BE16, RE4, TR6 and H1 of the Chichester District Local Plan, and policies 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 33, 39, 40, 43 and 50 of the

Planning Committee 12 Chichester District Local Plan: Key Policies - Pre-Submission and is therefore recommended for approval.

Human Rights

8.21 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.

RECOMMENDATION DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT

1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 U87823 In accordance with plans 3 F01F Materials/Finishes 4 F11F Windows and Doors 5 H01F No Extensions without Approval 6 U87824 Levels 7 U87825 No additional first floor windows 8 U87826 Access and parking 9 N34F Bin Storage/Secure Cycle Parking 10 K01H Landscaping 11 K02G Landscaping 12 U87827 Boundary treatment 13 U87836 Sustainable Design and Construction 14 U87914 Balcony screens

INFORMATIVES

1 INF: W36F Wildlife 2 INF: W25G Need for Highway Authority Consent 3 INF: W44F Application Approved Without Amendment

For further information on this application please contact Fjola Stevens on 01243 534734

Planning Committee 13 Parish: Ward: West Wittering West Wittering

2 WW/14/02253/FUL

Proposal Detached 3 bedroom dwelling.

Site Chambon Rookwood Road West Wittering Chichester PO20 8LT

Map Ref (E) 478155 (N) 98645

Applicant Mr Chris Wilson

RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT

Planning Committee 14

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The application site lies on the north eastern side of Rookwood Road, within the Settlement Policy Area (SPA) of West Wittering village and close to the village centre. The site is a triangular shaped plot with the existing dwelling (Chambon) set well back from the frontage of the site behind a parking and turning area, with gardens to the north, east and south laid primarily to lawn. The front garden is bounded by a flint and brick wall to the front, post and rail fencing to the south west and panel fencing with mature planting to the north east. The site is set back from the road behind an area of green space with several mature trees, post box and bus stop; however it is otherwise surrounded by residential properties.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The application seeks planning permission for a new 2 storey detached dwelling with attached garage to the south east of the existing dwelling. The dwelling would be set at right angles to the existing dwelling and would share the existing vehicular access serving Chambon. The proposed dwelling would measure approx. 15.5m (w) x 11.2m (d) (including garage, porch and chimney) x 7.35 (height to ridge) and would be constructed with facing brick and flint under a clay tiled roof with timber windows.

3.2 The same proposal was previously granted planning permission on appeal against non- determination in August 2011.

4.0 History

93/01055/DOM PER Domestic extension.

10/03017/FUL REF Erection of new chalet style bungalow.

11/00741/FUL APLODG Proposed dwelling.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area NO AONB YES Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO SFRA Flood Zone NO - Flood Zone 2 NO - Flood Zone 3 NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO

Planning Committee 15 6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

The Parish Council objects to this application. It is contrary to the West Wittering VDS, policy 29 (b) and the Chichester Harbour AONB policy B2. It is over-development of the plot and not in keeping with the street scene.

6.2 Chichester Harbour Conservancy

No objection. The Conservancy's comments on application WW/11/00741/FUL for a detached 3-bedroom dwelling at the above property remain applicable in relation to application WW/14/02253/FUL of the same description, on the basis that the application has not changed.

6.3 WSCC - Strategic Planning

The current shared access arrangement would be adequate for this proposal. No highway concerns would arise from the current arrangement and visibility appears to meet WSCC required standards. Request conditions pedestrian visibility splays, cycle parking and provision of turning on site.

6.4 2 Third Party Objections; a) Overdevelopment; b) Uneighbourly; c) Adverse visual impact on streetscene; d) Concern about access during construction; e) Noise and disturbance; f) Add to strain on resources; and g) Rookwood Road is narrow due to car parking, causes congestion.

7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan

7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:

Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:

BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE11 New Development BE13 Town Cramming BE16 Energy Conservation RE4 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty TR6 Highway Safety H1 Dwelling Requirement

Planning Committee 16 7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant.

Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 4: Housing Provision Policy 5: Parish Housing Sites 2012- 2029 Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 43: Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Policy 50: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas

National Policy and Guidance

7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraphs 17 (Core Planning Principles), 49, 57, 58 and 96

Planning Committee 17 when carrying out the final balancing exercise along with the other material considerations relevant to that application.

Other Local Policy and Guidance

7.7 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance and Interim Statements are material to the determination of this planning application:

- Interim Statement on Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours - West Wittering Village Design Statement - Chichester Harborough Conservancy Planning Guidelines

7.8 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:

B1 - Managing a changing environment B2 - Greener living D1 - Increasing housing supply D3 - Housing fit for purpose

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are:

i) Principle of development ii) Impact upon residential amenity iii) Impact upon visual amenity and character of area iv) Impact upon highway safety v) Sustainability vi) Ecology

Assessment

8.2 Planning permission was previously granted for the same proposal in 2011, however this permission has recently lapsed. Planning permission was secured at appeal following non- determination of the application by the LPA. However, in a letter dated 9th June 2011 to the Planning Inspectorate the LPA stated that the Area Development Control Committee resolved not to contest the appeal and, had it been in a position to do so, it would have granted conditional planning permission for the development. Although there have been significant changes in policy since 2011, for the reasons set out below, it is considered that there are no reasons to reach a different decision, and it is recommended that planning permission is granted. i) Principle of development

8.3 The NPPF requires new development to be approved without delay where it is in accordance with the development plan. The application site lies within the West Wittering Settlement Policy Area (SPA) as defined by policy B1 of the Local Plan (LP) where new development will be permitted provided it is otherwise in accordance with the Local Plan. West Wittering benefits from a range of services and facilities and is designated as a service village in Policy 2 of the draft submission Local Plan. Service villages will be the focus for new development outside of Chichester City and Settlement Hubs, and there is a

Planning Committee 18 presumption in favour for development within the settlement boundaries. In addition, the Chichester Harborough Conservancy Planning Guidelines states in Policy B1a that new development is likely to be unacceptable unless it is within an established settlement boundary, among other considerations addressed below.

8.4 Paragraph 7 of the NPPF defines three strands of sustainability; an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. The application site lies in a close to shops, services and facilities where there is a need for housing. Therefore the proposal meets the economic, social and environmental strands of sustainability as set out in the NPPF and as such the proposal would constitute a sustainable form of development and is therefore acceptable in principle. The application is assessed against other development management criteria below. ii) Impact upon amenity

8.5 The NPPF states in paragraph 17 that planning should ensure a good quality of amenity for all existing and future occupiers of land and buildings, and policy BE11 of the LP and policy 33 of the emerging LP include requirements to protect the amenities of neighbours. Due to the siting, scale and massing of the proposed dwelling it would not have an adverse impact upon neighbours as a result of loss of light, neither would it be overbearing. Furthermore, the proposed dwelling would not result in significant overlooking, with only 1 of the 4 windows at first floor level on the rear elevation serving a habitable room. Nonetheless a condition requiring all 4 windows at first floor level on the rear elevation to be obscure glazed has been recommended in line with the previous appeal decision for the proposal. The proposal therefore accords with policy and is acceptable in respect of its impact upon residential amenity. iii) Impact upon visual amenity and character of area

8.6 Policy 7 of the NPPF requires good design that improves the overall quality of the area and policy. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that "good design is indivisible from good planning". Policy BE11 of the LP states that new development should not detract from the surroundings, taking into account its effect on the environment, its design, scale, materials, siting and layout among other factors. Policy 33 of emerging LP also requires new development to meet the highest standards of design. In addition, the site lies within the edge of the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and therefore policy RE4, which states that new development which harms the visual quality or distinctive character of the area will not be permitted, is also a consideration.

8.7 The application site lies within Area 1 (Central Conservation) of The West Wittering Village Design Statement (VDS). Policy 22 states that the scale, design, and materials should match the existing and simple elevational treatments and timber windows are required by Policies 24 and 25. In addition Policy 29(b) of the VDS states that new dwellings on the north west side of Rookwood Road should be set back from the road. The Chichester Harbour Conservancy Design Guidelines, in particular Policies B2 and B3 are of relevance, and these require new development to be; of a sympathetic design, scale and massing; constructed with local materials; ensure retention of trees; and respect the pattern of development.

8.8 The existing dwelling on the site is set back from the dwellings to each side. In this part of West Wittering the street frontage fluctuates and many buildings do not directly front onto the road. Although the street scene does not have a strong or repetitive rhythm, to the north of the site several of the buildings have a closer relationship with Rookwood Road. In

Planning Committee 19 addition, the proposed dwelling has been designed with a catslide roof to the front with small hipped roof dormers to minimise the massing and bulk of the building and to provide a simple appearance with traditional features. As a result, the proposed dwelling would have the appearance of continuing the line of buildings to the north, and would not appear to be an incongruous or cramped form of development. Therefore the proposed development would respect the pattern of development in the immediate vicinity.

8.9 The proposal would not result in the loss of the open space to the front of the site, or the trees within this area of green space, and the proposed siting, design and appearance of the proposed dwelling would not harm the visual amenity or character of the surrounding area, including the AONB. The proposal therefore accords with planning national and local policy and supplementary planning guidance in this respect. iv) Impact upon highway safety

8.10 The Highways Authority has advised that the proposed access and parking arrangements are sufficient for the development with adequate turning space on site and visibility to ensure that the development would have an adverse impact upon highway safety. The proposed development is therefore acceptable in respect of its impact upon the highway, subject to conditions requiring the provision of turning, cycle storage and pedestrian visibility splays. v) Sustainability

8.11Policy 10 of the NPPF and policy BE16 of the LP require new development to incorporate energy efficiency measures to minimise energy consumption and the impact upon climate change. The application is accompanied by an energy statement which outlines the proposed sustainable construction measures to be incorporated; which includes meeting Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3, provision of solar panels to meet 10% of the energy demand of the dwelling onsite, higher levels of insulation and use of permeable surfacing. In addition the orientation of the dwelling maximises solar gain and water butts are proposed to collect rain water. The proposed measures are the subject of conditions, in line with those contained within the previous appeal decision for the development. vi) Ecology

8.12 The application site lies within 5.6km of the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area (SPA) and therefore a contribution towards mitigating the impact of the development upon the SPA is required. The agent has agreed to the contribution and the signed unilateral undertaking and the financial contribution is currently awaited.

Significant Conditions

8.13 A number of conditions controlling the development are recommended, and these primarily repeat the conditions imposed by the Planning Inspector on the appeal decision for the previous proposal, with the introduction of a condition to control bin and cycle storage and also the provision of turning on site.

Planning Committee 20 Conclusion

8.14 Based on the above it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies BE1, BE11, BE12, BE13, BE16, RE4, TR6 and H1 of the Chichester District Local Plan, and policies 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 33, 39, 40, 43 and 50 of the Chichester District Local Plan: Key Policies - Pre-Submission. Therefore the application is recommended for approval.

Human Rights

8.15 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.

RECOMMENDATION DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT

1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 U87765 Materials 3 U87766 Approved plans 4 U87767 Obscure glazing 5 U87768 Code Level 3 6 U87769 On-site renewable energy 7 U87771 Landscaping 8 U87773 Levels 9 U87775 Boundary treatment 10 N34F Bin Storage/Secure Cycle Parking 11 U87778 Turning facility 12 U87779 Pedestrian visibility splays iNFORMATIVES

1 INF: W44F Application Approved Without Amendment

For further information on this application please contact Fjola Stevens on 01243 534734

Planning Committee 21

Parish: Ward: Westhampnett Lavant

3 WH/14/01447/FUL

Proposal Erection of building for use as HGV testing centre, with new vehicular and pedestrian access from Stane Street.

Site Chichester Contract Services Stane Street Westhampnett Chichester West Sussex PO18 0NS

Map Ref (E) 487909 (N) 106020

Applicant Chichester District Council

RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

Planning Committee 22

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Applicant is Chichester District Council

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The site is located on the southern side of Stane Street, to the west of the settlement of Westhampnett, and to the northeast of Chichester. Located on the District Council's Contract Services Depot, it is within walking distance of the services and facilities at Portfield Retail Park and has good access onto the A27(T), and to buses along Stane Street and Westhampnett Road. Stane Street is also served by a dedicated cycle path.

2.2 To the north of the site, on the opposite side of Stane Street, lies the open countryside, presently in use as arable farmland, although this area of open countryside is being considered for development as part of the Westhampnett/North East Chichester Strategic Development Location within the emerging Chichester Local Plan. To the east of the site lie two residential properties, one in the ownership of the District Council and the other in private ownership. To the southeast of the site lies the Chichester District Household Waste and Recycling Centre (Waste Transfer Site (WTS)). The large, open sided Recycle Centre building is located beyond the southern boundary of the site. To the southwest of the site lies a commercial building materials supplier, and beyond this other large commercial buildings associated with the Rutland Way business centre, which includes a large concrete works. Portfield Retail Park is located further to southwest. The entrance to the building materials supplier is located to the east, as is the Westhampnett roundabout, providing access onto the A27(T) and onto the Westhampnett Road, which connects to Chichester City Centre.

2.3 The site presently comprises a collection of commercial buildings, storage sheds and large areas of metalled and concreted car parking and vehicle movement circulation spaces serving the Depot site. The western part of the Depot site itself presently benefits from planning permission for the creation of a Gypsy and Traveller Transit Site . The land the subject of this permission comprises a metalled car park and a number of redundant buildings which are proposed to be demolished. The site is bounded by a screen wall along the northern and western boundaries and by metal palisade fencing to the remaining perimeters.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The application seeks to modernise and consolidate the overall Depot, including making provision for the use of the site as an Authorised Testing Facility (ATF) (for the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA)) Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) testing centre. The works include the demolition of a number of old and redundant buildings on the site, and the erection of a new large testing facility building together with vehicle washing facilities and alterations to the access (re-configuring of the existing accesses and a new exit onto the WTS road to the east of the site.

3.2 The new ATF building would measure approximately 36m across (at its widest point) by 23.5m in depth, and provide 3no. testing lanes for HGVs, together with a new storage shed for road sweepers and additional storage space. The building would measure 4m to the eaves and have an overall ridge height of 7.5m, and be constructed from grey coloured, powder coated corrugated steel sheet elevations. The vehicle washing facility would measure 15m by 6m, and comprise side screens along its length but no roof.

Planning Committee 23 Additional areas of parking and hardstanding would be created by the removal of other redundant buildings.

4.0 History

14/00533/FUL PER Provision of gypsy and traveller transit site with new vehicular and pedestrian access from Stane Street.

14/01447/FUL PDE Erection of building for use as HGV testing centre, with new vehicular and pedestrian access from Stane Street.

14/02180/NMA PER Non-material amendment to application WH/14/00533/FUL. Revision of door and window locations to managers office.

14/02556/DOC PCO Discharge of condition relating to 14/00533/FUL, condition 3.

14/02729/DOC PCO Discharge of conditions 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of permission WH/14/00533/FUL.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area YES AONB NO Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO SFRA Flood Zone NO - Flood Zone 2 NO - Flood Zone 3 NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

No comments received.

6.2 WSCC Highways

No objection, subject to conditions.

Planning Committee 24 The site will be used as a HGV testing centre (ATF), and the existing entrance maintained, for use by cars, vans and 4, 5 and 6 vehicles. The original exit will be changed to become a two-way priority junction for use by HGV's, using the ATF, and for cars exiting the depot from the existing workshops.

The Daytime Operation plan submitted (2000 rev b) show two sets of gates. The spacing of these should be set far enough apart to allow for one HGV to wait within the gates, and the first set of gates needs to be set back at least 18m from the carriageway edge, to allow one HGV to enter the junction, without overhanging the carriageway. Visibility splays from the new egress should be in accordance with MfS 2 recommendations.

A stage one Road Safety Audit has been submitted, along with a designer's response, to which 4 problems were identified. These related to conflicts with long vehicles at the proposed HGV access; which swept path analysis has confirmed will not be a problem. Vehicles held up by the location of the pedestrian crossing, causing traffic to back-up onto the public highway. This will be moved further into the site. Visibility obstructed by vegetation (an existing problem) at the junction of Stane Street and the Waste Transfer Site. The designer will liaise with the land owners to establish a maintenance programme for clearing the overgrown vegetation; due to its increased use. There were concerns that vehicles exiting the site via the private road to the WTS may try to turn right onto Stane Street. Although the junction is designed to facilitate 'left hand turns' only, no signs prohibiting 'right' turn exists which if carried out could overrun the existing traffic island.

The designer has accepted the auditors recommendations for all of the problems, and WSCC agree with the measures proposed.

The existing vehicle movements associated with the CCS depot and the WTS have been considered in the Transport Statement. As the site is Sui Generis, no comparable sites were available within the TRICS database. However baseline information was gathered to establish the existing situation.

The CCS depot generates 90 two-way movements per day, and the WTS generates 119 movements per day. The number of traffic movements from the proposed ATF would create an additional 25 vehicle movements per day. This equates to 2/3 movements per hour. Traffic Survey data from an ATC counter on Stane Street indicated 500 two-way peak hour movements, equating to 8 movements per minute.

Therefore it is not anticipated that the additional 2/3 HGV movements would result in a material capacity impact on the existing highway network. WSCC would raise no objections to the increase in vehicle movements.

The site is within a sustainable location with local bus services, and cycle ways in place to provide sustainable transport alternatives. Cycle storage will be provided on site for employees, and a Travel Plan statement will be submitted as part of the applicants desire to encourage sustainable transport alternatives prior to commencement.

6.3 CDC Economic Development Service

The Economic Development Service is supportive of the retention of a HGV testing centre at this site. If the renewed facilities at the site are actively promoted as a commercial testing station, this could provide additional employment.

Planning Committee 25 6.4 CDC Archaeology Officer

The new building would be within 10 metres of the north edge of the line of the Roman road and the link road would cross it. In the circumstances, any ground-works that have the potential to impact on archaeological deposits should be properly investigated.

6.5 CDC Environmental Health - Contamination and Air Quality

The depot site was previously in use as a Union Workhouse and Hospital for Infectious diseases and more recently as a Council depot. There is considered to be potential for localised land contamination at the site from activities such as vehicle maintenance activities and fuel storage. Condition N21G should be applied in order that the land quality can be investigated to ensure that the new building is suitable for its proposed use. All waste arisings must be disposed of in accordance with current Waste Regulations - if any of the building structures contain asbestos then the Asbestos Regulations must be followed. The new building is to be used for vehicle testing and as such, storage facilities should be provide for any waste oils or fuels that arise in connection with this land use. All drainage from this area should pass through oil interception facilities in order to prevent pollution of shallow groundwater or surface water features.

It is noted that the development includes provision for cycle parking facilities which is welcomed. The application form indicated that an increase in the number of car parking spaces will result if the development goes ahead. Measures to encourage the use of sustainable transport should be adopted where possible to minimise the impact of the development on local air quality such as provision of car sharing information, promotion of staff pool bike and giving staff details of local public transport opportunities near the site.

A Transport Statement has been produced for the development which estimates that there will be around 20-25 additional two-way HGV movements per day (around 2-3 vehicle movements per hour). As the existing vehicle flow along Stane Street is in the region of 500 two-way peak hour movements, this increase is considered to be negligible in terms of impact on local air quality. Nevertheless, the proposed Travel Plan Statement is welcomed and the measures within it should be put in place to encourage sustainable modes of transport where possible.

6.6 CDC Environmental Health Officer - Noise

First Consultation Response dated 6 June 2014 In respect of potential noise impacts our observations are as follows:

The proposal concerns the development of a site which is already industrial/commercial in nature.

The site in its current arrangement will already contain activities and processes which give rise to noise of an industrial nature.

It would appear that the proposed HGV Testing Centre would be located in an area which is currently used for parking and storage of refuse and street cleaning vehicles.

The facility would lie within close proximity to a gypsy and traveller transit site, and therefore near to noise sensitive receptors; although it is noted that car parking would be located within the immediate vicinity of the transit site thereby acting as a limited buffer between the site and the HGV Testing Centre.

Planning Committee 26

The transit site is currently afforded some protection from industrial noise due to the existence of sheds at the depot which would act as crude noise barriers. However, it appears that they would be removed to make way for car parking.

Taking these factors into consideration, careful management of the HGV Testing Centre so as to mitigate noise impacts should be a priority. Ideally noisy activities/processes early in the morning should be avoided and should not commence until 07.00 hrs at the earliest. Noise should also be contained within the covered shed as far as practicable and apertures closed during particularly noisy activities. Lastly, the layout and activities at the Test Centre should be positioned and planning so that noise is directed away from the Transit site.

Second Consultation Response dated 25 July 2014 The noise report submitted with this application concludes overall that noise from the proposed activity is unlikely to give rise to significant adverse impact on health and quality of life.

In reaching this conclusion a British Standard 4142:1997 noise assessment was carried out as part of the assessment. This Standard describes a method of determining the level of noise of an industrial nature, together with procedures for assessing whether the noise in question is likely to give rise to complaints from persons living in the vicinity. The report says that the worst case noise in question is likely to give rise to complaints from persons living within the vicinity. The report says that the worst case scenario has been considered. This amounts to emissions smoke tests and air systems tests (S&A tests) being carried out to heavy vehicles. The BS4142 assessment assumes that the S&A test would continue for 3 minutes for each vehicle, with a maximum of 3 heavy vehicles being tested during any 1 hour period. The noise impact has been assessed at the nearest residential property to the east of the site and at the proposed transit site. The outcome of the assessment shows that the likelihood of complaints about noise is below marginal significance (-5dB) at the receptor to the east of the site. At the transit site the outcome shows that the likelihood of complaints will be above marginal significance, but below complaints are likely (+7dB).

The report therefore concludes that the noise effects arising from the testing will lie between the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) and Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL). The LOAEL is the level of noise exposure above which adverse effects on health and quality of life can be detected. The SOAEL is the level of noise exposure above which significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) says that planning policies and decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development; and mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.

Generally the principal of BS4242 is to compare the noise level created by the proposed noise source against the existing background noise level in the area. The greater the difference between these two noise levels, the greater the magnitude of the impact. We consider that a +7dB excess over the background noise level could be an indication of SOAEL, but this will depend on the context. We note that the proposed transit site is only to be occupied for temporary periods, and the fact that the activity will operate between 08.00 - 16.00 hours which may decrease the potential impact to a more acceptable level. However, we also note the presence of other noise sources which already exist on the site. I refer to my initial consultation response which advised that noise from the test area should be

Planning Committee 27 contained as far as practicable with apertures closed during particularly noisy activities. We still recommend these steps are taken.

In respect of heavy vehicle movements the noise from this is predicted as being below the Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level.

6.7 1no. Third Party Objections

One letter of objection received, regarding potential noise concerns, highlighting that with the addition of 350no. additional homes on the land to the north, the noise impact for more people would be affected.

6.8 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information

In addition to the planning application forms and plans, the planning application has been supported by a suite of additional information, including a Design and Access Statement, a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit, Transport Planning Statement, and Noise Assessment. The Design and Access Statement includes details of the design principles for the building, together with details regarding the access arrangements.

7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan

7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:

Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:

BE11: New Development RE1: Rural Area Generally TR6: Highway Safety B5: Rural Area - New Build and Extension

7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications has now been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and following Submission it gains increasing weight for decision making purposes. As it progresses through the Local Plan process to adoption it will gain more weight, paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant.

Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 11: Chichester City Employment Sites Policy 26: Existing Employment Sites Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 45: Development in the Countryside

Planning Committee 28 National Policy and Guidance

7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states:

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking:

For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise:

- Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted.

7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), and Sections 3, 4 and 7.

Other Local Policy and Guidance

7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:

B1: Managing a changing environment C1: A reduction in health inequalities D4: Understanding and meeting community needs E4: People will have easier access to services at a local level

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Principle of development; ii) Impact on amenity of neighbouring occupiers; iii) Highway safety; iv) Design and layout; and v) Other matters (ecology/drainage).

Assessment i) Principle of development

8.2 The application site presently forms part of the District Council's Contract Services Depot (Westhampnett Depot), which maintains, services and stores the various commercial vehicles required by the District Council to operate its statutory functions. The purpose of the application seeks to consolidate and modernise the facility together with the expansion of services provided, through the provision of the VOSA ATF Testing Centre.

Planning Committee 29 8.3 Given the existing commercial/industrial activity that presently takes place on the site, together with the largely commercial character along this part of the south side of Stane Street, it is considered that the principle of development of the site as an ATF Testing Centre is acceptable, having been supported by the Council's Economic Development Service, and in accordance with saved Policy B5 and draft Policy 26 of the Local Plans. ii) Impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers

8.4 Nearby residential development is largely limited dwellings to the east of the site along Stane Street as it leads into Westhampnett and Maudlin. Planning permission has also been recently granted (application reference: WH/14/00533/FUL) for the use of the western part of the Council Depot site for a Gypsy and Traveller Transit site. This site, together with the two closest residential properties to the east of the application site have the greatest potential to be affected by the current proposals.

8.5 The application has been supported by a detailed Noise Assessment. The Noise Assessment has been carefully considered by the Council's Environmental Health Service, who has raised no objection to the scheme. Some concern is expressed regarding the potential noise impact on the occupiers of the Transit site, but they consider suitable mitigation would be sufficient, coupled with the knowledge that occupiers of the Transit site will be present on a temporary basis at any one time whilst passing through the County.

8.6 It is noted that no objections have been received from the two occupiers of the permanent dwellings to the east of the site, the closest of which is located approximately 64 metres away. The only third party objection received, (who raised concern regarding noise) is located over 330 metres away to the northwest of the site and would therefore not be directly affected by the application proposal.

8.7 Whilst it is acknowledged that the level of use of the site is likely to increase, the site is already in an existing commercial/industrial use, which includes maintenance and servicing of existing HGVs. The majority of the testing works would be undertaken within the proposed new building, and whilst located adjacent to the Transit Site, the boundary wall for the Transit Site, together the temporary nature of those occupiers, would ensure limited impact to the neighbouring occupiers.

8.8 It is therefore considered, having regard to the general industrial character of the immediate area, and subject to appropriately worded conditions, the impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers as a result of the proposed works would be unlikely to result in demonstrable harm, and is therefore considered acceptable. iii) Highway safety concerns

8.9 The application has been supported by a detailed Transport Statement and Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. These documents conclude that the provision of an additional 20-25 extra vehicles a day along Stane Street would not significantly increase the volume of traffic on a day-to-day basis. The proposed alterations to the access layout, together with the creation of a new dedicated HGV exit from the site from the private WTS road would improve upon the existing highway arrangements at the site, which as evidenced on site, results in vehicles queuing to enter the site at various times of the week.

8.10 The proposed works have been supported by West Sussex County Council as the Highway Authority and subject to appropriately worded conditions would be unlikely to have a detrimental impact on highway safety or the wider highway network.

Planning Committee 30 iv) Design and Layout

8.11 The location and layout of the proposed ATF building has been largely dictated by the need to be able to accommodate the various sizes of HGVs likely to make use of the site, and to ensure suitable turning, manoeuvring and parking for the vehicles before, during and after the testing process. Whilst the proposed building is not innovative, it would serve its function and would not appear out of keeping in the prevailing commercial/industrial setting, adjacent to the other Depot buildings and the WTS building to the south.

8.12 The main building has been orientated with the main opening facing to the northwest and southeast, with the Transit site located to the northwest, to achieve the necessary tracking for the large HGVs and to enable them to exit the building. With all HGVs entering from the northwest, the majority of any noisy servicing works would take place to the front of the vehicle, which would be orientated away from the Transit site. Due to the nature of the operation, it would not be feasible for the apertures to the open and closed between tests, however, all the work would be undertaken during daytime hours, and as set out in the Noise Assessment, the works would be unlikely to have a significant impact on the occupiers of the neighbouring site.

8.13 It is therefore considered that the design and layout of the scheme is acceptable, and unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. v) Other matters

Drainage 8.14 The site already benefits from mains drainage to the Tangmere Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW). All surface water disposal would be dealt with on site via soakaways, which would incorporate oil/diesel interceptors (in accordance with the advice from the Environment Agency), and all foul water connected to the existing system.

Ecology 8.15 A Bat Survey was undertaken on the site in June 2014. The survey identified the site as having low potential for suitable bat roosts. It is therefore unlikely that the scheme would have a significant ecological impact, particularly where most of the existing site is laid to hard standing. A suitable informative regarding the careful removal of the buildings is recommended.

Significant Conditions

8.16 The application is recommended for planning permission subject to a number of conditions, including the submission of materials for discharging. Additionally conditions relating to the new access arrangements, vehicle parking and noise attenuation have been suggested.

Conclusion

8.17 Based on the above it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies and National advice in the NPPF and therefore the application is recommended for approval.

Planning Committee 31 Human Rights

8.18 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.

8.19 In reaching the above conclusion Officers have taken into account rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol of Human Rights and concluded there would be no breach if planning permission were to be granted.

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 U87896 No Departure from Plans 3 F01F Materials/Finishes 4 U87897 Gates 5 U87898 Visibility Splays 6 U87899 Cycle Parking 7 U87900 Vehicle Parking and Turning 8 U87901 Construction Management Plan 9 U87902 Travel Plan Statement 10 U87903 Archaeological Safeguards 11 U87904 Hours of Use 12 U87905 Surface Water Disposal 13 N21G Contaminated Land

INFORMATIVES

1 INF: W25G Need for Highway Authority Consent 2 INF: W44F Application Approved Without Amendment

For further information on this application please contact Peter Kneen on 01243 534734

Planning Committee 32 Parish: Ward: Southbourne Southbourne

4 SB/14/01907/DOM

Proposal Proposed two storey side extension.

Site 18 New Road Southbourne Emsworth PO10 8JX

Map Ref (E) 477203 (N) 105703

Applicant Mr Bleasdale

RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

Planning Committee 33

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Applicant is related to an employee of Chichester District Council.

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The site is located on the northern side of New Road in the settlement area of Southbourne. The property is a detached two-storey dwelling with a single storey flat extension to the rear and a side lean-to side addition, which is set behind the 1.8m timber gates. There is also a detached garage and store set behind the rear elevation of the dwelling and situated along the west boundary of the site. The external facing materials comprise brick to the ground floor with a rough render above to the elevations, a slate tiled roof and PVCu apertures. The front boundary comprises a brick wall with piers and close boarded timber in between. The rear garden is primarily lay to lawn and is framed by the detached and a timber close boarded fence along the west boundary and a brick wall and timber fencing to the east boundary.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The application seeks permission for a two-storey side extension that would be situated along the west flank of the dwelling. The side extension would project 2.65m from the west elevation, be slightly set back from the front elevation and flush with the rear elevation. The roof of the extension would also be set down from the main ridge of the dwelling. The proposed external facing materials of the extension would match the existing dwelling. The existing mono-pitch roof above the porch would also be extended across the front of the side extension.

4.0 History

No relevant planning history

5.0 Constraints

Planning Committee 34 6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

The Parish Council have not made any written comments in relation to this application.

6.2 Third Party

There have been no comments received from third parties.

7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan

7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:

Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:

BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE11 New Development BE12 Alterations, Extensions and Conversions

Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 33: New Residential Development

National Policy and Guidance

7.4 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states:

At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking:

For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise:

- Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and

Planning Committee 35 - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted.

7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), and paragraph 56 and 66 (Requiring good design).

Other Local Policy and Guidance

7.6 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance and Interim Statements are material to the determination of this planning application:

PGN3: Design Guidelines for Alterations to Dwellings and Extensions (September 2009).

7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:

D3 - Housing fit for purpose

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) The impact of the design on the appearance of the existing dwelling; ii) Impact on the visual amenity of the locality; and iii) Neighbour amenity.

Assessment i) Design and Appearance

8.2 The proposed two-storey side extension would project 2.65m from the west flank wall of the existing dwelling. The side extension would be slightly set back from the front elevation and extend backwards to be flush with the rear elevation wall. The pitched roof of the extension would be set down from the main ridge of the dwelling whilst the eaves would match the existing. The proposed external facing materials would also match the existing dwelling. The mono-pitch roof above the existing porch and bay window would be extended across the front elevation of the extension.

8.3 The proposed extension would increase the footprint of the dwelling as well as its overall scale and massing. However, the extension would be set back from the front elevation and down from the main ridge of the dwelling. Consequently this would create a 'visual break' between the existing and proposed, and assist in retaining the form and dominance of the main house. In addition the proposed external facing materials would match the existing dwelling. It is considered, therefore, that the design and appearance of the proposed extension would be in keeping with the existing dwelling and not represent an overdevelopment of the site.

Planning Committee 36 ii) Visual Amenity

8.4 The existing character of the surrounding locality is primarily residential and comprises a mixture of two-storey detached and terraced dwellings as well as bungalows that are situated to the south of the site. The proposed two-storey side extension would reduce the visual gap between the properties 18 and 20 New Road, and be visible from public vantage points along New Road. However, a separation distance of at least 1m would remain between the proposed side extension and the eastern flank elevation of 20 New Road. In addition the existing dwelling is set back from the highway and would be partially screened by the existing dwelling and adjacent property. As noted above the proposed external facing materials would also match the existing dwelling, which would therefore assist in reducing the visual prominence of the side extension. In light of the above the proposed extension would not cause a 'terracing effect' between the properties 18 and 20 New Road or appear out of keeping with the street scene, particularly given the existing gap between 16 and 18 New Road. As such it is considered that the development would not harm the visual amenity of the surrounding locality iii) Neighbour Amenity

8.5 The proposed side extension would be located to the east of 20 New Road and be situated immediately adjacent to the west boundary. Consequently the proposed side extension would be 1.1m from the eastern flank wall of the neighbouring property, 20 New Road, which includes a ground and first floor window. Consequently due to the siting and proximity of the extension, it would reduce the available light and outlook from the existing windows in the east elevation of the neighbouring property. However, the existing ground and first floor windows serve a hallway and stairway/landing area respectively, which are deemed to be non-habitable rooms. Furthermore given the siting of the windows and the proximity of the host dwelling, the outlook from the neighbouring occupier's windows is currently limited. It is considered, therefore, that the impact upon the neighbouring occupier's amenity, in terms of loss of light and outlook, would be limited and not harmful.

8.6 The proposed side extension would project 2.65m from the west elevation and have a pitched roof with gable end, which would be set down from the existing ridge of the main dwelling. The extension would therefore increase the scale and massing of the existing dwelling and due to its siting the development would overshadow the rear garden of 20 New Road, particularly during the mornings. However, despite the increase to the scale and massing of the dwelling, it is considered that any overshadowing or loss of light would be small and not discernibly different to the current situation. As such it is considered that the development would not detrimentally impact upon the amenity space adjacent to the neighbouring occupier's rear elevation.

8.7 It is considered that the proposed extension would not harm the amenity of the adjacent neighbours to the east and south of the site due to its siting and the separation distances involved.

Significant Conditions

Conditions will be attached relating to the following matters: i) Materials to match the existing external facing walls and roof the dwelling; ii) No additional windows or openings in the west elevation of the extension without the permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Planning Committee 37 Conclusion

The proposed extension would be in close proximity to the neighbouring property, 20 New Road. However, based on the above, it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies BE1, BE11 and BE12 and the Design Guidelines for Alterations to Dwellings and Extensions. Therefore the application is recommended for approval.

Human Rights

In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 U87952 No Departure from Plans 3 U87953 Materials to Match Existing 4 U87954 No Windows in Walls

INFORMATIVES

1 INF: U8795 Application Approved Following Revisions

For further information on this application please contact Anna Weir on 01243 534734

Planning Committee 38

Parish: Ward: Chichester Chichester East

5 CC/14/02309/COU

Proposal Change of use to house in multiple occupation.

Site 1 Lime Close Chichester West Sussex PO19 6SW

Map Ref (E) 486970 (N) 105299

Applicant Mr & Mrs P Brumder

RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

Planning Committee 39

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The application site lies on the eastern side of Lime Close, adjacent to its junction with Spitalfield Lane. The area is a built up area less than 1km from the city centre, and although it is predominantly characterised by residential uses there are also some commercial uses within the vicinity.

2.2 The application property is a 2 storey semi-detached dwelling with brick and white UPVC cladding to the elevations under a concrete tiled roof. The dwelling has a 2 storey side extension to the north elevation and off-road parking for 2 cars to the front.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 This application seeks planning permission for the change of use to house in multiple occupation.

4.0 History

13/00636/DOM PER Two storey side extension with pitch roof and dormers.

14/02309/COU PDE Change of use to house in multiple occupation.

5.0 Constraints

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council Objection on the grounds that the intensive use of this semi-detached property is likely to be unneighbourly to adjacent property and is likely to result in problems of on-street parking.

Planning Committee 40 6.2 WSCC - Strategic Planning

Visitor parking would be short term and unlikely to generate any significant highway safety issues, therefore an objection on the basis of a short falling on parking would not be raised. The Planning Authority may want to consider impact upon on-street parking.

The site is located in close proximity to Chichester city centre. There are a range of services and facilities including public transport, within short walking distance. Walking routes are continuous along the Lime Close Frontage.

In light of the scale of the proposal, it is not considered that traffic generation would significantly vary with this proposal. It is not considered that this proposal could be resisted on the basis of traffic generation.

6.3 CDC - Environmental Health Officer

No objection. The property has met the standards required for Houses in Multiple Occupation, and also the higher standards required to comply with Chichester and Arun Landlords Accreditation Scheme.

7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan

7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:

Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:

BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE11 New Development BE12 Alterations, Extensions and Conversions TR6 Highway Safety

Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 10: Chichester City Development Principles Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking

Planning Committee 41 National Policy and Guidance

7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles) and 58.

Other Local Policy and Guidance

7.7 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:

B1 - Managing a changing environment D3 - Housing fit for purpose

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are:

i) Principle of development ii) Impact upon character of area iii) Impact upon highway safety iv) Impact upon amenity

Planning Committee 42 Assessment i) Principle of development

8.2 The NPPF emphasises the importance of development being sustainable, whilst policy BE1 of the Local Plan and policy 1 of the draft Local Plan also require new development to be focussed within the existing built up area. The application seeks permission for a house in multiple occupation (HMO) to be occupied by students within a built up area close to Chichester University and the city centre. As a result of its location the occupiers of the HMO would be able to walk quite easily to their place of study, the city centre and supermarkets should they wish. The proposal would therefore constitute a sustainable form of development which is acceptable in principle. ii) Impact upon character of area

8.3 Policy BE11 of the Local Plan states that new development should not detract from its surroundings, taking into account the effect of the development upon the local environment, and policy 33 of the draft Local Plan requires new development to provide a high quality living environment in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. The surrounding area is primarily residential, characterised by high density housing. There are also commercial uses to each side of Lime Close, and Spitalfield Lane and St Pancras which are both close by are busy routes into the city centre.

8.4 The existing dwelling is a comparatively large 4 bed semi-detached property due to its position on a small close which is otherwise made up of terraced dwellings. The dwelling could therefore be occupied by a family of 5 quite easily. Although the use of the dwelling as a HMO for up to 7 people is likely to result in an intensification of the use of the building, it is considered that the level of use would not be significantly different to the use of the surrounding dwellings when taking into account the dense nature of the development surrounding the application site and the character of the locality. Therefore, on balance the proposal would not have a harmful impact upon the character of the surrounding area. The Council's Environmental Health Officer has assessed the application and their comments may be found at paragraph 6.3. iii) Impact upon highway safety

8.5 The application property has off-road parking for 2 cars, and any further parking demand generated by the proposal would make use of on-street parking where this is available. Although there is not sufficient parking available within the site for all residents of the proposed HMO the application site lies in close proximity to a range of services and facilities and would be within walking distance of the university. Furthermore, the proposal would not result in a significant increase in demand for parking, given that a 4 bed dwelling could potentially be occupied by 4 or 5 drivers.

8.6 Due to the sustainable location of the site it would not be reasonable to resist the application on lack of parking, and this is confirmed by the WSCC Highways in their response. iv) Impact upon amenity

8.7 Policy BE11 of the Local Plan states that new development should take into accounts is effect on neighbouring development, whilst policy 33 of the draft Local Plan sets out the need for new development to respect neighbouring and public amenity.

Planning Committee 43

8.8 The Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that the proposed development would be of a standard to ensure that the living conditions of the future occupiers would be acceptable. With regard to the impact upon the amenity of neighbours and the wider area, it is considered that although the proposal would intensify the use of the dwelling the difference is not sufficient to detract from the present level of amenity by virtue of noise or disturbance. The proposal therefore meets the policy in this respect.

Significant Conditions

A condition is recommended restricting the occupation of the HMO to no more than 7 people in order to ensure that the rooms are not let as double or twin rooms.

Conclusion

8.9 Based on the above it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies BE1, BE11 and TR6 of the Local Plan and policies 1, 2, 10, 33 and 39 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-Submission. Therefore the application is recommended for approval.

Human Rights

8.10 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 U87822 Occupation restriction 3 U87821 Decision plans

INFORMATIVES

1 INF: W44F Application Approved Without Amendment

For further information on this application please contact Fjola Stevens on 01243 534734

Planning Committee 44

Agenda Item 6 Report PC Report to Planning Committee Date of Committee 17 September 2014 By Head of Planning Services Local Authority Chichester District Council

Application No: SDNP/14/02693/FUL Validation Date 24 June 2014 Target Date: 19 August 2014 Applicant: Mr Geoff Hayhurst Proposal: Change of use of part of field to permit car parking and installation of hard surface on car parking area. Site Address Playing Field East Of Jubilee Cottage High Hamstead Lane Lurgashall West Sussex Purpose of Report: The application is reported to Committee for a decision Reason for Committee Referral: Red Card: Cllr Hardwick – exceptional level of public interest.

Recommendation: That the application be Approved subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report.

Executive Summary

The proposal is for the provision of an area of hardstanding in the north-western corner of the existing playing field to serve as a parking area for use in association with the playing field, village green and St Laurence's Church. Following discussion with Officers and Sport England, it has now been demonstrated that the proposed parking area can be provided without affecting the ability to provide a junior football pitch on the playing field. On balance, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable, subject to conditions restricting the use of the parking area as outlined above, and complies with the relevant Development Plan Policies, the NPPF and the South Downs National Park Partnership Management Plan.

Planning Committee 45

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site is a 1.1 hectare area of land used as a playing field, located on the eastern edge of Lurgashall village. The site contains a junior football pitch, with goal posts in place, but is not currently demarcated. A 5-bar timber field gate in the northwest corner of the site serves as the access point from High Hamstead Lane. A public right of way runs along the west boundary of the site heading south.

1.2 The sites northern boundary, with High Hamstead Lane is formed by a native hedgerow, as is the sites west boundary. There are allotments along most of the western boundary, with a row of dwellings heading west along High Hamstead Lane. The church and a large detached dwelling are located on the opposite side of the highway, both well screened and set back from the road. There is mature tree screening along the east and southern boundaries.

1.3 The site is within the Rural Area and is adjacent to the Lurgashall Conservation Area, which runs along the northern and part of the western boundary of the site.

2. Relevant Planning History

No Relevant History

3. Proposal

The proposal is for the creation of an area of hardstanding, finished with a blinding of Fittleworth stone fines, to serve a car park for up to 20 cars. This area will measure 75m in width by 13m in depth. It is proposed to be located in the north-western corner of the field and will be accessed from the existing field gate.

4. Consultations

4.1 Parish Council Consultee

Need - The football field had been used for temporary parking for the fete and weddings for many years and the Council does not see why it is necessary to apply for a change of use or for hard standing. Incremental Development - Though not a planning issue, the football field was purchased to protect it from development and to provide an amenity for the village. The council is very concerned that the current application will be followed by a series of applications which in time will result in the site being over developed. Currently, this field is a completely unspoilt green space in a National Park and adjacent to a Conservation area. Type and Level of use - There is no statement about what vehicles will be allowed to use car park; for example will parking be provided for the fete, weddings and users of the Football Field or will visitors to the Village Pub be encouraged to use the car park as well. There is no statement of the hours of use and there is no estimate of the number of vehicle movements associated with the car parking. Clearly this will depend on the type of vehicles using it. Disturbance to Neighbours - two nearby properties will suffer disturbance associated with vehicles using the car park especially if its use is unconstrained

Planning Committee 46 in terms of time and vehicle numbers. This application could be construed as being unneighbourly. Flood lighting - There is no mention in the application of whether or not there will be flood lighting. The Council insists that there should be no lighting of the car park. Disposal of spoil - The creation of a hard surface will generate a significant amount of spoil. The Council does not believe that the spoil should be spread over the field but should disposed of properly.

The Parish Council believes that as a minimum the application should (i) specify what vehicles will use the car pack and the hours of use and it should include an estimate of the number of vehicle movements associated with its use, without this information it is impossible to gauge the level of disturbance to neighbourings, (ii) should state there will be no lighting of the car park and (iii) specify how the spoil generated from its construction will be properly disposed of. If any of the above conditions are not met, the Parish is minded to object. The Parish Council is of the opinion that the application should be re-submitted when the above three points have been addressed.

Further comments received 21 July 2014

Further to our letter of 17th July, the Parish Council has noticed that some questions in the Landscape and Visual Assessment Form have been incorrectly completed for the above application:

A. Existing trees, hedges, woodland blocks and belts Do the trees and hedgerows on your site contribute to local landscape/townscape character, and wildlife interest currently? NO

(Surely the very well established hedgerows around the field must be of wildlife interest and value.)

B. Views Is your proposed development likely to be visible, and therefore likely to alter, these views [ie views from the surrounding area]? NO

(In winter both the cars and the hard standing would be visible from outside the site and, hence, that the development would alter the view from the immediately surrounding area.)

C. Landscape character Is there a historic pattern of field boundaries, woodland and/or settlement in the area surrounding your site? NO

(The field's boundaries and the woodland to its south are of long standing - indeed, very long standing and are part of "a historic pattern"?)

D. Recreation Are there any adjacent public rights of way ... [and] ...open access land ... affected by the application? NO

(A public PF runs right across the football field and the field has been used for informal recreation - eg dog walking and children playing - on an open access

Planning Committee 47 basis for many years. The LRA's undertaking (Geoff Hayhurst's e-mail of 21 June described as Letter LVIA on SDNPA's website) not to obstruct public access to the footpath during construction of the proposed car park is a different matter and does not entitle it to answer NO to this question.)

Protected species Have you seen any evidence of protected species using the protected site including bat droppings or roosts, birds' nests or sightings of species such as bats, badgers, dormice, adders, slow worms and nesting birds? NO

(Given the character of the land, its long-established hedges and the comparatively undisturbed wood lying directly to its south, I'd be surprised if there was a complete absence of such species.)

The Parish Council requests that when the application is re-submitted, a correctly completed Landscape and Visual Assessment Form in included.

Further comments dated 03 August 2014 This letter supersedes the previous two letters dated 17th July and 21st July. In the letter of 17th July, Parish Council raised the following concerns:

1. Need - The football field has been used for temporary parking for the fete and weddings for many years and there is requirement to continue to provide parking for weddings and funerals. The Council does not see why it is necessary to apply for a change of use or for hard standing for this level of use. 2. Incremental Development - Though not a planning issue, the football field was purchased to protect it from development and to provide an amenity for the village. The council is very concerned that the current application will be followed by a series of applications which in time will result in the site being over developed. Currently, this field is a completely unspoilt green space in a National Park and immediately adjacent to a Conservation area. 3. Type and Level of use - There is no statement about what vehicles will be allowed to use the car park; for example will parking be provided for the fete, weddings and users of the Football Field or will visitors to the Village Pub be encouraged to use the car park as well ? There is no statement of the hours of use and there is no estimate of the number of vehicle movements associated with the car parking. Clearly this will depend on the type of vehicles using it. 4. Disturbance to Neighbours - two nearby properties will suffer disturbance associated with vehicles using the car park especially if its use is unconstrained in terms of time and vehicle numbers. This application could be construed as being unneighbourly. 5. Flood lighting - There is no mention in the application of whether or not there will be flood lighting. The Council insists that there should be no lighting of the car park. 6. Disposal of spoil - The creation of a hard surface will generate a significant amount of spoil. The Council does not believe that the spoil should be spread over the field but should be disposed of properly.

In our letter of 21st July, the Parish Council pointed out that in its view some questions in the Landscape and Visual Assessment Form had been incorrectly completed for the above application; these related to

Planning Committee 48 A. Existing trees, hedges, woodland blocks and belts B. Views C. Landscape character D. Recreation Protected species

The Lurgashall Recreation Association wrote back dismissing all our concerns accept one concerning lighting and has not amended Landscape and Visual Assessment Form. The disinclination of some members of the LRA to consider reasonable concerns of the Parish Council and the genuine concerns of immediate neighbours who will be adversely affected by this application is not helping its cause and is alienating some members of the Parish.

The Parish Council continues to have significant concerns about this application but believes that it does not have sufficient planning grounds to object to it providing that written conditions are placed on the application that (i) car park will be not be used after the hours of darkness and the access gate will be kept locked at these times and (ii) there will be no lighting of the car park. If either of the above are not included as written conditions of the application, the Parish is minded to object.

4.2 Sports Council SE Region - CDC

The proposed development is not supported by Sport England as it would prejudice the use of the playing field for football. The application does not demonstrate how the car parking is needed to support the use of the playing field.

Further Comments From Sports Council SE Region

The amended plan received by the Council 6 August 2014 depicts the proposed car park and remaining playing field which would be capable of accommodating a youth U15/16 (11v11) pitch of a recommended size including run off (measuring 97 x 61m).

Due to the size of the playing field it is not capable of accommodating a larger pitch regardless of the provision of parking. The addition of parking is likely to increase the use of the playing field albeit as the site is a single pitch site, the use may be limited. Exception policy E3 states:

E3 - The proposed development affects only land incapable of forming, or forming part of, a playing pitch, and does not result in the loss of, or inability to make use of any playing pitch (including the maintenance of adequate safety margins), a reduction in the size of the playing area of any playing pitch or the loss of any other sporting/ancillary facility on the site.

Whilst the proposal does not fit strictly which the exception E3 policy, Sport England acknowledge the site is unable to accommodate a larger pitch and consequently does not wish to raise an objection to this application subject to a condition requiring the marking out of the football pitch.

Planning Committee 49 4.3 WSCC - Highway

This proposal has been considered by means of a desktop study, using the information and plans submitted with this application, in conjunction with other available WSCC map information. A site visit can be arranged on request.

I refer to your consultation in respect of the above planning application and would provide the following comments.

From an inspection of the plans visibility would appear to be acceptable in both directions. The applicant should provide a gravel trap or area of block paving, or other bound material, at the point of access onto High Hamstead Lane; not within the publicly maintained highway. The works should be undertaken prior the parking area being bought into use. Any gates should be set back 5 metres from the public highway.

No concerns with the application from the highway point of view. If the LPA are minded to approve this application a condition securing the new access and any proposed gates should be included.

4.4 Coastal And Drainage - CDC

Should the application be approved, consideration must be given to the disposal of surface water from the newly impermeable area. Soakage to the ground should be investigated, dealing with the 1 in 100 year storm event plus 30%. This could be achieved through soakaways or by using permeable paving for the car park area. Design should be informed by winter groundwater monitoring and percolation testing.

5. Representations

8 Third Party Objections

Comments have been received from 8 third parties objecting to the scheme, the comments of which can be summarised as follows: - Loss of playing field - Need for lighting - Precedent for further development - Need in principle for parking area in this location - Visual impact - No hardsurfacing of access strip proposed - Intensification of currently infrequent use of site for car parking - Soil disposal; where will this occur?

6 Third Party Letters of Support

In addition to these, the Council has received several sent from Lurgashall Recreation Association, the comments of all can be summarised as follows: - Will encourage further use of the playing field for recreation purposes - Need is justified

Planning Committee 50 6. Policy Context

6.1 Applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plan in this area is the Chichester Local Plan First Review (1999). The relevant policies to this application are set out in section 7, below.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Circular 2010

Government policy relating to National Parks is set out in English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 and The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was issued and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The Circular and NPPF confirm that National Parks have the highest status of protection and the NPPF states at paragraph 115 that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the National Parks and that the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations and should also be given great weight in National Parks.

6.2 National Park Purposes

The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are:

• To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas; • To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas.

If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is also a duty to foster the economic and social well being of the local community in pursuit of these purposes.

6.3 Relationship of the Development Plan to the NPPF and Circular 2010

In addition to the above, it is considered that the following paragraphs and sections of the NPPF are relevant to the determination of this application:

Paragraphs 14, 17, 70, 74, 75, 115, 118, 131 Section 8, 11, 12

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 will also be relevant.

Outcomes 1 and 5 of the South Downs National Park Partnership Management Plan 2014 - 2019 is relevant to the proposal.

In accordance with paragraph 215 of the NPPF, the following development Plan policies are considered to be consistent with the Framework.

6. 4 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan The South Downs Partnership Management Plan (SDPMP) was adopted on 3 December 2013. It sets out a Vision and long term Outcomes for the National

Planning Committee 51 Park, as well as 5 year Policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework. The SDPMP is a material consideration in planning applications and has some weight pending adoption of the SDNP Local Plan. The following Policies and Outcomes are of particular relevance to this case:

General Policy 1 Conserve and enhance the natural beauty and special qualities of the landscape and its setting, in ways that allow it to continue to evolve and become more resilient to the impacts of climate change and other pressures.

General Policy 3 Protect and enhance tranquility and dark night skies.

General Policy 9 The significance7 of the historic environment is protected from harm, new discoveries are sought and opportunities to reveal its significance are exploited.

General Policy 28 Improve and maintain rights of way and access land, to provide a better connected and accessible network for a range of abilities and users, and to reduce conflict where it occurs.

General Policy 29 Enhance the health and wellbeing of residents and visitors by encouraging, supporting and developing the use of the National Park as a place for healthy outdoor activity and relaxation.

Transport Sector Policy 39 Manage vehicle parking to improve visitor experiences and reduce the impact of traffic and parking on the local area.

7. Planning Policy

The following policies of the Chichester Local Plan First Review (1999) are relevant to this application:

• CHRE1 (CH)Development In The Rural Area Generally • CHRE8 (CH)Nature Conservation - Non-Designated Site • CHBE6 (CH)Conservation Areas • CHBE11 (CH)New Development • CHR3 (CH)Existing And Allocated Open Space • CHBE14 (CH)Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges And Other landscape Features • CHTR6 (CH)Highway Safety

Planning Committee 52 8. Planning Assessment

8.1 The main issues to consider with the planning application are:

- the impact of the proposal on the character of the surrounding area (including the impact on the character and appearance of the Lurgashall Conservation Area), - the effect on the playing field itself, - the impact on neighbour amenity, and, - highway safety.

Impact of the Development on the Character and Appearance of the Area

8.2 The proposed car parking area will be well screened from the public highway to the north by the existing hedgerow limiting its impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, although it will be visible from the footpath running along the west boundary. The land is flat and when viewed from within the site will also have limited impact as a result of the scale of the works proposed. Fittleworth Stone is to be used for the surfacing of the car park and this is common throughout this part of the National Park, offering a softer, more rural appearance than gravel or tarmac.

8.3 Cars are already frequently parked along the roadside verge to the north of the application site, and on the field itself (as noted in the application documents and by several third parties). Whilst the application would allow for potentially more frequent car parking, this would be restricted to a small area of the well-screened field. Whilst it is acknowledged that parked vehicles will be visible on occasions when the parking area is in use, this will be limited to events held on the playing field and village green and events/services held at the church.

8.4 In conclusion on this issue, the impact of the parking area on the character and appearance of the area will be limited and the proposal will preserve the character of the adjacent Conservation Area and will accord with the first purpose of designation of the South Downs National Park, which is to conserve and enhance the landscape.

Effect on Playing Field

8.5 Following discussions with Officers and representatives at Sport England, an amended plan has been submitted illustrating that the provision of the parking area will not impede the playing field's capability to provide a youth football pitch, with the appropriate run-off area. This will mean that the existing pitch/goal posts will need to be relocated slightly further south. On the basis that the new pitch is marked out prior to the parking area being laid out, Sport England has withdrawn their previous objection. The provision of this small area of hardstanding is therefore considered to have minimal impact on the effectiveness of the playing field and therefore complies with both development plan policy R3 and section 8 of the NPPF.

Residential Amenity

8.6 The dwelling closest to the proposed development is Jubilee Cottage, located on the north-western corner of the application site. This dwelling is set

Planning Committee 53 forward of the proposed parking area, with outbuildings and a mature hedgerow along the boundary with the access and parking area. Activity associated with the use of the parking area can be limited by condition and it is proposed to restrict the use of the parking area to activities connected to the use of the recreation ground and village green and events held in association with the church. Any potential disturbance caused by vehicles using the access will be limited to the restricted times the field is in use. A condition preventing the installation of lighting serving the parking area is also proposed. Given the scale of the parking area and the imposition of the conditions outlined above, it is considered that the development is acceptable in terms of residential amenity and accords with development plan policy BE11.

Highway Safety

8.7 No works are proposed to the grass verge between High Hamstead Lane and the playing field as part of this application. West Sussex County Council as Highway Authority has advised that surfacing works to create a formal access over the grass verge to facilitate the parking area will be required, to preserve the integrity of the verge and prevent mud being transferred on to the road. The implementation of this and the details of such works can be secured by condition. The access itself is existing and there is sufficient visibility in both directions to serve the proposed use. The proposal will therefore comply with development plan policy TR6.

9. Conclusion

Overall it is considered that the proposed formation of a hardstanding to serve as a parking area will not affect the integrity of the playing field. Nor will the proposal detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area preserves the character of the Lurgashall Conservation Area and will not cause an unacceptable level of harm to the amenity of occupiers of nearby residential properties. The proposal will therefore comply with policies BE6, BE11 and R3 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999, relevant sections of the NPPF and the outcomes and policies within the South Downs National Park Partnership Management Plan 2014-2019.

10. Recommendation

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out below

1 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:

Plan Type Reference Version Date on Plan Status

Plans - Location Plan LRA1 27.05.2014 Approved

Plans - Block Plan LRA2 27.05.2014 Approved

Plans - LRA3 06.08.2014 Approved

Reasons: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Planning Committee 54 2 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

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

3 No development shall be carried out unless and until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of such materials and finishes to be used for the parking area have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity and to ensure a development of visual quality.

4 Development shall not commence until full details of the proposed surface water drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The design should follow the hierarchy of preference for different types of surface water drainage disposal systems as set out in Approved Document H of the Building Regulations and the SUDS Manual produced by CIRIA. Winter groundwater monitoring to establish highest annual ground water levels and Percolation testing to BRE 365, or similar approved, will be required to support the design of any Infiltration drainage. The car parking area shall not be brought into use until the complete surface water drainage system serving the property has been implemented in accordance with the agreed details.

Reason : To ensure that the proposed development is satisfactorily drained.

5 No part of the development, hereby permitted, shall be brought into use until such time as the vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include a bound surface that extends for a distance of 5m from the edge of the carriageway.

Reason: In the interests of road safety

6 Prior to commencement of the development, further details of how and where the soil excavated as part of the proposed development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

7 The laying out of the car parking area hereby permitted shall not be commenced until the youth football pitch has been constructed in accordance with the layout details set out in the planning application proposed block plan received 6 August 2014 and substantially in accordance with the FA's Goalpost and Pitch sizes 2013/2014 guidance. Once provided, the pitch shall remain available in perpetuity.

Reason: To ensure the development is fit for purpose and sustainable and to accord with Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 Policy R3.

Planning Committee 55

8 The parking area hereby permitted shall be limited to the hard surfacing area marked on approved drawing number LRA2. This parking area shall only be used for the purposes of car parking in association with events held on the land known as the Jubilee Playing Field and Village Green, Lurgashall or in association with events and services held at St Laurences Church.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and to restrict the level of activity to that suitable to one in a rural location.

9 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re- enacting or amending that Order) no walls, fences, gates, or other means of enclosure shall be erected adjacent to the parking area hereby permitted without a grant of planning permission by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

10 The existing public right of way across the site shall remain unobstructed at all times throughout construction. Furthermore the alignment of the public right of way shall be protected by appropriate means (for example signage prohibiting parking in that area), to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the parking area being brought into use and shall remain so protected throughout the course of the development.

Reason: To safeguard the continued right of the public to use the public right of way.

11 No external lighting shall be installed to provide lighting to the car parking area hereby permitted.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity.

12 The existing hedge along the north and west boundary shall be retained and any part of the hedge which is removed without consent or dies or becomes severely damaged or diseased during a period of five years from the date of the completion of the development shall be replaced in the next planting season with a hedge of a similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: In the interests of preserving the visual amenities of the area and to continue to provide a foraging area for wildlife.

INFORMATIVES

1 In reaching this decision the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive way, in line with the NPPF. 2 If there are any implications for the National Park Authority's duty to avoid or to reduce crime or disorder these should be explained briefly here. The text of the legislation can be found at {\b\i http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/17}. Seek legal advice if necessary.

Planning Committee 56 3 If there are any implications for the National Park Authority's duties contained within the Equalities Act these should be explained briefly here. A guide to the legislation can be found at {\b\i http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/equalities/equality-act- publications/equality-act-guidance/specific-duties}. Seek legal advice if necessary. 4 If any of the obligations to promote and to avoid interference with the human rights of any individual or group are affected these should be briefly explained. Guidance and the text of the rights can be found at {\b\i http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dca.gov.uk/people s-rights/human-rights/pdf/act-studyguide.pdf}. Seek legal advice if necessary. 5 The applicant is advised to contact the Community Highways Officer covering the respective area (01243 642105) to obtain formal approval from the highway authority to carry out the site access works on the public highway.

11. Crime and Disorder Implications

11.1 If there are any implications for the National Park Authority's duty to avoid or to reduce crime or disorder these should be explained briefly here. The text of the legislation can be found at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/17. Seek legal advice if necessary.

12. Human Rights Implications

12.1 If any of the obligations to promote and to avoid interference with the human rights of any individual or group are affected these should be briefly explained. Guidance and the text of the rights can be found at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dca.gov.uk/peoples- rights/human-rights/pdf/act-studyguide.pdf. Seek legal advice if necessary.

13. Equalities Act 2010

13.1 If there are any implications for the National Park Authority's duties contained within the Equalities Act these should be explained briefly here. A guide to the legislation can be found at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/equalities/equality-act- publications/equality-act-guidance/specific-duties. Seek legal advice if necessary.

Case Officer Details Name: Vicki Colwell Tel No: 01243 534734 Email: [email protected]

Planning Committee 57 Appendix 1

Site Location Map

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Downs National Park Authority, Licence No. 100050083 (2012) (Not to scale).

Planning Committee 58

Agenda Item 7 Report PC Report to Planning Committee Date of Committee 17 September 2014 By Head of Planning Services Local Authority Chichester District Council

Application No: SDNP/14/02937/LIS Validation Date 9 June 2014 Target Date: 4 August 2014 Applicant: Mr Steve Urwin Proposal: External decoration scheme which includes new colours for the walls, windows and existing signage. Replacement front door frame and front window. Site Address Wheatsheaf Inn Wool Lane Midhurst West Sussex GU29 9BX Purpose of Report: The application is reported to Committee for a decision Reason for Referral: Parish Objection – Officer recommends Permit Recommendation: That the application be Approved for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report.

Executive Summary

The proposal is for the external redecoration of the existing pub, which is a Grade II Listed Building, and includes the repainting of external elevations and the replacement of a window and door in the north elevation. The proposed changes are considered to enhance the overall character and appearance of the listed building and the Midhurst Conservation Area and therefore the proposed development is considered to comply with relevant local and national planning policy and the first purpose of designation of the National Park which is to conserve and enhance its cultural heritage.

Planning Committee 59 1. Site Description

1.1 The Wheatsheaf Inn is a Grade II Listed pub, located in the centre of Midhurst. The building is 2-storeys in height with some exposed timber frame on the east elevation with brick and smooth render painted pale yellow under a clay tile roof. The pub is located at the junction of Rumbolds Hill and Wool Lane and therefore occupies a prominent, exposed position within the Midhurst Conservation Area.

1.2 There is a mix of building types and styles immediately adjacent to the application site, including a variety of buildings painted in different colours.

2. Relevant Planning History

05/01934/ADV - 1 no. painted sign to replace existing, 1 no. cut out letters of 'Wheatsheaf' and 1 no. painted graphic on side of elevation. STATUS: REFUSE 4th August 2005

05/02304/LBC - Painted sign to replace existing front elevation high level. Cut out letters of 'Wheatsheaf' to replace existing. Painted graphic on side elevation to Rumbolds Hill. Light cut out letters using existing lighting trough and new spotlight to uplight painted high level sign, Installation of windows to west elevation. STATUS: REFUSE 4th August 2005

09/01605/LBC - New sign scheme (traditional). STATUS: PERMIT 9th July 2009

09/01606/ADV - New signage scheme (traditional) comprising of 3 no. signs to the front elevation. STATUS: PERMIT 9th July 2009

SDNP/14/02936/FUL - External decoration scheme which includes new colours for the walls, windows and existing signage. Also replacement front door frame and a replacement front window, to a design to better reflect a previously installed window. STATUS: Pending Decision (also on the Committee Agenda)

3. Proposal

The proposal is for the repainting of the exterior of the pub building, retaining a black plinth with the main body of the building painted in a pale blue shade (Little Greene 'James 108'). The ground floor window on the north-facing elevation is to be replaced with a more traditional window, featuring smaller panes to match the other windows in the elevation. All windows will be repainted in Sadolin 'Blur Grey'. The door in the north elevation is also to be replaced, on a like-for-like basis.

Planning Committee 60 4. Consultations

Parish Council Consultee

Midhurst Town Council OBJECTS to this application. This building commands an imposing position clearly viewed by all motor and pedestrian traffic travelling from the town's northern gateway. The proposed colour is inappropriate for a building of this age and design in the Midhurst street scene.

Separately the Council would request that during external redecoration works the existing MOTTEZ stainless steel cycle rack is removed from the front of the building. The rack is out of keeping with the listed building to which it is attached.

Design & Implementation - Historic Buildings Advisor - CDC D

The Wheatsheaf Inn is identified as a 'Victorian/Edwardian focal building' within Character Area 3 of the Midhurst Conservation Area and features in a key view from North Street. The Appraisal highlights the important influence of this building on the character of the area at the top of Rumbold's Hill here. Together the complementary Victorian/ Edwardian frontages of NatWest bank opposite and the Wheatsheaf Inn frame the east and west sides of the open space and close the south side of North Street beyond.

Within the Character Area there are a number of buildings that are painted in 'brilliant white', which is a stark modern paint colour clashes with the historic architecture and character of the Conservation Area. The Wheatsheaf is currently painted render in a yellow-cream colour, similar to the lower floor of the building opposite. To the immediate east is a medieval building with a bright blue colour to the window and door frames.

The Character Appraisal sets forth that 'proposals for alterations will be expected to demonstrate an understanding of the appropriate use of these materials in the different character areas'. The recommendations also seek to encourage the use of traditional lime wash on appropriate surfaces rather than paint and enhance buildings through the use of historically accurate colours to aid interpretation of their heritage.

In this instance, the change of colour to Little Green 'James' with complementary Sandolin 'Blur Grey' is acceptable. Change of colour of the signage to gold and black is also acceptable on the basis that these are like-for-like, hand-painted signs. Please confirm the black colour and finish (i.e. gloss, matte etc).

Subject to the use of single-glazing as confirmed in the email dated 5 August 2014 in a timber frame, replacement of the window is not problematic. Similarly, following confirmation that the door is beyond reasonable repair, replacement is acceptable. Please condition door and window details.

5. Representations

1 representation received.

Concern regarding the colour choice and impact the paint will have on the integrity of the building.

Planning Committee 61

6. Policy Context

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Circular 2010

6.2 National Park Purposes

The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are:

6.3 Relationship of the Development Plan to the NPPF and Circular 2010

In addition to the above, it is considered that the following paragraphs and sections of the NPPF are relevant to the determination of this application:

Paragraphs 128, 129, 131, 132 Section 12

Section 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 will also be relevant.

In accordance with paragraph 215 of the NPPF, the following development Plan policies are considered to be consistent with the Framework.

6. 4 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan The South Downs Partnership Management Plan (SDPMP) was adopted on 3 December 2013. It sets out a Vision and long term Outcomes for the National Park, as well as 5 year Policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework.

Planning Committee 62 The SDPMP is a material consideration in planning applications and has some weight pending adoption of the SDNP Local Plan. The following Policies and Outcomes are of particular relevance to this case:

General Policy 9 The significance7 of the historic environment is protected from harm, new discoveries are sought and opportunities to reveal its significance are exploited.

7. Planning Policy

The following policies of the Chichester Local Plan First Review (1999) are relevant to this application:

• CHBE4 (CH)Buildings Of Architectural Or Historic Merit • CHBE5 (CH)Alterations To Listed Buildings

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 The main issues to consider with this application are the impact the proposed alterations to the building will have on the character and appearance of the listed building and the character and appearance of the Midhurst Conservation Area.

8.2 The existing door and window to be replaced have both become dilapidated beyond the point that repair or refurbishment would be viable. The replacement of these units is considered acceptable in principle; subject to the window being single glazed, and further detailed drawings of the replacement window and door will be secured by condition.

8.3 The Town Council has raised concern about the choice of colour for the walls of the building, considering it an inappropriate choice for a building of this age and design. Officers agree that the building is of significant historic importance and prominently sited within the conservation area and therefore its treatment must be carefully considered and be appropriate to the building. The colour proposed for the walls, Little Greene 'James 108', is considered by officers to be an appropriate choice for a building of this scale, age and location. The choice of colour is historically accurate and would not look out of place on this building. Furthermore it is considered that a building repainted in the colour proposed together with windows finished in 'Blur Grey' would be appropriate to both the building and its location within the Midhurst Conservation Area, the character of which would be preserved. The change of colour to the existing advertisements to painted gold lettering on a painted black background is also considered to be appropriate to the overall character of the listed building and conservation area.

9. Conclusion

Overall it is considered that the proposed alterations to the external appearance of the pub will enhance the character and appearance of the listed building and visually preserve the character and appearance of the Midhurst Conservation Area. The proposal will therefore comply with policies BE4, BE5 and BE6 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999, relevant sections of the NPPF, the outcomes and policies contained within the South Downs National Park

Planning Committee 63 Partnership Management Plan 2014-2019 and is consistent with the first purpose of designation of the South Downs National Park which will be conserved and enhanced.

10. Recommendation

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out below

01. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans:

Plan Type Reference Version Date on Plan Status

Reasons: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

02. The works for which Listed Building Consent is hereby granted must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date of this consent.

Reason: To comply with Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended).

03. The building known as the Wheatsheaf Inn shall not be painted other than in such colours as follows:

Walls - Little Greene 'James 108', and; Windows - Sadolin 'Blur Grey'.

Reason: To enhance the character of the conservation area and listed building.

04. Prior to the insertion of the replacement window and door hereby permitted detailed elevational and sectional drawings of the window and door at a scale of not less than 1:10 shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity and to ensure a building of visual quality.

INFORMATIVES

1 In reaching this decision the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive way, in line with the NPPF. 2 It is considered that this planning application does not raise any crime and disorder implications. 3 If any of the obligations to promote and to avoid interference with the human rights of any individual or group are affected these should be briefly explained. Guidance and the text of the rights can be found at {\b\i http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dca.gov.uk/people s-rights/human-rights/pdf/act-studyguide.pdf}. Seek legal advice if necessary.

Planning Committee 64 4 Due regard, where relevant, has been taken of the National Park Authority's equality duty as contained within the Equalities Act 2010.

11. Crime and Disorder Implications

11.1 It is considered that this planning application does not raise any crime and disorder implications.

12. Human Rights Implications

13. Equalities Act 2010

13.1 Due regard, where relevant, has been taken of the National Park Authority's equality duty as contained within the Equalities Act 2010.

Case Officer Details Name: Vicki Colwell Tel No: 01243 534734 Email: [email protected]

Planning Committee 65 Appendix 1

Site Location Map

Planning Committee 66 PLANNING COMMITTEE 17 September 2014

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 Chichester 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

SY/13/02720/FUL 37 Woodland Road, Selsey - Relocation of a domestic garage WR (M Tomlinson) and construction of a new dwelling.

SB/14/01672/OUT Dunkirk, South Lane, Southbourne – erection of 5no WR (P Kneen) dwellings.

SB/14/01681/FUL Land to the rear of 129 Main Road, Southbourne – 2no semi WR (N McKellar) detached houses and associated works.

2. DECISIONS RECEIVED

Reference/Decision Proposal

BO/13/02946/P3JPA The Mill, Ham Farm, Main Road, Bosham – change of use WR (C Boddy) from B1(a) office to C3 residential. DISMISSED “ ... Whether the proposal satisfies the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) with regard to being permitted development of change of use from office (Use Class B1a) to a dwellinghouse (Use Class C3). ... Paragraph J.2 of the order sets out three matters on which prior approval may be required; transport and highways, contamination risk,

Planning Committee 67 Reference/Decision Proposal

and flooding. The Council confirms in this case that none of these apply, that view is concurred with. ... The Council point however to a condition on the original grant of planning permission as being the reason why the prior approval regime is not applicable in this case. Article 3(4) of the Order states that ‘nothing in this Order permits development contrary to any condition imposed by any planning permission granted or deemed to be granted under Part III of the Act otherwise than by this Order’ ... The determination of this Appeal therefore rests on the question of whether the proposal is permitted development having regard to the effectiveness of condition 4 attached to the original grant of permission for ‘Re-use of redundant farm building for B1 use with parking’, (Ref BO/99/01463/FUL dated 13 August 1999. The Condition reads ‘the premises shall be used only for the purposes within Use Class B1 as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Uses Classes) Order 1987’ with the reason being ‘to comply with the terms of the application and protect the amenities and character of the area’. The Council accepts that the wording is not in the form that would now be used, but state that it prevents any change of use that would otherwise be permitted under the General Permitted Development Order, as amended in 2013. The Council refers to the case of Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Limited v SSCLG (2013) EWHC 3597. That judgement concerned the wording of a condition attached to a permission granted in June 1999 which read ‘The retail consent shall be for non-food sales only in bulky trades normally found on retail parks which are furniture, carpets, DIY, electrical goods, car accessories, garden items and such other trades as the council may permit in writing’ and the reason given was ‘to ensures that the nature of the scheme will not distract from the vitality and viability of the nearby Catford town centre’. It is clear from this that there are similarities in wording an intent to the present case. The discussion in the Judgement stated ‘The condition is clear and unambiguous. The use of the word ‘only’ makes it clear that anything apart from the trades listed in excluded. The requirement of the consent of the local planning authority to any trades other than those listed would not be necessary and would be meaningless if permitted development or Use Classes rights were not excluded. The subject matter of the condition is the entire ambit of Class A1 uses. The Use Class Order is also the whole of Class A1. The condition only makes sense if there is an implicit exclusion of the Use Classes Order or else it has no purpose’. ... It is concluded that the condition in this Appeal does go far enough in restricting the use of the land so that a change of use to residential would be development contrary to the Order under Article 3(4) and that there is no reasonable interpretation of the aim of the condition other to restrict the

Planning Committee 68 Reference/Decision Proposal

use to B1. The prior approval regime is not available in this case and an express planning permission would be needed to affect the change of use sought. For the reasons given above it is concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.”

CC/14/00938/ADV Kwik-Fit, 151 St Pancras, Chichester – replacement corporate WR (A Weir) signage. DISMISSED “ ... That part of the appeal that relates to the externally illuminates badge logo sign and the externally illuminated projecting sign is dismissed. That part of the appeal that relates to the non-illuminated running fascia panelling advertisement as applied for is allowed ... The appeal site is a more modern building which although single storey is of an industrial form and appearance with proportions which are at odds with the adjoining more domestic scaled and historic buildings. The proposed running fascia panelling ... would be sited in a similar location and be of similar dimensions and colouring ... Council have not objected to this sign ... I would agree that the proposed sign would have little noticeable difference on the character and appearance of the area and would thereby preserve the appearance of the CCA. The badge logo sign ... would appear bulkier than the existing sign. The high level location makes the existing sign appear somewhat out of keeping in the surrounding street and adds to the uncharacteristic appearance of this building. The external overhead trough light would accentuate the bulkier and alien appearance of the signage with its additional structure and form as well as the illumination ... would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the ... The proposed projecting sign would be larger than the existing ... The introduction of illumination and the modern form and materials would further add to the incongruous appearance of this sign within the street. There are a number of hanging signs located on premises nearby however these are of traditional form and only a limited number are illuminated. In association with the badge logo sign the projecting sign would add to the intensity of advertisement on the premises above the fascia level and which would be further exacerbated by the introduction of inappropriate illumination ... not preserve or enhance the character of appearance of the CCA ... signs in the street that are illuminated are sited on a pub or restaurant uses that have an evening use ... The nature of the activity and the hours do not therefore fall within the Council's intentions with regard evening illumination ... externally illuminated badge logo sign and the externally illuminated projecting sign would be detrimental to the interests of amenity ...”

Planning Committee 69 Reference/Decision Proposal

SDNP/13/04341/LIS Tower House, 2 Verdley Place, Fernhurst – removal of WR (R Sims) existing wall between kitchen and hall. Install 2no steels over (Fernhurst) opening. ALLOWED “I allow the appeal and grant listed building consent for the removal of existing wall between kitchen and hall. Install 2 No. steels over opening and other associated works at Tower House, 2 Verdley Place, Fernhurst, Haslemere, West Sussex, GU27 3ER. ... The kitchen and inner part of the hall/corridor however do not rank as being as important to the significance of the heritage asset, due to the substantial re-ordering that has taken place in this area. ... Whilst this is evidence of a former room and door plan, it is not highly significant in terms of the building as a whole, and having mind to the unaltered entry to the adjacent drawing room. The proposed further subdivision of the hall/corridor would not adversely affect the spatial qualities of the listed building as this part does not retain much of those original qualities. The enlargement of the kitchen would change the proportions of one of the original spaces, but not to such an extent as to strike at the heart of the listed building's significance. The removal of the moulding as evidence of the spine wall has, as previously reasoned, little adverse effect in the wider context of the listed building, and in understanding of the heritage asset and its former wall arrangement. ... With the proportions of the original room, now the kitchen, preserved by way of the deeper downstand and the nib, and the stability of the structure and integrity of truly significant decorative features safeguarded, it is concluded that the works would preserve the significance of the listed building in accordance with the aims of the 1990 Act, Development Plan Policies BE4 and BE5, and the provisions of the Framework. Whilst the proposal would not harm the significance of the listed building, there are benefits over the present arrangement, and although they are private benefits they would help ensure the long term use and care of the listed building. For the reasons given above it is concluded that the appeal should succeed.”

KD/13/03703/FUL Cedar Farm, Kirdford, Billingshurst – provision of tennis court H (S Locke) and associated fencing (2.75m chain link fence). ALLOWED “The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for provision of tennis court and associated fencing at Cedar Farm, Kirdford, W. Sussex, RH14 0JJ. ... The Council based its decision on a 2.75m high fence. It was confirmed at the hearing that the appellant would prefer a 2.75m high fence, but would accept a fence of 2.75 m to either end with lower sides, as illustrated, albeit on a small scale, within his

Planning Committee 70 Reference/Decision Proposal

Landscape and Visual Appraisal with Impact Summary report. It was also confirmed at the hearing that the Council would prefer this alternative fencing proposal. ... I have allowed the appeal on the basis of the alternative proposal and, accordingly, I have amended the description of development used in my formal decision. It is agreed between the parties that the appeal site falls outside of the residential curtilage of Cedar Farm, which was confirmed at the hearing as encompassing the southern part of the land associated with Cedar Farm. However, there is dispute as to whether or not the appeal site, and wider northern land of which it forms part, falls within the same planning unit as the dwelling. As a consequence there is dispute as to the lawful use of the appeal site. Whilst this matter forms a central part of the cases of both parties and, as such was discussed at the hearing, it is not for me to establish the lawful use of the appeal site within the context of an appeal made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. It is open to the appellant to apply under sections 191/192 of the same Act to determine this matter. The main issue is the effect of the propose tennis court and associated fencing on the character and appearance of the area. The appeal site comprises a disused ménage that has a sand surface, enclosed by a post and rail fence, combined with mesh, agreed between 1.25, and 1.4m high. The ménage also has lighting on columns. The ménage lies adjacent to a building, constructed as a stable, and associated hard standing. The wider northern part of the land associated with Cedar Farm comprises a field, bounded to varying degrees by vegetation. ... The nature of the landscape means public views of the appeal site are fairly limited. The appeal site lies in a part of the district accorded special protection under Policy RE5. ... I appreciate that use of land associated with horses may be more likely to be found within a rural setting outside the confines of a residential curtilage than use as a tennis court. However, uses associated with horses vary, including grazing, riding schools and stud farms, each with differing characteristics. ... As such, use of land associated with horses at Cedar Farm would be a fairly low intensity hobby use, it is proposed that the tennis court is used for the enjoyment of occupiers of Cedar Farm, which could also be secured by condition. Consequently, use of the land would continue to be fairly low intensity hobby use. ... The tennis court, with a Macadam surface and 2.75m high green chain link fence with tubular posts, may appear incongruous within a rural setting outside the confines of a residential curtilage, however, the tennis court proposed would be sited within a part of the field to the north of Cedar Farm that already accommodates development, including the ménage. ... However, subject to

Planning Committee 71 Reference/Decision Proposal

an appropriate colour, a chain link fence would blend in with the landscape ... In addition, it is proposed that the lighting columns be removed. ... I do not consider the proposed tennis court would significantly change the appearance of the rural landscape. ... I note the Council’s concerns that the proposed development, if allowed and implemented, could lead to domestic paraphernalia in the vicinity of the tennis court. However, the grant of planning permission for a tennis court on the appeal site would not alter the status of this land and, as such, any right conferred on it. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed tennis court and associated fencing would not materially harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, I do not find conflict with Policies RE1, RE5, or BE11 of the LP. ... As discussed above, it is necessary to attach a condition restricting use of the tennis court to occupiers of Cedar Farm … I consider it necessary to attach a condition restricting installation of lighting. Whilst the Council do not consider it necessary to attach a condition requiring details of the materials. ...”

KD/13/04201/P3JPA The Workshop, Village Road, Kirdford – change of use from WR (P Kneen) office (B1a) to dwelling (C3). DISMISSED “ ... the balance of the evidence suggest that the building was in use as an office/workshop immediately before 30 May 2013. Such a use would not automatically fall within Class B1(a) of the Schedule to the use Classes Order and there is nothing before me to indicate that the workshop use was incidental to a principal office use. Consequently, I conclude that the proposal does not constitute permitted development under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class J of the Town & Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995 (as amended). Thus it cannot be addressed by the prior approval process and it is not necessary for me to consider the transport and highways impact of the development; the contamination risk on the site; or the flood risk on the site ...”

SI/10/00472/CONENF Green Lane Piggeries, Ham Road, Sidlesham – change of I (R Hawks) use of a building and stationing of a caravan for residential Awaiting Decision purposes. Appeal against Enforcement Notice. (TO BE LINKED WITH SI/10/00473/CONENF)

“ ... The appeals relate to two different sites within a group of buildings originally forming part of a pig farm. ... Appeal A concerns a mobile home stationed within a yard area and occupied by the appellant (Dennis Satturley). Appeal B concerns a shed, within which is a touring caravan currently occupied by the appellant’s daughter. ...

Planning Committee 72 Reference/Decision Proposal

Appeal A on Ground (d)

... After considering its position over night in the light of the oral evidence given, the Council announced at the start of the second day that it would not continue to contest Appeal A on ground (d). ... I agree with the Council's assessment at the inquiry that on the balance of probability Mr Satturley had lived continuously at the mobile home for more than ten years prior to the issuing of the notice. Residential occupation has therefore become lawful. The appeal on ground (d) in respect of the residential occupation of the mobile home subject to appeal a succeeds, and the enforcement notice will be quashed. In those circumstances it is not necessary to consider the appeal on ground (a).

Appeal B on Ground (d)

... Notwithstanding the shortage of documentary evidence, I find the detailed oral evidence on oath of Mr Satturley and Mr Josling convincing. That evidence is corroborated by a statutory declaration by Mr Williams’ son, who states that the shed at the Piggery was his father’s sole residence from 1994 until his death, and that he had regularly visited him there approximately every 6 to 8 weeks. On the evidence before me I conclude on the balance of probability that Mr Williams had lived in a caravan in the shed between 1994 and 2009. ... For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raise, Appeal B will be allowed and the enforcement notice quashed.”

SI/10/00473/CONENF Green Lane Piggeries, Ham Road, Sidlesham – change of I (R Hawks) use of land for the stationing of a mobile home for the Awaiting Decision purposes of residential accommodation. Appeal against Enforcement Notice. (TO BE LINKED WITH SI/10/00472/CONENF) AS ABOVE

SDNP/13/03175/FUL The Corner Cottage, Cobblers Row to The Grove, Singleton – (Singleton) proposed extension of garage to provide a one bedroom WR ( M Mew) cottage. ALLOWED (TO BE LINKED WITH SDNP/13/03373/LIS)

“ ... The Authority refers to the garage as being ‘of limited merit’ but that the effect is somewhat mitigated by being mostly behind the wall and that its flat roof allow views over it of Corner Cottage and other listed buildings. ... Far from being unobtrusive due to its flat roofed form, or possessing limited merit, the existing garage is an obtrusive and negative feature of the conservation area, and has no merit. It has an uncharacteristic roof form and the poor treatment of the wall

Planning Committee 73 Reference/Decision Proposal

and the visibility of the fascia, bricks and felt causes real harm to the character and appearance of the area, and that harm is by no means mitigated or excused by the existence of views over it. ... There is no doubt that the proposed extension and resulting longer building, including the pitched roof, would be highly visible. ... The form of the roof would be entirely appropriate to the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the listed buildings nearby, including Corner Cottage, and its placement in the proposed position in place of the flat roofed arrangement would be an enhancement of the appearance of the wall and the streetscene, and hence the conservation area. ... The shape of the garden and resulting size would be acceptable and there is ready access to recreation land by the church. There is no issue over the garden area remaining for Corner Cottage but there would be oblique views over the new garden from that existing dwelling, although that is not an unusual or harmful relationship within the built-up part of the village. The dwelling would be small but would provide adequate space commensurate with the amount of sleeping accommodation. ... The appellant refers to this as providing a small affordable home for a local person, and goes on to detail some personal circumstances, but no mechanism has been put forward to secure either affordable housing or the continued occupation by a local person. However, the application is acceptable on its merits, as an enhancement of the conservation area with no harm to listed buildings, and no weight need be attached to these other matters. ...”

WR/13/02108/EXT Harsfold Manor, Harsfold Lane, Wisborough Green – WR (N Langford) extension of time of extant planning permission ALLOWED WR/10/02412/FUL. Repair and change of use of building to allow usage as holiday let.

“ ... I conclude there is no evidence to confirm that limiting the implementation period of this permission would tangibly secure neither the betterment of the associated historic farm buildings nor the setting of the farmhouse. In this key respect the condition is neither reasonable nor necessary, and as such does not confirm to the criterion set out in paragraph 206 of the Framework. Moreover, I have not been directed to any policy within the Chichester District Local Plan that supports the Council’s approach. The development without the reduced time limit would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the area, the setting of Harsfold Farmhouse or protected species ...”

Planning Committee 74 3. OUTSTANDING APPEALS

Reference/Status Proposal

BO/13/01846/FUL Burnes Shipyard Ltd, Westbrook Field, Bosham – demolition H (S Harris) of existing buildings and structures, erection of employment Awaiting decision floor space (Use Class B1) and four dwellinghouses (Use Class C3), with associated car parking and hard and soft landscaping works, including formation of a new footpath across Mill Meadow and associated works.

SDNP/12/00426/ Warehead Stud, Thicket Lane, Halnaker, Boxgrove – erection UNAWKS of a pole barn, unauthorised container, hardstanding – appeal (Boxgrove) against Enforcement Notice. WR (R Hawks) In progress

SDNP/13/01909/HOUS Old Cottage West, The Street, Bury - proposed new driveway. (Bury) WR (R Sims) In progress

CC/14/00770/DOM Pippins, Rew Lane, Chichester - First floor extension. WR (A Weir) In progress

CH/13/03157/OUT Pottery Field, Main Road, Nutbourne – erection of 26 WR (J Bell) dwellings (2no 1 bed apartments, 3no 2 bed bungalows, 5no In progress 2 bed houses, 12no 3 bed houses, 4no 4 bed houses and new access from A259, landscaping, children’s play area, open space and junior sports field.

SDNP/13/02269/HOUS Stonechat, Butchers Lane, East Dean - alterations and (East Dean) additions to dwelling. WR (M Pickup) In progress

EWB/13/03422/FUL Land south of 78 Stocks Lane, East Wittering – demolition of WR (P Kneen) existing detached double garage and 3 space garage block. In progress Erection of 1no 1 bed/2 person bungalow and associated external works.

EWB/14/00457/OUT Land south of Clappers Lane, Bracklesham Bay – erection of I (J Bell) 160 residential dwellings, new vehicular access, open spaces Public Inquiry to be held and other ancillary works. on Wednesday 29- Friday 31 October 2014 at City Council, Assembly Rooms at 10.00am

Planning Committee 75 Reference/Status Proposal

SDNP/13/04315/LDE Stable Cottage, Dunford Hollow, West Lavington – continued WR (R Sims) use for over 10 years of land as residential curtilage. (Fernhurst) In progress

SDNP/13/01979/FUL Three Cornered Piece, East Harting Hollow Road, East (Harting) Harting - change of use to traveller site, including retention I (D Price) and provision of concrete hardstandings and hardstanding for Awaiting decision parking.

KD/13/02335/FUL Broad Leaf Barn, Petworth Road, Kirdford - Change of use of WR (R Sims) existing building from workshop and store (B1 use class) to In progress residential (C3 use class) with 2 parking spaces

SDNP/13/04450/FUL Staple House Farm, Sheepwash Lane, East Lavant - WR (R Sims) Removal of agricultural occupancy condition from application In progress LV/19/79 to allow occupation by a non-agricultural worker.

SDNP/13/02293/FUL Dundee House, Bepton Road, Midhurst – demolition of WR (SDNPA – P Aird) existing B1(c) industrial building with ancillary offices and (Midhurst) erection of a new mixed development with A1/A3, B1 and C3 uses. Provision of service yard and car parking. (TO BE LINKED WITH SDNP/13/02294/CON)

SDNP/13/02294/CON Dundee House, Bepton Road, Midhurst – demolition of WR (SDNPA – P Aird) existing B1(c) industrial building with ancillary offices. (Midhurst) (TO BE LINKED WITH SDNP/13/02293/FUL)

NM/13/03929/OUT Land Adjoining Stoney Lodge, School Lane, North Mundham WR (P Kneen) - Erection of 4 no dwellings with re-use of existing access In progress point.

SY/13/01324/ELD Helmieh, Chichester Road, Selsey – lawful installation of WR (C Boddy) fences to front of property. In progress

SI/13/00503/ELD Magnolia Cottage, Cloverlands, Chalder Lane, Sidlesham – WR (V Colwell) extension to building completed outside terms of original In progress permission SI/04/01221/DOM.

SI/13/03648/FUL 27 Chalk Lane, Sidlesham, Chichester – provision of bed and WR (P Kneen) breakfast accommodation on site of existing outbuildings. In Progress

SDNP/13/03373/LIS The Corner Cottage, Cobblers Row to The Grove, Singleton – (Singleton) proposed extension of garage to provide a one bedroom WR (M Mew) cottage. In progress (TO BE LINKED WITH SDNP/13/03175/FUL)

Planning Committee 76 Reference/Status Proposal

SDNP/14/00227/HOUS Rotherbridge Farm House, Rotherbridge Lane, Petworth – WR (M Mew) two storey rear extension with pitched roof incorporating (Tillington) existing single storey rear extension with flat roof. In progress

WI/13/02747/ELD Greenleas, Itchenor Road, West Itchenor – use of land as WR (M Tomlinson) garden land. In progress

WE/14/00940/DOM Sawmills Farm, Monks Hill, Emsworth - Kitchen extension. WR (S Locke) In progress

WW/14/00413/FUL The former Boat Store and Workshop, Chichester Road, WR (N McKellar) West Wittering – change of use and alteration of former boat In Progress store and workshop with 1no 2-bed dwelling together with a wildlife buffer zone to Chichester Road frontage.

WR/12/00207/CONAGR Greenways Nursery, Kirdford Road, Wisborough Green – Public Inquiry to be held unauthorised works. Tuesday 18 and Wednesday 19 (TO BE LINKED WITH WR/13/00744/FUL) November 2014 in Committee Room 2, EPH

WR/13/00744/FUL Greenways Nursery, Kirdford Road, Wisborough Green – the I (R Sims) use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential Procedure as above purposed for 10no plots together with the formation of additional hard standing. (TO BE LINKED WITH WR/12/00207/CONAGR)

4. VARIATIONS TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS NONE

5. CALLED IN APPLICATIONS

Reference Proposal Stage NONE

6. COURT AND OTHER MATTERS

Injunctions

Site Breach Stage NONE

Planning Committee 77 Prosecutions

Site Breach Stage

Land at Garnet Failure to comply with a Court proceedings issued. Adjourned Cottage, Hunston Planning Enforcement to 14.4.14 so that compliance can be Notice. monitored. Compliance not achieved – mode of trial hearing due to take place on 19.5.14. Defendant failed to appear. Warrant for arrest issued. Suspended to enable works of compliance to be undertaken. These are ongoing.

Decoy Farm, Failure to comply with Court proceeding issued. Matter Aldingbourne Planning Enforcement adjourned at direction of the Court to Notice. 13 August 2014. Trial now set for 18 November 2014.

Old Mill Farm, Failure to comply with Court proceedings issued. Hearing in Lurgashall Breach of Condition Worthing Magistrates Court on 4 April Notice. 2014. Court adjourned to 27 May as tenant provided evidence work is being progressed. Site visit could not confirm works have started – no evidence. Matter being returned to Court. Date to be confirmed.

High Court

Site Matters prohibited by the Stage Order

Planning injunction:

NONE

Magistrates Court

Site Breach Stage

NONE

Planning Committee 78

Planning Committee 79 7. POLICY MATTERS (04/2014)

Document Technical consultation on planning (2014)

Status: Consultation document

Date Published: 31 July 2014

Consultation Closes: 26 September 2014

Contact Details: Tony Whitty

Background and overview of proposals

In the last three years a number of changes to the Planning System have been introduced with the aim of increasing the speed of the decision making process, removing the need for planning permission for certain types of development and increasing local influence over development. These measures have included the introduction of neighbourhood plans, increased provision for automatic planning permission through amendments to the 1995 General Permitted Development Order and a significant reduction in the amount of central government policy and guidance, with the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Policy Guidance.

On 31 July 2014, the DCLG published an extensive consultation document covering numerous aspects of the planning system. The thrust of most of the proposals is one of deregulation and streamlining, but a small number of the provisions seek to provide local planning authorities with greater controls. Many of the proposals are intended to make permanent a number of temporary arrangements which were introduced in order to stimulate development during the recession, whilst others were announced during the most recent Budget. The deadline for comments to be received by the DCLG is 26 September 2014.

As noted above, the scope of the consultation document is very extensive, covering six different subject areas in 98 pages. Therefore, this note provides only a brief summary of the main elements and an initial assessment of their implications. The six elements in the consultation are:-

• Speeding up Neighbourhood Planning • Expansion of permitted development rights • Improvements to the use of planning conditions • Improved engagement with statutory consultees • Raising the screening thresholds for environmental impact assessments • Widening the range of consents within the Development Consent Orders which nationally significant infrastructure works are enabled.

The Technical Consultation on Planning

A summary of the proposed changes and the implications of these are set out below. A full list of the questions being asked may be found within the consultation paper; accessible via the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/technical-consultation-on-planning

Planning Committee 80 Section 1: Neighbourhood Planning

This section of the consultation is about proposed regulatory changes to the neighbourhood planning system introduced via the Localism Act 2011. The most significant aspect is a proposal to introduce a 70 day time limit within which local planning authorities must take decisions on certain applications to be designated. It also seeks views on changes to the pre-submission consultation and publicity process for neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood development orders, and the documentation that must accompany a neighbourhood plan when submitted to a local planning authority.

The absence of any clearly defined timescales to support the process to designate a neighbourhood area is probably an anomaly which Central Government would need to address at some point. However, it is questionable if a 70 day timescale is adequate bearing in mind the requirement for a minimum six week consultation and subsequent publication of a notice outlining the details of the designation or the reasons for non- designation.

The consultation document also seeks views on removing the requirement for a minimum of a six week period of consultation and publicity before a neighbourhood plan or Order is submitted to a local planning authority. It is important that neighbourhood plans are as robust as possible and that they a written in a manner that allows them to be easily interpreted and utilised in assessing planning applications in the future. If they are not it will lead to decisions that are unlikely to be consistent with the author’s intentions and will lead to a loss of confidence in the process which neighbourhood plan groups have invested in, and ultimately the overall planning process. The pre-submission six week consultation period is an extremely important step in the Council assisting neighbourhood groups with their plans and should remain a requirement of the process.

The remaining proposals are largely procedural but it is proposed that in order for examiners to have sufficient information on likely significant environmental effects that more information on Strategic Environmental Assessment should be submitted with the neighbourhood plan than required at present. This is of particular relevance for neighbourhood planning within the Council. Other procedural changes will have limited implications. There has been a great deal of interest in creating neighbourhood plans within the District with one already adopted (Kirdford), several more close to completion and a number of others moving quickly through the process.

Section 2: Reducing Planning Regulations

The government seeks to implement a 3 tier planning system which underlines a desire to see a reduction in the number of developments for which a full planning application is required. The three tiers are:

• Full planning application – an application for planning permission is usually appropriate for large scale, complex developments, or those with greatest impact on neighbours, the wider community or the environment;

• Permitted development rights with prior approval – an intermediary route, between permitted development and a full planning application. Prior approval is a lighter touch process that applies where the principle of the development has already been established, but certain specific planning issues still require local consideration. Unlike a planning application, when considering prior approval, local planning authorities should only consider specific planning issues such as visual amenity,

Planning Committee 81 highways and transport, traffic management, noise levels and flooding risks. Prior approval provides applicants with a less complex and less costly process, thus enabling growth. Prior approval in the context of this consultation grants automatic permission if the local planning authority has not responded in 56 days, other than the householder neighbour notification scheme which is 42 days

• Permitted development rights with no prior approval – removes the need for a planning application as planning permission is granted nationally by the Secretary of State. This approach is more appropriate for small scale changes and some strategic development, providing freedom to carry out development which has less impact on neighbours, the community or environment

Previous changes to the General Permitted Development Order have already set about implementing this change as certain changes of use are already now permitted development, subject to the consideration of a small number of matters as part of a prior approval process. Section 2 of the consultation seeks views on further changes, the main subject areas of which are listed below:

• Create new Permitted Development (PD) rights to enable; i) B1(c) (light industrial), B8 (Storage) laundrettes, amusement arcades/centres, casinos and nightclubs to residential (C3) ii) A1, A2, laundrettes, amusement arcades and nightclubs to change to A3 or D2 iii) Casinos to change to A3 (restaurants and cafes)

• Make permanent existing PD rights for; i) B1(a) (Offices) to residential (C3) ii) Larger extensions to dwellinghouses iii) Larger extensions to shops, financial and professional services, offices, industrial and warehouse buildings

• PD rights for further extensions to shops • PD rights for commercial film & TV production • PD for solar PV up to 1MW on roofs of non domestic buildings • Broaden A1 use class to incorporate most of the uses currently within A2 • A restriction on LPA setting maximum parking standards • Compensation regulations and the new PD rights

The proposals for making further amendments to permitted development rights appear to be based partly on an unwarranted concentration on the delivery of housing and fails to recognise impacts that some of the proposed changes would have on the wider economy, town centres, retail uses and sensitive rural areas. The proposed “three-tier system” for planning permission is a concept that is in direct conflict with the stated objective of “making it easier for applicants to navigate the planning system”. The need to make a planning application for any development requiring approval from the Local Planning Authority and for that application to be considered locally through an open and democratically accountable process involving consultation with all interested parties is by far the simplest and most easily understood concept for the great majority of those who use the planning system. The proposed “three-tier system” introduces unnecessary and undesirable complexity for users of the planning system which is likely to result in an increase in development being carried out without the right approval and a corresponding increase in investigations of complaints about cases where works might have been

Planning Committee 82 undertaken without the necessary level of approval. It would also result in a loss of some fee income to the Authority.

The introduction of residential uses into industrial areas/estates would rarely be appropriate. Whilst B1(c) premises can successfully be introduced into residential areas, this proposal seems to be based on an assumption that the reverse is always true on the basis that such B1(c) uses (and B8 uses) are located in areas of similar such uses. Many of the employment sites in the District are found in rural areas or small villages that play a vital role in supporting the sustainability of local settlements. The uncontrolled erosion of such facilities would have a significant impact on the ability for people to find work local to where they live and any further growth required in the future would be unlikely to come forward in such locations.

The acceptability of other specific sui generis uses (i.e. launderettes, amusement arcades/centre, casinos and nightclubs) being converted for residential purposes is something that is dependent upon local and site specific circumstances. The acceptability of such change should therefore be left to be determined locally through the planning application process rather than such a decision being taken nationally and unilaterally through the proposed extension of permitted development rights.

The proposed amalgamation of the current A1 and A2 uses into a single class together with the introduction of additional permitted development rights that would enable retail (Class A1) premises to be used for a variety of other purposes (residential, restaurants, cafés and assembly/leisure uses) without the need for planning permission can only serve to undermine the retail functions of town/city centres. This is highly undesirable and not in the interests of supporting the wider economy. Planning has been able to successfully defend key primary retail frontages through both locally adopted policies and decisions on planning applications that ensure a proportionate and sustainable approach to maintaining the right balance of uses in commercial centres. The proposed changes would make this impossible and would not be acceptable to local communities.

The proposed measures for supporting the retail sector would not compensate for the impacts that the other changes would have on this part of the economy. Whilst the proposals for retail facilities would generally be acceptable in themselves, the proposal to permit mezzanine floors to be built within existing retail units should only be available to shops located with designated town or local centres and not to any “out of town” retail premises.

Section 3: Improving the Use of Planning Conditions

The proposals in this Section of the consultation have two elements. Firstly, to ensure that planning conditions are appropriate and do not act as barrier to achieving timely development. Secondly, that they should be discharged within a prescribed timescale and failure to do so will result in a deemed discharge.

The implications of these proposals need to be fully assessed. The proposals may be justified in certain circumstances, but fail to recognise that there is also a responsibility on the part of applicants to ensure that information also needs to be provided to the local planning authority in a timely manner to ensure that planning applications can be registered without delay and that subsequent discharge of conditions is also a two way process. For instance the consultation does not acknowledge that some pre- commencement conditions are imposed by planning authorities because the details have not been provided by the applicant or their agent.

Planning Committee 83 Section 4: Planning Application Process Improvements

These proposals are aimed at streamlining the consultation process, particularly with statutory consultees, by changing the thresholds for such consultations and introducing a more proportionate approach. Changes are also suggested to the referral of heritage matters to the Secretary of State. Other proposals include a requirement for local planning authorities to ensure that railway infrastructure managers are notified of all planning applications where development is proposed near a railway. The implications of these proposals locally are considered to be minimal.

Section 5: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Thresholds

The consultation seeks views on proposals to raise thresholds for screening projects which may require an environmental impact assessment. The result of the changes will potentially reduce the number of projects which will need to be screened and in turn those which are likely to require an EIA. The number of planning applications that fall within the EIA thresholds have increased in the last 15 years through successive judiciary decision and a review and simplification of these regulations would be welcomed.

Section 6: Improving the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Regime

Through the 2008 Planning Act, a new regime for allowing certain types of nationally significant infrastructure was established. These included major energy projects, railways, ports, major roads, airports, water and waste projects. The aim of the proposals is to simplify and speed up planning consent for such projects by reducing the number of separate applications and permits and enabling faster decisions while ensuring consultation with communities and other interested parties. The nature of these changes is unlikely to have any significant implications locally.

Recommendation

That the Planning Committee notes the proposals contained within the Technical Consultation on Planning and endorses the officer responses set out above.

Disclaimer The summaries given above are intended as a guide only. They are not definitive interpretations and do not set out all relevant matters of consultation, only those of particular note.

Planning Committee 84