Public Document Pack

JOHN WARD East Pallant House Head of Finance and Governance Services 1 East Pallant Chichester Contact: Katherine Jeram (Member Services Officer) West Sussex 01243 534674 PO19 1TY [email protected] Tel: 01243 785166 www.chichester.gov.uk

A meeting of Planning Committee will be held in Committee Rooms - East Pallant House on Wednesday 24 June 2015 at 9.30 am

MEMBERS: Mr R Hayes (Chairman), Mrs C Purnell (Vice-Chairman), Mr G Barrett, Mr M Cullen, Mrs J Duncton, Mr M Dunn, Mr J F Elliott, Mr M Hall, Mr L Hixson, Mrs J Kilby, Mr G McAra, Mr S Oakley, Mr R Plowman, Mrs J Tassell and Mrs P Tull

AGENDA

1 Chairman's Announcements Any apologies for absence which have been received will be noted at this stage.

The Planning Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting. 2 Approval of Minutes (Pages 1 - 30) The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on Wednesday 27 May 2015. 3 Urgent Items The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 18 (b). 4 Declarations of Interests (Pages 31 - 32) For details of members’ personal interests arising from their membership of parish councils or West Sussex County Council or from their being Chichester District Council or West Sussex County Council appointees to outside organisations or members of outside bodies or from being employees of such organisations or bodies, please refer to the notes at the end of this agenda.

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

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

5 PS/15/00407/FUL - Barton Farm, The Forestry Road, Plaistow, Billingshurst, West Sussex, RH14 0PA (Pages 33 - 38) Erection of detached ancillary domestic garage/domestic building to serve the replacement dwelling approved under application ref PS/14/03502/FUL. 6 PS/14/04100/FUL - Little Springfield Farm, Plaistow Road, Ifold, Loxwood, Billingshurst, West Sussex, RH14 0TS (Pages 39 - 55) Demolition of existing industrial buildings and erection of 3 no. detached dwelling houses with associated landscaping, surfacing, car parking provision and access works. 7 CC/15/00114/FUL - 35 South Street ,Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1EL (Pages 56 - 64) Variation of Condition 5 to 05/00184/FUL, plant equipment and machinery to be operated on the site between the hours of 06:00 and 23:00 7 days a week. 8 BX/14/03827/OUT - Land West Of Abbots Close, Priors Acre, Boxgrove, West Sussex (Pages 65 - 82) Outline planning permission is sought for development of the site for up to 22 residential units, public open space, landscaping, access and car parking. All matters are to be reserved except for point of access. 9 BO/15/00448/FUL - Riggers, Sailmakers, Shipwrights And Bosuns, Shore Road, Bosham, Chichester, West Sussex, PO18 8JA (Pages 83 - 90) First and second floor rear extension. 10 SDNP/15/00789/LIS - The Club Room, High Street, Petworth, West Sussex, GU28 0AU (Pages 91 - 98) Change of use of first floor to self contained flat and minor internal alterations to include reinstatement of original staircase, removal of certain modern partitions and insertion of mezzanine floor.

11 SDNP/14/01773/LIS - Springhead, Marley Lane, Camelsdale, Linchmere, Haslemere, West Sussex, GU27 3RE (Pages 99 - 106) Construction of new two-story rear extension following demolition of existing two- story extension and re-roofing part of existing building and construction of new entrance porch. 12 SDNP/13/03945/FUL - Manor Farm Cottages, Didling Lane, Didling, Treyford, West Sussex (Pages 107 - 118) Demolition of 2 no. semi-detached cottages to be replaced by 1 no. single detached dwelling with separate double garage. Transfer of agricultural occupancy restriction to Coronation Villa Didling. 13 SDNP/14/06213/FUL - Sports Hall Seaford College, The Drive, East Lavington, Petworth, West Sussex, GU28 0NB (Pages 119 - 132) Modifications to approved new sports building and improvements to existing sports hall. 14 SDNP/15/00299/ADV - A286 Kings Drive to Henley Old Road, Easebourne, West Sussex (Pages 133 - 139) To erect and keep for the Licence Period two signs of a similar size and style to that shown on the attached illustration in positions shown on the attached location plan, on Kings Drive. 15 Planning Enforcement Report - Crouchland Farm, Rickman's Lane, Kirdford, Billingshurst,, West Sussex, RH14 0LE (Pages 140 - 159) To consider formal enforcement action and the issue of two enforcement notices under s172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Planning Compensation Act 1995). 16 Development Management Performance Update (Pages 160 - 162) To inform the Planning Committee of the recent performance of the development management service. 17 Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters (Pages 163 - 173) The Planning Committee will consider the monthly schedule updating the position with regard to planning appeals, litigation and recent planning policy publications or pronouncements. 18 Consideration of 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 2

The Planning Committee is asked to consider in respect of the following item whether the public interest including the press should be excluded from the meeting on the grounds of exemption under Parts I to 7 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as indicated against the item and because, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption of that information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. The reports dealt with under this part of the agenda are attached for members of the Cabinet and senior officers only (salmon paper)

19 Update on Planning Appeal APP/L3815/W/14/3000690 - Land to the South of Clappers Lane, Bracklesham Bay (Pages 174 - 179) Agenda Item 2

Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held in Committee Rooms - East Pallant House on Wednesday 27 May 2015 at 9.30 am

Members Present: Mr R Hayes (Chairman), Mrs C Purnell (Vice-Chairman), Mr G Barrett, Mr M Cullen, Mr J F Elliott, Mr M Hall, Mr L Hixson, Mrs J Kilby, Mr G McAra, Mr S Oakley, Mr R Plowman, Mrs J Tassell and Mrs P Tull

Members not present: Mrs J Duncton and Mr M Dunn

In attendance by invitation: Mr D Smith (West Sussex County Council)

Officers present all items: Miss J Bell (Development Manager (Majors and Business)), Mr J Bushell (Principal Planning Officer), Mr A Frost (Head of Planning Services), Ms N Golding (Principal Solicitor and Monitoring Officer), Mr P Kneen (Senior Planning Officer), Mr J Saunders (Development Manager (National Park)), Mrs F Stevens (Principal Planning Officer), Mr G Thrussell (Senior Member Services Officer) and Mr I Wightman (Senior Historic Buildings Adviser)

181 Chairman's Announcements

This was the first Planning Committee meeting of the new 2015-2019 Chichester District Council (CDC) administration. Mr Hayes, who had been appointed as its chairman at the Annual Council meeting on Tuesday 19 May 2015, welcomed newly-elected Planning Committee members to the, namely Mr Hall, Mr Hixson, Mrs Kilby and Mr R Plowman, and re-elected members who had joined it namely Mr Cullen and Mr Dunn (the latter of whom was not present). He said that they would find the Planning Committee a very good, challenging, interesting, time-consuming and enjoyable experience.

Apologies for absence had been received from Mrs Duncton, who was indisposed.

Mr Hayes announced that one item had been withdrawn from the agenda, namely item 9 E/14/03245/FUL – Land at Marsh Farm Barn Drove Lane Earnley Chichester West Sussex P020 7JW; it would not, therefore, be considered at this meeting.

Mr Hayes was pleased to report that on Monday 18 May 2015 CDC’s draft Local Plan (Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-submission 2014-2029 with proposed modifications) had been pronounced sound (subject to making modifications) by the planning inspector, Sue Turner, who had conducted the examination. He acknowledged the very hard work that had been undertaken by officers and

Page 1 members over several years to achieve this outcome. Reports would be submitted to the Cabinet and the Council with a view to the Local Plan being adopted at the Full Council meeting on Tuesday 14 July 2015. The inspector’s report had been published on the CDC website and could be viewed via the following link:

http://www.chichester.gov.uk/article/24684/New-Local-Plan-2014---2029---latest- update

Mr Hayes greeted members of the public and the press representative and also introduced the officers who were in attendance at the inception of the meeting. He gave practical guidance on the conduct of the meeting and drew attention to the emergency evacuation arrangements displayed on the screens.

182 Approval of Minutes

Mr Hayes advised that he had received notification by e-mail of three separate amendments to the minutes of the previous meeting, two by Mr Oakley and one by Mr F Robertson. The latter had been a member of the previous Planning Committee and had not sought re-election as one of the two members for the Selsey South ward.

Amendments Proposed by Mr S J Oakley

At Mr Hayes’ invitation Mr Oakley explained his two amendments as follows:

Minute 173 – Park Farm Park Lane Selsey Chichester West Sussex PO20 0HF

‘It does not appear the minutes include reference to discussion during consideration of this application over the appropriateness of the Northern part of the dog walking route running along Park Lane and whether there should be a landscape buffer along the Northern edge of the Outline (Residential) area outside of domestic curtilages. Given the applicant subsequently submitted a new indicative plan which addressed this issue it would appear appropriate to include this in the minutes. I seem to remember that this was included in the Chichester Observer's report of this item.’

The Planning Committee agreed that this was an appropriate amendment to be made and that the minutes of the previous meetings should be amended accordingly namely:

Add a new final sentence to the end of para (iv) in minute 173 ie after the last sentence ending with ‘…Selsey and Chichester.’ so as to read:

‘During the discussion reference was made to the appropriateness of the northern part of the dog walking route running along Park Lane and whether there should be a landscape buffer along the northern edge of the outline (residential) area outside of domestic curtilages.’

Page 2 Minute 177 – Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions

‘Last para second line - after ‘current’ add ‘and future’ to reflect in full the question I raised.’

The Planning Committee agreed that this was an appropriate amendment to be made and that the minutes of the previous meetings should be amended accordingly namely:

In the second line of the final para in minute 177 insert the words ‘and future’ after ‘current’ and before ‘enforcement casework’ so as to read:

‘In response to a question about whether or not the staffing resources in the Enforcement Team were adequate to meet the current and future enforcement casework, Mr Frost replied that the Team was currently fully resourced and staffed.’ Amendment Proposed by Mr F Robertson

Mr Hayes explained the amendment sought by Mr Robertson as follows:

Para 173 – Park Farm Park Lane Selsey Chichester West Sussex PO20 0HF

The minutes made no reference to a proposal to refuse the application, which Mr Robertson said he had made immediately after the members of the public had addressed the committee. Mr Robertson stated that his proposal was duly seconded and carried by a majority of nine votes to eight. He considered that the minutes should be amended to record this fact by inserting in the appropriate place the following paragraph namely:

‘Mr Robertson proposed that this application be refused on the grounds that this development would be most detrimental to and not contribute to the vitality and viability of the retail centre of Selsey and the cumulative traffic generation would cause further serious congestion at the junctions to the A27 at Donnington and Hunston and is, therefore, contrary to NPPF paras 7, 17, 19, 23, 40, 112 and Local Plan policies 8, 28, 29 and for good measure policies S5, S6, TR6 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review April 1999. This was seconded by Mr Elliott. On a vote being taken his proposal was carried by nine votes to eight.’

Mr Frost pointed out that two of the paras within minute 173 were not in the correct chronological sequence and required re-ordering namely para (ii) should in fact be para (iii) and para (iii) should in fact be para (ii). Having first made that change Mr Robertson’s amending para should then be inserted immediately after para (iii) as a new para (iiiA) but without the final sentence as to the outcome of the voting. Instead that sentence should be inserted after para (vii) and before para (viii) as a new para (viiA) so as to read:

‘Mr Robertson’s earlier proposal (see para (iiiA) was the subject of a vote which was carried by nine votes to eight.’

The Planning Committee agreed that Mr Robertson’s amendment (as altered on the advice of Mr Frost) was an appropriate amendment to be made and that the minutes

Page 3 of the previous meetings should be amended accordingly by reversing the sequence of paras (ii) and (iii) and inserting the aforementioned new paras (iiiA) and (viiA).

Save as aforesaid no other amendments to the minutes were proposed.

RESOLVED

That the Planning Committee approves the minutes of its meeting on Wednesday 29 April 2015 subject to the foregoing amendments to minute 173 and minute 177.

183 Urgent Items

There were no urgent matters for consideration under agenda item 17 (b) (late items).

184 Declarations of Interests

The obligation to make declarations of interests related to agenda items 5 to 15 inclusive.

A – Disclosable Pecuniary Interests

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

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

B - Personal Interests

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

Miss Golding explained that the personal interests were set out on pages 1 and 2 of the agenda and were to be taken as having been declared by the member

Page 4 concerned in respect of the relevant planning applications where such consultations had taken place.

Miss Golding advised for the sake of completeness that since the publication of the agenda (a) Mr Dunn had been appointed at the Annual Council meeting on Tuesday 19 May 2015 to represent CDC on the South Downs National Park Authority, (b) Mr Elliott had been co-opted on Wednesday 20 May 2015 as a member of Singleton Parish Council and was now its chairman and (c) Mr Hixon and Mr Plowman had been appointed at the Annual Council meeting on Tuesday 19 May 2015 to represent CDC on the Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee. There were, however, no planning applications on the agenda for this meeting that were affected by any of those new memberships.

Accordingly there were six members of the Planning Committee who made the following declarations of personal interests:

Mr Barrett declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications BO/14/04066/FUL, BO/15/00720/FUL and BO/15/ 00801/FUL (agenda items 6, 7 and 8 respectively) as a Chichester District Council appointed member of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Chichester City Council (he also sat on its planning committee).

Mr Hayes declared a personal interest in respect of planning application SB/14/04213/FUL (agenda item 10) as a member of Southbourne Parish Council.

Mr McAra declared a personal interest in respect of planning application SDNP/15/01131/FUL as a member of Midhurst Town Council.

Mr McAra declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications SY/14/02186/OUTEIA, E/14/03245/FUL, SB/14/ 04213/FUL, SI/14/04264/FUL and SDNP/15/01131/FUL (agenda items 5, 9, 10, 11 and 15) as a member of West Sussex County Council.

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications SY/14/02186/OUTEIA, E/14/03245/FUL, SB/14/ 04213/FUL, SI/14/04264/FUL and SDNP/15/01131/FUL (agenda items 5, 9, 10, 11 and 15) as a member of West Sussex County Council.

Mrs Purnell declared a personal interest in respect of planning application SY/14/02186/OUTEIA (agenda item 5) as a member of Selsey Town Council.

C - Prejudicial Interests

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

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

Page 5 that item of business on the basis that the public is allowed to attend the meeting for that same purpose.

There was one declaration of a prejudicial interest at this meeting, which was made by Mr Cullen in respect of planning application SB/14/04213/FUL (agenda item 10) for the following two reasons:

He owned a property on Broad Road Hambrook which overlooked the site. He had previously been a member and the chairman for several years of a local residents association that had opposed the loss of farmland by virtue of development of the site the subject of this application.

D – Pre-Determination or Bias

The concept of pre-determination or bias is explained in para 14 of Part 4 of CDC’s Code of Conduct adopted on Tuesday 9 October 2012.

A member should not be prohibited from participating in a decision in his or her political role as a member on account of having been involved in campaigning in his or her political role on an issue which does not impact on his or her personal and/or professional life. However a member should not place himself or herself under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence that member in the performance of his or her official duties. A member must retain the ability to consider the matter with an open mind and to give proper consideration to all the facts and information relevant to the decision.

Furthermore, when making a decision a member should consider the matter with an open mind and on the facts at the meeting at which the decision is to be taken. There were no declarations of predetermination or bias made at this meeting.

However, Mrs Purnell stated that although she remained open-minded with regard to planning application SY/14/02186/OUTEIA (agenda item 5) she had decided for the avoidance of any doubt about her objectivity not to participate in the consideration of matter.

Planning Applications

As previously stated by the chairman and in the agenda update sheet (copy attached to the official minutes), item 9 (E/14/03245/FUL – Land at Marsh Farm Barn Drove Lane Earnley Chichester West Sussex PO20 7JW) had been withdrawn from the agenda for this meeting.

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

The Planning Committee considered both the schedule of planning applications circulated with the agenda and the agenda update sheet which had been published in the late afternoon of the previous day and circulated immediately prior to the start

Page 6 of this meeting. The agenda update sheet summarised the observations and amendments which had arisen since the despatch of the agenda.

Officers provided oral updates to the agenda update sheet where appropriate.

During the presentations by officers of the applications, members viewed photographs, plans, drawings, computerised images and artist impressions which were displayed on the screens or, where permitted by the chairman, shown or circulated by speakers.

RESOLVED

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

185 SY/14/02186/OUTEIA - Park Farm Park Farm Lane Selsey Chichester West Sussex PO20 0HF

[Note Immediately at the start of this item Mrs Purnell withdrew from the committee table to the public seating area. Save for when she addressed the meeting as a CDC member from the public speaking lectern used by members of the public she did not participate in any part whatsoever of the discussion of or the decision on this item.]

Mr Bushell presented this hybrid planning application for a comprehensive mixed- use development of land at Manor Road Selsey. It consisted of (a) a full application for a Class A1 food-store, car parking, Class A3/A4 public house/restaurant, petrol- filling station, new access, landscaping and ancillary works and (b) an outline planning application for up to 139 dwellings, hotel, Class D1 building, open space, landscaping and new access.

At the Planning Committee’s meeting on Wednesday 29 April 2015 it was resolved to delegate this application to officers after the expiry of the environmental statement publicity period the following day, Thursday 30 April 2015, provided that no further representations were received during the remaining publicity period raising new issues which had not previously been taken into account. The Planning Committee had nevertheless indicated that the application should be refused planning permission on two grounds namely that the development would (1) have a harmful traffic impact in relation to the B2145 and (2) be detrimental to the retail viability of Selsey town centre.

Mr Bushell explained that after that resolution and before the expiry of the publicity period the applicant submitted additional information: a substitute masterplan and accompanying letter. The revised masterplan showed a housing development of up to 139 dwellings on the outline part of the application ie a reduction of five dwellings: the 139 units would be 83 private dwellings and 56 affordable dwellings (40%); the mix of units would accord with that previously agreed with officers. The indicative layout now showed the proposed circular dog walking track located entirely within the red-lined application site rather than using part of Park Lane. As a result of the reduction in the number of dwellings, the heads of terms listed in para 8.32 of the

Page 7 agenda report had been adjusted as set out in the agenda update sheet. Officers had considered the re-submitted information in light of the aforesaid resolution and received legal advice, whereby it was considered that by virtue of the proposed amendments the application was now materially different from that considered by the Planning Committee. Accordingly it was judged prudent to refer the amended application to the Planning Committee for a further decision.

Mr Bushell said that re-consultation on the amendments had taken place as stated on page 33 of the agenda report and that officers did not consider that the nature of the amendments altered their previous support for the proposed development. The agenda update sheet clarified the recommendation by including a referral to the secretary of state (as required by the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009) as well as a revocation order and a section 106 agreement prior to the grant of planning permission.

Mr Bushell referred to the agenda update sheet entries for this item, which (a) clarified the recommendation; (b) summarised consultation responses received from Selsey Town Council, Highways England, Southern Water, the Environment Agency, Sussex Police, West Sussex County Council Highways (WSCCH), Infrastructure and Lead Local Flood Authority, CDC Community Facilities, Sport and Leisure, Housing Enabling; (c) reported two additional third party objections, four additional third party representations in support and two third party representations on other points; (d) mentioned supporting information provided by the agents; (e) stated the latest position with the Selsey neighbourhood development plan (NDP); and (f) amended or corrected paras 3.2, 8.9, 8.11 and 8.28 of the agenda report.

Mr Bushell described the proposal with reference to slides shown on the screens namely (a) an aerial photograph (the salient features of the site and the surrounding area were identified); (b) colour plans (site/ location and revised master-plan (the various elements were identified including the two access points with a condition for an internal road to link them but insofar as the outline aspect of the proposal was concerned the site layout and landscape details were only illustrative); (c) an aerial 3D perspective showing how the proposal would fit in with the current developments and features; (d) photographs of the site and the immediately surrounding area including the roads; (e) a drawing of the construction of the access point; (f) a detailed site layout plan for the commercial proposals; (g) section drawings/elevations of the buildings on the commercial part of the site; (h) a colour perspective looking north east across the proposed roundabout; (i) a colour aerial perspective from the B2145 including the bus stop lay-by; and (j) drawings of some of the highway improvements including Ferry Bends (to facilitate two-way movements by large vehicles).

Mr Bushell referred to the seven key issues to be addressed in this application were set out in detail in paras 8.2 to 8.29 of the agenda report, namely (a) principle of housing development in that location; (b) significance of the neighbourhood development plan; (c) impact on the safety and function of the highway network; (d) impact of the commercial development on Selsey town centre and sustainability; (e) impact of the development on the Pagham Harbour SPA; (f) surface and foul water drainage; and (g) design, density and landscape impact.

Page 8 Mr Bushell concluded by saying that having regard to the professional assessment of each of those issues, the absence of objections by statutory consultees and the improvements to be delivered by this scheme, the recommendation by officers was for approval.

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

Mr D Laight (Budgens) – objector Ms J Fullick – objector Ms D Johnson – objector Mrs P Delosrios - supporter Mrs J Graves – supporter Mr P Bartram (Asda) – supporter Mr A Hughes – agent for the applicant

Mr R Barrow, one of the CDC members for the Selsey South ward and the Cabinet Member for Environment, addressed the Planning Committee in support of this application.

Mr J C P Connor, one of the CDC members for the Selsey North ward, addressed the Planning Committee in support of this application.

Mrs L C Purnell, one of the CDC members for the Selsey North ward, addressed the Planning Committee and commented on various issues to which this application had given rise.

During the Planning Committee’s debate members acknowledged the articulate views which had been expressed by the speakers for and against this development. It was noted that the preponderance of remarks by the public speakers related to the commercial aspects of the scheme, notably Asda, rather than housing. Members commented on various points and issues. It was considered overall that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the perceived negative aspects and that the proposal should, therefore, be supported. It was felt, for example, that large retail developments on the outskirts of a town or city (such as Chichester) did not necessarily destroy the vibrancy of high street outlets but rather prompted them to evolve positively and that there would be improvements. It was pointed out that the fear of the unknown often inclined people to object to developments which they would later come to embrace and appreciate. The comparatively advanced stage reached by the neighbourhood development plan was significant.

CDC officers and Mr Smith (WSCCH) answered members’ questions and comments on points of detail which included the following matters:

(a) The possibility that there could be further planning applications for housing after the revocation order in respect of planning permission SY/11/04954/OUT had been made eg for residential development on the sites for the proposed food store and/or hotel.

It could not be predicted whether there would or might be further applications. However, any housing application would have to address the quite significant

Page 9 increase in traffic generation from that site if it were to be developed for residential rather than commercial purposes.

(b) The justification for the legal advice that the amendments to the application warranted referring this proposal back to the Planning Committee for determination.

It was by no means exceptional for an applicant to amend a scheme before it was determined by officers under delegated powers. Officers considered the nature of the amendments to be material and so not appropriate for a decision under delegated powers. It was not relevant that those amendments did not address the previous reasons for refusal.

(c) The extent to which the Asda store would reduce traffic using the B2145 to travel to Chichester for supermarket shopping.

The applicant’s traffic impact assessment was set out in para 6.12 on pages 15 and 16 of the agenda report; it had been reviewed by WSCCH. The proposed store was anticipated to achieve a reduction of approximately 100 vehicles on the B2145 during peak hours.

(d) The likely adverse impact on current traffic levels and congestion if subsequently another supermarket were to be built closer to the town centre.

In transport terms it would be difficult to locate a store further south in the town: the High Street was insufficiently wide and would produce a considerable increase in traffic movements.

(e) The means of ensuring by conditions and/or a section 106 agreement that the proposed circular dog-walking track was retained within the red-lined application site and could not be moved or removed as a result of later applications.

The layout for the dog-walking track was an issue for the reserved matters stage. The section 106 agreement would include reference to it.

(f) The means of securing the land required to deliver the surface water management scheme.

Condition 23 (surface water scheme) would secure the provision of a swale in the south east corner of the site and so provide a link between the FUL and OUT parts of the site.

(g) The prospect that this development would result in increased traffic movements across the Manhood Peninsula eg through the Earnley conservation area or along unsuitable narrow roads as people travelled to Selsey for shopping.

The development would attract traffic from across the Manhood Peninsula but the increase would not result in a severe impact.

(h) The details of the proposed improvements to Ferry Bends and whether it could be accorded a high priority.

Page 10 WSCCH had requested details of the widening -scheme from the applicant. WSCCH would consult the public on the 14 road schemes identified in the Selsey neighbourhood development plan. Whilst the Ferry Bends improvement was a high priority for WSCCH it was not possible to prioritise schemes without consultation. Para 8.32 of the agenda report set out details of other proposed improvements.

(i) The provision of a pedestrian crossing between the bus stops adjacent to the site on Manor Road.

This had been requested by WSCCH; the precise location had yet to be announced. Islands at the roundabout would be provided. The applicant would identify a cycle route scheme adjacent to the B2145.

(j) The name of the restaurant outlet for the development.

There was no currently identified restaurant; it was not part of this application.

(k) The foul drainage arrangements in view of the problem in the Manhood Peninsula being deficiencies in the network system, which should be the focus of remedial works instead of the upgrading of the pumping stations.

The foul water situation was addressed in paras 6.9 and 8.24 of the agenda report; the applicant had made an application to Southern Water under section 98 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to upsize/upgrade parts of the existing sewer network at the East Beach Pumping Station. A planning condition would require approval of the detail of the drainage and off-site works including an implementation timetable. The applicant was not required to remedy existing deficiencies but only to mitigate the impacts of the proposed scheme.

(l) The need to consider how to address and reduce traffic pollution on the routes to the A27 Stockbridge roundabout.

(m) The adequacy of the parking provision for the proposed hotel.

There was a slight under-provision for parking at the hotel but this could be balanced out by the car parking at the Asda store.

(n) The viability of this hybrid application and whether this would be achieved by the entirety of the site being developed or whether it would it suffice for only the retail aspect to be implemented.

Hybrid applications were not so unusual anymore. They were common in the case of large-scale developments and should be viewed as a package of mixed development which should be expected to come forward largely as presented by the applicant. Financial viability was not, therefore, strictly relevant.

(o) The need for clarification as to the proposed clinic and petrol station.

Page 11 The clinic would be either a distinct unit or at least a contribution to health facilities. The petrol station would be a commercial decision and would be expected to be delivered in this scheme.

(p) The reason referral to the secretary of state procedure.

This was necessary principally because of the amount of commercial development being proposed. The secretary of state would either call in the application or refer it back to the local planning authority for a decision.

At the conclusion of the debate Mr Frost reminded the Planning Committee of the need to approach planning applications positively, looking for solutions to problems. He said that CDC’s draft Local Plan now possessed significant weight, having been found sound by the planning inspector (subject to making certain modifications), and would be recommended for adoption by the Council meeting in July 2015. The Local Plan had identified Selsey as a settlement hub with a wide range of services and facilities and where growth was expected. This application was entirely consistent with that profile. Highways and retail were the principal issues to address. Technical solutions existed for the highway impacts; the residual cumulative impacts of development were not considered to be severe. There was no evidence that the retail impact of this proposal would cause significant harm to the town centre’s existing shops. There were no sound reasons to refuse this application and members should consider it favourably.

The Planning Committee voted on a show of hands to approve the application by ten members to one against with one abstention.

Recommendation to defer for a referral to the secretary of state, a revocation order and a section 106 agreement and then permit agreed.

[Note At the end of the foregoing item Mrs Purnell resumed her seat at the committee table.]

[Note At the end of the foregoing item the Planning Committee rose for a short adjournment between 11:11 and 11:23.]

186 BO/14/04066/FUL - The Hamblin Trust Bosham House Main Road Bosham Chichester PO18 8PJ

Mr Kneen introduced this planning application for the erection of six holiday retreat lodges with reference to a series of slides shown on the screens consisting of (a) an aerial photograph and site/location plan; (b) eight photographs of the site and its immediate vicinity; (c) two plans (existing and proposed); and (d) a layout/elevation drawing of a typical lodge cabin.

Mr Kneen summarised the entries in the agenda update sheet for this item: (a) updated comments from Bosham Parish Council withdrawing its objection but requesting a condition tying the venture to a registered charity in perpetuity; (b) officer comment advising that the proposed condition in (a) was neither reasonable nor necessary; (c) an additional letter from the agent to a neighbour; and (d) the

Page 12 inclusion of three additional conditions 16, 17 and 18 to secure the removal of certain permitted development associated with (1) extensions or alterations to the lodges, (2) the provision of additional outbuildings on the site and (3) the provision of walls, fences or other means of enclosure.

No members of the public addressed the Planning Committee in respect of this item.

During the debate Mr Kneen, Mr Frost and Miss Golding answered members’ questions and comments on points of detail as follows:

(1) There was no material distinction to be drawn between a retreat and tourism lodge: both were used for general holiday purposes.

(2) The drawing showed a sofa bed for purely illustrative purposes: holidaymakers could have guests to stay.

(3) There was no proposal to make any tree protection orders.

(4) The foul drainage system would be an extant septic tank on site, which would be enhanced.

(5) There was a condition (number 4) to restrict to holiday accommodation only: it was not permissible (as sought by Bosham Parish Council) to attempt to use a condition to restrict future land ownership or transfer of the land. It was not necessary to attempt by condition to tie the lodges to the main house on the site. The draft Local Plan had policies which allowed for the provision of small-scale holiday accommodation in areas such as this and condition 4 was sufficient in order to control such use. Moreover the additional conditions 16, 17 and 18 would remove permitted development rights.

(6) The imposition of time limits on the number of weeks in a year the lodges could be occupied for holiday use was unnecessary: such a restriction was only relevant in flood risk areas.

(7) The concern that use of the lodges was not for holiday purposes but instead more long-term occupation was capable of being assessed quite easily by enforcement officers eg if there were children attending a local school.

At the conclusion of the discussion the Planning Committee voted to approve the application with no votes against and no abstentions.

Recommendation to permit with extra conditions 16, 17 and 18 (removal of permitted development rights) agreed.

187 BO/15/00720/FUL - Jersey and Bay Cottages Bosham Lane Bosham West Sussex PO18 8HY

Mrs Stevens described this planning application for the demolition of an interior party wall between two properties to create one dwelling, external alterations including front doors altered to form one front entrance, addition of conservation roof

Page 13 lights, small extension to and re-cladding of rear dormer and replacement windows. She referred to slides displayed on the screens which showed location plans, an existing elevation drawing, existing/ proposed floor plans, a proposed elevation drawing, photographs with various views of the property and its immediate neighbours. She identified the key issue as the impact of the development on the AONB and the conservation area, which was addressed in paras 8.2 to 8.4. The application was recommended for approval in that the level of proposed works would not result in any additional openings and so on balance they would not cause any demonstrable harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

Mrs Stevens summarised the entries in the agenda update sheet which reported (a) an objection by CDC’s Historic Buildings Adviser and the officers’ response thereto and (b) extra conditions 4 (materials) and 5 (roof-lights) and informative 1 (proactivity by the local planning authority).

No members of the public addressed the Planning Committee in respect of this item.

During the short discussion Mrs Stevens responded to members’ queries on two points of detail, namely that (a) the replacement of a front door with a window would not alter the contour and appearance of the existing façade and (b) the replacement windows would be painted timber.

Members unanimously approved this application.

Recommendation to permit with extra conditions 4 (materials) and 5 (conservation roof-lights) and informative 1 (proactivity by the local planning authority) agreed.

188 BO/15/00801/FUL - The Garden House Bosham Lane Bosham West Sussex PO18 8HG

Mrs Stevens explained this development proposal for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of one dwelling and associated works. Members viewed a sequence of slides shown on the screens which consisted of (a) a location drawing; (b) a distance view and enlarged photograph of the existing property from across a field off Delling Lane (in both of which the visibility of the white elevations could be seen); (c) an application site plan; (d) a colour elevation drawing (the Chichester Harbour Conservancy did not object to the design); (e) colour side elevation drawings; (f) floor plans; (g) a footprint and silhouette increases plan; (h) photographs of various boundary views.

Mrs Stevens referred to the agenda update sheet, which reported the submission of a substitute plan clarifying the discrepancy between the floor-plan and the western elevation fenestration.

Mrs Stevens advised that the application was recommended for approval after officers had assessed that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on either the visual quality of the wider landscape setting of the AONB (paras 8.3 to 8.9 of the agenda report) or the amenity of neighbouring occupiers (para 8.10).

Page 14 The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

Mrs G Powell (Bosham Parish Council) – parish representative Mrs K Simmons – agent for the applicant

During the debate members expressed views for and against this development. The following matters among others were mentioned:

(1) The Bosham Village Design Statement ought to be accorded due and considerable weight; Bosham Parish Council had emphasised this (with reference in particular to section 2.4) in its objection. Notwithstanding that the site was not located as it were on a conventional street, there was nonetheless a streetscape scene aspect to be considered.

(2) The futuristic, innovative design of this eco-plus dwelling was, depending on one’s point of view, either to be commended on its own architectural terms and as being a refreshing change to an uninspiring more traditional clone design or to be deprecated as wholly out of keeping within the AONB, having the appearance (depending on one's point of view) of a collection of squares (or Lego blocks) set at angles to each other. The design did not comply with the final sentence of para 60 of the National Planning Policy Framework, namely that whilst planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes or stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles, it was, ‘however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.’

(3) The scale and design of the dwelling so close to the northern boundary made its self-evident visibility from the north unacceptable. The proximity to that boundary would not allow sufficient room between the building and the boundary for both access to maintain the property and the substantial landscaping which would be required to protect the views from the north.

(4) The innovative or even radical design should not be seen as negative. The property was not in a conventional street-scene, was set well back from the main road and although would be seen from the north. It would in fact be less visible than the existing property. A modern design in the right-setting was to be applauded. The issue here was how to balance its acceptability within this particular setting on the one hand and the provisions of the Bosham Village Design Statement on the other.

Mrs Stevens answered members’ questions and comments on points of detail with respect to the following matters:

(1) The Bosham Village Design Statement (VDS) was a material consideration to be taken into account. It contained no set criteria as to the enlarged footprint/silhouette but referred to the immediate environment. With regard to the VDS this site was a large plot and the proposal would not constitute cramming or overdevelopment. It achieved a balance between innovative and sustainable design. It sat well within the landscape being a relatively low

Page 15 building and would be well-screened from Bosham Lane. There were public views from the coastal footpath but it would sit quite sensitively within a row of extant buildings and in the distance views from the north it would in fact be less obvious than other dwellings in that row further along. Conditions 4 and 5 related to landscaping but soft-landscaping and the slate materials to be used would not be obtrusive in the distant landscape views from the north and so a substantial hedge would be unnecessary.

(2) There was no proposal for external lighting which caused officers concern; there would be an extra condition 7 to require prior approval for any external lighting in order to avoid light spillage. The question of light from windows at night was no less of an issue now with the existing fenestration than it would be in the replacement property and canopies for those windows would provide some light shading.

(3) The foul drainage arrangements were connection to the main sewer (as was the case with the current property which the new dwelling would replace) and there would be grey-water harvesting.

(4) There would be a garage access.

In light of the debate Mr Frost advised members that in order to justify refusal it was necessary to identify significant harm. The site afforded the potential for a more innovative design and the dwelling would not be very visible from the north. Although modern designs might not be initially attractive, experience showed that once built and established they tended to be appreciated. It was not for the Planning Committee to impose its own sense of taste and style and members needed clearly to articulate in planning terms why the design was unacceptable.

Having regard to the opposing views expressed, Mr Elliott proposed that the application be deferred for a site visit. Mr Barrett seconded this proposal. This was not supported by members in a vote thereon.

The Planning Committee voted by a majority of six votes to three (with three abstentions) not to approve the officer recommendation to permit with an extra condition 7 (external lighting).

Members expressed their dissatisfaction with the poor design, the amount of glazing on the north elevation, non-compliance with the Bosham VDS, its being out of keeping with the views to the north and (having regard to para 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework) it did not satisfy the environmental aspect of sustainable development. It was proposed by Mrs Tull and seconded by Mrs Tassell that the application should be refused on the basis that the design was detrimental to the character of the area and the AONB having regard to the Bosham VDS and the relevant policies of the Development Plan.

Eight members then voted to refuse the application and two members were against that proposal.

Refuse for the following reason:

Page 16 The proposed replacement dwelling by virtue of its poor standard of design, appearance and the amount of glazing to the rear elevation together with its siting and visibility particularly to the north would detract from the landscape and would as a result be detrimental to the character of the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, contrary to the Bosham Village Design Statement. The proposal would also be contrary to section 7 of the NPPF, Policies BE11 and RE4 of the Chichester District Council Local Plan First Review 1999 and Policies 33, 43 and 48 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-submission 2014-2029.

189 E/14/03245/FUL - Land at Marsh Farm Barn Drove Lane Earnley Chichester West Sussex PO20 7JW

As stated in the agenda update sheet and announced by the chairman at the start of the meeting, this item had been withdrawn from the agenda to enable officers to seek from the applicants clarification as to the nature of the proposal. This matter was not, therefore, considered by the Planning Committee.

190 SB/14/04213/FUL - Land South of Fair Acres Priors Leaze Lane Hambrook Chidham West Sussex

[Note In accordance with his declaration at the start of this meeting of a prejudicial interest, immediately at the start of this application Mr Cullen withdrew from the committee table and occupied the public seating area. Save for when he addressed the meeting as a member of the public from the public speaking lectern used by members of the public, he did not participate in any part whatsoever of the discussion of or the decision on this item.]

Mr Kneen presented this application for a proposed change of use of land to provide four travelling showman’s yard family plots (comprising a total of 12 mobile homes). He referred members to slides shown on the screens which depicted an aerial photograph (with enhanced notations), photographs (distance views and existing access), red-line location plan, a colour plan of possible plot division and an indicative drawing of one of the proposed mobile homes.

Mr Kneen summarised the entries in the agenda update sheet for this item: (a) clarifications of or corrections to the first and final paras of para 6.6 of the agenda report (page 77) and para 8.16; (b) two separate sets of additional comments from West Sussex County Council Highways (WSCCH); (c) officer assessment of the second set of WSCCH comments; (d) additional information submitted by the applicant; and (e) alterations to the planning conditions namely (1) conditions 4 (mobile home and tourer limit) and 7 (use of plots) merged and amended to clarify the total number of mobile homes and touring caravans on each plot and (2) condition 5 plot boundaries).

Mr Hayes announced that although no parish representative had registered to speak in respect of this application he had received an e-mail from the chairman of Chidham and Hambrook Parish Council, Mr C Archer, in objection to the proposal. He would exercise his discretion to read out that e-mail to the meeting, which he duly did verbatim.

Page 17 The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

Mr P Cole (Hambrook District Residents Association) – objector Mr M A Cullen - objector

In the course of its discussion members of the Planning Committee expressed various views for and against the proposal. Some members felt that the number and nature of structures on each plot, the potential number of people who might occupy the plots and the fact that the site could be occupied by any travelling showpeople and not just the applicants amounted to excessive development for this site in this area. There were concerns that the development would be an intrusion into the open countryside or strategic gap, encroach onto agricultural land and that it might be that a disproportionate number of people occupying the site would have an adverse impact on the local community. The contrary view was that this was established use in this area, this could not be viewed as intrusion into the countryside in view of development to the south having already taken place, and there was a current five- year supply deficit.

During the debate Mr Kneen, Mr Frost and Miss Golding replied to members’ questions and comments on points of detail regarding:

(1) The adequacy of the site’s storage capacity for travelling showpeople’s equipment. Each plot was designed to comply with central government guidance and the equipment to be stored on each plot would be wholly consistent with the lifestyle and modus operandi of travelling showpeople.

(2) The risk of vehicle/pedestrian conflict on the single-access track and its width given the reliance on hedgerows for landscaping. The main service road was 7m wide and the access road to the storage area was 3.5m wide. The latter was capable of accommodating two passing vehicles. Officers were unaware of any conflict issues. As now reported in the agenda update sheet there was no longer a statutory consultee objection by WSCCH.

(3) The suitability of the site for the proposed use. Having regard to Policy C of and paras 22, 23 and 24 of Policy H of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) and Policy 36 of the draft Local Plan, this application complied with those provisions as explained in paras 8.3 to 8.24 of the agenda report. Although ideally plots would be identified in accordance with a site allocations policy, this was not yet in place and individual applications could and would be submitted. In the absence of a CDC travelling showpeople policy it was not open to argue prematurity and the application should be judged on its merits. CDC was currently unable to demonstrate an ongoing five-year supply of travelling showpeople plots for 2015 to 2020; there was a deficit of six plots and this application would meet some of that need. The presumption in favour of sustainable development applied but was subject to any material considerations to the contrary.

(4) The definition of ‘land’ in amended condition 5.

Page 18 (5) The suitability of the foul drainage arrangements in this case. Each current and new plot would have its own individual septic tank.

(6) The impact of the proposed land use on the countryside and nearby residential developments. This was addressed in paras 8.22 to 8.24 of the agenda report. The draft Local Plan contained no strategic gap policy but one to avoid coalescence of settlements. There was no evidence of past or present conflict between the extant travelling showpeople and the settled community and so this consideration should be given no weight.

(7) The tidiness of the site and the need to issue a notice under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Officers were unaware of the existence of any clutter. The lorries, HGVs and mobile homes currently on the site plots were all permitted.

(8) The travelling showpeople status of the current occupants of the site. Travelling showpeople had to be members of the Guild of Travelling Showpeople. The applicants, Mr and Matthews, had well-established credentials in that regard. Their application was for four plots, one for themselves and three more for other members of the wider travelling showpeople community.

(9) The landscaping proposals. There would be a 3m hawthorn/ hazel hedgerow on the block plan surrounding the length of the access road. The objective of condition 15 (height restriction on development) was that storage of equipment could not be seen. The text of condition 11 (landscaping implementation) would be carefully worded to ensure it was precise and enforceable.

At the end of the debate a majority of members voted to permit the application.

Recommendation to permit with section 106 agreement and with conditions 4 (mobile home and tourer limit) and 7 (use of plots) merged and amended condition 5 (plot boundaries) agreed.

[Note At the end of the foregoing item Mr Cullen resumed his seat at the committee table.]

[Note Following the item the meeting was adjourned for lunch between 13:20 and 13:52.]

191 SI/14/04264/FUL - 76A Lockgate Road Sidlesham West Sussex PO20 7QQ

While Mr Kneen described this proposal for the erection of an agricultural residential dwelling members viewed slides on the screens consisting of an aerial photograph, a plan, photographs affording a variety of views, a red-line site plan, a proposed block plan and front/rear drawings.

There were no entries in the agenda update sheet for this item but Mr Kneen read out an e-mail dated 27 May 2015 and received very shortly before the start of this

Page 19 meeting from the agricultural adviser, A J Marshall Agricultural Consultants, which sought to clarify the business need for a new agriculture worker’s dwelling on the site as follows: ‘It is important to consider the essential need in the context of the sustainability of the nursery and the service provided to the community. The nursery grows a range of plants, cuttings and seedlings throughout the year. Regular on-site attention is therefore important to minimise the risk at essential periods during the very varied production cycles.’

No members of the public addressed the Planning Committee in respect of this item.

In response to members’ questions on points of detail, Mr Kneen and Miss Golding gave advice which included:

(1) The viability of the business and the bona fide nature of the case for having on-site accommodation for an agricultural worker, as set out in paras 8.2 to 8.4 of the agenda report. In all the circumstances it was not appropriate to impose a temporary planning permission for two to three years and require the occupant to live in a caravan. This was not an embryonic venture but an established viable genuine business use for which the presence of an on-site worker was required.

(2) The internal layout of some of the rooms shown in the plan.

Towards the end of the discussion it was proposed by Mr Oakley and seconded by Mr Plowman that a vote should be taken on the officer recommendation to permit this application. A majority of members were in favour of permitting this proposal.

Recommendation to permit with section 106 agreement agreed.

192 SDNP/14/06501/HOUS - Goldrings Kent House Lane East Harting Petersfield West Sussex GU31 5LS

Mr Saunders introduced this application and the related and immediately following one (SDNP/14/06502/LIS) for alterations, restoration, and enhancement works including replacement extension and associated landscape works. He referred members to a series of images shown on the screens which consisted of (a) a location plan (relevant features were highlighted); (b) a variety of elevation views in photographs; (c) elevation drawings (west and south, east and north), both existing and proposed; and (d) drawings of the proposed fenestration. He pointed out that the planning assessment whereby refusal of this and the ensuing application was recommended for refusal was in section 8 of the agenda report with the reasons for refusal in para 10.2. The proposal was considered to result in harm to the character and appearance of a property of significance in the South Downs National Park. Although on balance the significant side extension was not considered to be in conflict with national or local policy, the wholesale replacement of windows within the listed building with slim profile double-glazing would constitute a material change to the character and appearance of Goldrings. Whilst the change itself would amount to less than substantial harm it would not result in public benefit. The views of the Historic Buildings Adviser were set out in sections 4 and 8 of the report.

Page 20 Mr Saunders referred to the agenda update sheet which (a) summarised supporting information from the Douglas Briggs Partnership; (b) reported a letter from Mr A M Shaxson, the CDC member for the Harting ward, sent to all members of the Planning Committee; and (c) supplied missing text from section 11, 12 and 13 of the agenda report.

Mr Saunders advised that the agenda report should have cited in the reasons for refusal para 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework, namely: ‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.’

The following member of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

Mrs H Elliott – applicant

Mr A M Shaxson, the CDC member for the Harting ward, addressed the Planning Committee in support of this application.

During the debate members of the Planning Committee expressed differing views on the weight to be accorded to the opinion of CDC’s Historic Buildings Adviser (HBA), Dr Wightman, who was present to advise members and respond to their questions. Some members believed that the HBA’s professional views should be respected and followed; they remarked that those who lived in a listed building should have to accept the inconvenience as well as the privilege of living in historic assets. The hope was, however, also expressed that it would be possible for the applicants and the local planning authority to be able subsequently to negotiate a settlement. Other members favoured approving the application on the basis of giving emphasis to conserving rather than preserving heritage assets, managing change, achieving the optimal viable use of a heritage asset as a home in which a twenty-first century family could comfortably live, being pragmatic, showing sympathy and common sense, realising that in due course it would cease to be obvious that double-glazing had been used, and seeking to achieve higher energy efficiency standards.

Dr Wightman and Mr Saunders answered members’ questions and comments on points of details about:

(1) The appropriate type of energy-saving measures in such a property and in particular the suitability of secondary glazing as recommended by the HBA. Dr Wightman gave examples of listed buildings and heritage assets where secondary glazing was used to very satisfactory effect, for example Uppark House, and he explained how it was installed, used and could be removed in the summer months. He compared and contrasted single-/secondary-glazing with double-glazing, pointing out that use of the latter would result in a loss of fabric and damage to the building. Double-glazing could have the effect of making windows appear hard. He emphasised the need for consistency in approach on this issue with all listed buildings. He remarked that to allow exceptions would undermine the protection of such buildings and be unfair on those who had diligently incurred expense when carrying out sensitively works to the historic fabric and structure of a heritage asset. He said that the

Page 21 legal protection of such buildings (to insert double-glazing without authorisation was unlawful) should take precedence over energy efficiency considerations. Listed buildings in fact contributed very low amounts to carbon emissions. He held a colour image depicting the positive thermal effects of secondary glazing. The local planning authority had a duty to preserve and enhance listed buildings and windows were fundamental to that remit.

(2) The harm that would be caused by the use of double-glazing ie the extent to which historic fabric would be lost such as very old glass or wooden frames, or how noticeably an adverse change would be apparent to an observer from the outside of the property. Pre-World War I windows tended to be of very good quality.

(3) The support by planning inspectors on appeal for the position advocated by the HBA. Mr Saunders cited the decision set out in para 8.21 of the agenda report. He also referred to an appeal decision relating to a property in Dorset.

Towards the end of the discussion Mr Barrett proposed that the application be deferred in order to obtain further information about double-glazing windows and the effect of installing them in this listed building. His proposal was seconded by Mrs Tassell.

Mr Frost advised members that a point of principle was at issue in this matter. Officers were unaware of any listed buildings in which double-glazing had been used. Dr Wightman had given the Planning Committee very clear advice and facts. He said that a deferral in order to instigate a search for examples (which Mrs Tassell had suggested existed) in or outside Chichester District where double-glazing had been used in a heritage asset was unnecessary.

In the light of Mr Frost’s advice Mrs Tassell withdrew her support for Mr Barrett’s proposal. Mr Barrett withdrew his proposal.

Mrs Tassell then proposed a deferral of the application for a site visit in order to view the windows and how double-glazing might be suitable. Her proposal was seconded by Mr Elliott. Mr Oakley added that he would welcome certainty about the amount of historic fabric that would be lost if double-glazing were to be installed. Mr Cullen questioned how to apply the benefit to the public test if it were accepted or proven that less than substantial harm would be caused by the use of double-glazing.

The proposal for a site visit was not carried on a vote being taken (five members were in favour and seven against).

Members next voted on the recommendation to refuse, which was lost by four votes in favour to eight votes against.

Mrs Tull then proposed that the application should be approved subject to suitable conditions to control the construction and installation of the windows. Mr Barrett seconded her proposal.

Page 22 The Planning Committee voted by eight votes to four to approve the application.

Approve with the following conditions:

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

Plan Type Reference Version Date Received Status

Plans - 3112-106A 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - 3112-107A 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - 3112-104A 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - 3112-103A 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - 3112-108 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - 3112-109 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - 3112-110 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - 3112-111 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - 3112-112 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - 3112-113 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - 3112-114 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - Site 3112-100 17.12.2014 Approved and Location Plan

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

(3) No development shall be carried out unless and until a schedule of materials and finishes and, where so required by the local planning authority, samples of such materials and finishes to be used for external walls and roofs of the proposed building(s) and where appropriate surfacing materials have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. This condition is required to ensure the materials are suitable in connection with the listed building.

(4) Any walling shall conform with a sample panel of brick and stone and mortar treatment which shall be erected on site and approved in writing by the local planning authority before work to walling is commenced and shall be maintained as

Page 23 approved unless any variation has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

(5) Upon the carrying out of the work for which listed building consent is hereby granted any damage caused to the fabric of the building shall be made good. The reconstruction and/or making good of the building to complete the execution of the works for which consent is hereby granted shall be carried out as far as may be practicable with original materials. Any variation from the original materials must be with the written approval of the local planning authority.

(6) No development shall be carried out unless and until a schedule of works for repairs to the listed building, and including details of re-instatement of the catslide to the rear have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. This condition is required to ensure the works are suitable and proportionate in connection with the listed building.

193 SDNP/14/06502/LIS - Goldrings Kent House Lane East Harting Petersfield West Sussex GU31 5LS

Mr Saunders introduced this application and the related and immediately preceding one (SDNP/14/06501/HOUS) for alterations, restoration, and enhancement works including replacement extension and associated landscape works. He referred members to a series of images shown on the screens which consisted of (a) a location plan (relevant features were highlighted); (b) a variety of elevation views in photographs; (c) elevation drawings (west and south, east and north), both existing and proposed; and (d) drawings of the proposed fenestration. He pointed out that the planning assessment whereby refusal of this and the preceding application was recommended for refusal was in section 8 of the agenda report with the reasons for refusal in para 10.2. The proposal was considered to result in harm to the character and appearance of a property of significance in the South Downs National Park. Although on balance the significant side extension was not considered to be in conflict with national or local policy, the wholesale replacement of windows within the listed building with slim profile double-glazing would constitute a material change to the character and appearance of Goldrings. Whilst the change itself would amount to less than substantial harm it would not result in public benefit. The views of the Historic Buildings Adviser were set out in sections 4 and 8 of the report.

Mr Saunders referred to the agenda update sheet which (a) summarised supporting information from the Douglas Briggs Partnership; (b) reported a letter from Mr A M Shaxson, the CDC member for the Harting ward, sent to all members of the Planning Committee; and (c) supplied missing text from section 11, 12 and 13 of the agenda report.

Mr Saunders advised that the agenda report should have cited in the reasons for refusal para 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework, namely: ‘Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.’

The following member of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

Page 24 Mrs H Elliott – applicant

Mr A M Shaxson, the CDC member for the Harting ward, addressed the Planning Committee in support of this application.

During the debate members of the Planning Committee expressed differing views on the weight to be accorded to the opinion of CDC’s Historic Buildings Adviser (HBA), Dr Wightman, who was present to advise members and respond to their questions. Some members believed that the HBA’s professional views should be respected and followed; they remarked that those who lived in a listed building should have to accept the inconvenience as well as the privilege of living in historic assets. The hope was, however, also expressed that it would be possible for the applicants and the local planning authority to be able subsequently to negotiate a settlement. Other members favoured approving the application on the basis of giving emphasis to conserving rather than preserving heritage assets, managing change, achieving the optimal viable use of a heritage asset as a home in which a twenty-first century family could comfortably live, being pragmatic, showing sympathy and common sense, realising that in due course it would cease to be obvious that double-glazing had been used, and seeking to achieve higher energy efficiency standards.

Dr Wightman and Mr Saunders answered members’ questions and comments on points of details about:

(1) The appropriate type of energy-saving measures in such a property and in particular the suitability of secondary glazing as recommended by the HBA. Dr Wightman gave examples of listed buildings and heritage assets where secondary glazing was used to very satisfactory effect, for example Uppark House, and he explained how it was installed, used and could be removed in the summer months. He compared and contrasted single-/secondary-glazing with double-glazing, pointing out that use of the latter would result in a loss of fabric and damage to the building. Double-glazing could have the effect of making windows appear hard. He emphasised the need for consistency in approach on this issue with all listed buildings. He remarked that to allow exceptions would undermine the protection of such buildings and be unfair on those who had diligently incurred expense when carrying out sensitively works to the historic fabric and structure of a heritage asset. He said that the legal protection of such buildings (to insert double-glazing without authorisation was unlawful) should take precedence over energy efficiency considerations. Listed buildings in fact contributed very low amounts to carbon emissions. He held a colour image depicting the positive thermal effects of secondary glazing. The local planning authority had a duty to preserve and enhance listed buildings and windows were fundamental to that remit.

(2) The harm that would be caused by the use of double-glazing ie the extent to which historic fabric would be lost such as very old glass or wooden frames, or how noticeably an adverse change would be apparent to an observer from the outside of the property. Pre-World War I windows tended to be of very good quality.

Page 25 (3) The support by planning inspectors on appeal for the position advocated by the HBA. Mr Saunders cited the decision set out in para 8.21 of the agenda report. He also referred to an appeal decision relating to a property in Dorset.

Towards the end of the discussion Mr Barrett proposed that the application be deferred in order to obtain further information about double-glazing windows and the effect of installing them in this listed building. His proposal was seconded by Mrs Tassell.

Mr Frost advised members that a point of principle was at issue in this matter. Officers were unaware of any listed buildings in which double-glazing had been used. Dr Wightman had given the Planning Committee very clear advice and facts. He said that a deferral in order to instigate a search for examples (which Mrs Tassell had suggested existed) in or outside Chichester District where double-glazing had been used in a heritage asset was unnecessary.

In the light of Mr Frost’s advice Mrs Tassell withdrew her support for Mr Barrett’s proposal. Mr Barrett withdrew his proposal.

Mrs Tassell then proposed a deferral of the application for a site visit in order to view the windows and how double-glazing might be suitable. Her proposal was seconded by Mr Elliott. Mr Oakley added that he would welcome certainty about the amount of historic fabric that would be lost if double-glazing were to be installed. Mr Cullen questioned how to apply the benefit to the public test if it were accepted or proven that less than substantial harm would be caused by the use of double-glazing.

The proposal for a site visit was not carried on a vote being taken (five members were in favour and seven against).

Members next voted on the recommendation to refuse, which was lost by four votes in favour to eight votes against.

Mrs Tull then proposed that the application should be approved subject to suitable conditions to control the construction and installation of the windows. Mr Barrett seconded her proposal.

The Planning Committee voted by nine votes to three to approve the application.

Approve with the following conditions:

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

Plan Type Reference Version Date Received Status

Plans - 3112-107A 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - 3112-106A 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - 3112-104A 04.03.2015 Approved

Page 26 Plans - 3112-103A 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - 3112-108 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - 3112-109 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - 3112-110 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - 3112-111 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - 3112-112 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - 3112-113 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - 3112-114 04.03.2015 Approved

Plans - Site 3112-100 17.12.2014 Approved and Location Plan

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

(3) No development shall be carried out unless and until a schedule of materials and finishes and, where so required by the local planning authority, samples of such materials and finishes to be used for external walls and roofs of the proposed building(s) and where appropriate surfacing materials have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. This condition is required to ensure the materials are suitable in connection with the listed building.

(4) Any walling shall conform with a sample panel of brick and stone and mortar treatment which shall be erected on site and approved in writing by the local planning authority before work to walling is commenced and shall be maintained as approved unless any variation has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

(5) Upon the carrying out of the work for which listed building consent is hereby granted any damage caused to the fabric of the building shall be made good. The reconstruction and/or making good of the building to complete the execution of the works for which consent is hereby granted shall be carried out as far as may be practicable with original materials. Any variation from the original materials must be with the written approval of the local planning authority.

(6) No development shall be carried out unless and until a schedule of works for repairs to the listed building, and including details of re-instatement of the catslide to the rear have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. This condition is required to ensure the works are suitable and proportionate in connection with the listed building.

Page 27 194 SDNP/14/02332/HOUS - Springhead Marley Lane Camelsdale Linchmere Haslemere West Sussex GU27 3RE

This proposal for the construction of a new two-story rear extension following demolition of an existing two-storey extension and re-roofing part of an existing building; construction of new entrance porch was presented by Mr Saunders, who referred members to slides shown on the screens consisting of a location plan, photographs of the various elevations of the property, and elevation drawings (existing and proposed). The main issue for consideration was the impact on the character and appearance of the listed building. This was considered by officers to be acceptable, hence the recommendation for approval.

Mr Saunders explained that the listed building application had been inadvertently omitted from the agenda and would, therefore, be listed for determination at the next meeting.

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

No members of the public addressed the Planning Committee in respect of this item.

The Planning Committee proceeded to a vote without a debate.

Members were unanimously in favour of this application.

Recommendation to approve agreed.

195 SDNP/15/01131/FUL - The Grange Midhurst Community and Leisure Centre Bepton Road Midhurst West Sussex GU29 9HD

Mr Saunders presented this application for a proposed single-storey extension to The Grange Community and Leisure Centre for use as the Midhurst Neighbourhood Policing Base. He pointed out that contrary to what was stated in the report the applicant was not Chichester District Council but (as stated in the agenda update sheet) the Office of the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner. He drew attention to a set of slides shown on the screens which consisted of a site plan, photographs, a block plan, colour elevations of The Grange Leisure Centre, architect’s colour drawings and colour illustration drawings. He advised that officers considered the proposal to be an appropriate extension and would provide an important facility for the town and it was, therefore, recommended for approval.

The agenda update sheet also set out representations received from CDC’s Conservation and Design Manager.

The following member of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

Mr D Stroud – agent for the applicant

During a brief discussion Mr Saunders answered a member’s question about the alleyway which would exist between this extension and The Grange Community and

Page 28 Leisure Centre: he confirmed that it would be sealed at both ends and would be used as the police station’s cycle storage area.

Members voted unanimously in favour of this application.

Recommendation to approve agreed.

196 Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters

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

There were no entries in the agenda update sheet regarding this schedule.

Officers answered members’ questions on points of detail with respect to the following items in the schedule:

Section One – New Appeals

EWB/14/01806/OUT – Land East of Barton Way Clappers Lane Earnley West Sussex (page 145)

Section Six – Court and Other Matters - Injunctions

Land at Premier Site Birdham Road (page 152)

Section Six – Court and Other Matters - Prosecutions

The Barnyard (page 153)

197 Consideration of any late items as follows:

There were no late items for consideration at this meeting.

198 Exclusion of the Press and Public

There were no confidential items within Part II of the agenda and so no resolution was required to exclude the press and the public.

Appreciation and Acclamation

Immediately before the close of the meeting Mr McAra congratulated Mr Hayes for having chaired his first meeting of the Planning Committee with consummate skill. His sentiments were supported warmly and wholeheartedly by all of the other members and officers who were present.

Page 29 The meeting ended at 3.25 pm

CHAIRMAN Date:

Page 30 Agenda Item 4

Chichester District Council

Planning Committee

Wednesday 24 June 2015

Declarations of Interests

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 are set out in the attached agenda report

The interests therein are disclosed by each member in respect of planning applications or other items in the agenda which require a decision where the council or outside body concerned has been consulted in respect of that particular planning application or item

Declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests, personal interests, prejudicial interests or predetermination or bias are to be made by members of the Planning Committee or other members who are present in respect of matters on the agenda or this meeting

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 J F Elliott – Singleton Parish Council (SE)

 Mr R J Hayes - Southbourne Parish Council (SB)

 Mrs J L Kilby – Chichester City Council (CCC)

 Mr G V McAra - Midhurst Town Council (MI)

 Mr S J Oakley – Tangmere Parish Council (TG)

 Mr R E Plowman – Chichester City Council (CC)

 Mrs L C Purnell – Selsey Town Council (SY)

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: Page 31  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 S J Oakley - West Sussex County Council Member for the Chichester East Division

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 T M E Dunn – South Downs National Park Authority

 Mr L Hixson – Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee

 Mr R Plowman – Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee

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:

Page 32 Agenda Item 5 Parish: Ward: Plaistow And Ifold Plaistow

5. PS/15/00407/FUL

Proposal Erection of detached ancillary domestic garage/domestic building to serve the replacement dwelling approved under application ref PS/14/03502/FUL.

Site Barton Farm The Forestry Road Plaistow Billingshurst West Sussex RH14 0PA

Map Ref (E) 501812 (N) 131663

Applicant Mr Michael Gray

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

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Page 33 Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The site is located within the Parish of Plaistow. To the east and north of the site are two farms and to the south and west open agricultural land. Beyond, to the west lies the settlement policy area of Ifold.

2.2 The unit measures 0.33 hectares and comprises of a single storey dwelling located on the west side of the application site, which is mostly laid to grass. The western boundary borders the Public Right of Way (PROW) and Forest Road to the east is also a PROW. The eastern boundary comprises of a 1m deer fence with well established 2.3m rural hedge.

2.3 Access to the property is via 'The Foresty Road, a private lane with access to several farm units, off Loxwood Road. A field access at the southern end of the paddock presently serves as an access to the existing dwelling.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The application seeks to erect a detached outbuilding, accommodating an open carport, lock up garage, a mower store, log store and gym with shower.

3.2 The outbuilding would be situated to the north west of the replacement dwelling (PS/14/03542/FUL). It would form an L shape, facing southwards. The carport, gym and mower storage element would measure 15.8m long and 7m wide. It would have a ridge height of 6.4m, eaves of 2.5m and would be barn hipped. The lock up garage and log store would measure 8.7m wide and 6.4m long, with a ridge height of 5.5m and a catslide roof to the west. It would be timber framed, with timber cladding and a clay tiled roof.

4.0 History

97/00417/ELD PER Use of building as single dwelling.

11/04174/FUL WDN Demolition of existing dwelling and workshop and erection of replacement dwelling and detached garage.

12/01478/FUL PER Erection of replacement 4 bed dwelling and detached garage (re- submission of application ref PS/11/0417/FUL).

14/03502/FUL PER Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling. Reinstatement of vehicular crossover.

15/00407/FUL PDE Erection of detached ancillary

Page 34 domestic garage/domestic building to serve the replacement dwelling approved under application ref PS/14/03502/FUL.

5.0 Constraints

Rural Area YES Public Right of Way YES

6.0 Representations and Consultations

Parish Council

Considers that the proposed building would be overdevelopment in this rural area in terms or its mass, size and scale and that a single-storey garage with log store would be more appropriate in this setting.

Further comments following submission of substitute plans

Appreciates that the mass, size and scale has been reduced slightly due to the addition of a cartslide roof over the log store, however, given its close proximity to the footpath and its impact on the rural area, it is considered that the mass should be reduced further by introducing a catslide roof to the whole of the north elevation. Given that there is now no proposal for a first floor, this should be acceptable to the applicant.

7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan

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

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

Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:

BE11 New Development BE12 Alterations, Extensions and Conversions BE14 Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges and Other Landscape Features RE5 North-eastern Part of the District

7.3 The Council has prepared a new Local Plan covering Chichester District excluding the South Downs National Park. The main plan document, Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029, was submitted for examination in May 2014. A number of examination hearings were held during the autumn of 2014, following which the Council undertook public consultation on Proposed Modifications to the Plan in January/February 2015. The Council has now received the Local Plan inspector's final report which was published in May 2015 (Appendix 4). The inspector concludes that, subject to a number of main modifications, the submitted Plan satisfies the legal requirements in the 2004 Act and meets the criteria for soundness set out in the NPPF.

Page 35 It should be noted that all of the inspector's recommended modifications were included in the public consultation undertaken by the Council in January/February 2015.

7.4 Following the Local Plan inspector's report, the Council is intending to take the Plan forward for formal adoption in July 2015. Ahead of this, the new Local Plan is a material consideration and, given the inspector's conclusions, the Council considers that the new Local Plan should be afforded significant weight, in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF.

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 Policy 47: Heritage 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), 56, 57, 60, 61.

Other Local Policy and Guidance

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

B1 - Managing a changing environment

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Principle of the development ii) Impact on the character and appearance of the rural area iii) Impact on neighbour amenity

Page 36 Assessment i) Principle of the development

8.2 The site is set within approximately 0.33 hectares of land. The residential use of the existing building on the land has been lawfully established through a Lawful Development Certificate (PS/97/00417/ELD) and the principle of a replacement dwelling has been established through granting of two previous planning applications (PS/12/01478/FUL and PS/14/03502/FUL). Subsequently the principle of development and the size of the plot has been established.

8.3 Whilst the proposed garage is not modest, the site itself is a large plot of land that is capable of suitably accommodating such a building. The internal provision for four cars is proportionate to the size of the dwelling and the log store and mower storage space is a reasonable requirement for a plot of land of this size. The gym is an additional incidental space and with residential plots of such size it is considered to be a common feature found separate to the main house. Therefore the accommodation provided is considered proportionate to the requirements of the main house. ii) Impact on the character and appearance of the rural area

8.4 The proposal initially sought a 1.5 storey garage (including first floor), set within close proximity to the replacement dwelling. Amendments were sought due to concerns about the level of accommodation provided, the visual impact on the host dwelling and character and appearance of the rural area.

8.5 The proposal has been reduced in size to remove the first floor element and following the Parish Councils further objection, subsequent amendments were received. The scale and massing proposal has been reduced by the creation of a catslide roof to the enclosed garage, forming the log store. This element of the proposal has additionally been set down from the main ridge height, resulting in a subservient element to the proposal, helping to mitigate the scale, massing and general bulk of the outbuilding.

8.6 The proposal now replicates the outbuilding permitted (PS/13/00778/FUL) at Kings Copse, some 570m directly to the south of the site, in a visually prominent location on the Loxwood Road, with a similar plot size of 0.504 hectares. This was assessed against the same National and Local policies and it was concluded its scale and size would not adversely affect the visual amenity of the rural area.

8.7 The proposal would be constructed with timber cladding and a clay tiled roof. These materials are considered to be in keeping with the rural character of the area. Additionally, their light weight nature and contrast with the materials to be used on the main house would further enforce the incidental use and appearance of the building.

8.8 Glimpses of the proposal through the mature screening may be seen from the public footpaths to the west and east of the site; however the design and appearance of the proposal would afford the building an incidental character in connection with the main dwelling. Therefore it is not considered it would result in significant harm or detriment to the visual amenities of the rural area and it is considered by reason of its scale, design and materials would result in a subservient incidental outbuilding, in keeping with the character and appearance of the rural area.

Page 37 iii) Impact on neighbour amenity

8.9 It is considered that due to the distance of the proposal from the closest neighbouring properties to the north ( Hogwood Farm House) and to the east (Cherry Blossom Farm), including the large amount of intervening screening, it is not consider there would be any resulting overlooking or overbearing impacts on the amenities of these neighbouring properties.

Significant Conditions

8.10 It is considered appropriate to condition the use of the outbuilding to remain incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwellinghouse. It is additionally considered that the removal of permitted development rights for the insertion of new windows and external alterations would be proportionate, to control the visual appearance of the outbuilding.

Conclusion

8.11 Based on the above assessment it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies 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.

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

1 A01F - Time Limit - Full 2 U94344 - Plans 3 U94345 - Materials 4 U94346 - No alterations or windows 5 U94347 - Use

INFORMATIVES

1 W01F - Disclaimer - Other Consents 2 W45F - Application Approved Following Revisions

For further information on this application please contact Caitlin Boddy on 01243 534734

Page 38 Agenda Item 6

Parish: Ward: Plaistow And Ifold Plaistow

6. PS/14/04100/FUL

Proposal Demolition of existing industrial buildings and erection of 3 no. detached dwelling houses with associated landscaping, surfacing, car parking provision and access works.

Site Little Springfield Farm Plaistow Road Ifold Loxwood Billingshurst West Sussex RH14 0TS

Map Ref (E) 502670 (N) 130353

Applicant Stephenson Developments (Southern) Holdings Ltd

RECOMMENDATION TO REFUSE

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

Page1 39 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Red Card: Cllr Hardwick - Exceptional level of public interest

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The application site lies within the designated rural area on the southern side of Plaistow Road, to the south of the village of Ifold, and approximately 123m beyond the Settlement Policy Area (SPA). The site is bounded by paddocks to the north and south, woodland to the east, and a dwellinghouse to the west. The site is approximately 0.5 ha in size and occupied by 9 industrial buildings, providing approximately 1,250 square metres of business floor space. The application site was formerly a farmyard; however it was used for industrial purposes until January 2015.

2.2 The site is accessed from Plaistow Road, to the north west corner via a driveway approximately 115m in length. The access is shared with two dwellings; Tawlbrook (located close to Plaistow Road) and the dwelling know as Little Springfield Farm, which adjoins the western boundary of the application site. The driveway is 5m in width at its junction with Plaistow Road, narrowing to approximately 2.5m wide for the remainder of its length together with grass verges to each side. The access is constrained at the southern end where it crosses a bridge over a watercourse.

2.3 Surrounding the application site is open countryside; paddocks to the north and south and woodland to the east. Although there are 2 properties nearby, and the settlement of Ifold adjacent to the site access, the application site has a strong rural character. The land slopes down from Plaistow Road towards the site, and whilst public views are constrained by the existing agricultural building in the north west corner of the site it may be glimpsed from Plaistow Road, despite it being set back from the road. There are extensive views out of the site across the surrounding countryside.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 Permission is sought for the demolition of existing industrial buildings and erection of 3 no. detached dwelling houses with associated landscaping, surfacing, car parking provision and access works.

3.2 The dwelling on plot 1 would provide 5 bedrooms with 4 reception rooms, kitchen, study, utility room, boot room and WC, and would have an attached triple garage with home office above. The building would measure approximately 27.35m (w) x 10.5m (d) x 10.05m (h) - with an additional 16m projection to the front to provide a triple garage, boot and utility rooms. The projection at the front would measure approximately 6.1m in height.

3.3. The dwelling on plot 2 would provide 5 bedrooms with 4 reception rooms, kitchen, study and utility/boot room and a detached double garage with study above. The dwelling would measure a maximum of 20.6m (w) x 14m (d) x 9.55m (h) and the garage would measure approximately 8.5m (w) x 6.5m (d) x 6.5m (h).

3.4 The dwelling on plot 3 would provide 6 bedrooms with 4 reception rooms, kitchen/dining/family room, study and utility/boot room with a detached triple garage. The dwelling would measure approximately 27.7m (w) x 14.4m (d) x 9.4m (h) and the proposed garage would measure approximately 11.5m (w) x 6.7m (d) x 5.6m (h).

Page2 40 4.0 History

02/03398/ELD PER Mixed use of the land and buildings at Little Springfield Farm falling within Classes B2 and B8 of the Use Class Order.

5.0 Constraints

Rural Area YES Flood Zone 2 YES Flood Zone 3 YES

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

No objection

6.2 Environment Agency

No objection. Request a condition securing the implementation of the Flood Risk Assessment submitted.

6.3 WSCC - Strategic Planning

No objection - Proposal will result in less intensive use of existing access and therefore the proposal will not result in any highway capacity concerns. Recommend conditions requiring cycle parking, turning space and vehicle parking.

6.4 CDC - Environment Officer

13/01/2015 Prior to determination a mitigation strategy detailing how the bats will be protected and the roosting retained during and post construction works should be provided.

08/06/2015 Following submission of the bat mitigation strategy (Outline Method Statement Bat Mitigation Feb 2015) we are happy that the mitigation proposed would be suitable. A condition should be used to ensure this takes place. The applicants should be aware that a Natural England Protected Species Licence will be required for the works, and this will need to be obtained prior to any works taking place.

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, hedgerows and buildings by avoiding unnecessary artificial light spill through the use of directional light sources and shielding.

Any works to the trees or vegetation clearance on the site should only be undertaken outside of the bird breeding season which takes place between 1st March - 1st October. If works are required within this time an ecologist will need to check the site before any works take place (with 24 hours of any work).

Page3 41 6.5 CDC - Economic Development Officer

22/01/2015 Objection - There is no evidence of marketing for the site, as individual units or as a whole. There is little or no evidence to support the theories that alternative uses would not work. The business space was 47% occupied, which is significant. Loss of commercial space at this site would be detriment to the rural economy.

08/06/2015 No further information has been forthcoming regarding the current levels of occupation, so we must presume it is still at 47%, as per the information given in the original commercial report. We acknowledge that the buildings are not high quality. This, together with the occupation rate demonstrates the requirement for some commercial space in the area. A fully residential site will not support the economy of the local area.

22% of small businesses cite availability of suitable premises as an obstacle to their growth (Source: Small Business Survey 2012 report by BMG Research). The Economic Development Service is aware of a number of small businesses within the District looking to move into good quality, flexible business spaces. This has been exacerbated by the loss of office space to residential due to permitted development rights. Although the majority of micro-businesses in this district are looking for small workshops, with easy in/easy out leases.

There are 6,800 businesses within Chichester District, over 92% of these employ less than 20 people. We do realise that the application site is close to the border with both Waverley District and Horsham District. Waverly District has a higher percentage of businesses employing fewer than 20 people, at 94.7%, as does Horsham District with 93.3% of their businesses employ fewer than 20 people (Source: ONS).

We note from the viability report that no reference has been given to anything other than office space. Light industrial/workshop style use should be investigated as these are more cost effective and there is a relatively high demand, depending on cost per sq.ft and terms of the lease. We have no issues with some residential development but some good quality space is required, in order to support local micro businesses. It is for this very reason that Chichester District Council is proposing an enterprise centre. We are aware that there are businesses in the north of the District looking for good quality small spaces, these businesses are looking for workshop style premises rather than offices.

For all of these reasons, we cannot support the full loss of the commercial use of the site.

6.6 CDC - Estates

23/12/2015 The report provides limited information. It seems that the site has been occupied by a business that has not required use of all of the premises and has from time to time let other parts of the premises to other parties. The author of the report advises that he has not been involved in that marketing and having regard to the site owner's own occupation it is difficult to know how keenly they have marketed other units or the extent to which agents have been used. They do not appear to have improved or replaced the units to make them more marketable.

Page4 42 It does not appear that the property has been marketed as a whole for business purposes but rather that residential use has been identified as the most valuable use on closure of the existing business and in response to the Council's requirements an agent has been engaged to write a report saying that the site does not have potential for business use. It would be a different scenario if the agent had been engaged to market the premises for business purposes and was reporting back after a considerable period of attempting to do that. The agent does make some comments about business development not being viable in this location but most of the comments relate to the difficulty in letting the existing buildings which are of poor standard. If these buildings had been improved by the landlord over the period referred to in the report perhaps tenants would have remained at the premises and better tenants attracted to the location.

Having said that this is a rural location and the site is accessed via a drive adjoining residential premises and that must limit the potential of the site and a residential use might be more in keeping with the location, but that is a matter for you to consider.

The site may not have been actively marketed for business use but I think that it is likely to be difficult to find a suitable business occupier.

08/06/2015 My comments on the original commercial report related to the marketing of the property which I noted had been limited. I also noted that it did not appear that the premises had been well maintained and this would affect the ability to arrange future lettings.

The Addendum does not provide any additional information on this aspect of the matter so I assume that the marketing has remained limited as per my previous comments. The Addendum however provides appraisals for 3 forms of development, wholly residential, mixed residential and commercial and wholly commercial and seeks to make a case for only the residential development being a viable proposition.

It is clear from the appraisals that the residential option produces a significantly higher site value and profit and even if we were to challenge specific figures in the other two appraisals this would only make a marginal change in the position. The appraisals only propose office use, however, and buildings for this use are more costly to construct than light industrial premises which might show a better cost appraisal outcome.

As far as the submitted commercial office appraisals are concerned these show that the proposals to which they relate are not viable. I am aware that offices are not being constructed on a speculative basis in the Chichester District area at this time because more generally as they are not currently seen as a unviable form of development.

I confirm that I accept the submitted appraisals as demonstrating that new office development on this site would not be viable.

6.7 There have been no letters of objection received.

Page5 43 6.8 There have been 36 third party letters of support received concerning matters set out below:

- In keeping with character - Sensitive development - The grass verge provide space to walk safely alongside the road, and buses are infrequent so few people walk along the road to the bus stop - There have been 'units to let' signs at the entrance for ever - Another example is Ashpark Brick works in Plaistow which was changed from commercial to residential, it was empty due to lack of demand in rural area for industrial units - Sympathetic to residential setting

6.9 There has been 1 third party comment received expressing that the LPA proposed to refuse the application, particularly given that other properties in Ifold have been granted planning permission on roads without footpaths.

Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information

6.10 Architect's comments dated 10/02/2015

The proposal would result in 5 dwellings using the existing access, the accepted maximum number for a private drive. WSCC have not raised an objection to the application, however given that there is no footpath along Plaistow Road, this is a reason to keep the numbers of new dwellings down. The purchasers of the properties are likely to have more than one car and foot traffic is therefore much less likely, this cannot be said for a development of small houses and the possible inclusion of social housing.

Whilst the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) 2012 states that only 15% of total new units should be 4+ bed dwellings, this is skewed by the requirement for fewer units of this size in the City and South of the district. Figure 5.6 of the 2012 SHMA [Estimated Size of Dwellings Required for 2011-2031 - Market Housing (Chichester) ] acknowledges a requirement of 31.1% 4+bed dwellings in the North East of the district.

The density of the scheme is 6 dwellings per ha and appropriate for the locality. Given the outlook from the properties, the distance to the boundaries is irrelevant. Maintenance of large gardens is expensive and manpower difficult to come by in rural areas. The houses will be sold a share of the land within the blue line of the site. Expansion of garden into these areas will be controlled by condition and the erection of a post and rail fence on the boundary of each residential curtilage. Separation between proposed dwellings is within the CDC standards.

The dwellings will provide employment in the form of cleaners, housekeepers, gardeners, maintenance staff, and agricultural contractors etc, many of whom are likely to be local.

The houses reflect local character and architecture. Materials are locally sourced and sustainable; clay plain tiles, hanging tiles, stock bricks, oak framed porches and barn like structures contribute to buildings designed to fit into their immediate landscape.

There have been similar developments along Plaistow Road, and this scheme is not dissimilar.

Page6 44 6.11 Letter from current owner dated 11/02/2015

The letter states that the premises have been marketed since 2004, advertising the units either to let or to sell as a whole on the www.startinbusiness.co.uk website (February 2004-2009). In 2010 a website dedicated to the premises was created (www.industrialpremisestolet.co.uk) and a Google Adwords campaign was used to ensure the website appeared on the front page of the search engine for anyone seeking industrial premises. A list of all enquiries received has been maintained, and accompanies the additional application. The marketing sough to attract small to medium sized firms, such as start-up companies. The marketing exercise found no one willing to purchase the site for employment re-development.

In addition to online advertising flyers were placed in shops around West Sussex and mail shots were sent to antique shops, frozen food companies, wine merchants and solicitors through the region advertising storage facilities.

Other business such as care homes, leisure, hospitality, warehousing, storage, packing and industrial waste companies were contacted. The site access proved to be a contributory factor to the negative response, because it is a single lane meaning that no two vehicles can pass each other along the drive.

The letter also states that much of the current occupation of the building is for storage for the current owner's business [which has subsequently closed down].

In terms of the economy, of the last 2 employees of the current owners blast cleaning business; 1 (Worthing based) will remain employed locally and 1 (London based) no longer wishes to travel for work. The previous tenant of one of the buildings (Walkers Autotech) moved to larger more suitable premises in the area and therefore will be contributing to the local economy.

The letter questions whether Ifold is a suitable location for employment, given the evidence submitted and suggests that the site is likely to sit empty for years if not redeveloped for houses. Other sites nearby that have lain empty for a considerable time include Alford Business Centre, Reliance Works at New Pound, Gander & White at New Pound, and another site outside Coolham on the A272.

The letter concludes that the proposal for 3 large family properties, in keeping with other properties in the vicinity, will attract a buyer who will protect and maintain the land surrounding the development (which will be sold as amenity land for each house). The proposal would not only help the rural economy but settles an unknown, potentially harmful, in economic and ecological terms, future for the site.

Summary of additional further information received

6.12 In addition to the above the current owner and the applicant have provided; a schedule of the condition of the buildings (11/02/2015), examples of the adverts sent out for vacant B2/B8 units (11/02/2015), a log of enquiries received (11/02/2015), an addendum to the Commercial Report produced by Gascoignes Chartered Surveyors (February 2015), an email from the developer confirming that the premises have been unoccupied since January 2015, and a further addendum to the Commercial Report dated 29/04/2015. The final addendum to the Commercial Report produced by Gascoingnes Chartered Surveyors incorporates viability appraisals for residential

Page7 45 development, mixed residential and commercial development, and a wholly commercial development of the site for B1 use.

7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan

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

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

Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:

BE11 New Development BE13 Town Cramming BE14 Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges and Other Landscape Features RE1 Rural Area Generally RE5 North-eastern Part of the District RE8 Nature Conservation (Non-designated Areas) TR6 Highway Safety H1 Dwelling Requirement H4 Size and Density of Dwellings B8 Safeguarding Business Floorspace

7.3 The Council has prepared a new Local Plan covering Chichester District excluding the South Downs National Park. The main plan document, Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029, was submitted for examination in May 2014. A number of examination hearings were held during the autumn of 2014, following which the Council undertook public consultation on Proposed Modifications to the Plan in January/February 2015. The Council has now received the Local Plan inspector's final report which was published in May 2015 (Appendix 4). The inspector concludes that, subject to a number of main modifications, the submitted Plan satisfies the legal requirements in the 2004 Act and meets the criteria for soundness set out in the NPPF. It should be noted that all of the inspector's recommended modifications were included in the public consultation undertaken by the Council in January/February 2015.

7.4 Following the Local Plan inspector's report, the Council is intending to take the Plan forward for formal adoption in July 2015. Ahead of this, the new Local Plan is a material consideration and, given the inspector's conclusions, the Council considers that the new Local Plan should be afforded significant weight, in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF.

Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 3: The Economy and Employment Provision Policy 4: Housing Provision Policy 5: Parish Housing Sites 2012- 2029

Page8 46 Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 25: Development in the North of the Plan area Policy 26: Existing Employment Sites Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 42: Flood Risk Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity

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), 7, 14, 18, 22, 28, 30, 49, 50, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 64, 100, 103 and 109.

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.

Page9 47 Other Local Policy and Guidance

7.8 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 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 B2 - Greener living D1 - Increasing housing supply D3 - Housing fit for purpose

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are:

(i) principle of development and sustainability; (ii) loss of employment land; (iii) impact upon rural character; (iv) housing mix and density; (v) impact upon amenities of neighbouring property; (vi) impact upon highway safety; (vii) flood risk; and (viii) ecology.

Assessment

(i) Principle of development and sustainability

8.2 The site lies outside of the Settlement Policy Area (SPA) where, in accordance with policy RE1 of the Local Plan and Policy 1 of the emerging Local Plan, new development is resisted in favour of development in existing built up areas that are sustainable. In addition, the National Planning Policy Framework requires in the rural area housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities (paragraph 55). Paragraph 7 of the NPPF explains the three strands of sustainability, being economic, environmental and social.

8.3 The economic impact of the development is addressed below, where it is concluded that the proposal would result in an unjustified loss of employment land and therefore the proposal would have an adverse economic impact. In terms of environmental and social sustainability, it is considered that the proposal would also fail to fulfil these strands of sustainability.

8. 4 The environmental strand of sustainability includes, inter alia, the protection and enhancement of the natural and built environment, helping to improve biodiversity whilst minimising waste and pollution. The impact of the development upon the natural and built environment and biodiversity are addressed below.

Page10 48 8.5 The Transport Statement (TS) submitted with the application states that the development would be within 300m of the village shop and within walking distance of the bus stop, serviced by buses on Route 42 (to Guildford, Godalming and Cranleigh every weekday), Route 64 (Between Loxwood and Horsham on Mondays and Thursdays) and Route 69 (Between Alford and Worthing on Tuesday). In addition, Plaistow and Loxwood would both be approximately 2.5km from the site, where there are a doctors' surgery, post office, convenience store and primary school, which would be carried out on foot or by cycle.

8.6 It is considered however that whilst there is a village shop in Ifold, and there are bus routes to nearby villages and towns further afield, the proposal is likely to result in journeys being predominantly made using a private motor vehicle due to the location of the site removed from the core of the village. This is accepted in the architect's supporting letter, which indicates that journeys by foot would be unlikely. The proposal would therefore unjustifiably encourage the use of non-sustainable modes of transport.

8.7 In terms of the social sustainability of the development, it is considered that whilst the proposal would provide new housing, it would not do so in a way which is inclusive within the village and with good access to local services. The housing provision and mix of housing is addressed in more detail below, however in summary it is considered that due to the location of the site and the provision of solely large detached dwellings that would not meet the need for a suitable mix of housing in the area, the proposal would fail to meet the social element of sustainable development.

8.8 In summary, it is therefore considered that whilst Ifold is designated as a service village within the Draft Local Plan and the proposal would make use of previously developed land, due to the location of the site detached from the settlement by open countryside and the size of dwellings proposed, that the proposal would not be socially or environmentally sustainable contrary to the requirements of the NPPF and policy 1 of the draft Local Plan

(ii) Loss of Employment Land

8.9 The land is previously developed land, recently in use for industrial purposes, and therefore consideration must also be given to the loss of the existing employment provision. The adopted local plan states within policy B8 that planning permission for change of use of industrial sites will be refused unless the planning authority is satisfied that;

- adequate floor space has been provided in accordance with the objective of the plan to provide 190,000 square metres of business floor space in the plan period; - the proposal would not result in the loss of accommodation of which there is a limited supply, - and the proposal would facilitate relocation of uses which currently create damage to the surrounding environment.

Page11 49 8.10 The emerging local plan policy 26 states that alternative uses will be permitted on business sites where it has been demonstrated that the site is no longer required and is unlikely to be re-uses or redeveloped for business of similar uses. The text supporting this policy states "To demonstrate that an employment site is no longer required, planning applicants will be required to provide supporting evidence on the viability of the site for continued employment use (guidance set out in Appendix 5)". The considerations are therefore twofold; the marketing of the site and the viability of the development of the site for commercial floorspace. Both of these issues are considered below.

Marketing

8.11 The marketing requirements set out in Appendix 5 include a requirement for premises to be 'vigorously and exhaustively marketed for between a year and 18 months', and as a minimum:

 Confirmation by an appropriate marketing agent on headed paper that the premises were appropriately and extensively marketed for the required length of time  How interest in the site has been objectively dealt with  Details of the conditions/state of the land/premises and their upkeep being and during marketing and viability  Details that the marketing price is realistic  Detailed photographs of the marketing boards on the premises of an appropriate quality, size, scale, location and number during this time  An enquiry log, how it was followed up and why it was unsuccessful  A copy of all advertisements in the local press and trade journals  Evidence of marketing via the internet

8.12 In addition, to the list above in instances where a loss of employment land is proposed the information submitted should demonstrate that:

 the site/premises should have been vacant for some time and not been made deliberately unviable  the site has been actively marketed for business of similar uses at a realistic rent/price for a minimum of 2 years or reasonable period based on the economic climate  alternative employment uses for the site/premises have been fully explored  for uses involving a net loss of 2,000 square metre of more the loss of the site will not result in an under-supply of available employment floorspace in the local area

8.13 During the course of the application, details of the marketing activities have been submitted. These include:

- online marketing - displaying a board outside of the site - mail shots - flyers in local shops

Page12 50 8.14 It is acknowledged that some of the marketing activities have taken place over a significant period of time (since 2004), however the assessment for the current application must be carried out in accordance with the requirements of current planning policies. During the course of the application the weight that can be attributed to the emerging local plan has increased, and it is considered that as the emerging local plan has been found sound by a Planning Inspector, and is now awaiting adoption by the Council, that it is of considerable weight. As such, it is necessary for the applicant to meet the requirements of Policy 26, and to carry out marketing in accordance with Appendix 5 of the emerging local plan.

8.15 The marketing that has taken place relates to the rental of units within the site, rather than the premises as a whole. In addition, the buildings in use by the applicant until January 2015 do not appear to have been marketed at any time during the last 18 months. It appears that from the supporting information produced by Gascoignes the site was not marketed as a whole, and no details are provided of who else was approached to market either the site, or any of the individual units.

8.16 The Council's Economic Development Officer has indicated that there is a need in the area for business floorspace, and that the loss of the employment land should be resisted due to the harm it would cause to the local economy. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the premises as a whole, or the individual units, have been marketed to the full extent required by policy 26 of the emerging Local Plan. Whilst the condition of the buildings is understood from the schedule of dilapidation and the information provided by Gascoignes, without carrying out a full marketing exercise it is not possible to conclude that the buildings are no longer required for employment uses. Therefore, the information submitted in respect of the marketing activities undertaken by the current owner do not meet the level of marketing to meet the policy requirements, and as a result does not outweigh the harm identified by the Council's Economic Development Officer.

Viability

8.17 The viability appraisals submitted to accompany the application include the assessment of three potential re-developments of the site; a mixed residential and business development comprising of two dwellings and B1 offices; a B1 office re-development; and the redevelopment of the site for the current proposal of three new dwellings. The assessments submitted demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Council's Estates Manager that both the office development and the mixed office and residential scheme would be unlikely to produce a reasonable profit sufficient to make the scheme viable for the developer. He concluded therefore that the viability assessments demonstrate that it would not be viable to re-develop the site for business purposes.

8.18 Policy 26 of the emerging Local Plan is clear that planning permission will only be granted for the loss of employment sites where it has been demonstrated that the site is no longer required and is unlikely to to be re-used or re-developed for Business uses. As stated in paragraph 8.16 of this report, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the existing premises have been vigorously and exhaustively marketed for the prescribed period in order to demonstrate that there is no longer a need for the existing employment land or that the site would not be re-used for business purposes. Therefore, notwithstanding that the viability appraisals appear to indicate that a residential development may be the only viable option in terms of re-developing the site, officers are not convinced that the complete redevelopment of the site is necessary, or that the continued use of the existing buildings for business uses would

Page13 51 not be viable. Therefore in conclusion on both of these matters, whilst an employment scheme appears not to be viable, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the site is no longer required for business purposes, or that it is unlikely to be re-used as required by policy 26 of the emerging Local Plan. The proposal therefore would not accord with the requirements of the development plan, and if approved would result in the unjustified loss of an employment site that would be harmful to the local economy.

(iii) Impact upon rural character

8.19 One of the core principles of the NPPF is "to take account of the different roles and characters of different areas… recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and supporting thriving rural communities within it". In addition, Policy 7 of the NPPF requires good design that improves the overall quality of the area and policy. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that "good design is indivisible from good planning" and paragraph 60 states that planning decisions "should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative". Policy BE11 of the Local Plan states that new development should not detract from the surroundings, taking into account its effect on the environment, its design, scale, materials, siting and layout among other factors. Policy 33 of emerging LP also requires new development to meet the highest standards of design and in keeping with the character of the surrounding area and its setting in the landscape. In addition, Policy 33 of the proposed development states that development should respect and where possible enhance the character of the surrounding area, in terms of its proportion, form, massing, siting, layout, density, height, size, scale and detailed design.

8.20 The proposed dwellings seek to incorporate traditional elements of design and the use of local materials. However, the domestic appearance of the dwellings combined with their scale, with heights of approximately 10m and widths in excess of 20m, would result in buildings that would appear out of context in the rural landscape.

8.21 It is accepted that the existing farm buildings, now in industrial use, are of a substantial scale both spreading across the site, and those at the northern edge of the site are of a significant height and include a row of silos. However, these buildings are of a character and appearance that is expected within a rural setting, indeed they were agricultural buildings used for the farming of the land. It is therefore considered that the presence of these existing buildings on the site do not justify the provision of 3 large dwellings with large garages, that would be of a domestic character and appearance.

8.22 In addition to concerns about the visual impact of the built form upon the surrounding rural area, it is also considered that the proposed provision of small gardens (comparative to the size of the dwellings) with further 'amenity land' to be sold to the future occupiers of the dwellings would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area. There is a strong likelihood that the future occupiers would wish to use the 'amenity land' for domestic purposes, and therefore the land surrounding the site would likely in time become domestic in character and appearance, and may include the siting of domestic paraphernalia which would be harmful to the character of the locality. Furthermore, in the event the boundaries are maintained within the residential curtilage (to be used as garden) and the non- residential 'amenity land', the desire for the future occupiers of these dwellings to enjoy views of their land would mean that post and rail fencing with little vegetation is likely to be the preferred form of boundary treatment, resulting in the provision of very little natural screening of the development.

Page14 52 8.23 Therefore, due to the scale of the proposed dwellings and the layout of the application site with relatively small gardens, the visual impact of the proposed dwellings and associated domestic paraphernalia, and the likelihood of little screening would result in a development that would not respect or enhance the rural setting of the site, and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area.

(iv) Housing mix and density

8.24 The NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities (LPA's) should; plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community, identify the size, type and tenure and range of housing that is required in particular locations, reflecting local demand (paragraph 50). Policy H4 of the Local Plan supports the inclusion of smaller dwellings within new developments and states that the LPA will take into account the desirability for a mix of dwelling types and sizes both on the site and within the surrounding area. Furthermore, policy 33 of the emerging Local Plan requires schemes to provide an appropriate density of development, determined by immediate context, type of development proposed and the need to provide an appropriate mix of dwellings.

8.25 The proposed development would result in the provision of 2 no. 5 bed dwellings, and 1 no. 6 bed dwelling at a density of 6 dwellings per hectare. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) identifies that there is a need for 31.1% of new dwellings to be 4+ beds, which is in excess of the District wide requirement for there to be no more than 15% 4+ beds as part of a development. However, 100% of the proposed scheme would have 4+ bed dwellings, far in excess of the 31% required for this part of the District. The proposed housing mix of the scheme would not meet the local requirements for new housing in the area because there is no provision for smaller 2 and 3 bed dwellings, that could be accommodated by, for example, dividing in half one or more of the substantial dwellings proposed.

8.26 In terms of the density of the proposed development, whilst there are examples of the occasional large dwelling within a large plot along Plaistow Road, this only forms part of the context of the site. The density of Ifold is generally greater despite its verdant character, and it is considered that this could be reflected on the application site without a significant increase in built form. It is therefore considered that the incorporation of smaller dwellings into the site would not have had any greater impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area when compared with the current proposal, and that the impact as a result of the development is not outweighed by the minimal provision of further housing proposed. Therefore, the development fails to take the opportunity available to provide an appropriate mix and density of development that would meet the local needs without exacerbating harm to the character of the surrounding area.

(v) Impact upon amenities of neighbouring property

8.27 The NPPF requires (paragraph 17) that planning should ensure a good quality of amenity for all existing and future occupiers of land and buildings, and policy BE11 of the LP and policy 33 of the emerging LP include requirements to protect the amenities of neighbouring properties. Due to the distances between the proposed dwellings, and the existing dwelling to the west it is considered that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable level of overlooking, or an overbearing relationship, that would be harmful

Page15 53 to the living conditions of the neighbouring dwelling or the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings.

(vi) Impact upon highways

8.28 The application is accompanied by a Transport Statement (TS) which addresses the means of access, access to facilities and services and an assessment of the levels of traffic associated with the existing and proposed development on the site. Consideration of the accessibility of the site is included within the assessment of the principle of development above. The Highways Authority has considered the details submitted with the application, and is satisfied that the proposed development would result in a reduction in traffic movements to and from the site. In addition, the visibility splays at Plaistow Road are acceptable, as is the proposed access arrangement. Therefore subject to the inclusion of conditions to secure the proposed vehicle parking and turning on site and the provision of cycle parking for each plot the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the strategic function of the highway network or highway safety. The proposal therefore accords with national and local planning policies in this respect.

(vii) Flood risk and Drainage

8.29 There is a watercourse running along the northern part of the site. The access/egress crosses flood zone 2 and 3, and the proposed garage to plot 1 sits partially within flood zone 2 and 3, therefore a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been submitted with the application. The proposed dwellings would have a finished floor level of 0.8m above the 1 in 100 year flood event level, and the ground where the garage of plot 1 is proposed would be levelled to take the garage out of flood zone 3. The FRA concludes that the risk of flooding would therefore be low.

8.30 The proposed foul drainage would be via a package treatment plant due to the lack of main foul drainage, and whilst in principle the site may be developed without increasing the risk of flooding, technical details, including percolation testing would need to be secured to ensure an appropriate mitigation strategy would be provided.

8.31 The Environment Agency has confirmed that it has no objections, subject to the implementation of the recommendations within the FRA. The proposal therefore would not result in development within an area at risk of flooding, or an increased risk of flooding elsewhere and meets national and local planning policies in this respect.

(viii) Ecology

8.32 National and local planning policies seek to conserve and enhance biodiversity. The application is accompanied by an initial biodiversity report, and subsequently a bat mitigation strategy has been submitted to ensure that the proposal would not harm to bats currently using the buildings. The proposed strategy has been accepted by the Council's Environment Officer, and subject to conditions controlling the timing of the clearance of the site to ensure it is not when birds are nesting, and restrictions to external illumination to minimise harm to wildlife, the proposal would not cause harm to biodiversity or the favourable conservation status of protected species. The proposal therefore accords with national and local planning policies.

Page16 54 Conclusion

8.33 Based on the above assessment it is considered the proposal is contrary to development plan policies RE1, H4, B8 of the Chichester District Local Plan, First Review 1999 and policies 1, 2, 4, 5, 26, 33 and 48 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies Pre-submission 2014-2019 and therefore the application is recommended for refusal.

Human Rights

8.34 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 that the decision to refuse permission is justified and proportional to the harm that would be caused if planning permission were to be granted.

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE

1 U94378 - Unjustified loss of employment and unsus 2 U94379 - Character, appearance and housing mix

INFORMATIVES

1 W16G - Decision Plans 2 W46F - App Ref Following Discussion - NWF

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

Page17 55 Agenda Item 7

Parish: Ward: Chichester Chichester South

7. CC/15/00114/FUL

Proposal Variation of Condition 5 to 05/00184/FUL, plant equipment and machinery to be operated on the site between the hours of 06:00 and 23:00 7 days a week.

Site 35 South Street Chichester West Sussex PO19 1EL

Map Ref (E) 486017 (N) 104589

Applicant Tesco Stores Ltd

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

Page 56 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 South Street in the historic core of Chichester City centre and the Chichester Conservation Area. The surrounding area is characterised by a number retail units, restaurants, estate agents and residential properties. To north of the site there is a retail unit whilst to the south there is an estate agent. The buildings adjacent to the west and southern boundaries of the site are Grade II listed.

2.2 The property is a modern two-storey building with brick elevations and a plain tiled hipped roof. There is a traditional blue painted timber shop front at the ground floor level and fascia board with 'Tesco Express' red and white lettering. Above the shop front there are three windows that face onto South Street. To the rear of the building there is a yard that services the shop and is predominately enclosed by walls at least 2.7m high and a timber roof. Part of the wall that forms the western boundary of the site comprises brick and flint, and includes a fire exit door. The plant equipment and machinery that serve the shop are located within the yard and include one fan condenser and three air conditioning units.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The application seeks to vary condition 5 attached to planning permission CC/05/00184FUL. Condition 5 attached to sets out the following:

No plant, machinery or vehicles shall be operated on the site except between the hours of:

0700 and 1800 hours on Mondays to Fridays (inclusive); 0700 and 1300 hours on Saturdays; and

not at any time on Sundays or Public Holidays.

The application seeks permission to extend the hours the plant equipment and machinery operates to between 06:00 and 23:00 hours for seven days a week, including public holidays.

4.0 History

99/00858/FUL REF Installation of 1 no. ATM cash dispenser.

05/00184/FUL PER Refurbishment of doors and windows. Installation of new air conditioning and refrigeration plant.

05/00202/ADV APPRET 1 no. illuminated fascia and 1 no. bus stop style sign.

Page 57 05/00903/LBC PER Door in listed rear boundary wall.

05/00914/ADV PER 1 no. non-illuminated fascia sign.

05/02739/FUL PER Addition of an external fire escape.

06/01498/LBC PER Increase height of rear boundary wall.

06/01499/FUL PER Increase height of rear boundary wall.

07/01145/FUL PER Installation of a through the glass ATM machine.

10/02329/EXT PER Extension of permission CC/07/01145/FUL. Installation of through the glass ATM machine.

12/02644/ADV PER Fascia sign and ATM signage.

14/01736/ADV APPRET Framed advertisment board measuring 980mm x 1285mm.

15/00114/FUL PDE Variation of Condition 5 to 05/00184/FUL, plant equipment and machinery to be operated on the site between the hours of 06:00 and 23:00 7 days a week.

5.0 Constraints

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

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

6.1.1 Comments relating to the original plans and documents submitted.

Page 58 The City Council has no objection to a temporary consent for 2 years and subject to a suitable noise limitation and an operating hours condition in accordance with the hours of opening to protect the amenities of nearby residents.

6.1.2 Comments relating to the amended noise report submitted.

The City Council have not responded to the re-consultation regarding the amended noise report submitted by the agent. As such the City Council objection is considered to be maintained.

6.2 Chichester CAAC

6.2.1 Comments relating to the original plans and documents submitted.

There is no justification for extending the hours of operation of air handling plant and vehicular deliveries which would be unneighbourly.

6.2.2 Comments relating to the amended noise report submitted.

The Committee maintain the view that the proposals area unneighbourly. It is noted that the sound survey appears to be of little value as not apparently measured at the specified building.

6.3 CDC - Environmental Health Officer (General)

6.3.1 Comments relating to the original plans and documents submitted.

I have read the noise report submitted by K R Associates Ref. KR04108 V1.0 (Full) dated 20th October 2014 in respect of the above proposal. The noise report is rather confusing in parts. The daytime reference time interval for the source noise is 1 hour between 22.00 - 23.00 hours and the background reference is the day time period between 07.00 - 23.00 hours. The night-time reference time interval for the source noise is 5 minutes between 06.00 - 07.00 hours and the background reference is the night-time period between 23.00 - 07.00 hours. This was confused at 7.9 - 7.10 of the report. I did not agree with the equivalent assessment position selected which was in a busy car park area and not quietly located behind houses set well back from the main road. The only relevance was the equivalent distance from the noise source (40m) and ease of access for measurement purposes. The times during which sound measurements were undertaken were dominated by a fresh south-westerly wind. A note of caution should be exercised with noise monitoring when wind speeds exceed 5 m/s, which clearly occurred during the measurement period. I would suggest that much lower background levels may have been achieved at the relevant residential properties, especially during the late evening and early morning periods during calmer wind conditions. That said I am satisfied that sufficient information has been provided in respect of the refrigerant condensers to indicate that the noise arising on the nearest boundary with residential dwellings to the north of the development will not amount to any significant impact and should still be compliant with condition 6 of Planning Application CC/05/00184/FUL.

This variation relates to the hours that air conditioning plant may operate at the stores. I am again confused as to why the report suggests that it is necessary to change the hours to 06.00 - 23.00 hours every day when the store opening hours are 07.00 - 22.00 hours Mon - Sat and 08.00 - 21.30 hours on Sundays. Given that the noise level on full

Page 59 demand may be as much as 38dB at 40m (according to manufacturer's data for all the air conditioning plant in combination) then I would recommend that the hours that this plant and equipment are allowed to operate are modified in line with the store opening hours only. This will avoid any excessive intrusion of noise into nearby residential properties, including gardens that are within the immediate vicinity.

6.3.2 Comments relating to the amended noise report submitted.

I have read the reasons given for running the air conditioners for one hour before and after business opening times to allow for shop conditioning and staff comfort but this must be weighed against the argument for strict noise control during the night time period. The acoustic report shows a representative position in terms of distance for the nearest identified dwelling - Chantry House, Cannon Lane, Chichester as being at a lamp post in the car park north of Avenue de Chartres. Whilst I have no reason to dispute the accuracy of the background noise on the night in question the measurements were conducted during quite breezy wind conditions (gusting above 5m/s) so I think it is fair to suggest they are somewhat misleading for background noise during much calmer weather conditions. I accept that the noise predictions from the manufacturer's noise data for the sum of all the equipment operating is likely to be around 38dB at 40m. However, with a knowledge of other night time noise data around Chichester I believe that the predicted rating level may occasionally be around or even slightly above the lowest night time background levels at Chantry House behind shops in South Street.

In light of the above I would accept there is some noise justification for relaxation of the hours permitted for the running of air conditioning systems being concurrent with the day time period 07.00 - 23.00 hours, whilst protecting the quiet of the night time period, both in planning terms and in noise guidance, between 23.00 and 07.00 hours. This would allow staff to clean the stores and replenish shelves in an air conditioned environment for an hour after closing if required. The control of noise emission at the premises will be in line with similar noise conditions being applied to kitchen extractors and air conditioners for restaurants along South Street, Chichester.

I would recommend the following condition be applied to any permission given.

The rating level of the noise emitted from the air conditioning cooling systems shall not exceed a level of 40dB LAeq, 1hour between 07.00 and 23.00 hours during the day, and 30dB between 23.00 and 07.00 at night, as determined at the boundary of the nearest residential properties along Canon Lane, Chichester and one metre outside any window of residential parts of properties in South Street, Chichester. The measurements and assessment shall be made according to British Standard 4142:2014 accepting that a surrogate measurement position may be selected to determine noise output closer to the equipment in question to predict noise incident at the same receiver locations.

Reason: To protect noise levels in the environment and provide a reasonable amenity for the occupants of nearby residential premises.

6.4 CDC - Environmental Health Officer (Contaminated Land)

No comments with respect to contaminated land or air quality issues

6.5 Third Party

Page 60 There have been no third party representations received.

7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan

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

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

BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE4 Buildings of Architectural or Historic Merit BE6 Conservation Areas BE11 New Development S2 Chichester - Primary Shopping Frontage

7.3 The Council has prepared a new Local Plan covering Chichester District excluding the South Downs National Park. The main plan document, Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029, was submitted for examination in May 2014. A number of examination hearings were held during the autumn of 2014, following which the Council undertook public consultation on Proposed Modifications to the Plan in January/February 2015. The Council has now received the Local Plan inspector's final report which was published in May 2015. The inspector concludes that, subject to a number of main modifications, the submitted Plan satisfies the legal requirements in the 2004 Act and meets the criteria for soundness set out in the NPPF. It should be noted that all of the inspector's recommended modifications were included in the public consultation undertaken by the Council in January/February 2015.

7.4 Following the Local Plan inspector's report, the Council is intending to take the Plan forward for formal adoption in July 2015. Ahead of this, the new Local Plan is a material consideration and, given the inspector's conclusions, the Council considers that the new Local Plan should be afforded significant weight, in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF.

Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 3: The Economy and Employment Provision Policy 27: Chichester Centre Retail Policy Policy 47: Heritage

National Policy and Guidance

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

Page 61 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).

Other Local Policy and Guidance

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

Chichester City Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2005)

7.8 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

A3 - Vibrant and sustainable City and market towns, with a good range of business and retail types

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) Impact on neighbour amenity; and ii) Impact on the conservation area and adjacent listed buildings.

Assessment i) Impact on neighbour amenity

8.2 The application seeks to vary condition 5, which is attached to planning permission CC/05/00184FUL, in order to extend the hours the plant and machinery operates within the site. Condition 5 currently limits the hours the plant and machinery can operate to the following:

 0700 and 1800 hours on Mondays to Fridays (inclusive);  0700 and 1300 hours on Saturdays; and  At no time on Sundays or Public Holidays.

Page 62 The application seeks permission to extend the hours the plant equipment and machinery operates to between 06:00 and 23:00 hours for seven days a week, including public holidays.

8.3 The site is located on the western side of South Street where there is a mixture of retail units, restaurants, commercial premises and residential properties. To the west of the site there are also the residential properties of 1-6 The Chantry situated off Canon Lane. The plant equipment and machinery that serve the shop are located within the yard to the rear of the building and include one fan condenser and three air conditioning units. The yard is predominately enclosed by walls at least 2.7m high and a timber framed roof.

8.4 The original Environmental Acoustic Test report submitted was considered by the Health Protection and Environmental Management team. In relation to the refrigerant condensers sufficient information had been provided to indicate that the noise levels arising on the nearest boundary with residential dwellings to the north of the site would not have a significant impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Regarding the air conditioning plant the noise levels on full demand could be as much as 38dB at 40m. Nevertheless, it was considered that the hours the plant equipment and machinery be allowed to operate be extended in line with the store opening hours only in order to avoid excessive intrusive in terms in noise into nearby residential properties. The store opening hours are currently 07:00 to 22:00 on Monday to Saturday and 08:00 to 21:30 hours on Sundays.

8.5 Subsequently an amended Environmental Acoustic Test report was submitted by the agent. The amended report sought to provide further justification for extending the hours the plant and machinery equipment operates to allow for store acclimatisation and staff comfort. In light of the amended report the noise predictions from the manufacturer's noise data for the sum of all the equipment operating would in all likeliness be around 38dB at a distance of 40m. Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that the predicted rating level may occasionally be around or even slightly above the lowest night time background levels at the properties, 1-6 The Chantry, which are to the west of the site. However, it should be noted that the plant and machinery equipment is predominately enclosed by walls and timber frame roof, which would assist in mitigating noise impacts upon neighbouring residential properties.

8.6 It is considered, therefore, that there is justification to extend the hours the plant and machinery equipment operates to be concurrent with the day time period, 07:00 to 23:00 hours, but not from 06:00 hours, which falls within the quieter night time period. The Health Protection and Environmental Management team have indicated that the plant and machinery equipment should also not operate between the 23:00 and 07:00 hours if the level would exceed 30dB. Given the existing arrangement of the plant and machinery equipment, the level of 30dB would be exceeded. Consequently it is considered that a condition should be applied to ensure that the plant and machinery equipment operates only between 07:00 and 23:00 hours seven days a week, including public holidays, and not at all during the night time period. This would therefore protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers as well as the quiet night time period. ii) Impact on the conservation area and adjacent listed buildings.

Page 63 8.7 The site is located within the Chichester Conservation Area and situated to the north of a Grade II listed building. However, it is considered that extending the hours the plant and machinery operates would have a limited impact on the character and appearance of the Chichester Conservation Area or adjacent listed buildings, particularly in light of the fact that South Street has a number of restaurants which operate kitchen extractors and air conditioners.

Significant Conditions

Conditions will be attached relating to the following matters: i) Noise levels emitted from the plant and machinery equipment; and ii) Noise Control Machinery; and iii) Vehicle Deliveries Times.

Conclusion

Based on the above assessment regarding the noise impacts upon neighbour amenity and the surrounding character of the Chichester Conservation area, it is considered that the proposal complies with polices BE6 and BE11 Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 and policy 47 of the new Local Plan 2014-2029. 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 U94403 - Time Limit - Full 2 U94404 - No Departure from Plans 3 U94405 - Noise Levels 4 U94407 - Noise Control Machinery 5 U94406 - Vehicle Deliveries

INFORMATIVES

1 U94408 - Application Approved Following Revisions

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

Page 64 Agenda Item 8

Parish: Ward: Boxgrove Boxgrove

8. BX/14/03827/OUT

Proposal Outline planning permission is sought for development of the site for up to 22 residential units, public open space, landscaping, access and car parking. All matters are to be reserved except for point of access.

Site Land West Of Abbots Close Priors Acre Boxgrove West Sussex

Map Ref (E) 490554 (N) 107058

Applicant Miss SL Brooks

RECOMMENDATION TO REFUSE

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

Page1 65 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The application site is an irregularly shaped, flat parcel of grassland 0.77ha in area, previously used for grazing in association with Boxgrove Farm. The land is accessed via an existing 5-bar agricultural gate on the northern boundary of the site, off the private access road to Boxgrove Farm, which links into Priors Acre located to the north- east. There is a mature, established native hedgerow along the western boundary of the site, beyond which is grazing land associated with Boxgrove Farm. The site is outside of the Settlement Policy Area and therefore considered to be part of the rural area, although the SPA boundary for Boxgrove runs adjacent to the application site along the northern and eastern boundary. The site is also within Flood Zone 1.

2.2 Priors Acre is a modern housing development comprising a mix of dwelling types and sizes. A large 2-storey property, 49 Priors Acre, is located to the north of the application site, although it does not face the site. Rookfield, a semi-detached chalet bungalow, is located adjacent to the north-eastern boundary. To the south of Rookfield is Abbotts Close, which comprises a mix of dwelling types, two of which back on to the application site. Old Police House, which is a 2-storey detached dwelling, is located adjacent to the south-eastern corner of the application site. The boundary along the eastern edge comprises a close-boarded fence, which varies in height from 1.8m down to 1.4m. The fencing is supplemented in places by mature planting, particularly adjacent to Old Police House, where a significant proportion of the boundary is screened by a Leylandii hedge in excess of 3m in height. There are mature trees with hedgerow under along the southern boundary, as well as a low bund, screening the application site from the A27 dual carriageway.

2.3 The site is located on the south-western edge of Boxgrove village. The village includes a primary school, shop, church and village hall, all to the north of the application site. A bus service also offers a regular service to Chichester. There is a footbridge linking the village to Tangmere to the south-west of the application site, accessed via The Street. Facilities in Tangmere include a further school and larger shop and commercial and business premises.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The application proposal comprises a development of 22 dwellings, of no more than 2- storeys. The application has been made in Outline form, with matters pertaining to access for consideration at this stage. The illustrative layout plan shows a mix of terraced, semi-detached and detached houses.

3.2 Eight of the dwellings will be affordable housing: of these 2 will be shared ownership and 6 will be affordable rented, in line with the Council's guidelines. A commuted sum of £87,200 will be sought in lieu of the 0.8 unit. The housing mix would be as follows:

Affordable Housing 2 x 1-bed flats 3 x 2-bed houses 3 x 3-bed houses

Page2 66 Market Housing 5 x 2-bed houses 7 x 3-bed houses 2 x 4 bed houses.

3.3 The proposed vehicular access serving the dwellings will join the local highway network at Priors Acre, from the north-eastern corner of the application site. It will utilise the first 30m of the existing private access road serving Boxgrove Farm, with a newly created bellmouth. A new pavement will be created along the southern side of the existing access road to Boxgrove Farm linking to the existing pavement on Priors Acre. The access to Priors Acre will be upgraded to provide a bellmouth of 15m at its widest point, whilst the upgraded access and new road heading south within the development will maintain a width of 5m. The illustrative layout plan shows the access road running south inside the western boundary of the application site.

3.4 The illustrative layout plan also proposes to provide an area of unequipped open play space in the north-eastern corner of the site, an attenuation pond, and 44 allocated parking spaces mainly within curtilage of the properties, with a further 6 unallocated visitor spaces.

3.5 Foul sewage from the site would drain to Tangmere Wastewater Treatment Works, which does not currently have capacity beyond that which has already been allocated. Works to upgrade the WwTW is expected to be operational by 2019. A temporary on- site treatment plant for foul drainage is therefore proposed as part of the development to provide foul drainage until such time that Tangmere WwTW is able to accommodate the additional capacity generated by the proposed development. The temporary on-site treatment plant is proposed to go under the road in the south-western part of the site.

4.0 History

No relevant history

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

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Boxgrove Parish Council

Page3 67 Boxgrove Parish Council and 25 members of the public discussed this application in depth at its meeting of 2nd March 2015. The Council objects on the following grounds: the application is premature; the access has not been properly considered; the wider traffic implications have not been taken into account (the junction on to The Street is already a shambles); it should be delayed so that the villages own Neighbourhood Plan can take it into account; 22 dwellings is too many; it is much too close to the A27 ; and finally that the council is not at all satisfied with the applicants Highway Safety Audit.

6.2 Environment Agency

There is no remaining consented capacity at Tangmere Wastewater Treatment Works to accommodate further development. An upgrade is proposed for Tangmere WwTW, which is expected to be operational by 2019.

The Environment Agency has a presumption against non-mains systems in sewered areas however we have considered this within the wider context of the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. On balance we would not have any objections in planning terms to the principle of a non-mains system for foul drainage to enable additional development in this catchment that your Council considers is required and necessary. However temporary provision of private sewerage to developments in such areas should not be seen as an alternative to proper infrastructure planning. A Section 106 Agreement should be implemented to ensure connection to mains system when available in the future.

6.3 Southern Water Services

There is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. Additional off-site sewers or improvements to existing sewers will be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development. Section 98 of the Water Industry Act 1991 provides a legal mechanism through which the developer can request the appropriate infrastructure. An informative is recommended to this effect.

The planning application form makes reference to drainage using Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). The applicant will need to ensure that arrangements exist for the long term maintenance of the SUDS facilities in perpetuity. Should this application receive planning approval, a condition is requested to approve the details of the proposed foul and surface water drainage.

6.4 Natural England

The proposed development will have no impact on any statutorily protected sites.

6.5 Highways England

Original comments

Holding direction applied to allow further discussion regarding the proposed non- motorised user access between the application site and the A27 foot and cycle bridge to the south-east.

Additional comments following omission of the non-motorised user access to the A27

Page4 68 No objection to the amended planning application which now does not include a pedestrian and cyclist connection to the A27 west of the footbridge.

6.6 Sussex Police

Comments regarding the indicative layout to advising of appropriate active frontages and overlooking of open space. Strong definition between public and private spaces required.

6.7 WSCC - Highways

The proposed development will be accessed via an existing private driveway. Access will be improved to include 5m carriageway width and 1.8m footway. Visibility splays of 43m can be achieved in line with Manual for Streets. It is considered there is sufficient capacity within existing road network. Conditions recommended securing details of the vehicular access and visibility splays and requiring the provision of a construction management plan.

Further comments in relation to Road Safety Review submitted by Third Party

The applicant has provided the LPA with swept path diagrams for a refuse vehicle entering and exiting the proposed access. A refuse vehicle is not articulated so it would need to have a 6m kerb radius to accommodate its entire length. Considering a horse box or indeed a tractor with a trailer would be articulated, it is considered a 6m kerb radius would be large enough for a longer articulated vehicles to make the turn safely.

The TRICS survey provided by the applicant cites vehicle trip rates of 18 two-way vehicle trips in the AM peak hour and 17 two way trips in the PM peak hour. The survey was undertaken using the calculation option for multi-modal trips, and then the percentage of vehicle trips was calculated to arrive at these figures. It is not uncommon to receive trip rates in this format however, the survey data that was used included regions such as Greater London and Ireland, which are not considered representative of West Sussex. It was also noted that the developments chosen in the sample ranged in size from quite small (7) to over 150 dwellings. With this in mind WSCC has undertaken our own TRICS survey to check the data they have used is representative.

Our TRICS survey omitted from Greater London and Ireland and we chose smaller sites no larger than 40 dwellings. We also used the calculation option for vehicle trip rates only. Interestingly the findings have shown that on balance there is little difference in the trip rates between our survey and the applicants. Our survey suggests the trip rate could be lower at 14 trips in the AM peak and 12 in the PM peak. This would equate to 1 vehicle every 4 minutes in the morning peak hour and 1 every 5 minutes in the afternoon peak hour. Therefore WSCC do not require further information on proposed trip rates for the development.

It has been highlighted in the third party report that there could be wider impacts within the local highway network as a result of this proposed development. The existing problems identified in his report, specifically relate to the junction of Priors Acre and The Street, where there are two junctions in close proximity of each other. WSCC would like to confirm that there have been no casualties or collisions at this junction within the last three years for us to have any highway concerns.

Page5 69 6.8 WSCC - Flood Risk Management

Modelling does not indicate that the area is at risk from surface water flooding. Assessment of appropriate surface water drainage system will be required and can be secured by planning condition.

6.9 WSCC - Infrastructure

Contributions for Libraries, Education, Fire and Rescue and TAD will be sought, the amounts for which will be dependent on housing mix and parking provision.

6.10 CDC - Drainage Engineer

The applicant states that surface water drainage is to be disposed to sustainable drainage systems. Shallow soakage should be considered, deep bore soakaways are to be avoided. Advice has been considered in the FRA, and percolation testing has been undertaken. The surface water drainage design suitability should be confirmed through winter groundwater monitoring, proving that groundwater levels will not cause inundation of the surface water system. Conditions requiring full details of the surface water scheme and maintenance of SuDs recommended.

6.11 CDC - Environmental Health (Noise)

A noise report has been submitted with the application. 24-hour noise monitoring was carried out in the area to give LAeq,16hr daytime and LAeq, 8hr night-time noise levels at two monitoring points (approximately 38m and 183m from the edge of the A27 carriageway). Additionally, road traffic data has been used to predict the daytime LAeq,16hr noise level at 20m from the edge of the nearside carriageway.

If outline permission is granted, then further consideration needs to be given to alternative ventilation (on top of acoustic trickle vents) e.g. mechanical etc., and glazing at the full application stage. Garden fences on the southern boundary should have close boarded timber fencing. This applies to 2-storey dwellings at an approximately distance of 38m from the edge of the nearside carriageway.

6.12 CDC - Environmental Health (Contaminated Land)

No objection. Condition recommended requiring site survey and details of mitigation (if necessary) regarding landfill gas. Measures to mitigate impact on air quality from A27 should be considered at reserved matters stage.

6.13 CDC - Environmental Strategy

No objection. Conditions are recommended to secure the following: - 5m buffer round hedgerows and enhance, - lighting scheme, - vegetation clearance restriction, - bat and bird boxes

Page6 70 6.14 CDC - Rural Housing Enabler

Affordable housing tenure and mix specification provided. 8 affordable units to be provided with a commuted sum payment of £87,200 sought in lieu of the 0.8 unit. Market mix will be heavily weighted to 4-bed properties which are unaffordable for local people. Recommended alternative mix.

Following submission of addendum to Design and Access Statement:

The amended housing mix is in line with the housing officer's recommended mix and therefore the Housing Delivery Team support the proposed mix as it is reflective of local housing need.

6.15 CDC - Planning Policy

Housing Land Supply Position: The NPPF (paragraph 47) states that local planning authorities should be able to demonstrate a continuing supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years' worth of housing against identified housing requirements. The draft Local Plan sets a housing target of 435 homes per year for the period 2012-2029. The most recent assessment of housing land supply in the Plan area is based on WSCC survey data for April 2014 updated to include additional housing sites recently permitted. The figures also include housing expected to come forward on the Strategic Development Locations (SDLs) proposed for allocation in the draft Local Plan, together with other housing sites proposed in emerging neighbourhood plans that have completed the Submission stage. Taking account of all sources of housing, the Council's current assessment of five year housing land supply for the Chichester Local Plan area shows a small surplus of 71 net dwellings, equivalent to 5.1 years of housing supply.

Emerging Local Plan policies: Draft LP Policy 2 identifies Boxgrove as a 'Service Village' and states that the Service Villages will be the focus for new development and facilities. The policy sets a presumption in favour of sustainable development within defined Settlement Boundaries (to be reviewed through Neighbourhood Plans and/or DPDs), whilst outside Settlement Boundaries, development will be restricted to that which requires a countryside location, meets an essential rural need or supports rural diversification. LP Policy 5 sets an indicative parish housing requirement of 25 homes for Boxgrove Parish to be delivered over the period 2012-2029, with sites to be identified in neighbourhood plans and/or a Site Allocation DPD to be prepared by the Council.

Neighbourhood Plan: A Neighbourhood Plan Area Designation for Boxgrove Parish was approved by CDC in December 2012. However, the Parish Council is understood to have made no significant progress towards preparing a neighbourhood plan.

Site Allocation DPD: The Council has recently commenced work to prepare the Site Allocation DPD. In the event that no further progress is made by Boxgrove PC in preparing a neighbourhood plan, it is intended that the DPD will allocate housing site(s) at Boxgrove to meet the parish housing requirement set out in LP Policy 5. The published Local Development Scheme 2014-2017 timetables public consultation on the Preferred Approach in September 2015, with Submission of the DPD in September 2016 and adoption of the DPD in April 2017. The updated LDS for 2015-2018 (not yet

Page7 71 approved by the Council) now proposes publication of the Preferred Approach in January 2016, submission of the DPD in September 2016 and adoption of the DPD in May 2017.

Policy Considerations The site was included in the 2014 SHLAA, which concluded that it could be suitable for housing development, subject to resolution of surface water flooding and noise issues. It relates well to the existing village and would 'round off' the built area. The site is accessible to a range of local facilities within an 800m walking or cycling distance, including facilities in Boxgrove itself and Tangmere. However, the site lies outside the Settlement Boundary and its development is therefore contrary to current and emerging Local Plan policies restricting development in the rural area (Policy RE1 and emerging Policy 2 and 45). General housing development as proposed in this application would therefore be contrary to draft LP Policy 2 which restricts development outside defined Settlement Boundaries to uses requiring a countryside location or meeting an essential rural need.

Whilst the scale of development proposed would conform with the indicative parish housing requirement of 25 homes proposed in the draft Local Plan, Policy 5 specifies explicitly that suitable sites will be identified in neighbourhood plans and/or in a Site Allocation DPD. Furthermore, as noted above, it is anticipated that housing land will be allocated to meet the identified parish housing requirement for Boxgrove within the next 2 years, either through a neighbourhood plan or through the Site Allocation DPD.

With regard to detailed matters, the Position Statement on Wastewater and Delivering Development in the draft Local Plan was updated to aid discussion at the Examination in to the Local Plan Pre-submission: Key Policies 2014-2029. CDC/22 Evidence Audit Housing Provision Appendix 5 updates Table 2 in the Position Statement and shows that there is no existing capacity at Tangmere Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) to accommodate this proposal. An alternative or temporary solution should be explored with the Environment Agency and/or Southern Water until the WwTW programmed upgraded in spring 2019 releases more capacity.

Conclusion

The site could be a potentially suitable location for housing development and this application would conform broadly with the scale of housing development identified for Boxgrove in the draft Local Plan. However, the site currently lies outside the defined Settlement Boundary and is therefore contrary to the adopted and emerging Local Plan. Since there is an identified 5 year housing land supply within the Plan area, there are no compelling reasons to bring forward further housing sites at this stage. In addition it is anticipated that housing land to meet the parish requirement will be identified through the plan preparation process within the next 2 years. To grant permission for this application at this stage, ahead of the ongoing site identification process, would be clearly contrary to draft LP Policy 5 and would undermine the approach to housing provision set out in the development plan.

6.16 CDC - Archaeological Officer

Agreement with the conclusion of the archaeological assessment and further investigation of the site is justified following determination. Condition recommended to secure this.

Page8 72 6.17 CDC - Parks and Green Space

The amount of open space proposed is suitable for the scale and type of development. Query regarding position of open space and its possible location adjacent to the western boundary would be more appropriate, although this is a matter for the reserved matters stage.

6.18 CDC - Community Liaison Officer

A financial contribution is required, which would go towards the provision of new disabled entrance/improved access at the parish church.

6.19 CDC - Conservation and Design Manager

The proposed layout looks reasonable in terms of the use of perimeter blocks with gardens backing on to existing gardens. The density of the proposal appears to relate to the surrounding developments in terms of plot sizes and footprints. There is a good variety of building and garden sizes. Suggest reviewing setting back garages and parking layout at reserved matters stage.

6.20 Third Party Objection

7 letters of objection, as well as a petition containing 31 signatures has been received, the comments of which are summarised as follows: - Impact of construction traffic on Priors Acre - Unsafe highway conditions associated with generation of existing traffic movements at Priors Acre/The Street junction - Safety of cycle access route [removed from current proposal] - Drainage (foul water) - Impact on water pressure - Impact balancing pond will have on ground and foundations - Parking along eastern boundary - impact on neighbours - Loss of privacy to Police House - Impact on wildlife - Lack of local infrastructure (school places) - Effect on character of Boxgrove village - Prematurity (neighbourhood plan)

Following submission of additional and amended information, letters from 2 third parties received: - Concern regarding location of the affordable housing - Impact of landscaping on adjacent properties (loss of light) - Impact of retention pond on nearby properties - Location of parking spaces - Amendments do not address the concerns regarding the vehicular access

6.21 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information

To support the planning application, the agent has providing the following suite of documents: Planning Statement (including Affordable Housing Statement), Design and Access Statement, Ecological Assessment, Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment, Utilities Statement, Noise Assessment, Transport Statement, Stage 1 Road Safety

Page9 73 Audit and Designers Response, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Archaeology Report and Tree Survey. During the course of the application, further information has been provided regarding the housing mix and the foul drainage strategy.

7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan

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

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

BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE3 Archaeology BE11 New Development BE13 Town Cramming BE14 Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges and Other Landscape Features RE1 Rural Area Generally RE8 Nature Conservation (Non-designated Areas) TR6 Highway Safety H1 Dwelling Requirement H4 Size and Density of Dwellings H5 Open Space Requirements H6 Maintenance of Open Space H8 Social and Low Cost Housing in Settlement Policy Areas

7.3 The Council has prepared a new Local Plan covering Chichester District excluding the South Downs National Park. The main plan document, Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029, was submitted for examination in May 2014. A number of examination hearings were held during the autumn of 2014, following which the Council undertook public consultation on Proposed Modifications to the Plan in January/February 2015. The Council has now received the Local Plan inspector's final report which was published in May 2015 The inspector concludes that, subject to a number of main modifications, the submitted Plan satisfies the legal requirements in the 2004 Act and meets the criteria for soundness set out in the NPPF. It should be noted that all of the inspector's recommended modifications were included in the public consultation undertaken by the Council in January/February 2015.

7.4 Following the Local Plan inspector's report, the Council is intending to take the Plan forward for formal adoption in July 2015. Ahead of this, the new Local Plan is a material consideration and, given the inspector's conclusions, the Council considers that the new Local Plan should be afforded significant weight, in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF.

Chichester Local Plan Key Policies: Pre-submission 2014-2029

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

Page10 74 Policy 4: Housing Provision Policy 5: Parish Housing Sites 2012- 2029 Policy 9: Development and Infrastructure Provision Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 45: Development in the Countryside Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 52: Green Infrastructure Policy 54: Open Space, Sport and Recreation

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), 38, 39, 47, 58, 73, 118, 196 and 216.

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.

Other Local Policy and Guidance

Page11 75 7.8 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance and Interim Statements are material to the determination of this planning application:

The Provision of Service Infrastructure Related to New Development in Chichester District (Parts 1 and 2) Interim Statement on Planning for Affordable Housing

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

D1 - Increasing housing supply

D2 - Vibrant, safe and clean neighbourhoods

D3 - Housing fit for purpose

D4 - Understanding and meeting community needs

E1 - Traffic management in the district will improve so as to reduce congestion

E4 - People will have easier access to services at a local level

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this development are: - Principle of development and policy position - Impact on the character of the area - Highway safety - Ecology - Drainage - Impact on neighbours

Principle of Development and Policy Position

8.2 The NPPF (paragraph 47) requires local planning authorities to identify sufficient deliverable sites to maintain a rolling 5-year supply of housing land against their housing requirements. The Inspector's Final Report of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 was received in May 2015, which found the new Local Plan to be sound. The Local Plan inspector concluded that: "On the basis of the updated information it is clear that there is a five year housing land supply which is made up predominantly of identified sites or sites with planning permission". The Local Plan inspector went on to state that from 2016 / 2017 it is anticipated that parish sites and sites to be delivered through NPs will start to contribute to the supply." The new Local Plan allocates additional deliverable sites and will add sufficient homes to the five year housing supply to result in a surplus. The Council's 5-year housing land supply Position Statement (12 June 2015) shows a surplus of 71 net dwellings. On the basis that the new Local Plan has been found sound and formal adoption of the new Local Plan is expected in July 2015, significant weight can be given to this position.

Page12 76 8.3 Boxgrove is defined as a 'Service Village' in the new Local Plan. A 'Service Village' is defined in the Local Plan, as a settlement where there is a reasonable range of basic facilities to meet every day needs or villages that provide fewer of these facilities but have reasonable access to them in nearby settlements and where some small scale housing growth is acceptable consistent with the indicative housing numbers. Policy 5 suggests an indicative housing number of 25 dwellings to be provided within Boxgrove parish throughout the plan period. It goes onto state that these will be allocated by Neighbourhood Plans or via the Council's Site Allocation development plan document (DPD) which will be prepared following adoption of the Local Plan.

8.4 Boxgrove parish received formal notification of the designation of the neighbourhood plan area in December 2012, however to date no formal pre-submission draft neighbourhood plan has been completed. Boxgrove Parish Council is, therefore, still in the early stages of preparing a Neighbourhood Plan and therefore little weight can currently be afforded to its position.

8.5 Although the comments of the Parish Council regarding their Neighbourhood Plan stated their wish to influence the allocation of the housing sites in Boxgrove, as stated above to date no pre-submission plan has been produced. However, despite the early stage of Boxgrove's Neighbourhood Plan, the new Local Plan strategy envisages housing sites will come forward through the Site Allocations DPD where no Neighbourhood Plan is produced. Whilst the scale of development proposed by this application will conform with the indicative parish housing requirement of 25 homes proposed in Policy 5 of the new Local Plan, Policy 5 specifies explicitly that suitable sites will be identified in Neighbourhood Plans and/or in a Site Allocation DPD. It is anticipated that housing land to meet parish requirements will be identified through the plan preparation process within the next 2 years. Given that the site currently lies outside the defined Settlement Boundary, the proposed development would be contrary to the adopted and emerging Local Plan. Since there is an identified 5 year housing land supply within the Plan area, there are no compelling reasons to bring forward further housing sites at this stage. To grant permission for this application at this stage, ahead of the ongoing site identification process, would be clearly contrary to Policy 5 of the new Local Plan and would undermine the approach to housing provision.

Impact on the Character of the Area

8.6 The application site is located on the western edge of Boxgrove, adjacent to the existing Settlement Policy Area boundary. Immediately to the north and east of the application site there are areas of concentrated residential development at Priors Acre, Abbotts Close, along The Street and at Crouch Cross Lane. The provision of 22 dwellings on the 0.77 hectare site would have a density of 28 dwellings per hectare (dph), which is not significantly disimilar to the density of developments adjacent to the application site; 25 dph at Priors Acre and 22 dph at Abbotts Close.

8.7 The Hankinson Duckett Landscape Capacity Study Extension for the Council prepared in 2011 in support of the draft Local Plan identified the site as falling in the Boxgrove Western Settlement Edge Coastal Plain and having 'substantial' landscape sensitivity and 'slight' value. The overall landscape capacity for the area is 'low/medium'. There are two other character areas surrounding Boxgrove, which have been defined as having low and medium landscape capacity respectively. These broad classifications cover large areas and within them, there will be different pockets of varying impact. On balance, the site is well enclosed by a substantial hedgerow boundary to the west and physically contained by existing development to the north, south and east. The site is

Page13 77 well related to the existing settlement boundary, which runs along the north and eastern boundaries of the application site. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment that accompanies the application demonstrates that the proposal would not have any impact on long distance views of the site from the east and north and would be read in the context of the established settlement.

8.8 The site is in close proximity to the village shop, which is just over 250m as the crow flies to the north-east of the site entrance and accessible along an existing pedestrian footpath. Boxgrove Primary School, village hall and church are all within walking distance of the site, whilst further facilities at Tangmere are accessible via the footbridge to the south. Whilst there is likely to be a reliance on the private car to access higher order services, located at Chichester, in the appeal decision for Maudlin Nursery, Westhampnett the Inspector commented that "The Framework promotes sustainable transport generally, and refers to minimising the need to travel and maximising the use of sustainable transport modes". This does not mean that it would be expected that residents of a new development would be able to reach all of their facilities on foot and given the location of the site, close to the A27, it is considered that for the scale of the development proposed, the development would be sustainabily located.

8.9 An illustrative site layout has been provided, which demonstrates that the site can adequately provide the appropriate amount of open space together with 22 dwellings. There are concerns regarding the indicative layout along the western boundary of the site, however this matter is capable of being addressed at the reserved matters stage, and refusal of this outline application on this ground would not therefore be justified.

8.10 The indicative housing mix comprises 1, 2, 3 and 4-bedroom dwellings. In-line with the Council's Interim Statement on Planning for Affordable Housing, the 40% (8.8 dwellings) provision for affordable housing has been met. It is proposed that 8 of the dwellings are delivered as affordable housing on site and the remaining 0.8 will be paid as £87,200 commuted sum. Of the 8 affordable units there will be a 70:30 split between affordable rented and intermediate housing. The Rural Housing Enabler has confirmed that the proposed market and affordable mixes are compliant with the SHMA recommendations and will meet local housing need. The affordable units could be secured through the Section 106 Agreement in the event of permission being granted.

8.11 On balance, it is considered that the proposal would be of a scale and character in keeping with the character of the existing village.

Highway Safety

8.12 It is proposed to upgrade the access point to Boxgrove Farm at the Priors Acre/private access road junction. A 30m length of the private access road serving the farm will also be improved, alongside the creation of a new access into the application site from this private access road. These details have been considered by WSCC Highways, who has confirmed that the access proposals will provide adequate visibility splays, the access is of an appropriate width to serve the development and represents a safe and suitable access for the development. The detailed design of the internal road layout is a matter for consideration at Reserved Matters stage, although the illustrative layout plan demonstrates that the required width of the internal road can be satisfactorily achieved.

Page14 78 8.13 As part of the third party objections, an alternative road safety review has been carried out that is reflective of the concerns of individual third parties and the Parish Council. Officers have received further comments from WSCC Highway Authority on the specific concerns raised in this review. To summarise, the Highway Authority maintains that the vehicular access proposed is suitable for the development and the trip data provided is sufficient. Whilst the concerns raised by the Parish Council and third parties are noted, WSCC Highway Authority consider that there is adequate capacity in the existing road network to accommodate the proposed development of 22 dwellings and have also confirmed that there have been no casualties or collisions at the junction between Priors Acre and The Street within the last 3 years that cause any highway concerns.

8.14 Parking provision is proposed in accordance with the WSCC parking demand calculator, with the majority of spaces indicated to be within the curtilage of the dwellings proposed. The final layout of the parking provision would be a matter for determination at reserved matters stage.

Drainage

8.15 In terms of surface water drainage, as the site is currently a green field the run-off rate for the development can be no greater than existing. The applicant has provided a drainage strategy, which includes an attenuation pond within the development. Conditions are recommended to ensure that an appropriate scheme of surface water disposal is achieved. It is noted that the applicant has begun investigations, however both the Council's Drainage Officer and WSCC Flood Risk Management Team consider further investigation will be necessary to ensure the most appropriate mechanism for surface water drainage is provided. This could be secured via a suitabily worded planning condition in the event that permission is granted.

8.16 Foul sewage generated by development on the application site would normally be served by mains drainage flowing to Tangmere Wastewater Treatment Works, however there is currently no capacity for additional flows to this WwTW. Southern Water is expected to undertake works to increase capacity in 2019. The applicant has proposed a temporary foul drainage solution in the event that the development comes forward sooner than the proposed upgrade works at Tangmere WwTW are completed. This would involve the provision of an on-site treatment works, which in turn would require treated effluent to be discharged to a drainage field, either located within the development or on the adjacent field which is within the landowner's control.

8.17 In such circumstances as this, the Environment Agency accepts that it may be necessary for a non-mains, private solution to provide foul drainage to be implemented, on the understanding that it would be a temporary measure and connection to the main sewerage system will be made when the capacity becomes available at the WwTW following completion of the upgrade works. The full details of the management and maintenance of the temporary on-site plant and the requirement to connect to the mains sewerage system could be secured within a Section 106 Agreement.

8.18 Southern Water has indicated that there is currently inadequate capacity within the local sewerage network for the proposed development. The applicant has undertaken further discussion with Southern Water and identified the improvements necessary to serve the development, once capacity is available at Tangmere WwTW, and has confirmed that the works would be carried out prior to the connection to Tangmere WwTW being made. These works include increasing the volume of storage at MH SU90076004 from 1 cubic metre to 7.5 cubic metres and SU90068901 from 1.5 cubic

Page15 79 metres to 9.5 cubic metres. These works would be carried out via a sewer requisition under a Section 98 Agreement with Southern Water.

8.19 On the basis of the above, it is considered that the development can be brought forward with suitable and acceptable methods of surface and foul water drainage that could be appropriately controlled by conditions and clauses in the Section 106 Agreement in the event that permission is granted.

Neighbour Amenity

8.20 Several of the occupiers of the properties along the eastern boundary of the application site have raised concerns regarding the impact the proposed development would have on their residential amenity. Specific concerns relate to loss of light and privacy and the impact of parking alongside the eastern boundary. The original illustrative layout submitted with the application did not provide sufficient distances between existing and proposed dwellings, resulting in an unacceptable impact for neighbouring amenity. On that basis officers were not satisfied that the illustrative layout demonstrated 22 dwellings and the infrastructure necessary to support the development could be achieved within the application site. A revised illustrative layout, which has (among other things) relocated the housing close to the eastern boundary further away from the neighbouring properties, has been submitted by the applicant. Following consideration of this, officers are satisfied that although the layout and appearance of the proposed development is not a matter for consideration at this stage, the revised illustrative layout demonstrates that the residential amenities of the occupiers of the dwellings along the eastern boundary of the application site can be adequately safeguarded. Overall it is considered that the proposal would not result in an overbearing or dominant relationship between existing and proposed development, nor would it cause any harmful loss of privacy or light.

Other Matters

8.21 Mitigation and enhancement measures have been proposed as part of the development to enhance biodiversity, in accordance with policy 49 of the new Local Plan. The site is outside of the Chichester Harbour Special Protection Area 'zone of influence' and a significant distance from other designated areas, therefore it is considered the proposal will not have an adverse impact on any designated sites.

8.22 The application site is clearly affected by the traffic and activity associated with the A27 and Environmental Health Officers have been consulted with regard to the impact this will have on the proposed development in terms of noise and air quality. There is no objection raised in terms of these considerations to the principle of developing the application site for residential use and it is acknowledged that there are recent examples of development within a similar distance of the A27 (Abbotts Close for example). Mitigation measures to prevent harm in terms of noise and air quality would need to be carefully considered and taken into account in the final layout and appearance of the dwellings at reserved matters stage.

8.23 Boxgrove Parish Council has objected to the proposed development as it has been submitted ahead of the adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan. As explained in paragraph 8.4 above, the parish is in the very early stages of preparation of a neighbourhood plan and are yet to formally complete a pre-submission draft neighbourhood plan for consultation. In accordance with National Planning Practice Guidance, refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will seldom be

Page16 80 justified before the end of the local planning authority publicity period on the submission neighbourhood plan. As explained the Boxgrove Neighbourhood Plan has yet to undertake its pre-submission consultation and therefore refusal on the basis of the development being contrary or prejudicial to the Neighbourhood Plan would not be supportable.

Section 106 Agreement

8.24 In order for this development to mitigate the effects of the development on local infrastructure and the environment, the applicant would be required to enter into a S106 legal agreement to secure the following infrastructure provision in accordance with the Council's SPG, Interim Statements and the evidence base for the new Local Plan.

8 units of affordable housing on site in perpetuity £87,200 commuted sum in lieu of 0.8 affordable dwelling £36,698 for community facilities £8,558 for public art or provision of public art to that value Management and maintenance plan for the area of public open space, amenity land, attenuation pond and landscape buffers On-site foul drainage to be operational before first occupation and details of management and maintenance of temporary on-site foul drainage treatment plant Requirement to connect to mains foul sewerage network when capacity is available at Tangmere WwTW. Upgrade to the off-site sewage network to enable connection to Tangmere WwTW

Amounts for education, libraries, fire and rescue and TAD have not yet been confirmed, as this would be based on the final housing mix and car parking provision.

In this case, whilst the applicant has indicated that he would be willing to enter into an agreement to secure the above, the S106 agreement has not been completed as the application is unacceptable in other respects.

Conclusion

8.25 In conclusion, whilst it is acknowledged that the Parish Council consider the application is premature and that sites should be allocated as part of the neighbourhood plan process, at the time of writing the Neighbourhood Plan for Boxgrove is at an early stage of preparation with no document submitted for pre-submission. Despite this, however, the new Local Plan strategy envisages site allocations will come forward through the Site Allocations DPD where no Neighbourhood Plan is produced. Policy 5 of the new Local Plan specifies that suitable sites will be identified in Neighbourhood Plans and/or in a Site Allocation DPD. Given that the site currently lies outside the defined Settlement Boundary, the proposal is therefore contrary to the adopted and emerging Local Plan. Since there is an identified 5 year housing land supply within the Plan area, there are no compelling reasons to bring forward further housing sites at this stage. To grant permission for this application at this point, ahead of the ongoing site identification process, would be clearly contrary to Policy 5 of the new Local Plan and would undermine the approach to housing provision.

Page17 81 Human Rights

8.26 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 refuse is justified and proportionate.

RECOMMENDATION REFUSE

1 U94499 -Housing in rural area ahead of allocation 2 U94500 - S106

INFORMATIVES

1 U94502 - Proactive informative

For further information on this application please contact Vicki Colwell on 01243 534734

Page18 82 Agenda Item 9 Parish: Ward: Bosham Bosham

9. BO/15/00448/FUL

Proposal First and second floor rear extension.

Site Riggers, Sailmakers, Shipwrights And Bosuns Shore Road Bosham Chichester West Sussex PO18 8JA

Map Ref (E) 480789 (N) 103978

Applicant Mr P Gullen

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

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral Page 83 Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The application site is situated within the Settlement Policy Area of Bosham, within the Bosham Conservation Area and the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The application properties are situated to the northern side of Shore Road and located within a linear pattern of development, set back from the highway by approx. 35m. The application properties are situated between Mariners Terrace, a row of two- storey rendered finished, terraced properties to the west and May Cottage, a two and a half storey, Grade II Listed Building, to the east.

2.2 The application properties are two pairs of staggered, semi-detached dwellings joined by a covered passageway accessing the rear courtyard gardens beyond. The dwellings are constructed in red brick under steeply pitched tiled gabled roofs with pitched roofed dormers to the front, north-west elevations. The rear elevations were constructed with cat slide roofs, with roof lights to first and second floor level to each property. The windows are currently white painted timber sashes to the front elevation, with white painted casement windows to each dormer to the front roof slopes.

2.3 The properties are accessed from Shore Road, which floods and becomes impassable at each high tide. The site incorporates a paved area between the front gardens of the application dwellings and the highway, and a single storey building with 4 no. garages. The garage building is red brick with a half hipped tiled roof and is situated forward of the neighbouring property, May Cottage, to the north-east boundary of the site. The 4 no. dwellings were constructed following the grant of planning permission ref: BO/166/86 on the site of a former boatyard.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The proposal seeks to extend the two pairs of semi-detached dwellings to the rear at first and second floor levels with identical extensions. The extensions would be in the form of a two-storey gable across the rear of each pair of properties. Each gable would sit across the full width of the rear of each pair of properties (excluding the covered passageway) and would have eaves at the height to match those to the front elevation. The ridge height of the proposed gables would be set just below that of the main roof line at 9.2m in height. Two windows are proposed per property at first floor level and a further window to each property is proposed at second floor level. The existing footprint of the dwellings would not be altered, with the extensions being situated above the existing cat-slide roof.

3.2 The extensions would be constructed in facing brickwork to match the existing dwellings, with plain clay tiles to the roofs. The windows are proposed in painted timber. Accommodation proposed within the extension to each property would be an enlarged kitchen to the first floor (or a bedroom in the case of Shipwrights which has a different internal layout) and an en-suite bathroom at second floor level.

4.0 History

No relevant history

5.0 Constraints

Page 84 Listed Building NO Conservation Area BO Rural Area NO AONB YES Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO EA Flood Zone - Flood Zone 2 YES - Flood Zone 3 YES Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

Bosham Parish Council objects to this application. The north facing gables will destroy the privacy of the two houses immediately to the north and this is considered to be un- neighbourly and cause overlooking. Further the bulk and mass of the proposed gables added to the original building are over-dominant in relation to its neighbours.

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 -Schedule/ samples of materials to be agreed.

6.3 Natural England

No objection

6.4 CDC - Historic Buildings Adviser

No objection. This scheme is an improved from the preliminary discussions. Condition window and door details, within the Conservation Area (subject of Article 4 Direction) and materials.

6.5 Objections from 18 households, 1 from the Bosham Association and a letter signed by 19 individuals

- proposal is for large windows overlooking my property which is in direct contradiction to the agreement that we had with the council planning authority when the original houses were built - there are to be 12 large windows on the northern elevation overlooking the main living area of my house and garden, 3 of which are on the 3rd floor of the houses, giving unobstructed views directly into my sitting room. This would have the effect of entirely removing any privacy - the footpath along the rear of the property, which is the principal access to New Buildings and May Cottage, 5 households in all, would be completely overlooked if this application is approved - proposal is out of scale with all of the adjacent buildings as it is in effect a 3 storey building, its design is out of character with the area. It is also clear that this prominent rear elevation is as important as the front elevation in this sensitive location Page 85 -when planning approval was given for the 2 storey rear extension to the adjacent property May Cottages - there was a strict limit imposed - unduly large and would be dominant and obtrusive in respect to our property (May Cottages). The proposed development would cause significant loss of amenity - The proposed development is inappropriate in terms of its scale and mass, essentially creating a three storey building in an area of much smaller terraced cottages - significant change to the appearance and character of the building which would be out of keeping with neighbouring properties - noise and disturbance from proposed development - effect on listed buildings and conservation area - there are is absolutely no other three storey development at all (apart from converted attics with small dormer windows or roof lights) - the height and gargantuan nature of the proposals will mean a considerable overshadowing and loss of light to the east end of Mariners Terrace -The building line of the proposed development, goes almost right up to the back boundary of the applicants' houses (they have no real back gardens), so there is absolutely no buffer for the effect of this proposal on neighbours (the land immediately behind and to the east of the development is part of May Cottages garden, and the land to the west is my garden). This means that there is no way to screen or otherwise soften its disproportionate size and effect -the proposed additions at the rear will be an eyesore and over-development in the current location which is also a Conservation Area - this development is an inappropriate scale and this area of outstanding beauty is already developed enough -These 4 properties are second homes and some are let. Is it right that they should be able to make unfortunate changes to the lives of people who live here all the time -Inaccuracies on the plans - although we appreciate the good sense of the owners combining to produce a coherent and balanced development the north facing elevation will cause overlooking and will dominate the older adjacent properties

6.6 1 Third Party Other

Can find no heritage statement or reference to the designated heritage assets that are the CA and neighbouring listed buildings. Para 128 of the NPPF requires an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected by application proposals including any contribution made to their setting. There is no reference to the impact on the amenities of neighbouring dwellings and in particular the garden of May Cottage that would be directly overlooked by the proposed extensions that include additional windows in closer proximity to the garden.

7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan

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

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

Page 86 Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:

BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE6 Conservation Areas BE11 New Development BE12 Alterations, Extensions and Conversions BE13 Town Cramming C1 Waterside Development RE4 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty

7.3 The Council has prepared a new Local Plan covering Chichester District excluding the South Downs National Park. The main plan document, Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029, was submitted for examination in May 2014. A number of examination hearings were held during the autumn of 2014, following which the Council undertook public consultation on Proposed Modifications to the Plan in January/February 2015. The Council has now received the Local Plan inspector's final report which was published in May 2015. The inspector concludes that, subject to a number of main modifications, the submitted Plan satisfies the legal requirements in the 2004 Act and meets the criteria for soundness set out in the NPPF. It should be noted that all of the inspector's recommended modifications were included in the public consultation undertaken by the Council in January/February 2015. As such the following policies are relevant.

Chichester Local Plan (Pre-Submission) Draft 2013

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 43: Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Policy 44: Development around the Coast Policy 47: Heritage

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).

8.0 Planning Comments Page 87 8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are: i) The impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, and ii) The impact of the proposals on the character of the Conservation Area, designated AONB and the setting of the adjacent listed building.

Assessment

Impact on the Amenities of Neighbouring Properties

8.2 The proposal seeks to extend the 4 no. properties with matching two-storey rear gabled extensions. The extensions would be constructed above the existing ground floor of each pair of properties and would not extend the existing footprint, finishing in line with the existing rear walls. Whilst the extensions would increase the mass of each dwelling at first and second floor level, the extensions pitch away from the east and west boundaries at second floor level reducing the bulk of the proposals and lessening any possible impact on adjacent neighbouring properties.

8.3 The neighbour to the east, May Cottages, is situated forward of the application property, with the rear of the main two-storey dwelling finishing roughly in line with the front wall of the Riggers Cottage. May Cottages has a single storey extension across the full width of the rear incorporating a garden room with 3 no. full height windows to the rear elevation. The 45 degree angle, measured from the centre point of May Cottages' closest habitable room window, would not be breached by the proposal. This is a key indicator that the proposed extension would not result in a significant loss of light to the neighbouring property, nor is it considered that it would be overbearing due to the roof of the extension pitching away from the shared boundary.

8.4 The neighbour to the west, 10 Mariners Terrace, is separated from the application property by a 2.5m wide pathway which provides communal access to the rear of Mariners Terrace and the public car park beyond. Mariners Terrace is a collection of 10 no. traditional style L-shaped properties with narrow two-storey out shots to the rear, many of which have single storey infill extensions.

8.5 No. 10 Mariners Terrace has a single storey, mono-pitched extension which wraps around the side and rear of the property incorporating a utility room/porch and has glazing across the full width of the side and rear elevations. This extension projects beyond the depth of the application properties and due to this fact the extension would not result in significant loss of light to the rear elevation. At first floor level a bedroom window is set within the main rear wall of the dwelling. The proposed extensions would not breach the 60 degree angle when measured from the centre point of this window. As such it is considered the extension would not result in loss of light to this neighbour or be overbearing due to the roof of the extension pitching away from the shared boundary and the separation distance between the pair of dwellings.

8.6 Regarding overlooking, a number of neighbours have raised concerns regarding a possible loss of privacy to their properties and/or gardens caused by overlooking from the proposed north facing first and second storey windows. The second floor windows to the extension would serve en-suite bathrooms and would be conditioned to be obscure glazed in order to prevent overlooking to the rear. The first floor windows are considered in the paragraph below.

Page 88 8.7 The application properties themselves only have small courtyard gardens, approx. 4m in depth. Beyond this the rear garden of May Cottages wraps around the rear of the site at a depth of approx. 15m and forms the northern site boundary. The rear gardens of Trippett Villa and Oak Lodge on Sunnyway are located beyond that of May Cottages. These properties are situated at a distance of approx. 50m from the application properties and as such the neighbouring dwellings would not be overlooked at this distance. Regarding the overlooking of the gardens to the north, the windows at first floor level are proposed to replace existing roof lights which are not high level and would allow the occupants an outlook to the north. The arrangement at first floor level is not significantly altered from the existing arrangement and as such is not considered to result in significant overlooking.

Impact on the Character of the Conservation Area, AONB & the Setting of the Adjacent Listed Building

8.8 The application has been considered in line with paragraph 128 of the NPPF, policy BE6 of the Chichester District Local Plan, First Review 1999 and policy 47 of the Emerging Chichester Local Plan 2014-2029. The proposed extensions have been discussed at pre-application stage with your officers in order to find an appropriate solution to extend the properties in a comprehensive rather than piecemeal way. The properties are situated within the Bosham Conservation Area and Chichester Harbour AONB and as such the impact of the proposal on the character of the wider area needs to be carefully considered.

8.9 The properties are situated within a linear pattern of development close to May Cottages and Mariners Terrace with the extensions proposed to the rear elevations. As such when viewed from Shore Road the adjacent buildings would largely screen the development from wider view. The development would not be visible from Shore Road and would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the street scene.

8.10 To the rear the extensions would be visible from the rear gardens of neighbouring properties and from the private footpath serving Mariners Terrace. The extensions would not be overly visible from the nearby car and boat park due to screening provided by the mature trees within the rear gardens of properties on Mariners Terrace and to the boundary with the car and boat park. The extensions are considered to be well designed in keeping with the host dwellings and the Council's Historic Buildings Advisor has been consulted and raised no objection to the scheme. The roof of each gable would be set down from the ridge of the main dwellings and the pitch of the roof has been designed to mirror that of the main dwellings. Materials and finishes to the extension are proposed to match the existing. Whilst a number of neighbours have raised concern over the height of the extension and the second floor element, these properties currently have second floor accommodation, as does May Cottages to the east. Whilst the dwellings are tall at 9.2m, they sit well within the existing pattern of development with Mariners Terrace and May Cottages either side not significantly lower than the roofs of the application dwellings. The extensions do not propose to increase the overall roof height of the 4 no. dwellings. As such it is considered that the extensions would not be unduly prominent or have a detrimental impact on the Conservation Area or AONB.

8.11 Regarding the impact on May Cottages, the grade II listed property to the east, it is considered that the extensions would not have a detrimental impact on the setting of the listed building. The extensions are not considered to be visually incongruous or to have an overbearing impact on the listed building. The extensions would not be viewed Page 89 in the context of the listed building from public vantage points and as such would not have an impact on the character or appearance of the building or its setting.

Significant Conditions

Conditions regarding samples of materials and finishes to be submitted for consideration due to the Conservation Area location are proposed. In addition the windows serving the en-suite bathrooms at second floor level should be obscure glazed and fixed shut below 1.7m to prevent overlooking to the north. A condition requiring the extensions to be constructed in pairs is also proposed in order to prevent half a gable being constructed, which would result in an incongruous form of development.

Conclusion

Based on the above it is considered the proposal complies with development plan policies and therefore the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

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 B01G No Departure from Plans 3 U94460 - Materials/Finishes 4 U94342 - Construction 5 U94461 - Second Floor Windows 6 H08G - Obscure Glazed Windows

INFORMATIVES

1 W44F Application Approved Without Amendment

For further information on this application please contact Natalie McKellar on 01243 534734

Page 90 Agenda Item 10

Agenda Item: 10 Report PC: 7 Report to: Planning Committee Date of Committee: 24 June 2015 By: Head of Planning Local Authority: Chichester District Council

Application No: SDNP/15/00789/LIS Validation Date: 18 February 2015 Target Date: 15 April 2015 Applicant: Leazell Estate Proposal: Change of use of first floor to self contained flat and minor internal alterations to include reinstatement of original staircase, removal of certain modern partitions and insertion of mezzanine floor. Site Address: The Club Room, High Street, Petworth, West Sussex, GU28 0AU 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

Reason for Committee Referral: Parish Council Objection - Officer recommends Permit.

The proposal is for internal alterations to facilitate the conversion of the first floor of an existing retail unit to a 1-bedroom flat. The change of use of the first floor from retail to residential is permitted development and as such no planning application is required to facilitate the change of use. Following discussion with the Historic Building Adviser and the submission of amended drawings, the proposed alterations are considered to cause no harm to the setting, character and appearance of the listed building and the conservation area and the proposal is therefore recommended for approval.

Page 91 1. Site Description

1.1 The application site comprises the first floor of an existing antiques shop, which is currently used to display goods and includes a small partitioned office area within the area known as the 'Club Room', with a bathroom beyond.

1.2 The shop, which is Grade II Listed, forms part of a larger Wealden-type building, which has been altered and extended throughout the 19th Century. Access to the shop is via a side door in an undercroft. There is an existing access from High Street, although this is currently blocked internally by the stair case. Rear access is also possible at first floor level via a twitten to the east.

1.3 The site is within Petworth Town Centre and has a variety of uses surrounding it; residential to the immediate west, east and south, and a mix of residential, retail and café uses to the north. Several of these retail uses also feature residential uses above. The application site is also part of Petworth Conservation Officer.

2. Relevant Planning History

SDNP/15/00788/FUL - Change of use of first floor to self-contained flat. STATUS - Withdrawn following discussion with case officer.

3. Proposal

3.1 The change the use of the first floor of the existing shop to a 1-bedroom flat, with no external alterations, is deemed permitted development under Class G, Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order (England) 2015. This application seeks listed building consent for internal amendments to facilitate this change of use including bringing the entrance from High Street back into use and to enlarge the existing partitioned area to create a bedroom. The modern staircase, which covers the original winder flight will also be removed.

3.2 The proposal has been amended following concerns raised by the Council's Historic Buildings Adviser regarding the internal arrangement of the proposed residential accommodation.

4. Consultations

Design & Implementation - Historic Buildings Advisor - CDC D

Whilst there is generally no objection to the proposed use in principle there are some reservation and potential concern with the proposed alterations required to support this use. Reinstatement of the door from the street as well as uncovering of the historic stair (and potential for removal of the stair enclosure at first floor) would represent gains (albeit limited) for the listed building, but will need to be balanced against any physically and spatially invasive interventions proportionate to the representative significance.

Page 92 Although the western gable element is likely 19th century, the building should also be considered as part of the larger whole with the earlier Wealden-type building, parts of which it is understood have been re-used in the later construction. Internally, the building retains historic fabric (plasterwork, timber framing) and spatial character. The space at first floor has been somewhat compromised by the stud partitions, though their harm is fairly limited in their lightweight and reversible nature.

In respect of the proposed alterations, particularly the mezzanine floor, there is some reservation to the impact to the spatial qualities of the room, formerly a Club Room, and concern in respect of the potential structural constraints of the building. Unfortunately the application does not include any information in respect of the works required to enable this, and as such it is difficult to assess in full. Subject to discussions with Building Control, a single level open plan studio-style flat, with the bathroom in the rear volume, could mitigate potential concerns in both instances and should ideally be explored.

Unfortunately, the application also lacks any detail on the works required as a result of the change of use, particularly acoustic and fire separation, which have the potential to result in invasive changes to the building and should be quantified prior to determination.

Following submission of amended plans

The amended plan appears to show a very similar layout to the existing and is unlikely to represent harm to the listed building, though a section would be helpful to understand how the 'box' is terminated (i.e. as exiting or extended to the ceiling). The historic finishes such as the low level panelling and historic doors should be retained.

There is some concern with the proposed insulation of the floor void, which requires removal of the Victorian floor including its historic handmade nails. The floor is currently quite high-quality and should be mapped and replaced in situ to an equivalent quality, including reuse of the historic nails where possible. Please condition a method statement.

Please also condition details of the new railing around the stairs.

Parish Council Consultee

Petworth Town Council recommend an objection to this application. Councillors are concerned that there is not a need for more residential property within the town centre. We request that the planning authority should examine as to whether there is a valid need to remove its commercial status.

Page 93 5. Representations

None received.

6. Policy Context

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

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Circular 2010

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

6.2 National Park Purposes

The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are:

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

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

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

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

Paragraphs 14, 17, 28, 49, 115, 131, 132 Sections: 6 (Delivering a Wide Choice of High Quality Homes), 11 (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment) and 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment).

The outcomes and associated policies of the SDNP Partnership Management Plan are also a material consideration. The policies are listed elsewhere in this report. Relevant outcomes include 1, 4 and 9.

Sections 66 and 72 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1991 are relevant to the consideration of this application. Page 94 6. 4 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan The South Downs Partnership Management Plan (SDPMP) was adopted on 3 December 2013. It sets out a Vision and long term Outcomes for the National Park, as well as 5 year Policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework. The SDPMP is a material consideration in planning applications and has some weight pending adoption of the SDNP Local Plan. The following Policies and Outcomes are of particular relevance to this case:

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

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

7. Planning Policy

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

 CHBE4 (CH)Buildings Of Architectural Or Historic Interest  CHBE5 (CH)Alterations To Listed Buildings  CHBE6 (CH)Conservation Areas

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 The main considerations relevant to this application are the impact on the setting, character and appearance of the listed building and Petworth Conservation Area.

8.2 The proposed uncovering of the historic stair and unblocking (internally) of the door to the street would represent gains for the listed building and are supported. The proposed schedule of alterations was amended during the course of the application, following concerns raised by officers regarding the introduction of a mezzanine. This element was removed and instead it is now proposed to create an enlarged partitioned area, in the same location as the existing partitioned office. This approach will be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the listed building, allowing the original form of the building to be fully appreciated and the evolution of the building to be understood. Full details of the required works, including a method statement and sections, of how the partitioning and works to the floor will be implemented can be required to be submitted by condition.

8.3 All alterations to the building will take place internally therefore there is no adverse impact on the setting and character of the Petworth Conservation Area.

Page 95 9. Conclusion

On balance, it is considered that the proposed works to facilitate the change of use will not detract from the setting, character and appearance of the listed building or the conservation area. The proposed development would therefore be in accordance with development plan policies and the purposes of designation of the South Downs National Park.

10. Recommendation

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

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

Plan Type Reference Version Date on Plan Status Plans - Proposed First D 0415/08 27.04.2015 Approved Floor Plan (No Mezzanine) Plans - Existing ground D 1214/01 18.02.2015 Approved floor Plans - Proposed ground D 1214/02 18.02.2015 Approved floor Plans - Existing first floor D 1214/03 18.02.2015 Approved Plans - Location and D 1214/07 18.02.2015 Approved block plan

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

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

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

03.Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted a full method statement providing details of how the floor shall be removed and replaced in order to provide sound proofing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Every effort should be made to map and replace the existing timbers and re-use the historic nails where possible. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the historic fabric of the listed building is retained.

Page 96 04.Prior to the commencement of the development detailed cross-sectional drawings of the internal partitioning hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such plans shall demonstrate whether the partitions will remain of a height similar to existing or whether they will extend to the ceiling. The sectional drawings shall also demonstrate that the historic doors and low level panelling are retained. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To preserve the character and appearance of the Listed Building.

05.Prior to their installation, detailed plans of the railings proposed around the internal stairs shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To preserve the character of the Listed Building.

11. Crime and Disorder Implications

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

12. 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.

13. 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.

Tim Slaney Director of Planning South Downs National Park Authority

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

Page 97 Appendix 1

Site Location Map

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

Page 98 Agenda Item 11

Agenda Item: 11 Report PC: 7 Report to: Planning Committee Date of Committee: 24 June 2015 By: Head of Planning Local Authority: Chichester District Council

Application No: SDNP/14/01773/LIS Validation Date: 4 April 2014 Target Date: 30 May 2014 Applicant: Mr & Mrs Hardwick Proposal: Construction of new two-story rear extension following demolition of existing two-story extension and re-roofing part of existing building and construction of new entrance porch. 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

Reason for Committee Referral: Applicant is a member of the Council.

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. Planning permission and Listed Building Consent are sought for the demolition of an existing flat roofed two storey extension, the construction of a pitched roof extension and associated internal alterations, and the demolition of the existing porch and provision of a new porch. The existing flat roof elements to be demolished are contemporary additions to the property, and the proposed extension is acceptable in relation to the character of the host property. The revised design of the porch has addressed previous concerns regarding Page 99 the scale and design of the proposed replacement porch. As such the proposal is considered to comply with the applicable national and local plan policies.

Members will be aware that the associated Householder application reference SDNP/14/02332/HOUS was approved at committee on 27th May 2015.

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.

1.2 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.

1.3 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 separated 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/13/05733/PRE - Construction of two storey rear extension following demolition of an existing two storey rear extension. Pre-application advice given.

SDNP/13/04395/HOUS - Swimming Pool - Approved 2013

SDNP13/02477/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 2013

09/05087/DOM - Proposed timber gates onto Marley Lane - PER 2010

Page 100 07/03369/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 2007

97/01416/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 The application seeks planning permission and Listed Building Consent for the demolition of an existing flat roof element with a basement below, and the replacement of this structure with a two storey extension with a pitched roof. The existing structure has a footprint of 3.7m x 5.5m. The replacement structure would have a footprint of 5.6m x 5.8m. Alterations also include a replacement roof over the games room, internal alteration to facilitate the new layout, and the removal of a chimney.

3.2 Revised plans have been received during the course of the application to reduce the scale of the proposed porch on the east elevation, and revising the design or a gable of similar proportions to the dormer above.

4. Consultations

Parish Council Consultee

No response received.

Design & Implementation - Historic Buildings Advisor - CDC D

No Objection subject to amendment

There remains some concern with regards to the scale of the replacement porch to the principle (east) elevation, which is the oldest part of the cottage. Whilst replacement in principle is not problematic, this appears oversized and crowds the bay, dormer and windows to the elevation here. This should be reduced in scale.

Please condition:

 material samples  door, rooflight and window details  dormer details

5. Representations

1 representation received.

One third party comment has been received, neither objecting to or supporting the Planning Application. This comment states: In line with future proofing good practice and to improve access, the Chichester Access Group (CAG) requests that level access is provided to at least one entrance of the new Extension, together with the fitting of 900 mm doorways, where new, and that regard is given to the height of the fitting of new electrical outlets, in line with Part M. CAG also requests that the Shower/WC is replaced byPage a Wet 101 Room or a Wheelchair Accessible Shower Room, with WC to facilitate access to wheelchair users and other disabled residents and visitors.

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

National Planning Policy Framework: Core Principles: Section 7 (Good Design), 11 (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment) and 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment).

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

6. 4 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan The South Downs Partnership Management Plan (SDPMP) was adopted on 3 December 2013. It sets out a Vision and long term Outcomes for the National Park, as well as 5 year Policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework. The SDPMP is a material consideration in planning applications and has some weight pending adoption of the SDNP Local Plan. The following Policies and Outcomes are of particular relevance to this case:

Page 102 General Policy 1 Conserve and enhance the natural beauty and special qualities of the landscape and its setting, in ways that allow it to continue to evolve and become more resilient to the impacts of climate change and other pressures.

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

7. Planning Policy

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

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

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 There are considered to be two main issues within this proposal. These are:

- The siting, scale and design of the proposed alterations and extensions and their impact on the character and fabric of the Listed Building and character of the Conservation Area; - The impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties

Issue 1: Siting, scale and design and impact on the character and fabric of the Listed Building and the impact on the character of the Conservation Area.

8.2 Initially the proposal was subject of a pre-application enquiry. Officers noted that cartographic records confirm that the flat roof volume is contemporary with the significant scope of early twentieth-century extension to the rear (west) of the building, though its overtly contrasting roof form and relationship with the adjacent volumes appears to suggest it was a later addition. On this basis and given the relationship with the more historic parts of the building, removal of the addition and chimney here and internal rearrangement (stairs, glazed double doors) did not appear problematic. In respect of the porch, it was advised that the size and scale of the replacement porch should be reduced so it sits more proportionately against the eastern elevation and enabling a gap to be created between the ridge of the porch and the first floor window.

8.3 The proposed alterations and extensions to dwelling are considered to be modest, appropriate additions to the dwelling, which appear subservient and would preserve the character and fabric of the Listed Building.

8.4 The design of the porch has been revised through discussions with officers during the course of the application and is now of a size, design and position where it reflects the design of the gabled dormers above, and does not dominate that roofslope. As such it is considered to be acceptable.

Page 103 8.5 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 setting it is considered that the development would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and would not adversely impact on the wider landscape character of the area.

Issue 2: Impact on neighbour amenity

8.6 In terms of the impact on neighbours, given the position of the proposed extension, set back from the northern boundary, and the existing boundary treatment and position of neighbouring development, there is not considered to be any adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties as a result of the proposal.

9. Conclusion

Taking the above into consideration, the proposal is considered suitable in terms of visual impact 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.

10. Recommendation

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

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

Plan Type Reference Version Date on Plan Status Plans - Proposed floor 13-1375-10 D 09.04.2015 Approved plans Plans - Proposed 13-1375-11 E 09.04.2015 Approved Sections and Elevations Plans - Existing Floor, 13-1375-01 B 24.04.2014 Approved Section and Elevations Plans - Block and 13-1375-03 A 24.04.2014 Approved Location Plan

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

02. 3 year time expiry listed building

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

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

Page 104 03. No development shall be carried out unless and samples of materials and finishes to be used for external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Works shall be undertaken in complete accordance with the agreed details.

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

04. No development shall take place unless and until full details of the proposed windows, rooflights and dormers have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Works shall be undertaken in complete accordance with the agreed details.

Reason: In the interests of the Listed Building

11. Crime and Disorder Implications

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

12. 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.

13. 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.

Tim Slaney Director of Planning South Downs National Park Authority

Case Officer Details Name: Mr Martin Mew Tel No: 01243 534734 Email: [email protected]

Page 105 Appendix 1

Site Location Map

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

Page 106 Agenda Item 12

Agenda Item 12 Report PC 7 Report to Planning Committee Date of Committee 24 June 2015 By Head of Planning Local Authority Chichester District Council

Application No: SDNP/13/03945/FUL Validation Date 30 August 2013 Target Date: 25 October 2013 Applicant: Woolbeding Farm Ltd Holdings Proposal: Demolition of 2 no. semi-detached cottages to be replaced by 1 no. single detached dwelling with separate double garage. Transfer of agricultural occupancy restriction to Coronation Villa Didling. Site Address Manor Farm Cottages, Didling Lane, Didling, Treyford, West Sussex 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 and subject to the completion of a S106 agreement with obligations relating to:

The transfer of the agricultural occupancy condition attached to Manor Farm Cottages to a third property, Coronation Villa.

Executive Summary

Reason for Committee Referral: Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

This proposal is for the demolition of the existing two semi-detached properties on the site and their replacement with a single detached dwelling with a separate double garage. The existing two single semi-detached dwellings have their occupancy restricted by condition to persons employed in agriculture. As part of this proposal it is proposed to transfer the agricultural occupancy restriction to a third property, Coronation Villa, which is located some 150 metres from the application site.

Chichester District Council, East Pallant House,Page East Pallant, 107 Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1TY Email: [email protected] The principle of a replacement dwelling for the two cottages and the transferring of the restrictive condition to Coronation Villa is, on balance considered to be a reasonable one and can be supported.

In terms of its impact on the landscape character of the SDNP whilst the building will be visible in the landscape it is considered that this is a well-designed dwelling that has features that pick up on local distinctiveness and neither its design nor scale are such as to make it unacceptable.

On balance, this is a well-designed dwelling that will both conserve and enhance the landscape setting of the SDNP.

1. Site Description

1.1 Manor Farm Cottages are sited in an elevated position to the south-east of Manor Farm within the Rural Area and the wider South Downs National Park and comprise a pair of 20th century semi-detached cottages with accommodation of approximately 108 sq. m. each arranged over two floors. The existing cottages are in a poor state of repair and require a significant amount of work to bring them up to present day living standards. The cottages have not previously been extended. The two dwellings are considered to be redundant from their original purpose which was as agricultural workers accommodation. The cottages now form part of Woolbeding Farm Limited Holdings estate.

1.2 The cottages are sited on the south side of the hamlet of Didling and immediately north of the South Downs. Didling Manor a Grade II Listed building and its associated barns is sited immediately to the north-west and Coronation Villa is sited 150m to the north. Bugshill Lane lies 80m to the south of the site. The Grade 1 listed St Andrews Church is located 450m to the south.

2. Relevant Planning History

2.1 The planning history of this site is considered to be a material consideration in the determination of this application which will carry some weight. Planning permission was first granted for the two existing dwellings on the site in February 1961 (planning permission TY/2/61). The following condition was attached to that planning permission:

'The occupation of the houses shall be limited to persons employed, or last employed, locally in agriculture as defined in section 119 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, or in forestry, and the dependants of such persons'.

2.2 A revised proposal was approved in July 1961 with the same condition attached.

2.3 In 2005 planning application ES/05/04018/FUL was submitted for the redevelopment of the two cottages into one dwelling. The application was subsequently withdrawn due to a lack of information in relation to any agricultural restriction on the two dwellings. The applicant was advised to submit an application for a Certificate of Lawful Use for the unrestricted use of the dwellings. No application was submitted.

Page 108 2.4 In January 2006 planning application TY/06/00137/FUL for the change of use to 1 no. residential dwelling with various minor extensions and alteration was submitted to the Council. The application was approved in March 2006 however the agricultural restriction was not placed on the property and as such permission was granted for an unrestricted dwelling. This permission was not implemented and expired in March 2009.

2.5 In 2009 planning application TY/09/03830/FUL was submitted and proposed the amalgamation of the two cottages into one and their extension to the rear. Planning permission was approved in October 2009. Again the condition restricting the occupancy was not included in the decision and as such an unrestricted residential use was approved at this time. This permission was not implemented and expired in October 2012.

2.6 In May 2012 pre-application advice was sought for the demolition of the two semi- detached cottages and their replacement with a single larger dwelling. In summary, the advice given was that the restriction of the occupancy of the two cottages to agricultural workers did not appear to be restricted by condition but that the size and scale of the replacement dwelling was not considered acceptable.

2.7 In May 2013 planning permission was refused for a replacement dwelling on the site due to its impact on the character an appearance on the SDNP but not due to the loss of the agricultural restriction.

2.8 In May 2013 further pre-application advice was sought for the replacement of the two cottages with a single detached dwelling. In summary, the advice given was that there did not appear to be a restrictive condition on the two cottages and the applicant was advised as to how to make amendments to the proposed dwelling to make it more acceptable and appropriate to its setting in the landscape.

2.9 Following this pre-application advice being provided the current planning application was submitted.

3. Proposal

3.1 This proposal is for the demolition of the existing two semi-detached properties on the site and their replacement with a single detached dwelling with a separate double garage. The existing two single dwellings have their occupancy restricted by condition to persons employed in agriculture (by virtue of the condition attached to planning permission TY/2/61). As part of this proposal it is now proposed to transfer the agricultural occupancy restriction to a third property, Coronation Villa, which is located some 150 metres from the application site to the north. A Unilateral Undertaking has been submitted by the applicant which secures the transfer of the condition.

4. Consultations

Parish Council Consultee

Comments submitted in relation to the re-advertisement of the application following its amendment to include the transfer of the agricultural restriction. Page 109 Elsted and Treyford Parish Council OBJECT to this application for the reasons set out below:-

Following a planning meeting of the Elsted and Treyford Parish Council on 26th March 2015 we would comment as follows:- The Parish Council originally considered this application on the 26th September 2013 and its detailed comments are attached again as it would appear that they were lost until added to the website this week. Its principal reason for objection was, and is, the loss of further small residential units in the Parish. Manor Farm Cottages were always intended to provide accommodation for agricultural workers and Coronation Villa is already occupied by an existing employee. To transfer the agricultural occupancy restriction, of the two cottages, to Coronation Villa would still lead to the loss of one of the cottages with an agricultural restriction which should be resisted.

Previous Comments:

Planning Permission was originally granted to knock the cottages into one in 2006. A further application to knock the cottages into one and extend was granted in 2009. Presumably both of these applications have now expired. The Parish Council would ask that CDC checks its records to ensure that the existing cottages are not covered by a historic agricultural restriction?

The South Downs Joint Committee and the Parish Council have consistently opposed the loss of these small dwellings and the Parish Council continues to do so.

Much has changed since these applications were granted particularly in relation to the creation of the National Park and the new NPPF which awards National Parks the highest status of protection(Para 115). The emerging draft SDNPA Management Plan Housing policies suggest the need to maintain a balanced housing stock and the Farming Policies seek to create a sustainable mixed farm economy. These cannot be achieved if needed smaller dwellings are allowed to disappear. In the last 10 years over ten percent of the parish housing stock has been rebuilt from small to large dwellings.

Should CDC be minded to allow a new single dwelling to be built, the Parish Council, although recognising that an attempt has been made to improve the design, would object to this specific proposal for the following reasons.

Didling is located in an area of the highest landscape quality. The cottages are located on a naturally high point and are highly visible from the South Downs, Didling Church (A Grade 1 Listed Building) and the adjoining countryside. The main settlement with a number of listed buildings is centred on the buildings of Manor Farm. This proposal despite its reduction in size still has the potential to visually change the status quo and impact on the traditional landscape. The large chimney Page 110 stack remains over dominant and could capture the visual focus in the area. The proposal does not attempt to address the need to ensure that a sustainable building is constructed.

The elevation drawings purport to show substantial trees around the building which simply do not exist in reality.

The proposed dwelling would still be 35% larger than the original cottages and nearly a metre taller. The Parish Council does not believe that enough has been done to reduce the impact of the building. Could the ground level be reduced? Why is it necessary to rotate the building from the original footprint as this would appear to accentuate the prominence of the new building? As a result the proposal detracts from the rural character of the surrounding area by virtue of mass, scale and design (policy H12).

Finally the parish council would expect clarification that the window frames are painted white to reflect the prominent and traditional location

5. Representations

2 representations received.

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.

Page 111 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

It is considered that the following paragraphs and sections of the NPPF are relevant to the determination of this application:

Sections 7 and 11 Paragraphs 7, 14, 17, 58, 60, 61, 109, 115, 118, 131

The outcomes and associated policies of the SDNP Partnership Management Plan are also a material consideration. The policies are listed elsewhere in this report. Relevant outcomes include 1, and 4.

6. 4 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan The South Downs Partnership Management Plan (SDPMP) was adopted on 3 December 2013. It sets out a Vision and long term Outcomes for the National Park, as well as 5 year Policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework. The SDPMP is a material consideration in planning applications and has some weight pending adoption of the SDNP Local Plan. The following Policies and Outcomes are of particular relevance to this case:

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

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

7. Planning Policy

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

 CHRE1 (CH)Development In The Rural Area Generally  CHBE11 (CH)New Development  CHH12 (CH)Replacement Dwellings And Extensions in the Rural Area

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 The main issues with this planning application are considered to be:

 The principle of the demolition of the two existing cottages on the site including the status of the occupancy restriction on the existing dwellings.

 The impact of the replacement dwelling on the character and appearance of the South Downs National Park.

Page 112 First Issue - the principle of the demolition of the two existing cottages on the site including the status of the occupancy restriction on the existing dwellings

8.2 The site is located within the Rural Area and the South Downs National Park. Policy H12 of the Chichester District Local Plan 1999 allows for the one to one replacement of dwellings within rural areas provided the proposal meets a number of other policies of the plan including its impact on landscape character.

8.3 The occupancy of the two existing cottages is restricted by condition whilst the proposed replacement dwelling is to be unrestricted. The planning history section of this report sets out advice and decisions that have previously been given in relation to the redevelopment of this site for a single dwelling. This advice included that it was not thought that the two dwellings were covered by a restrictive condition and planning permission was granted in 2006 for the redevelopment of the site to provide a single unrestricted dwelling. The reason for this advice being given is that it appears that the relevant planning history file was missing at that time. The 2006 planning permission was not implemented and neither have any subsequent permissions and as such the original 1961 planning permission including the occupancy restriction is still relevant. The occupancy restriction is therefore considered to remain in place and the two cottages can only lawfully be occupied by persons that meet the terms of the condition detailed in section 2.1 of this report.

8.4 Discussions have taken place between the applicant and the LPA during the course of the past year which has resulted in the applicant proposing the transfer of the restriction from the two cottages to another property within the same ownership, Coronation Villa. This property is an unrestricted dwelling approximately 150 metres to the north of the site. When assessing the merits of this revision to the proposal there are a number of matters which must be given consideration including that the two cottages could be amalgamated into a single dwelling without the need for a grant of planning permission, that the Council has previously granted planning permission for an unrestricted dwelling on the site, albeit that permission has expired, and, that the previous advice given was that it was considered that the two dwellings were not restricted in their occupancy.

8.5 The appellant's proposal is given the history of the site considered to be a reasonable one which maintains a dwelling in the locality restricted to being occupied by a person employed in agriculture.

8.6 The two existing dwellings are not considered to be small dwellings as defined in CDLP 1999 policy H12 as at 108 sq.m. each they both exceed the 95 sq.m. limit. In terms of policy H12 therefore there is no specific limit set as to how large in terms of floorspace any replacement could be. The policy requires that any replacement must not detract from the rural character and appearance of the surrounding area by virtue of scale, mass or design or detract from the established amenities of adjoining residents. The impact of the replacement dwelling will be dealt with in more detail under 'issue 2' of this report. In this instance the replacement dwelling is 38% larger than the footprint of the two dwellings it replaces.

8.7 On balance, in terms of the principle of the development it is considered that the proposal is a reasonable one.

Page 113 8.8 In summary, the principle of a replacement dwelling for the two cottages and the transferring of the restrictive condition to Coronation Villa is, on balance considered to be a reasonable one and can be supported.

Second Issue - the impact of the replacement dwelling on the character and appearance of the South Downs National Park

8.9 The second issue is considered to be whether the proposal represents an acceptable form of development that is appropriate in terms of its design and scale to the character and appearance of the area.

8.10 The site is a relatively prominent one sited just to the north of the main chalk ridge of the South Downs. The site itself is located within Didling just to the north of the junction between Bugshill Lane and Ingram's Green Lane. The two existing dwellings are situated in a slightly elevated position however whilst they are readily visible they sit comfortably within the landscape and read as typical small rural dwellings.

8.11 The proposal seeks the replacement of the existing cottages with a two storey dwelling and detached garage. The footprint of the dwelling would be 15.7m (wide) by 6.5-11.7m (deep) with an overall ridge height of 8.7m formed in a t-shaped built form. The dwelling will be constructed from flint with brick detailing under a plain clay tiled Sussex hipped roof . The fenestration of the dwelling has been simplified and the footprint reduced to be approximately the same as that approved in 2006. The car port/garage is now proposed to be sited to the west on the site of an existing outbuilding and behind existing vegetation.

8.12 In terms of its impact on the landscape character of the SDNP whilst the building will be visible in the landscape it is considered that this is a well-designed dwelling that has features that pick up on local distinctiveness and neither its design or scale are such as to make it unacceptable.

8.13 On balance, this is a well-designed dwelling that will both conserve and enhance the landscape setting of the SDNP because the proposed dwelling is of an appropriate size and scale and is to be constructed from materials that are locally distinctive and appropriate to the character of the area. The proposal is considered to comply with policy BE11 of the CDLP 1999, the relevant policies of the NPPF and will meet the first purpose of designation of the National Park which is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park .

9. Conclusion

In conclusion, the principle of replacing the two single dwellings with an unrestricted larger dwelling and the transfer of the occupancy condition to a third dwelling is, on balance, considered to be acceptable and the loss of the agricultural dwelling has been sufficiently mitigated against. The replacement dwelling is well designed and is to be constructed from materials that are locally distinctive and appropriate to the character of the area. The proposal is considered to be an acceptable form of development that will conserve and enhance natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the National Park.

Page 114 10. Recommendation

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out below and subject to the completion of a S106 agreement with obligations relating to:

The transfer of the agricultural occupancy condition attached to Manor Farm Cottages to a third property, Coronation Villa.

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

Plan Type Reference Version Date on Plan Status Location and Block plan 001 A 19.08.2013 Approved - Proposed Floor Plans - P01 19.08.2013 Approved Proposed Elevations - P02 19.08.2013 Approved Existing Floor & P03 19.08.2013 Approved Elevation Plan - Site Plan - P03 19.08.2013 Approved

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

02. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

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

03. No development shall commence until details, and samples where appropriate, of the following materials to be used in the development have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the SDNPA: Bricks, stone & any other wall facing materials; Brick bonds; Mortar mix and finish; Rain water goods (including their relationship with eaves and verges);Slates, tiles & any other roof coverings, including rooflights;( AN Others - added as required). Thereafter the development shall be undertaken in full accordance with that agreement unless otherwise agreed in writing by the SDNPA.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the absence of these important details from the application

04. Any walling shall conform with a sample panel of flint, brick and mortar treatment which shall be erected on site and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before work to walling is commenced and shall be maintained as approved unless any variation has been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

Page 115 05. Details of the proposed external materials and finishes of the windows and doors shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before construction commences on site. Once approved the windows and doors shall not be altered or replaced without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

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

06. Before work begins on the development hereby permitted details of site levels and longitudinal and latitudinal sections through the site of the dwellings shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority to show how the buildings shall be set into the ground.

Reason: To secure satisfactory development.

07. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting or amending that Order) no additions to, or extensions or enlargements of, or alterations affecting the external appearance of, the building(s) hereby approved shall be made or erected without a grant of planning permission from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the enlargements/alterations of the building(s) in the interests of the proper planning and amenities of the area.

08. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting or amending that Order) no building, or shed, greenhouse or other structure, shall be erected anywhere on the application site other than as shown on the plans hereby permitted unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over such structures in the interests of the amenities of the area.

09. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting or amending that Order) no walls, fences, gates, or other means of enclosure shall be erected, or placed within the curtilage of any dwelling anywhere on the application site unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.

10. The garage building hereby permitted shall not be used for any purpose other than as a private and domestic garage incidental to the enjoyment of the associated house.

Reason: To accord with the terms of the application and to safeguard proper planning of the area.

Page 116 11. No development shall take place unless and until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping, which shall include a planting plan and schedule of plants noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities. In addition, all existing trees and hedgerows on the land shall be indicated including details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of development. The scheme shall include seeding with a Native British Wildflower Flora mix appropriate to the soil and climate of the site and shall make particular provision for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity on the application site. The scheme shall be designed to achieve levels of shelter/windbreak, shade and drought resistance to accord with the expected climate changes during the design life of the development.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development and to comply with the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

12. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved scheme of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants, including any existing trees or hedgerows indicated as being retained in the approved scheme, which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development.

11. Crime and Disorder Implications

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

12. 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.

13. 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.

Tim Slaney Director of Planning South Downs National Park Authority

Case Officer Details Name: John Saunders Tel No: 01243 534734 Email: [email protected]

Page 117 Appendix 1

Site Location Map

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. South Downs National Park Authority, Licence No. 100050083 (2012) (Not to scale). Page 118 Agenda Item 13

Agenda Item: 13 Report PC: 7 Report to: Planning Committee Date of Committee: 24 June 2015 By: Head of Planning Local Authority: Chichester District Council

Application No: SDNP/14/06213/FUL Validation Date: 8 December 2014 Target Date: 9 March 2015 Applicant: Mr John Green Proposal: Modifications to approved new sports building and improvements to existing sports hall. Site Address: Sports Hall Seaford College, The Drive, East Lavington, Petworth West Sussex, GU28 0NB 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 and subject to the completion of a S106 agreement with obligations relating to:

The original 3 planning permissions for a new residential block associated with the College, the extension to the existing sports hall and the development of 19 dwellings within the historic parkland were linked by a Section 106 Agreement, which included clauses regarding the phasing of demolition and construction relating to all 3 permissions, as well as the provision of management and maintenance plans with regard to landscaping and the walled garden. A Deed of Variation to the original Section 106 Agreement is being prepared that updates the triggers and dates within relevant phasing clauses to provide for a timescale for the development to come forward should planning permission be approved.

Page 119 Executive Summary

Reason for Committee Referral: Parish Council Objection – officer recommends Permit

The proposal seeks modifications to a proposal for extensions to the existing sports hall granted planning permission in 2009. That permission expired during the course of the consideration of this application. The proposal is for the extension of the existing sports hall at Seaford College and the refurbishment of the existing sports hall building. The proposed development is considered to cause no harm to the character and appearance of the National Park and will not have an adverse impact on the setting of the main Seaford College building which is Grade II Listed or the historic parkland. There are no highway safety or capacity issues related to the proposed development. On this basis the proposed development is recommended for approval, subject to conditions and the completion of a Deed of Variation to the Section 106 Agreement associated with the original planning permission.

1. Site Description

1.1 Seaford College is a private school occupying a large parkland estate, comprising a number of buildings of varying ages and styles. The Mansion House is Grade II* and a number of the other buildings within the college grounds are considered 'curtilage listed'. The grounds themselves are also designated Grade II Historic Parkland. There are a number of more modern buildings serving the school, most to the south of the Parkland. These are mainly in 2 groups: one forming a ribbon of development along the northern wall of the walled garden and another in the south- west corner of the site, adjacent to Norwood Lane South.

1.2 There is an area of Ancient Woodland along the southern boundary of the college grounds, with a public right of way running close to the boundary between the two. Another public right of way also runs through the college grounds along Norwood Lane South.

Background

1.3 Planning permission was originally granted for 3 related developments in 2009 at Seaford College. These were for the provision of a residential block for students of the college within the walled garden, an extension to the existing sports hall, and a development of 19 houses of land within the Historic Parkland, which previously housed squash courts, accommodation blocks and other ancillary buildings. Of the 3 developments, work has been completed on the residential block and is substantially completed for the 19 dwellings. No work has commenced in respect of the extension to the sports hall and this permission has recently lapsed.

2. Relevant Planning History

SDNP/14/04769/TIME - Demolition of existing squash courts and gym and construction of new sports facility comprising swimming pool, squash court, gym and changing facilities alongside existing sports hall. STATUS: WDN 7th May 2015.

SDNP/14/04862/FUL - Erection of children's play equipment placed on proposed porous play surface within playing field area. Page 120 STATUS: APP 19th March 2015.

09/03261/FUL - Proposed new boarding block for up to 78 no. students, together with staff accommodation, following revocation of planning permission EL/03/02257/FUL for a two storey block for up to 80 no. students, plus staff accommodation and the demolition of an existing boarding block (The Johnson Building). STATUS: PER106 16th December 2009

09/03800/FUL - Construction of 19 no. houses with associated parking, access and landscaping preceded by demolition of 13 no. houses, 15 no. flats, existing accommodation block and squash courts/gym building and revocation of planning permissions EL/3/67 (for 6 no. houses) and EL/03/02257/FUL (78 no. bed boarding accommodation). STATUS: PER106 16th December 2009

09/03818/FUL - Demolition of existing squash courts and gym and construction of new sports facility comprising swimming pool, squash court, gym and changing facilities alongside existing sports hall. STATUS: PER106 16th December 2009

3. Proposal

3.1 The College's principal sports facilities comprise a large (1500sqm) metal-clad building located in the south-west corner of the built-up part of the College campus. This part of the College's grounds fall beyond the boundary of the Registered Park. Secondary facilities, in the form of squash courts and a gymnasium, have been removed as part of the permitted housing development. There is also a swimming pool located adjacent to the Mansion House, which has recently received planning permission for a temporary cover to be installed to allow it to be used in winter months.

3.2 Planning permission is sought for an extension to the existing sports hall, immediately to the west of the existing building. This would replace the facilities already removed as part of the orioisak ti develop part of the College grounds for housing. This scheme represents an amendment to the previously approved scheme. The previous scheme measured 27m wide by 45m deep with an asymmetrical, shallow pitched roof of 7.4m in height. The current scheme would measure 31m wide by 45.6m deep (including the canopy) and would feature an asymmetric roof profile comprising 2 shallow pitched roof slopes which overlap. The revised roof profile would allow the building to be constructed with a phased approach. The height of the first phase of the building is 8.7m, whilst the second phase would be 7.4m. The eaves height of the second phase would be 4.6m. The overall height of the extension would still remain below the eaves height of the existing building.

3.3 Materials proposed for the elevations would comprise a mixture of glass, metal and timber cladding, with the roof formed in profiled metal sheeting, as previously approved, with solar thermal collectors on its eastern slope. The building would now house a dance studio, changing rooms and gym/spinning room at first floor in the first phase and a multi-use arena and event area in the second phase with sports lab and classroom at first floor. The new facilities are now proposed to be fully attached to the existing building, with internal links through as well as visually Page 121 linked via a covered walk way to the existing sports hall which, in the event of permission being granted, would be subject to extensive renovation including its partial cladding with timber boarding. A climbing wall is now proposed on the north elevation of the existing hall. The applicant has stated that the facilities would 'be available for use by local schools and groups, thus benefiting the wider community'.

4. Consultations

WSCC - Highway

West Sussex County Council (WSCC), in its capacity as the Local Highway Authority (LHA), has been consulted on the proposed modification and improvements to sport facilities at Seaford College.

Permission was granted in 2009 and the proposed development seeks to amend the previous approval.

The sports hall is expected to provide replacement facilities for the existing college site and there are no modifications proposed to the existing access arrangements onto the public highway. While the facilities will primarily be used by the school, the option exists for them to be opened up to wider public use. However, it is anticipated that movements associated with such a use would generate a low number of movements and not materially intensify the use of the existing access. Movements would occur primarily outside of peak network hours and may be expected by coach or mini-bus.

No objection is raised to the proposed development by the LHA.

Historic Environment Commissions Team - CDC

No Objection - application should be determined in accordance with Council's specialist advice.

Historic Parks And Gardens (English Heritage) - CDC

No response received.

The Environment Agency - CDC

Having screened the planning application with regard to the development type and location of the proposal, I can confirm that we have no objection to the proposal as submitted.

Atkins Planning Team FAO David Nuttall

No objection - formal application to Southern Water required to connect to the main sewer.

Page 122 Parish Council Consultee

Duncton Parish Council see no reason to object to the change form the perspective of traffic or visual impact. However, there are concerns that the application to build houses at Seaford College (09/03800/ful) was given support under the condition that the swimming pool facility would be available for the local community to use. The major alteration in these plans is that that swimming pool is no longer part of it. By altering the planning permission this will allow them to comply with their section 106 agreement without building the pool which was so publicly promised. It is disappointing that no consultation has been made with the community (local or School) regarding this change of plan.

5. Representations

None received.

6. Policy Context

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

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Circular 2010

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

6.2 National Park Purposes

The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are:

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

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

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

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

Paragraphs 14, 17, 58, 70, 115, 118, 131 Page 123 Sections 4, 7, 11 and 12

The outcomes and associated policies of the SDNP Partnership Management Plan are also a material consideration. The policies are listed elsewhere in this report. Relevant outcomes include 1, and 4.

Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1991 is also relevant.

6. 4 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan The South Downs Partnership Management Plan (SDPMP) was adopted on 3 December 2013. It sets out a Vision and long term Outcomes for the National Park, as well as 5 year Policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework. The SDPMP is a material consideration in planning applications and has some weight pending adoption of the SDNP Local Plan. The following Policies and Outcomes are of particular relevance to this case:

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

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

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

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

General Policy 49 Maintain and improve access to a range of essential community services and facilities for communities in the National Park.

General Policy 50 Housing and other development in the National Park should be closely matched to the social and economic needs of local people and should be of high design and energy efficiency standards, to support balanced communities so people can live and work in the area.

7. Planning Policy

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

 CHRE1 (CH)Development In The Rural Area Generally  CHRE7 (CH)Nature Conservation - Designated Sites  CHRE15 (CH)Major Institutions  CHRE17 (CH)Community Facilities In The Rural Area Page 124  CHRE28 (CH)Historic Parks And Gardens  CHBE11 (CH)New Development  CHBE14 (CH)Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges And Other Landscape Features  CHTR6 (CH)Highway Safety

8. Planning Assessment

The Principle of the Development

8.1 The proposal would extend and in part replace the facilities of an existing and long- established educational institution. Despite the College's location within the Rural Area and South Downs National Park, Local Plan policies (particularly Local Plan policy RE17) provide in-principle support for education-related development subject to environmental considerations. Similarly, Government policy (particularly NPPF paragraphs 70 and 73) seeks to encourage sporting activities and healthy lifestyles through the provision of new facilities. The planning policy position has not significantly changed since the consideration of the original application and therefore the principle of the proposed development remains acceptable. Bearing this planning policy background in mind, and subject to careful consideration of visual impact and highway matters, no objection is raised to the principle of the proposed development.

Character and Appearance

8.2 The proposed building would comprise a substantial element of built form and given its position at the edge of the campus's built envelope pubic views of it will be available from both Norwood Lane South and The Drive, to the south and east of the site respectively (both public rights of way). The building would, however, be clearly subordinate to the existing sports hall in terms of scale and in most views would be seen against a backdrop of rising ground into which its rear part would be set. Furthermore, the site is surrounded by a number of mature trees which should, even in winter, serve to substantially soften views of the proposed building.

8.3 As mentioned above a significant proportion of the building's front elevation would be formed in glass and given the potential for light pollution the applicant has submitted a package of information relating to this matter. In summary, in order to minimise light spillage glazed areas would be formed in tinted glass in conjunction, if necessary, with use an automated system of blinds. This is the same mitigation approved on the previous planning permission.

8.4 Details of the materials to be used in the construction of the new building and the renovation of the existing have been provided during the course of the application. These details include the metal cladding in 'Merlin Grey', which is considered to be acceptable. Further details of the final colour for the climbing wall and the timber cladding will be conditioned, along with the materials for the extension.

8.5 In conclusion on this matter it is considered that the proposal is well sited in relation to the existing buildings at the site and materials will be of an appropriate colour and finish for this sensitive area. Therefore the proposal would not result in visual harm to the character and appearance of the South Downs National Park.

Page 125 Highway Matters

8.6 The College's intention for the facilities to be used at times by other local schools and community groups is to be welcomed. It is intended that the nature of non- College use will be controlled via an obligation within the proposed Legal Agreement. The facilities would not be open for use by members of the public 'paying at the door', rather they would be likely to be used outside of peak-traffic hours and principally by local schools and other community groups. Such groups, who would be likely to travel in multi-person rather than private vehicles, currently have no access to such facilities or have no option but to travel significant distances to access them elsewhere.

8.7 In view of the preceding considerations no objections to the proposal on the grounds of traffic generation or highway safety are raised and WSCC Highways has raised no objection to the proposal.

Other Matters

8.8 Duncton Parish Council has raised an objection as the proposals no longer include a swimming pool that would be available for use by the wider community. The provision of a swimming pool specifically for wider public benefit was never a requirement of the Local Planning Authority, or a reason for the previous proposal receiving planning permission. It is for the school to determine which facilities it requires and for the LPA to assess the impact these have on the setting of the Listed Building, Historic Parkland, Ancient Woodland and wider community. Based on the assessment above, officers consider that the proposed building would conserve and enhance the character and appearance of the National Park and would not harm the setting of the Historic Parkland or Listed Building. Little weight can be attached to the omission of the swimming pool from the proposed scheme and it is noted that the facilities to be provided within the proposal will be made available to non-school related groups outside of school hours. It is, however acknowledged that planning permission has recently been granted for a temporary cover over the existing swimming pool facility adjacent to the Mansion House. The terms of the Section 106 Agreement and planning conditions originally imposed stated that "the sports facilities hereby permitted shall not be used other than for purposes ancillary to the use of Seaford College and by local schools and community groups the details of which shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority". This was to ensure the use of the facilities did not have a detrimental impact on the rural character of the area. A similarly worded condition is recommended to be imposed on this alternative permission.

9. Conclusion

It is considered that the revised scheme for improved sports facilities at the College, which are to include an element of community use, will conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area and comply with both purposes for designation of the South Downs National Park, Historic Parkland and Listed Building. It is therefore considered that the proposed development can be supported in terms of the development plan and other planning policies for the area which are outlined above.

Page 126 10. Recommendation

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out below and subject to the completion of a S106 agreement with obligations relating to:

The original 3 planning permissions for a new residential block associated with the College, the extension to the existing sports hall and the development of 19 dwellings within the historic parkland were linked by a Section 106 Agreement, which included clauses regarding the phasing of demolition and construction relating to all 3 permissions, as well as the provision of management and maintenance plans with regard to landscaping and the walled garden. A Deed of Variation to the original Section 106 Agreement is being prepared that updates the triggers and dates within relevant phasing clauses to provide for a timescale for the development to come forward should planning permission be approved.

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

Plan Type Reference Version Date on Plan Status Plans - Site Phasing P105 B 08.06.2015 Approved Plan Plans - Existing Site P101 A 03.12.2014 Approved Plan (A1) Plans - Site Location P100 A 03.12.2014 Approved Plan (A3) Plans - Site Block Plan P102 A 03.12.2014 Approved (A3) Plans - Proposed Phase P210 A 03.12.2014 Approved 1 Ground Floor Plan (A1) Plans - Existing Ground P200 A 03.12.2014 Approved Floor Plan (A1) Plans - Proposed Phase P213 A 03.12.2014 Approved 2 First Floor Plan (A1) Plans - Existing P220 A 03.12.2014 Approved Elevations - Sheet 1 of 2 (A1) Plans - Proposed Phase P231 A 03.12.2014 Approved 1 Elevations Sheet 2 of 2 (A1) Plans - Proposed Phase P232 A 03.12.2014 Approved 2 Elevations - Sheet 1 of 2 (A1) Plans - Proposed Phase P233 A 03.12.2014 Approved 2 Elevations - Sheet 2 of 2 (A1) Plans - Existing Site P240 A 03.12.2014 Approved Sections (A1) Plans - P250 A 03.12.2014 Approved Page 127 Plans - Proposed Phase P251 A 03.12.2014 Approved 2 Site Sections (A1) Plans - Proposed Phase P211 A 03.12.2014 Approved 1 First Floor Plan (A1) Plans - Proposed Phase P103 A 03.12.2014 Approved 1 site Plan (A1) Plans - Existing First P201 A 03.12.2014 Approved Floor Plan (A1) Plans - Proposed Phase P104 A 03.12.2014 Approved 2 Site Plan (A1) Plans - Proposed Phase P211 A 03.12.2014 Approved 2 Ground Floor Plan (A1)

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

02.The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

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

03.The refurbishment of the existing sports hall shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved materials: Metal Profiled Cladding (Walls) - Kingspan XL Forte Merlin Grey Associated flashings, verge profiles and highline gutter system - Kingspan XL Forte Anthracite.

Reason: To ensure the development results in a building of high visual amenity.

04.Notwithstanding any information contained in the application, prior to works commencing on Phase 1, a schedule of materials and finishes including samples to be used for external walls (including the climbing wall), roofs (including solar thermal collector cells), windows, doors and external glazed areas of the proposed building and where appropriate surfacing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

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

05.Notwithstanding any information contained in the application, prior to works commencing on Phase 2, a schedule of materials and finishes including samples to be used for external walls, roofs (including solar thermal collector cells), windows, doors and external glazed areas of the proposed building and where appropriate surfacing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

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

Page 128 06.No works shall begin regarding the construction of the extension hereby permitted unless and until details of the method of the building's foundation construction has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of protecting groundwater resources.

07.Prior to the commencement of the construction of the extension, details of a scheme of landscaping, which shall include a planting plan and schedule of plants noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. In addition, all existing trees and hedgerows on the land shall be indicated including details of any to be retained, together with measures for their protection in the course of the development. The scheme shall include seeding with a Native British Wildflower mix appropriate to the soil and climate of the site. The scheme shall make particular provision for the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity on the application site.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development and to comply with the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

08.All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees (including existing trees shown as being retained in the approved landscaping scheme) or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and of the environment of the development.

09.The construction of the extension hereby permitted shall not commence unless and until details of a scheme to control light spillage from the interior and exterior of the approved building has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. For the avoidance of doubt the scheme may comprise, amongst other things, a combination of measures including the use of tinted glass, automated blind systems and specialist luminaires that minimise light spillage. The approved lighting scheme shall be implemented in its entirety and maintained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interests of amenity and the character and appearance of the National Park.

Page 129 10.The sports facilities hereby permitted shall not be used other than for purposes ancillary to the use of Seaford College and by local schools and community groups the details of which shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To control the level and nature of use of the facilities in the interests of sustainability and the essentially rural character of the locality.

11.Prior to the commencement of development a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall require the applicant and contractors to minimise disturbance during demolition and construction and will include, amongst other things, details of the following information for approval:

a) the means of access for all construction traffic associated with the development which, for the avoidance of doubt, shall not include access/egress to/from the site other than from the A285; b) provision of wheel washing facilities and details of their operation and location; c) the hours and times of construction work including delivery times d) storage of plant and materials.

Details of how measures will be put in place to address any environmental problems arising from any of the above shall be provided. A named person shall be appointed by the applicant to deal with complaints, shall be available on site and their availability made known to all relevant parties. Once approved the development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the Plan.

Reason: To ensure safe and neighbourly construction in the interests of amenity.

11. Crime and Disorder Implications

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

12. 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.

13. 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.

Tim Slaney Director of Planning South Downs National Park Authority

Page 130 Case Officer Details Name: Vicki Colwell Tel No: 01243 534734 Email: [email protected]

Page 131 Appendix 1

Site Location Map

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

Page 132 Agenda Item 14

Agenda Item: 10 Report PC: 7 Report to: Planning Committee Date of Committee: 24 June 2015 By: Head of Planning Local Authority: Chichester District Council Application No: SDNP/15/00299/ADV Validation Date: 30 January 2015 Target Date: 27 March 2015 Applicant: Miss Orla Casey Proposal: To erect and keep for the Licence Period two signs of a similar size and style to that shown on the attached illustration in positions shown on the attached location plan, on Kings Drive. Site Address: Street Record, A286 Kings Drive to Henley Old Road, Easebourne West Sussex Purpose of Report: The application is reported to Committee for a decision

Recommendation: That the application be Refused for the reasons set out in paragraph 10.1 of this report.

Executive Summary

Reason for Committee Referral: Red Card: Cllr Tassell important information/opinion to raise in debate.

The application proposes retrospective planning consent for two signage boards on each respective corner verge of Kings Drive at the junction with the A286. The signage, by reason of its scale and design, results in harm to the surrounding area as it appears as a stark and visually incongruous addition set against the rural backdrop of the area. This fails to either conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the South Downs National Park and the application is, therefore recommended for refusal.

Page 133 1. Site Description

1.1 The application site is both corner verges at the entrance onto Kings Drive where it meets the A286, the main road between Midhurst and Fernhurst. The road entrance is sited close to the brow of a hill along the A286 which rises from the south to the north. The surrounding area is predominantly woodland with open countryside beyond. There are no residential properties within the immediate vicinity of the signs.

2. Relevant Planning History

None relevant

3. Proposal

3.1 The proposal seeks retrospective advertisement consent for the erection of two signs at the entrance to Kings Drive. The signs are proposed to be in place for a period of 5 years. The signs, which are already in place are positioned on either side of the road, within the corner verge where the road meets the A286. The signage measures 1.8m in height by 1.2m in width and includes two white painted posts. The signs have a green background with dark green and black lettering. Approximately a quarter of the signage has a black background with white lettering. The signage is advertising the King Edward VII residential development which is located at the end of Kings Drive.

4. Consultations

WSCC - Highway

No Objection. The signs will not be situated within the highway nor will affect any visibility splays.

On the basis that the signs will not be situated within the publicly maintained highway and the landowner is agreeable, no concerns wished to be raised to this application from a highways perspective.

Parish Council Consultee

Easebourne Parish Council has no objections to this application.

5. Representations

1 representation received.

One letter of objection received on the grounds that the signage is too large and unsightly

Page 134 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

NPPF - 7, 11 and para 67

6. 4 The South Downs Partnership Management Plan The South Downs Partnership Management Plan (SDPMP) was adopted on 3 December 2013. It sets out a Vision and long term Outcomes for the National Park, as well as 5 year Policies and a continually updated Delivery Framework. The SDPMP is a material consideration in planning applications and has some weight pending adoption of the SDNP Local Plan. The following Policies and Outcomes are of particular relevance to this case:

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

Page 135 7. Planning Policy

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

 CHBE9 (CH) Advertisements  CHBE11 (CH) New Development  CHRE1 (CH) Development In The Rural Area Generally

8. Planning Assessment

8.1 The site is located within an area of special control for advertisements, to which paragraph 67 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Saved Policy BE9 of the Chichester District Local Plan 1999 directly relate to. The NPPF states that:

'advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking into account cumulative impacts...where...poorly placed adverts can have negative impact on the appearance of the built and natural environment...requiring them to have an appreciable impact on their surroundings.' Saved Policy BE9 reflects this guidance with adverts in areas of special control only being permitted where the size, colouring and layout of the advert does not detract from the host building and character and appearance of its surroundings. Furthermore, the first purpose of the designation of the National Park is to 'conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area.'

Principle

8.2 Whilst the principle of temporary signage to advertise the King Edward VII residential development is considered acceptable given the sensitive location of the site, within the South Downs National Park it must conserve and enhance the character of the National Park and not result in harm to pedestrian and highway safety.

Visual amenity

8.3 The proposed signage is a stark and visually incongruous feature within the rural landscape, out of keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area, which is characterised by an absence of clutter and a heavily tree lined road bounded by fields. Therefore, the scale and height of the signage, at 1.8m high, exacerbated by the height of the posts and bold colour scheme, appears as a visually dominant addition. In addition given the scale and phasing of the King Edward VII development the signage will be in place for 5 years. The harm caused by the signage is therefore not considered to be of a temporary nature but will have an impact over a number of years. Therefore failing to conserve nor enhance the character of this part of the South Downs National Park.

8.4 Furthermore, the impact of the two signs within close proximity to one another results in a negative cumulative impact on the character of the surrounding area.

Page 136 Highway and pedestrian safety

8.5 It is not considered that the proposal would result in any danger to highway safety. WSCC Highways Officer has not objected.

9. Conclusion

To conclude, the signage by reason of its scale and colour would result in harm to the character of the area, failing to conserve and enhance this part of the South Downs National Park.

10. Recommendation

It is recommended that the application be refused for the following reasons:

01. The application as been assessed and determined on the basis of the following plans:

Plan Type Reference Version Date on Plan Status Plans - location plan CC-S306-SA- Not 001 Approv ed Plans - elevations Not Approv ed

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

02. The signage, by reason of its scale and colour, results in harm to the character and appearance of the area failing to conserve nor enhance this part of the National Park. This is contrary to the guidance of paragraph 67 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Saved Policies BE9 and BE11 of the Chichester District Local Plan 1999 and the first purpose of the South Downs National Park.

11. Crime and Disorder Implications

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

12. 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.

13. 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.

Page 137 Tim Slaney Director of Planning South Downs National Park Authority

Case Officer Details Name: Charlotte Cranmer Tel No: 01243 534734 Email: [email protected]

Page 138 Appendix 1

Site Location Map

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

Page 139 Agenda Item 15

Chichester District Council Planning Committee

Planning Enforcement Report

Crouchland Farm, Rickman’s Lane, Kirdford, Billingshurst, West Sussex, RH14 0LE

1. Contacts

Shona Archer, Enforcement Manager (01243) 534547 e-mail: [email protected]

2. Recommendation

That the District Council take formal enforcement action and issues two enforcement notices under s172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Planning Compensation Act 1995) in respect of:

1. Without planning permission the material change of use of the land to a mixed use for agriculture and for the purposes of a commercial biogas plant, including the importation and processing of feedstock and waste from outside the farm unit; 2. Without planning permission the erection and installation of commercial biogas plant equipment and the construction of a digestate lagoon (the matters which appear to be in breach of planning control are set in Appendix A).

The reasons for issuing the notices are set out in Appendix A to this report.

3.0 Introduction

3.1 Planning permission was refused by West Sussex County Council at the meeting of its Planning Committee on 3 March 2015 for proposed upgrading of an existing anaerobic digester facility to enable the export of biomethane to the national grid, installation of a new digestion tank, two new CHP engines, digestate lagoon and associated infrastructure by decision notice dated 7 April 2015. A copy of the decision notice is attached at Appendix B to this report.

Page 140 3.2 At the Committee meeting it was also resolved that a report concerning the options for enforcement at the site should be reported to the next meeting.

3.3 At the meeting of the WSCC Planning Committee on 2 June 2015, it was resolved that the case be referred to Chichester District Council (CDC) to investigate the matter further and determine the appropriate course of action to regularise the activity on the site. This report advised that both the unauthorised physical development on the site and the anaerobic digestion use of the site are breaches of planning control which are not immune from enforcement action. It explained that following the cessation in May 2014 of the importation of 25,000 tonnes per annum of food waste from London (which resulted in the breach being a county matter), imported food waste no longer forms a substantial proportion of the current feedstock (only 3%). On this basis it had been agreed that the current operations on the site are a district matter and so the expediency of taking formal enforcement action would be a decision for the District Council.

3.4 This report address the planning issues arising from the operation of the plant as a commercial biogas facility utilising imported feedstock from outside the site and whether it is expedient to take enforcement action having regard to the extent of the breach of control, the amount of development carried out and the harm caused by it.

4.0 Main Report

4.1 Relevant Planning History

07/04916/FUL Permit New silo for additional slurry storage to comply with amended NVZ regulations. Per 19 December 2007; 07/04917/FUL Permit Replacement silo for additional slurry storage to comply with amended NVZ regulations. Per 19 December 2007; 08/02511/FUL Permit Siting of 3 no. portable containers associated with the harvesting of methane from silos. Per 11 September 2008; 11/02514/FUL Permit Siting of 4 no. metal containers associated to aid gas conditioning for biogas plant. Per 26 August 2011; 11/04982/FUL Permit Replacement of existing slurry/dirty water lagoon with underground concrete storage store. Per 17 May 2012 13/00912/FUL Withdrawn Siting of portable containers and associated cooling vessels for gas conditioning from biogas plant. Wdn 16 September 2013;

The first three permissions (listed above) were implemented in accordance with the approved plans, but recent changes have been made to the layout of the gas conditioning equipment . Notwithstanding this, the anaerobic digestion (AD) plant has been in operation since 2010. The 2011 permissions have not been carried out in accordance

Page 141 with the approved plans and the resultant operational development is considered to be unauthorised.

13/00015/CONCOU Enforcement case - Use of an anaerobic generator and importation of waste slurry. PCO

14/00104/CONENG Enforcement case - Creation of a slurry lagoon. PCO

WSCC/042/14/PS Planning application - Proposed upgrading of an existing anaerobic digester facility to enable the export of biomethane to the national grid, installation of a new digestion tank, two new CHP engines, digestate lagoon and associated infrastructure. Refused 7 April 2015.

WSCC/036/15/PS Application for a lawful development certificate for a proposed use of the site under the planning permissions as an anaerobic digestion facility including the production and export by HGV of biogas, the generation and export of electricity to the national grid, the production and export of digestate for use as fertiliser and the unrestricted throughput of waste, crops and glycerol for both on and off-farm sources including the importation of material by road. Under consideration by WSCC.

4.2 Application WSCC/036/15/PS seeks a Certificate of Lawful Use relating to the extent of the permissions implemented to date. It does not seek to establish the lawfulness of any operational development. The County Council is the appropriate authority to determine this application because it seeks confirmation as to whether the lawful use of the site includes the unrestricted processing of waste which is a county matter. The proposed use differs from the existing use because it would include the unrestricted throughput of waste, crops and glycerol, without any limitation on vehicle movements.

5.0 Baseline Position

5.1 The baseline position relates to the interpretation of traffic movements associated with the Anaerobic Digestion use of the site. The District Council’s view differs from that of the applicant and the County Council. The District Council considers that the 2007 and 2008 permissions permitted operational development only that was ancillary to the agricultural use and operation of Crouchland Farm. For this reason, the use of further conditions to those permissions explicitly restricting the importation of waste/export of gas was considered unnecessary to make those applications acceptable. The District Council considers that the use now taking place comprises a commercial energy production facility that utilises the importation of feedstock from outside the site and that this amounts to a material change of use of the site (from agriculture to a mixed use of agriculture and a commercial enterprise exporting Biomethane gas). The District Council is of the opinion that this is unauthorised, and that retrospective planning permission should be sought for the additional operational development that has taken place since 2012.

Page 142 6.0 Current Position

6.1 The current situation is that it is understood that approximately 766 tonnes of material is fed into the AD plant per week (tpw), of which 430 tpw comprises imported crops (i.e. 56% of the total throughput based on information provided by the PCN). A detailed breakdown of the throughput is provided in the table attached at Appendix C. The conclusion is that the current use of the facility fails to be considered as a District matter.

6.2 The amount of AD plant and equipment that has been installed on site without planning permission, including dates of installation is as follows:

I- 1 no. 8m high digester tank – completed in February 2014; - 2 no. CHP engines – installed in March 2013 and November 2013; - Gas conditioning equipment – installed in March 2014; - Gas cleaner – installed February 2014; - 3 no. CNG gas compressors – October 2013; - Associated pipework – installed January 2014; - 1.5 MW dual fuel boiler and hot water pump – installed March 2014; - 1 no. Peecon feeder adj to biogas tank – installed October 2014; - Enclosed flare – installed March 2014; - Control cabinet – installed January 2014; - 3 no. CNG coolers – installed November 2013; - 1 no. Purac cooler – installed November 2013; - ENCAL kiosk – installed May 2014;

6.3 The amount of associated development (including for agriculture) that has taken place on site without planning permission is as follows:

- Digestate lagoon – completed October 2012; - Digestate lagoon associated pipework - September 2013; - Digestate lagoon associated fencing – September 2014; - Landscape bund to woodland – July 2013; - Hardstanding – installed July 2013 - Waste storage area and separator ; - Digestate liquid holding tank; - Dirty water pump; - Bunded fuel store; - New farm workshop/machinery store part of which is used to store glycerol tanks in – completed 2014; - 1 no. electricity substation – installed November 2013; - 2 no. electricity transformers – installed February 2014; - Biomethane loading bay and stations – installed October 2014; - Admin office and control room – January 2014 - Surface water and drainage interceptor – installed October 2014; - Glycerol storage tanks – externally located;

A location plan of the site together with a detailed plan of unauthorised AD plant and equipment on site is attached at Appendix D and E respectively.

Page 143 6.4 It is evident from the information provided, that the current level of operation as an AD/biogas facility is reliant on some 59% of the throughout material being imported from external sources off-farm (this includes the 3% of fruit and mushroom waste but not including glycerol as an additive). This is equivalent to approximately 44 two-way lorry movements per week (information provided by the PCN). When added to the export of biomethane and digestate this totals approx. 150 two-way HGV movements per week associated with the use of the AD Plant as follows:

 Imported feedstock and waste = 44.1 two-way HGV lorry movements per week on average;  Export of biomethane = 27.6 two-way HGV lorry movements per week on average;  Export of digestate directly associated with AD Plant = 80 two-way HGV lorry movements per week on average (assuming the 2/3rds of the feedstock material for the AD plant comes from outside the site)

6.5 In addition, a considerable amount of unauthorised operational development has taken place which is unrelated to the processing of ‘on-farm waste i.e. a third biogas tank erected on the site of a proposed underground slurry storage tank and a new digestate lagoon constructed approximately 500m from the main farm buildings complex adjacent to PROW 564 (Public Right of Way).

7.0 Constraints Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area YES AONB NO Strategic Gap NO Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO (designated) Flood Zone NO Nitrate Vulnerable Zone YES

8.0 Policy Context

8.1 Section 38(c) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that applications are determined in accordance with the statutory ‘development plan’ unless material considerations indicate otherwise (as confirmed in paragraphs 2 & 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). For the purposes of this development, the statutory development plan comprises the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 and the Kirdford Parish Neighbourhood Plan (2014).

8.2 The key policies material to the determination of this development are set out below. In addition there is reference to the relevant parts of the NPPF and accompanying Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).

Page 144 8.3 The draft Local Plan is a further significant material consideration in relation to this matter. The plan has been found sound (subject to modifications) by the Local Plan Inspector and is to be reported to the Council on 14 July 2015 for adoption. The draft Local Plan does therefore at this stage have substantial weight and will, form part of the development plan following its adoption by the Council. Emerging Local Plan policy 41 relates to the provision of off-site renewable energy (e.g. where it is not embedded as part of a development proposal such as for stand-alone solar, biomass and energy crops, anaerobic digestion, wind and landfill gas) where it has been demonstrated that the all the following criteria have been met:

1. There is no significant adverse effect on landscape or town character, ecology and wildlife, heritage assets, area or features of historic significance or amenity value; 2. There is no significant adverse impact on local amenity, health and quality of life as a result of noise, emissions to atmosphere, electronic interference or outlook through unacceptable visual intrusion; and 3. There is no adverse impact on highway safety….

When considering the social and economic benefits, account will be taken of the degree of community participation/ownership of a scheme.

Relevant Policies and guidance NPPF: paragraphs 14, 17, 28, 32, 35, 97, 98, 109, 122, 123, 196 -197, 207 Chichester District Local Plan First View 1999: RE1, RE5, RE8, RE12, BE11, B5

Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and Proposed Modifications: Relevant policies - 1, 25, 39, 41, 45, 48 and 49 are set out as follows:

Policy 25 – Development in the North of the Plan area – development is required to conserve and enhance the rural character of the area, the quality of the landscape and natural/historic interest;

Policy 39 – transport, accessibility and parking – development should be located to minimise additional traffic generation and movement; avoid problems of highway safety and cumulative impact on residential amenity which are severe;

Policy 41 – off-site renewable energy – the development should not result in a significant adverse effect on the landscape; local amenity or have an adverse impact on highway safety;

Policy 45 – development in the countryside – should represent a sustainable form of development in the countryside, ensure that the scale, siting, design, materials would have minimal impact on the landscape and rural character of the area;

Policy 48 – natural environment – development should have no adverse impact on the tranquil and rural character of the area and enhance local landscape character of the surrounding area and site, public amenity in general.

Page 145 9.0 The site

9.1 Crouchland Farm is located on the west side of Rickman’s Lane approximately 1.2km south east of the village of Plaistow and 2.8km north of the village of Kirdford. The area is rural in character and the site is surrounded by open and wooded countryside.

9.2 The site comprises a large dairy farm covering approximately 500 acres. The main farm buildings complex is located at the end of an access road which extends some 500m into the agricultural holding from the highway. The access road is also a bridleway open to all traffic (BOAT 643). The access road then continues north towards Hardnips Copse which is a block of ancient woodland located opposite the main farm buildings complex. The track at this point is also designated as a public right of way (PROW restricted byway 633).

9.3 The main operational area containing the AD tanks and associated equipment is located on the eastern side of the access track leading north to Hardnips Copse. The equipment is housed between the cluster of existing farm buildings/cow sheds at Crouchland Farm. There is a dirty water attenuation lagoon located to the north east of the farm buildings and AD plant. This has been constructed by means of excavating a substantial amount of soil and forming an earth bund around the development.

9.4 500m to the west of the main plant, a new digestate lagoon has been built in a field to the south of PROW 564/BOAT 3519. It lies just beyond a line of mature trees and opposite the farm’s existing slurry lagoon. A series of large diameter pipes have been installed in the ground linking the AD plant to this lagoon.

9.5 In addition to the above, it appears a further building has been provided on the northern side of the AD Plant to house new glycerol tanks.

9.6 The land immediately surrounding the site is in dairy use. The nearest dwelling to the AD plant is the farm manager’s house some 60m to the east of the main plant area. Crouchlands House is 250m to the south, whilst there are several properties approximately 400m away to the north along Rickman’s lane. The area is rural in character and the site is surrounded by a mix of open countryside and blocks of woodland. The site lies in the north eastern part of the District where conserving the rural character of the area, with its high quality landscape and environment is considered a key planning objective.

Background to the Enforcement Investigation

9.7 The Council received a complaint in January 2013 concerning the importation of food waste and the operation of a Biogas plant that was unrelated to the handling of on-farm manure and slurry. Following the issue of a Planning Contravention Notice (PCN), it was revealed that a substantial amount of food waste was being imported and processed on the site. It was subsequently

Page 146 agreed that the enforcement investigation should be taken forward by the County Council as the Minerals and Waste Authority.

9.8 In March 2014, the County Council served a PCN seeking information about the operational activities on the site at that time. The PCN reply showed that some 13.6% (5724tpa) of the site’s annual tonnes per annum (tpa) throughput was food waste. In May 2014 the operator ceased the importation of food waste from London. This volume of material was replaced by locally-sourced farm produce (i.e. purpose grown crops) and a small amount of vegetable waste. This resulted in the County Council determining a planning application (ref: WSCC/042/14/PS), which was part retrospective and part proposed, for the upgrading of the existing facilities and continued o operation of it with the option of importing food waste. The application was refused by decision notice dated 7 April 2015. The current level of throughput p.a. at the AD Plant (approx. 39,832 tpa) includes 56% imported crops, 3% imported waste and 14% Glycerine. This compares with 27% of on-farm produce and farmyard manure. Appendix C contains the WSCC committee report and provides further details (page 9).

10.0 Consultations

10.1 Environmental Health (EH): The response from the CDC Environmental Protection is that the Environment Agency is the prime enforcers of this site as the activity is subject to an Environmental Permit. CDC as the Local Authority has a residual duty to investigate complaints about nuisance that occur in our district. Consequently EH has picked up some complaints about odour and noise over the years this plant has been operating. Currently there are 2 complaints open and noise recording equipment has been installed at a property in Rickman’s Lane in order to investigate allegations about plant noise. No evidence has been gathered to support the allegations. The recent application to WSCC planning to add a third digester and gas production / collection plant has been examined and site visits conducted. No objections were raised to the application based on any approval restricting vehicle movements and recommended maximum plant noise conditions in line with their own acoustic consultant’s predictions.

10.2 Environment Agency: No objection. The site is regulated under the Environmental Permitting Regulations.

10.3 WSCC Highways: The original consultation (to planning application WSCC/042/14/PS) assumed a baseline of circa 14,000 tpa of material imported into the site, ancillary to the operation of the farm (i.e. movements from other parts of the farm to the AD facility site). A highway objection was raised based on the intensification of HGV movements resulting from an increase to circa 32000 tpa through the importation of 3rd party material. The amount of material currently being imported to the site is approx. 28,964 tpa. WSCC has confirmed, therefore, that the Highway comments on the original consultation still apply as follows:

Page 147 The Local Highway Authority raises an objection to the proposed development as it considers the proposed route from Crouchland Farm to Plaistow Road to be unsuitable to accommodate, by virtue of its insufficient width, restrictive nature of the junctions and limited visibility the intensification in HGV movements that would be generated by the proposed development and would result in detriment to highway safety. This would be contrary to paragraphs 32 and 35 of the NPPF, 1.2.1 and 1.4.9 of the WSCC Local Transport Plan 2011- 2026 and paragraphs b, c(i) and c(iii) of the West Sussex Waste Local Plan (2014). Should the Planning Authority be minded to refuse the application the LHA recommends the following reason be included:

The vehicular route to be used by HGV traffic between the site and the B2233, by virtue of its narrow width, tight turns and restricted visibility (with particular regard to Rickman’s Lane, the junction of Rickman’s Lane and Foxbridge Lane, Foxbridge Lane and the junction of Foxbridge Lane/Plaistow Road) is not suitable to accommodate the intensification in HGV traffic that would be generated by the proposed development, and would result in a severe impact on highway safety contrary to paragraphs 32 and 35 of the NPPF, 1.2.1 and 1.4.9 of the WSCC Local Transport Plan 2011-2026 and paragraphs b, c(i) and c(iii) of the West Sussex Waste Local Plan (2014).

10.4 West Sussex County Council – Minerals and Waste

Re your consultation relating to the use of the site at Crouchland Farm, assuming, as you state, that the permitted operation of the site is for the management of on-farm waste only:

The importation of material which includes 3% waste would not, in our view, constitute a ‘waste’ use (as set out in our Committee Report).

The material considerations relating to the operation of the site are unlikely to differ significantly whether the material being imported is waste or non-waste, particularly as the key impact relates to highways movements. We therefore have no comments in this regard. I would however note that the site is subject to an Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency.

Finally, as you are aware the County Council is currently considering a Certificate of Lawfulness for the proposed use of Anaerobic Digestion with unrestricted throughput of imported waste or other material and the generation and export of electricity, biogas and digestate (see WSCC/036/15/PS). This is due to be determined at committee on 21 July 2015.

11.0 Planning Comments

11.1 The main issue for consideration is whether it is expedient to take formal enforcement action. Any action taken must be proportionate to the harm caused. In doing so, regard must be had to the extent of the breach, the unacceptability of the development (taking into account the provisions of the statutory development plan and any other material considerations), and whether the breach is causing any material harm.

Page 148 Principle of the Development

11.2 The principle of siting an anaerobic digestion facility at the farm has already been established through the various planning permissions granted in 2007 – 2011. However, the District Council’s interpretation of these planning permissions is that they permit the processing of on-farm crops and waste. As such, it is considered that the significant level of importation of ‘feedstock’ has resulted in a material change of use of the site from agriculture to a mixed use of agriculture and a commercial biogas plant including the importation of feedstock and export of biomethane to the national grid.

11.3 An AD plant is considered ‘renewable energy’ in that it produces energy from waste and biomass. The present level of output would result in approx. 54,314MWh of energy from the biomethane production, equivalent to the energy demand from 3,823 homes, and 4,022,195KWh of energy from the CHP’s, equivalent to the demand from 951 homes per year. Renewable energy is supported through national policy including paragraph 98 of the NPPF which recognises that even small scale projects can provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and proposals should be approved where impacts can be made acceptable.

11.4 As it stands the AD Plant at Crouchland Farm falls under the definition of a ‘small-scale’ facility in that it processes under 50,000 tonnes of material per annum (ref from WSCC Waste Local Plan). However, currently 22,360tpa of feedstock is imported to the plant along with 1.144tpa of vegetable waste and 5460tpa of Glycerine. This is equivalent to 44.1 two-way HGV lorry movements on average per week (not including the HGV movements associated with the export of biomethane and digestate from the plant).

11.5 The advice contained in the NPPF is re-iterated in emerging Local Plan policy 41- offsite renewable energy. This policy states that planning permission for off-site renewable energy proposals will be granted subject to a number of criteria including that there is no significant adverse impact on landscape, local amenity and on highway safety. These considerations will now be examined in more detail as follows:

Impact on Landscape Character and Visual Amenity

11.6 The site is not within an area designated for its landscape value as such. However, it is situated within the Rural Area, the character of which is recognised in Policy RE5 of the CDLP First Review 1999 and Policy 25 of the Emerging Local Plan.

11.7 The built elements of the development are adjacent to the lawful plant, sited within the envelope of the main farm buildings complex. The additional unauthorised AD digester is located on the eastern side of the modern cow barn adjacent to a loading area where the digestate is removed from the system and biomethane loaded into lorries. Access to the operational area is via the farm roads used as a bridleway and public right of way. The dome of the third digester can be seen from the bridleway to the east of the farm, whilst the equipment adjacent to the farm buildings complex can be seen from PROW 633.

Page 149 11.8 The operational development is agri-industrial in appearance and some of it is partially screened by the existing digesters and farm buildings. However, given the substantial amount of unauthorised equipment erected on the site, which is part and parcel of the intensification in the use of the premises, it is considered the development in question has a material adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As the associated equipment is visible from the PROW it results in a visually intrusive form of development unrelated to the agricultural needs of the holding. Also, the additional equipment is not in keeping with the adjacent farm buildings and as such is considered to be harmful to the visual amenity of the surrounding area which is predominantly rural in character.

11.9 Furthermore, an earth bund has been formed around the third digester and dirty water lagoon to the east of the farm buildings. Although its purpose is to screen the development, the bund remains in view from the public realm and is therefore considered to add to the visual harm of the development in the wider countryside setting. It is an artificial feature that is not in keeping with the natural rural landscape.

11.10In addition, a new digestate lagoon has been constructed in the field to the west of the main farm buildings complex. It measures 17,000 sqm and has been constructed by forming a 2m high earth bund around its perimeter. The lagoon is covered by a plastic tarpaulin and is enclosed by a safety fence measuring 1.3m in height atop of the bund.

11.11This lagoon can be seen from the PROW and a Byway open to all traffic (BOAT) that passes immediately to the north of it. On the opposite side of the PROW is the farm’s existing open slurry lagoon. However, the development of the digestate lagoon has resulted in the loss of further open countryside and at the introduction of an engineered earth bund that is considered to represent an unacceptable visually intrusive and harmful form of development in this location which is unrelated to the agricultural needs of the holding.

11.12 It is considered overall that the unauthorised operational development has resulted in an increase in the amount of physical development on the site which is out of keeping with and harmful to the pre-existing rural character of the area. In addition, with the substantial increase in HGV traffic movements to and from the site, it is considered that this has a detrimental impact on the tranquillity of the area. Having regard to the desirability of conserving the rural character of the area, the quality of the landscape and natural and historic environment, it is considered the development is contrary to Policy RE5 of the adopted Local Plan and Policy 25 in the emerging Local Plan.

Impact on Local Amenity

11.13The closest dwelling to the site is the farm manager’s house which is 60m to the east of the plant. Crouchland (house) is located approx. 250m to the south of the site, whilst there are several residential properties located approx.400m away along Rickman’s Lane to the north.

11.14The development has the potential to result in an adverse impact on existing residential amenity through noise and disturbance both from the operation of

Page 150 the site/plant and equipment, and from vehicles travelling to and from it. However, this has to be considered in the context of any impact arising from the operation of the site as a farm and the existing lawful AD plant which is uncontrolled by planning conditions relating to HGV movements, noise and hours of use.

11.15As it stands there is no objection from CDC Environmental Health regarding noise nuisance and odour affecting any of the properties mentioned. However, given the proximity of the site to several PROW’s, the increase in noise and disturbance from the additional HGV’s has the potential to affect the enjoyment of these routes. But such impacts are not material and would only be transient upon users of the PROW as they pass by the site. In light of the number and frequency of HGV movements generated by the use of the site as a commercial AD plant (72 two way HGV movements per wk on average), it is considered that the main issue is that the use has a significant negative impact on the amenity of local residents as a result of noise and disturbance from traffic from the increase in HGV movements to and from the site. Such levels of HGV traffic are inappropriate and out of character in this rural location and damaging to the rural ambience of the area and the amenities of local residents in connection with a material change of use of the site to a commercial Biogas plant using imported feedstock and exporting biomethane.

Highway Capacity and Road Safety

11.16The site is located approximately 9km from the principal traffic route (the A272). It is accessed from the farm entrance track leading off Rickman’s Lane. The amount of material currently being imported to the site is approx. 28,960 tpa. This equates to on average 44 two-way HGV movements per week. In addition to exporting Biomethane and digestate from the site this increases to 81.7 two- way HGV movements per week. There are approximately 60.4 other HGV movements per week (single way) not connected with the AD Plant i.e. dirty water and farm slurry, but if, for example, the capacity of the AD plant was limited to handling on farm waste only, two thirds of these lorry movements would cease i.e. some 20 single way HGV movements of digestate for use as a fertiliser to spread on the fields of nearby farms would remain.

11.17The HGV’s access the B2233 via Rickman’s Lane, Foxbridge Lane and Plaistow Road. The Highway Authority has commented that the route from Crouchlands Farm to Plaistow Road is substandard by virtue of its insufficient width, restrictive nature of the junctions and limited visibility. Accordingly, it is considered the route is unsuitable for the intensification of HGV movements generated by the current unauthorised use of the site. The development results in a severe detriment to highway safety contrary to policy 41 of the emerging local plan.

Impact on the Environment

11.18The development has the potential to result in impacts on the environment primarily through emissions to water and air, and through lighting, potentially impacting on ecology. The development is not located in a flood risk area or groundwater source protection area, but it is located in a nitrate vulnerable zone (NVZ), hence to need to comply with NVZ regulations.

Page 151 11.19The development has resulted in the need to construct a digestate lagoon to the west of the AD plant and a new dirty water lagoon to the east of the cow yard to ensure there is sufficient capacity for water storage. The Environment Agency (EA) has raised no objection to the development as it stands. The operational development is currently regulated by the EA under the Environmental Permitted regime. It is therefore considered acceptable in terms of impact on the water environment and control of emissions and odour. In this respect, it is noted that the Environmental Protection Service raise no objection.

11.20In relation to light pollution, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the current operation of the AD plant has materially increased light pollution in this rural location sufficient to warrant making a specific objection on this ground. In conclusion, it is considered the development is not unduly harmful to the environment in terms of water, air pollution, lighting and ecology.

Conclusion

11.21Based on the lawful agricultural use of the site and the District Council’s assessment of the remit of the permissions granted, it is considered that the development and current use of the site has resulted in a material change of use from an ancillary on-farm Biogas plant to a commercial facility using primarily imported feedstock.

11.22 The principle of the development is not considered acceptable in this instance as it has resulted in a significant negative impact on the character and amenity of the area. By reason of its siting and design, the unauthorised operational development fails to respect the prevailing rural character of the area. It has resulted in a visually intrusive and harmful form of development when viewed from the surrounding public rights of way network. In addition, the development has a detrimental impact on the amenity of local residents due to the increase in HGV traffic using the local road network which is considered to be substandard and unsuitable for the intensification in HGV movements associated with the unauthorised change of use.

11.22When assessed against the relevant policies of the development plan, it is considered the unauthorised development at Crouchland Farm is contrary to policies RE1, RE5, RE12, BE11 and B5 in the CDLP First Review 1999; policies 1, 25, 39, 41, 45 and 48 of the draft Local Plan and paragraphs 14, 17, 35, 98, 109 and 123 of the NPPF.

11.23In relation to the NPPF, section 10 states that planning plays a key role in helping to secure a radical reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through supporting the delivery of renewable energy infrastructure, and when determining applications, local planning authorities should approve applications unless material considerations indicate otherwise and if the impacts are acceptable. However, for the reasons set out above, the Biogas Plant at Crouchland Farm is considered to be an inappropriate and unacceptable form of development in this location as it fails to comply with the relevant policies in the development plan and specific policies in the framework which indicate the development should be restricted.

Page 152 12.0 Legal Implications

12.1 Physical development becomes immune from planning control after 4 years. Unauthorised changes of use of land become immune after 10 years. The unauthorised physical development at the site began in 2012, less than 4 years ago; therefore it is not immune from enforcement action. The AD plant was brought into use in 2009 and importation of food waste began in 2011. As this is less than 10 years ago, the unauthorised change of use from agriculture to a mixed agricultural and commercial use is not immune from enforcement action.

12.2 The landowner and developer of the AD plant maintain that the planning permissions granted by the District Council in 2007 and 2008 means that there is a lawful unrestricted use of the authorised physical AD equipment on the site. However, officers have taken the view that the planning permissions did not authorise a material change of use and only permitted building operations in relation to the authorised use as agriculture. The District Council has maintained that the intensification and material change of the site to a commercial energy production facility has taken the operation of the AD facility beyond the scope of the approved development such that it requires separate consent.

12.3 However, in view of the complexities of the law in this respect, it is recommended that two enforcement notices are issued, as alternatives to each other. One would cover the material change of use of the land (the preferred position) and require not only the cessation of the use but the removal of building operations which are integral to such use. The other notice would only cover the building/operational development which is not immune from enforcement action in itself and which facilitates the intensified use.

12.4 WSCC is the determining authority for a current application for a Certificate of Lawful Use for the use of the AD Plant with unrestricted throughput of imported waste and export of gas and digestate. In the event that a certificate of lawful use is granted, for the proposed development, the District Council will need to review any enforcement action taken as a result of this recommendation set out in this report.

Expediency to take Enforcement Action

12.5 Based on the assessment set out in section 11 above, it is considered that there is a breach of planning control subsisting at the site and that it is expedient to take enforcement action to rectify the breach of planning control and to remedy the harm caused to amenity and highway safety.

Crime and Disorder Act Implications

12.6 There are no implications.

Equality Act Implications

12.7 As part of the decision-making process, under the Equality Act, public bodies must have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited by the Act; advance

Page 153 equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it; and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it.

12.8 In reviewing the planning issues set out in this report, it is concluded that the decision to take enforcement action would not adversely affect those with ‘protected characteristics’.

Human Rights Implications:

12.9 The Human Rights Act requires the District Council to take into account the rights of the public under the European Convention on Human Rights and prevents the Council from acting in a manner which is incompatible with those rights. Article 8 of the Convention provides that there shall be respect for an individual’s private life and home save for that interference which is in accordance with the law and necessary on a democratic society in the interest of (inter alia) public safety and the economic wellbeing of the country. Article 1 of the protocol provides that an individual’s peaceful enjoyment of their property shall not be interfered with save as is necessary in the public interest.

12.10Any interference with these rights needs to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised. The enforcement action being considered is the issue of an Enforcement Notice/s under s172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This will involve the amendment and removal of development that is considered to be in breach of planning control. The development, in this case the erection of a substantial amount of plant and equipment in connection with an unauthorised use of the land, is the private property of the landowner and developer and therefore invokes their rights under Article 1 of the 1st protocol - Protection of property. It is also considered that Article 8 of the Convention (Right to respect for private and family life) is engaged in terms of the investment in and ownership of the plant/equipment by the individuals concerned.

12.11In assessing the implications of the identified articles on the proposed enforcement action, it is noted that the Human Rights Act 1998 does not impair the right of the state or local authorities to enforce laws as it deems necessary in the public interest. It is therefore considered that the proposed Enforcement Notice/s and its objective of securing compliance with planning control by removing the unauthorised plant and equipment and ceasing the use, would uphold adopted National and Local planning policies and protect the amenities of local residents and the amenity of the area. This cannot be achieved by any lesser measures and therefore the action to be taken is considered proportionate to the harm arising. Interference with the rights identified is justified in this case, as the Council deems it necessary to control the use and development of the property in accordance with the public interest.

13.0 Recommendation:

13.1 The recommendation is to take enforcement action and issue two enforcement notices for the reasons set out in Appendix A to this report. Therefore, based on the planning assessment set out above, it is considered both necessary and

Page 154 expedient to take enforcement action and this is considered a proportionate response to the breach of planning control identified.

14.0 Background Papers

14.1 Enforcement files PS/13/00015/CONCOU & PS/14/00104/CONENG;

Correspondence received from WSCC following Enforcement Report ENF Ref: INV/003/2014;

Planning history as set out above in Section 4

NPPF, PPG and Development Plan as set out in Section 8 above.

15.0 Appendices

15.1 Appendix A – Matters which appear to be in breach of planning control and suggested reasons for issuing the notice/s;

Appendix B – Copy of the decision notice ref: WSCC/042/14/PS;

Appendix C – Table of Throughput of the AD Plant

Appendix D – Location Plan of the site;

Appendix E – Site Plan Crouchland Farm AD plant

Page 155 Appendix A – Enforcement Notice A

The Breach of planning Control alleged is:

Without planning permission material change of use of the land to a mixed use for agriculture and for the purposes of a commercial biogas plant, including the importation and processing of feedstock and waste from outside the farm unit.

Reasons for issuing the notice:

It appears to the Council that the above breach of planning control has occurred within the last ten years. The area of land shown edged red on the attached plan is being used for the purposes of a commercial biogas plant, including the importation and processing of feedstock and waste from outside the farm unit. This has resulted in a material change in use of the site from an ancillary on-farm Biogas plant to a mixed use of farm use and a commercial facility using primarily imported feedstock. The use of the site is not considered to be in accordance with the planning permissions granted in 2007 and 2008 for two anaerobic digesters and a control room, gas washing plant and CHP engine for use as an on-farm AD facility. The development constitutes an inappropriate and harmful form of development within the Rural Area for which there are no special circumstances to justify its retention as an exception to normal policies of restraint where it is having an adverse impact on the rural character of the area, the quality of its landscape and the natural and historic environment.

The development is considered harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area for the following reasons: The siting and design of the unauthorised operational development is considered to constitute a visually intrusive and harmful form of development when viewed from the surrounding public rights of way network. In addition, the development is having a detrimental impact on the amenity of local residents due to the increase in HGV traffic using the local road network which is considered to be substandard and unsuitable for the intensification in HGV movements associated with the unauthorised change of use. It represents an inappropriate form of development in this rural location from a highway safety perspective because the route between the site and the junction of Foxbridge Lane and Plaistow Road is unsuitable in terms of its width, the restrictive nature of the junctions to allow safe manoeuvring, and limited visibility, to manage the intensification of HGV movements to and from the site. There are no compelling circumstances to allow this development to remain as it conflicts with the objective of conserving the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The development is therefore contrary to saved policies RE1, RE5, RE8, RE12, BE11 and B5 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999; policies 14, 17, 28, 32, 35, 98, 109, 122 & 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 and policies 1, 25, 39, 41, 45, 48 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies proposed modifications 2014-2029. The Council does not consider that planning permission should be given, because planning conditions could not overcome these objections to development.

Page 156 Steps required to secure compliance:

(i) Cease the use of the land as a commercial biogas plant;

(ii) Cease any importation and processing of feedstock and waste for use in the anaerobic digestion plant on the land;

(iii) Cease the production of biomethane for export from the site;

(iv) Disconnect, dismantle and remove from the land the biogas digestion tank, control room building and peecon feeder base and equipment, foul tank and pump and all other biogas equipment installed in the approximate position shown coloured yellow on the attached plan;

(v) Disconnect and remove from the land the 2 no. CHP engines, gas conditioning equipment, gas cleaner, 3 no. CNG gas compressors, admin office and control room, 1.5 MW dual fuel boiler and hot water pump, enclosed flare, control cabinets, 3 no. CNG coolers, 1 no. Purac cooler, ENCAL kiosk, connectors and equipment for the transfer of biogas to trailers and all other biogas equipment and equipment housing in the approximate position shown coloured orange on the attached plan;

(vi) Demolish and remove from the land the digestate lagoon, the surrounding fencing and the earth bund in the approximate position shown coloured brown on the attached plan;

(vii) Disconnect and remove from the land the associated pipework connecting the digestate lagoon to the AD Plant and digestate liquid holding tank in the approximate location shown coloured purple on the attached plan;

(viii) Reconfigure the land using the earth from the bund to match the profile of existing land surrounding the digestate tank in the approximate location shown coloured green on the attached plan from the land and reinstate the ground to match the existing levels on either side of the site.

(ix) Remove the resulting debris from the land

Period for Compliance: Steps (i) – (iii) above in 1 month;

Steps (iv) – (ix) above in 6 months

Page 157 Enforcement Notice B:

The Breach of Planning Control alleged is:

Without planning permission:

(i) The installation of a biogas digestion tank, control room building and pecon feeder base and equipment, foul tank and pump and all other biogas equipment installed in the approximate position shown coloured yellow on the attached plan;

(ii) The installation of 2 no. CHP engines, gas conditioning equipment, gas cleaner, 3 no. CNG gas compressors, admin office and control room, 1.5 MW dual fuel boiler and hot water pump, enclosed flare, control cabinets, 3 no. CNG coolers, 1 no. Purac cooler, ENCAL kiosk, connectors and equipment for the transfer of biogas to trailers and all other biogas equipment and equipment housing in the approximate position shown coloured orange on the attached plan;

(iii) The construction of a digestate lagoon, fencing and earth bund in the approximate position shown coloured brown on the attached plan;

(iv) Engineering operations in the laying and installation of pipework connecting the digestate lagoon to the AD Plant and digestate liquid holding tank in the approximate location shown coloured purple on the attached plan;

(v) The deposit of soil to form an earth bund surrounding the digestate tank in the approximate location shown coloured green on the attached plan

Reasons for issuing the notice:

It appears to the Council that the above breach of planning control has occurred within the last four years. The operational development listed above constitutes an inappropriate and harmful form of development with the Rural Area for which there are no special circumstances to justify its retention as an exception to normal policies of restraint. The development constitutes an inappropriate and harmful form of development within the Rural Area for which there are no special circumstances to justify its retention as an exception to normal policies of restraint. The additional digestate tank and associated equipment have been erected on the land in connection with developing a commercial biogas plant at this site which is reliant primarily on the importation of feedstock and waste from outside the site to generate biogas. The associated gas conditioning equipment, compressors, coolers, CHP engines and up-loading stations for the transfer of biogas to trailers, together with the 53,193 cubic metres digestate lagoon and associated pipework and earth bunding result in development is considered to be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area for the following reasons: The siting and design of the unauthorised operational development is considered to constitute a visually intrusive and harmful form of development when viewed from the surrounding public rights of way network. In addition, the development is having a detrimental impact on the amenity of local residents due to the increase in HGV traffic using the local road network which is considered to be substandard and unsuitable for the intensification in HGV movements associated with the unauthorised change of use. It represents an inappropriate form of development in this rural location

Page 158 from a highway safety perspective because the route between the site and the junction of Foxbridge Lane and Plaistow Road is unsuitable in terms of its width, the restrictive nature of the junctions to allow safe manoeuvring, and limited visibility, to manage the intensification of HGV movements to and from the site. There are no compelling circumstances to allow this development to remain as it conflicts with the objective of conserving the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. The development is therefore contrary to saved policies RE1, RE5, RE8, RE12, BE11 and B5 of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999; policies 14, 17, 28, 32, 35, 98, 109, 122 & 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012 and policies 1, 25, 39, 41, 45, 48 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies proposed modifications 2014-2029. The Council does not consider that planning permission should be given, because planning conditions could not overcome these objections to development.

Steps required to secure compliance:

(i) Disconnect, dismantle and remove from the land the biogas digestion tank, control room building and peecon feeder base and equipment, foul tank and pump and all other biogas equipment installed in the approximate position shown coloured yellow on the attached plan;

(ii) Disconnect and remove the 2 no. CHP engines, gas conditioning equipment, gas cleaner, 3 no. CNG gas compressors, admin office and control room, 1.5 MW dual fuel boiler and hot water pump, enclosed flare, control cabinets, 3 no. CNG coolers, 1 no. Purac cooler, ENCAL kiosk, connectors and equipment for the transfer of biogas to trailers and all other biogas equipment and equipment housing in the approximate position shown coloured orange on the attached plan from the land;

(iii) Demolish and remove the digestate lagoon, fencing and earth bund in the approximate position shown coloured brown on the attached plan from the land;

(iv) Disconnect and remove the associated pipework connecting the digestate lagoon to the AD Plant and digestate liquid holding tank in the approximate location shown coloured purple on the attached plan from the land;

(v) Reconfigure the land using the earth from the bund to match the profile of existing land surrounding the digestate tank in the approximate location shown coloured green on the attached plan from the land and reinstate the ground to match the existing levels on either side of the site.

(vi) Remove the resulting debris from the land

Period for Compliance: 6 months

Page 159 Agenda Item 16

Planning Committee

24 June 2015

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE UPDATE

1.0 Purpose of Report

1.1 To inform the Planning Committee of the recent performance of the development management service.

2.0 Officer Recommendations

2.1 That the report is noted

2.2 That the Planning Committee provide feedback on the format and content of future reports

3.0 Development Management Performance

Determination of applications within agreed timescales

3.1 It is vital that the Planning System is proportionate, efficient and responsive to the needs of all users to avoid time consuming, costly and unpredictable delays to the detriment of the economy and wider society. Timely decisions on planning applications are important to applicants, to enable the progression of appropriate development or so as not to unreasonably delay an appeals process. Expedient decision making is also important to the local community, to provide appropriate development and to remove the uncertainty of a protracted decision making process. For Local Planning Authorities that demonstrate a very poor performance both in the number of applications determined outside agreed timescales and those refused that are subsequently allowed at appeal, the Government has the power to ‘designate’ them , allowing developers to make applications directly to the Planning Inspectorate, instead of the Local Planning Authority, removing the decision from local control.

3.2 The National Planning Policy Framework advocates a collaborative approach to development management and advocates for councils to explore solutions to delivering sustainable development wherever possible. However, negotiations can sometimes result in delays in decision making and this is recognised in the Development Management Procedure Order which sets out the statutory timeframes for determining planning applications but also includes ‘such extended timescales as may be agreed in writing between the applicant and the local planning authority.’

3.3 The Council seeks to determine planning applications in line with nationally set targets; 60% of Major applications within 13 weeks (16 weeks for EIA development), 65% of Minor applications within 8 weeks and 80% of Other applications within 8 weeks.Page Where 160 the Council agrees an extension of time to the determination of an application with the applicant this is recorded as having been determined within the requisite timeframe. The table below shows the performance figures for the financial year 2014/15.

Major Minor Other CDC 88% 75% 83% SDNP 66% 54% 70%

3.4 The table above demonstrates within the CDC plan area 88% of major applications were determined within their target date of 13 weeks (or an agreed extension of time) in 2014/15which considerably exceeded the national performance target.. 75% of CDC minor applications and 83% of ‘other applications were determined within the required target date, also exceeding the national target.

3.5 Within the CDC national park area 66% of Major applications were determined within the agreed timescales. The number of ‘minor’ and ‘other’ applications determined with the target timescales both fell short of the national target by approximately 10%, within the South Downs National Park area. This was primarily due to resourcing issues within the SDNP Team during 2014/15 and measures are in place to deal with this. Performance is expected to rise in 2015/16.

Applications over 26 weeks

3.6 Within the CDC plan area there are currently 319 applications pending decision. Of that number 35 are over 26 weeks since first submission (11%). The majority of these have been delayed as the principle of development is likely to be acceptable, but subject to further amendments and consultation being undertaken.

3.7 Within the SDNP there are currently 271 applications pending decision. Of these 78 are over 26 weeks since first submission (29%). This is a higher number than would normally be expected and is indicative of the problems the SDNP Team have faced in staff turnover/recruitment and their ability to deal with applications expediently. However, performance in this regard has been steadily improving since February 2015 following the recruitment of two planning officers to vacant posts.

Appeals

3.8 Whilst the figures provided above outline the Development Management performance with regard to speed of decisions, the Council’s performance at appeal is a nationally recognised measure of the quality of decision making, the government has set a performance indicator of no more than 30% of applications should be allowed on appeal.

3.9 In 2014/15, within the CDC plan area, 29% of appeals were allowed which is well below the national average of some 33% and is an indicator of a high quality of decision making. Over the same period, within that part of the district within the South Downs National Park, 53% of appeals were allowed, which suggests that the variance between local and national Page 161 interpretation/application of policy is higher than would be expected. A further, more in depth review of those decisions allowed on appeal is ongoing.

4.0 Conclusion

4.1 The Development Management Service is performing well as a whole, performance targets in relation to the speed of decision making are either significantly exceeded or, where unmet, are very close to target. Within the CDC plan area the number of applications over 26 weeks is relatively low and almost all are in order to make amendments to the application to allow it to be granted permission or to formalise the Section106 agreement necessary prior to issue of a decision. Appeal performance is also consistent with national targets which is an indicator of good decision making.

4.2 The CDC national park team has faced unexpected pressures on its workload with a higher number of applications submitted in 2014/15 than the previous year and difficulties in filling vacant posts, coupled with a high turnover of staff in a short timeframe. This is reflected in both the percentage of applications determined within agreed timescales and also the number of applications on hand over 26 weeks since first submission. However, a reduction in this workload has been successfully managed since the beginning of 2015 and it is anticipated that this will continue.

4.3 The high number of allowed appeals in the national park is currently being analysed in greater detail and will be reported on as part of subsequent updates to the Planning Committee.

Contact Officer: Tony Whitty

Page 162 Agenda Item 17 PLANNING COMMITTEE 24th June 2015

Report of Head of Planning Services

SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPEALS, COURT AND POLICY MATTERS

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

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

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

1. NEW APPEALS

Reference/Procedure Proposal

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

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

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

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

Page 163 2. DECISIONS RECEIVED

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

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

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

"... The roofs of the terrace appear far more prominent and visually intrusive viewed from Tipper Lane. ... The terrace which is seen from, and in views into, the adjacent conservation area. ... The character or appearance of an area can be sensitive to change arising from development outside of the designated area, as this contributes to the wider setting. ... Its elevated position above Tipper Lane means that its visual impact on the host building would be significant and detrimental. ... Large and dominant feature on the roofslope. ... the development would detract form views on approach to the historic area. ... It is not evident that flat roofed dormer windows of the size, scale and proportion relative to the roofslope, arePage prevalent 164 in the vicinity. ..." PS/14/01968/OUT Land west of The Lane, Ifold, Loxwood – residential WR (P Kneen) development comprising 4 dwellings with associated car DISMISSED parking and landscaping. Formation of new access from The Lane.

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

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

"... It is evident from the planning history of the site that the replacement dwelling required a reconfiguration of the residential curtilage of Kings Copse in order to accommodate a larger building in a less intrusive location further back from the highway. Although I have not been provided with details of the exact areas involved, I have been provided with a copy of the Section 106 Agreement, together with the associated plans showing the areas to be transferred into and out of the residential curtilage. It is evident from these plans that the loss and gain of residential curtilage were effectively balanced, such that there would be no significant overall change in the residential curtilage of this dwelling in the countryside. This represents a logical reason for the Section 106 Agreement and a logical approach to protecting the countryside. Approximately 90% of the tennis court now proposed would be within the area of land identified in the Section 106 Agreement as being returned to a paddock. This would effectively extend the residential curtilage of Kings Copse into an area which, in accordance with the terms of the Section 106 Agreement, should be within the countryside and used for a purpose appropriate in the countryside. Not only would this in part negate the prime objective behind the Section 106 Agreement, it would also result in an incongruous and inappropriate use in the countryside. I attach no weight to the fact that the tennis court could not be located at the rear of the house, which provides no justification for extending the residential curtilage into the countryside. The appellant seeks to defend the proposal by pointing out that the tennis court would be viewed in connection with the dwelling, such that it in visual terms it would appear logical and well related to the house. However, that is precisely the cause of the harm to the rural character of the location resulting from this proposal, insofar as it would extend what is clearly a residential use into thePage countryside, 165 contrary to the principle in both national and local policy that residential use is not appropriate in rural areas. In addition to being an inappropriate use in the countryside, the proposed tennis court would be surrounded by a 2.7 metre high chainlink fence. By reason of its height, length and galvanised metal finish, this fence would be a visually intrusive feature. I accept that views from Loxwood Road would be limited by the boundary treatment, including the solid timber gates to the vehicular access. However, the proposed tennis court would be clearly visible in views from the public footpath that runs to the west of the site which, due to the rising ground level, affords clear views into the appeal site through the insubstantial boundary treatment and gaps in the tree cover. In these views, the proposed tennis court would be seen in conjunction with the main dwelling and would therefore increase the visual impact of the residential curtilage as a whole when seen from within the countryside. I acknowledge that the appellant is prepared to plant additional landscaping, but it would not be prudent to rely upon such landscaping to screen a structure that would be inherently harmful to the rural character of the area without it or should it fail. The appellant contends that the area surrounding the appeal site does not exhibit any special landscape quality, citing the fact that it was excluded from inclusion within the South Downs National Park. I do not agree. This area exhibits a mixture of open fields and woodlands, set amongst undulating ground levels. Although not of the outstanding quality of that in the South Downs National Park, in my view that combination of attributes results in an attractive rural landscape that is worthy of protection. The appeal proposal would, for the reasons set out above, be harmful to that attractive landscape..."

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

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

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

"...The appeal is dismissed. The existing bungalow was the subject of an agricultural occupancy condition which was removed by the Council in 2001. Thereafter planning permission was granted in respect of two different applications to demolish the bungalow and erect a new dwelling over its footprint. In addition planning permission was given to use a parcel of agricultural land as part of the domestic garden. Then in 2006 planning permission was refused in respect of a proposal to demolish the bungalow and replace it with a new dwelling located to the south west. The subsequent appeal was allowed in 2007 subject to Condition 7 which required the existing bungalow to be demolished before the new dwelling was occupied. This appealPage seeks 166to remove Condition 7 in order to keep the existing bungalow for occupation by relatives of the appellant as there is a shortage of housing and the existing bungalow has a minimal impact on the openness of the countryside... I therefore consider that the main issues in this appeal are i) whether or not the proposed removal of the condition would comply with the relevant planning policies for permanent residential development outside the defined development boundaries; ii) if not, whether there are any material considerations which would justify a departure from development plan policy; and iii) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the rural area in which it is situated... The key consideration in this case is the location of the site. There is no definition of 'isolated' in the Framework as this needs to be looked on a fact and degree basis. The appellant has concentrated on the need to provide a home for elderly parents which would reduce the number of trips currently made to where they live at present in order to care for them. However the bungalow is poorly served by public transport and is not within walking distance of any facilities. Therefore whilst the elderly parents could live next door, which would make it easier to pop in and out, there would still be a need for them to make trips for shopping, appointments and social activities. Given the location this would inevitably be by car. The appellant also submits other arguments to support his case, namely the modest impact of the bungalow within the landscape, its secluded position and being only glimpsed by virtue of the established roadside hedge. Policy BE11 of the LP requires new development to have regard to its setting within the landscape. Whilst I find the bungalow is less visible than the new dwelling, I consider its retention would nevertheless add to the built form along the access track, the sporadic development in the area and would result in a slight reduction in the open character of the area. As such I find it would not accord with Policy BE11. The appellant's argument could also be repeated elsewhere where residential development is sparse and fragmented with a cumulative adverse impact on the character and appearance of the rural area. I therefore give it limited weight... The thrust of the appellant's justification for retaining the bungalow is the national shortage of housing and that the proposal is sustainable development that accords with the Framework. However I consider that the presumption in favour of development would not apply in this case given the resultant harm to the countryside. Condition 7 is therefore reasonable and necessary to prevent the creation of unsustainable dwellings in the countryside. In addition I also conclude that the removal of the condition could have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, having regard to the special quality of the landscape..."

Page 167 3. OUTSTANDING APPEALS

Reference/Status Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CH/14/02138/OUT Land East Of Broad Road, Hambrook, West Sussex - I (J Bell) Residential development of 120 single and two storey In progress dwellings comprising 48 affordable homes and 72 market Public Inquiry to be held price homes, garaging and parking together with retail unit, 22-25 September 2015 at sports pavilion, community facility, new vehicular and 10am, WSCC pedestrian access to Broad Road, emergency and pedestrian access to Scant Road West, sports facilities, 2 tennis courts, football pitch and 4 cricket nets, children’s play area, public open space and natural green space on a site of 9.31 ha.Page 168 Reference/Status Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 169 Reference/Status Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WE/14/01217/FUL Land West Of Harwood, Cemetery Lane, Woodmancote H (P Kneen) Westbourne, West Sussex - Provision of 5 Gypsy and Hearing to be held 20 Traveller pitches incorporating the re-design of an existing August 2015 at 10am, pitch (including the removal of stables granted in permission CDC Committee Room 2 WE/13/03867/FUL) and the use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential purposes for an additional 4 no. gypsy pitches, together with the formation of additional hard standing and utility/ dayrooms ancillary to that use.

Page 170 WH/14/03736/LBC 6 Old Place Lane, Westhampnett, Chichester, PO18 0NL - WR (S Locke) Proposed 4 no. Conservation rooflights along with minor In progress alterations.

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

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

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

4. VARIATIONS TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS NONE

5. CALLED IN APPLICATIONS

Reference Proposal Stage

NONE

6. COURT AND OTHER MATTERS

Injunctions

Site Breach Stage

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

Prosecutions

Page 171 Site Breach Stage

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

Site Breach Stage

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

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

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

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

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

High Court

Site Matters prohibited by the Stage Order

Planning injunction:

NONE

Page 172 Magistrates Court

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

7. POLICY MATTERS

Page 173 Agenda Item 19 By virtue of paragraph(s) 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Document is Restricted

Page 174