Notice of Meeting

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 11 December 2013 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]

3 December 2013 PAUL E OVER Executive Director of Support Services and the Economy

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

2 Approval of Minutes

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 13 November 2013 (copy to follow)

3 Urgent Items

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 8 (b)

4 Declarations of Interests

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

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

5 Schedule of Planning Applications (pages 1 to 142)

(a) Announce those items which will be deferred or withdrawn (any application deferred or withdrawn will not be discussed further during the meeting)

(b) Consider the schedule of planning applications

6 Update on Apuldram Wastewater Treatment Work and Wastewater Position Statement (pages 143 to 150)

The Development Plan Panel will be asked to consider the attached report and the following recommendations:

(1) That the Planning Committee endorses the Position Statement on Wastewater and Delivering Development in the Local Plan appended to this report as the Council’s position with regard to future growth in the Apuldram catchment

7 Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters (pages 151 to 169)

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

8 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

NONE

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 1972

Members of the Planning Committee

Mr A R H Smith (Chairman) Mrs J E Duncton (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 Mr J F Elliott Mr J Ridd Mrs P A Hardwick 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 J F Elliott - Singleton Parish Council (SE)

• 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 – Chichester City Council Representatives on Outside Organisations and Membership of Public Bodies

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

• Mr M Woolley (Chichester City Council Member for the East Ward) - 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

S C H E D U L E O F P L A N N I N G A P P L I C A T I O N S

CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE

11th December 2013

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 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 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CDC Applications Item Application No. Site Address / Proposal Page No.

1. SI/13/02924/FUL Enborne Business Park Selsey Road 6 Sidlesham West Sussex

Proposed extension to commercial unit permitted under SI/13/00109/FUL on existing business park.

2. SB/13/02433/FUL 11 Hurstwood Avenue Southbourne 14 Emsworth Hampshire PO10 8LN

Retrospective application for continued use of garage for storage and distribution of re- packed meat products.

3. SB/13/02886/FUL Land To The Rear Of Fairways Priors 21 Leaze Lane Hambrook Chidham West Sussex

Change of use from agricultural land to Travelling Showpeoples site.

4. SB/13/03090/FUL Thornham House Prinsted Lane Prinsted 38 Emsworth Hampshire PO10 8HS

Demolition and rebuilding of existing house . 5. NM/13/02608/FUL Chichester Food Park Walnut Tree Farm 46 Runcton West Sussex

Agricultural grain store.

6. LX/13/03324/FUL Garage Compound West Of 1 To 4 63 Nicholsfield Loxwood West Sussex Demolition of existing garages and construction of 1 three-bedroom house and 2 one-bedroom flats landscaping and parking.

Planning 3 7. CH/13/02949/FUL 'The Three Horseshoes', Plot C2, POND 73 FARM Newells Lane West Ashling Chichester PO18 8DF Temporary stationing of a mobile home for occupation by a traveller (as defined in Planning policy for traveller sites) for five years (Resubmission).

8. CH/13/02950/FUL Plot C, Pond Farm Newells Lane West 84 Ashling Chichester PO18 8DF Temporary stationing of a mobile home for occupation by a traveller for five years (Resubmission).

9. CH/13/02970/FUL Plot C2 A And C2B, Pond Farm Newells 92 Lane West Ashling Chichester PO18 8DF Proposed change of use of land to a twin pitch Gypsy site for a 5 year period to provide settled accommodation; alternative revised application to CH/12/01282/FUL following 5 year appeal permissions for adjacent plots.

10. CH/13/02975/FUL PLOT F, POND FARM Newells Lane West 102 Ashling Chichester PO18 8DF Application for retention of change of use of land to a single pitch Gypsy site for a 5 year period including stationing of one mobile home to provide settled accommodation.

11. CC/13/02444/LBC Northgate House 38 North Street 110 Chichester West Sussex PO19 1LX Conserve and re-instate C18th door frame and over light to its original position. Create a larger opening in west wall of original house (between kitchen and dining room).

12. CC/13/03246/DOM 18 Wells Crescent Chichester West Sussex 119 PO19 5EU Two storey extension and pitched roof over porch.

Planning 4 SDNPA Applications

13. SDNP/13/04131/HOUS Selham Station, Selham Road, Selham 126 (Graffham) Lodsworth

Single storey extension of existing dwelling.

14. SDNP/13/04395/HOUS Springhead Marley Lane Camelsdale 135 (Linchmere) Linchmere

Proposed construction of a desjoyaux pipe- free in-ground domestic swimming pool, 11m x 5m x 1.4m with desjoyaux patended integrated filtration system. Pool liner, access steps and overall automatic pool cover within the curtilage of the property

Planning 5 Parish: Ward: Sidlesham Sidlesham

1. SI/13/02924/FUL

Proposal Proposed extension to commercial unit permitted under SI/13/00109/FUL on existing business park.

Site Enborne Business Park Selsey Road Sidlesham West Sussex

Map Ref (E) 485668 (N) 96715

Applicant Mr I Fewings

RECOMMENDATION TO 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 6

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 Enborne Business Park is a modern, rural industrial estate constructed following consent in 2005 to redevelop the then existing industrial uses on the site. The Park comprises 18 units of varying size in B1 or B8 use as well as an MOT testing centre and cafe. Fifteen of the units are located along the southern side of the estate's east-west access road and are formed in single building consisting of dark grey metal-clad elevations beneath shallow pitched profile metal roofs. Three further buildings are located on the northern side of the access road which comprise three industrial units constructed in similar materials together with a café/communal area positioned close to the entrance to the site.

2.2 The Park is located on the B2145 Selsey Road, approximately 800m to the south of Sidlesham and 2.5km north of Selsey. Pagham Harbour Visitor Centre and car park are located to the south of the site, screened by intervening trees and shrubs. Beyond this is Pagham Harbour Special Protection Area and Ramsar Site, as well as an area of tidal lagoon. The land to the north of the site accommodates a range of nursery buildings, whilst the land to the west is in agricultural use

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 Planning permission was granted for the erection of an additional detached industrial unit on land within the boundaries of the Park immediately to the east of Block B (Units 16 and 17). This building, known as Unit 18, has recently been constructed (SI/13/00109/FUL refers).

3.2 Planning permission was subsequently refused under delegated powers for the erection of a further light industrial unit which was to be attached to the eastern elevation of Unit 18 (13/01934/FUL refers). Permission was refused solely on the grounds of flood risk - the site is positioned within Flood Zone 3 and the applicant had failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that there were no reasonably available sites appropriate for the development at a lower probability of flooding.

3.3 The current proposal seeks to erect an extension to Unit 18. During the course of the application negotiations have resulted in the footprint of the extension being reduced by approximately 45%, with the amended proposal comprising a metal-clad addition measuring 7.4m by 8.2m beneath a shallow pitched roof that matches the height and profile of the existing building. The addition would be erected on an area of grass between Unit 18 and a metalled road which provides access to the nursery site to the north. Unlike the proposal under SI/13/01934/FUL which consisted of a larger and separate unit (measuring 7.8m x 14m), the additional floorspace in this case would be integral to Unit 18. The applicant has confirmed that he is in advanced negotiations with a business that intends to occupy the extended building.

Planning 7

History

05/01644/FUL PER Redevelopment of existing B1, B2 and B8 uses together with parking and landscaping.

08/01344/FUL PER Revision to approved B2 building to provide MOT testing station and B2 use.

09/03443/FUL PER Variation of condition no. 5 on planning permission SI/05/01644/FUL to enlarge kitchen/canteen and change of use to provide outdoor seating area.

11/02862/FUL REF Continuation of use of car park for the display of cars for sale. Non compliance with condition 24 on planning permission SI/05/01644/FUL.

13/00109/FUL PER Erection of additional commercial unit for B1(c) purposes.

13/01934/FUL REF Erection of additional commercial unit for B1(c) purposes, attached to new unit permitted under SI/13/00109/FUL.

13/02288/P3JPA YESPAR Change of use of office part of Building A to single dwellinghouse.

Planning 8

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 -Flood Zone 2 NO -Flood Zone 3 YES Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

Sidlesham Parish Council discussed the substitute plans for the above planning application at their Planning Committee Meeting on 20th November 2013. The PC reiterated its objection to the erection of this commercial unit. The proposed unit will still exceed the area allowed in the original planning consent and members consider that the original floor area represents the upper limit of development.

6.2 Environment Agency

No objection subject to adherence to standing advice

6.3 CDC Environmental Health

No objections subject to conditions

6.4 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information

Flood risk sequential testing is not required due to the size of the addition. The site is in a relatively sustainable location. The proposal accords with national planning guidance concerning the effective use of previously developed land and the growth and expansion of all types of rural businesses. The proposal is in line with both the Council's Economic Development Strategy and its local planning policies, particularly Local Plan policy B5 relating to extensions to commercial buildings in the Rural Area.

Planning 9 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.

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 BE12 Alterations, Extensions and Conversions RE1 Rural Area Generally B5 Rural Area - New Build and Extension

7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-submission was approved by Full Council on 24 October 2013 for public consultation. The timetable going forward anticipates formal submission of the draft Local Plan to the Secretary of State in May 2014, examination in summer 2014 and adoption in autumn 2014. The emerging Local Plan is therefore a material consideration, and has a degree of weight. The weight that can be given to particular policies within the plan depends on the extent to which there are outstanding unresolved objections. As it progresses through the local plan process towards adoption the Local Plan will gain more weight. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF which advises on the weight can be given to emerging plans is therefore relevant.

Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 3: The Economy and Employment Provision Policy 26: Existing Employment Sites Policy 51: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Pagham Harbour Special Protection Area

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.

Planning 10 7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), Section 3 (Supporting a prosperous rural economy), Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) and paragraphs 100 -104 concerning development and flood risk.

Other Local Policy and Guidance

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

A1: A strong local economy where businesses can thrive and grow A2: Employees with good skills relevant to local employers, prepared for national and international competition and with well-paid and secure jobs

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: - the principle of the development in the Rural Area - the impact of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the locality - flood risk

The Principle of the Development

8.2 The site is positioned in a relatively remote and unsustainable location, although there is a bus stop immediately outside the site which provides a frequent service from Chichester to Selsey throughout the day. However, the use of the site for commercial purposes has been established for a number of years and it is noted that all the existing units appear to be currently occupied.

8.3 The proposal will provide an additional 60 square metres of commercial floorspace in the form of a modest addition to Unit 18. Paragraph 28 of the NPPF encourages local planning authorities to support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas. Whilst it is accepted that the site is relatively remote, the Park represents a strong existing commercial development where the principle of further small scale business use can be considered appropriate. This proposal also accords with Local Plan policy B5, which is supportive of extensions to commercial buildings in the Rural Area providing that they are of modest scale in relation to the size of the existing building.

8.4 It is further noted that the use of the building would be restricted to purposes within Use Class B1(c) (light industry) and as such the proposal should not give rise to levels of noise from machinery or involve activities that would be harmful to the predominantly rural character of the surrounding area.

8.5 Consequently, it is considered that the principle of erecting an extension to the recently erected unit is acceptable.

Planning 11

Character and Appearance

8.6 As referred to at paragraph 3.3 above, the proposal involves the erection of an addition that, in terms of overall scale, would be subordinate to Unit 18. It would be flanked on its eastern side by a section of tarmacked road surface and, given the eastward extent of the Park's main building to the south, would not involve extending built form any further into the Rural Area than is currently the case. Bearing in mind both the modest scale of the extension and the immediate context of other buildings and parking areas, there should be no adverse impact in terms of the wider landscape, including any views that might be available from Pagham Harbour. Conditions are, however, proposed to control external lighting and materials so as to ensure the addition will harmonise with the host building.

Flood Risk

8.7 The site is located within EA Flood Zone 3 which is defined as being at a high risk of flooding. The Environment Agency's standing advice is that extensions to buildings with this Zone that do not exceed 250m2 can be permitted provided appropriate anti-flooding measures are incorporated into the structure's design. At 60m2 the proposed falls well below this threshold. The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment which sets out various flood resilience measures, and the Environment Agency has raised no objection subject to these being secured via a planning condition. .

Other Matters

8.8 There is considered to be adequate space on the site to accommodate the modest additional parking demand generated by the proposed addition. The scale of the development will not give rise to a significant increase in traffic movements and the existing business park already benefits from a purpose-designed access to the Selsey Road which benefits from good visibly in both directions.

Significant Conditions

8.9 The flood resilience measure referred to above would relate to various matters including the setting of floor levels, foundation design and the positioning of electrical services.

Conclusion

8.10 Based on the above assessment and given the context of the site it is considered the proposal complies with both national and local planning policies relating to small scale commercial development in the countryside. It is accepted that a point may be reached where further development at the site cannot be supported due to cumulative impacts in terms of matters such as visual impact, trip generation and overall levels of activity. However, for the reason outlined above it is considered that such concerns cannot be substantiated on the basis of this proposal for a modest extension to an existing building. Consequently, whilst the Parish Council's concerns about permitting further development on this site are noted, when balancing the various material considerations in this case it is recommended that planning permission should be granted.

Planning 12

Human Rights

8.11 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 U81942 U81942 - decision plans 3 F02F Materials to Match Existing 4 U81944 U81944 - Use Class B1(c) 5 U81945 U81945 - Flood risk 6 U81946 U81946 - landfill gas 7 U81947 U81947 - external lighting 8 U81973 U81973 - external storage

INFORMATIVE

9 W45F Application Approved Following Revisions

For further information on this application please contact Steve Harris on 01243 534734

Planning 13 Parish: Ward: Southbourne Southbourne

2. SB/13/02433/FUL

Proposal Retrospective application for continued use of garage for storage and distribution of re-packed meat products.

Site 11 Hurstwood Avenue Southbourne Emsworth Hampshire PO10 8LN

Map Ref (E) 477157 (N) 106026

Applicant Mr Peter Mason

RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

Planning 14

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 11 Hurstwood Ave is a two-storey semi-detached property on a residential estate of similar properties, built around the 1960's.

2.2 The garage subject to this application is positioned on the eastern boundary, set back and detached form the main house. A similar garage on the neighbouring property is also on this boundary, but set further forward.

2.3 The site is within the designated Settlement Policy Area.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 This is a retrospective application for continued use of garage for the storage and distribution of re-packed meat products.

3.2 The garage in question is within the residential curtilage of the host property and is a single bay flat roof garage with an up and over door, positioned on the eastern boundary set, back and detached from the main house.

3.3 The statement submitted with this application refers to this activity as a hobby rather than a business, the repacking element is carried out 3 days per week (Wed, Thur and Friday) between the hours of 14.00 and 18.00.

4.0 History

13/02433/FUL PDE Retrospective application for continued use of garage for storage and distribution of re- packed meat products.

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 Historic Parks and Gardens NO

Planning 15 6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

The Parish Council does not believe approval should be given for a change of use from a domestic garage to business use in a residential area.

6.2 CDC - Economic Development

Cannot support a business in this residential environment, there are other opportunities for businesses in District within an appropriate unit.

6.3 CDC Environmental Health

The proposal involves the provision of refrigerators and freezers within a converted residential garage. It appears that there is the intention to split meat produce into smaller delivery packages and this involves a work top and vacuum sealing equipment. The applicant says they have sought advice from the Commercial Safety and Health Protection Team of Chichester District Council, but as far as our records show this encounter was not of the applicant's making. I believe the recommendation is that any application for licence as a food premises is dependent on planning permission first being obtained. It is incorrect to assume that the officer is satisfied with the current arrangements or further works will not be required before any consideration is given to a licence being granted for this food business. It is unusual to have a food business being conducted in a domestic garage and I would say in my experience as an Environmental Health Practitioner that the facility must undergo substantial changes to provide impermeable internal surfaces to bring it up to a professional hygiene standard.

I believe the planning application is deficient if it does not accept that separate provision must be made for the installation of a sink and wash hand basin with connection to the foul drainage system. Such internal fittings and drainage connections will require Building Regulation approval. I am surprised that no waste material is generated from the repackaging processes. It is of course inappropriate for any commercial waste to be added to household waste so separate facilities for storage and collection must be provided.

The process of delivering meat to and from the site is presumably via a properly temperature controlled vehicle which must emit more noise than a non-refrigerated vehicle. The noise created must not adversely impact on the quiet enjoyment of residential neighbours. Some form of noise management consideration needs to be made for maintaining temperature control in the transfer process. It seems as though the refrigeration systems in the garage are currently independent units with no externally mounted compressors or coolant pipes. This means that noise is contained within the building although the heat buildup within must be causing the units to work excessively hard and create an uncomfortably hot working space during warmer weather.

In the event that it is decided to give permission for this development I would recommend the following conditions be attached.

• All plant. machinery and equipment installed or operated in connection with the carrying out of this permission shall be so enclosed and/or attenuated that noise there from does not, at any time, exceed the background noise levels as measured according to British Standard BS4142: 1997 at the boundary of any residential property.

Planning 16

• All deliveries to and from the building hereby permitted shall not take place other than between the hours of: 07.30 hours - 18.00 hours Mondays to Fridays inclusive; 08.00 hours - 13.00 hours on Saturdays: and not at all on Sundays or Public Holidays. • There must be no retail point of sales from the premises • Any commercial waste shall be kept within suitable waste receptacles on the application site and removed at regular intervals by licensed contractors. • There shall be no burning of any waste on site. • There shall be no alterations made by the installation of externally powered refrigeration plant without the express permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Informative: • Planning permission does not guarantee that the premises will be licensed as a Food Premises. • Particular consideration must be made to the management of noise from temperature controlled vehicles. Such vehicles must either be temporarily switched off or plugged into a separate electrical supply as necessary for temperature control. • Any new internal fittings such as a sink and wash hand basin with drainage connections will require separate Building Regulation approval. • The external provision of refrigeration plant is likely to be recommended for refusal given the likelihood of noise issues from the proximity of residential property.

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

7.2 The principal planning policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 relevant to the consideration of this application are:

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

Planning 17

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 - 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).

Other Local Policy and Guidance

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

A1 - A strong local economy where businesses can thrive and grow B1 - Managing a changing environment B2 - Greener living D4 - Understanding and meeting community needs

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are:

The impact of this business use on the amenities of the surrounding residential properties.

Assessment

8.2 The applicant works for a wholesale company and brings meat products back from work, some of which are repackaged. The applicant then takes these products to people for purchase, i.e. the use does not incur any visitors to the property.

8.3 During the site visits to the property the officer noted the internal arrangement is in accordance with the submitted floor plans. The freezers were unplugged and defrosted and there were not meat products on site. There were no advertisement boards on site, the site was clean and tidy, and the garden and house is clearly used as a residential property and garden.

Planning 18 8.4 The traffic movements in connection with this use are limited as visitors do not come to the garage and collect their purchases; the applicant delivers them in his van (small domestic van that externally is a single colour and does not include any advertisement).

8.5 Noise emissions from this operation are confined to the vacuum machine and the freezers. The noise omitted from the domestic freezers and the use of the vacuum machine is considered acceptable given the scale of the operation and the position of the garage. It is not uncommon for residential garages to house freezers, washing machines, mechanical tools and be used for hobbies, workshops and so on, and therefore again given the scale and amount of use the level of noise, from domestic freezers, would be acceptable, in this instance.

8.6 Regarding potential commercial waste; no meat is butchered on site, and the products are small, such as chops, sausages, etc. Any packaging is taken back to the applicant's place of work and disposed of. The site is clean and tidy and has a domestic appearance.

8.9 If this were a full time operation it would be more appropriate for this use to be conducted in a more suitable location. However, currently this small-scale operation, which could be controlled by appropriate conditions regarding the use, and hours of operation , etc, is considered acceptable.

8.10 The Environmental Health (EH) comments are set out in section 6.4. Many of the issues raised are relevant considerations for any future licencing application, and are not directly relevant to the planning merits of the application. The applicant may need to upgrade the facility to meet these requirements. The applicant is aware of this and an informative to this effect could be included in any permission.

Significant Conditions

8.11 Conditions controlling the use, the hours of works, waste, restrict burning, no externally powered refrigeration on site and no retail sales from the property, garage or plot are proposed. Several Informatives are also proposed.

Conclusion

8.12 Based on the above assessment, it is considered the proposal complies with the local and national planning policies referred to above and that, subject to the imposition of conditions permission should be granted.

Human Rights

8.13 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.

Planning 19

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 B01G No Departure from Plans 3 U81323 U81323 - Use 4 U81324 U81324 - Hours 5 U81868 U81868 - No retail sales from the premises 6 U81871 U81871 - No externally powered refrigeration 7 U81869 U81869 - Commercial Waste 8 U81870 U81870 - Burning of waste 9 U81330 U81330 - EH requirements

INFORMATIVES

10 U81872 U81872 - Food Premises licence 11 U81873 U81873 - Management of noise from temperature con 12 U81874 U81874 - Building Regulation approval. 13 U81875 U81875 - Refrigeration plant 14 W44F Application Approved Without Amendment

For further information on this application please contact Maria Tomlinson on 01243 534734

Planning 20 Parish: Ward: Southbourne Southbourne

3. SB/13/02886/FUL

Proposal Change of use from agricultural land to Travelling Showpeoples site.

Site Land To The Rear Of Fairways Priors Leaze Lane Hambrook Chidham West Sussex

Map Ref (E) 478244 (N) 106077

Applicant Mr P Shayler

RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT

Planning 21 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

1.1 Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The site lies on the southern side of Priors Leaze Lane, the majority of the site lies adjacent to an existing Travelling Showpeoples site (which also includes 1 gypsy). The site is approximately 1.34ha in area and comprises predominantly agricultural land and just under half of an existing authorised travelling showpeople's plot at Fairways, to the east. Fairways is occupied by several mobile homes and caravans and planning permission was granted on appeal in October 2004 for the continued use of the land as permanent showpeople's quarters (Application No. SB/03/00904/COU refers). At the time of the Officer site visit, Fairways was occupied by two mobile homes owned by the applicant, a mobile home occupied by the applicant's son, two caravans occupied by another family, 2 caravans occupied by staff, two caravans occupied by persons staying on the site temporarily, lorries and show equipment and a workshop/storage shed. The agricultural land to the west had obviously been used for turning of vehicles and has more recently been used for storage purposes although the latter unauthorised use has ceased.

2.2 The site is located to the west of the settlement policy area of Hambrook, south of the A27. The site is outside the designated settlement boundary and within both the Rural Area and the Chichester to Emsworth Strategic Gap. The area surrounding Hambrook and the application site is mainly used for agricultural purposes and the landscape of the area is generally flat and open in nature, interspersed with agricultural units of varying sizes. Some equine uses are also present, as is the occasional dwellinghouse. To the north of the application site is one such dwellinghouse, Coronation Cottage. To the east of that is Priors Leaze Bungalow. To the west of the application site lies a public footpath (No. 257) which runs south from Priors Leaze Lane through a commercial fishery. There are also some buildings in other commercial uses to the west. Almost opposite both the site and the existing Travelling Showpeoples site on the north side of Priors Leaze Lane is a large grain storage facility. To the east of the application site is the Travelling Showpeoples site, beyond which lies agricultural land. A footpath (No.258 ) runs north-south approximately 250m to the east of the application site and this affords views of the site from a distance. To the south of the application site is a field and a copse to the south of this. Broad Road which runs north-south through Hambrook, lies approximately 380m east of the site.

2.3 The north boundary of the site comprises post and wire fencing with some young evergreen planting. The west boundary comprises fencing and earth banks next to a hedgerow. The south boundary comprises a post and wire fence with some young laurel plants along its length. The east boundary of the main part of the application site comprises fencing with some evergreen trees on adjacent sites.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The application seeks a permanent planning permission to change the use of the land for the occupation of travelling showpeople. The proposed 3 plots would be on the part of the site to the west of Fairways and would be accessed via a track through the Fairways plot. The proposed plots have been designed to meet the Model Standard Package for Showpeople's Sites from the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain. Each proposed plot would accommodate space for storage and maintenance, recreation and three mobile homes, plus touring caravans. The plots would all be hard surfaced (proposed to be permeable) with the remainder of the appeal site soft landscaped with grass or other landscaping. The southwest

Planning 22 corner of the site would be grassed and landscaped with the three plots proposed in the northeast (Plot 1) northwest (Plot 2), and southeast (Plot 3) parts of the site.

3.2 The applicant would move from Fairways on to one of the proposed plots, but the maintenance shed on Fairways would be retained. That, together with its access and the track to the new site, would leave insufficient space on Fairways for a travelling showperson plot. The agent has confirmed that this would be used for storage and parking of large vehicles and leave room for the applicant and his son's expanding business. It is the case, therefore, that although three plots are proposed, there would only be a net increase of two due to the loss of the plot at Fairways for habitable purposes.

3.3 In terms of the occupation of the plots, the Planning Design and Access Statement states that Plot 1 would be occupied by the applicant, his wife, his son and granddaughter, Plot 2 would be occupied by the Hart family and Plot 3 by the Rawlings family. The agent has advised that all adult occupiers are members of the Showmen's Guild and that the site will be 'occupied only for travelling showpeople'. It is stated that 'all future occupiers of the proposed plots have close business and family ties with Priors Leaze Lane and the Chichester area and regularly operate fairs' in the area.

5.0 History

11/04884/COU REF Change of use of agricultural land to travelling show people's site.

13/02886/FUL PDE Change of use from agricultural land to Travelling Showpeoples site.

12/00026/REF DISMIS Change of use of agricultural land to travelling show people's site.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area YES AONB NO Strategic Gap YES Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO

SFRA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO

Planning 23 6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Southbourne Parish Council

Southbourne Parish Council objects to this application for the following reasons:

• The site is outside the Settlement Policy area • The development would be an unwelcome intrusion in the countryside. • There is already a large showpeoples site nearby and further development of this nature which has such a detrimental impact on a rural area should be resisted.

6.2 Chidham and Hambrook Parish Council

The Parish Council object to the application although this site is not in their Parish, the application, if granted, will undoubtedly have an effect on Hambrook, so Chidham and Hambrook Parish Councillors note that:

• The site is in a Rural Area • The site is in a Strategic Gap • The proposed development would constitute a further encroachment into good agricultural land and a further diminution of the Strategic Gap. • Priors Leaze Lane is a narrow lane and the proposal constitutes an undesirable increase in heavy traffic using it. • Many of the reasons put forward by the Inspector in her 21st August 2012 decision to dismiss the Appeal still apply.

For these reasons, Chidham and Hambrook Parish Council recommend that the Application be refused.

6.3 Environment Agency

No comments to make.

6.4 Natural England

Application site is approximately 800m from habitats which form part of Chichester Harbour SSSI. The SSSI is part of the Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area and Ramsar site.

Recreational Disturbance

It appears that this development would increase the number of dwellings within the 5.6km zone. No information appears to have been put forward by the applicant to assess or guard against there being a significant effect on the SPA (s). Thus the advice at this stage is that it is likely to have a significant effect on the SPA (s).

If the LPA accepts this advice, then other than exceptional circumstances prescribed by the Habitat Regulations, it is obliged before granting planning permission to either:

-undertake an Appropriate Assessment and ascertain that there will not be an adverse effect on the integrity on the designated sites;

Planning 24 - put in place measures which remove likelihood of significant effect

A strategic impact avoidance scheme

NE has advised LPAs around Solent that it would be possible to establish a scheme of access management measures that would prevent increase in population close to the SPA from having any significant effect on the SPA. It should be possible to introduce such a scheme in a phased way such that an interim suite of measures could be made certain within a small number of months. Hopeful that this will provide streamlined approach by which permissions for proposals like this can proceed.

Advises that under s281 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 LPA must take NE's advice into account in deciding whether or not to grant planning permission. Special provisions apply if LPA decides not to follow the advice.

Further comment

Confirms that a financial contribution is acceptable and it would be appropriate for the financial contribution to be "per dwelling".

6.5 WSCC - Local Development Division

Advice

Advises that the forward visibility on the proposed bend kept free of obstructions, including any existing shrubbery which should be kept below 600m to allow clear visibility at all times.

Each plot of land has been allocated 2 parking spaces, making 6 spaces within the whole site. Advises that 1 space should be provided per mobile home to avoid overspill parking within the access track and driveways as additional parking in the access road could prohibit a larger vehicle from moving around site. Assumed that storage and maintenance areas may include the storage of large vehicles and advises that at least 6m width is made available at the beginning of each driveway to enable large vehicles to make the turn in and out of the proposed storage areas. Advises that the applicant makes contact with the local waste services authority to ensure the refuse arrangements are in line with current practice.

Expects to see a trip generation of around 4 trips per day based on a site with 9 dwellings. It should be noted that larger numbers of vehicle movements at key times of the year will be experienced and additionally there will be periods of time when the site may not be in occupation. At least two of the plots will be lived in by Travelling Showpeople already residing in the existing plots and therefore there will not create any more trips than already experienced in the surrounding area.

As such WSCC do not envisage this proposal to have a significant material capacity impact on the local highway network.

Planning 25 6.6 CDC - Environmental Health Officer

Applicant states that foul drainage will be dealt with through private treatment system and soakaway. The system illustrated within the proposed sewage treatment system will provide for the needs of up to 6 persons. Appears that each plot provides for 3 mobiles and 2 touring caravans. Not clear how many people will be accommodated on each plot but would estimate that it would be between 9 - 12 persons. Concerned that the units specified are significantly under the capacity required for adequate treatment quality. Further advice from the manufacturer or a reputable supplier should be obtained to the satisfaction of the planning authority and the Environment Agency. Concerned that all the soakaways required to meet the needs of the 3 plots will be sufficient to cope at all times due to the porosity of the underlying soil within the area. For reasons already stated above, soakaways may not work adequately within the space available.

It is essential that relevant tests of the soil porosity demonstrate that Building Regulation approval of the drainage is possible and that any Environment Agency discharge consent is obtained, if planning approval is given.

Recommends conditions relating to: foul drainage scheme and no occupation until foul drainage works completed.

6.7 CDC - Drainage Engineer

Infiltration of surface water on site should be prioritised. Requests detailed drainage design of SUDS/soakaways. Design should incorporate following data: ground water monitoring between October to March to establish peak groundwater levels at the site. Any infiltration structures should be designed at an appropriate depth above peak groundwater levels. Winter percolation testing to BRE 365 or equivalent should be carried out at depth and location of any proposed infiltration structures to ensure they work effectively. Suggests condition re: surface water scheme.

6.8 1 Third Party Objection o Concerned that proposal will result in 40 acre travelling showmen's site as alleges land in vicinity also purchased by other showpeople o Unacceptable loss of agricultural land o Close proximity to house even with landscaping proposed o Will set a precedent o Offer for purchase of buffer strip refused

6.9 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information

Planning Design and Access Statement:-

This describes the site and the surrounding area, looks at the planning history of the site, the planning policy framework, planning assessment and makes the following conclusions (in summary):

Planning 26 Circumstances have materially changed since the last appeal decision, in particular a new GTAA has been published and the personal circumstances of the applicants have changed.

The new GTAA demonstrates an urgent need for Travelling Showpeople's plots within the Chichester area. Allowing the proposed development will relieve overcrowding on the existing site and meets the needs of additional pitches within the District. Considered that this unmet need, coupled with the need of the applicants for the site constitutes 'compelling circumstances' to justify relaxation of land within the Strategic gap.

Applicant's site has been very well maintained in recent years and trees planted behind the fence line screen the site effectively. Plots designed to meet the Model Standard Package for Showpeople's Sites. Due to site's location and siting, development would have limited visibility and proposed landscape would soften its appearance and development would not cause harm to visual amenity of the area.

Application land abuts Fairways, which has been used as Travelling Showpeople's site for many years. Clear advantage in providing for additional needs on Fairways rather than seeking to provide elsewhere where showpeople accommodation is not established. Application site has safe, easy, convenient access via Priors Leaze Lane, served by public transport with regular bus services to local settlements. Application site located within circuit of fairs. This supports the conclusion that permanent use of this land as a showpeople's site is justified.

It concludes that the proposal accords with, and is supported by, national and local planning policies.

Other supporting information includes:

Flood Risk Assessment Report Sewage Treatment System Information

The reports are available to view in full on the Council's web site.

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.

7.2 The principal planning policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:

BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE 11 New Development RE1 Rural Area Generally RE6 Strategic Gaps RE7 Nature Conservation Sites (Designated Areas) TR6 Highway Safety R4 Public Rights of Way and Other Paths

Planning 27 7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-submission was approved by Full Council on 24 October 2013 for public consultation. The timetable going forward anticipates formal submission of the draft Local Plan to the Secretary of State in May 2014, examination in summer 2014 and adoption in autumn 2014. The emerging Local Plan is therefore a material consideration, and has a degree of weight. The weight that can be given to particular policies within the plan depends on the extent to which there are outstanding unresolved objections. As it progresses through the local plan process towards adoption the Local Plan will gain more weight. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF which advises on the weight can be given to emerging plans is therefore relevant.

7.4 The principal planning policies of the Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013 relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 36: Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 42: Flood Risk Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 50: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Areas Policy 52: Green Infrastructure

National Policy and Guidance

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

7.6 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 4 and 17 (Core Planning Principles).

7.7 In addition to the overarching policies of the NPPF, it is also relevant to have regard to the supporting document, Planning Policy for Travellers Sites, published at the same time as the NPPF. Policy H: 'Determining planning applications for traveller sites' is particularly relevant particularly paragraphs 22 to 24 which identify matters to be taken into account. This Policy is further explained later in the Report.

Planning 28

Other Local Policy and Guidance

7.8 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

7.9 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 B3: Environmental Resources C3: A culturally enriched and empowered community D1: Increasing housing supply 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: - The relevance of the appeal decision under SB/11/04884/COU - Need for additional Travelling Showpeople plots - The impact of the proposal on the landscape - Compliance with Planning Policy for traveller sites - Impact on the residential amenity of existing occupiers - Impact on the internationally designated wildlife site

Assessment

The relevance of the appeal decision under SB/11/04884/COU

8.2 The application is a resubmission of an application refused under delegated powers by the LPA and dismissed at appeal in September 2012 (SB/11/04884/COU). The application was refused planning permission by CDC as the proposal was considered to 'extend development into the undeveloped countryside contrary to the policies for such areas and is considered to be unjustified and unnecessary as the Authority has already met and exceeded the forecasted needs for travelling showpeople, and would be harmful to the appearance and character of the area.' The reason for refusal also referred to the danger of a precedent being set if the application was approved.

8.3 The main physical differences between the appeal scheme and that now under consideration are that the appeal scheme showed Plot 3 in the southwest corner of the site rather than the southeast corner. The applicant and his son were also going to occupy 2 of the new plots proposed instead of sharing one plot. The landscaping proposed in the appeal scheme was also slightly different within the site.

Planning 29

8.4 On appeal the Inspector found that the main issues in dealing with the proposal were:

1) the effect of the proposed use on the character and appearance of the area; 2) whether there is a justified need for traveller sites or other material considerations to justify an exception to the policies that aim to restrict development in rural areas; and 3) whether planning permission for the appeal site would make other applications for travelling showpeople's sites difficult to resist.

8.5 The Inspector noted that the net increase in plots would be 2. She observed that the site is in a rural area and that the existing site is clearly visible from Broad Road, Hambrook, particularly near Nutbourne station. The Inspector also noted the evergreen planting along some existing plots and along the north boundary which was 'uncharacteristic of the majority of trees and copses in the area'. The most open view was considered to be the 'southern boundary which does not benefit from any existing screening but would have a 5m wide landscaping buffer'.

8.6 The Inspector made reference to the established use and that it has a 'noticeable impact on the countryside even after many years of occupation and at a time when most of the equipment/rides and caravans are touring.' She reasoned, therefore, that 'it is reasonable to find that the proposed landscaping may break up visibility but is unlikely to screen the proposed use. Due to the scale of the equipment that would need to be stored and the number of mobile homes that each plot could accommodate, the proposed use would increase perceived development. It would have a significant visual impact on the countryside and would result in substantial harm to the character and appearance of the area contrary to LP policies RE1 and RE6.' The Inspector accepted that the adopted policies were generally consistent with the up-to-date Government planning policy and were therefore afforded weight.

8.7 In terms of the need for traveller sites, the Inspector concluded that the most up to date document that could be afforded weight was the 2008 Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Assessment (GTAA). The Inspector noted the Council's position at that time was that there was more than adequate need for travelling showpeople sites. The Inspector found that there was no policy requirement for additional sites.

8.8 The Inspector took the personal circumstances of the applicants into account and found that although it was accepted that Fairways had become overcrowded and the appellant (the applicant for the current application) and his family occupied an authorised site, their personal need for a new plot, carried limited weight. The needs of the Rawlings, however, who did not have a plot of their own and rented plots in Hambrook for 12 years, were given reasonable weight in favour of the proposal. No available alternative travelling showpeople plots in the District were identified.

8.9 The Inspector found that the proposed design of the plots reflected the criteria in paragraph 24 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 2012 (PPTS) in terms of promoting opportunities for healthy lifestyles such as ensuring adequate landscaping and play areas for children.

Planning 30

8.10 The Inspector also considered paragraph 23 of the PPTS:

'Paragraph 23 advises that sites in the open countryside should be strictly limited and respect the scale of, and not dominate, the nearest settled community or place undue pressure on local infrastructure. While no case was made that the settled community would be dominated by three additional plots for travelling showpeople, the appeal site would appear to be half the area of the permitted or tolerated plots and therefore represents a considerable expansion of the area in use for travelling showpeople.'

8.11 The Inspector's overall conclusion on the first 2 issues was:

'The proposed development would be in a rural area, in the strategic gap and contrary to LP policies RE1 and RE6. This is a matter that carries substantial weight against the proposal as does the harm to the character and appearance of the area. No existing need in terms of adopted policy has been found and it is noted that a new GTAA should be available within 12 months. Nevertheless, there is no identified up-to-date supply of deliverable sites in line with the requirement in paragraph 25 of the PPTS. However, as advised in paragraph 28, the support in paragraph 25 for temporary planning permission in the absence of identified deliverable sites does not come into force until 12 months after the policy came into force. Therefore, although there are no deliverable sites, there is no support in paragraph 25 of the up-to-date Government policy for travellers for the proposed use even on a temporary basis. There is a personal need but that of the appellant and his son carries limited weight and that of Mr and Mrs Rawlings carries reasonable weight. Having regard to paragraph 24 of PPTS, weight is attached to the layout of the proposal. Government policy in PPTS promotes more privately owned traveller sites. Nevertheless, the factors in favour of the grant of planning permission do not solely or cumulatively provide the compelling circumstances at this time for the grant of planning permission, contrary to the development plan policy.'

8.12 The Inspector considered that the fear of precedence carried no weight in the determination of the appeal.

8.13 The appeal decision is an important consideration in the determination of the appeal, especially with regard to the assessment of the proposal on the landscape the circumstances of the applicants and the issue of precedence.

Need for additional Travelling Showpeople plots

8.14 The main change in circumstances since the appeal decision is that the District Council, following the publication of Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment (GTTSAA) in April 2013 accepts there is a need for 18 extra plots within the Chichester area up to 2027 and 11 of these are required by 2017. There is 1 plot the subject of a current application at 3 Coneleys Yard (SI/13/00529/FUL), still under consideration, but otherwise there are still 11 plots required. Approval of the current proposal for permanent plots would reduce this to 9. This need must therefore be weighed against other material considerations including landscape harm.

Planning 31

The impact of the proposal on the landscape

8.15 There are limited views of the site from the footpath (no.257) to the west of the site due to the hedgerow, existing timber fencing and the earth banks. The site can be viewed in part from the east, both from footpath no. 258 and Broad Road. The view from Broad Road near Nutbourne Station has been mentioned by the Inspector in the appeal decision. These views also contain an unauthorised small timber building immediately to the west of the footpath and some buildings under construction to the south of the existing Travelling Showpeople's site. There is planning permission for one of these buildings (SB/12/03397/FUL). There is a current enforcement investigation into some of the buildings mentioned above. The evergreen planting on the existing Showpeople's site provides some screening of the application site when viewed from the east. There would also be glimpses of the site from the recent residential development on the former Marshall's site on Broad Road to the north of the railway.

8.16 Due to the relocation of Plot 3 under the current scheme, that part of the site most visible will be the southwest corner which will be a retained landscaped area. A 5m wide landscape buffer is also proposed along the south boundary. The current scheme is considered a visual improvement on the appeal scheme. Whilst there would be some visual impact from the proposal on the surrounding landscape, which is in the Rural Area and is part of the Strategic Gap, this must be weighed against the significant need for plots identified in the GTTSAA. With the need for plots so great and the improvement in the visual impact of the scheme, it is in this instance, appropriate to give more weight to the need than the visual impact of the proposal.

Compliance with Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS)

8.17 Policy H relates to determining planning applications for traveller sites and requires planning permission to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Paragraph 20). It also advises that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the application of specific policies in the NPPF and the planning policy for traveller sites (paragraph 21).

8.18 Paragraph 22 advises that planning authorities should consider a number of issues amongst other relevant matters when considering planning applications for traveller sites. These are listed below and assessed in terms of the current application: a) The existing level of local provision and the need for sites

The GTTSAA April 2013 shows a significant demand for plots up to the year 2027 with 11 required up to 2017. There is considered to be inadequate provision for sites in the Chichester area at present and therefore a need for plots. b) The availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants

The agent's Planning and Design and Access Statement advises that there are 'no plots available at Priors Leaze Lane or elsewhere in the Chichester District area'. It advises that the applicants have very close business and family ties with Priors Leaze Lane and need permanent plots. The Officer's visit to the site revealed a crowded site, as indicated at paragraph 2.1 of this report and the GTTSAA has indicated a need for extra plots.

Planning 32 c) Other personal circumstances of the applicant

It is advised that the applicant's mobile home would be moved to Plot 1 and the applicant and his son would occupy the plot. The relocation would give room for the family and their growing business needs. Plot 2 is proposed to be occupied by Mr Hart and his teenage daughter. The Planning and Access and Design Statement advises that the Hart family have shared plots on Priors Leaze Lane and the daughter has started her own business and needs space for storage and equipment. A permanent plot is required close to friends and business partners. Plot 3 would be occupied by the Rawlings who, it is advised, have close business and family ties with Priors Leaze Lane. The personal circumstances of the Rawlings were given reasonable weight by the Inspector at appeal. d) That the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans or which form the policy where there is no identified need for pitches/plots should be used to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites

There is no current adopted policy in the Local Plan 1999 for new sites and Policy 36 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-submission 2014-2029 has little weight at present. The agent has referred to the emerging Site Allocations study but this has yet to be published. e) That they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections

In this case, the application has named local travelling showpeople as local occupiers but any permission could not limit the use to these persons.

8.19 Paragraph 23 of Policy H advises that LPAs should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. LPAs should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure. With the appeal scheme, the Inspector expressed some concern at the size of the site proposed as it was considered to be half the size of the tolerated/authorised plots on Priors Leaze Lane and therefore represented a considerable expansion of the area in use for travelling showpeople. Although the application site is a significant site in terms of its area at over 1ha, the Settlement Policy Areas for Nutbourne and Hambrook are around 300m away, the layout is based on the Model Standards and the southwest corner of the site would remain undeveloped (this could be controlled by condition). Furthermore, there is a demonstrated need for a site and the expansion of an existing site is considered to be a reasonable approach to meeting some of the shortfall.

8.20 Paragraph 24 advises that 'considering applications, local planning authorities should attach weight to 4 matters, which will be assessed below: a) Effective use of previously developed (brownfield), untidy or derelict land

The majority of the site is considered to be agricultural land and not brownfield but is adjacent to an existing site used predominantly by Travelling Showpeople. The majority of the views of the site would be against this backdrop.

Planning 33 b) Sites being well planned or soft landscaped in such a way as to positively enhance the environment and increase its openness

The new plots are proposed to be designed in accordance with the Model Standards advocated by the Showmen's Guild and are considered acceptable in terms of their landscaping and design. The southwest corner of the site is shown to be undeveloped which would reduce the impact of the development when viewed from the east. c) Promoting opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as ensuring adequate landscaping and play areas for children

In accordance with the Inspector on appeal, the layout is considered to meet this criterion. d) Not enclosing a site with so much hard landscaping, high walls or fences, that the impression may be given that the site and its occupants are deliberately isolated from the rest of the community

Conditions could be imposed to restrict fencing and to ensure planting with native species to soften the impact on the landscape. Policy H also encourages the use of planning conditions or planning obligations.

8.21 Paragraph 25 of the PPTS advises that, from March 2013, if an LPA 'cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five-year supply of deliverable sites, this should be a significant material consideration in any subsequent planning decision when considering applications for the temporary grant of planning permission'. Whilst this application is for permanent consent, the LPA does not have an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable sites as yet and this is considered a significant material consideration in the determination of this application. The extension of an existing site is considered to be a reasonable approach. A temporary permission will not reduce the demand for plots identified in the GTTSAA.

8.22 In conclusion, on this point, the current scheme is not considered to conflict with the objectives of the PPTS.

Impact on the residential amenity of existing occupiers

8.23 It is considered that, having regard to the distance and orientation of the proposed development, the impact of the proposal on existing occupiers of the dwellings to the north would not be sufficient to warrant refusal of planning permission given their proximity to the existing site at Priors Leaze Lane, the landscape buffer proposed and the distance between the dwellings and the proposed plots.

Impact on the internationally designated wildlife sites

8.24 The comments received from Natural England are noted. As the site lies within 5.6km of the Special Protection Area, it is considered there is likely to be a significant effect on the Special Protection Area, SSSI and Ramsar site from future occupiers. In accordance with the Council's current Interim Statement, it is considered, in the light of no Appropriate Assessment, that a contribution should be sought. The agent has advised that the applicant would be willing to provide a contribution on the 6 new mobile homes proposed on 2 plots, the net increase in plots proposed as Fairways would no longer be a plot. The agent has been advised that this contribution should be £430 per dwelling based on the Graylingwell model. Natural England has agreed with this approach. The agent is to draw up a Unilateral

Planning 34 Undertaking so that the contribution can be secured. The recommendation is that any resolution to permit the application is subject to the satisfactory completion of an agreement.

Other matters

8.25 The site is approximately 650m from the bus stop in Hambrook, within which there are limited shopping facilities and just over 1km from Nutbourne railway station. The site is not in a sustainable location but there are other material considerations which it is considered outweigh this consideration (see above). With regard to drainage and the consultee comments received, it is recommended that conditions are imposed seeking details of foul and surface water drainage, to be agreed. The issue of precedence and possible accumulation of land by other showpeople, is not considered to be a significant material consideration as each case should be dealt with on its merits.

Significant Conditions

8.26 Conditions are recommended to limit the occupation of the site to Travelling Showpeople given the special circumstances of the case. These include; a limitation of the number of mobile homes to be present on the site to 9 mobile homes and 6 tourers (given the potential impact of future occupiers on the designated wildlife sites), a condition ensuring that the existing Fairways plot is no longer used for habitable purposes, conditions seeking further details as to the siting of the plots, limiting the uses of the storage areas, the recreation areas and the southwest corner of the plot and the materials proposed for the permanent works (to limit the impact on visual amenity, the withdrawal of permitted development rights for fencing to limit the impact on visual amenity), the submission of a detailed landscaping scheme in the interests of visual amenity and promoting the use of native species, parking and access conditions to secure sufficient parking provision and suitable access with adequate visibility and conditions to secure foul and surface water drainage given the drainage concerns. Conditions imposed on the plot at fairways are also recommended. These include a 4.5m height restriction on development, operational hours for the repairs/testing or maintenance of vehicles or equipment and operation of machinery and details of external lighting.

Conclusion

8.27 Based on the above assessment, it is considered that there is a significant need for the plots proposed, the site is considered to be suitable and the personal circumstances of the proposed occupiers have some weight. The proposal complies with development plan policies and Government policy and therefore the application is recommended for approval subject to the signing of a Unilateral Undertaking concerning the provision of a contribution (£2,580) towards mitigation measures against the effects of recreational disturbance within the Chichester and Langstone Harbour Special Protection Area.

Human Rights

8.28 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.

Planning 35 Equalities

8.29 In reaching this conclusion officers have given particular weight to the Equality Act 2010 which states in section 29 that 'a person must not, in the exercise of a public function [which includes the determination of planning applications] do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation'. Officers have sought guidance as to the extent to which this section requires 'positive discrimination' or indeed requires weight to be given to the disabilities of an applicant above and beyond weight normally accorded to 'personal circumstances', but have not been able to identify any government advice or case law which is relevant.

"In addition to the provisions of section 29 of the Act, s149 of the Act provides the following: Public sector equality duty:

(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:

(a) Eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act. (b) Advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. (c) Foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.

These duties are triggered by the exercise of functions which include the determination of planning applications that have equality implications. This section must be treated as engaged in this particular case and therefore 'due regard' must be given to the applicant's particular needs. It is not sufficient to have equality in mind at a general or policy level.

However, the duties do not require a particular outcome. What the decision making body chooses to do once it has had the required regard is for it to decide subject to the ordinary constraints of public and discrimination law.

In conclusion, the actual needs of the applicant need to be weighed against the harm that this development would cause to neighbours, along with all of the material planning considerations. The decision must be proportionate in the light of all the circumstances of this case".

RECOMMENDATION DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT

1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 U81922 U81922 - Approved plans 3 U81923 U81923 - Occupation limitation 4 U81924 U81924 - Mobile home and tourer limit 5 U81925 U81925 - Use of Fairways plot 6 U81926 U81926 - Siting of plots 7 U82018 U82018 - Use of plots 8 U81927 U81927 - materials 9 U81928 U81928 - no fencing pd rights 10 U81929 U81929 - landscaping 11 U81930 U81930 - landscaping implementation

Planning 36 12 U81931 U81931 - foul drainage scheme 13 U81932 U81932 - surface water drainage scheme 14 U81933 U81933 - refuse disposal facilities 15 U81934 U81934 - height restriction on development 16 U81935 U81935 - limitation on hours of work 17 U81936 U81936 - external lighting scheme 18 U82023 U82023 - Parking 19 U82024 U82024 – Access

INFORMATIVES

20 U81937 U81937 - Informative:Compliance with NPPF 21 U81938 U81938 - Informative:S106

For further information on this application please contact Catriona Dawes on 01243 534734

Planning 37 Parish: Ward: Southbourne Southbourne

4. SB/13/03090/FUL

Proposal Demolition and rebuilding of existing house.

Site Thornham House Prinsted Lane Prinsted Emsworth Hampshire PO10 8HS

Map Ref (E) 476230 (N) 104970

Applicant Mr M Wrennall

RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

Planning 38 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The site is located at the end of Prinsted Lane to the northern end of Thorney Island. A single lane road provides access to the dwelling. The built form on the site comprises a two storey detached dwellinghouse with a large single storey addition to the rear, and a detached building which provides garaging and an office. Beyond the application site there is a cluster of farm buildings further to the north. There are two vehicular access points into the site from Prinsted Lane.

2.2 The site lies within the designated rural area, the Chichester Harbour AONB and the Southbourne to Emsworth Strategic Gap. The site is also within the Environment Agency's Flood Zones 2 and 3 (3 being the functional floodplain). A Public Right of Way (PROW 205) passes between the existing house and the stable block (to the north).

2.3 The existing two storey dwellinghouse is set back from the highway and sited centrally within the plot. It lies approximately 210 metres from the harbour with intervening features consisting of the highway, a large paddock, and a bund adjacent to the harbour, which itself incorporates extensive landscaping. There are views of the dwellinghouse from the harbour. The garden is landscaped, predominantly laid to lawn with some shrubs and trees. There is a large gravel driveway providing a courtyard parking area immediately to the north of the property. The detached single storey garage and office building is sited on the northern boundary.

2.4 The existing materials consist of red and grey brick with clay roof tiles and timber windows. The single storey addition to the rear is clad in dark stained timber weatherboarding.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 This application seeks consent to replace the existing dwelling. The dwellinghouse would be sited in the same position to the existing, with additional accommodation at ground floor level sited to the rear.

3.2 The scheme has been amended to reflect concerns with a previously submitted scheme for extensions to the existing dwellinghouse. The scheme was withdrawn and pre- application discussions have taken place which have sought to address the concerns. Previously, the extensions to the main dwellinghouse were considered excessive in scale.

3.3 WSCC objected to the scheme because an originally proposed outbuilding would be sited within the existing PROW route. This building has now been removed from the proposal.

6.0 History

13/00851/DOM WDN Part 2 storey and part single storey front, side and rear extension and other alterations to the existing dwelling house.

Planning 39

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area YES AONB YES Strategic Gap YES Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO

SFRA Flood Zone YES Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

Southbourne Parish Council objects to this application for the following reasons: The new dwelling is considered over-large and overbearing. The new dwelling would have a detrimental impact on the Harbour scene.

6.2 Chichester Harbour Conservancy

The Local Planning Authority is advised that the Conservancy has no objection to this application, but asks that the following matters be negotiated if possible:-

• Annexe to be ancillary to the main house and shall not be used, let or sold as a separate unit of accommodation • Prior approval of external facing materials and development to be carried out in accordance with approved details • Removal of permitted development rights for extensions

6.3 Environment Agency

We are satisfied with the further information submitted regarding this application (flood risk addendum dated 6th November 2013). This information demonstrates that the replacement dwelling provides a betterment in flood risk terms over the existing, therefore we wish to remove our objection to this development.

6.4 Natural England

No objection

Planning 40 6.5 WSCC - Local Development Division -

Having looked at the proposed plans, the line of FP205 has been marked on the development plans incorrectly and the legal line of this footpath runs directly through the proposed garage and ancillary building. As a result WSCC Rights of Way team shall need to raise objection to this application due to the proposed development being over the legal line of Public Footpath 205. The granting of planning permission does not authorise obstruction of, interference to, diversion or stopping up of any public right of way across the site. The applicant needs to accommodate the legal line of the path within the development or it may be possible to divert the footpath under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, s.257 on the grounds of ‘to enable development to take place’, with Chichester District Council acting as the Order Making Authority (as they are the planning authority providing consent to application) if they are satisfied the criteria is met. Development must not begin until and unless the path has been accommodated else an offence is being committed, planning consent is not a guarantee of Highway Authority consent.

Officer note: The outbuilding has now been removed from the proposal and therefore the proposed development would not be over the legal line of Public Footpath 205.

6.6 Third Party Other

1 no comment - With the increased (site) traffic that this will cause at the west of Prinsted Lane, I strongly recommend that a minimum of two (but preferably three) tarmac constructed passing point(s) to be constructed between the 'entry-exit' pillars to Thornham House to ensure the safety and convenience of pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders and car-drivers. Additionally the hedges between the 'Entry-Exit' pillars to Thornham House should be trimmed to a level below 1 metre to allow better traffic visibility, again enhancing safety and visibility to road users.

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.

7.2 The principal planning policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows:

Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:

BE11 New Development C1 Waterside Development RE1 Rural Area Generally RE4 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty H12 Replacement Dwellings and Extensions in the Rural Area R4 Public Rights of Way and Other Paths

Planning 41 particular policies within the plan depends on the extent to which there are outstanding unresolved objections. As it progresses through the local plan process towards adoption the Local Plan will gain more weight. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF which advises on the weight can be given to emerging plans is therefore relevant.

7.4 The principal planning policies of the relevant Draft Chichester Local Plan 2013 to the consideration of this application are as follows:

Policy 1 - Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development Policy 33 - New Residential Development Policy 42 - Flood Risk Policy 43 - Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Policy 44 - Development around the Coast Policy 45 - Development in the Countryside Policy 48 - Natural Environment

National Policy and Guidance

7.5 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. 7.6 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), paragraph 56 (Good Design) and paragraph 115 (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment).

7.7 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 42

Other Local Policy and Guidance

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

Alterations to dwellings and extensions (revised September 2009) (PGN3)

Design Guidelines for New Dwellings and Extensions - Chichester Harbour AONB (Harbour Conservancy)

7.9 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

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are:

- Appropriateness of the design and the impact on the AONB - Impact upon the Public Right of Way - Flood risk - Impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers

Assessment

8.2 Appropriateness of the design and the impact on the AONB The application represents a one-for-one replacement dwelling under the provisions of Policy H12 of the Local Plan. The proposed dwellinghouse would be set back by approximately four metres from the front line of the existing building, the ridge height would remain the same. In terms of the silhouette changes between the existing and proposed dwellings, there would be an 18% increase in the silhouette of the principle elevation which fronts the harbour, which is within the reccommended guideline of 25% utility the Chichester Harbour AONB design guidance.

8.3 The new dwelling has a footprint of 406msq, compared to the original of 236msq. Whilst the new dwelling is significantly larger than the original, the increase to the massing is set behind the main dwellinghouse within an envelope of the existing ground floor area and therefore the increase is not visually prominent from within the wider landscape setting and is not considered to result in any additional harm when viewed from the public right of way.

8.4 The increased floorspace results in a rear outshot 'extension' with a lower ridge line than that of the main dwellinghouse and replicates the use of materials. Additionally, to the south side, there would be a single storey glazed lean-to which would house a swimming pool. The siting of the large glazed areas at ground floor level would be less visible within the to wider harbour, due to their siting behind the main body of the dwellinghouse. Any longer views of the rear of the house would see the rear projecting set against the backdrops of the taller main building and would not be usually prominent.

Planning 43 8.5 The main house would be constructed of local materials reflecting the local vernacular of the area. The ground floor level would comprise brick and flint, the first floor would be tile hung and the roof covered in clay tiles. Details of these have been provided by the applicant. The dwellinghouse would also retain a small balcony on the principal elevation that is already a feature of the current building. The use of such materials together with varied roof lines, half hips to the roof design and use of pitched roof dormer windows all ensure an overall design sympathetic to the prevailing character and appearance of the surrounding area. It is considered that the new dwelling would appear muted in scale and would be sympathetic in form when viewed from within the Harbour setting. Therefore it is considered that the proposed replacement dwelling would not cause demonstrable harm to the visual quality of the wider landscape setting of the AONB.

Impact upon the Public right of Way

8.6 Concern has been raised within third party comments regarding passing places for road users. Prinsted Road is maintained by WSCC and therefore is outside the control of the Applicant. There is sufficient space within the site to accommodate construction traffic and turning space to ensure that vehicles can enter and exit the site in forward gear.

Flood Risk

8.7 The property is sited within the Environment Agency Flood Zones 2 and 3. Further details have been sought from the Applicant after comments were received from the Environment Agency requesting more information regarding the Flood Risk Assessment. It was confirmed by the Agent that the existing ground floor level to the main house is approximately 400mm above ground level and the rear extension containing two bedrooms is at ground level. The new house would have a floor level 1200mm above ground level, which is an increase of 800mm. This demonstrates that the replacement dwelling would provide a betterment in flood risk terms over the existing and has been considered acceptable by the Environment Agency.

Impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers

8.8 Given the level of separation between the proposed dwelling and its immediate neighbours (Prinsted House is located approximately 138m from the southern boundary of the site, and Southlands is located 224m away from the north-eastern elevation of the proposed dwelling), and that the general siting of the replacement dwelling would be comparable with the existing property, it is considered that the replacement dwelling would not cause demonstrable harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

Significant Conditions

8.9 A number of conditions are proposed including those relating to specified materials, removal of permitted development rights, construction method statement, landscaping, and boundary details.

Conclusion

8.10 It is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies, it makes efficient use of the site and results in a design and layout which respects the character and appearance of the area and the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, and therefore the application is recommended for approval.

Planning 44

Human Rights

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

1 U81838 U81838 - Time limit 2 U81841 U81841 - Approved plans 3 U81840 U81840 - Materials 4 U81851 U81851 - Sample panel 5 U81853 U81853 - No extensions 6 U81854 U81854 - No outbuildings 7 U81855 U81855 - Construction method statement 8 U81858 U81858 - Landscaping statement 9 U81867 U81867 - Details of boundary treatment

INFORMATIVE

10 U81859 U81859 - PROW

For further information on this application please contact Sophie Locke on 01243 534734

Planning 45 Parish: Ward: North Mundham North Mundham

5. NM/13/02608/FUL

Proposal Agricultural grain store.

Site Chichester Food Park Walnut Tree Farm Runcton West Sussex PO20 1LG

Map Ref (E) 488750 (N) 103062

Applicant Mr David Langmead

RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

Planning 46 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Parish Objection : Officer recommends Permit

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The application site is 1.6ha, located on part of an agricultural field, to the north-east of three commercial, horticultural buildings within the Chichester Food Park. Established horticultural glasshouses are located to the north east, west and south of the application site. Fields to the north and east are cropped.

2.2 The application site forms part of the Horticultural Development Area (HDA) and is located on Grade 1 agricultural land. The remainder of the HDA is identified as both Grade 1 and Grade 2 for agricultural quality.

2.3 Chichester Food Park is accessed from a minor arm of the A259 Bognor Road/B2144 Drayton Lane roundabout. The existing arrangement comprises a 7.2m wide private concrete access road suitable for HGVs and agricultural traffic.

2.4 The site and surrounding land is predominantly level, with some bunding around the existing building group. Intermittent hedging and some medium sized trees identify field boundaries. Public rights of way run to the north of the existing cluster of packhouses towards the A259, and to the south towards Runcton. The existing primary buildings on site, including the Nature's Way and Wight's Salads packhouses and adjacent glasshouses clustered towards the centre of the site, are of a substantial scale. In this open agricultural landscape, the buildings are visible from public rights of way in the foreground and also are apparent from some distance from the highway, rights of way and adjacent land.

2.5 The nearest residential dwellings, Willowbrook and Coolens Nursery, are on Green Lane approximately 370m north of the application site. Residential properties located on Marsh Lane to the east are over 500m away, and dwellings on Vinnetrow Road to the west are over 600m away beyond the existing glasshouses.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 This application proposes a grain store to accommodate harvested arable crops that Langmead Farms Ltd produce on farms owned or long-term managed on the Chichester Plain and within the South Downs. The business owns or manages 15 farms in West Sussex totalling approximately 2300ha, over 1200ha of which is directly farmed by the applicant.

3.2 The proposed grain store measures 118m by 41.8m (4,750 sqm) with a varied ridge height of between 15.8m and 16.75m. The building is a single rectangle in form, comprising 4 storage bunkers and a machinery room used for grain drying. The bunkers will be separated by permanent grain walling to ensure required crop separation. The building will have a maximum storage capacity of around 20,000 tonnes.

3.3 The grain store will be constructed using a steel portal frame, concrete block work, stock brickwork and profiled sheet steel and composite cladding. It is proposed the cladding will be predominantly Goosewing grey with a small area of green. The southern facing plane of the roof will include solar panels, expected to generate 200KW power for the building and for export to the National Grid. Louvre fans will be positioned along the north and south elevation for ventilation. Profiled roller shutter doors will be used on the north elevation.

Planning 47 3.4 The building will contain grain drying equipment, with 14 fan units in total, 10 will discharge through ducting to the southern façade and 4 to the north. External lighting will be restricted to that required for Health and Safety reasons.

3.5 The yard to the north of the building will comprise a concrete slab with drains to a sustainable drainage system adjacent to the building. In addition to access and manoeuvring room for 30 tonne HGVs, the yard allows space for 3-5 personnel cars. A weighbridge will be installed in the yard.

3.6 The proposed grain store seeks to replace and consolidate the existing storage and drying facilities on six sites, four in Chichester District (Southdean and Frog Farm, Petworth; Park Farm and Home Farm, Selsey) and two in Arun District at Lagness and Yapton. The existing storage capacity of 5,650 tonnes was only sufficient for around 70% of the 2011 harvest and approximately 50% of the 2012 crop. The proposed building will also provide the additional storage capacity required to cater for increasing yields over the forthcoming 15 year period. It is proposed the existing grain buildings will be re-used for fertiliser storage.

3.7 3m high earth bunding is proposed around the immediate boundary of the application site, with wider landscaping comprising mixed native hedging with trees provided along the field boundary and public right of way to the west and along the existing access to the north east, and native hedging to the north adjacent to the highway. The aim of this additional landscaping is to supplement and enhance the existing, particularly focusing on existing gaps. The planting is intended to provide some softening and layering of the views across the site from public vantage points, while maintaining the longer distance views and openness distinctive of this landscape character area.

7.0 History

00/00170/FUL PER106 New agricultural packhouse and distribution building and construction of access road and new junction with A259.

02/01853/FUL PER106 Extension to existing agricultural packhouse and distribution building.

03/00784/FUL PER Construction of 465sqm food distribution warehouse.

06/00223/PNO NOPA Building to house fertiliser and machinery.

11/04744/PNO NOPA A small holding pond to collect waste water from factory wash down process before it is pumped underground to wetland/reed bed area and then recycled for irrigating salad and arable crops.

Planning 48 12/02810/FUL WDN Agricultural grain store and concrete apron.

13/02608/FUL PDE Agricultural grain store.

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 Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations

Parish Council

North Mundham Parish Council wishes to record its decision to OBJECT to this application in the strongest possible terms. It is clearly in contravention of saved policy RE11A, and totally inconsistent with the objectives of a Horticultural Development Area (HDA).

Policy RE11 makes it quite clear that the HDAs are intended for commercial horticultural development, including glasshouses and packhouses. An additional condition is that such development should not "be of a height and bulk which would damage the character or appearance of the surrounding landscape".

Clearly the building proposed by this application fails to meet this criterion. As the applicant's own 'Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment' makes clear, the height of the proposed building, at 16.8 metres, is significantly greater than the adjacent Nature's Way building, by about 4 metres. The Assessment argues that the building is similar in height to a mature tree - but there are no trees of this height anywhere near the proposed site, let alone sufficient in quantity to mask the length of the building. The mitigation measures proposed represent rather inadequate attempts to screen the building, significantly by planting hedges along the side of Green Lane which will interfere with existing extended views. Indeed, the first mitigation measure proposed is merely to build close to the existing overlarge buildings on the site, none of which are as tall as the intended grain store. To accept this approach would merely set a precedent for clustering yet more large buildings on the site. Indeed it is significant that the applicant's Impact Assessment refers to the Nature's Way building as 'the existing Nature's Way Factory', as if this was an existing industrial estate, revealing a mindset which is totally at odds with the existing policy to permit only horticultural development.

Planning 49 In the recent consultation over the future of the Local Development Framework, the Parish Council has been pleased to note that the concept of the Horticultural Development Areas is to be retained, and if anything strengthened. In particular, the revised proposals include the intent that "long views across substantially open land are retained". We do not see how introducing further screening and planting new sections of hedging would work towards meeting such a requirement.

We also note the renewed emphasis on preserving land within the HDAs for future horticultural development, to the extent that the use of compulsory purchase powers is being proposed to further this aim. It is difficult to see how this proposed development, which would take up valuable horticultural land, is compatible with the use of the HDA as a focus for large-scale horticultural development. The proposed grain store could equally well be sited on brownfield land, or land of poor quality.

The principle of preserving land within the HDAs for horticultural development has been further reinforced by the recent decision to refuse consent for a very large horticultural development at Easton Farm, Sidlesham (10/04990/FUL) on the basis that such a large development would be contrary to policy RE11B. Unless the existing HDAs are kept clear of other conflicting non-horticultural development, there will be no available local sites on which the economic benefits to the District of large-scale horticultural developments can be effectively realised.

However, the most important shortcoming of this application is that it seeks to place a very large agricultural storage facility on prime land intended for horticultural development. The storage of grain is not, by the wildest stretch of the imagination, a horticultural use, and the proposed development fails to meet the basic criterion that the land is intended for "commercial horticultural development, including glasshouse and packhouses." On this ground alone, this application must fail. North Mundham Parish Council urges most strongly that this application should be refused.

WSCC - Local Development Division

This application is not significantly different, in transport terms, to Planning Application NM/12/02810/FUL.

The Highway Authority would not wish to raise an objection to this application. Please refer to our comments of 29/08/12 in response to application NM/12/02810/FUL.

Response to NM/12/02810/FUL

Based on the anticipated trip generation, there would be no highway concerns.

The application is supported by a transport statement, identifying the highway impacts and consequences of this proposal. The proposed grain store would act to consolidate a number of existing grain stores within the wider area. It is accepted that all of the movements visiting this site would already be on the highway network, although this site would result in these movements being diverted to the site from other locations and result in a more intensive usage of the existing arm of the Drayton Lane roundabout. This would not result in any particular safety or capacity concerns.

Considering also the nature of this proposal, there is an understandable seasonal peak of activity over a relatively short length of time (from July to September), although some degree of variance in this dependent upon when the harvest takes place would be expected. In

Planning 50 reality it may be that peak flows are greater than the stared average flows or take place over a shorter period of time. However, this is an uncontrollable aspect of the proposal. Given the short length of time over which the peak level of movements would take place, notwithstanding the fact that these movements may already be on the network, it would be difficult to identify specific, precise locations where highway safety would be detrimentally affected or reasonably monitor and enforce what routes vehicles use to approach the site.

WSCC Principal Landscape Architect

No objection subject to conditions.

Summary

Landscape Character: The West Sussex Landscape Management Guidelines identify the application site as within SC9 - Chichester to Yapton Coastal Plain. It comprises a mainly flat, open landscape crossed by meandering rifes. Dominated by highly productive arable fields and modern farm buildings, it has fragmented hedgerow and hedgerow tree pattern. The spire of Chichester Cathedral is a widely visible feature. A key issue is the "Introduction of large scale industrial buildings and glasshouses with distribution sheds" and reflecting this pressure a guideline has been added; "Encouraging bold tree planting associated with large agricultural buildings, glasshouses and industrial buildings to attempt to assimilate them into the landscape more satisfactorily."

Principle of development: The application site is classified as Grade 1 Agricultural Land, this is the highest quality and most versatile classification. In the South Coast Plain and Hampshire Lowlands National Character Area 13% of the land is classified as Grade 1.

The main views towards the site are from Bognor Road, Green Lane and Marsh Lane. However the most prominent views of the application site are associated with the bridleways from Green Lane. These Public Rights of Way emerge from Green Lane diverging to head west and south as they cross the open fields. Any development of the application site will be visible due to the open character of the land. Development of the scale proposed will be prominent and will further erode the agricultural character of the landscape.

Size of the proposed buildings: It is somewhat difficult to comprehend the size and volume of the proposed grain store. To assist, the applicants have submitted an illustration which has been added to and included in the full WSCC Landscape response.

The existing Natures Way factory is a very large building, it is 12m high and the proposal for the grain store is 4.8m higher. Chichester Cathedral is the area's biggest landmark building with the ridgeline of the Transept (East/West) around 8m higher than the proposed grain store although the spire is considerably taller.

Mitigation: A building of this scale situated in an open landscape is going to an impact upon the landscape. The discussions with the applicant and their agents have been focused on reducing the level of impact through changes to the design. The move to develop near to the existing group of building is an improvement over the previous application where the building was out on its own. The building now associates with the other buildings and the design has evolved to break up its length through varying the depth of the frontage, giving prominence to

Planning 51 the entrances and using the ventilation louvers to break up the large walls. The landscape scheme has improved to include some wider areas to seek to limit views into the site and improve hedgerow links.

Conclusion: The elements above have improved the proposal however I still have concerns over the scale of the building in this landscape. As the mass of the building is a fixed requirement from the applicant then I believe more should be done to mitigate the impact of the development.

The north and east elevation of the proposed grain store are locally prominent and the application does not explore how materials, finishes, colour and texture may help to reduce the visual impact. The height of the building will be visible for many years before the landscape scheme can hope to soften its impact. The current landscape proposals are not wide ranging enough and a Landscape Strategy should be developed to provide a long term plan for the wider site. This strategy should provide mitigation for the visual impact of the proposals while also being in keeping with the landscape character.

Conditions should be required to demonstrate: (i) how materials will be used to reduce the impact of the building and the final method and materials should be approved by CDC; (ii) a long term vision for the landscape of the wider estate. This should include a Landscape Strategy, setting out the method by which the scheme will reinforce the landscape character and establish where the proposals would have greatest effect. The strategy would need to be followed up with detailed planting proposals and management plan covering, establishment of planting, short and long term management and general maintenance.

I have noted the applicants reluctance to use timber but their does not seem to be any technical reason why. The stated concern about pests seems unfounded when timber is used inside many grain stores and any proposed timber cladding would be an external surface dressing.

Previous comments to draft plans have been attached to the full response.

CDC - Local Plans

The Adopted Local Plan Saved Polices should be applied to the application. As the proposed development is within a HDA the relevant policy for the proposal to be assessed against is Saved Policy RE11A. Reference should also be made to the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-Submission which was approved at Council (24 October) for consultation and is therefore a material consideration. However the relevant Policy 32 Horticultural Development received a number of objections many questioning the use of designating HDAs and requesting a criterion based policy. For this reason Policy 32 should be given very limited weight (reference should be made to paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)).

In addition to Saved Policy RE11A paragraph 83 of the adopted Local Plan states that "The importance of the horticultural and glasshouse industries to the local economy and job creation is recognised. In order to promote this important sector of agriculture while protecting the environment and amenities, it is proposed to define certain areas as HDAs".

The HDAs are designated areas within the countryside their primary land use is agricultural with some of the area within the HDAs growing crops. By focusing horticultural development,

Planning 52 which would not normally be allowed in the countryside due to their size and bulk, within HDAs the impact of development is minimised.

Saved Policy RE11A and draft policy 32 are positively worded to encourage horticultural and associated uses within HDAs but do not clearly restrict non-horticultural development. The consideration is whether a grain store which is necessary for agriculture is an acceptable use in an area designated for horticulture, which is part of agriculture. Although not explicit in Adopted Policy RE11A it could be considered peculiar that an agricultural building would not be appropriate in the countryside on agricultural land due to it being identified as an HDA.

I have not commented in detail on the sequential test the applicant has undertaken in support of the application as the applicant is under no obligation to undertake one. Nevertheless following on from the sequential test the applicant has then included an assessment of the various locations within the Food Park for development. It concludes that the area of land which is the subject of this application was selected in part due to "developing in the proposed location minimises the loss of better quality agricultural land".

Turning to the NPPF which being the most recent guidance has more weight than the Adopted Plan; it supports sustainable economic growth (paragraph 19 and 28) as well as the reduction in greenhouse gasses etc. (paragraph 30 and 95). Paragraph 112 of the NPPF states that "LPAs should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, LPAs should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality". The NPPF does not specify what constitutes 'significant' development. The existing packhouse is located on grade 1 agricultural land and the loss of additional high grade agricultural land within the HDA is not to be taken lightly. Using lower grade agricultural land would introduce a building into some of the less developed areas of the HDA however the proposals location adjacent to the existing packhouse will help minimise its landscape impact.

In conclusion although Saved Policy RE11A is relevant consideration should also be given to Saved Policy BE11 New Development, which takes account of the effect of development on the local environment, setting in the landscape and the "merit of design, scale…siting and layout". In principle there is not a policy objection to the proposal as the protection of the environment is an important consideration, the Food Park has good existing transport links and being located near the existing development on the HDA reduces the impact of development on the landscape and open countryside.

If it is recommended to approve the application the applicant has indicated that the existing grain storage facilities on various farms in the District will be reused as secure storage for large quantities of fertiliser ensuring no redundancy or loss of agricultural buildings. Clarification should be sought to ensure that the existing buildings will not be converted to other uses i.e. residential.

CDC - Environmental Health Officer (Air Quality and Contaminated Land)

No objection with respect to contaminated land or air quality issues. As the site was used as a Second World War airfield, there is potential for localised land contamination in the area although as the site has been in agricultural use for many years, and subsequently been redeveloped into the Food Park it is not considered necessary to suggest a condition for land contamination in this instance. All waste arising from the development must be disposed of in accordance with current Waste Regulations. It is noted that there will be a small kerosene fuel store to power the generator therefore condition LO9F should be applied to prevent

Planning 53 future pollution incidents. All storage of agricultural or other chemicals must be in suitably bunded areas.

The applicant has indicated that there will be a net reduction in vehicle journeys associated with the application which will be of benefit to local air quality. Nevertheless, facilities for employees to use sustainable modes of transport where appropriate should be provided e.g. secure, covered cycle parking.

CDC - Environmental Health Officer (Noise)

No objection to the application in principle, subject to the recommended conditions covering maximum noise levels generated by the grain drying facilities and overall maximum noise levels measured from the facade of any residential property.

CDC - Economic Development Officer

Support. The location of the food park for the local farming industry is ideal for a grain store and the park has good transport links. The proposal will improve the long term economic security of the farm by improving operational efficiency and providing additional employment.

CDC - Archaeological Officer

The archaeological potential would justify an archaeological investigation as specified (including trenching). This would be best secured by the recommended condition.

14no. Third Party Objection

Principle Agricultural development within the Runcton Horticultural Development Area (HDA). It will remove part of the HDA from use for horticulture. Conflicts with policies RE11A and BE11 and pre-empts emerging Local Plan Permanent loss of grade 1 agricultural land

Landscape impact Area is characterised by open landscape and extensive views. Proposed height, bulk and mass would be visually intrusive within the flat and open landscape and would damage the rural character of the area and with extensive views. Particularly inappropriate and overpowering for the rural village of Runcton. Inadequate screening, long time to mature Proposed grain store is 4.75m higher and 49m longer than the packhouse which is poorly screened Industrial character in the HDA Dangerous precedent for industrial development in the Strategic Gap

Amenity impact Danger to residents nearby and the new free school Dust and noise pollution both during construction and in use.

Planning 54 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.

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

Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:

RE1 Rural Area Generally RE11A Horticultural Development: Areas for Horticultural Development TR6 Highway Safety BE3 Archaeology BE11 New Development BE16 Energy Conservation

Applicable policies are as follows: 1 (Sustainable Development) 3 (Economy) 32 (Horticultural Development) 39 (Transport) 40 (Carbon Reduction) 48 (Natural Environment)

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 the following paragraphs: 17 (Core planning principles)

Planning 55 21-22 (Economy) 28 (Rural economy) 29-30, 32, 35, 39 (Transport) 56-61 (Design) 96 (Climate change) 109 (Natural environment, soils) 111-112 (Effective use of land) 120, 123, 125 (Pollution prevention)

Other Local Policy and Guidance

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

A1 - A strong local economy where businesses can thrive and grow B1 - Managing a changing environment E1 - Traffic management in the district will improve so as to reduce congestion

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are:

- Principle of agricultural development within the HDA, on grade I agricultural land - Siting, scale, design - Landscape impact - Highway safety and capacity - Effect on the amenities of neighbours and footpath users, and the local environment

Principle of development

8.2 The proposed agricultural grain store with drying facilities is sited within the rural area as defined by the Chichester Local Plan and in the countryside as identified in the NPPF. Agriculture is the base land use in the rural area and all agricultural activities and operations would normally be both expected and required in the countryside. The definition of agriculture within the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) is broad and includes a range of more specific activities, including horticulture.

8.3 The application site forms part of the Runcton Horticultural Development Area (HDA), one of the two largest of the four HDAs with the district. The HDAs have been allocated in the adopted and emerging Local Plans in recognition of the significant contribution made by the Chichester coastal plain to national horticultural production. Horticultural development is encouraged to cluster in these areas to respond to the location of established businesses and the established infrastructure network, and to provide some containment for the glasshouses and packhouses to areas of lesser environmental sensitivity. The clustering of business sectors is supported by the NPPF which also advocates the development of land based and other rural businesses in the countryside.

8.4 Saved Policy RE11A and draft policy 32 are positively worded to encourage horticultural and associated uses within HDAs but do not clearly restrict other forms of agricultural development. Indeed it could be considered peculiar that an agricultural building would not be appropriate in the countryside on agricultural land due to it being identified as an HDA, as agriculture is the base land use and agricultural development is therefore in principle

Planning 56 appropriate in the rural area. It is recognised that this proposal will result in the 'loss' of land available for horticultural activity within the HDA, however the Runcton HDA is one of the two largest HDAs in the district and a substantial area of productive land will be retained for existing and potential horticultural use. Furthermore the size of the resulting parcel of land would be suitable and viable for horticultural purposes in the future. It is noted that not all land within the defined HDAs is solely in existing or active horticultural use, and the land identified for the proposed building is currently used for arable crop.

8.5. It is therefore considered appropriate and reasonable that the proposed agricultural development is sited on agricultural land; the additional layer of HDA designation does not make this agricultural development in principle unacceptable, nor will the use of the proposed portion of land within this designated area lead directly to pressure to release further land or restrict horticultural development in the future.

Need

8.6 The applicant has undertaken a sequential test in support of the application, to confirm the need for the building and the reasoning behind the chosen location. The provision of this information exceeded the requirements of local and national policy in this regard. The supporting details confirm the proposed grain store seeks to replace, consolidate and substantially expand the existing storage capacity. The development is intended for the drying and storage of crops, primarily wheat. The proposal does not include any processing, packing or warehousing of produce which would be more suitably located in an urban or industrial area as advised by Local Plan policies RE11A and B5. Officers accept that the building for the proposed crop storage and drying use is reasonably required for agricultural purposes.

Location

8.7 The applicant has undertaken a sequential test of sites within his ownership within Chichester and Arun Districts and considered the extent to which the existing buildings can expand and modernise for the purposes of grain drying and storage. The test identified that Chichester Food Park has good existing transport links to the main and strategic road network and it is an established location for large scale production and processing of raw food produce. It followed therefore that the location would be appropriate for the proposed grain drying and storage facility and the scale and function meet the agricultural needs of the business. Taking all the above matters into consideration, officers concur that the proposed location of the development at the Food Park is practical and functionally acceptable and the evidence provided is reasonable in this respect.

Siting

8.8 The particular siting of the proposed building within the land holding has been subject of extensive discussion and review and is considered acceptable for its proximity to the existing infrastructure and visual clustering with the existing development. This reduces the impact of the proposed development on the landscape and open countryside. The orientation of the building east west, with its principal elevation facing north, makes efficient use of the site and results in the least land take and the most efficient and close grouping to the existing buildings. Further, the orientation will present the stepped ridge and eaves details to the most sensitive viewpoints from the A259 to the north and public right of way to the north west. The landscape impact will be considered in detail below.

Planning 57

Use of Grade 1 agricultural land

8.9 The Council's records identify the proposed building is sited on Grade 1 agricultural land. Paragraph 112 of the NPPF confirms that LPAs should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, the Framework advises using areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality. What constitutes 'significant' development is not defined.

8.10 The site is large at 1.6ha but overall in the context of the Food Park and the substantial field of which the site forms a small peripheral part, the loss of land is not considered significant in the context of NPPF paragraph 112. In response to this concern the applicants have explained that the land has been assessed for its quality and contribution to the land holding on site and across the estate. The site will provide an agricultural resource that maximises the efficiency of overall agricultural activity on an estate. The remainder of the field can reasonably remain in use for agricultural purposes and its regular shape will make the farming activities more efficient. Officers consider this is a reasonable evaluation and concur that there will be no significant loss of the best and most versatile land as a result of the proposed development. Further, the proposed siting allows the building to be clustered with the existing packhouses, all of which are sited on Grade 1 agricultural land and none of which directly require the land on which they are sited. Using lower grade agricultural land would introduce a building into some of the less developed areas of the HDA, within which the landscape and visual impact would be substantially greater, so a balance needs to be drawn. Furthermore, the proposal consolidates the existing storage provisions elsewhere, allowing the option of releasing these facilities for alternative agricultural use. Use for fertiliser storage is proposed.

Scale

8.11 The proposed building is of a significant scale, measuring 118m by 41.8m (4,750 sqm). The stepped roofline results in a ridge height of 15.8m/16.75m and eaves height of 10.5m/11.4m. Justification for the scale and form is provided in the applicant's Design and Access Statement and the Machinery Plan clearly shows how the building will be used. The plan confirms the height allows for the drying machinery to be fully contained within the building, significantly reducing the effects of noise, dust and disturbance to local residents and the local environment. The eaves and door height allows space for the larger articulated vehicles to fully tip and some tolerance is given for future increase in vehicle size. The permanent grain walling, height and footprint of each bunker maximises the potential grain storage capacity. Officers are satisfied that the proposed form and scale of the building is driven by function and practicality and specifically meets the needs and purposes of modern grain storage.

8.12 Officers accept the scale of the building is significant on its own and particularly that the height proposed exceeds the existing adjacent buildings. It is however material to note that there are existing large buildings clustered in the Food Park. As a comparison, the existing Nature's Way building (following the 2010 approval) is 110m x 74m in footprint, 11.9m to ridge and 8m to eaves. Wights Salads' packhouse is smaller in footprint, 11.4m to ridge and 9.3m to eaves. In this context, the proposed building would be smaller in footprint than Nature's Way's packhouse but taller to ridge and eaves than all its existing adjacent neighbours. Officers are mindful of the practical justification for the scale of the building. As a result of the proposed siting adjacent to the existing buildings at the Food Park, it is considered the scale is not substantially discordant or out of keeping with the existing large

Planning 58 building cluster, to a degree that a refusal on grounds of scale and height in particular would be justified and proportionate. The ridge perpendicular to Nature's Way and Wights Salads, and an articulated building form assist in the interpretation of the building's size; these details and other design features are considered below.

Design

8.13 The building is typical of a modern agricultural storage facility in form and appearance. The design of the proposed building is intended to reduce its overall visual effect and bulk whilst ensuring it remains practical for its grain store function. The design and form of the building is typical of a modern agricultural store. The 9m/11m roller shutter doors to the north elevation will allow both tractor and trailers and articulated lorries to fully elevate and tip a load, with some tolerance for future increases in vehicular size. The north elevation also includes 16 ventilation louvres and three pedestrian doors. Solar PV panels are proposed to cover the full south facing roof slope.

8.14 The east and west elevations include some variety in materials and detailing. The rear (south) elevation is generally plain, but will be screened from the access to the existing buildings by existing planting and new bunds. There is variety in the proposed materials, the exact details of which and the finishes can be carefully controlled by condition. Overall it is considered that the design of the building is appropriate to its setting and proposed use.

Landscape impact

8.15 The proposed building is of a substantial scale and clustered with existing large packhouse and glasshouse structures in an open agricultural landscape. While nearest residential properties are a minimum of 370m away, there is a public right of way that passes within 75m of the north west corner of the application site. Views from this bridleway are the most sensitive for their proximity to the application site and will be most affected by the proposed development. From other public vantage points to the north and east, the building will appear as part of a wider worked agricultural landscape, and will benefit from some intervening planting along existing field, road and development site boundaries.

8.16 As a result of the scale and nature of the building and its location in an open agricultural landscape, it is accepted that the development will not fully assimilate into the landscape. It will however be possible to mitigate the visual effect and presence of the building on the wider landscape to some degree through the careful use of materials and enhanced landscaping both immediately adjacent to and at points of public view within the larger Food Park site as part of the wider landscape area.

8.17 Firstly on materials, metal cladding with lower sections of concrete walling and brick are proposed. Timber has been considered both as primary and additional cladding but rejected for the risks associated with insect infestation and crop contamination as a result. In principle, the materials proposed are considered acceptable. Further discussions will take place in advance of Planning Committee to establish a more detailed palette of materials that is both practical and assists in reducing the apparent bulk and presence of this large building.

8.18 The proposal includes supplementary planting in the areas identified on the location plan to the north, north east and north west of the building to reduce direct views of the building as a whole from the access and public vantage points. An indicative planting scheme has been provided, using mixed native hedging and some trees. Earth bunds graded up to 3m above ground level to match those existing are proposed to all boundaries.

Planning 59 Full details of a landscaping strategy as advised by WSCC's Landscape Architect and mechanisms for the proper implementation and long term management and maintenance of the new planting will be sought and secured by condition. It is accepted that the proposed landscaping will only go some way to soften the appearance of this large building, however, on balance, when considering the existing flat and relatively open nature of this agricultural landscape, the scale and form of the existing buildings with which this proposed building will be clustered, and the distance of the development from main public views, the details are considered acceptable.

Highways

8.19 The Food Park benefits from existing close and practical access to the primary road network by large vehicles. The aim of this proposal is to develop a centralised storage facility, both to enable appropriate storage of all of the harvested grain from the extensive land holding and to reduce the take of resources required to operate several smaller and more remote storage facilities. The centralised store will lead to a reduction in the number of miles travelled when transporting and distributing harvested crops, environmental and efficiency savings and ease pressure on the rural road network.

8.20 The nature of the building and use will result in seasonal peaks in vehicular activity, primarily during the late summer to autumn period, and this will include large vehicles. The highways authority has considered this seasonal use, road capacity and trip generation and have raised no objection. A small number of vehicle parking spaces can be accommodated on site. Officers are satisfied that the proposal complies with policy TR6 and provides sufficient parking and on-site turning for the proposed use. A small cycle store will be required by condition.

Amenity

8.21 The operation of the proposed development will generate noise and activity from vehicle movements and the drying process. The main doors are proposed on the northern face of the building to enable most practical use, however this results in the doors being orientated towards the nearest residential properties. In an open agricultural landscape, noise can travel. In response to this the majority of the outlets from the machinery room will face south towards the existing packhouses; ventilation louvres will cover the outlets of the remaining two groups of vents in the north elevation that serve the bunkers. The Council's Environmental Health (Noise) officer is satisfied that conditions can be used to set maximum and total noise levels to limit any effect on neighbouring dwellings to an acceptable level.

8.22 Potential air pollutants including dust can be adequately controlled and limited through the use of a purpose designed and operated building as proposed. The building and yard will materially increase surface water run-off rates and increase the potential for pollutants to enter the ground or water. Land and groundwater contamination can be avoided through operation of suitable drainage methods, the details of which can be sought and approved by condition.

8.23 The operation of the building therefore will not cause material adverse effects to local residents, users of public rights of way or the local environment. The proposal in this respect complies with local plan policy BE11.

Planning 60 Other Matters

8.24 The proposed building will require one full time employee and a range of other workers will be involved indirectly and seasonally in delivery, sorting, maintenance and distribution activities.

8.25 The use of a centralised grain store, designed and built for this particular purpose will significantly reduce energy use, travel requirements and crop deterioration. The proposed solar panels to the rear (south) roof face will generate green energy to power the building and feed into the grid.

8.26 The site has potential to hold deposits of archaeological interest. Provisions for the proper recording of such can be appropriately covered by condition.

Significant Conditions

8.27 In light of the above matters, it is considered reasonable and appropriate to impose conditions including the following on any approval to secure: (i) agricultural use only. This would enable horticultural uses but not industrial or other commercial purposes without a separate grant of consent. Subsequent physical works to adapt the building for an alternative use will require planning permission. (ii) a high standard and context appropriate palette of materials and finishes. This will ensure the building as far as possible assimilates into its landscape context while remaining practical (iii) maximum levels of noise that would be acceptable adjacent to residential properties. This will allow the LPA to protect the amenities of nearby residents (iv) the proper and timely implementation of a suitable landscaping strategy and planting plan using an acceptable native mix suitable for the soil and climate of the site. This should respond to the advice of the Landscape Architect and particular characteristics of the landscape, and should cover the application site itself and enhanced areas of planting within the wider land holding (v) acceptable drainage arrangements for surface water management and pollution prevention (vi) external lighting restricted and shielded to prevent light pollution and disturbance (vii) site level and section details to show clearly how the building and bunds will sit in the landscape.

Conclusion

8.28 On making a recommendation, officers have considered the tests within local and national policy, specifically whether the proposal constitutes a sustainable form of development and as such if the adverse impacts of the proposed development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when taking into account the NPPF as a whole (paragraph 14). In its favour, the proposal would provide a centralised dedicated storage facility sufficient to cater for agricultural produce generated in the locality for approximately the next fifteen years; reducing crop wastage and deterioration; limiting food miles; and improving the efficiency of farming operations that make a valuable contribution to the economy and character of this rural district. Adverse impacts to be weighed in the balance include the use of part of a field which is considered valuable for agricultural production and lies within an HDA, and the resultant scale of the building and its consequential visual and landscape impacts which will be only partly mitigated by design and material detail, planting over the medium to longer term. The proposal will not generate adverse environmental effects by reason of noise, contamination, air, ground or water pollution or vehicle movements nor will have a material detrimental effect on residential

Planning 61 amenity. Taking all matters above into consideration, it is concluded that the proposed development on balance complies with the purposes and policies of the saved and emerging Local Plan and the NPPF. The application is therefore recommended for approval subject to the specific conditions set out in the recommendation.

Human Rights

8.29 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 B01G No Departure from Plans 3 U82053 U82053 - Site levels and sections 4 U82055 U82055 - Landscape strategy 5 U82056 U82056 - Planting and maintenance 6 U82058 U82058 - Drainage 7 U82059 U82059 - Foul/surface drainage 8 U82061 U82061 - Access 9 U82062 U82062 - Parking and turning 10 U82064 U82064 - Archaeology 11 U82054 U82054 - Materials and finishes 12 U82052 U82052 - Agricultural crop use 13 U82057 U82057 - Maximum noise levels - drying 14 U82065 U82065 - Maximum noise - general operation 15 U82060 U82060 - Bunding of fuel/chemicals 16 U82063 U82063 - External lighting 17 U82066 U82066 - Relevant policies

INFORMATIVES

18 W45F Application Approved Following Revisions 19 W21F Contaminated Land

For further information on this application please contact Naomi Langford on 01243 534734

Planning 62

Parish: Ward: Loxwood Plaistow

6. LX/13/03324/FUL

Proposal Demolition of existing garages and construction of 1 three-bedroom house and 2 one-bedroom flats landscaping and parking.

Site Garage Compound West Of 1 To 4 Nicholsfield Loxwood West Sussex

Map Ref (E) 503886 (N) 131639

Applicant The Hyde Group

RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

Planning 63

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The application site is located within the defined Settlement Policy Area of Loxwood, within an established residential estate. The site presently forms a backland garage compound, formerly serving the residential estate, however, most properties now take vehicular access directly off of Nicolsfield, the garage compound largely redundant.

2.2 The application site is located on the western side of Nicholsfield, a residential estate comprising largely two storey semi-detached and terraced dwellings. The site comprises a 55m long metalled single carriageway service road, which opens out and turns northwards to the main garage courtyard area. The main area comprises two rows of terraced garages, constructed of red brick with flat roofs. At the northern end of the site is a close-boarded fence with double gates providing rear vehicular access to a rear garden fronting Nicholsfield. Along the southern boundary of the site is a grassed drainage ditch and grassed verge with screen fencing beyond. The northern boundary of the service road comprises a mature hedge. Beyond the garages are the rear gardens of the surrounding properties, many of which comprise mature trees and other boundary vegetation.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The application proposes the erection of a semi-detached, three-bedroom dwelling and 2no. 1-bedroom flats following the demolition of the existing garage buildings. In addition, the southern part of the site will be re-laid providing both allocated parking spaces for the proposed properties (3no. spaces and 1no. disabled space), and 6no. communal parking spaces (5no. in the main parking area and 1no. at the site entrance) for the residents of Nicholsfield.

3.2 Each of the properties would benefit for private outdoor amenity space, which would also contain bin and cycle storage facilities.

8.0 History

13/01676/FUL WDN Demolition of existing garages and construction of 2 one-bed flats and 2 two-bed houses with landscaping and parking.

Planning 64

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area NO AONB NO Strategic Gap NOI Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO

SFRA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

Loxwood Parish Council has considered this application and OBJECTS.

The applicant has previously presented plans to the Loxwood Parish Council for 1 two- bedroom house and 2 one-bedroom flats, which the parish council considered to be acceptable. However, the plans as submitted provide for 1 three-bedroom house and 2 one- bedroom flats. The parish council does not consider that one allocated parking space is sufficient for a three-bedroom house, given that there is extremely limited bus services in this rural area and residents are dependent on private transport. As stated in our letter of 8th July, there are already considerable parking pressures in Nicholsfield.

If the district council is minded to grant planning permission, the parish council would request that the applicant is required to facilitate and finance the means by which the domestic fuel supply to No.4 Nicholsfield can continue.

6.2 Southern Water Services

There is no public foul sewer in the immediate vicinity of the site. Connection to the public foul sewerage system could be requisitioned under the terms of the S.98 of Water Industry Act.

As stated in your Foul Drainage Statement, foul water being connected to the surface water sewer system will not be acceptable.

Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the surface water sewer to be made by the applicant or developer. This should not involve connecting surface water to the foul system.

We request that should this application receive planning permission, the necessary connection Informative is applied.

Planning 65 6.3 Natural England

Statutory nature conservation sites - no objection Based upon the information provided, Natural England advises the Council that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes.

Protected species - Refer to standing advice.

6.4 WSCC: Highways Authority

Awaiting comments. However, having regard to the WSCC Car Parking demand calculator, the scheme is required to provide 3no. allocated parking spaces, and 2no. non-allocated parking spaces.

6.5 CDC: Environmental Health Officer

Our comments are the same as for the previous application (LX/13/01676/FUL) i.e. Condition N21G should be applied in order to ensure the land is suitable for the proposed development. All waste arisings must be disposed of in accordance with current Waste Regulations and if materials containing asbestos are present, these must be disposed of in accordance with relevant Asbestos Regulations.

In order to encourage sustainable modes of transport, secure, covered cycle storage should be provided at each property to mitigate the effects on air quality from the development.

6.6 CDC: Environmental Strategy

Bats: The lighting scheme for the site will need to take into consideration the presence of bats in the local area and the scheme should minimise potential impacts to any bats using the trees and hedgerows by avoiding unnecessary artificial light spill through the use of directional light sources and shielding.

Birds: Due to the level of protection nesting birds hold, any vegetation clearance (including tree felling) should take place outside the nesting season (February-October). Conditions should be used to ensure this.

Enhancements: As detailed within the Phase One Habitat Survey, there are a number of enhancements recommended which we require onsite including: - Bat roosting opportunity within the cavity of the new buildings. - Bird boxes. - Replacement planting of native species to enhance foraging habitat for bats.

Interim Statement on Climate Change and Planning: We are happy that the application meets our requirements in relation to the interim statement. Conditions should be used to ensure this.

6.7 Third Party Objection

3no. objections letters received, one relating to a private, landowership and access issue, and the others relating to overlooking and inadequate car parking in Nicholsfield and that the proposals will exacerbate the situation.

Planning 66 6.8 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information

The planning application has been supported by a suite a documents comprising the Design and Access Statement, the Southern Water Land Searches results, Gas Pipeline Search results, Foul Drainage Statement, Surface Water Drainage Statement, Scottish and Southern Energy Electricity providers Report, Vehicle Parking Demand Survey, Phase 1 Ecological Survey, Arboricultural Development Statement, and Phase 1 Desk Study Contaminated Land Report.

The Design and Access Statement contains a detailed site assessment, affordable housing statement, involvement, design, use, amount, layout, scale, appearance, landscaping, external lighting, sustainability and access. The information provided demonstrates that, whilst the garages presently provide 29no. car parking spaces, only 7no. of the garages have tenants that use the space for car parking, with the remaining not used (or did not respond to the survey). The majority of those used garages have been accommodated with communal parking spaces in the development proposal.

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.

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 BE14 Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges and Other Landscape Features BE16 Energy Conservation RE5 North-eastern Part of the District TR6 Highway Safety H4 Size and Density of Dwellings H8 Social and Low Cost Housing in Settlement Policy Areas

Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 25: Development in the North of the Plan area Policy 33: New Residential Development

Planning 67 Policy 34: Affordable Housing Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity

National Policy and Guidance

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

7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), and Sections 6 and 7 generally.

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

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 Planning for Affordable Housing Interim Statement on Planning and Climate Change

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

Planning 68 B1: Managing a changing environment D1: Increasing housing supply D2: Vibrant, safe and clean neighbourhoods D3: Housing fit for purpose

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are:

- Impact on the Amenity of Neighbouring Occupiers; - Car Parking Provision; - Impact on the surrounding trees; and, - Need for affordable housing.

Assessment

8.2 The application was subject to an earlier application for 2no. two-bedroom houses and 2no. one-bedroom flats, but the 2no. houses would have been orientated facing east/west. That scheme also proposed 10no. car parking spaces.

8.3 The scheme was withdrawn following concerns regarding overdevelopment of the site and insufficient car parking to meeting both existing and predicted needs.

Impact on the Amenity of Neighbouring Occupiers

8.4 The current proposal seeks to erect a single 2-storey structure comprising the 3no. new units orientated in a north/south direction. The proposal includes no first floor windows on the eastern elevation, and only secondary windows on the first floor western elevation. The site is completely bounded by the rear gardens of neighbouring properties on Nicholsfield (to the east) and Guildford Road (to the west). Those properties to the east comprise approximately 22m long rear gardens, whilst those to the west comprise approximately 35m long rear gardens. Additionally, those properties to the west are well screened from the site by existing mature trees (discussed below). Those trees are located in the rear gardens of the properties along Guildford Road and are therefore to be retained, providing a suitable screen to the proposed first floor west facing windows for the first floor flat. It is therefore considered that the proposals will not cause demonstrable harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers to the east or west.

8.5 In respect those properties to the north and south, to the north, the site overlooks the last 18m of the 32m long rear gardens of 5, 6, 7 and 8 Nicholsfield. Additionally, the first floor windows on the northern elevation of the proposals are situated some 9-10m from the boundary of the site, and over 23m from the rear elevation of No.5 Nicholsfield. To the south, the proposed properties are located 25m from the southern boundary of the site, and subsequently a further 14m from the rear elevation of the properties on Glebelands (to the south). This overall distance, almost 40m, together with the separation distances to the north ensures that the proposals will not cause demonstrable harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers to the north or south.

8.6 The separation distances are in accordance with the advice in the Council's Residential Design Guide.

Planning 69

Car Parking Provision

8.7 The application proposal includes the provision of 10no. car parking spaces (3no. allocated for the proposed development, 1no. disabled parking space and 6no. communal parking spaces (1no. at the site entrance). The re-development of the garage compound would result in the loss of 29no. garage spaces, in an area where the local community has highlighted a significant issue with car parking. However, it is clear from the vehicle parking demand survey submitted with the application that very few of the residents of Nicholsfield actually make use of the garages provided, instead choosing to park their cars on the street or within converted front garden areas. All the properties along Nicholsfield benefit from reasonably large front garden areas. Many of the front gardens have been made available for car parking, therefore leaving the garage compound largely unused. Given the location of the site within the defined Settlement Policy Area of Loxwood, it is appropriate that this underused space be more appropriately used.

8.8 The provision of 3no. allocated spaces for the proposed development accords with the requirements of the WSCC Parking Demand Calculator, and the provision of 6no. open area, communal parking spaces, and 1no. disabled parking space, in an area with more natural surveillance is likely to encourage better use of the area by the existing local community, thereby reducing the level of on-street car parking.

8.9 It is therefore considered that the proposal accords with the County Council's Car Parking standards, and would not lead to a significant increase in demand for on-street car parking in the area. The County Council raised no concern regarding the earlier withdrawn application which sought a higher density of development with the same car parking provision.

Impact on surrounding Trees

8.10 The application has been supported by a detailed Arboricultural Development Statement. There are no trees located directly on the site, which comprises almost entirely of hardstanding and the two terraces of garages. As such, all the trees are located in the rear gardens of the surrounding residential properties. Therefore, it is important to ensure that no trees are directly affected by the development proposal. None of the trees are covered by any Tree Preservation Order.

8.11 Many of the trees are likely to have matured with the presence of the garage compound in place, and therefore the majority of the significant roots are likely to be unaffected by the proposal. Details of the root protection area have been included within the Arboricultural report, together with the provision of protective fencing during the construction phase. It is considered that the proposed development would be unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the longevity of the trees surrounding the site, provided sufficient protection is in place during construction.

Need for affordable housing

8.12 The principle of development on the site is considered acceptable, given the location of the site within the defined Loxwood Settlement Policy Area. There is a clear need in the local area for affordable housing (26no. households on the housing register), and therefore the provision of 1no. family home, and 2no. flats would make a suitable small scale contribution to this demand.

Planning 70 Significant Conditions

8.13 The application has been recommended for approval subject to a number of conditions, including the removal of permitted development rights to extend the dwellinghouse, to erect additional outbuildings in the rear gardens or to install additional openings at first floor level in the east facing wall of the development. Additionally, there are conditions requiring the submission of materials, fencing/boundary details, and landscaping.

Conclusion

8.14 Based on the above assessment of the impact on the amenity of neighbours, car parking provision and impact on the surrounding trees it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies and 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.

8.16 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.

ECOMMENDATION PERMIT

1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 U81894 U81894 - No Departure from Plans 3 F01F Materials/Finishes 4 H01F No Extensions without Approval 5 H02F No Outbuildings without Approval 6 U81899 U81899 - No First Floor Windows Without Approval 7 U81900 U81900 - Car Parking as Plans 8 J17G Construction Method Statement 9 K01H Landscaping 10 K02G Landscaping 11 K18G Tree Protection 12 K21F Works to be Agreed 13 K23G Execution by BS 3998 2010 (Tree Work) 14 U81902 U81902 - Surface Water Drainage 15 U81903 U81903 - Surface water details 16 L07F Sewage Disposal 17 M03F Walls/Fences 18 M04F Roads/Drainage 19 N33F Construction Hours 20 N21G Contaminated Land

Planning 71

INFORMATIVES

21 W36F Wildlife 22 W43F WSCC Drainage Consent 23 W44F Application Approved Without Amendment

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

Planning 72 Parish: Ward: Chidham & Hambrook Bosham

7. CH/13/02949/FUL

Proposal Temporary stationing of a mobile home for occupation by a traveller (as defined in Planning policy for traveller sites) for five years (Resubmission).

Site 'The Three Horseshoes', Plot C2, POND FARM Newells Lane West Ashling Chichester PO18 8DF

Map Ref (E) 479694 (N) 106502

Applicant Mr K.W. Hughes

RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

Planning 73

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The site is located on the western side of Newells Lane, and comprises an existing collection of gypsy/traveller pitches accessed via a part metalled, part gravelled track forming part of the bridleway network. The site lies immediately south of the A27(T).

2.2 The site, known as The Three Horseshoes, is bounded by screen fencing and comprises a touring caravan, timber clad day room outbuilding, timber stables and timber outbuildings used as pigeon coups. There is a small grassed area to the rear (southern part of the site), used as a small paddock. The majority of the site is laid to a gravelled surface.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The application proposes the stationing of a mobile home on the site for a temporary period of 5 years for the sole use and occupation by a traveller.

4.0 History

00/00548/FUL ART25 Erection of 8 no timber stables with associated store.

98/01388/FUL REF Retention of 2 no site cabins and their use for residential purposes.

98/01644/FUL REF Erection of block of sixteen stables and establishment of stud farm.

98/01645/FUL REF Retention of access tracks and hardstanding.

99/01845/FUL REF Erection of block of fourteen stables: Tack room: Staff: Food and Hay Store and private ways.

12/01061/REM APPRET Change of use of land to a single pitch gypsy site, including the stationing of one mobile home

12/01958/FUL REF Proposed stationing of a mobile home for occupation by a gypsy/traveller.

Planning 74

12/03556/FUL REF Proposed stationing of a mobile home for occupation by a traveller (as defined in Planning policy for traveller sites).

12/03612/ELD PDE Certificate of Existing Lawful Development in respect of hard standings, stables, pigeon lofts and sheds having been in situ for more than 4 years.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area NO AONB NO Strategic Gap YES Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO

SFRA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

Chidham and Hambrook Parish Council object strongly to this planning application, on the following grounds:

The application is identical to planning application CH/12/03556/FUL which was refused by the District Council, as had similar applications submitted (and refused) over the past years.

The Parish Council repeat their objections made to the identical application CH/12/03556/FUL namely

- The site is not an SPA, but in a Rural Area within the Strategic Gap, with a disposition against development unless there are special needs, which have not been proved. - Access to the site can only be along Bridleway 3594, which is not owned by the applicant. The bridleway is used by equestrians, pedestrians and local school children on bicycles. These uses are being endangered by the unlawful use of vehicular traffic using this bridleway, particularly with the proliferation of the use of the plots at Pond Farm, all needing vehicular access.

Planning 75 It is known that Chichester District Council is trying to establish the future need for new Gypsy and Traveller pitches within the District. It would be premature to agree this planning application until the results have been published.

6.2 Natural England

Statutory Nature Conservation Sites - No objection Based upon the information provided, Natural England advises the Council that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes.

6.3 WSCC - Highways

The mobile home would be served by the existing access arrangements onto Newells Lane. The access track is narrow, but there is space for vehicles to pass walkers and riders close to the junction with Newells Lane. The driveway already serves several other holdings, in addition it is likely that the mobile home has been in place for some time and there are no known issues with its placing.

No anticipated highway concerns.

6.4 CDC - Environmental Health Officer (Contaminated Land)

No objection with respect to contaminated land or air quality issues. Given the former use of the area to the east of the site as a clay pit, there may have been infilling of areas of the ground with unknown substances. W39F should be applied so the applicant is aware that there may be localised contamination, including possible ground gases. All waste arising must be disposed of in accordance with current Waste Regulations. All fuels or chemicals should be stored in bunded areas and Condition L09F should be applied.

Adequate provision for disposal of foul sewerage must be made in accordance with EA Requirements.

6.5 CDC - Environmental Health Officer

I am concerned that there does not appears to be sufficient access available or arrangements in place for refuse and recycling collections. It is essential that there are suitable arrangements made to prevent any accumulation that has implications for public health and environmental pollution.

The applicant states that foul drainage will be dealt with through a private treatment system and soakaway. I am concerned that soakaways will be sufficient to cope at all times due to the porosity of the underlying soil. For reasons already stated above, soakaways may not work adequately within the space available.

It is essential that relevant tests of the soil porosity demonstrate that Building Regulations approval of the drainage is possible and that any Environment Agency discharge consent is obtained.

6.6 Third Parties

No third party responses were received.

Planning 76

6.7 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information

The planning application has been supported by several supporting statements, including a Design and Access Statement, Biodiversity Statement and a Bat Survey. The Design and Access Statement includes details regarding the history of the site, amount, scale, layout and appearance of the site, ecology, access, landscaping and anti-social behaviour. The Biodiversity Statement, prepared by The Ecology Consultancy in 2012 highlighted any potential issues regarding any Great Crested Newts within the vicinity of the site. The report concluded limited prospect of such protected species in the vicinity of the two ponds surveyed.

Finally, the application is supported by a Bat Survey, undertaken in 2011, which highlighted the presence of a Nathusius' pipistrelle within the timber clad day house.

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.

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

Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:

RE1 Rural Area Generally RE6 Strategic Gaps RE7 Nature Conservation (Designated Areas) RE21 Safeguarding Existing Travelling Showpeople's Sites RE23 Safeguarding Existing Gypsy Sites TR6 Highway Safety R4 Public Rights of Way and Other Paths

Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013:

Policy 1: Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development Policy 36: Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity

Planning 77 Policy 52: Green Infrastructure

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 4 and 17 (Core Planning Principles).

7.6 In addition to the overarching policies of the NPPF, it is also relevant to have regard to the supporting document, Planning Policy for Travellers Sites, published at the same time as the NPPF.

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:

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are:

- Compliance with Planning Policy for traveller sites (PPTS) - Location and Sustainability; - Impact on the site of Special Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI); - Means of Access; and,

Assessment

Compliance with Planning Policy for traveller sites (PPTS)

8.2 Paragraph 25 of the PPTS advises that, subject to the implementation arrangements at paragraph 28 (policy only applies to applications made for temporary

Planning 78 planning permission for sites 12 months after policy comes into force- which is March 2013) , if an LPA 'cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five-year supply of deliverable sites, this should be a significant material consideration in any subsequent planning decision when considering applications for the temporary grant of planning permission'.

8.3 Policy H relates to determining planning applications for traveller sites and requires planning permission to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Paragraph 20). It also advises that applications should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the application of specific policies in the NPPF and the planning policy for traveller sites (paragraph 21).

8.4 Paragraph 22 advises that planning authorities should consider a number of issues amongst other relevant matters when considering planning applications for traveller sites. These are listed below and assessed in terms of the current application: a) The existing level of local provision and the need for sites

There is an accepted need for a minimum of 59no. pitches for gypsy and travellers in the District by 2027, including 37no. pitches before 2017. This figure was established after the Council, together with the other West Sussex coastal authorities commissioned a Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment. The report was undertaken by Opinion Research Services and Peter Brett Associates and was completed in April 2013. b) The availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants

No other available permanent sites have been identified c) Other personal circumstances of the applicant

No overriding personal circumstances have been cited by the applicant, besides a general need for suitable accommodation. d) That the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans or which form the policy where there is no identified need for pitches/plots should be used to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites

There is no current adopted policy in the Local Plan 1999 for new sites and Policy 36 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-submission 2014-2029 has little weight at present. e) That they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections

The recommended conditions would restrict occupation to gypsies and travellers. Whist and permission would also be tied specifically to a named individual, this is appropriate given that significant justification for a temporary permission is predicted on the basis of an immediate local need.

8.5 Paragraph 23 of Policy H advises that LPAs should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. LPAs should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue

Planning 79 pressure on the local infrastructure. The site is located within the Chichester to Emsworth Strategic Gap, as defined in the Chichester District Local Plan, 1999, which seeks to prevent the coalescence of settlements along the A259 corridor. Given the relatively flat nature of the prevailing landscape, additional development in the open countryside would have the potential to significantly impact on the character and appearance of the rural landscape and impinge upon the openness of this part of the strategic gap. Indeed, given the presence of the highly suburban close-boarded fencing around the site and the general spread of development, the site contrasts with the open rural character of the area. It is also considered that the uncharacteristic fencing seeks to deliberately isolate the occupiers from the rest of the community, contrary to the advice of the PPTS document, and has a detrimental impact on and causes substantial harm to the character and rural appearance of the area. The site has not been well planned or soft landscaped. However, some intervening trees and hedging in the wider area contribute towards limiting longer distance views of the site.

8.6 However, whilst the site may not be acceptable in fulfilling the identified need in the longer term, in the absence of a current and more permanent solution, it is considered that the need for further pitches in the short term outweighs the identified landscape harm.

8.7 Paragraph 24 advises that 'considering applications, local planning authorities should attach weight to 4 matters, a) Effective use of previously developed (brownfield), untidy or derelict land b) Sites being well planned or soft landscaped in such a way as to positively enhance the environment and increase its openness c) Promoting opportunities for healthy lifestyles, such as ensuring adequate landscaping and play areas for children d) Not enclosing a site with so much hard landscaping, high walls or fences, that the impression may be given that the site and its occupants are deliberately isolated from the rest of the community

8.8 Whilst the proposal may not fulfil all of the above criteria, the urgent need for this accommodation is considered, on a temporary basis, to outweigh those other material considerations. Further mitigation may be achieved by the imposition of relevant conditions.

8.9 In conclusion, on this point, the current scheme is not considered to conflict with the objectives of the PPTS. It is therefore considered, given the existence of this pitch, and the clearly identified need for the District Council to provide additional pitches, that the premise of allowing this site to continue to be used as a permitted permanent travellers pitch for a limited period of 5 years is considered acceptable. This will allow a full assessment of the best locations for pitches in the District to be assessed through the local plan process, whilst providing for an identified need in the meantime.

Location and Sustainability

8.10 Whilst the site is located outside and away from any defined Settlement Policy Area (as defined in the Chichester District Local Plan, First Review, 1999), Newells Lane is within 30 minutes walking distance of some local services and facilities, including the train station at Nutbourne, the Hambrook Post Office and Stores, all accessible along the adjoining bridleway that connects Pond Farm to Newells Lane. Given the nomadic habit of life associated with gypsies and travellers, a travelling distance of 30 minutes is considered to be appropriate, and would enable the occupiers of the site to access a reasonable range of local services and facilities.

Planning 80

8.11 Having regard to the definition of sustainability as set out in paragraph 7 of the NPPF, and paragraph 11 of the PPTS, the site would not be sustainable for most forms of residential use and would not meet the requirements set put in paragraphs 18-219 of the NPPF for permanent residential development. However, given the nature of the proposed accommodation and the identified need to be met within the District it is considered to be in a location with sufficient links to local infrastructure to be considered acceptable in the short term.

Impact on the site of Special Nature Conservation Importance

8.12 The application has been submitted with a detailed Ecological Survey relating to Plot J and the pond adjacent to Newells Lane, which concluded that no newts of any description were identified on the site, with the only amphibians being tadpoles and the common toad. Given the reasonable distance between the site and the two ponds within the SNCI, it is considered unlikely that the retained use of the site for a limited period would have a detrimental impact on the nature conservation of the site.

Means of Access

8.13 The site is accessed via a single width bridleway (Bridleway 3594), made up of crushed hard core and a metalled surface (in part), and whilst not specifically designed to accommodate motor vehicles, the site has made use of this means of access for a number of years, without significant conflict with the other users of the bridleway. The length of bridleway used for motor vehicles is limited to only approximately 130m, which comprises a straight section that allows for good indivisibility between users. Further, the access onto Newells Lane provides good visibility to oncoming traffic in both directions, with no reported accidents.

8.14 It is therefore considered that there is no evidence to suggest a demonstrable conflict with the principle use of the bridleway, and is an established use that has not resulted in known conflicts between users.

Significant Conditions

8.15 The application is considered acceptable, subject to a number of controlling conditions, including principally the granting of only a temporary 5 year consent, together with conditions relating to the siting of the touring caravans and the removal of all associated ancillary structures from the site after the 5 years, subject to the submission and approval of a future planning application.

Conclusion

8.16 Based on the above assessment, it is considered that although the proposal conflicts with development plan policies, the unmet need for gypsy and travellers pitches in general is afforded weight in favour of the proposal, but only for a limited period and therefore the application is recommended for approval.

Human Rights

8.17 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.

Planning 81

8.18 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.

Equalities

8.19 In reaching this conclusion officers have given particular weight to the Equality Act 2010 which states in section 29 that 'a person must not, in the exercise of a public function [which includes the determination of planning applications] do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation'. Officers have sought guidance as to the extent to which this section requires 'positive discrimination' or indeed requires weight to be given to the disabilities of an applicant above and beyond weight normally accorded to 'personal circumstances', but have not been able to identify any government advice or case law which is relevant.

"In addition to the provisions of section 29 of the Act, s149 of the Act provides the following: Public sector equality duty:

(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:

Planning 82

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

1 U81811 U81811 - Occupation Limition 2 U81802 U81802 - Time Limit - Temporary 3 U81812 U81812 - 2 caravans only 4 U81813 U81813 - sub of Site Dev. Scheme 5 U81815 U81815 - No commercial activity 6 U81816 U81816 - no 3.5 ton vehicles 7 U81817 U81817 - No burning stable waste 8 U81818 U81818 - No departure from plans 9 L09F Oil Tanks to be Bunded/Landscape

INFORMATIVES

10 W39F Contaminated Land 11 W44F Application Approved Without Amendment

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

Planning 83 Parish: Ward: Chidham & Hambrook Bosham

8. CH/13/02950/FUL

Proposal Temporary stationing of a mobile home for occupation by a traveller for five years (Resubmission).

Site Plot C, Pond Farm Newells Lane West Ashling Chichester PO18 8DF

Map Ref (E) 479694 (N) 106502

Applicant Mr Daniel Hughes

RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

Planning 84

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.2 The site, known as Plot C, is bounded by screen fencing and comprises a mobile home, timber clad storage building/garage outbuilding and timber utility building. There is a small grassed area to the rear (southern part of the site), used as a garden area. The majority of the site is laid to a gravelled surface.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The application proposes the stationing of a mobile home on the site for a temporary period of 5 years for the sole use and occupation by a traveller.

9.0 History

00/00548/FUL ART25 Erection of 8 no timber stables with associated store.

98/01388/FUL REF Retention of 2 no site cabins and their use for residential purposes.

98/01644/FUL REF Erection of block of sixteen stables and establishment of stud farm.

98/01645/FUL REF Retention of access tracks and hardstanding.

99/01845/FUL REF Erection of block of fourteen stables: Tack room: Staff: Food and Hay Store and private ways.

12/03305/FUL REF Continued stationing of a mobile home for occupation by a gypsy/traveller as defined in planning policy for traveller sites.

12/03612/ELD PDE Certificate of Existing Lawful Development in respect of hard standings, stables, pigeon lofts and sheds having been in situ for more than 4 years.

Planning 85

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area NO AONB NO Strategic Gap YES Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO

SFRA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

Chidham and Hambrook Parish Council object strongly to this planning application, on the following grounds:

The application is identical to planning application CH/11/02367/FUL which was refused by the District Council, as had similar applications submitted (and refused) over the past years.

The Parish Council repeat their objections made to the identical application CH/11/02367/FUL namely

- The site is not an SPA, but in a Rural Area within the Strategic Gap, with a disposition against development unless there are special needs, which have not been proved in this application - Access to the site can only be off Bridleway 3594, south of, and parallel to the A27 Trunk Road, which is not owned by the applicant. The bridleway is used by equestrians, pedestrians and local school children on bicycles. These uses are being endangered by the unlawful use of vehicular traffic using this bridleway, particularly with the proliferation of the use of the plots at Pond Farm, all needing vehicular access. - A previous application on this plot was refused and the subsequent appeal was withdrawn just before the inquiry was due to be held.

It is known that Chichester District Council is trying to establish the future need for new Gypsy and Traveller pitches within the District. It would be premature to agree this planning application until the results have been published.

6.2 Natural England

Planning 86 6.3 WSCC - Highways

No anticipated highway concerns.

6.4 CDC - Environmental Health Officer (Contaminated Land)

Adequate provision for disposal of foul sewerage must be made in accordance with EA Requirements.

6.5 CDC - Environmental Health Officer

I am concerned that there does not appear to be sufficient access available or arrangements in place for refuse and recycling collections. It is essential that there are suitable arrangements made to prevent any accumulation that has implications for public health and environmental pollution.

It is essential that relevant tests of the soil porosity demonstrate that Building Regulations approval of the drainage is possible and that any Environment Agency discharge consent is obtained.

6.6 Third Parties

No third party responses were received.

6.7 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information

Planning 87

7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan

See Planning Application 13/02949/FUL.

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are:

- Need for additional Traveller Pitches; - Location and Sustainability; - Impact on the site of Special Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI); - Means of Access; and, - Wider landscape Implications.

Assessment

Need for Additional Travellers Pitches

8.2 The District Council accepts that there is a need for a minimum of 59no. pitches for gypsy and travellers in the District by 2027, including 37no. pitches before 2017. This figure was established after the Council, together with the other West Sussex coastal authorities commissioned a Gypsy and Traveller and Showmen Accommodation Needs Assessment. The report was completed in March 2013 and undertaken by Opinion Research Services and Peter Brett Associates.

8.3 It is therefore considered, given the existence of this pitch, and the clearly identified need for the District Council to provide additional pitches, that the premise of allowing this site to continue to be used as a permitted permanent travellers pitch for a limited period of 5 years is considered acceptable.

Location and Sustainability

8.4 Whilst the site is located outside and away from any defined Settlement Policy Area (as defined in the Chichester District Local Plan, First Review, 1999), Newells Lane is within 30 minutes walking distance of some local services and facilities, including the train station at Nutbourne, the Hambrook Post Office and Stores, all accessible along the adjoining bridleway that connects Pond Farm to Newells Lane. Whilst 30 minutes walking distance is not generally considered to be a sustainable walking travelling distance, given the nomadic habit of life associated with gypsies and travellers, a travelling distance of 30 minutes is not considered to be overly long, and would enable the occupiers of the site to access a reasonable range of local services and facilities.

8.5 Taking a wider view of sustainability as set out in paragraph 7 of the NPPF, and paragraph 11 of the PPTS, overall the site would not be sustainable for most forms of residential use and would not be sustainable in terms of the full implications of the Framework paragraphs 18-219.

Impact on the site of Special Nature Conservation Importance

Planning 88 8.6 The application has been submitted with a detailed Ecological Survey relating to Plot J and the pond adjacent to Newells Lane, which concluded that no newts of any description were identified on the site, with the only amphibians being tadpoles and the common toad. Given the relative distance between the site and the two ponds within the SNCI, it is considered unlikely that the retained use of the site for a limited period would have a detrimental impact on the nature conservation of the site.

Means of Access

8.7 As stated above, the site is accessed via a single width bridleway (Bridleway 3594), made up of crushed hard core and a metalled surface (in part), and whilst not specifically designed to accommodate motor vehicles, the site has made use of this means of access for a number of years, without significant conflict with the other users of the bridleway. The length of bridleway used for motor vehicles is limited to only approximately 130m, which comprises a straight section that allows for good indivisibility between users. Further, the access onto Newells Lane provides good visibility to oncoming traffic in both directions, with no reported accidents.

8.8 It is therefore considered, whilst not an ideal situation, it does not conflict with the principle use of the bridleway, and is an established use that has not resulted in known conflicts between users.

Wider Landscape Implications

8.9 The site is located within the Chichester to Emsworth Strategic Gap, as defined in the Chichester District Local Plan, 1999, which seeks to prevent the coalescence of settlements along the A259 corridor. Paragraph 24 of the PPTS document highlights the considerations LPAs should have regarding the assessment of each site. Given the relatively flat nature of the prevailing landscape, additional development in the open countryside would have significant impacts on the character and appearance of the rural landscape and impinge upon the openness of this part of the strategic gap. Given the presence of the highly suburban close-boarded fencing around the site and the general spread of development, the site contrasts with the open rural character of the area. It is also considered that the uncharacteristic fencing seeks to deliberately isolate the occupiers from the rest of the community, contrary to the advice of the PPTS document, and has a detrimental impact on and causes substantial harm to the character and rural appearance of the area. The site has not been well planned or soft landscaped. However, some intervening trees and hedging in the wider area contribute towards limiting longer distance views of the site.

Significant Conditions

8.10 The application is considered acceptable, subject to a number of controlling conditions, including principally the granting of only a temporary 5 year consent, together with conditions relating to the siting of the touring caravan and the removal of all associated ancillary structures from the site after the 5 years, subject to the submission and approval of a future planning application.

Planning 89 Conclusion

8.11 Based on the above assessment, it is considered that although the proposal conflicts with development plan policies, the unmet need for gypsy and travellers pitches in general is afforded weight in favour of the proposal, but only for a limited period and therefore the application is recommended for approval.

Human Rights

8.12 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.

8.13 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.

Equalities

8.14 In reaching this conclusion officers have given particular weight to the Equality Act 2010 which states in section 29 that 'a person must not, in the exercise of a public function [which includes the determination of planning applications] do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation'. Officers have sought guidance as to the extent to which this section requires 'positive discrimination' or indeed requires weight to be given to the disabilities of an applicant above and beyond weight normally accorded to 'personal circumstances', but have not been able to identify any government advice or case law which is relevant.

"In addition to the provisions of section 29 of the Act, s149 of the Act provides the following: Public sector equality duty:

(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:

Planning 90

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

1 U81819 U81819 - Occupation Limition 2 U81820 U81820 - Time Limit - Temporary 3 U81821 U81821 - 2 caravans only 4 U81822 U81822 - sub of Site Dev. Scheme 5 U81823 U81823 - No commercial activity 6 U81824 U81824 - no 3.5 ton vehicles 7 U81825 U81825 - No burning stable waste 8 U81826 U81826 - No departure from plans 9 L09F Oil Tanks to be Bunded/Landscape

INFORMATIVES

10 W39F Contaminated Land 11 W44F Application Approved Without Amendment

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

Planning 91 Parish: Ward: Chidham & Hambrook Bosham

9. CH/13/02970/FUL

Proposal Proposed change of use of land to a twin pitch Gypsy site for a 5 year period to provide settled accommodation; alternative revised application to CH/12/01282/FUL following 5 year appeal permissions for adjacent plots.

Site Plot C2 A And C2B, Pond Farm Newells Lane West Ashling Chichester PO18 8DF

Map Ref (E) 479694 (N) 106502

Applicant Mr Pip Hughes

RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

Planning 92

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.2 The site, a twin plot, known as Plot C2A and C2B, is bounded by screen fencing and comprises two mobile homes, timber storage building (enclosed on two sides by close- boarded fencing), two domestic sheds and areas of hard core laid. The majority of the site is laid to a gravelled surface.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The application proposes the stationing of two mobile homes on the site for a temporary period of 5 years for the sole use and occupation by travellers.

10.0 History

00/00548/FUL ART25 Erection of 8 no timber stables with associated store.

98/01388/FUL REF Retention of 2 no site cabins and their use for residential purposes.

98/01644/FUL REF Erection of block of sixteen stables and establishment of stud farm.

98/01645/FUL REF Retention of access tracks and hardstanding.

99/01845/FUL REF Erection of block of fourteen stables: Tack room: Staff: Food and Hay Store and private ways.

12/01282/FUL REF Change of use of land to a Gypsy Transit site to provide settled accommodation for a temporary period of three years.

12/03612/ELD PDE Certificate of Existing Lawful Development in respect of hard standings, stables, pigeon lofts and sheds having been in situ for more than 4 years.

Planning 93

13/02726/FUL APPRET Proposed change of use of land to a permanent twin pitch Gypsy site to provide settled accommodation; alternative revised application to CH/12/01282/FUL Change of use of land to a Gypsy Transit site to provide settled accommodation for a temporary period of three years.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area YES AONB NO Strategic Gap YES Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO

SFRA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

The Parish Council have carefully considered and discussed the advice given by the District Council that, in view of the recent appeal decisions, and also advice from Counsel, the Council is minded to view these applications favourably. However, the Parish Council are aware that local residents in this area are strongly opposed to the continued occupation of these sites, despite all the refusals and injunctions that have been issued over the years.

The Parish Council challenge the statement made in respect of one of these applications that "the proposed development would promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community". This is clearly not the case.

To repeat former objections, the sites are not in an SPA, but in a rural area within the Strategic Gap, with a disposition against development unless there are special needs, which have not been proved.

Access to the sites can only be along Bridleway 3594, which is not owned by any of the applicants. The bridleway is used by equestrians, pedestrians and local school children on bicycles. These uses are being endangered by the unlawful use of vehicular traffic using this bridleway, particularly with the proliferation of the use of all these plots at Pond Farm, all needing vehicular access.

Planning 94 As the District Council is attempting to establish the future need for new Gypsy and Traveller pitches within the District and also within the County, it would be premature to agree these planning applications until the results have been published. If temporary planning approval, albeit for a specified length of time, were to be granted, it would be very difficult to reverse that decision should circumstances change.

6.2 Third Parties

1no. Third party objection letter. Matters relating to anti-social behaviour.

6.3 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information

The planning application has been supported by several supporting statements, including a Design and Access Statement, and Biodiversity Statement. The Design and Access Statement includes details regarding the history of the site, amount, scale, layout and appearance of the site, ecology, access, landscaping and parking. The Biodiversity Statement, prepared by The Ecology Consultancy in 2012, in relation to Plot J and the large pond adjacent to Newells Lane, highlighted any potential issues regarding any Great Crested Newts within the vicinity of the site. The report concluded limited prospect of such protected species in the vicinity of the two ponds surveyed.

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.

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

Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:

Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013:

Planning 95 Policy 1: Presumption in favour of Sustainable Development Policy 36: Planning for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 52: Green Infrastructure

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:

7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraphs 4 and 17 (Core Planning Principles).

7.6 In addition to the overarching policies of the NPPF, it is also relevant to have regard to the supporting document, Planning Policy for Travellers Sites, published at the same time as the NPPF.

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:

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are:

- Compliance with Planning Policy for traveller sites (PPTS) - Location and Sustainability; - Impact on the site of Special Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI); - Means of Access; and,

Planning 96

Assessment

Compliance with Planning Policy for traveller sites (PPTS)

8.2 Paragraph 25 of the PPTS advises that, subject to the implementation arrangements at paragraph 28 (policy only applies to applications made for temporary planning permission for sites 12 months after policy comes into force- which is March 2013) , if an LPA 'cannot demonstrate an up-to-date five-year supply of deliverable sites, this should be a significant material consideration in any subsequent planning decision when considering applications for the temporary grant of planning permission'.

No other available permanent sites have been identified c) Other personal circumstances of the applicant

There is no current adopted policy in the Local Plan 1999 for new sites and Policy 36 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-submission 2014-2029 has little weight at present. e) That they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections

The recommended conditions would restrict occupation to gypsies and travellers.

Planning 97 8.5 Paragraph 23 of Policy H advises that LPAs should strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. LPAs should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure. The site is located within the Chichester to Emsworth Strategic Gap, as defined in the Chichester District Local Plan, 1999, which seeks to prevent the coalescence of settlements along the A259 corridor. Given the relatively flat nature of the prevailing landscape, additional development in the open countryside would have the potential to significantly impact on the character and appearance of the rural landscape and impinge upon the openness of this part of the strategic gap. Indeed, given the presence of the highly suburban close-boarded fencing around the site and the general spread of development, the site contrasts with the open rural character of the area. It is also considered that the uncharacteristic fencing seeks to deliberately isolate the occupiers from the rest of the community, contrary to the advice of the PPTS document, and has a detrimental impact on and causes substantial harm to the character and rural appearance of the area. The site has not been well planned or soft landscaped. However, some intervening trees and hedging in the wider area contribute towards limiting longer distance views of the site.

Location and Sustainability

Planning 98 adjoining bridleway that connects Pond Farm to Newells Lane. Given the nomadic habit of life associated with gypsies and travellers, a travelling distance of 30 minutes is considered to be appropriate, and would enable the occupiers of the site to access a reasonable range of local services and facilities.

Impact on the site of Special Nature Conservation Importance

Means of Access

Significant Conditions

Conclusion

Planning 99 Human Rights

Equalities

"In addition to the provisions of section 29 of the Act, s149 of the Act provides the following: Public sector equality duty:

(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:

Planning 100 RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

1 U81830 U81830 - Occupation Limition 2 U81831 U81831 - Time Limit - Temporary 3 U81832 U81832 - 2 caravans only 4 U81833 U81833 - sub of Site Dev. Scheme 5 U81834 U81834 - No commercial activity 6 U81835 U81835 - no 3.5 ton vehicles 7 U81836 U81836 - No burning stable waste 8 U81837 U81837 - No departure from plans 9 L09F Oil Tanks to be Bunded/Landscape

INFORMATIVES

10 W39F Contaminated Land 11 W44F Application Approved Without Amendment

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

Planning 101 Parish: Ward: Chidham & Hambrook Bosham

10. CH/13/02975/FUL

Proposal Application for retention of change of use of land to a single pitch Gypsy site for a 5 year period including stationing of one mobile home to provide settled accommodation.

Site PLOT F, POND FARM Newells Lane West Ashling Chichester PO18 8DF

Map Ref (E) 479694 (N) 106502

Applicant Mr Mark Gannaway

RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

Planning 102

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.2 The site, known as Plot F, comprises both a gravelled area containing the mobile home and ancillary structures, and a large, paddock to the west and southwest of the site. The main habitable area is bounded by screen fencing and comprises a mobile home, two timber storage buildings, and a former storage container presently used as stables. There is also a small enclosed area used as a horse corral. The western part of the site is bounded by post and rail fencing, open to the paddock beyond, which itself is bounded by post and rail fencing and heras fencing. Beyond the western boundary lies a mature field hedgrow, dividing the site from the neighbouring plot (Plot D).

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The application proposes the stationing of a mobile home on the site for a temporary period of 5 years for the sole use and occupation by gypsies.

11.0 History

00/00548/FUL ART25 Erection of 8 no timber stables with associated store.

98/01388/FUL REF Retention of 2 no site cabins and their use for residential purposes.

98/01644/FUL REF Erection of block of sixteen stables and establishment of stud farm.

98/01645/FUL REF Retention of access tracks and hardstanding.

99/01845/FUL REF Erection of block of fourteen stables: Tack room: Staff: Food and Hay Store and private ways.

06/05017/FUL REF Siting of 1 no. mobile home for settled gypsy accomodation. Siting of 1 no. touring caravan and installation of septic tank.

Planning 103 08/02883/FUL REF Stationing on the land 1 no. mobile home for settled gypsy accommodation, siting of 1 no. touring caravan. Retention of storage shed.

12/01266/FUL REF Full application for permanent retention of change of use of land to a single pitch Gypsy site including stationing of one mobile home to provide settled accommodation.

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO Conservation Area YES Rural Area NO AONB NO Strategic Gap YES Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO

SFRA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

Planning 104 bridleway, particularly with the proliferation of the use of all these plots at Pond Farm, all needing vehicular access.

As the District Council is attempting to establish the future need for new Gypsy and Traveller pitches within the District and also within the County, it would be premature to agree these planning applications until the results have been published. If temporary planning approval, albeit for a specified length of time, were to be granted, it would be very difficult to reverse that decision should circumstances change.

6.2 WSCC: Highways

WSCC was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under various planning application numbers to which objections and no objections have been raised.

The Highway Authority is aware that there have been concerns regarding visibility at the junction of the access track to Newells Lane. In these respects, the application site does have some relevant planning history, although this relates to planning application submitted in 2007/10. The Highway Authority did as part of this application site raise concerns regarding visibility at the junction of Newells Lane. However, since the previous application, national guidance on Traveller sites have changed. In addition, we are aware that at appeal of another recent application, the inspector raised no concerns with access onto Newells Lane. As such, this junction is considered to be adequate to accommodate the proposed movements arising from this proposal.

It should be noted that the public right of way takes precedence over any private rights of access; therefore vehicles using the bridleway for private access should give way to public users on foot, horseback and pedal cycle.

No highway objections would be raised in relation to this application.

6.3 CDC Environmental Strategy

As detailed within the survey, no Great Crested Newts are present on the site at present, though there is suitable habitat in the surrounding area. Due to the potential for Great Crested Newts and as proposed within the survey, we would like to see the following take place:

- Reduction in grazing intensity; - Removal of carp from the ponds; and, - A management plan to help manage the pond and surrounding habitat for wildlife.

6.4 Third Parties

No third party responses received

6.5 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information

Planning 105 Newts within the vicinity of the site. The report concluded limited prospect of such protected species in the vicinity of the two ponds surveyed.

7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan

Please see Planning Application 13/02949/FUL.

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are:

- Need for additional Traveller Pitches; - Location and Sustainability; - Impact on the site of Special Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI); - Means of Access; and, - Wider landscape Implications.

Assessment

Need for Additional Travellers Pitches

Location and Sustainability

Planning 106

Impact on the site of Special Nature Conservation Importance

8.6 The application has been submitted with a detailed Ecological Survey relating to Plot J and the pond adjacent to Newells Lane, which concluded that no newts of any description were identified on the site, with the only amphibians being tadpoles and the common toad. Given the relative distance between the site and the two ponds within the SNCI, it is considered unlikely that the retained use of the site for a limited period would have a detrimental impact on the nature conservation of the site.

Means of Access

Wider Landscape Implications

Significant Conditions

8.10 The application is considered acceptable, subject to a number of controlling conditions, including principally the granting of only a temporary 5 year consent, together with conditions relating to the siting of the touring caravans and the removal of all associated ancillary structures from the site after the 5 years, subject to the submission and approval of a future planning application.

Planning 107

Conclusion

Human Rights

Equalities

"In addition to the provisions of section 29 of the Act, s149 of the Act provides the following: Public sector equality duty:

(1) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:

Planning 108

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

1 U81843 U81843 - Occupation Limition 2 U81844 U81844 - Time Limit - Temporary 3 U81845 U81845 - 2 caravans only 4 U81846 U81846 - sub of Site Dev. Scheme 5 U81847 U81847 - No commercial activity 6 U81848 U81848 - no 3.5 ton vehicles 7 U81849 U81849 - No burning stable waste 8 U81850 U81850 - No departure from plans 9 L09F Oil Tanks to be Bunded/Landscape

INFORMATIVES

10 W39F Contaminated Land 11 W44F Application Approved Without Amendment

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

Planning 109 Parish: Ward: Chichester Chichester South

11. CC/13/02444/LBC

Proposal Conserve and re-instate C18th door frame and over light to its original position. Create a larger opening in west wall of original house (between kitchen and dining room).

Site Northgate House 38 North Street Chichester West Sussex PO19 1LX

Map Ref (E) 486085 (N) 105085

Applicant Mr & Mrs Bell

RECOMMENDATION TO REFUSE

Planning 110

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Red Card (Cllr Woolley) - Case Officer Recommends Refuse . A member has information/or an opinion that he wishes to raise in debate;

The Historic Buildings Adviser is opposing the restoration of a door to its historic position and the removal of about 1m of historic but much damaged wall to enlarge a source of natural light. I believe the proposal to be wholly reasonable.

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 38 North Street is a prominent and important building within the historic core of Chichester Conservation Area and is within a row of Grade II listed buildings lining the west side of one of the wide main streets (North Street). In the vicinity lies a Grade II * listed building (to the north of the site).

2.2 The building has pleasing and simple proportions, detailing, and much of the internal historic character and fabric remains.

2.3 The premises was one of the buildings that used to form part of the Prebendal School. The building has been subject to recent permissions for conversion to a single dwellinghouse, which are currently being implemented.

3.0 The proposal

3.1 The proposal involves the repositioning of an 18th century door and over light and the demolition of an original section of wall between the kitchen and a flat roof extension forming the dining room.

4.0 History

00/00710/LBC PER Fixing of hanging basket brackets to front elevations as shown on photographs and plans. Details (including dimensions and traditional material to be used) of brackets and fixings.

96/01136/LBC PER The restoration of the existing school building for use as a Pre Prep School including demolition and rebuild of second floor external wall fronting North Street, repair and replacement of internal structure and general refurbishment.

96/01956/LBC PER Repositioning of staff w.c. Removal of stud partition/opening up of original inglenook fireplace.

Planning 111 Removal of window. Installation of doorway to rear playground.

97/00686/TCA NOTPO Fell one Sycamore tree.

05/01770/LBC REF Installation of intruder alarm sounder housings on front and rear elevations.

07/04027/TCA NOTPO Notification of intention to crown reduce by 33% 1 no. Sycamore tree.

09/05085/LBC PER Redecoration of the frontage of the building to paint the walls white and the door red.

11/03332/COU PER Change of use at Northgate House from Educational use to office (B1). No material alterations are proposed as part of this application.

11/03335/COU PER Change of use at Northgate House from educational use to single dwelling house (C3). No material alterations are proposed as part of this application.

11/03336/LBC PER Internal alterations to form new door opening and toilets on ground floor; Removal of internal walls on first floor to enlarge teaching facilities; Second floor, remove internal walls, construct new walls and creation of on site staff accommodation.

12/03478/COU PER Change of use from D1 use (educational) to A1 use (retail) with no material alterations proposed.

13/01569/FUL PER Works to convert existing building to a single dwelling house in accordance with planning permission CC/11/03335/COU (change of use from educational use to dwelling house (C3)).

Planning 112

13/01570/LBC PER Works to convert existing building to a single dwelling house in accordance with planning permission CC/11/03335/COU (change of use from educational use to dwelling house (C3)).

13/02530/TCA NOTPO Notification of intention to fell 2 no. Sycamore trees (S1 and S2).

13/02444/LBC PDE Conserve and re-instate C18th door frame and over light to its original position. Create a larger opening in west wall of original house (between kitchen and dining room).

13/02888/DOC DOCDEC Discharge of Condition no 10 from permission CC/13/01570/LBC.

13/02945/DOC DOCDEC Discharge of Condition No.7 from permission CC/13/01570/LBC.

13/03627/DOC PCO Discharge of Condition No. 8 from permission CC/13/01570/LBC.

05/00334/CONLB CLOSED Enforcement Enquiry

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building Grade II Conservation Area Chichester Rural Area NO AONB NO Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO

SFRA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

No objection

Planning 113

6.2 CCAAC

Objection

Objection to the significant loss of historic fabric in the original back wall of the house. Whilst conservation of the historic door is welcomed it should be left where it is and brought back into use.

6.3 CDC - Historic Buildings Adviser 30th September 2013

Objection

This proposal results in the removal of a door, the loss of an historic opening and the loss of a masonry wall, all of which assist to describe the historic plan of the listed building. In its place would be left a large arbitrary opening without any historic proportion or reference that only serves to erode the plan. This loss is therefore considered detrimental to the special interest of the listed building, its fabric and history.

Fabric is a finite resource and where it is lost it cannot be replaced. Loss therefore requires significant justification, which is not apparent here. The proposed alteration is not fundamental to the function of the kitchen and dining room, or the overall use of the building as a house. English Heritage guidance states:

'179. The fabric will always be an important part of the asset's significance. Retention of as much historic fabric as possible is therefore a fundamental part of any good alteration or conversion, together with the use of appropriate materials and methods of repair. It is not appropriate to sacrifice old work simply to accommodate the new.'

With respect to the plan, English Heritage guidance also clearly states that this should be treated sympathetically and should be given the same weight as an external alteration:

'182. The plan form of a building is frequently one of its most important characteristics and internal partitions, staircases (whether decorated or plain, principal or secondary) and other features are likely to form part of its significance. Indeed they may be its most significant feature. Proposals to remove or modify internal arrangements, including the insertion of new openings or extension underground, will be subject to the same considerations of impact on significance (particularly architectural interest) as for externally visible alterations.'

It should be noted that retention of the door, doorway and wall were recommended during a pre-application enquiry and that this advice has largely been ignored. The re-use of the door is being considered here by the application to represent a level of mitigation, but is ultimately conjectural and therefore harmful.

6.4 CDC - Historic Buildings Adviser - Additional Comments 21st November 2013

I can confirm that the retention of the wall is vital to prevent further erosion of the floor plan, but that the repositioning of the door would be acceptable as long as it is being re-used within the listed building.

Planning 114

6.5 8 x Third Party Support a) In keeping with the historic character of the building b) Proposed works will help to preserve the listed buildings true identity c) Would allow door to be visible d) Improve access and living space e) Function effectively and efficiently f) Relocation of door will enhance the historic interest of the house g) Relocation of door will enhance the historic integrity of the building h) Works in accordance with NPPF which states that Local Planning Authorities should take into account ' the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significant of heritage assets and putting them to visible use consistent with their conservation' I therefore see no reason why the door should not be moved i) Owner of grade II* Listed building in Winchester supports the application j) Will improve the building as a whole k) The proposal would also allow the house to have a 21stC living space without detracting from the re-emerging ancient feel of the building

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.

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 BE4 Buildings of Architectural or Historic Merit BE5 Alterations to Listed Buildings BE6 Conservation Areas

Policy 47 Heritage

Planning 115

National Policy and Guidance

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

7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), paragraphs 126, 129, 131 and 132 (Conserving and Enhancing the Histric Environment).

Other Local Policy and Guidance

7.6 Planning for the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide 2010 (English Heritage)

7.7 Chichester Conservation Area Character Appraisal (the building is within Character Area 4)

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

A4 - The district to be known as a centre for creative and innovative industries building on our rich arts and heritage base B1 - Managing a changing environment

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The key issues in this case is whether the removal of the original wall would result in unacceptable harm to the character, appearance and the historic integrity of the designated Grade II Listed Building (Heritage Asset).

8.2 An alternative approach has been suggested to the applicant involving retention of the existing historic wall (i.e. retaining the original wall, as existing) and in effect creating a central pillar between the kitchen and the extension. The applicant has declined to make such an amendment and the application is to be determined as originally submitted.

Assessment

8.3 The original wall forms a remaining part of what would have been original external brick wall of the west elevation, and is an important delineation of the original layout of the building and its original form. Whilst, it is appreciated that two openings have been created in this

Planning 116 wall in the past, rather unsympathetically, this is not a reason to allow further unsympathetic works, and increases the importance and value of this remaining section of original wall.

8.4 Should this section of wall be removed it would result in a large arbitrary opening without any historic proportions and would erode the historic layout (plan). This loss would be detrimental to the special interest of the listed building, its fabric and history. Fabric is a finite resource and where it is lost, it cannot be replaced. Loss therefore requires significant justification. There is no justification submitted with this application would suggest the erosion of this historic character would be acceptable.

8.5 The proposed alteration is not fundamental to the function of the kitchen and dining room, or the overall use of the building as a house. Paragraph 179 of the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide 2010 (English Heritage), which is relevant, states;

'The fabric will always be an important part of the asset's significance. Retention of as much historic fabric as possible is therefore a fundamental part of any good alteration or conversion, together with the use of appropriate materials and methods of repair. It is not appropriate to sacrifice old work simply to accommodate the new.'

8.6 Paragraph 182 of this guidance also clearly states that internal alterations should be treated sympathetically and should be given the same weight as an external alterations:

'The plan form of a building is frequently one of its most important characteristics and internal partitions, staircases (whether decorated or plain, principal or secondary) and other features are likely to form part of its significance. Indeed they may be its most significant feature. Proposals to remove or modify internal arrangements, including the insertion of new openings or extension underground, will be subject to the same considerations of impact on significance (particularly architectural interest) as for externally visible alterations.'

8.7 The fact that this wall is now an internal feature does not reduce its significance. This is also highlighted in the objection received from the Council's Historic Buildings Advisor, which highlights the importance of conserving and enhancing designated Heritage Assets. Therefore, the loss of the remaining section of wall to allow a vast opening, and facilitate a more modern open plan living area, between the kitchen and the dining room, would result in harm to the character of the building, and would not conserve or enhance its character and appearance.

8.8 Parts of the wall include maintenance works that have not been carried out to a high standard; however, this is not a reason to allow its removal, nor is the proposal to reuse the bricks elsewhere in the building. The wall should be retained and maintained to a high standard.

8.9 The Historic Buildings Adviser has confirmed that the retention of the wall is vital to prevent further erosion of the floor plan, but that the repositioning of the door would be acceptable as long as it is being re-used within the listed building. Therefore, the relocation of the door would not, result in harm to the layout and historic fabric of the listed building, given the current circumstance. Whilst, there is no clear and convincing justification that this door was positioned here historically, this element of the proposal would not require significant loss of historic fabric and layout, and would re-use the historic door, doorframe and furnishings within the Listed Building. Therefore, the character and appearance would be conserved and enhanced by this element of the scheme.

Planning 117

Significant Conditions

8.10 The reason for refusal is proposed as follows;

8.11 The proposed removal of the wall, which forms important original fabric and is an important delineation of the original historic layout (plan) of the building and its original form, would result in harm to the character and appearance of this designated heritage asset. As such the proposal would be contrary to paragraphs 126, 129, 131 and 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework, saved policies BE4 and BE5 of the Chichester District Local Plan and the Historic Environment: Historic Environment Planning Practice Guide 2010 (English Heritage).

Conclusion

8.12 Based on the above assessment, it is considered the proposal does not comply with the local and national planning policies referred to above and that, this application should be refused.

Human Rights

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE

1 U81861 U81861 - Removal of wall wouId result in harm

INFORMATIVE

2 W16G Decision Plans

For further information on this application please contact Maria Tomlinson on 01243 534734

Planning 118 Parish: Ward: Chichester Chichester North

12. CC/13/03246/DOM

Proposal Two storey extension and pitched roof over porch.

Site 18 Wells Crescent Chichester West Sussex PO19 5EU

Map Ref (E) 485572 (N) 106064

Applicant Mr Peter Budge

RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

Planning 119 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

The applicant is an elected Member.

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The site is located on the eastern side of Wells Crescent, which is off Worcester Road, and the properties are arranged in a staggered pattern. The property is a two-storey detached dwelling with an attached flat roof garage to the northern elevation and a front porch. The external facing materials comprise brick elevations, a plain tiled roof and uPVC windows and doors. The rear garden is enclosed by fencing 1.8m high and there is a protected tree adjacent to the northern boundary. The grounds levels also increase from the rear elevation of the dwelling towards the eastern (rear) boundary. The front gardens along the eastern side of Wells Crescent are open plan and laid to lawn, with planting around.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The application seeks to erect a first floor and two-storey side extension above and behind the existing flat roof garage, which is situated along the northern elevation of the dwelling. The first floor extension above the garage would project forward of the principal elevation and have a hipped roof. The development also includes a mono-pitched over the existing front porch. The proposed external facing materials of the walls and roof would match the existing dwelling.

4.0 History

01/00858/TPO PER One Oak to be lopped by 20%.

09/04242/TPA PER Crown reduction of 33% and crown raise up to 3m (above ground level) on 1no. Oak tree within Group, G3 subject to CC/60/00126/TPO.

13/02042/DOM PER Retrospective application for the erection of a front porch.

Planning 120

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area NO AONB NO Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order YES South Downs National Park NO

SFRA Flood Zone NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

Chichester City Council has no objection.

6.2 Third Party Objections

One objection letter in relation to the original plans was received and the comments are summarised below:

• -Bulk/Overdevelopment - Extension will remove appearance of spacing between adjacent properties and therefore erode some of the overall spaciousness on the estate; • Loss of light/Visual intrusion - Close proximity of the extension will produce a considerable amount of extra shadowing, especially to the conservatory and at the rear of No.19. Effect increased by layout of the houses, which area staggered, and the fact that the extension extends almost to the rear of the property; • Loss of privacy - especially to back garden; • Bulk/Re-design - Plans show an unauthorised overhang from the roof of the extension; and • Visual appearance - Design and appearance of the extension is out of character with surrounding properties. The structure extends forward of the existing house line and the inclusion of the Juliet balcony seems quite inappropriate in this location.

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.

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

Planning 121 Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:

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

7.3 The Chichester District Draft Local Plan Key Policies - Preferred Approach has now concluded its public consultation period. The timetable going forward anticipates statutory publication of the pre-submission Local Plan in October/November 2013, formal submission to the Secretary of State in March 2014, examination in June 2014 and adoption in October 2014. The draft Local Plan is therefore a material consideration however given that it is at a very early stage, it only has limited weight. As it progresses through the local plan process towards adoption it will gain more weight. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant.

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 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); and

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

Planning 122 8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are:

- The impact on the appearance of the existing dwelling; - Impact on the visual amenity of the locality; - Neighbour amenity; and - Impact on protected tree.

Assessment

8.2 Design and Appearance

The original plans submitted indicated that the proposed side extension would have a pitched roof with hipped ends. The neighbouring occupier at 19 Wells Crescent raised concerns in relation to the design of the development and the fact that the extension would overhang the northern side boundary. Consequently the plans were amended to include alterations to the design and scale of the roof of the proposed extension.

The amended plans illustrate that the proposed extension would have a pitched roof with gable end, which would be set down from the main ridge of the dwelling. It would extend above the existing garage and thus project forward beyond the main two-storey element of the dwelling. The front projection would have hipped roof and include a Juliet balcony. As such the proposed development would alter the appearance of the existing dwelling. However, despite the difference in design, it is considered that with matching external facing materials, the proposed extension would not have an adverse impact on the character of this relatively modern dwelling.

8.3 Visual Amenity

The proposed first floor extension with hipped roof and Juliet balcony would reduce the visual gap between the properties 18 and 19 Wells Crescent and be visible from public vantage points in the immediate locality. However, a separation distance of 1m would remain between the proposed side extension and the southern elevation wall of 19 Wells Crescent. In addition the existing dwelling is set back from the highway and when viewed from the north of the site the extension would be partially screened by 19 Wells Crescent due to the staggered pattern of this row of dwellings.

The proposed external facing materials would also match the existing dwelling and thus further reduce the visual prominence of the first floor extension above the existing garage. The existing character of the surrounding locality is primarily residential and comprises two- storey dwellings; a number of which have been extended to include a variety of designs that have altered the appearance of the original buildings. In light of the above it is considered, therefore, that the proposed development would not cause a 'terracing effect' between the properties 18 and 19 Wells Crescent or detrimentally harm the visual amenity of the street scene and surrounding locality.

8.4 Neighbour Amenity

The row of two-storey detached dwellings along the eastern side of Wells Crescent is arranged in a staggered pattern with the rear elevation of No.19 set back from the host dwelling. The proposed side extension would be located to the south of 19 Wells Crescent and be situated along the side boundary. Consequently the proposed side extension would

Planning 123 be 1m from the two-storey southern elevation wall and 1.4m from the rear conservatory of 19 Wells Crescent. The neighbouring occupier at 19 Wells Crescent is concerned that the proximity of the development would be visually intrusive and cause a loss of light, particularly to the rear conservatory.

However, the proposed extension would be set back from the rear elevation of the existing dwelling by 0.65m. Therefore the proposed extension would not project beyond the rear elevation of the conservatory at 19 Wells Crescent. As such the proposed extension would not breach the 45° angle in respect of the neighbour's nearest rear-facing windows, which in accordance with the Design Guidelines for Alterations and Extensions to Dwellings is normally the maximum a two storey rear extension will be considered to be acceptable.

Given the height of the extension and its proximity to the boundary, the proposal would involve a noticeable increase in built form when viewed from the neighbouring property, 19 Wells Crescent. However, the rear elevation, together with the ridge and eastern roof slope of the proposed extension, would be set back and down from the existing dwelling. As such it is considered that the proposed extension would not detrimentally impact upon the neighbouring occupier's habitable rooms in terms loss of light and outlook. Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that the proposed extension would cause a small amount of overshadowing and loss of light to the adjacent conservatory and part of the rear garden, particularly during the late afternoons. However, given the siting of the host dwelling and the design of the extension, it is considered that any overshadowing or loss of light would not be so harmful as to warrant refusal of the application.

The proposed extension would include a southern side elevation window that overlooks neighbouring property, 17 Wells Crescent. However, the properties along the eastern side of Wells Crescent are arranged in a staggered pattern. Therefore, the front elevation of the neighbouring property, 17 Wells Crescent, is set back from the host dwelling and consequently the southern elevation window of the first floor extension would not overlook any habitable rooms. Furthermore given that the front gardens along Wells Crescent are open plan, it is considered that any overlooking of the front garden would impact upon the neighbour's amenity.

It is considered that the proposed development would not harm the amenity of the adjacent neighbours to the north, west and east of the site due to the siting and the separation distances involved.

8.5 Impact on Protected Tree

There is a large Oak tree in the rear garden adjacent to the northern boundary of the site is protected by a tree preservation order (60/00126/TPO). However, given the separation distance and the fact that the tree is located within a raised part of the rear garden, it is considered that the proposed extension would not harm its amenity or future health.

Significant Conditions

- Materials to match the existing external facing walls and roof the dwelling; - The northern elevation shall be glazed with obscure glass and be non-opening below 1.7m from the finished floor level; and - No additional windows or openings in the northern elevation of the extension without the permission of the Local Planning Authority.

Planning 124 Conclusion

The proposed extension would be in close proximity to the neighbouring property, 19 Wells Crescent. 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 U81979 U81979 - No Departure from Plans 3 U81980 U81980 - Materials to Match Existing 4 U81981 U81981 - Obscure Glazed Windows 5 U81982 U81982 - No Windows without Approval

INFORMATIVE

6 U81983 U81983 - Application Approved Following Revisions

For further information on this application please contact Anna Weir on 01243 543473

Planning 125

Agenda Item Report PC Report to Planning Committee Date of Committee 11 December 2013 By Assistant Director Development Management and Building Control Local Authority Chichester District Council

Application No: SDNP/13/04131/HOUS Validation Date 27 September 2013 Target Date: 22 November 2013 Applicant: Mrs Sarah Hunt-Jeffrey Proposal: Single storey extension of existing dwelling. Site Address Selham Station, Selham Road, Selham, Lodsworth, Petworth, West Sussex, GU28 0PN Purpose of Report The application is reported to Committee for a decision following the submission of a Red Card by Councillor John Elliot noting that architectural issues need to be discussed before committee.

Recommendation: That the application be REFUSE for the reasons and subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report.

Executive Summary

Selham Station is a disused railway station, converted to a dwelling, and is accessed via a 130m track from the Selham Road (C74) to the east. The property is within the defined Rural Area and the South Downs National Park.

This application seeks permission for the extension of the Station by proposing a building of exact size and design to be situated to the north of the existing Station, and connected by a glazed link. The 'H' plan that results from the parallel mirrored wing unacceptably compromises the small scale and linear layout of the site and is not therefore considered to be a subservient response to the heritage asset. The principle of an extension here is not considered unacceptable, but the current design does not protect this asset's modest and unique appearance. The application is therefore recommended for refusal.

1. Site Description

1.1 Selham Station was built in 1872. It was part of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway (LBSCR) line which opened in 1866. The Midhurst Line served stations at Pulborough, Fittleworth, Petworth, Selham and Midhurst, and Cocking, Singleton, Lavant and Chichester where it met with the south coast line. It was largely used for freight traffic such as milk and cattle. Selham Station was closed to passengers in 1955 and to freight in 1963 and the line serving Midhurst closed a year later.

Planning 126 1.2 Most surviving LBSCR stations are in a stripped-down Italianate manner and stucco rendered. Petworth, Fittleworth and Selham are examples of timber clad buildings, more akin to the local vernacular tradition. Selham Station comprises a rectangular, single-storey, weather-boarded building on a brick plinth beneath a hipped slate roof with deep eaves and decorative barge-boards. It has three brick chimney stacks, two internal, one to the gable. Windows are timber sashes in moulded frames, which appear to be original throughout although there has been some alteration or damage to the eastern end of the building.

1.3 It is lined internally in broad horizontal boarding, with a moulded dado rail in the waiting room. The room to the west retains what appears to be an internal hatch to the ticket office. Immediately to the west is a single-storey building, said to be a signal box but with the appearance of a store, also with decorative barge- boards. It does not have the attributes normally associated with a signal box, it is altered and in poor condition. The platform to the south also survives.

1.4 Since the original site visit, renovation works have taken place and the internal layout has been significantly changed. Most notably, a tongue and groove wall separating the ticket office at the western end has been removed and is now labelled as existing kitchen on the submitted plans. Planning permission was granted in 1989 (G/18/88) for conversion of the station building to form a single dwelling. It has been so used since about that time, and its established use remains as a single dwelling. At the time of granting permission, condition 3 of the 1989 planning permission withdrewPD rights for extension or alteration.

2. Relevant Planning History

• G/18/88 - Conversion of Selham Station to one single storey dwelling. (PERMIT - 4 Jan 1989)

• SDNP/12/00915/OUT - Demolition of old station house and construction of 1 no. 5 bedroom dwelling. (WITHDRAWN - 10 October 2012)

• SDNP/13/01656/PRE - Retention and conversion of redundant railway station into dwelling and extension to form extra accommodation. (CLOSED - 2 May 2013)

3. Proposal

3.1 This application seeks permission for the extension of Selham Station in order to increase the accommodation with two further bedrooms, a utility area and a study. The chosen concept is to mirror the existing building by a similar range parallel to it on its north side joined by a large linking element, which will provide the point of entry, a central circulation area and access to individual adjoining rooms. The new bedroom wing mimics the main elements of the design of the original part, including materials and appearance. A cellar is proposed under the new wing and is to be accessed from the central link area.

Planning 127 3.2 The proposed extension is to protrude 9 metres from the existing north elevation, with the bulk of the being 16 metres in width to mimic the size and scale of the existing Station building. Further to this, a flat roof utility extension is to be added to the west of the new range, adding further width of 5 metres.

4. Consultations

Parish Council Consultee: Graffham Parish Council supports this application.

Design & Implementation - Historic Buildings Advisor - CDC D: The Historic Buildings Adviser comments are highlighted as follows;

- The scale and scope of the existing building reflects its historic use as a small passenger station in the rural area and is inherently part of its special interest. Normally in these circumstances, the existing building should be capable of supporting the proposed use without the need for significant extension. In this instance, the proposed scheme more than doubles the footprint of the existing building.

- Whilst extension may not be problematic in principle, this should recognize the existing scale of the historic building and above all its significance as a railway station. A much more restrained and sympathetic approach would therefore be necessary.

- Although the current scheme generally retains the fabric of the existing building, the scale and position of the extension is demonstrably harmful to its special interest, distinctive character and the wider setting, and as such, does not meet the statutory tests regarding conservation of heritage assets or the first purpose of the South Downs National Park.

- On the basis of these concerns, I am afraid we remain strongly opposed to this scheme.

SDNPA Historic Building Officer (DB):

During my survey work at Selham for the forthcoming CA review, I recognised Selham Station as a highly significant heritage asset - an interesting and fairly intact early railway survival in its own right, but also an important reminder of the relatively brief interlude when the settlement was connected to the rail network. To my mind it makes a considerable contribution to the cultural heritage of the area, one which must be considered in the light of our cultural purposes. I think Chichester is clearly taking this responsibility seriously.

I am in general agreement with Ms Hall's assessment, which I have read carefully. I agree with her that an extension to the existing building is not objectionable in principle. However, a proper and fully sensitive response to the heritage asset could embrace a more broadly linear extension footprint, without undue compromise to the desired accommodation, which would better preserve the form and prominence of the original building.

Planning 128

5. Representations

5.1 Appendix C of the Supporting Statement includes 18no. letters of support for the proposal.

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

The following NPPF sections and paragraphs are relevant:

14 (Presumpton in favour of sustainable development) 17 (Core planning principles)

Chapter 7 Requiring good design

56 (Positive contribution) 61 (Integration of new development)

Chapter 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Planning 129 109 (Protection of landscape and biodiversity) 115 (National parks)

Chapter 12 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

126 (Conservation of heritage assets) 129 (Assessment of significance) 131 (Positive contribution) 132 (Significance of asset) 133 (Outweigh harm)

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 • CHBE11 (CH)New Development • CHBE12 (CH)Alterations, Extensions And Conversions • CHH12 (CH)Replacement Dwellings And Extensions in The Rural Area • CHRE1 (CH)Development In The Rural Area Generally

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 In order for a balanced opinion to be obtained on the proposed development, I consider the following determining Issues to be of most significance;

1. Principle of development 2. Design and Impact on the Heritage Asset 3. Impact on the South Downs National Park

1. Principle of development

8.2 Firstly, it should be noted that although permitted development rights have been removed under planning permission G/18/88, the proposed extension would not be subject to any form of deemed consent under The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended). The agent's supporting statement suggests that if it had not been for the removal of PD rights, the proposed extension would not require planning permission. However, this is incorrect; planning permission would be required as the extension would be more than half the width of the original dwellinghouse, and would extend beyond the side wall of the dwellinghouse - which is not permitted development within the SDNP.

8.3 Policy BE11 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure that development proposals are of a high design and make a worthwhile contribution towards maintaining or improving the quality of the environment of the district. Policy BE12 and H12 of the Local Plan requires that alterations and extensions to buildings are designed to take account of the design, scale, and character of the original building, its plot size and its setting. The proposal is for the extension of an existing residential

Planning 130 property and as such the principle of the development is acceptable, subject to all other relevant planning considerations and policies.

2. Design and Impact on the Heritage Asset

8.4 The building is not statutorily or locally listed and it lies outside the boundaries of the Selham Conservation Area. Nevertheless, it has been assessed by the Council's Historic Buildings Adviser that it is of sufficient local interest and overall merit to be considered as a Heritage Asset within the meaning of Annex 2 to Planning Policy Statement 5 (Planning for the Historic Environment) (PPS5), which is still of relevance. Policy HE7 of the PPS is therefore relevant and the building is worthy of special protection.

8.5 Whilst unlisted, English Heritages assessment of the building highlights that 'Selham Station is of some note as a relatively intact and increasingly rare survivor of a small timber station building of this type and date' and suggests that is of local importance. Its function as a station gives it social and historical interest, whilst its timber construction is of some architectural significance and provides the building with a strong and distinctive character. Under the terms of the NPPF the building is considered a 'Heritage Asset' and should be preserved in ways that retain its broader significance not only in terms of the asset itself, but also the wider cultural heritage of the SDNP. This view is strongly endorsed by both the Council's own Historic Buildings Adviser and the Historic Buildings Officer of the SDNPA.

8.6 Paragraph 126 of the NPPF puts forth the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation. Conservation Principles (English Heritage, 2008) defines conservation as 'the process of managing change to a significant place in its setting in ways that will best sustain its heritage values'. In this way, Conservation encompasses more than retention of fabric, and includes protection of the heritage values and setting of the place. Under these terms, development can only be considered sustainable as defined by the NPPF, where the result is not substantially detrimental to the fabric, character, and setting of a heritage asset(s).

8.7 The simplicity of the architecture is one of the characteristics of the building which gives it a distinctive appearance. The scale and scope of the existing building reflects its historic use as a small passenger station in the rural area and is inherently part of its special interest. Normally in these circumstances, the existing building should be capable of supporting the proposed use without the need for significant extension. In this instance, the proposed scheme more than doubles the footprint of the existing building. From the north, the extension would physically obscure and dominate the original elevation of the station building, which will be 'internalised' by the large link running the length of the building. In this context, the proposed development is not consistent with the buildings conservation (para 131 of the NPPF) and is contrary to the objectives of policies BE11, BE12 and H12 of the Local Plan.

Planning 131 8.8 The 'H' plan that results from the parallel mirrored wing is contrary to the distinctive linear layout of the building and is not considered a subservient response to the heritage asset. Also of concern is the scope and character of the 'link', which extends the majority of the length of the historic station. Internally, this is essentially a very large circulation space providing the 'living area'.

8.9 The Historic Buildings Adviser has highlighted the loss of the internal parcel office to the west end of the building as further evidence of the erosion of the intrinsic character of the Station. Given the heritage interest of the building, a more sensitive approach which seeks to retain such original features should be adopted.

8.10 Whilst extension may not be problematic in principle, this should recognise the existing scale of the historic building and above all its significance as a railway station. A much more restrained and sympathetic approach would therefore be necessary.

8.11 It should also be noted that the building is currently used as a private dwelling and as such, is capable of supporting such a use without the need for significant extension. In this way, the extension alone cannot be considered to facilitate re- use of a heritage asset, its restoration, nor does it necessarily secure its long term future. It is also worth noting that the building is not included on CDC's Heritage at Risk register. On this basis it is difficult to justify such extensive harm to the heritage asset, particularly within the National Park.

8.12 Unfortunately, these concerns raised at the PE stage (SDNP/13/01656/PRE) do not appear to have been considered, nor does the more proactive suggestion of exploring a more linear layout (based on personal circumstances). As previously stated:

8.13 It may be beneficial to explore a more linear layout with small lightweight links between the structures, and this approach has once again been pursued by officers during the course of the application.

3. Impact on the South Downs National Park

8.14 Policy BE11 states that new development within the district must not detract from its surroundings. For the reasons given above, the proposal is considered to be inconsistent with these objectives, and with the first purpose of the National Park designation, as set out in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area. Comments have been received in an email from the Historic Buildings Officer at the SDNPA which echo the opinion of CDC officers. Although the current scheme generally retains the fabric of the existing building, the scale and position of the extension is demonstrably harmful to its special interest, distinctive character and the wider setting. The absence of views of the property from publicly accessible locations is not sufficient to overcome that harm.

9. Conclusion

9.1 In conclusion, the proposal by reason of its siting and design would detract from the character and appearance of the original dwelling, a recognised heritage

Planning 132 asset. The extension would relate unsympathetically to Selham Station and fail to conserve the natural beauty and cultural heritage of the South Downs National Park.

Recommendation

1. It is recommended that the application be Refused for the following reason(s): subject to the conditions set out below

01. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed extension will detract from the primacy, the simplicity of it's appearance and setting of this modest Station building, and therefore cumulatively and individually, the proposed extensions are deemed to be unacceptable. The result will be an unbalanced development, which is overdominant and detrimental to the appearance of the Station and does not serve to protect the heritage values and setting of the place and the heritage asset itself. It would, therefore, be an incongruous feature which would be detrimental to the visual amenity, character and appearance of this area of the South Downs National Park. The proposal therefore conflicts with policies RE1, BE4, BE11, BE12 and H12 of the Chichester District Local Plan (First Review) (1999), the two purposes of designation of the South Downs National Park, and relevant chapters of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), in particular paragraph 133 whereby the public benefit of the extensions is not outweighed by substantial harm to this heritage asset.

Case Officer Details Name: Mark Webb Tel No: 01243 534734 Email: [email protected]

Planning 133

Appendix 1

Site Location Map

This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright (Not to Scale)

Planning 134

Agenda Item Report PC Report to Planning Committee Date of Committee 11 December 2013 By Assistant Director Development Management and Building Control Local Authority Chichester District Council

Application No: SDNP/13/04395/HOUS Validation Date 7 October 2013 Target Date: 2 December 2013 Applicant: Mrs Philippa Hardwick Proposal: Proposed construction of a desjoyaux pipe-free in-ground domestic swimming pool, 11m x 5m x 1.4m with desjoyaux patended integrated filtration system. Pool liner, access steps and overall automatic pool cover within the curtilage of the property. Site Address Springhead, Marley Lane, Camelsdale, Linchmere, Haslemere, West Sussex, GU27 3RE Purpose of Report The application is reported to Committee for a decision

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 application is to be determined by the Planning Committee as the applicant is a Member of the Council. Springhead is a Grade II Listed Building set within large, landscaped grounds and within the Camelsdale and Hammer Conservation Area. The proposal seeks to install a new swimming pool area (including the paved margin) measuring 7.2m wide x 15.8m in the western section of the garden, which is physically divided from the rest of the garden by a 3m high hedge. It is considered that the siting and integrated design of the development, being built into the natural slope of the land, will not result in any adverse impact to the setting of the host listed building and also preserves the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The development is also sited away from the mature trees within the site and will not pose a threat to their future health and amenity. As such the proposal is considered to comply with the applicable national and local plan policies.

Planning 135 1. Site Description

1.1 Springhead is sited close to the northern boundary of Chichester District, south of Shottermill Ponds and west of Marley Lane. The site lies within the Camelsdale and Hammer Conservation Area and just within the boundaries of the South Downs National Park. Springhead House is Grade II listed, and was originally a timber framed house dating from the 15th century. The property was extended in the C17, refaced and altered in the C18 and extended further in the C19 and C20. The dwelling as it currently stands comprises two floors with the first floor partly contained within the roof. The building is faced with coursed sandstone with galletting, red brick dressings and quoins, under a hipped clay tiled roof with small gablets. The east elevation has three gabled dormers and a gable roofed bay each with decorative and plain clay tile hanging. Two large chimneys are visible. There is a 2m tall historic stone wall to part of the north eastern boundary of the dwelling mostly concealed by ivy. Because of the existing mature hedging on the site boundaries and the vegetation within the verge to the east, only the roof of the dwelling is currently visible from Marley Lane. The dwelling is set close to the northern boundaries of the roughly triangular site that is approximately 168m when measured north to south. The garden lies to the south of the property rising up to the south and most notably up to the west. This western part of the garden contains a vegetable patch and is seperated by a 3m high hedge, with the land rising sharply to the western boundary.The existing vehicular access is 15m to the south east of the dwelling and provides access to Marley Lane (D class) via an unclassified road and public footpath known as Brinksway that runs parallel to the eastern boundary of Springhead southwards to Marley Common. There is an additional point of pedestrian access onto Marley Lane in the north eastern corner of the site. Marley Lane is a D class road.

2. Relevant Planning History

SDNP/13/02477/PRE - Replace derelict tanks/pool and pond and filtration system with semi-submerged swim unit and build shed for pump unit/changing - Pre-application Advice 201309/05087/DOM - Proposed timber gates onto Marley Lane - PER 201007/03369/LBC - Walls demolished, doors opened up and blocked in, level change removed, flat roof dormer replaced, oak framed glazed roof over existing courtyard, plastic guttering replaced with cast iron - PER 200797/01416/DOM - Demolition of greenhouses and erection of garage outbuilding with garden store/playroom above and modification of entrance gates - PER 1997

3. Proposal

3.1 This application seeks approval to install a 7.2m wide x 15.8m long swimming pool area consisting of a 11m x 5m x 1.4m 'desjoyaux in-ground pool' with associated access steps, pool cover and paved surface area. This development will be sited on the area of the existing vegetable patch and will involve digging into the land to create a depth of 1.4m resulting in the edge of pool being flush with the existing garden land.

3.2 According to the design brief, the 'The Desjoyaux pool wall system is made of Polypropylene interlocking chimney panels that wiÍl be in-filled with concrete. The pool will be finished with a white or grey pool liner and self contained, below

Planning 136 ground filtration system. There is no underground pipe-work, backwashing or pump house required with this system.'

4. Consultations

Parish Council Consultee: This application was considered by Lynchmere Parish Council Planning Committee at a meeting on 5th November 2013 and No objection is raised.

Tree Officer - CDC: Verbal response - No objection - recommend condition securing details of protective fencing to hedges and storage/access of machinery

5. Representations

None received

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

Sections 66 and 72 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation) Act 1990

The following NPPF sections and paragraphs are relevant:

Planning 137

14 (Presumpton in favour of sustainable development) 17 (Core planning principles)

Chapter 7 Requiring good design

56 (Positive contribution) 61 (Integration of new development)

Chapter 11 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

115 (National parks)

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

7. Planning Policy

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

• CHBE11 (CH)New Development • CHBE4 (CH)Buildings Of Architectural Or Histor • CHBE6 (CH)Conservation Areas • CHRE1 (CH)Development In The Rural Area Genera

8. Planning Assessment

Initially a proposal to 'replace derelict tanks/pool and pond and filtration system with semi-submerged swim unit and shed for pump unit/changing' was submitted for pre-application advice under reference number SDNP/13/02477/PRE. This was a smaller pool area than proposed being approximately 5.0m long x 3.0m wide and was to be sited at the southern end of the garden beyond the 'sunken garden'. Whilst no details were provided for the pump and changing unit the proposals were not considered to adversely impact on the setting of the Listed Building or the historic character of the Conservation Area and the rural surroundings of the site

This application seeks approval for a larger swimming pool (11m long x 5.0m wide) sited approximately 17 metres from the Listed Building in the western section of the garden, which is separated by a 3.0m high hedge. The main issues to be considered are the impact of the development on the listed building and the Conservation Area, and the effect of the development upon the trees on and adjacent to the site.

Notwithstanding the larger size of the proposed pool area, the majority of the development will be set into the slope of the land, with only the sandstone paved surfacing being above ground, which is to match the existing surface treatment of paving at the property. This design approach, coupled with its siting in an enclosed area of garden ensures that the development is visually separated from the Listed Building, therefore it is not considered to result in any adverse impact on the setting of the Listed Building or detract from its historic environs. The

Planning 138 proposed materials are referred to in the heritage statement therefore the imposition of an 'approved plans' and 'paving to match' condition are considered sufficient in this instance.

Although the property is within the Conservation Area it is well screened from public viewpoints by mature boundary vegetation, especially on the western boundary. Therefore in the context of its garden setting it is considered that the development would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The Conservation Area status offers some protection to the trees on site although none are protected by Tree Preservation Orders. A group of small trees and a laurel hedge lies to the south of proposed swimming pool. The swimming pool area lies 12.5m away from the trunk of the nearest tree (Horse Chestnut) to the south, which is considered sufficient distance so as not to interfere with its roots system when digging into the bank to construct the new pool. However, it is deemed necessary to request a method statement and protective fencing plan in order to protect the hedges to the east and south of the pool area, which lie within 6.0m and 10.0m respectively of the proposed development. The method statement should also include the proposed areas for storing materials and the access route of any diggers to be used. As such a condition will be added to secure these details. Subject to compliance with this condition the Council, and in particular the Tree Officer, are satisfied that the development will not be of risk to the health of the nearby trees and hedges.

In addition, whilst sections have been submitted to demonstrate the 'in ground' nature of the pool, the sections are not expressive enough to determine the extent of any excavation works into the natural slope of the site to show how the pool relates to the finished ground levels. Therefore it is considered appropriate to include a condition requiring details levels/section to show that relationship.

9. Conclusion

On balance, the proposal is considered suitable in terms of visual impact, effect on protected trees and impact upon the setting of a listed building. The character and appearance of the Conservation Area will be preserved. It is therefore recommended that the application is approved subject to appropriate conditions.

Recommendation

10. It is recommended that the application be Approved for the following reason(s):

01. 3 Year Time Limit

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

Planning 139

02. Approved Plans

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans listed below under the heading "Plans Referred to in Consideration of this Application".

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

03. Paving to match existing

The paving margin associated with the development hereby permitted shall be constructed using external materials to match, in all respects, those used for paving adjacent to the Listed Building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

04. Site Levels

Before development commences details, including plans and cross sections of the existing and proposed ground levels of the development, showing the relationship with natural ground levels and the proposed pool, shall be submitted to and approved by the SDNPA in writing. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory relationship between the new development and the sloping site.

05. Hedge Protection

The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until a method statement including plans where necessary detailing the impact on the adjacent hedgerows to the south and east of the development permitted, and the measures proposed to ensure these hedges are protected and no detriment is caused to them, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent damage to the adjacent hedges which help mitigate the visual impact of the development on the character and setting of the Listed Building.

Planning 140

INFORMATIVES

01. Added Value In reaching this decision the local planning authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive way, in line with the NPPF.

02. Discharge of conditions The applicant is reminded that the Council operate a formal procedure for the discharge of conditions. Details of this procedure can be found on the Council's website (http://www.chichester.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=8734) by telephone (01243 534734).

0.3 No Crime and Disorder Implications It is considered that this planning application does not raise any crime and disorder implications.

0.4 No Equalities Act 2010 Implications Due regard, where relevant, has been taken of the National Park Authority's equality duty as contained within the Equalities Act 2010.

05. No Human Rights Implications This planning application has been considered in light of statute and case law and any interference with an individual's human rights is considered to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised.

10. Crime and Disorder Implications

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

11. Human Rights Implications

This planning application has been considered in light of statute and case law and any interference with an individual's human rights is considered to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised.

12. Equalities Act 2010

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: Mr Robert Sims Tel No: 01243 534734 Email: [email protected]

Planning 141

Appendix 1

Site Location Map

This material has been reproduced from Ordnance Survey digital map data with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (c) Crown Copyright (Not to Scale)

Planning 142

Chichester District Council

Development Plan Panel Thursday 21st November 2013

Planning Committee 11th December 2013

Cabinet 7th January 2014

Update on Apuldram Wastewater Treatment Work and Wastewater Position Statement

1. Contact

Sue Payne - Planning Policy Officer Telephone: 01243 534722 E-mail: [email protected]

2. Recommendations

2.1 That prior to approval at Cabinet, Panel recommends the Wastewater Position Statement is forwarded to Planning Committee for information and endorsement.

2.2 That the Panel recommends to Cabinet that it adopts the Wastewater Position Statement (attached at Appendix 1) as the Council’s position with regard to future growth in the Apuldram catchment.

3. Background

3.1 The Apuldram Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) discharges to the head of Chichester Harbour, an area which is internationally designated for wildlife. Sewage is treated to a high standard and there are strict limits on the discharge consent to protect sensitive and important estuary environments and comply with legal obligations under the Habitats Regulations.

3.2 With current and proposed consent limits set at Best Available Technology (BAT) to meet European standards, growth at Apuldram WwTW is restricted to the current available headroom.

3.3 In addition to the above constraint, the Apuldram WwTW catchment is affected by a high level of groundwater infiltration into the sewer network. Monitoring of the flow through the WwTW has shown that infiltration rates are much higher than previously thought, which has resulted in the treatment works operating its storm overflow continuously for significant periods of time.

Planning 143

3.4 Whilst the storm overflows are diluted by the groundwater, there was concern that the frequency and duration of these events may be having a detrimental impact on the water quality of the Harbour. Following this, in August 2010, the Environment Agency issued a Position Statement advising the Council to refuse residential development if it would result in a significant increase in the net flow to the sewer network.

3.5 The Water Quality Group (Chichester District Council, Natural England, Southern Water, Environment Agency and Chichester Harbour Conservancy) has been working to focus on improving water quality in the harbour. The Group identified that the installation of ultra violet treatment on the storm water leaving the works could significantly improve the quality of the flows released into Chichester Harbour during storms and at times of high ground water levels. The UV scheme is currently being installed at a cost of £2 million; the UV plant will be able to treat up to 300 litres of storm water per second, the equivalent of 528 pints every second.

3.6 The Environment Agency has since withdrawn its position statement and its addendum dated September 2011. This now releases the headroom at Apuldram, although relevant planning permissions may need to restrict the commencement of development until such time as the UV has been installed (post March 2014).

3.7 The appended Position Statement sets out the Council’s position with regard to future planned growth and existing capacity at wastewater treatment works in the District, particularly relating to Apuldram WwTW.

3.8 To deliver the strategic growth in the Chichester Local Plan: Key Polices Pre- submission document, the plan is reliant on the upgrade of the Tangmere WwTW. Southern Water will be submitting its business plan to Ofwat in December 2013.

4. Appendices

4.1. Appendix 1 – Wastewater Position Statement

Planning 144 Appendix 1

Position Statement on Wastewater and Delivering Development in the Local Plan

October 2013

Planning 145

1. This background paper/position statement is a continuation of the background paper (Water Quality and Strategic Growth for Chichester District) written in November 2012 to inform the Local Plan Key Policies Preferred Approach.

2. It sets out the Council’s position with regard to future planned growth and existing capacity at wastewater treatment works in the District. The Housing Implementation Strategy (HIS) highlights that an obstacle to housing delivery early in the Plan period is the limited wastewater treatment capacity, prior to the proposed upgrade of the Tangmere WwTW in 2019. The proposed large strategic allocations are therefore not expected to be deliverable until after 2019, with the exception of Shopwyke where the majority of the proposed allocation now has outline planning permission.

3. This places importance on delivering housing on smaller sites in areas where wastewater capacity is available, particularly focusing on the settlement hubs of Southbourne, Selsey and East Wittering/Bracklesham and parish housing sites.

4. It was agreed by the Water Quality Group (WQG) to update Table 3 from the MWH study (Strategic Growth Study – Wastewater Treatment options for Chichester District) to have a more robust evidence base for the Local Plan Pre-submission and justification for the planned growth.

5. The WQG agreed to use the certified (MCERTS) measured flows averaged for all the 7 years available for the WwTW in the District, except this will be taken from 2009 for Apuldram, which only has MCERTS data for four years. This was agreed to be the best way forward for estimating the Dry Weather Flow (DWF) headroom at each wastewater treatment works. It is then possible for the headroom for new development to be calculated and used as evidence for the Local Plan. Owing to the particular infiltration issues at Apuldram the DWF headroom is irrelevant.

6. The tables below have been updated using the methodology agreed above to July 2012 and takes account of those sites that have received planning consent to 31st March 2013.

7. To ensure that the Council’s Local Plan is sound it is required to meet four tests, those being “positively prepared”, “justified”, “effective” and “consistent with national policy”. The Council consider that progressing with this paper/position statement is appropriate, when considering any reasonable alternatives.

8. The Wastewater Position Statement estimated remaining headroom figures will not match those in the Housing Implementation Strategy. This is owing to the Position Statement calculating housing numbers based only on those sites with planning permission since 1st April 2006 – 31st March 2013 that have not been built or commenced but are committed.

Planning 146 9. The Housing Implementation Strategy looks at potential sites within the settlement boundary (SHLAA) that could come forward and planning applications that are waiting determination.

Apuldram (Chichester) WwTW

10. The Environment Agency has withdrawn its position statement “Wastewater treatment capacity constraints on new development in Chichester city” dated August 2010 and its addendum dated September 2011. This will release the headroom at Apuldram, although it may be necessary to restrict the commencement of development until such time as the UV has been installed (post March 2014). This letter is appended below.

11. Apuldram WwTW is constrained by its need to discharge to Chichester Harbour and as highlighted in the Environment Agency letter, development beyond the remaining headroom could have a significant impact on the nitrogen loads and weed growth in the Harbour and therefore the release of the remaining headroom has been limited.

12. The Council would expect the following proposals for development in the Local Plan Key Policies – Pre-submission document to connect to Apuldram: development at Fishbourne Parish (50) development at Chichester City North (approximately 130) Chichester City allocation (150) allocations through the Chichester City Area Action Plan/windfall sites

13. This will reduce the headroom capacity at Apuldram and the release of the remaining headroom for further strategic sites would leave the Council in a position of being unable to deliver further growth. Therefore there will be a presumption that the strategic sites will connect to Tangmere.

14. To ensure that Southern Water has certainty to plan for future housing growth and to support to the 5 year Business Plan bid to Ofwat, strategic growth should be directed towards Tangmere WwTW as set out in the Pre- submission Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies.

Table 1 WwTW A - Estimated B - Estimated C - Estimated D - Number of Catchment existing permit existing remaining dwellings headroom headroom headroom committed at (households) at (households) at (households) at 31st March 2013 April 2006 July 20121 31st March 2013 (MWH Study) (B-D- 330 (commitment in the Local Plan) =C) Chichester (see 3000 770 170 270 appended Environment Agency letter)

1 Estimated existing permit headroom based on assumed flow returned to sewer per new household of 500 litres/property/day. Headroom is calculated in terms of households but any additional flows, including from commercial development, will erode the headroom.

Planning 147 Tangmere and other WwTW in the District

15. The Council’s Pre-submission Local Plan directs strategic growth to connect to Tangmere WwTW. The upgrade of this works is subject to Ofwat approval (December 2014) with the works being operational in 2019.

16. As shown in Table 2 below, the approval of the Shopwyke Lakes planning application, Westhampnett and other sites in Tangmere up to 31st March 2013, has taken up the majority of the remaining headroom at the works. Although these sites are anticipated to have phased delivery, the Council acknowledges that these are committed to connect to Tangmere WwTW unless there is any material change in circumstances.

Table 2 WwTW A - Estimated B - Estimated C - Estimated D - Number of Catchment existing permit existing remaining dwellings headroom headroom headroom committed at (households) at (households) at (households) 31st March April 2006 July 20122 at 31st March 2013 (MWH Study) Southern Water 2013 (B-D=C)

Bosham 297 400 397 3 Kirdford Not assessed 60 60 Loxwood3 Not assessed 80 80 Pagham4 233 700 663 37 Sidlesham 1208 1,000 894 106 Tangmere 843 800 21 (up to 3,000 779 following Ofwat approval for upgrade to works post 2019) Thornham5 554 1,700 1678 22 Wisborough Not assessed 200 200 0 Green

Lavant 1,397 1,900 1,900 0

2 Estimated existing permit headroom based on assumed flow returned to sewer per new household of 500 litres/property/day. Headroom is calculated in terms of households but any additional flows, including from commercial development, will erode the headroom. 3 Part of the catchment falls within Waverley. Development in this area will also take up headroom. 4 Part of the catchment falls within Arun. Development in this area will also take up headroom. 5 Part of the catchment falls within Havant. Development in this area will also take up headroom.

Planning 148

Steve Carvell and Amanda Jobling Our ref: Chichester PS Chichester District Council East Pallant House 1 East Pallant Date: 16th September 2013 Chichester West Sussex PO19 1TY

Dear Steve and Amanda,

Environment Agency Position Statement – Planning and Wastewater Treatment

Further to conversations with your officers I am writing to confirm that we wish to withdraw our position statement “Wastewater treatment capacity constraints on new development in Chichester city” dated August 2010 and its addendum dated September 2011.

Our Position Statement was published due to concerns with storm discharges from Apuldram Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW). As you will be aware through the Chichester Water Quality Group we have been working with yourselves and other partners to address this. One of the outcomes will be the installation of ultra-violet (UV) treatment on the storm overflow to mitigate its impact on the Harbour. It is expected that this will be operational from spring 2014.

The main discharge from the Apuldram WwTW is already subject to UV treatment. Installing this type of treatment on the storm overflow will reduce the bacteria levels entering the Harbour but will not address the nitrogen load.

It is accepted by both the Environment Agency and Natural England that the total discharge from the storm overflow is likely to be having a significant effect on the European designated site at certain times.

We are continuing to work with our partners through the Chichester Water Quality Group to address this and have issued Southern Water with an enforcement notice under the Environmental Permitting Regulations. The enforcement notice introduced a requirement for Southern Water to implement the proposed UV treatment plant on the storm overflow, imposed a schedule for reporting on progress of the sewer investigation programme and required the company to investigate the environmental impact of the storm discharge.

The Apuldram WwTW has some remaining headroom within its current permit. We have undertaken modelling work to understand the impact of releasing some of this headroom following installation of the UV treatment. This modelling has solely looked at the impact the extra headroom flow would have on the volume and frequency of discharges from the storm overflow and its impact on the nitrogen loading and subsequent weed growth in the Harbour.

Planning 149 The modelling demonstrated that the additional nitrogen discharged through the storm overflow when a flow of 385 m3/day is added to the WwTW would have an insignificant impact on weed growth. In discussion with Natural England we have agreed that this headroom could be made available for development that would be occupied once the UV treatment is operational.

A volumetric headroom of 385 m3/day equates to approximately 700 dwellings. We would recommend that you have discussions with Southern Water as to how you monitor any planning permission granted.

Any development beyond this headroom, under current catchment conditions, would have a significant impact on the nitrogen loads and weed growth in the Harbour. Once this headroom is reached we would therefore revisit our position and may reinstate our current advice to refuse development that results in a significant increase in the net flow to the sewer network.

We would advise any planning permission granted within this catchment to be conditioned for occupancy following the operation of the UV treatment on the storm overflow. We will work with your officers to agree consultation arrangements and specific wording for conditions.

I trust that the above sets out clearly our current position regarding development in the Apuldram WwTW catchment. If you would like to discuss anything in more detail please do contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Hannah Hyland Sustainable Places – Planning Specialist

Planning 150 PLANNING COMMITTEE 11 December 2013

Report of Assistant Director, Development Management and Building Control

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 Proposal Procedure

CC/13/00288/FUL Car Park, The Woolstaplers, Chichester - erection of 16no later living apartments with H basement car parking. Access to the car park from access road off The Woolstaplers, (C Dawes) Chichester.

CC/13/02061/FUL Site at rear of 39-45 Cleveland Road, Chichester - demolition of garages and re-development WR of site to provide 3no x 3 bedroom terraced houses and 1no x 2 bedroom flat over new (C Dawes) garages to serve the dwellings.

CC/13/02076/FUL PamPurredPets, Unit 8, Chichester Trade Centre, Quarry Lane, Chichester - variation of WR condition 2 of planning permission CC/09/04992/FUL. (N Langford)

Planning 151 Reference Proposal Procedure

CC/13/02545/DOM The Chapel, Dempsey Road, Chichester - construction of garage. WR (M Tomlinson)

CH/12/04778/FUL Land west of Broad Road, Broad Road, Hambrook - construction of 28 no dwellings, new I vehicular access, open space and other ancillary works. (N Langford)

CH/12/02732/FUL Plot B, Pond Farm, Newells Lane, West Ashling - removal of condition 3 attached to appeal H decision reference APP/L3815/A/33/2153947 (LPA reference CH/10/04468/FUL) to allow (S Archer) permanent permission for the use of the land as a single pitch gypsy site.

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

FB/13/01908/FUL Hillier Garden Centre, Main Road, Bosham - construction of a timber framed building for A1 WR use as picture framing business attached to an existing established garden centre. (N McKellar)

FU/13/01096/OUT Land south of Salthill House, Salthill Road, Chichester - outline application for a detached WR single storey dwelling. (P Kneen)

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

HN/13/02904/FUL 10 Oakview, Selsey Road, Hunston - erection of attached dwelling. WR (M Tomlinson)

SI/11/00051/CONMHC Bird Pond Cottage, Selsey Road, Sidlesham - stationing of a mobile home for the purposes of WR human habitation – Appeal against Enforcement Notice. (R Hawks)

SB/13/01911/DOM 5 Langstone Gardens, Nutbourne - two front facing dormers and one rear facing dormer. WR (P Kneen)

WE/12/04779/FUL Land south west of Cemetery Lane, Westbourne - development of the site by the erection of I 28 dwellings (2 x one bedroom, 10 x two bedroom, 5 x three bedroom and 11 x four bedroom) (J Bell) with associated access from Foxbury Lane, parking and landscaping.

Planning 152 Reference Proposal Procedure

WH/13/01681/LBC 8 Westerton, Chichester - internal alteration including removing and re-building of chimney WR breast and flue. (R Sims)

2. DECISIONS RECEIVED

Reference Proposal Decision

SDNP/12/00977/FUL 210 A286 The Croft to Bex Lane, Cocking Causeway, Cocking, Midhurst - construction of a DISMISSED (Cocking) single dwelling including parking and access.

“ ... the setting of the listed building and the character and appearance of the Cocking Conservation Area ... Historic maps indicate that this openness of the plot is long-standing but that considerable changes have taken place in the surrounding area ... Although of a somewhat unkempt garden appearance, this element of countryside within the surroundings in which the building is experienced contributes to it a sense of rural isolation and distinctiveness of place despite the location within a village ... the proposed new house would strongly challenge the existing spatial dominance of the listed building ... The overall result would be a materials erosion in the contribution made by the setting to the building’s significance as set out above, and a consequent loss of significance. With the role played by individual historic buildings in the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, the significance of that would be harmed in a similar way ... There is a local shortfall in housing land supply, and the provision of a new dwelling would be welcome in that context. However, the policy basis for the conservation of heritage assets remains up-to-date. It is suggested that for upkeep of the garden, but there is no evidence that other options have been explored in this respect. The public benefits in this case do not outweigh the heritage harm ...”

Planning 153 Reference Proposal Decision

SDNP/12/00109/ Land at Round Barrow, Woolavington Down, Beechwood Lane, East Lavington - Without DISMISSED UNAWKS planning permission, the excavation of earth to form mounds and ditches (either side a public (East Lavington) right of way) - appeal against Enforcement Notice.

"...The appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice is upheld... The undisputed evidence is that the operations involved in the construction of the mounds and ditches referred to in the notice amounts to development. However, the appellant company's main argument is that the development benefits from permitted development...The contention is that the mounds and ditches physically enclose land and are a means of enclosure...two ditches have been created either side of a public footpath: they are 0.5m deep. Two 230m long 0.5m high mounds have been created which run along the ditches. The overall combined height of the enclosure is 1m...the nature and type of work involved in the construction of the mounds and ditches can reasonably be described as an engineering operation... I find that the alleged development does not benefit from PD rights set out in Part 2, Class A of the GPDO...There is no ground (a) appeal and so these considerations are not pertinent to my decision on ground (c)... I conclude that the appeal should not succeed"

Planning 154 KD/13/00187/FUL The Workshop, Kirdford, Billingshurst - change of use and associated works including DISMISSED extensions to existing workshop to create new residential dwelling unit. COSTS REFUSED “ ... The appellant has provided an alternative scheme in the event that there are concerns about the bulk and scale of development. However, given the nature of the proposal the alternative scheme is a substantial change, in accord with the Wheatcroft principles I do not therefore propose to consider this alternative ... no further consultation has taken place and there are no representations from either the Council or third parties on this matter which could potentially lead to unfairness ... it is clear to me that the extensions would substantially increase the built form of this small building and given its exposed and prominent location this would be readily evident in the street. The significant consolidation of built form in this location would increase the sense of development in a location outside the settlement boundary as the village gives way to open countryside to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. An effect that would be further pronounced by the formalisation of the definition of an enclosed curtilage for use as an amenity space for the dwelling and the associated paraphernalia ... the restriction of the use of a garden for ancillary domestic purposes associated with a dwelling ... would be unreasonable ... the proposals would also materially conflict with Policy RE5 as it would harm the distinctive character and special quality of the landscape and settlement pattern. There is also no support for the proposal from Policy RE14 as the proposal provides for significant extensions and these would not be in-keeping with the surroundings...Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework advises Local Planning Authorities to resist new isolated homes in the countryside unless special circumstances exist. The proposal does not meet any of the suggested circumstances and in particular given its present use it is not a redundant or disused building and the proposals would not lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting ... The Development Plan policies do in part conflict with The Framework, particularly in their negative formulation, however the policies do embody the core planning principles of respecting the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, encourage the conversion of existing buildings ... conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance and sustainability. On this basis the degree of conflict with The Framework is limited and thereby also the weight to be given to that conflict ... the continued occupation by a local business is significant in that it is evidently meeting a need ... Paragraph 51 of The Framework ... is linked to bringing back empty housing and buildings and the proposed building is not empty ... The lack of a 5 year housing supply and that the proposal provides for an additional housing unit are significant issues

Planning 155 however in the circumstances of this case I am of the view that the provision of one additional unit is not sufficient to outweigh the material harm ... the potential change of use from an office to residential ... in my view the limited size of the current building would not lend itself to such a change and therefore I have attached limited weight to that contention ...”

Application for an award of costs is refused ... a matter of judgement where costs are unlikely to be awarded having regard to paragraph B18 of the Circular ... In terms of the consistency with The Framework I have concluded in my decision on the substantive appeal that there is only limited inconsistency and that the policies are in line with the core principles of The Framework. The consideration of the scheme and decision notice refer to The Framework which was a material consideration that was considered in the determination of the application...matters that were of concern to the Council would not have been addressed by restricting permitted development and a more onerous condition would have been unreasonable of itself. In this regard therefore it was not appropriate to condition that matter...The basis of seeking to protect an existing business to support the rural economy is in line with The Framework and development plan policy. The reason for refusal and the Council's case sufficiently identified the concern and the basis for it. Whilst detailed information on the level of demand and availability would have helpfully assisted the consideration of the issue I do not consider that its absence was such that it prevented the appellant from understanding the Council’s case or the basis on which it was made ... whilst the Council’s case was relatively superficial it was grounded in fact, sufficiently specific and relevant to the case and it was not unreasonable to promote the case...In considering planning applications Local Planning Authorities must balance seeking appropriate solutions and making decisions in a timely manner. This is most appropriately done by the Local Planning Authority...engaging in pre-application advice ... the appellant did not engage with the Council’s pre-application service. There are no specific uses of conflict or actions identified by the appellant where the Council could be described as having acted contrary to such advice or previous decisions which may constitute unreasonable behaviour ...”

Planning 156 Reference Proposal Decision

LX/12/04770/FUL Oakhurst Farm, Oakhurst Lane, Loxwood - erection of garage block, stables and machinery/ ALLOWED hay store (revision to permission LX/12/02569/FUL for relocation of garage doors).

“ ... The main issue is the effect the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area and on the setting of the adjacent listed buildings. The appeal site is in a relatively isolated rural setting at the end of Oakhurst Lane and includes a number of farm buildings, incorporating two Grade II Listed structures. Together with the adjacent Grade II Listed farmhouse these form the farmstead of Oakhurst farm. The significance of the heritage assets relate to their architectural interest and good quality contemporary joinery. The statement of importance in the listing for the farmhouse also notes ‘... the ensemble is characterful and groups well with the listed C18 barn’. The West Sussex Border Path (WSBP), a public right of way which has recently been diverted, runs around the east and south of the site ... That part of the proposed building most open to public view would be the machinery and hay store. This is the taller and more dominant of the two elements of the building and with its form, detailing and materials reflecting that of the existing barn it produces a distinct rural agricultural appearance ...In combination the scale, bulk and profile of the buildings would be compatible with the collection of farm buildings on the site and would not appear excessively dominant. The east elevation of the garage and stable block would be effectively screened from public view by the recently erected fencing, the orientation of the building and the relationship with the machinery and hay store ... The L-shaped footprint of the proposal would also result in the inner courtyard elevation of the garage and stable block being effectively screened from the public’s view by the machinery and hay store. Visually the treatment of the garage doors on this inner court yard facade integrates with those on the rear facade of the machinery and hay store albeit there are differences in scale. I find that the building as a whole is not overly dominant, not domestic in appearance and reasonably screened from public view, particularly the main elevations of the garage and stable block. In combination with the collection of other buildings the group would maintain the appearance of general rural farm buildings ... The proposed structure is sympathetic in terms of scale and bulk and maintains the open grain of the historic layout of the farmstead ... I have not been provided with any convincing evidence to substantiate the Council's concern that the manoeuvring space within the enclosed part of the yard and the fenestration detailing would be inadequate for the activities that would be occasioned through the proposed uses of the building. For the reasons given above I find that the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area not to the setting of the

Planning 157 Reference Proposal Decision

adjacent listed buildings. In consequence I do not find that there is conflict with Policies RE1, RE5 and BE11 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999, which seek to protect rural character and local distinctiveness. Moreover the proposals are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework’s approach in terms of recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, securing quality design and conserving and enhancing the historic environment. I therefore conclude the appeal should succeed ... use of materials, the use of the building, burning of materials, disposal of waste water and lighting. I am satisfied that these would be necessary and reasonable to protect the character and appearance of the area, the local environment and to control the overall use of the site ...”

SDNP/12/00017/FUL Coloured Ponds, Bull Hill, Rogate - new entrance walls and gates. ALLOWED (Rogate) “ ... The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of new entrance walls and gates at MBK Leisure, Coloured Ponds, Rogate ... effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area...secluded in its appearance ... a short driveway ... neglected and untidy gates across the site entrance ... These are described as being ‘overtly urban and domestic in character’ ... development must be considered in the context of its effects on the local environment ... I am mindful that gates and other structures already exist on the site ... I agree with its analysis of the situation in that only limited weight can be given to that consideration at the present time ... I do not consider that works would be very eye- catching or prominent in this set-back position ... development would not cause any significant harm to the character and appearance of the area ... general compliance with both the Framework and Policy BE11 of the Local Plan ... I conclude that this appeal should be allowed.”

SB/12/00226/ Ickleberry Paddock. Thornham Lane, Emsworth - change of use to mixed use of equestrian ALLOWED CONDWE and stationing of a mobile home for purposes of human habitation and residential use of building. Appeal against Enforcement Notice.

"...The appellant's residential occupation is related to the use of his overall site for the stabling and grazing of horses...there is some functional and physical connection between these areas. It seems likely, as a matter of fact and degree, that the area identified in Notice A is the planning unit... At the Inquiry, the appellant was unequivocal in stating that he had been living in the timber building since the summer of 2005... On the balance of probability, I am satisfied that the appellant's account of the initial construction and use of the timber building and the Planning 158 timescales for the installation of facilities and actual use as a dwelling is true. However, the Council contends that a correct interpretation of the facts and a proper application of Welwyn and Hatfield mean that the appellant still does not benefit from the 4 year immunity period under section 171B(2)... Notwithstanding inconsistencies in the appellant's written evidence and his oral evidence on oath, I have accepted, on the balance of probability, that the appellant intended to build a timber building for use as storage shed and that building was completed in early April 2005...This scenario is materially different from that in Welwyn and Hatfield and the appellant's case does not depend on the artificial concept of a nil use upon completion of a dwelling and then a change to actual dwellinghouse use when it is occupied a few days later...Accordingly, the appeal against Notice B succeeds on ground (d) and Notice B will be quashed. Furthermore, the mixed use analysis, upon which Notice A is founded, is unsound. The Council concedes that the allegation cannot be corrected without injustice and I will therefore quash Notice A, having been invited to do so by the Council... Appeal A: The appeal is allowed and the enforcement notice is quashed. Appeal B: The appeal is allowed and the enforcement notice is quashed."

SI/12/03584/FUL Windward Nursery, Chalk Lane, Sidlesham - proposed erection of agricultural dwelling. DISMISSED PARTIAL “ ... Both parties agreed that paragraph 55 of the Framework applies to the proposed COSTS development ... The nursery specialises in producing olives and olive products but a significant AWARDED TO part of the turnover is the propagation of vegetable plants and to a lesser extent bedding CDC plants ... Paragraph 55 of the Framework says that new isolated homes in the countryside should be avoided unless there are special circumstances such as the essential need for a

Planning 159 Reference Proposal Decision

rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside ... Although the tests set out in PPS7 have now been superseded by the Framework, the statements of both the parties have sought to demonstrate whether or not there is an essential need by reference to those former functional and financial tests. I consider that this approach does provide an objective, systematic and methodical way of deciding whether or not the need is essential ... The appellant says that an on-site presence is also required to undertake manual watering and ventilation in the large Venlo ... However in my experience the use of automatic roof vents and watering systems is common, even in domestic greenhouses, and significantly reduces the risk of crops loss ... the main storage buildings did not appear to be secured at the time of my visit ... The appellant also confirmed that she and her husband own a house at Elmer, which has been let but is currently empty. I was told that this is about 30 minutes travelling time from Windward Nursery. Therefore there appear to be realistic alternatives to an on-site dwelling that could be utilised without significant risk or harm to the enterprise ... I conclude that the nature of the horticultural activity on the holding does not indicate that an on- site dwelling is essential to the operation of the business on this site ... Since 2011, the turnover has been broken down to show the contribution of various crops. The appellant conceded at the Hearing that she did not have confidence in the Business Plan ... I can give the Business Plan very little weight in my decision and do not consider that it provides cogent evidence of the future sustainability of the horticultural enterprise ... the appellant, who provided the information for the accounts, was unable to comment on various entries and appeared unclear about several values recorded. This reduces the weight that can be given to such accounts, because it undermines the cogency of the base line information ... the Marshall report concludes that there is little evidence of recent capital investment in the enterprise ... I conclude there is no clear prospect of, or commitment to, the long term financial future of the holding ... the principal findings of the Marshall report, ... the crops grown of not require a permanent on-site presence; that there is little or no evidence of capital investment in the buildings; and that the long term development and financial standing of the business remains unclear ... I give significant weight to the Framework and accordingly find that the

Planning 160 Reference Proposal Decision

proposed development would seriously conflict with paragraph 55 of the guidance ... the proposed dwelling would not be in accordance with any of the special circumstances set out in the Framework and thus would significantly undermine the core aims of sustainable development ... COSTS DECISION The appellant said that the officers for Chichester District Council acted unreasonably by misinterpreting the information given to them. They also applied one standard to similar application on the locality and another to Windward Nursery ... The Council responded that there is no evidence that it has misrepresented the appellant’s case provided at the Hearing and an organisation with another application is not relevant to this appeal. The appellant had conceded that her business plan does not fairly represent the enterprise ... I do not agree that there is cogent evidence that the assessment of the appeal proposals was inconsistent with established practice. The determination of planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise and therefore the planning merits must be assessed on a case by case basis. Consequently I find no evidence of unreasonable behaviour ... The Council said that the appellant submitted a Business Plan as an essential and fundamental part of her case. However during the Hearing the appellant conceded that it had little or no material value and did not represent the proposed operation of the enterprise. This is unreasonable behaviour and resulted in unnecessary costs of wasted Council officer time and that of the Agricultural Advisor who assessed the Business Plan ...”

SB/12/00431/ Land south of 8 West View Cottages, Southbourne - Change of use of land from agricultural to DISMISSED CONENF residential garden. Appeal against Enforcement Notice.

"...The notice is corrected by the deletion of the words "close board"...the appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice is upheld... The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the countryside...The land has been enclosed at the front and on the south side by a close boarded fence, with vehicular gate opening out onto South Lane...the fencing still appears domestic in character and consist sharply with the roadside hedge which encloses the land to the south...this constitutes the same kind of obvious visual enrichment into the countryside which the previous Inspector found to be harmful to the rural character of this particular area...part of the site may be used for parking. Any vehicles parked on the site would be likely to be visible from the road, and would add to the discordant appearance of the site. The tree planting which has taken place within the site includes a willow and monkey puzzle tree, the latter being especially associated with gardens... these factors in combination Planning 161 lead me to the view that the garden use of the site represents the encroachment of domestic activity into the countryside, sufficient to alert the attractive rural character of the gap between West View Cottages and the houses in Hither Green to the south...the development causes material harm to the character and appearance of the countryside, and conflicts with saved policies RE1 and BE11 of teh DLP...The purpose of issuing the notice is to the breach of planning control to be remedied, rather than to alleviate any injury to amenity...Even though the storage container and outbuildings have been removed, the requirements to seek their removal should not be deleted so as to have force should they be returned to the site. The notice does no more than require the breach to be remedied, and thus the appeal on ground (f) fails... COSTS DECISION ...The application is refused...the reduction in the height of the fence, was a significant change in circumstances, relating to one of the features that the previous Inspector specifically found to have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. I have no doubt that the removal of the storage container would also have resulted in a material change in the appearance of the site...I consider that the appellant's arguments were not so devoid of substance as to make his behaviour unreasonable...In the absence of unreasonable behaviour on the part of the appellant, the application for an award of costs must fail..."

3. OUTSTANDING APPEALS

Reference Proposal Procedure Status

BI/12/04147/OUT Land at Tawny Nurseries, Bell Lane, Birdham - residential development up H Awaiting to 30 dwellings including new access road, parking and associated garaging, (J Bushell) decision open space and play area (incorporates 12 affordable dwellings).

BX/11/00276/CONMHC Oakwood Livery Yard, Tinwood Lane, Halnaker - stationing of a mobile WR In progress home - appeal against Enforcement Notice. (R Hawks)

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

CC/12/00377/CONCOU Land west of 1 Kings Avenue, Chichester - change of use of land to storage WR In progress of building materials - appeal against Enforcement Notice. (S Archer)

Planning 162 Reference Proposal Procedure Status

CC/12/02877/ELD Heronwood, Pine Grove, Chichester - Lawful Development Certificate for I In progress use of existing land as garden land to the incidental enjoyment of the (T Whitty) dwellinghouse known as Heronwood, Pine Grove, Chichester.

CC/12/04127/FUL 2A Pound Farm Road, Chichester - one detached one bedroom bungalow. WR In progress (M Pickup)

CH/12/03556/FUL The Three Horseshoes, Plot C2, Pond Farm, Newells Lane, West Ashling - H In progress proposed stationing of a mobile home for occupation by a traveller (as (S Archer) defined in Planning Policy for Traveller Sites)

CH/12/03612/ELD Plot C, Pond Farm, Newells Lane, West Ashling - Certificate of Existing I Inquiry to be held Lawful Development in respect of hard standings, stables, pigeon lofts and (S Archer) on 28 Jan 2014 sheds having been in situ for more than four years. in The Assembly Rooms at 10am CH/13/00064/CONTRV Paddock View, Drift Lane, Chidham - timber building and use of land for the H Inquiry to be held storage of building materials and equipment. (S Archer) on 18 Mar 2014 in Committee Room 2 at 10am SDNP/12/00055/FUL Watergate Barn, Lockash Lane, West Marden - change of use of existing WR In progress (Compton) barn to B1 for production of mayonnaise and other products from rapeseed (N Langford) oil.

E/12/03252/FUL 134 Almodington Lane, Earnley - change of use to include car sales to use WR In progress existing storage for car storage involving no changes to building. (P Kneen)

E/12/04149/COU 132 Almodington Lane, Almodington - change from existing touring caravan WR In progress and tented camping site with 5no caravans and 10no tents to solely a touring (M Pickup) caravan site for 15no caravans. (TO BE LINKED TO E/13/00769/FUL)

Planning 163 Reference Proposal Procedure Status

E/13/00353/DOM Dragon Cottage, Third Avenue, Batchmere - single storey rear extension, WR In progress velux window in north elevation and dormer window in south elevation. (P Kneen)

E/13/00769/FUL 132 Almodington Lane, Almodington - provision of 10no tents on lawful 5 WR In progress pitch certified caravan touring caravan site. Resubmission of (M Pickup) E/12/04149/COU. (TO BE LINKED WITH E/12/04149/COU).

EWB/13/00214/DOM Beach House, East Bracklesham Drive - rear ground floor addition under WR In progress existing balcony garage extension to include office and removal of shingle to (A Weir) level rear garden to the existing ground floor level of the dwelling. New roof dormer window a ground floor window to western elevation and the replacement of an existing window with a new door to the eastern elevation.

EWB/13/00384/FUL Woodstock, Shore Road, East Wittering - 4no dwellings and associated WR In progress works. (P Kneen)

FH/11/00487/EAGRNP Brackenwood, Telegraph Hill, Midhurst - change of use of the land to a I Awaiting mixed use for agriculture and equestrian purposes, namely keeping and (R Hawks) Decision training of polo ponies - appeal against Enforcement Notices

SDNP/12/02704/FUL Rosemary Park Nursing Home, Marley Lane, Marley Common, Fernhurst - WR In progress (Fernhurst) construction of a single storey side extension to create 12 additional en suite (P Aird) bedrooms and residents lounge.

SDNP/13/01290/FUL Brackenwood, Telegraph Hill, Midhurst - change of use of the land to a I Awaiting (Fernhurst) mixed use for agriculture and equestrian purposes, namely keeping and (R Hawks) Decision training of polo ponies - appeal against Enforcement Notices

FU/13/01031/ELD Newells Farm Barn, Newells Lane, West Ashling - conversion of buildings WR In progress into a single dwellinghouse, not by way of implementation of planning (R Sims) permission FU/01/02579/FUL.

Planning 164 Reference Proposal Procedure Status LV/12/03178/OUT Land north of Keepers Wood, Lavant Road, Lavant - outline application with I Inquiry to be held some reserved matters, for the erection of 92 residential units, and (N Langford) on Tuesday 26 associated infrastructure. to Friday 29 November 2013 at CDC

SDNP/13/00325/FUL Hunters Lodge, Midhurst Road, Lavant - change of use of guest house to WR In progress (Lavant) dwelling. (N Langford)

SDNP/13/02577/LDE Hunters Lodge, Midhurst Road, Lavant - use as single dwelling. WR In progress (Lavant) (N Langford)

SDNP/12/03028/HOUS 5 Collyers Cottage, Surrey Road, Lickfold, Lurgashall - change of loft area to WR In progress (Lodsworth) habitable space facilitated by the insertion of 2no dormer windows. (M Webb)

SDNP/13/01345/HOUS Blackdown Park Farm, Fernden Lane, Lurgashall - Single storey orangery WR In progress (Lurgashall) with roof lantern of hardwood construction (S Locke) (TO BE LINKED WITH SDNP/13/01346/LIS)

SDNP/13/01346/LIS Blackdown Park Farm, Fernden Lane, Lurgashall - Single storey orangery WR In progress (Lurgashall) with roof lantern of hardwood construction (S Locke) (TO BE LINKED WITH SDNP/13/01345/HOUS)

SDNP/13/03641/FUL The Gables, Bepton Road, Midhurst - removal of condition no 7 of WR In progress (Midhurst) permission MI/98/01485/FUL. (A Williams)

SDNP/13/03388/HOUS Elmcrest, Milland Lane, Liphook - resubmission of application WR (Milland) ref: SDNP/13/01315/HOUS - proposed extension and internal alterations to (S Locke) the existing dwelling.

NM/13/01036/OUT Land south of Stoney Lodge, School Lane, North Mundham - mixed housing WR In progress development comprising 11no terraced cottages, 4no flats, 6no semi (V Colwell) detached dwellings and 4no detached dwellings, associated access road, gardens and parking areas.

Planning 165 Reference Proposal Procedure Status PS/13/00214/CONAGR Nell Ball Farm, Dunsfold Road, Plaistow, Billingshurst - stationing of metal WR In progress containers and portakabins – Appeal against Enforcement Notice. (R Hawks)

SY/13/00986/FUL 79 Manor Road, Selsey - proposed new chalet bungalow (resubmission of WR Awaiting application ref 11/03921/FUL) on land to the south east of No 79 Manor (P Kneen) decision Road, Selsey.

SY/13/01115/FUL Land north west of Park Road, Selsey - residential development for 100 H Hearing date and dwellings, new vehicular access off Drift Road, open space, landscaping and (J Bushell) venue to be associated infrastructure. confirmed

SI/12/04761/COU Living Elements, 1 Keynor Lane, Sidlesham - retrospective change of use WR In progress from commercial (d1) to holiday accommodation and clinic and live-work (P Kneen) accommodation. Regularising land use from agricultural (historical use) to garden (residential use).

SI/13/00078/CONENF Living Elements, 1 Keynor Lane, Sidlesham - change of use from D1 holiday WR In progress accommodation and clinic and live-work accommodation. Appeal against (S Archer) Enforcement Notice

SB/12/03200/FUL Brookside Fruit Farm, School Lane, Nutbourne - removal of agricultural H Awaiting occupancy condition. (P Kneen) decision

SB/12/03435/FUL Land West of Fieldside, Prinsted Lane, Southbourne - demolition of 2no WR Awaiting dilapidated outbuildings and the erection of 3no dwellings, together with (P Kneen) decision associated landscaping and access.

Planning 166 Reference Proposal Procedure Status

SB/12/04701/OUT Land west of Garsons Road, Southbourne - development of a 60 bed care I Inquiry to be held home (comprising café, hairdresser, treatment room, shop and cinema) 40 (S Harris) 5-7 Feb 2014 at assisted living units, 30 age-restricted cottages for occupation by the over 10am at The City 55's, access, sustainable drainage measures, allotments, structural Council, North landscape planting and associated works. Street

WI/12/04520/FUL Boat Store, Chandlers Reach, Itchenor - change of use of first floor of WR In progress storage building to form a self-contained studio flat. (P Kneen)

WE/13/00231/FUL Land on the north side of Long Copse Lane, Westbourne - erection of 22no I Awaiting dwellings, vehicular and pedestrian access, car and cycle parking and (J Bushell) Decision landscaping.

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

Prosecutions Planning 167

Site Breach Stage

The Old Post Office, West Untidy land Court proceedings issued for non- Ashling compliance with a Notice under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Court hearing in Worthing Magistrates’ Court on 9 October 2013. The following penalty was imposed:

Fine £1,000 Victim surcharge £100 Ordered to pay costs of £438.65

Planning 168 Site Breach Stage

Land at Garnet Cottage, Failure to comply with a Planning Enforcement Notice. Court proceedings issued. Hearing in Hunston Chichester Magistrates Court on 11 November 2013.

Waterside Public House, 9 Failure to comply with a Planning Enforcement Notice. Notice complied with, case withdrawn. Stockbridge Road, Chichester Decoy Farm, Failure to comply with Planning Enforcement Notice. Court proceeding issued. Hearing in Aldingbourne Worthing Magistrates Court on 14 January 2014.

Windward Nursery, Failure to comply with Breach of Condition Notice. Case proceedings issued. Hearing in Sidlesham Worthing Magistrates Court on 11 December 2013. Rother Farm, Elsted Failure to comply with Section 215 Notice. Court proceedings issued. Hearing in Worthing Magistrates Court pm 11 December 2013

High Court

Site Matters prohibited by the Order Stage

Planning injunction:

NONE

Magistrates Court

Site Breach Stage

NONE

7. POLICY MATTERS - NONE

Planning 169