Development Control (South) Committee Tuesday 18Th August at 2.00Pm Conference Room, Parkside, Chart Way, Horsham

Email: committeeservices@horsham.gov.uk Direct line: 01403 215465

Development Control (South) Committee Tuesday 18th August at 2.00pm Conference Room, Parkside, Chart Way, Horsham

Councillors: Brian O’Connell (Chairman) David Coldwell (Vice-Chairman) John Blackall Gordon Lindsay Jonathan Chowen Timothy Lloyd Philip Circus Paul Marshall Roger Clarke Mike Morgan Paul Clarke Kate Rowbottom Ray Dawe Jim Sanson Brian Donnelly Ben Staines David Jenkins Claire Vickers Nigel Jupp Michael Willett Liz Kitchen

You are summoned to the meeting to transact the following business Tom Crowley Chief Executive

Agenda

1. Apologies for absence 2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21st July (attached)

3. To receive any declarations of interest from Members of the Committee – any clarification on whether a Member has an interest should be sought before attending the meeting

4. To receive any announcements from the Chairman of the Committee or the Chief Executive To consider the following reports of the Development Manager and to take such action thereon as may be necessary: (a) Appeals (b) Applications for determination by Committee:

Item Ward Reference Site No. Number

A1 Billingshurst and DC/15/1325 Nyewood Court, Brookers Road, Billingshurst Shipley

A2 Billingshurst and DC/15/0501 Land at Five Oaks Farm, Stane Street, Billingshurst Shipley

A3 Chantry DC/15/0698 Lupin Cottage, Storrington

A4 Chanctonbury DC/15/1376 Dell Cottage, Heather Lane, West Chiltington

A5 Chanctonbury DC/10/1314 Abingworth Nurseries, Thakeham

5. Items not on the agenda which the Chairman of the meeting is of the opinion should be considered as urgent because of the special circumstances

Horsham District Council, Parkside, Chart Way, Horsham, West Sussex RH12 1RL Telephone: 01403 215100 (calls may be recorded) Horsham.gov.uk Chief Executive – Tom Crowley

DCS150721

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 21st July 2015

Present: Councillors: Brian O’Connell (Chairman), David Coldwell (Vice- Chairman), John Blackall, Philip Circus, Paul Clarke, Ray Dawe, Roger Clarke, Brian Donnelly, David Jenkins, Liz Kitchen, Gordon Lindsay Timothy Lloyd, Mike Morgan, Kate Rowbottom, Jim Sanson, Ben Staines, Claire Vickers, Michael Willett

Apologies: Councillors: Jonathan Chowen, Nigel Jupp, Paul Marshall

DCS/19 MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 16th June 2015 were approved as a correct record and signed by the chairman.

DCS/20 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS

Member Item Nature of Interest

Councillor Jonathan DC/14/1920 Prejudicial Chowen Councillor Mike DC/15/0267 Personal – Member of an objectors’ Morgan family

DCS/21 APPEALS

Appeals Lodged

Written Representations/Household Appeals Service

Ref No Site Officer Committee Recommendation Resolution Jack Dunckley’s Birchfield DC/14/2007 Nursery, Kidders Lane, Grant Refuse Henfield Yew Tree Cottage, DC/14/1944 Refuse Delegated Billingshurst Road, Ashington 1 Gorse Bank Close, DC/14/1770 Refuse Delegated Storrington

Appeal Decisions

Ref No Site Decision Officer Committee Recommendation Resolution Douglas Lodge, SDNP/14/03 Parham Park, Dismissed Refuse Delegated 753/LIS Pulborough DC/13/2437 Brook Place, Horsham Dismissed Refuse Delegated Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

Road, Cowfold Brook Place, Horsham DC/14/0049 Dismissed Refuse Delegated Road, Cowfold Bartram House, Station Allowed Permit Refuse DC/13/0764 Road, Pulborough

DCS/22 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/1242 - MINOR MATERIAL AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMISSION DC/10/1314 (DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE ABINGWORTH NURSERY SITE FOR 146 DWELLINGS, COMPRISING OF OPEN MARKET DWELLINGS, 51 DWELLINGS FOR THE 55 PLUS AGE GROUP, 12 AFFORDABLE DWELLINGS, 20 KEY WORKER DWELLINGS, VILLAGE HALL BUILDING (INCLUDING SHOP AND DOCTORS SURGERY), PRE-SCHOOL FACILITY, COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS/STUDIO (957.5SQM), SPORTS PITCHES AND CHANGING ROOMS, CRICKET PITCH AND PAVILION, CHILDRENS PLAY AREA, ACCESS ROADS, OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPED AREAS (INCLUDING FOOTPATHS)) FOR A REVISED LAYOUT FOR 21 DWELLINGS IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE SITE, RELOCATION OF THE APPROVED LOCAL EQUIPPED AREA FOR PLAN (LEAP), SPORTS FIELDS AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES, VILLAGE HALL AND SHOP, AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED VILLAGE HALL AND SHOP TO SEPARATE THE FACILITIES INTO TWO BUILDINGS AND REMOVE THE DEDICATED DOCTORS SURGERY SPACE AND AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED FOOTBALL CHANGING ROOM BUILDING SITE: ABINGWORTH NURSERIES, STORRINGTON ROAD, THAKEHAM APPLICANT: VANILLA THAKEHAM LTD C/O ABINGWORTH DEVELOPMENTS LTD

The Development Manager reported this application sought minor material amendments to DC/10/1314 for the redevelopment of the Abingworth Nursery site for 146 dwellings, village hall (including shop and doctor’s surgery), pre-school facility, community workshops, sports facilities and children’s play area. The application had been initially agreed by the Committee in September 2012. (Minute No. DCS/54 (04.09.12) refers).

The proposed amendments included:

· two football pitches, instead of three, would replace the approved cricket pitch in the north west of the site, thus retaining the two existing football pitches; · the approved cricket pitch would be slightly enlarged and moved to the north east of the site; · the 21 dwellings in the north west of the site would be moved to the north east so that they still surround the cricket pitch. Some of these dwellings would be re-orientated; · there would no longer be an area for a scout hut at the far north east of the site;

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

· the village hall building would be moved further north, between the football and cricket pitches; · the village shop and village hall would become two separate buildings, and the village hall would have less office space and no longer include a bar area or dedicated space for a doctor’s surgery and waiting room; · the children’s play area (LEAP) would be relocated to the north of the site, just to the south of the football pitches, and the areas where the village hall and LEAP play area had been proposed would become green public open space; · the access road in the northern part of the site would be moved to south of the cricket and football pitches, providing an access point to Storrington Road just south of Rose Cottage. The previously approved northern access would serve parking adjacent to the football pitches only; · there would be 46 additional parking spaces provided for the relocated community and sports facilities.

The site was located outside the built-up area of Thakeham, east of Storrington Road and north-west of Abingworth Hall Hotel. There was agricultural land to the north, south and east. The boundaries were edged by hedgerows and trees, though the southern and part of the northern boundary were more open. Chesswood Farm, the site of permission DC/12/0841, was to the west and there were residential properties along Storrington Road.

Details of relevant government and council policies, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee. Relevant planning history, in particular the links between DC/10/1316 and DC//12/0841, was noted.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. At the meeting it was reported that HDC drainage comments were received post-publication of the report, raising no objection subject to drainage conditions, which were included in the officer’s recommendation. WSCC Rights of Way requested a bridleway link to Strawberry Lane. The plans showed a footpath link to Strawberry Lane and recommended condition 21 required details of improvements to the rights of way network in the vicinity of the site in consultation with WSCC. Officers considered this was sufficient to address WSCC requirements in terms of rights of way. It was noted that the financial contribution for community and recycling would no longer be forthcoming and that these facilities were no longer to be provided.

The Parish Council supported the application, which it considered to be a significant improvement on the previously agreed DC/10/1314. Two letters of objection and one of support had been received. The applicant addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: the

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/22 Planning Application: DC/15/1242 (Cont.)

impact of the changes to the sports facilities; the relocation of the 21 dwellings and its impact on the landscape; the changes to the village hall, including the deletion of the doctor’s surgery and waiting room; the changed location of the LEAP play area; highway matters; and landscape and ecology.

Members considered the extent of the amendments and their impact on the overall scheme and concluded that the proposal was acceptable in principle.

RESOLVED

(i) That a legal agreement, in the form of a Deed of Variation, be entered into to amend the legal agreement attached to DC/10/1314.

(ii) That on completion of (i) above, planning application DC/15/1242 be determined by the Development Manager. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.

DCS/23 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/0268– RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION FOR 102 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING, OPEN SPACE AND ACCESS (PURSUANT TO OUTLINE DC/13/1266) SITE: LAND EAST OF MANOR CLOSE, HENFIELD APPLICANT: CROUDACE HOMES LTD

The Development Manager reported that this Reserved Matters application was submitted pursuant to Outline planning permission reference DC/13/1266, which was considered by Members at Committee in September 2013. Outline planning permission DC/13/1266 established the acceptability of the principle of residential development for up to 102 dwellings, and approved the means of access. Vehicular access would be from the north-western corner of the site with pedestrian access and access for emergency vehicles available from the south west corner of the site, via Benson Road.

Indicative plans were submitted in support of the application, and the accompanying Design and Access Statement established maximum scale and height parameters, details relating to layout, appearance, scale and landscaping were Reserved Matters and were not approved as part of the Outline Consent.

This application sought approval of these Reserved Matters and a number of the conditions attached to the Outline planning permission.

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/23 Planning Application: DC/15/0268 (Cont.)

The application proposed the erection of 102 dwellings comprised of 27 2- bedroom, 45 3-bedroom, 25 4-bedroom and five 5-bedroom houses. 39 of these dwellings would be affordable comprised of 17 2-bedroom and 22 3- bedroom houses.

96 of the proposed dwellings would be two stories (set to a height not exceeding 8.2 metres), with a row of 6 bungalows, sited on the western side of the site, close to the approved vehicular entrance. The plans showed that a number of properties would incorporate undercroft parking areas, enclosed by sets of double gates.

The proposed development would require the removal of 11 trees, together with a number of larger specimens in the south-western and north-western corners, in order to facilitate the provision of the approved access, as was established under the previous outline consent. The existing trees on the site boundaries would be retained.

The proposed development would provide three areas of amenity space.

It was proposed to retain all the existing vegetation on the eastern boundary, which would be reinforced with additional nativeplanting. . Street planting, comprising Field Maples, Cherry and Sweet Gum would be provided throughout the rest of the site. The majority of front gardens would be enclosed by low hedging and planting.

As a result of consultation with the Council’s Ecological Consultant the applicant had undertaken additional survey work

It was proposed that foul water will be connected into the existing sewerage system via an existing manhole within the application site. Surface water would be discharged in to the existing sewerage infrastructure, subject to necessary upgrading works. Water supply for the development would be provided from an existing main within Benson Road.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.

The Parish Council objected to the application. Nine letters of objection and two letters of comment had been received. Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: Dwelling type and tenure; the appearance and scale of dwellings; layout and impact

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/23 Planning Application: DC/15/0268 (Cont.)

on the amenity of existing and prospective occupiers; landscaping; and internal roads and parking.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/15/0268 be granted subject to the following conditions:

01 The residential units and garages hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans listed in Condition A below and from the following materials, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority:

Facing brick/render/boarding/tile hanging: First Quality Multi Facing (Michelmersh brick), Knapped Flint, Ivory coloured render, Arctic White HardiePlank Cedar finish boarding, Redland Heathland Autumn vertical tile hanging

Roofs: Redland Heathland 20 Manor House Mix tile, Cupa N8 natural slate tile

Dormers: Lead colour dormer cheeks

02 No development shall take place until a scheme to protect existing public sewers at the site, including a timetable for the measures to be carried out, has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable.

03 No development shall take place until details of all underground trenching requirements for services, including the positions of soakaways, service ducts, foul, grey and storm water systems and all other underground service facilities and associated ground excavations, have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall demonstrate effective co-ordination with the approved landscape scheme and with existing trees on the site. All such underground services

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/23 Planning Application: DC/15/0268 (Cont.)

shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.

04 No development shall take place until details of a bat-sensitive lighting scheme, based on the principles set out in the Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Management Plan, have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the locations and the design and type of lighting to be used across the site, the hours of operation of the lights and the light spill relative to established and new bat roosts and key flight and foraging routes.

05 No works shall take place, other than in accordance with the details set out in the Update Ecological Statement, Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Management Plan and the Reptile Translocation Method Statement and Risk Assessment (Wychwood Environmental).

06 No development above slab level shall take place until details of the proposed windows, including associated external cills and headers, materials and colour finishes for the windows and how they will be set back within the reveals, have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

07 No development above slab level shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the front canopies, including the supporting up-stands, have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

08 No development above slab level shall take place until details of the gates to be used to enclose the approved undercroft car parking areas and the railings to the Juliet balconies, have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/23 Planning Application: DC/15/0268 (Cont.)

09 No development above slab level shall take place until a programme/timetable for the implementation of the following approved aspects of the development have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be out carried in accordance with the approved programme/timetable and retained thereafter. (i) the make up and provision of roads, footways, driveways, junctions and street lighting; (ii) the provision of vehicle parking and turning areas

10 The roads, footways, driveways, junctions and parking areas shall be surfaced in accordance with the details (including materials) shown on approved plan DES/125/103/B and in accordance with the programme/timetable approved under condition 10.

11 The soft landscaping for the site, including the 3 no. open recreational spaces (and their associated boundary treatments and benches), trees, shrub beds, grass verges, wildflower meadows and hedging shall be provided in accordance with approved plans DES/125/108, DES/125/109, DES/125/401/RevD, DES/125/008/RevD, DES/125/011/RevD and DES/125/010/RevD and in accordance with a programme/timetable submitted to and agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The 3 no. open recreational spaces (and their associated boundary treatments and benches), trees, shrub beds, grass verges, wildflower meadows and hedging shall be managed in accordance with the approved Landscape Management Plan DES/125/401/RevD thereafter, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

12 Details of the play equipment and any associated surfacing and/or landscaping, to be provided in the northern most area of open space, as shown on approved plan DES/125/108, shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The play equipment shall thereafter be provided in accordance with the programme/timetable approved by condition 12 and shall be managed in accordance with the approved Landscape Management Plan DES/125/401/RevD.

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/23 Planning Application: DC/15/0268 (Cont.)

13 The substation, hereby approved, shall be constructed in accordance with approved plan DES/125/231/A, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

14 The approved cycle parking facilities shall be provided for each respective dwelling before it is first occupied and thereafter retained, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

15 The approved refuse/recycling storage facilities shall be provided for each respective dwelling before it is first occupied and thereafter retained, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

16 No development above slab level shall take place until full details of the boundary treatments, including screen walls, as referenced on approved plan DES/125/104/RevB, have been submitted to and agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include:

(i) elevation drawings showing the height and design of the boundary treatment; (ii) sample materials and/or manufacturer specifications of the material to be used in the construction of the boundary treatment.

The boundary treatments shall be provided in accordance with a programme/timetable to agreed, in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

17 No development above slab level shall take place until details of bat and bird boxes to be installed at the site, including the design/manufacturer specification and locations for the boxes and a timetable for their implementation, has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable.

18 No development above slab level shall take place until details of the measures to be implemented to prevent vehicular access to the site from Benson Road, other than by emergency service vehicles,

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/23 Planning Application: DC/15/0268 (Cont.)

have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The approved measures shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved and shall be retained thereafter, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

19 In the event that contamination not previously identified is found to be present on site, an investigation, risk assessment and mitigation study shall be undertaken and submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. A verification report that demonstrates that the remediation has been carried out in accordance with the approved scheme shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority before the development is first brought into use, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

20 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order, 2015 (or any Order revoking or re- enacting that Order with or without modification), no enlargement, improvement or alteration of any dwellinghouse hereby approved shall be permitted.

21 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order, 2015 (or any Order revoking or re- enacting that Order with or without modification), no gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure shall be permitted to be erected forward of the front elevation of any of the dwellings hereby approved.

22 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order, 2015 (or any Order revoking or re- enacting that Order with or without modification), all garages, driveways and undercroft parking areas shall be retained for the parking of vehicles only.

23 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order, 2015 (or any Order revoking or re- enacting that Order with or without modification), no buildings, moveable structures, works, plant or

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/23 Planning Application: DC/15/0268 (Cont.)

machinery required temporarily in connection with and for the duration of the development hereby permitted shall be erected or stored on the application site other than within the compounds approved pursuant to condition 7 of Outline planning permission reference DC/13/1266.

24 No trenches or pipe runs for services, drains, or any other services shall be excavated anywhere within the root protection area of any tree or hedge identified to be retained on plan DES/125/009 without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.

25 The garages hereby approved, as shown on approved plans DES/100/RevB and DES/102/RevB, shall be fitted with electronic charging points that are compatible for use with electronic cars. The electronic charging facilities shall be provided, in full working order, prior to the occupation of the dwelling to which it relates.

26 The 39 no. affordable housing units hereby approved shall be provided in accordance with the details and Plot numbers set out in paragraph 3 of the Affordable Housing Statement and as shown on approved plan DES/125/101Rev B Site Layout, unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

A. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

DCS/24 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/1695 – OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION OF UP TO 40 NO. DWELLINGS (CLASS C3) AND NEW ACCESS OFF LONDON ROAD WITH ALL OTHER MATTERS RESERVED SITE: LAND SOUTH OF ASHINGTON HOUSE LONDON ROAD ASHINGTON APPLICANT: KLER GROUP

The Development manager reported that this application sought outline permission for the construction of up to 40 dwellings with all matters reserved except access.

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/24 Planning Application: DC/14/1695 (Cont.)

The proposed single point for vehicular access was towards the south- eastern corner of the application site and would be from London Road. The application proposed to extend the 30mph speed restriction, through a Traffic Regulation Order, in a northerly direction, beyond the proposed site access.

The proposed access required the removal of an approximately 10 metre length of the existing tree-lined hedgerow on the north-western side of London Road.

The plans showed that parking could be provided on private driveways, within single and double garages and within courtyard parking areas. The applicant indicated that it would provide each property with at least 2 car parking spaces.

The indicative plans showed three detached dwellings towards the south- western boundary, the rear elevations of which are shown to be approximately 20 metres from the opposing northern elevation of Martin’s Farm.

The siting of these properties had been moved further away from the northern boundary, to reduce the impact of the development on the setting of Ashington House. The indicative plans also showed that the dwellings would be bungalows.

The applicant indicated that 40% of the proposed dwellings would be made available on the affordable housing market. No indication had been provided of the mix or type of tenure.

The indicative layout showed enhanced areas of landscaping on the northern, western and eastern boundaries, as well as additional tree planting. The indicative drawings showed the entire length of the northern boundary to comprise a 1.2 metre high post and rail fencing and that this would separate the application site from the retained, parkland garden of Ashington House to the north.

The application site was located to the north-east of the village of Ashington. The site was located outside of, and does not have a contiguous boundary with the Built Up Area of Ashington. The Chanctonbury Hill Site of Special Scientific Interest and South Down National Park are located approximately 3.6km and 3.3km to the south of the application site respectively.

The site was largely rectangular in shape, but with longer northern and south-eastern boundaries. The site included a number of well-established trees and hedgerows. The south-eastern boundary of the site comprised a dense, well established hedge, which itself included a number of trees of varying maturity.

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/24 Planning Application: DC/14/1695 (Cont.)

The land formed part of the estate of Ashington House, a Grade II Listed Building. To the west, Holmbush Farmhouse, its associated Oasthouse and barn and Yew Tree Cottagewere also Grade II Listed.

The site was also located with Landscape Study Area AS4 of the Horsham District Landscape Capacity Assessment (2014). The land was identified as having Moderate Landscape Sensitivity and Low Landscape Value. There were a number of Public Rights of Way within the locality.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.

The Parish Council objected to the application. 14 letters of objection had been received. Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: The principle of development; the impact on landscape character and the visual amenity of the locality; impact on the setting of Ashington House and other Grade II listed buildings; impact on the amenity of existing and prospective occupiers; access, parking and highway safety; ecology, biodiversity and trees; drainage; and necessary legal agreements.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/14/1695 be refused for the following reasons:

01 The proposed development, by reasons of its location outside of, and isolated from, the Built Up Area Boundary of a medium sized, Category 2 Settlement, with poor public transport links and a high dependency on the private motor vehicle for travel, on a site that does not constitute Previously Developed Land, represents an inappropriate, unsustainable and unacceptable form of development that is contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF, Policy CP5 of the Core Strategy (2007), the Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document and Policy 3 of the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework, which aim to concentrate new growth to the District’s main settlements.

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/24 Planning Application: DC/14/1695 (Cont.)

02 The provision of housing in this location, at the scale proposed, would introduce an uncharacteristically concentrated and isolated enclave of housing, at odds with the established pattern of development in the immediate locality. The introduction of up to 40 no. houses, at a scale up to 12 metres in height, and with the associated provision of access roads, lighting and all other associated residential paraphernalia, would significantly diminish the informal and open character of this particular part of the landscape, creating a discordant and uncharacteristically urbanised environment that would serve to derogate the noticeable transition between the more suburban context of the village and the more rural character of the open countryside to the north, harming the character and appearance of the local landscape. The development is not, therefore, sustainable, even when weighed against the economic benefit and social benefits of providing housing, contrary to Paragraph 14 of the NPPF and Policies DC1 and DC9 of the of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies.

02 The provision of up to 40 no. dwellings, at up to 12 metres in height, together with associated residential paraphernalia, in such close proximity to the Listed Building, and within the parkland serving that property, would affect the significance of the heritage asset by harmfully altering the character and appearance of its setting and the appreciation of the sense of rural isolation. The development would harmfully affect the historic relationship between the southern elevation of the Ashington House, including views from the first floor windows, and the setting and appreciation of the open, parkscape, including the historic association of the Listed Building with its farmstead buildings of Oast House, Oast House Barn and Oast Cottage, as well as the Grade II Listed, Yew Tree Cottage. The development is not, therefore, sustainable, even when weighed against the economic benefit and social benefits of providing housing and has not had special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of Listed Buildings, contrary to Paragraph 14 of the NPPF and Policies DC9 and DC13 of the

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/24 Planning Application: DC/14/1695 (Cont.)

Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies.

04 The proposal has not successfully demonstrated that prospective occupiers would not be exposed to unacceptably harmful levels of noise associated with the use of the adjacent A24, to the detriment of their living environment, particularly from first floor windows and when using rear gardens and areas of public open space. It is not, therefore, considered that the development would provide a pleasant or acceptable living environment for prospective occupiers, contrary to the NPPF and Policy DC9 of the Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies.

05 The proposed development makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to education provision; libraries; fire and rescue services; open space; sport and recreation facilities; community facilities; or affordable housing and is, therefore, contrary to Policies CP12 and CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) as it has not been demonstrated how the infrastructure needs of the development would be met.

DCS/25 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/0674 – THE STATIONING OF 11 RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOMES FOR ALL YEAR ROUND OCCUPATION SITE: BROOKS GREEN PARK, EMMS LANE, BROOKS GREEN APPLICANT: MR DOE

The Development Manager that this application sought full planning permission for the siting of 11 mobile homes for year round occupation.

The proposed units would be single storey with shallow pitched roofs, 3.4 metres in height, 11.3 metres in length and 5.8 metres in width.

The application site was located to the east of Emms Lane near Brooks Green. The rear boundary was defined by Trout Lane to the west of the site and is lined by mature trees.

The site formed part of Brooks Green Park which housed 60 existing caravans divided in to two areas. The proposed site was to the eastern most

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/25 Planning Application: DC/15/0674 (Cont.)

part of the site on which there was planning permission for 36 permanently sited residential mobile homes and the site had received planning permission for a further 4 residential mobile homes. The northern half was comprised of units that were occupied for residential purposes all year round.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.

The Parish Council objected to the application. Six letters of support and one of comment had been received. Two members of the public addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: The principle of the development; impact upon the character of the area; residential amenity; and parking and access.

RESOLVED

(i) That a S106 legal agreement be secured.

(ii) That on completion of (i) above, planning application DC/15/0674 be determined by the Development Manager.

DCS/26 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/15/0081 – DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 8 NO DWELLINGS, INCLUDING CONVERSION OF 1ST FLOOR OF FORMER PUBLIC HOUSE AND ASSOCIATED OUTBUILDINGS FOR 4 NO FLATS/MAISONETTES AND ERECTION OF 4 NO THREE BEDROOM SEMI-DETACHED HOUSES, WITH ASSOCIATED VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM BROOK HILL, VEHICLE TURNING PROVISION, 28. NO CAR PARKING SPACES (INCLUDING 12 NO FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS) PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FROM THE STREET, AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING SITE: THE COACH HOUSE, HORSHAM ROAD, COWFOLD APPLICANT: EVOLVE ESTATES LIMITED

The Development Manager sought full planning permission for the conversion and re-development of the former coach house pub and its immediate curtilage. It was proposed that the first floor of the former pub be

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/26 Planning Application: DC/15/0081 (Cont.)

converted in to two flats. The application also proposed the erection of three 2-storey dwellings on land to the rear and east of the site.

The site would be accessed from the existing vehicular access on Brook Hill, which was to the north of the existing roundabout junction. The existing access onto The Street would be maintained for pedestrians only. 12 car parking spaces would be provided to serve the residential element of the proposal and the existing car park provide an additional 15 formal spaces for the Co-op convenience store which occupies the ground floor of the former Public House.

In addition to the residential scheme, the ground floor of the existing outbuilding fronting onto the A281 would be converted into 66 sqm of retail.

The application site was located within the centre of the village of Cowfold and immediately to the east of the roundabout junction of Brook Hill/The Street – to the north and south respectively – and with Station Road to the west.

There was a large tarmacked area to the rear of the building which was previously used as a car park in association with the public house.

The site was located within the Cowfold Conservation Area and there were existing residential properties to the north, south and east of the site. The residential property to the north, Jersey Cottage, had a south facing gable wall towards the car parking area and to the east were the rear of the properties fronting Fairfield Cottages. To the south and beyond the existing annex outbuildings were more traditional two-storey Victorian dwellings.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application, however, they raised several reservations. 14 letters of objection had been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: The principle of development; highway safety; air quality and noise control; and impact on the conservation area and the amenity of neighbouring residents.

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/26 Planning Application: DC/15/0081 (Cont.)

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/15/0081 be determined by the development manager. The provisional view of the committee was that the application be granted subject to amending the conditions set out within the report.

DCS/27 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/2458 – ERECTION OF DWELLING SITE: LAND NORTH OF LITTLE BROOK HOUSE TROUT LANE BROOKS GREEN APPLICANT: MR RICHARD HAWKES

This item was removed from the agenda.

DCS/28 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/1920 – CHANGE OF USE OF OLD DAIRY AND MILKING PARLOUR TO 2 X B1/B8 UNITS AND REGULARISATION OF PARTIAL CHANGE OF USE OF BARN TO PROVIDE 5 X STORAGE UNITS AS PART OF THE FARM DIVERSIFICATION SCHEME SITE: CALCOT FARM HORSHAM ROAD STEYNING APPLICANT: JESSE BROTHER PARTNERSHIP

The Development Manager reported that the application sought retrospective permission for the change of use of agricultural buildings to two B1/B8 units and the regularisation of a partial change of use of a barn to provide five storage units (B8). The application was submitted as a Farm Diversification scheme, to help support the existing farm business.

The buildings had been in agricultural use prior to their conversion for 40 years. No external works had taken place or were proposed. The application also proposed the retention of five storage units in B8 use the largest unit being 36 sqm in area and the smallest having a floor area of 30 sqm . The application proposed the change of use of the milking parlour to two B1/B8 units, which would have floor area of 45 sqm and 35 sqm.

The application site was located within open countryside on the western side of Horsham Road, between Ashurst and Steyning. Access would be from Horsham Road via a private track which was not solely owned by the applicant. The site formed part of a larger farming enterprise which consisted of Calcot Farm, New Wharf Farm and Northover Farm. The site was located to the north of Calcot farm, comprised of a number of existing agricultural buildings.

The dairy and milking parlour had been redundant since and the other agricultural building became redundant to the farm due to its limited size.

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/28 Planning Application: DC/14/1920 (Cont.)

The nearest residential property was located to the south west of the site, this was not within the applicant’s ownership but shared the access with the application site. There were further dwellings 100 metres to the north of the application site.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. One letter of objection had been received. Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application, two members of the public and the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: The principle of development; amenity of adjoining properties; and parking and highway safety.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/14/2458 be granted subject to the following conditions:

01 No external lighting or floodlighting shall be installed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any that is installed with the permission of the Local Planning Authority shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

02 The development hereby approved shall be used for B1 or B8 use; and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in any class B1 or B8; in the schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987.

03 No burning of materials shall take place on the site.

04 No work shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of:- 0730 hours and 1800 hours on Mondays to Fridays inclusive, 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays,

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/28 Planning Application: DC/14/1920 (Cont.)

and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays and Bank and Public Holidays.

05 No vehicles, plant or machinery shall be operated and no process carried out and no deliveries taken or dispatched from the site outside the following times:- 0730 hours and 1800 hours on Mondays to Fridays inclusive, 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays, and not on Sundays and Bank and Public Holidays.

06 No raw materials, finished or unfinished products or parts, crates, packing materials or waste shall be stacked or stored on the site at any time except within the buildings or storage areas hereby approved by the Local Planning Authority [shown on plan ref A4-8814/03 and plan ref A4-8814/02].

DCS/29 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/2761 – CONSTRUCTION OF TWO- BEDROOM DETACHED DWELLING. SITE: LAND NORTH OF BADEN HOUSE, LONDON ROAD, ASHINGTON APPLICANT: MR P LEWIS

The Development Manager reported that the application sought outline planning permission for the construction of a two bedroom detached dwelling. The application had been submitted with all matters reserved except the principle of development.

An indicative layout, floor plan, elevations and access had been submitted with the proposal which showed the access to the site from London Road, retaining the existing vehicular access although it would be widened by 600mm to the south.

The application had been amended to show the indicative layout of the two storey property that was 6.3 metres wide, 7.98 metres deep with a height of 7.4 metres. The indicative block plan showed the proposed dwelling set 4.5 metres from the northern boundary, six metres from the southern boundary and 10.3 metres from the western boundary.

The application site was located within the built up area of Ashington on the western side of London Road. There was a single dwelling to the north of the site and another to the south. The site had a dropped kerb and gated entrance onto London Road with a hedge forming the eastern boundary. A panel fence formed the rear boundary and the northern boundary. To the south of the site there was a panel fence of varying heights that would allow views into the application site.

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/29 Planning Application: DC/14/2761 (Cont.)

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee.

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. Five letters of objection, one of support and one of comment had been received.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: The principle of development; impact on amenities of neighbouring properties; and access.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/14/2761 be granted subject to the following conditions:

01(a) Approval of the details of the layout of the development, the scale of each building, the appearance of each building, access to and within the site and the landscaping of the development (hereinafter called “the reserved matters”) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

(b) Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition (a) above, relating to the layout of the development, the scale of each building, the appearance of each building, access to and within the site and the landscaping of the development, shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority and shall be carried out as approved.

(c) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission.

(d) The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/29 Planning Application: DC/14/2761 (Cont.)

02 Before development commences precise details of the finished floor levels of the development in relation to a nearby datum point shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

03 No development shall take place until details of screen walls and/or fences have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no dwellings/buildings shall be occupied until such screen walls and/or fences associated with them have been erected. Thereafter the screen walls and/or fences shall be retained as approved and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

04 The building(s) hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking turning and access facilities have been provided in accordance with the plans to be submitted and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority and the parking turning and access facilities shall thereafter be retained solely for that purpose [and solely in connection with the development].

05 The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless and until provision for the storage of refuse/recycling bins has been made within the site in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

06 No burning of materials in connection with the development shall take place on the site.

07 Before development commences, details of the provision of facilities for the parking of cycles shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the facilities so provided shall be thereafter retained solely for that purpose.

08 No works or development shall take place unless and until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works as may be approved shall then be fully implemented in the first planting season, following

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/29 Planning Application: DC/14/2761 (Cont.)

commencement of the development hereby permitted and completed strictly in accordance with the approved details. Any plants or species which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting 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 otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

09 Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order amending or revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development falling within Classes A, B, C, D, E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the order shall be erected constructed or placed within the curtilage of the dwellings hereby permitted so as to enlarge improve or otherwise alter the appearance or setting of the dwelling(s) unless permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to an application for the purpose.

10 No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturdays, and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

11 The windows at first floor level in the north, south and west elevations of the building shall at all times be glazed with obscured glass precise details of which, together with details of any opening, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before installation. The approved glass and any agreed opening details shall be maintained at all times.

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/30 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/14/0820 – CHANGE OF USE TO RESIDENTIAL AND RETENTION OF SUMMER HOUSE SITE: WHEELERS WELL WEST END LANE HENFIELD APPLICANT: IAN AND VALERIE COX

The Development Manager reported that the application sought full planning permission for the retention of an existing summer house and for the extension of the residential garden area of the applicant’s property. The summer house measured 8.5 metres in length, 3.7 metres in width, with a varying height between 2.5 metres and 2.2 metres. The summer house was located on an existing concrete base, which remained from a previous storage shed building.

The application site was located to the west of Henfield on West End Lane, and was within open countryside. There was a public footpath to the east of the site, with a high wall surrounding the southern boundary. The applicants dwelling had an existing access to the west of their dwelling and a second from the south.

The summer house was located within a wooded area to the east of the host dwelling, this area formed part of the land proposed to be changed to become part of the residential garden area for the host dwelling.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee

The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.

The Parish Council raised no objection to the application provided there would be no element of residential use attached to the summer house. Nine letters of objection, nine of support and two of comment had been received.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were: The principle of development and, appearance and siting.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/14/0820 be refused for the following reason:

01 The proposed development is considered unacceptable by virtue of the separation distance from the main dwelling and the level of proposed accommodation which is considered over and above an ancillary use. Furthermore the applicant has failed to demonstrate the acceptability of a new unit of residential accommodation in this location. As

Development Control (South) Committee 21st July 2015

DCS/30 Planning Application: DC/14/0820 (Cont.)

such the scheme would be contrary to policies DC9 and DC28 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control and CP4 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).

The meeting closed at 15:53 having commenced at 14:00.

CHAIRMAN

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 18TH AUGUST 2015

REPORT BY THE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER

APPEALS

1. Appeals Lodged

I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been lodged:-

2. Written Representations/Householder Appeals Service

Officer Committee Ref No. Site Appeal Recommendation Resolution Land Rear of Sussex Showground, DC/14/2039 In Progress Refuse Delegated Grinders Lane, West Grinstead, RH13 8NR Meadow Cottage, West Chiltington DC/14/2756 In Progress Refuse Delegated Road, Pulborough, RH20 2EE Land Off Kithurst DC/14/2139 Lane, Storrington, In Progress Refuse Delegated RH20 4BF Land Rear of 14 – 18, DC/15/0794 Henfield Road, Small In Progress Refuse Delegated Dole, BN5 9XE Land Adjacent 6, Montpelier Cottages, DC/14/1720 Old London Road, In Progress Refuse Refuse Washington, RH20 3BN

2. Hearings

Officer Committee Ref No. Site Appeal Recommendation Resolution Elm Stud, Thakeham EN/14/0222 Road, Coolham, RH13 In Progress Serve Delegated 8QD

3. Appeal Decisions

I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been determined:-

Officer Committee Ref No. Site Appeal Recommendation Resolution 36 Priory Field, Upper Beeding, DC/14/1923 Dismissed Refuse Delegated Steyning, BN44 3HU Newbrook Riding Stables, Pound DC/14/2037 Dismissed Refuse Delegated Lane,Upper Beeding, BN44 3JD Adur Nursery, West DC/14/2070 End Lane, Henfield, Dismissed Refuse Delegated BN5 9RB Chestnuts, Spinney DC/14/2245 Lane, West Dismissed Refuse Delegated Chiltington

ITEM A1 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee BY: Development Manager DATE: 18 August 2015 External alterations to Nyewood Court, including addition of parapet to roof and projecting bay windows and change of use of the resulting building to 12 flats, and external alterations to the former Beverley DEVELOPMENT: Engineering building, including a roof extension and dormer windows to provide second storey accommodation, and change of use of the resulting building to a terrace of 6 dwellings, both with associated parking, refuse storage, cycle parking and landscaping SITE: Nyewood Court Brookers Road Billingshurst West Sussex WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley APPLICATION: DC/15/1325 APPLICANT: Mr Robert Lamb

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Major Application

RECOMMENDATION: To permit the application, subject to conditions

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

1.1 To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.2 The application relates to two buildings within a single site- Nyewood Court and the former Beverley Engineering Building. The application proposes external changes to both buildings and the change of use of the resulting buildings to form residential units. The external area would provide ancillary facilities including landscaped areas, amenity space, refuse storage and parking to serve the residential use.

1.3 External alterations to Nyewood Court include demolition of a single storey plant room to the rear of the building, alterations to fenestration arrangement, installation of rooflights towards the western side of the shallow-pitched roof of the rear section, addition of projecting bay features to the eastern side of the building at first floor level and addition of a parapet roof to disguise the shallow-pitched roof of the rear section. This building would be converted to provide 12 flats.

1.4 External alterations to the former Beverley Engineering building include the demolition of the single storey front section, addition of a pitched roof with dormer windows and rooflights to allow for the creation of second storey accommodation, the addition of bay windows,

Contact Officer: Rosemary Foreman Tel: 01403 215561 ITEM A1 - 2

alterations to fenestration arrangement, addition of Juliette balconies to the rear elevation, addition of porches to the front elevation and changes to external materials including rendering of the first floor and removal of white cladding at ground floor level. The resultant building would be converted to provide a terrace of six dwellings.

1.5 Eleven parking spaces would be provided in the existing parking area to the front of Nyewood Court and 13 on the existing yard area to the south of the buildings. The two end of terrace dwellings in the former Beverley Engineering building would have two parking spaces to the side, and there would be six spaces provided to the front of the building. A communal bin store to serve Nyewood Court would be sited to the east of the front parking area. Twelve cycle lockers would be provided to the south east of Nyewood Court. Each of the terraced dwellings would be provided with a private garden.

1.6 The application is accompanied by a number of supporting documents including: · Design and Access Statement · Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Report · Transport Statement · Environmental Noise Survey and Internal Noise Level Assessment Report · Asbestos Survey Report

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.7 The site currently comprises two office buildings. Nyewood Court faces the northern part of Brookers Road and comprises two distinct parts- a two storey pitched roof section which fronts the road, and a large two storey rear section with a very shallow pitched roof. The former Beverley Engineering building is two storey with a flat roof, and has a relatively deep single storey flat roofed entrance way projecting from the main front elevation. Most of the site is hardsurfaced, other than hedging around the Nyewood Court parking area, a landscaped area around the substation to the north of the site, a grassed area to the northern part of the front of the Beverley Engineering building and a patchy hedge separating the curtilage of the two buildings. There is a landscaped area and a small parking area to the south of the former Beverley Engineering building, but most of this lies outside of the application site.

1.8 There are two three-storey blocks of flats opposite the site to the east. These are relatively new and have pitched tiled roofs and a mix of brick, hanging tile and render externally. To the north, on the opposite side of Brooker Road are individual detached dwellings. To the south of the site lies the railway line.

1.9 To the west is the Huffwood Trading Estate, comprising a number of small business units. Those units immediately adjacent to the application site are mainly single storey, some with external plant in close proximity to the site.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework, in particular chapters 1, 4, 6, 7 and 10.

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY ITEM A1 - 3

2.3 The development plan consists of the Core Strategy (CS) (2007), the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD, the Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) DPD and the Proposals Map (2007). Other relevant local development documents are the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD (May 2009) and the Planning Obligations SPD.

2.4 Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP11, CP12, CP13 and CP19 of the Core Strategy and Policies DC1, DC2, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC18, DC19 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies are relevant to the determination of this application.

2.5 The emerging Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was approved by Council on 30th April 2014 as the Council’s policy for planning the future of the District for the period 2011-2031. Following a six week period of representations, the plan was submitted to the Government on 8th August 2014 for independent Examination under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. The Examination of the HDPF was undertaken by an independent Planning Inspector in November 2014, and the Inspector published his Initial Findings on 19th December 2014. The Inspector considers the overall strategy of the plan to be sound as is made clear in paragraph 4 of his Initial Findings:

‘On balance, I consider the overall strategy to concentrate growth in the main settlements in the hierarchy, starting with Horsham as a first order centre, followed by Southwater and Billingshurst, to be sound. The proposal for some development in villages, in accordance with Neighbourhood Plans (NP), is also justified and accords with government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). As will be explained in some more depth in my final report, the alternative strategy of greater dispersal to smaller settlements would be likely to lead to a less sustainable pattern of development with regard to transport patterns related to provision of employment opportunities, retail facilities and social and community services.’

2.6 The Inspector suspended the Examination of the HDPF, after the initial scheduled Hearing sessions, for a 6 month period to allow time for the Council to show how the District’s overall housing provision can be increased to provide for a minimum of 750 dwellings per annum (15,000 over the plan period). The representation period for the HDPF Main Modifications ran from 23rd March 2015 until 5th May 2015. Following the receipt of representations, the Inspector re-opened the Examination Hearings on 3rd July 2015 to consider only the issues outlined in the Initial Findings. The Hearings into the HDPF have now concluded and the Inspector published a Note to the Council on 21st July 2015. This Note states that the housing requirement for the plan period should be 800 dwellings per year, resulting in 16,000 dwellings between 2011 and 2031. The Inspector also states that:

‘From the evidence about the Housing Trajectory, I consider that up to 2021 at the very least the revised requirement can be provided from existing allocations and commitments, including the North Horsham allocation. The Council will need to consider how and where the additional dwellings will be provided over the remainder of the Plan period up to 2031.’

2.7 The Inspector also indicates that an early review (to begin within 3 years of adoption) of the Plan to provide for these additional dwellings will be required and that a modification to Policy 36 (Strategic Policy: Appropriate Energy Use) to account for the recent written ministerial statement concerning wind energy development will be necessary. Given the Inspector’s Initial Findings and recent Note, the emerging plan is therefore a material consideration of considerable weight in terms of the overall strategy.

ITEM A1 - 4

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/13/1090 Demolition of Nyewood Court, change of use of former B1 Refused building to C3 dwellings (3 x 3-bed and 2 x 2-bed) with external alterations, and the development of an additional 9 dwellings (4 x 3-bed houses, 1 x 3 bed flat and 4 x 2-bed flats) and associated infrastructure (Total 14 dwellings).

DC/14/0291 Notification of a proposed change of use of Nyewood Court Permitted and the former Beverley Environmental Engineering Limited buildings from B1(a) use to C3 use

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

3.1 Where consultation responses have been summarised, it should be noted that Officers have had consideration of the full comments received, which are available to view on the public file at www.horsham.gov.uk.

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.2 HDC Technical Services (Drainage) raise no objection to the proposed drainage strategy, but recommend conditions to secure detailed design information and to investigate the existing surface water brick culvert crossing the site.

3.3 HDC Environmental Health Officer: No objection subject to conditions relating to land contamination and protection of the residential development from noise disturbance.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.4 West Sussex County Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions.

3.5 West Sussex County Strategic Planning set out the financial contributions towards education, libraries and fire and rescue required in connection with the proposed development.

3.6 West Sussex County Flood Risk Management raise no objection to the proposal, noting that although Brookers Road is shown to be at high risk of surface water flooding, the application site itself is at low risk.

3.7 Southern Water raise no objection to the proposal, subject to condition requiring approval of the means of foul and surface water drainage.

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.8 Billingshurst Parish Council strongly objects to the proposal on the grounds that the proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site with an overly cramped appearance and insufficient amenity space, particularly for the flats.

3.9 Three letters of objection have been received by the Council, which include the following points: · Overdevelopment of the site due to increase in unit numbers. · Insufficient outdoor space for future occupiers. · The area is used for parking in connection with the railway station. ITEM A1 - 5

· The proposed development will not make parking in the area any better. · Flooding from fields opposite Brookers Road has been severe. · 2009 pluvial flooding occurred across the area. · Surface water brick culvert that crosses the site is an extension of Penny Brook and is essential for drainage for the east of Billingshurst. · There is a high risk of surface water flooding in Brooker Road. · No development should take place within 3m of the existing anti-flood device on site. · Concern about presence of asbestos on site. · Noise from fixed plant on adjacent industrial units- solving this by use of double glazing is not appropriate, as residents could not open their windows in summer. · A number of bus routes referred to by the Applicant do not pass up Station Road and there are no buses on Sundays or Bank Holidays. · Loss of employment use without the site being advertised for alternative occupiers. · Multiple accesses close to a bend is a concern. · Large vehicles will overhang the pavement. · Object to inclusion of any social housing · Proposal likely to lead to increased noise and disturbance to existing residents.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment below.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The main considerations for this application are the loss of land in employment use, the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and the amenity of neighbouring residents, parking and highway matters, and the amenity of future occupiers. The extant Prior Notification (DC/14/0291) for the change of use of the existing buildings to residential is also a key material consideration.

6.2 The application site is located within the built-up area where new development is acceptable in principle. The site is currently in employment use, which Policy DC19 seeks to prevent the loss of. This Policy requires the applicant to satisfy the Council that a sequential approach has been applied towards the redevelopment of the site, looking at employment use development first before considering non-employment uses and demonstrating that the commercial unit is no longer viable as a consequence of marketing for at least 18 months prior to application. In this case, the offices are occupied and the applicant has not provided information to address the requirements set out in DC19.

6.3 In terms of the character and appearance of the locality, the proposal site has residential buildings to the east and commercial buildings to the west. As such, the conversion of these buildings to residential would not be out of character for the locality. The proposed extended former Beverley Engineering building would have a more residential character as a result of the second storey extension and other alterations, resulting in better integration of the development with the flats to the east. The external alterations to Nyewood Court are very limited and would not result in a material difference to the character and appearance ITEM A1 - 6

of the locality. The proposal involves the creation of parking for the terraced dwelling along the entire frontage of the Beverley Engineering building, shown on the proposed site plan as being separated by small planted strips. While this is a material difference in comparison to the existing frontage (the northern portion of which is currently grassed) the proposal would create an area of planted amenity space to the south of the Beverley Engineering building, on an area which is currently hardsurfaced. As such, subject to approval of full details of planting and materials (both hardsurfacing and external elevations of the buildings), it is considered that the proposal would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the locality.

6.4 The proposal site lies adjacent to a small industrial estate to the west. Some of the buildings within the industrial estate have external plant, in one case directly adjacent to the common boundary with the application site. The proximity of the site to commercial and industrial uses would not result in a good level of amenity for future occupiers, although the Environmental Health Officer has recommended conditions to seek to minimise noise disturbance to future occupiers. In addition, the proposed amenity spaces are very small, with only a small area to the south of Nyewood Court being provided as a private amenity area. Although each of the terraced dwellings would have a private rear garden, these are fairly small at about 8.6 metres deep, and they would be dominated by Nyewood Court, sited a minimum of about 12.5 metres from the rear of the Beverley Engineering building and a minimum of about 3.3 metres from the end of the proposed rear gardens, resulting in an overbearing appearance. The proximity of the two buildings also results in mutual overlooking between them, and therefore a poor level of privacy for occupiers of both. The proposal does not provide a good level of amenity for future residents and therefore is not in accordance with Policy DC9.

6.5 The County Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposal, subject to condition. Each of the terraced dwellings is provided with two dedicated parking spaces, and the 12 flats with one space each. Twelve cycle lockers are proposed to serve the flats, and each of the terraced dwellings has direct access to its rear garden, allowing residents to store bicycles in their gardens. There would also be 10 visitor spaces provided within the site, and three bike stands to the front of Nyewood Court. Given the location of the site, close to a town centre and other services such as a leisure centre and train station, no objection is raised to the proposed parking and access arrangements.

6.6 The proposal is separated from other residential sites by Brookers Road. As such, the separation between the site and surrounding dwellings and flats means that the proposed extension to the Beverley Engineering building would not result in an overbearing appearance when viewed from existing residential properties. As such, no objection is raised in relation to the impact of the proposal on nearby residents.

6.7 The proposal would result in the provision of 18 dwellings. Policy CP12 requires 40% of the units to be affordable on schemes of this size. The Applicant does not propose to provide any affordable units on site, nor any financial contribution towards off-site provision. In addition, there is no Legal Agreement in place to secure financial contributions in accordance with Policy CP13.

6.8 In light of the above, the proposal conflicts with the Development Plan in respect of the loss of an employment use and the amenity of future occupiers of the site, as well as the absence of a Legal Agreement to secure affordable housing and infrastructure contributions. However, a planning application must be determined in accordance with both the Development Plan and any other material considerations. In this case, the change of use of these buildings to residential use could be carried out under the Prior Approval DC/14/0291. This is a material consideration, as it allows the change of use of the site to residential without compliance with the Council’s adopted Development Plan (including the provision of affordable housing and other infrastructure contributions), and therefore ITEM A1 - 7

provides a realistic and available fall-back position for the applicant. The Prior Approval procedure does not require the applicant to notify the Local Planning Authority of how many residential units would be created as a result of the change of use, and therefore the implementation of the Prior Approval could result in a similar number of units to the 18 currently proposed, or potentially a greater number.

6.9 In this case, the current application differs from the Prior Approval application, as the Prior Approval does not authorise any external changes to the building, and permits the change of use only through internal alterations to the buildings. As noted above, the external changes to the Nyewood Court building are minimal and do not result in a building of materially different size or layout to the existing. As such, the external changes to Nyewood Court would not facilitate delivery of a significantly different scheme to that which could be delivered through the implementation of the Prior Approval. In the case of the Beverley Engineering building however, the addition of a second storey results in a significantly different building, in terms of both size and appearance. The Beverly Engineering building proposal is therefore a materially different scheme to that which could be delivered through the Prior Approval implementation. In balancing the Policy concerns set out above against other material considerations, the differences between the current proposal and the Prior Approval scheme must also be given weight.

6.10 Although the Development Plan seeks to retain land and buildings in employment uses, the change of use of this site to residential could be carried out under Prior Approval DC/14/0291. Therefore, regardless of the extension now proposed to the Beverley Engineering Building, the employment use would be lost to residential if the Prior Approval is implemented. It would not be reasonable for the Local Planning Authority to refuse the current application on grounds of the loss of an employment use in light of the Prior Approval.

6.11 The issues set out above in respect of outdoor amenity space would also arise if the change of use to residential is carried out through the implementation of the Prior Approval, and could potentially be exacerbated if a greater number of units were delivered through the Prior Approval implementation than the 18 units currently proposed through this planning application. In terms of privacy and overbearing appearance, the proximity of the two buildings to one another means that there would be a poor relationship arising should the Prior Approval scheme be carried out, resulting in the buildings appearing overbearing when viewed from one another and with mutual overlooking between the two. However, this planning application adds an additional storey to the Beverley Engineering Building, which would be visible from the windows of the flats within the Nyewood Court building. The extension comprises a new roof which slopes away from Nyewood Court, and it is not considered that the proposed extension would exacerbate this already poor relationship to a significant degree. As such, it would not be reasonable for the Local Planning Authority to refuse the application on grounds of the amenity of future occupiers.

6.12 In respect of affordable housing provision and infrastructure contributions, again the fall- back position of implementation of the Prior Approval scheme is a strong material consideration. The change of use of these buildings to 18, or potentially more, residential units could occur under the Prior Approval scheme without the need to provide any affordable housing (either on-site or through financial contributions in lieu) or any infrastructure contributions. As such, it is not considered reasonable to require the provision of affordable housing and infrastructure contributions in connection with the current application.

6.13 In light of the above, although there are Policy objections to the proposal, when considering all material considerations including the extant Prior Approval for chance of use to residential it is considered that it would not be reasonable for the Council to refuse this application. It is however important to note that any changes of use from office to ITEM A1 - 8

residential carried out under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 must be begun prior to 30th May 2016. The time limit for implementation of development permitted by planning applications is normally set at three years, although the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Regulation 91) does allow Local Planning Authorities to set shorter or longer time limits for implementation. In this case the proposal is contrary to the adopted Development Plan and the fall-back position of commencement of a change of use to residential through the Prior Approval procedure will fall away after the 30th May 2016. As such, it is considered reasonable to require implementation of the proposed development in respect of both buildings before 30th May 2016. Should the development not be commenced by that time, a fresh planning application would be required which would be assessed in light of the legislative context in place at that time, enabling the Local Planning Authority to assess the proposal in light of policy requirements including the loss of an employment use and the provision of affordable housing and infrastructure contributions.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

To approve the application, subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted in respect of both Nyewood Court and the Beverley Engineering Building shall be begun before 30th May 2016.

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

2. Before any construction work commences, named types, or samples of the facing bricks, roofing tiles and hanging tiles to be used in the external construction of the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter 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 by endeavouring to achieve a building of visual quality in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

3. Prior to the occupation of any part of the development hereby approved full details of all hard and soft landscaping works, including details of surfacing materials and construction of the access road and surrounding areas of hardsurfacing, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works as may be approved shall then be fully implemented in the first planting season, following commencement of the development hereby permitted and completed strictly in accordance with the approved details. Any plants or species which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting 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 otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

4. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, provision for storage of refuse and recycling shall be made in accordance with the approved drawings. The refuse and recycling storage facilities shall thereafter be retained for that purpose.

ITEM A1 - 9

Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of recycling facilities in accordance with policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).

5. The facilities for the parking of cycles as shown on the approved drawings shall be provided prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, and shall be thereafter retained solely for that purpose.

Reason: To ensure that there is adequate provision for the parking of cycles in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

6. No burning of materials shall take place on the site.

Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

7. Prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted, the parking spaces shown on the approved site plan shall be constructed and made available for use by residents. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for use ancillary to the residential occupation of the buildings.

Reason: To provide car-parking space for the use.

8. No part of the development shall be first occupied until such time as the vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of road safety

9. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily be restricted to the following matters, · the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during construction, · the method of access and routing of vehicles during construction, · the parking of vehicles by site operatives and visitors, · the loading and unloading of plant, materials and waste, · the storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development, · the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, · the provision of wheel washing facilities and other works required to mitigate the impact of construction upon the public highway (including the provision of temporary Traffic Regulation Orders), · measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during demolition and construction, lighting for construction and security, · details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area.

10. No development shall commence until such time as full details and plans incorporating the recommendations given in the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit dated March 2015 and prepared by Laurence Shaw Associates and accepted in the Designers Response dated March 2015 and prepared by FMW Consultancy have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority. For clarity, these ITEM A1 - 10

details shall include the required visibility splays and road markings. The details once agreed shall be implemented prior to first occupation.

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

11. No part of the development shall be first occupied until the vehicle turning space has been constructed within the site in accordance with the approved site plan. This space shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated use.

Reason: In the interests of road safety

12. Construction of the development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water.

Reason: To ensure appropriate drainage is provided for the development.

13. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a full survey of the existing surface water brick culvert within the site, including details of its precise location in relation to existing and proposed works, and its condition, including details of any remedial works or mitigation measures required to ensure the culvert is not damaged or blocked during the construction process and timescales for completion of such works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any remedial or mitigation works required shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that existing measures to minimise surface water flooding are not prejudiced by the development.

14. A scheme of works to reduce the intrusion of noise to all habitable rooms and amenity spaces shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted. The scheme shall have regard to the requirements of BS8233:2014 and shall include provision of appropriate alternative ventilation to habitable rooms where appropriate. The development shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and thereafter retained as such.

Reason: To ensure a good standard of amenity for future occupiers.

15. Prior to the commencement of development approved by this planning permission (or such other date or stage in development as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority), the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination, including asbestos contamination, of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority:

a) A preliminary risk assessment which has identified: • all previous uses • potential contaminants associated with those uses • a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors • potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

b) A site investigation scheme, based on (a) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site.

ITEM A1 - 11

c) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (c) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.

d) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (c) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To ensure that the site can be developed safely and the risks to controlled waters and human health are not unacceptable.

16. If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the local planning authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved. Reason: To ensure that the site can be developed safely and the risks to controlled waters and human health are not unacceptable.

17. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order amending or revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development falling within Classes A B C D E and F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the order shall be erected constructed or placed within the curtilage(s) of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted so as to enlarge improve or otherwise alter the appearance or setting of the dwelling(s) unless permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority pursuant to an application for the purpose.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

18. A condition listing the approved plans

Background Papers: None DC/15/1325

Nyewood Court

For Business use only - not for distribution to the general public

Scale: 1:2,782

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with permission of the Controller Organisation Horsham District Council of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2012. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments

Date 06/08/2015 MSA Number 100023865 ITEM A2 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Development Manager DATE: 18/08/2015 Installation of ground mounted solar arrays with an installed capacity of up to a maximum of 5MW of renewable energy together with DEVELOPMENT: inverter/transformer stations, access, internal access tracks, landscaping, cabling, ancillary infrastructure and security measures. SITE: Land at Five Oaks Farm, Stane Street, Billingshurst, West Sussex WARD: Billingshurst and Shipley APPLICATION: DC/15/0501 APPLICANT: Inazin Power Ltd

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: This is a Major planning application

RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that powers are delegated to the Development Manager to allow for the approval of planning application ref: DC/15/0501:

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

1.1 To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.2 The application, seeks planning permission for development of approximately 11.9ha of agricultural land for solar energy generation. The solar farm would have capacity of approx. 5MW (sufficient to power 1,200 homes a year) with 29,000 modules mounted in arrays running east to west across the site. Each solar array comprises of a series of black/blue glass panels supported on a metal frame to allow air to circulate and prevent overheating. For stability, the legs of the frames are pile driven into the ground.

1.3 Each solar panel is approximately 0.9m wide by 1.6m long (at its maximum) and will be double mounted on frames at a 30° angle and each frame will be 12 panels long. There will be approximately 22,000 no. panels in total. Each of these frames or ‘tables’ will be generally a maximum of 2.4 metres at the highest point from the ground. To maximise their exposure to sunlight, arrays run from west to east and the panels are angled towards the south. The aisles between the arrays would be 3 and 7 metres wide (depending on topography) to ensure that there is no overshadowing. It is proposed that the electricity generated by the solar farm will connect to two 33kV electricity lines that cross the site.

Contact Officer: Rebecca Humble WYG Tel: 02382 022800 ITEM A2 - 2

1.4 The scheme proposes a 2m high deer fence with motion-activated security cameras (CCTV) set at intervals around the perimeter. The cameras, which will be set on posts about 4m high and set within the deer fence, are linked to small sonar motion detectors covering the full perimeter. The permanent security system for the proposed site will be installed on site during site mobilisation along with an operational BT Broadband line connection.

1.5 To support the operation of the solar farm it is proposed to erect a series of ancillary buildings including a substation and an inverter and transformer. The substation will be a GRP building on a concrete base and will measure approximately 3.4m wide, 4.1m long and 4m high under a flat roof. It will be located in the north east corner of the solar farm. There will be doors in the front and rear to allow personal access to the meter room and switch box.

1.6 To the west of the substation will be a small building housing the switchgear. This will be 2.2m wide, 2.2m long and 2.2m high under a gently sloping roof.

1.7 Towards the centre of the solar panel array it is proposed to erect an inverter and transformer which will be approximately 6.1m long, 2.4m wide and 2.6m high. These structures will be raised off the ground on stands by approximately 0.3m.

1.8 It is proposed to access the site from the existing point along the A29, however, it is proposed to alter the width and improve the access to accommodate larger construction vehicles. Post construction maintenance trips will generally be few and far between. Typically, a site of this size requires 6-8 trips a year. Access improvements will be undertaken prior to the build that have previously been approved under application reference DC/11/2694 (see planning history below).

1.9 Planning permission is sought for a temporary 30 year period, to include one year for construction. At the end of the 30 year operational period, the land would be returned to its current condition and agricultural use.

1.10 The application is supported by the following technical documents: - Planning Statement; - Design and Access Statement; - Flood Risk Assessment; - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (including a Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment); - Construction Traffic Management Plan; - Archaeological Assessment; - Phase 1 Habitats Survey and supporting Ecology information; - Landscape and Ecology Management Plan; - Mitigations and Enhancement Plan; - Waste Audit Statement - Arboricultural Impact Assessment; - Alternative Sites Assessment; - Construction Environment Management Plan; - Construction Traffic Management Plan.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.11 The application site comprises of single field, set approximately 250m south west of Five Oaks. The site is approximately 12.83 hectares in size and is accessed from the A29 some 455m to the east. The A29 is set on a shallow crest about 10m above the site. There is a slight undulation across the site with the middle of the site being on lower ground than the eastern and western edges. The eastern boundary of the site is made up of mature ITEM A2 - 3

hedgerows whilst the northern and western boundaries are framed by mature woodland. The southern boundary is comprised of a low lying, semi-mature hedgerow. The proposed route of the cable is also included within the red line. This extends along the west side of Stane Street, to the north, for approximately 1000m, turning west at Buckman Corner.

1.12 Isolated residential dwellings are situated to the south west of the site. Slinfoldl Farm is situated to the north of the site. The fields immediately surrounding the site are agricultural in character and appearance. Swathes of dense ancient woodland are situated to the north and north-west of the site.

1.13 There are few residential properties in the immediate vicinity of the site, the nearest being the properties at Ridges Farmhouse, approximately 150m to the south west of the site. The nearest settlement is Five Oaks 250m to the east. Other residential properties are situated along the A29.

1.14 Public footpath No 1345 runs north - south passing through the site, along the eastern boundary. Footpath No 1343 runs parallel to the western boundary in the adjacent field and the north western boundary where it is located in the woodland of Ridges Hanger.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National policy can be found in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in March 2012.

Section 3: Supporting a prosperous rural economy Section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

2.3 DCLG guidance note: ‘Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy’ dated July (2013).

2.4 Planning Update: Written Ministerial Statement (25 March 2015);

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.5 Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character CP2 – Environmental Quality CP15 – Rural Strategy CP19 – Managing Travel Demand and Widening Choice

2.6 Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) DC1 – Countryside Protection and Enhancement DC2 – Landscape Character DC5 – Biodiversity and Geology DC6 – Woodland and Trees DC7 – Flooding DC8 – Renewable Energy and Climate Change ITEM A2 - 4

DC9 – Development Principles DC10 – Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments DC13 – Listed Buildings DC23 – Sustainable Farm Diversification DC40 – Transport and Access

2.7 The emerging Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was approved by Council on 30th April 2014 as the Council’s policy for planning the future of the District for the period 2011-2031. Following a six week period of representations, the plan was submitted to the Government on 8th August 2014 for independent Examination under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. The Examination of the HDPF was undertaken by an independent Planning Inspector in November 2014, and the Inspector published his Initial Findings on 19th December 2014. The Inspector considers the overall strategy of the plan to be sound as is made clear in paragraph 4 of his Initial Findings:

2.8 ‘On balance, I consider the overall strategy to concentrate growth in the main settlements in the hierarchy, starting with Horsham as a first order centre, followed by Southwater and Billingshurst, to be sound. The proposal for some development in villages, in accordance with Neighbourhood Plans (NP), is also justified and accords with government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). As will be explained in some more depth in my final report, the alternative strategy of greater dispersal to smaller settlements would be likely to lead to a less sustainable pattern of development with regard to transport patterns related to provision of employment opportunities, retail facilities and social and community services..’

2.9 The Inspector suspended the Examination of the HDPF, after the initial scheduled Hearing sessions, for a 6 month period to allow time for the Council to show how the District’s overall housing provision can be increased to provide for a minimum of 750 dwellings per annum (15,000 over the plan period). The representation period for the HDPF Main Modifications ran from 23rd March 2015 until 5th May 2015. Following the receipt of representations, the Inspector re-opened the Examination Hearings on 3rd July 2015 to consider only the issues outlined in the Initial Findings. The Hearings into the HDPF have now concluded and the Inspector published a Note to the Council on 21st July 2015. This Note states that the housing requirement for the plan period should be 800 dwellings per year, resulting in 16,000 dwellings between 2011 and 2031. The Inspector also states that:

2.10 ‘From the evidence about the Housing Trajectory, I consider that up to 2021 at the very least the revised requirement can be provided from existing allocations and commitments, including the North Horsham allocation. The Council will need to consider how and where the additional dwellings will be provided over the remainder of the Plan period up to 2031.’

2.11 The Inspector also indicates that an early review (to begin within 3 years of adoption) of the Plan to provide for these additional dwellings will be required and that a modification to Policy 36 (Strategic Policy: Appropriate Energy Use) to account for the recent written ministerial statement concerning wind energy development will be necessary. Given the Inspector’s Initial Findings and recent Note, the emerging plan is therefore a material consideration of considerable weight in terms of the overall strategy. ITEM A2 - 5

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/11/2694 Harden up existing agricultural track and improve access APR gate onto public highway.

WSCC/033/1 Engineering operation (land raising) to confer agricultural APR 4/BL benefit at Land west of A29 Stane Street, 500m west of Five Oaks, Five oaks, Nr Billingshurst, West Sussex.

2.12 A screening request was submitted under Regulation 5 of the Town and Country Planning Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations 2011 to Horsham District Council. On the 14th July 2014 the Council confirmed that the proposal was not classed as an EIA development and does not require an Environmental Assessment.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

Where consultation responses have been summarised, Officers have had consideration of the full comments received, which are available to view on the public file at www.horsham.gov.uk.

3.1 INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

HDC Drainage Team No comment

HDC Ecologist No objection: · A thorough ecological survey has been completed and the level of detail is welcomed. · No objection is raised subject to conditions relating to badger sett check, timing of development, and development being carried out in accordance with the Construction Environmental Management Plan.

HDC Environmental Health: No objection · Subject to conditions relating to burning of materials, hours of construction and no floodlighting.

HDC Landscape Officer (summary): · The site lies outside and west of the built-up area of Five Oaks. It comprises agricultural land, presently grassland. · A public footpath is aligned along the site’s eastern side. Another footpath passes close to the western boundary of the site. · The applicant’s planning statement notes that the development would be carried out after the implementation of works to raise land consented under WSCC/033/14/ BL on 01/08/14. · The site has a generally westerly aspect with a dip in the centre to a pronounced localised fold that would be partly filled by the land raising. · An area of ancient woodland lies at the north western boundary of the site. Other boundaries are formed of native agricultural hedgerows to north, west and east but the southern boundary is open being marked by a post and wire fence. · Save for the views from the local footpath network, the site is reasonably contained from the south, east and north but there are potentially some longer distance views from the south west and west, the South Downs scarp slope being seen in the distant views from the site. · The development is proposed to be in place for 30 years whereupon the installation would be removed and the site would be returned to unfettered agricultural use. ITEM A2 - 6

· It is considered that the landscape and visual effects have generally been adequately covered in the supporting LVIA, albeit the claimed beneficial longer term landscape effects are probably only justifiable upon removal of the installation. · In terms of the development proposal, it is considered that, subject to various clarifications and further detail, including strengthening of the proposed landscape mitigation and securing a long term landscape and ecological management plan that covers decommissioning, most of which could be resolved by pre-commencement conditions, it is unlikely that there would be any significant harmful landscape or visual effects during the 30 year life cycle of the scheme. · In our opinion the Tree Protection Plans should be clarified to identify those sections of cable run that are proposed to be drilled. · The report suggests heads of terms for an Arboricultural Method Statement. We support this and presume this will be subject to a condition. · The report notes localised removal of understory vegetation. Replacement planting should be proposed to make good any localised gap opened up by the works.

HDC Tree Officer No objection. · Following an initial site visit and a number of concerns being raised with the agent, further information was received and a further site visit was carried out on 10 June 2015. Several large trees were noted close to the proposed cable route along the A29, where there were still concerns regarding the location of the cable route and space for cable installation works. Additional information was requested on 23rd June details of the type and method of drilling into the ground and around trees, was provided. This information confirmed that the drilling rig would be small enough to move around the site and that drilling is possible at 3m depths under trees, which would minimise harm on roots.

· This additional information has demonstrated that the impact of trees can be satisfactorily mitigated providing measures are undertaken to achieve this. It is considered that there is unlikely to be an adverse effect on the trees and the amenity they provide to the locality, subject to conditions securing precise details of the method of works and the supervision of those works.

HDC Waste and Cleansing No objection. The proposal does not require refuse collection.

HDC Archaeology No objection. The applicant has commissioned an archaeological desk- based assessment, which was submitted with the application. That document presents a clear overview of the site and its environs. Its conclusion is that, although there is limited potential for some prehistoric remains to be present, there is no reason to object to the development – this conclusion is concurred with. However, the DBA fails to take proper account of the remains of the 19th century farmstead identified from First Edition Ordnance Survey mapping (Little Menzies house and yard). The applicant has now confirmed that

“The area of the former farmstead, which is as we discussed a heritage asset of archaeological interest, but of low significance, lies within the solar panel array and outside of any areas that are proposed for more substantial impacts (cable runs, inerter stations, sub-station, etc.). No topsoil stripping or ground levelling is proposed in this location.”

For this reason and in the light of the proposed construction method for the solar farm there is no objection to the proposed development and no conditions are recommended.

3.2 OUTSIDE AGENCIES

ITEM A2 - 7

Environment Agency No objection

West Sussex PROW Officer No objection The site of the solar panels has public footpath 1345 running along its eastern boundary within the proposed site however the design and access statement clearly states that the footpath line will not be tampered with however hedging will be planted alongside it (set back 3m from the path) to provide suitable security. There is no objection from the PROW team regarding these proposals but wanted to raise a few points to be considered during construction and after. During construction the path must be left open and available at all times unless a temporary closure is sought from WSCC public rights of way team. This would come at a cost but would be recommended if there is any risk to path users whilst this work is taking place. It is also worth noting that any damage done to the surface of the public rights of way during construction, by vehicular use or any other means, must be reinstated to its original state prior to the damage so the surface is retained in a safe and useable state. The hedging alongside the public footpath which is proposed to provide a security barrier for the solar panel site is welcomed but it must be made clear to the landowner that these are their responsibility to cut back so the path is always available and clear. This is usually encouraged twice a year to make sure that it doesn’t encroach and restrict public access at any time.

West Sussex County Highways Comments: · The site is to be accessed from the A29 by way of an upgraded field access. It is noted that planning permission has already been given to an access improvement under DC/11/2694). · Clearly this improvement was intended for the purpose of providing agricultural access rather than for 16.5 metre long 44 ton HGV’s that are expected to deliver equipment to the site. · The access proposed by this current application, albeit wider than what was previously approved, is acceptable and will ensure the site can be safely accessed. The access improvement would need to be carried out prior to any development commencing and it is recommended that this is secured by condition. · In terms of other impacts, it is acknowledged that schemes of this nature generate very few movements once complete and operating. Suitable controls need to be in place to cover the impacts during construction. · A revised Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been submitted. The mitigation detailed within this Plan is considered appropriate and proportionate to the impact of the development. It is recommended that measures set out in the CMP are secured by condition. · The CMP includes works within the highway (including the widening of the existing access and siting of temporary warning signs). The separate consent of the Local Highway Authority will be required to carry out these works. · The CMP states that the access will be reinstated in accordance with a scheme to match that which was approved under planning permission reference DC/11/2694. It is recommended that the completion of these works be secured by condition. · An Informative is recommended to remind the applicant of the requirement to obtain the formal approval of the Local Highway Authority before carrying out any works on the highway.

Sussex Police: Comments · Pleased to note that the Design and Access Statement submitted in support of the application mentions crime prevention measures to be incorporated into the design and layout. · The proposed 2m high deer fencing to be erected along the site perimeter will provide a very secure area. Consideration has been given to provide a buffer zone of 4m between ITEM A2 - 8

the fence and the solar arrays which will assist in protecting the array from any potential projectiles. · Any gates within the perimeter should be of the same height and construction as the adjoining fence and not compromise the overall security of the boundary. · CCTV is proposed and it is recommended that a set of Operational Requirements is drawn up.

3.3 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

Billingshurst Parish Council - Would like to request traffic calming measures in Five Oaks. These measures should include road markings, a reduction in the speed limit from 40mph down to 30mph, and the installation of flashing ‘slow down’ highways signage to the three entrances to the hamlet, similar to those already situated in Adversane.

Concerns about the footpath on the site raised, as follows:- · The footpath will be enclosed as a tunnel which may cause maintenance issues post installation; · Querying whether the footpath can be kept open during installation; · Future maintenance of the footpath may be problematic if it is enclosed – consideration should be given to diverting it into the adjacent field.

Highway and access issues included:- · Access off the A29 was agreed for agricultural purposes only and will probably have to be larger to cope with construction traffic; · Number of lorries and hours of disruption on the road; · Clarification needed regarding the number of lorries per day and the fact that construction traffic is not being restricted to the A29 only as stated in the Construction Traffic Management Plan. The information conflicts with that in the Design and Access Statement; · There is insufficient detail of the cable laying route for grid connection; · Residents are worried that Okehurst Lane might become a “rat-run” for traffic seeking to avoid delays at the site. The lane is popular with walkers, cyclists and equestrians who could potentially be at risk through increased traffic movements; · If there is a possibility of the cable connection extending from the existing solar farm at The Haven to the proposed site, then this would negate the need for A29 cabling works.

Land and flood risk concerns:- · Concerns had been expressed about flooding but Martin Brightwell of Horsham District Council had no comments to make. Should HDC decide to allow this application then they should take note of the comments made in their internal consultations and the recommendations from the Highways Department; · A report shown to the Parish Council by a member of the public regarding the impact of solar farms on rainwater run-off generation and the associated land drainage/flood risk consequences explained that the ground beneath each panel will remain dry but where the water runs off the ground becomes compacted. A detailed flood risk assessment should be researched.

General points raised:- · Doubts on the efficiency of solar in this country as electricity is needed in the winter when the sun is very low in the sky; · The loss of good agricultural land is wrong and it was felt that it would be unlikely to be returned to agriculture after the 30 year lifespan of the solar farm; ITEM A2 - 9

· Unclear whether there figures available from the existing solar farm at The Haven which support the efficiency of solar farms.

3.4 Thirteen letters of objection have been received, which include the following points:

· Traffic increase and lack of detail regarding traffic management · Noise and pollution · Harm to habitat and landscape · Overdevelopment of the Hamlet · Out of keeping with the current use of the land as agriculture · Blot on the landscape · Land required to grow hedges not within applicants control · The permission for the access road was obtained under the pretext of being used for agricultural · We have raised a petition for speed restrictions (40 to 30mph) and the resiting of the speed restriction signs south of the entrance to the site. · EDF’s website states that Britain’s climate is unsuited to large scale solar electricity generation. Solar panels are most effective in direct intense sunlight, so the UK’s latitude and cloud cover reduces their effectiveness · There is already another solar array within 1 mile of this site. This will industrialise the area. · The installation of a new power connection is not readily available and will cause traffic. · No demand for this use. · Research demonstrates that solar arrays cause kinetic rainwater compaction of soil. · Rainwater run-off will be a flood risk and will increase flow into ancient water courses. · A Flood Risk Assessment should be researched. · The applicant states that they accept no responsibility for flooding. · Further clarification from the Environment Agency should be sought in respect of flooding · Will affect the adjoining public footpath. · The cameras will impact on the day night skies and impact upon wildlife. · Research has thrown serious doubt on the viability of solar arrays as an effective means of providing electricity. · Impact upon neighbouring properties · Unsightly industrial style complex. · Affect views of the South Downs · Impact on land levels in the context of Menzies Wood. · The local community gains very little. · Impact on animals grazing on adjoining land. · Impact on bees · It is not clear how the land will be restored to agricultural use once the current use has ceased. · Work appears to have already started on site.

3.5 Four letters of support has been received, which include the following points:

· There is at least one major solar farm and one minor solar farm, which have little or no impact. · This is a good site for much needed solar power · Support the proposal · Excellent, environmentally sensitive proposal to promote wildlife in the area · Cheap, sustainable, local energy that is not vulnerable to human disruption ITEM A2 - 10

· Will not pollute the farmers land · Will offer financial support to farmers when they economically stretched which will ensure our food chain for the future.

3.6 One letter commenting on the proposal, which includes the following points:

· The site does not meet the minimum size for a solar farm. · It is not clear whether the timing of levelling works required to implement the solar farm has been thoroughly considered. This could have implications for the future use of the land for agricultural purposes. · The ecological benefits of the hedgerow have not been thoroughly investigated and the footpath should be relocated to avoid the need for an additional hedgerow. · The Ecology report states that no work should be carried out proximity to Badger setts and the Ancient Woodland and that works are carried out during the winter. Query over how this will be secured. · Connection to the grid could cause major road upheaval. · Three of the supporting letters are from residents up to 10 miles away carry little weight.

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The main issues for consideration in respect of this planning application are: a) The principle of development b) Landscape and visual impact c) Impact on neighbouring amenity d) Impact on heritage assets e) Ecology f) Trees g) Flood risk / drainage h) Traffic and transport i) Public rights of way j) Environmental Impact Assessment k) Third Party Representations

The principle of development

6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework sets out central government policies in respect of renewable energy developments. One of the core planning principles of the NPPF is to, support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate…and encourage the use of renewable resources. This is amplified at section 10 of the NPPF which provides overriding support for the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, and requires that local planning authorities should not require energy developers to ITEM A2 - 11

demonstrate an overall need for the proposal and approve an application if the impacts are, or can be made acceptable.

6.3 In July 2013, the Government adopted Planning Practice Guidance for Renewable and Low Carbon Energy. This is a material consideration in the determination of this application. The guidance advises that ground mounted solar photovoltaic farms can have a negative impact on the rural environment, particularly in undulating landscapes, but the visual impact may be properly addressed within the landscape if planned sensitively. The guidance lists assessment criteria as follows: - encouraging the effective use of land by focussing large scale solar farms on previously developed and non agricultural land, provided that it is not of high environmental value; - Solar farms are normally temporary structures and planning conditions can be used to ensure that installations are removed when no longer in use and land restored to its forms use; - Effect on landscape of glint and glare, neighbouring uses and aircraft safety; -The extent to which there may be additional impacts if solar arrays follow the daily movement of the sun; - The need for, and impact of, security measures (lights and fencing); - Conservation of heritage assets; - Potential to mitigate landscape and visual impacts through screening with native hedges; - The energy generating potential which can vary (e.g. latitude and aspect).

6.4 The Government has subsequently published the UK Solar PV Strategy Part 1: Roadmap to a Brighter Future, which sets out the Government’s vision for the strategic direction of solar PV in the UK. Most recently, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change stressed the need for the sensitive siting of solar farms. One of the principles established in the Solar PV Roadmap is that proposals are appropriately sited, give proper weight to environmental considerations such as landscape and visual impact, heritage and local amenity, and provide opportunities for local communities to influence decisions that affect them. As part of the pre-application process, the applicant has undertaken a public consultation exercise with local residents in November 2014 at Billingshurst Centre to provide an overview of the proposed solar farm and gain feedback on the proposals.

6.5 In terms of local planning policy, there are no specific policies in respect of solar farm developments; however, policy CP2 of the Core Strategy (Environmental Quality) sets out broad support for the utilisation of renewable energies, whilst policy DC8 (Renewable Energy and Climate Change) of the Local Development Framework states that schemes for renewable energy may be permitted where they do not have a significant adverse impact on landscape character, wildlife, areas of historic significance or amenity value. Each of these issues is addressed in turn within this report.

6.6 The site itself is located outside of a defined built-up area in open countryside, where there is a presumption against development unless there is an essential need for a countryside location, as required by policy DC1. In this regard, the proposal represents a departure from development plan policies, as it does not directly relate to the needs of agriculture or forestry, quiet or informal recreation, or the extraction of minerals/disposal of waste.

6.7 Paragraph 112 of the NPPF states that where significant development of agricultural land is deemed to be necessary, planning authorities should seek to use poorer quality land as opposed to land of higher quality (the land is classified as 3b of moderate comparable quality).

6.8 Furthermore, on 25 March 2015 a Ministerial Statement was made by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government regarding solar energy: protecting the local ITEM A2 - 12

and global environment. It stated that “The National Planning Policy Framework includes strong protections for the natural and historic environment and is quite clear that local councils when considering development proposals should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Yet, some local communities have genuine concerns that when it comes to solar farms insufficient weight has been given to these protections and the benefits of high quality agricultural land. As the solar strategy noted, public acceptability for solar energy is being eroded by the public response to large-scale solar farms which have sometimes been sited insensitively”.

6.9 The proposal seeks to retain an element of livestock grazing land beneath the solar PV panels during the operational lifespan of the site, which reflects Government guidance. The land in question is of moderate to low grade quality farmland. The supporting planning statement states that the site is currently in grass but has been part of an arable rotation in the past. The loss of agricultural land will not have any effect on the ability to farm the remainder of the farmland within the wider holding. It is the applicants view that the remaining land will remain viable. In this regard, the proposal is considered to be in general conformity with paragraph 28 of the NPPF by promoting the development and diversification of agriculture, and policies CP15 of the Core Strategy (Rural Strategy) and DC23 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), which gives in principle support to sustainable rural economic development and farm diversification.

6.10 Members recall that in April 2014 planning permission was refused for a change of use from agriculture to a solar farm at Priors Byne Farm in Partridge Green, for the following reason:

“The proposed development would, by reason of its scale, have an adverse impact on the character and fabric of the landscape by introducing a discordant and intrusive feature which would impact on the visual enjoyment of the countryside and which outweighs the environmental benefits arising from the development. As such the proposal would be contrary to the environmental objectives and policies CP1, CP2, CP15 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy and policies DC1, DC2, DC8 and DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies”.

6.11 On 18th March 2015, the appeal was allowed and planning permission granted. The Inspector referred to the following:

- There is no explicit sequential test for the location of solar farms in local and national policy; - Local and national policy does not preclude solar farm development on agricultural land - The results of the Agricultural Land Classification survey that the land is mainly 3b satisfies the preferences in national policy to avoid using the best and most versatile agricultural land and to use lower quality land in preference to higher quality land - There would be some continued agricultural use of the land in accordance with national practice guidance. - Whilst the developer is not required to demonstrate that there is no better location for development, the submitted evidence of the site selection process would suggest that it is unlikely that suitable brownfield sites or commercial buildings are available locally on a scale to provide equivalent benefits in terms of renewable solar energy.

6.12 The Inspector also referred to the benefits of the scheme. He referred to Paragraph 93 of the Framework which describes the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy as central to economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development. The production of renewable energy would contribute to national and international targets to reduce carbon emissions and mitigate the effects of climate change. This would be an ITEM A2 - 13

environmental benefit of considerable weight. The proposed scheme would also contribute to the rural economic development in accordance with objectives of CS Policy CP15 and would have wider economic benefits in construction and operation including a contribution to securing energy supplies and reducing the need for energy imports.

6.13 This recent appeal decision is a material consideration in the determination of this planning application.

6.14 The proposal will represent a relatively un-intensive use of the site and the land may revert back to agricultural use at the end of the 30 year lifespan of the solar farm through decommissioning of the site, which can be controlled by planning condition. The supporting planning statement states that the proposal would generate 5kW of electricity (the annual energy demand of 1,200 homes) and reduce carbon emissions, thereby contributing towards national and local targets set by the UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) and the Horsham Climate Change Strategy, which respectively seek to generate 30% of all electricity nationally from renewable sources by 2020 and reduce carbon emissions locally by 26% by 2020. It is therefore considered that the proposal will meet one of the core planning principles of the NPPF and the Local Development Framework by supporting the transition to a low carbon future and that a departure from normal planning policy can be supported in principle.

Landscape and visual impact

6.15 Paragraph 109 of the NPPF seeks to protect and enhance valued landscapes. Policy CP1 of the Core Strategy requires that the landscape character of the District will be maintained and enhanced, and where activities influencing the landscape are permitted, the landscape character is protected, conserved or enhanced. Policy DC2 requires that developments should account for the topography of an area; pattern of woodlands, fields, hedgerows and trees, its tranquillity and historic/ecological qualities.

6.16 The applicant has submitted an Appraisal of Landscape and Visual Effects (ALVE) with this proposal. The ALVE identifies, evaluates and describes the current landscape character of the site and its surroundings, and also any notable individual landscape elements and features within the site. It also determines the sensitivity of the landscape and any potential visual receptors and evaluates their sensitivity to the type of changes proposed.

6.17 The applicant has also supplemented the application with an additional Landscape and Environmental Management Plan (LEMP). This document sets out a general strategy for landscape implementation and management during the lifetime of development.

6.18 The site itself is not located in a statutory or local landscape designation (National Park, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Area of High Landscape Value).

6.19 Save for the views from the local footpath network, the site is reasonably contained from the south, east and north with views being generally available from field gate locations and from limited parts of the A29. Some properties at the southern end of Five Oaks and various isolated dwellings and farmsteads to the south and south west would have some views of the proposal but all are at some distance and none have totally open views. There are potentially some longer distance views from the south west and west, the South Downs scarp slope being seen in the distant views from the site. Works to implement an earlier planning permission to alter the landform on the site have commenced and therefore, the landscape vistas across the site are already being altered.

6.20 The Council’s Landscape Consultant has reviewed the information submitted with the application and raises no objection in principle. Since the application was originally ITEM A2 - 14

submitted the applicant has been supplemented to include a detailed planting plan and LEMP. Together these supporting statements provide broad details of the location, type and number of plants proposed on site and measures, such a pruning existing hedgerows, to improve the health and longevity of existing landscaping. Together with the ALVE, the LEMP demonstrates that, subject to a condition securing a detailed landscape strategy, the proposal can be accommodated within the site without giving rise to harm to the landscape character and visual amenities of the area. It is proposed to supplement existing tree and hedgerow planting around the perimeter of the site. This will also ensure that the amenities of the PROW running along the east side of the site are preserved. Subject to this condition the proposal complies with the NPPF, Policies CP1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and DC2 the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Development Control Policies (2007).

Public Rights of Way (PRoW)

6.21 A public right of way (PROW 1345) runs in a north/south direction and enters the site to follow the hedgerow along the eastern site boundary. Footpath 1343 starts at Oakhurst Lane and follows the north-western site boundary entering Ridges Hanger woodland to adjoin with footpath 1345.

6.22 There would be views of the development along footpath 1345 for approximately 750m of its length as it runs through the application site and immediately to the north and south. These views would range from partial to open views as a person enters the site. Views experienced from footpath 1343 would be glimpsed, filtered views of the southern part of the proposed scheme, only available in short sections where the topography and intervening vegetation allow. It is proposed to supplement the landscaping along the eastern boundary of the site and a condition is recommended to secure details of the planting. This will ensure that the rural, landscaped character of the area, as enjoyed from the PROW will be preserved along with providing an ecological enhancement to the area. It is not proposed to create a tunnel along the footpath and WSCC Public Rights of Way Officer has not objected. The proposal, therefore, complies with the NPPF and Policies CP1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy 2007 and DC2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Development Control Policies 2007.

Impact on neighbouring amenity

6.23 One of the core planning principles of the NPPF is to secure a good standard of amenity for existing occupants of land and buildings. Policy DC9 states that development should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers/users of nearby property and land.

6.24 The site occupies a relatively isolated location in open countryside. The nearest settlement to the site is Five Oaks (600m north-east) and Billingshurst (1.6km south).

6.25 There are also individual farms and residential properties including: Menzies Wood Farm (120m southwest); Ridges Farmhouse (195m west); Lannards (200m southwest); Chalk Farm (395m south); Woodcroft (450m south); Tisserand Farm (150m southeast); properties to the east of the A29 (Ashwood, Oak, White Cottage, Nos 1 & 2 Elm Villas, Willow Brook, The Paddocks, Shire Cottage, Chequers) (some 470m east). These measurements are taken from the perimeter of the solar panels.

6.26 The Appraisal of Landscape and Visual Effects has shown that there is the potential for partial, filtered views towards the proposal from the following properties: Ridges Farmhouse; Ashwood; Mulberry Barn; Farm Cottage; Oak; White Cottage; Nos 1 & 2 Elm Villas; Willow Brook and Tisserand Farm. ITEM A2 - 15

6.27 The surrounding vegetation and topography, combined with the separation distances and the limited height of the solar PV array, is considered to restrict any adverse visual impact on residential properties. It is anticipated that there may be some noise and disturbance associated with the construction and decommissioning phases; however, this is for a limited duration and the effects on neighbouring amenity are not considered to be so harmful as to warrant refusal. The solar PV arrays themselves will not produce any localised noise or airborne pollution during the operational phase. Officers from Public Health and Licensing are satisfied that the development will not adversely impact neighbouring amenity. Planning conditions are recommended that restrict hours of operation, prevent burning of materials on site and restrict external floodlighting.

6.28 It is not envisaged that any other properties would be affected by the proposal given the topography and vegetation obscuring views from the site.

6.29 The properties along Stane Street are located within 25m of the proposed access to the site. There is an existing, unrestricted access to the agricultural land at present together with the existing traffic movements along the A29. Whilst it is accepted that there may be some periods of increased levels of disturbance when construction vehicles are accessing the site, in the context of existing highway activity together with the Construction Management Plan that will manage this activity, it is not considered that any harmful noise and disturbance to the occupiers of existing residential properties will arise from the proposed development.

Impact on heritage assets

6.30 Policy DC10 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) restricts planning permission where it would cause unacceptable harm to important archaeological sites. Paragraph 128 of the NPPF requires applicants to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected by a development, including any contribution made by its setting. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be afforded to the asset’s conservation (paragraph 132). The application is supported by Heritage Desk-Based Assessment.

6.31 The site does not contain any listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments, historic parkland/gardens or designated archaeological monuments. The site is located within a largely rural area with limited modern development, and as a result only a small number of archaeological surveys or investigations have been recorded within the surroundings of the site. Based on First Edition Ordnance Survey mapping, it is noted that a 19th Century Farmstead was present on the site (Little Menzies farm).

6.32 The Heritage Desk-Based Assessment has established that, due to the effects of topography and extensive vegetation screening within the surroundings of the site, the proposed development would not adversely affect the settings and the significance of designated heritage assets within its wider environs.

6.33 On the basis that the applicant has confirmed that no additional topsoil stripping or ground levelling is proposed, other than what has been agreed under planning permission reference WSCC/033/14/BL (which largely involves adding to the existing land levels), the Council’s Archaeologist is satisfied that the proposal will not result in any harm to heritage assets. The proposal, therefore, complies with the NPPF and Policy DC10 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). ITEM A2 - 16

Ecology

6.34 Amongst the core planning principles within the NPPF is a need for planning decisions to contribute to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment by minimising impacts and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible (paragraph 109). Policy DC5 states that development will not be permitted unless, where relevant, it includes measures to protect, conserve or enhance the biodiversity of the District.

6.35 Following initial objection raised by the consultant Ecologist, the applicant has supplemented the application with additional information. Having considered this supplementary package the consultant Ecologist has lifted their objection subject to conditions relating to the timing of work and the checking of Badger setts, which are recommended below.

6.36 Paragraph 118 of the NPPF seeks to secure biodiversity enhancements in association with development. To reflect this objective, a condition is recommended requiring measures set out within the submitted Construction Environmental Management Plan to be complied with. Subject to this and other conditions as set out above, the proposal complies with the NPPF and Policies CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Trees

6.37 Policy DC2 states that development will be permitted where it protected and/or conserves and/or enhances the key characteristics of the landscape character area in which it is located, including: a.) the development patterns of the area, its historic and ecological quality, tranquillity and sensitivity to change; b.) the pattern of woodlands, fields, hedgerows, trees, water bodies and other features; and, c.) the topography of the area.

6.38 Policy DC5 seeks to preserve biodiversity across the District by preventing developments unless measures to protect, conserve or enhance are included. Policy DC6 seeks to prevent the felling of protected trees except in exceptional circumstances. Notwithstanding that, at the time of writing this report, no trees on the site were formally protected, the aims and objectives of the policy are to protect high quality trees in the District. Policy DC9 aims to protect existing landscape features, including trees.

6.39 There are trees present to the west and north of the main area proposed for the installation of solar panels. In addition, there are a number of significant trees which extend along the cable route along Stane Street (A29). A number of these trees are considered to be category A and B trees and contribute significantly to the visual amenities and character of the area and provide ecological habitat.

6.40 Since the application was originally submitted, additional information has been submitted to address initial concerns about the impact on trees during the construction phase. The arboricultural assessment has now been extended to address the trees along Stane Street including details of the type and method of drilling associated with the installation of cabling adjacent to the trees.

6.41 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has considered this information and concluded that, subject to conditions relating to the carrying out of the precise method of working around ITEM A2 - 17

the trees and the supervision of that work by a nominated individual from the Council, the development can be carried out without causing harm to trees on and around the site.

6.42 Subject to conditions, the proposal will not result in any harmful impact to trees and complies with the NPPF and Policies DC2, DC5, DC6 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Flood risk / drainage

6.43 Policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) seeks to manage the District’s environment by ensuring flood risk to new development is not increased. Policy DC7 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Development Control Policies (2007) states that development will not be permitted where it would not incorporate appropriate mitigation measures to help limit any increase in the risk of flooding in adjacent or downstream areas.

6.44 The proposal involves the redevelopment of a large parcel of land, amounting to approximately 11.9ha. The site is located within Flood Zone 1 where there is the lowest risk of flooding. A Flood Risk Assessment accompanies this application in accordance with paragraph 103 of the NPPF.

6.45 The Environment Agency confirms that solar farms should be classified as ‘Essential Infrastructure’ as defined in the Technical Guidance note to the NPPF on Flooding and Minerals. Tables 1 and 3 of the guidance note, indicates that ‘Essential Infrastructure’ is a suitable form of development to be located within Flood Zone 1.

6.46 The solar arrays are raised 0.5 - 2.3 metres from the ground with grass beneath; they are angled at 25 degrees and they are arranged in well-spaced rows with open avenues in between. In addition, there are spaces between the panels as they are affixed to the supporting structure, allowing rainwater to pass through the arrays and disperse evenly. Rainfall will fall onto open ground as usual or run-off the panels into the ground to be dispersed by the same routes that are currently in place.

6.47 It has been shown that the proposed development will not increase the risk of flooding and there is, therefore, no objection that can be raised on these grounds. The Environment Agency and the Council’s Drainage Engineer have been consulted on the proposal and have raised no objection.

6.48 The proposal, therefore, complies with the NPPF and Policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DC7 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Development Control Policies (2007).

Traffic and transport

6.49 Core strategy policy CP15 (Rural Strategy) states that ‘development should not harm the rural character of the area by virtue of the nature and level of activity involved and the type and amount of traffic generated’.

6.50 General Development Control Policy DC40 allows for development where a safe and adequate means of access is provided and is integrated with the wider network of routes including existing Public Rights of Way.

6.51 The site is to be accessed from the A29 by way of an upgraded field access. It is noted that planning permission has already been given to an access improvement under ITEM A2 - 18

DC/11/2694. Those works were intended for the purpose of providing agricultural access rather than for the HGV’s that are expected to deliver equipment to the development site. The current application, therefore, proposes a wider access than that which was approved under planning permission reference DC/11/2694.

6.52 Following initial concerns raised by the Local Highway Authority regarding the proposed access arrangement, a Construction Management Plan (CMP) has been submitted in support of the application which includes a statement of transport issues associated with the proposed development; the level of traffic movement; traffic routes and access points; and mitigation measures, together with details of the proposed access widening and temporary warning signs proposed to be erected on the highway.

6.53 Having considered the CMP, the Local Highway Authority has concluded that, notwithstanding a development proposal of this type will generate very few movements once complete and operating, suitable controls still need to be in place to prevent construction activities having a harmful impact on the highway network. A condition securing the measures set out within the CMP is therefore, recommended.

6.54 The proposed widening of the access is necessary to allow construction vehicles to safely access the site and it is, therefore, appropriate to secure its implementation by condition. However, to prevent the widened access creating a visual distraction adjacent to the carriageway to other highway users, post construction, and to preserve the character of the area, a condition is recommended requiring the access to be reinstated to its present width in accordance with details to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

6.55 To remind the applicant of the need to obtain the consent of the Local Highway Authority before carrying out any works within the adopted carriageway, an informative is also recommended. This will be relevant for any works required to cross the A29 to make a grid connection.

6.56 The proposed access into the site will ensure that the existing Public Right of Way along the east side of the site can be retained in accordance with the aims and objectives of Policy DC40.

6.57 Subject to the conditions and informatives as set out above, the proposal complies with the NPPF, Policy CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and Policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Environmental Impact Assessment

6.58 Prior to the submission of the current application, the applicant’s agent submitted a request for a formal Screening Opinion under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. The Council’s Environmental Officer concluded that the proposals fall under Schedule 2 of the EIA Regulations, Item 3b – installations for the production of electricity. The proposal exceeds the size threshold of 1ha and it was therefore necessary to consider whether the development would be likely to have significant effects on the environment. In making this assessment, the Council has taken into account Schedule 3 of the EIA regulations, having regard to the development characteristics, location and nature of the impacts. It was concluded that the whilst the proposal, had the potential for environmental impacts, including those on, landscape and biodiversity, in particular, it was considered that the proposals would not be so significant as to require an EIA work to be undertaken.

ITEM A2 - 19

Third Party Representations

6.59 There will a period during the construction period when there will be some noise and disturbance to residents in the surrounding area, however, this will be for a limited period and the physical works will take place a significant distance away from residential properties. The impact on the ecology and landscape has been considered in the paragraphs above and a condition has been recommended requiring the use of the site to be reinstated as agricultural land once the use of the site as a solar farm has been discontinued. Whilst the earlier permission for agricultural access is useful planning history to consider in the determination of this planning application, the proposed access has been considered and assessed on its own merits. The Government is supportive of schemes that generate renewable energy and does not stipulate that solar farms must achieve a minimum size. Each application for such development is considered on its individual merits taking into account the character of the surrounding area.

6.60 The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment which has been considered by the Environment Agency who has not objected to the proposal. The impact on the Public Right of Way has been considered in the paragraphs above along with impacts on trees and archaeology. To ensure that the site can be used for agriculture in the future, a condition is recommended to require details of how the site will be restored is recommended. Any unauthorised works carried out on the site without planning permission are done at the applicant’s own risk and may be liable to enforcement action. Notwithstanding that some letters of support have been received from beyond the area immediately surrounding the application site, each letter of representation must be taken into account.

Conclusion

6.61 The proposed development of the site through the installation of a solar photovoltaic farm has significant benefits in terms of the large scale generation of renewable energy, and this is supported by both national and local plan policies. In addition, the application will not have any significant or harmful impacts on the landscape character of the area or the existing ecological value of the site but would furthermore attract benefits through its implementation in terms of enhancing the biodiversity of the site.

6.62 The application is therefore compliant with policies CP1, CP2, CP15 and CP19 of the Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC1, DC2, DC5, DC6, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC13, DC23 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies (2007). The application also fully endorses those policies within the Framework that seek to promote the generation of renewable energy and protect the natural environment: namely sections 7 and 10 of the Framework.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The use of the land hereby permitted for generating electricity shall be discontinued on or before 30 years from the first operational use of the solar photovoltaic panels, in accordance with a scheme of works to be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority at least 3 months before the expiry of this permission. The scheme of works shall include: - Method statement for decommissioning and dismantling all equipment on site; - Details of any items to be retained on site; - Method statement for restoring the land to agriculture; - Timescales for decommissioning removal and reinstatement of the land; ITEM A2 - 20

- Method Statement for the appropriate disposal / recycling of redundant equipment / structures; - Provision for the review of the scheme as necessary. The scheme of works shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and the land restored to its former use within 3 months of the written approval of the scheme of works.

Reason: The Local Planning Authority would not normally grant permission for such a use of land in this location, but it is considered reasonable to allow the development for a limited period.

2. The materials to be used in the development hereby permitted shall strictly accord with those indicated on the approved details associated with the application.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail in the interest of visual amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

3. There shall be no open burning of materials or waste on the site.

Reason: To protect trees and vegetation from fire damage, and in the interests of amenity, in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

4. No development shall commence until details relating to the colour of the inverters and transformers have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained as such until the cessation of this permission.

Reason: In the interests of the character and amenities of the locality, to comply with policies DC1, DC2 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

5. No development shall commence until details relating to infra-red / thermal imagining CCTV equipment, including details of their design, appearance, height, colour and specification, has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and retained as such thereafter until the cessation of this permission.

6. No work for the implementation of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken on the site except between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 08.00 hours and 13.00 hours on Saturdays, and no work shall be undertaken on Sundays, Bank and Public Holidays unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of nearby residents and to safeguard habitat for bats / owls in accordance with policies DC7 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

7. No external lighting or floodlighting shall be installed without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. Any lighting / floodlighting that is installed with the permission ITEM A2 - 21

of the Local Planning Authority shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

8. The Public Right Of Way 1345 shall be kept clear and unobstructed at all times throughout the construction and operational phases of the development hereby permitted, and a useable width of 2 metres shall be available at all times for lawful footpath users.

Reason: To retain the right of access for users of the Public Right of Way, to comply with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

9. Notwithstanding the details hereby approved, the details and location of temporary signage along Public Right of Way 1345 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The temporary signage shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details and retained as such thereafter until the end of the construction phase.

10. No development shall be carried out, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan (‘the Plan’) has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved Plan shall be implemented and adhered to throughout the entire construction period. The Plan shall provide details as appropriate but not necessarily be restricted to the following matters, · the anticipated number, frequency and types of vehicles used during construction, · the method of access and routing of vehicles during construction, · the parking of vehicles by site operatives and visitors, · the loading and unloading of plant, materials and waste, · the storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development, · the erection and maintenance of security hoarding, · the provision of wheel washing facilities and other works required to mitigate the impact of construction upon the public highway (including the provision of temporary Traffic Regulation Orders), · details of public engagement both prior to and during construction works.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area and in accordance with the NPPF and Policy CP2, Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

11. No development shall be carried out until a Badger Sett check report has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. In the event that Badgers are reported as being present on site a detailed mitigation strategy shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure ecological protection and enhancement in accordance with the Badger Act 1992, NERC Act 2006 and Policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007.

ITEM A2 - 22

12. No development shall be carried out other than between 1 November and 28 February in any year, in accordance with paragraph 3.18 of the Construction Environmental Management Plan prepared by Pegasus Group (May 2015, Version 2) unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure ecological protection and enhancement in accordance with The Badger Act 1992, NERC Act 2006, NPPF and Policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007.

13. No development shall be carried out other than in accordance with measures and timing set out in paragraphs 3.17 - 3.26 of the approved Construction Environmental Management Plan prepared by Pegasus Group (May 2015, Version 2) and the Landscape Mitigation Strategy prepared by Michael Woods Associates (May 2015) unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure ecological protection and enhancement in accordance with the Conservation Regulations 2010, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 NERC Act 2006, NPPF and Policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007.

14. No development shall take place until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. All such works as may be approved shall then be fully implemented in the first planting season, following commencement of the development hereby permitted and completed strictly in accordance with the approved details. Any plants or species which within a period of 5 years from the time of planting 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 otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development and in the interests of amenity in accordance with the NPPF and Policies CP1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and DC2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

15. No development shall be carried out until a landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibility and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas and arrangements following the decommissioning of the site, has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved.

16. No development shall be carried out until a Detailed Construction Method Statement setting out measures to protect the trees noted in the Pegasus Group Arboricultural Survey, Impact Assessment and Draft Tree Protection Plan ref 28 January 2015/TF/BRS.5743_A, Pegasus Group Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan ref BRS.5743_A (CR)/TS, AIA, TPP/TF/05.06.15) and Pegasus Group Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan ref BRS.5743_B(CR)/TS, AIA TPP/TF/08/06/15 has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The Detailed Construction Method Statement shall include details, including plans and sections, setting out methods for the installation and design of new surfacing within the Root Protection Area’s of the trees identified in the Pegasus Group Arboricultural Survey, Impact Assessment and Draft Tree Protection Plan ITEM A2 - 23

ref 28 January 2015/TF/BRS.5743_A, Pegasus Group Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan ref BRS.5743_A (CR)/TS, AIA, TPP/TF/05.06.15) and Pegasus Group Tree Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection Plan ref BRS.5743_B(CR)/TS, AIA TPP/TF/08/06/15 the positions required for the directional drilling rig to achieve a 3m trench depth beneath all trees. The Detailed Construction Method Statement shall also include details of the method that will be used to install cabling where it is not possible to use the directional drilling rig. Works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the successful and satisfactory retention and preservation of important trees, shrubs and hedges on and adjacent to the site in accordance with policies DC2, DC5, DC6 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) and the NPPF.

17. No works within the Root Protection Areas of trees identified on the Draft Tree Protection Plan shall be carried out other than under the supervision of suitably qualified professional to be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

18. No development shall be carried out until the vehicular access onto A29 Stance Street has been constructed in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and the amenities of the area and in accordance with the NPPF and Policies CP2 and CP15, Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

19. The development shall not be brought into operation until the vehicular access onto A29 Stane Street has been reinstated in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.

A. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in the schedule below.

BRS. 5743_10-A BRS. 5743_11-B

0000 AB-E-EQ-50 Rev 1 0000-PL-08 Rev 01

TYP – AB-A-20 Rev 1

TYP – AB-E-EQ-01 Rev 1

2736-PL-04 Rev 06 2736-PL-04 Rev 06 ITEM A2 - 24

2048-AB-E-EQ-08

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

Informatives:

1. The applicant is advised that a duty of care for users of Public Right Of Way (PROW) 1345 rests with the developer. All those exercising a private right of vehicular access must give precedence to walkers exercising their public rights of pedestrian access. Any surface damage to the Public Right of Way shall be repaired at the expense of the developer to a specification to be agreed by West Sussex County Council Public Rights of Way Team. Any restriction of use or obstruction of PROW 1345 shall be formally agreed by way of Legal Agreement with the West Sussex Public Rights of Way Team.

2. The applicant is advised that separate advertisement consent may be required for the erection of signage along Public Right of Way 1345 under the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.

3. The applicant is advised to contact the Area Engineer, West Sussex County Council, Clapham Common, Clapham, Worthing, BN13 3UR, Tel No: 01243 642105 to obtain formal approval from the highway authority to carry out the site access works on the public highway.

4. The applicant is advised to enter into a minor works agreement with West Sussex County Council, as Highway Authority, to cover the off-site highway works. The applicant is requested to contact The Implementation Team Leader (01243 642105) to commence this process. The applicant is advised that it is an offence to undertake any works within the highway prior to the agreement being in place.

Background Papers:

N/A DC/15/0501

Land at Five Oaks Lane

For Business use only - not for distribution to the general public

Scale: 1:7,358

Date 06/08/2015 MSA Number 100023865

ITEM A3 | 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Development Manager DATE: 18th August 2015 DEVELOPMENT: Retrospective two storey rear extension and raising of roof for first floor Lupin Cottage, Hampers Lane, Storrington, Pulborough, West Sussex, SITE: RH20 3JB WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/15/0698 APPLICANT: Ms A Davis

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Referred to Planning Committee (Development Manager)

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse Planning Permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application was deferred from the 16th June 2015 committee meeting amid concerns that the report did not address the consequences should planning permission be refused. A further meeting was held with the agent and applicant, whereby it was agreed that further details would be submitted in respect of the medical needs of the applicant, along with financial information. On receipt of this information, the independent medical advisor was again consulted, and the views of a psychiatric advisor also sought, and these consultation responses are discussed in more detail in the following paragraphs.

1.2 The application seeks retrospective planning permission for a first floor extension to a bungalow, with infill two storey extension to the rear. The current application is virtually identical to a previous application under reference DC/14/0457 which was refused by Committee on the grounds that the proposal represented an unwelcome and overdominant form of development, leading to significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the immediately surrounding area. Furthermore, it was concluded that the proposal would result in a significant level of harm to the amenities of the neighbouring properties to the north, by way of bulk, loss of light and overshadowing. A copy of the Committee Report has been attached under Appendix A The current application has been considered in accordance with the Equality Act 2010 and the accommodation needs of the applicant based upon her medical impairments.

Contact Officer: Tamara Dale Tel: 01403 215 166 ITEM A3 | 2

1.3 The proposal has been resubmitted so that a full and proper assessment of the proposal, as found within this report, can be undertaken in order to ensure compliance with the Equality Act 2010 and the consequences to the applicant.

1.4 Members will be aware that the footprint of the original bungalow has been increased by an additional 1.5m to the southern elevation, with an extension to the rear at a depth of 2.3m, with a width of 5.1m to infill the space between the rear elevation of the bungalow and the single storey rear projection. A number of pillars are also set on the eastern and western elevations to support the first floor extension. The first floor extension has raised the height of the roof from 5.2m to a total height of 6.2m, and incorporates a hipped roof extending across the entire breadth of the footprint. This roof extension also extends an additional 1.5m from the southern elevation and western elevations, above the ground floor pillars. The current proposal also seeks permission for the addition of obscure glazing to the three dormer windows on the southern elevation.

1.5 A plan has been submitted identifying the level of accommodation considered necessary for the applicant’s needs. The additional accommodation provides a workroom, computer room, living area, kitchen, dining area, bathroom, and utility room on the ground floor, with four bedrooms, wet room, physical therapy/crafts room, and ensuite bathroom to the first floor.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.6 The application site is formed of a detached dwelling which lies to the east of Hampers Lane, within the designated built up area of Storrington and Heath Common Character Area.

1.7 The property lies directly adjacent to the northern boundary, and was formally a rendered, modest bungalow with hipped roof and a single storey flat roof extension.

1.8 The property is set back approximately 20m from the public highway, with the neighbouring properties to the north built in line with the site. The neighbouring property to the south is set 17m from the rear of the application dwelling, with the boundary between the two properties relatively open with wire and rail fencing.

1.9 The direct neighbour to the north extends across the width of the plot, in line with the application dwelling, and is separated by a 1.8m high fence and high leylandii hedging.

2. INTRODUCTION

2.1 STATUTORY BACKGROUND

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Human Rights Act 1998 Equality Act 2010

2.2 RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

National Planning Policy Framework (2012):

ITEM A3 | 3

- Section 7 (Requiring Good Design) - Paragraphs 7 and 14 (Presumption in favour of sustainable development)

2.3 RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

Policies CP 3 of the Core Strategy (2007) Policy DC 9 (Development Principles) of the General Development Control Policies (2007) Policy DC15 (Heath Common and West Chiltington Character Areas) of the General Development Control Policies (2007) Single Equality Scheme 2013-2015

OTHER RELEVANT GUIDANCE

2.4 HDC Design Guidance Advice Leaflet No. 1 House Extensions (2008) Equality and Human Rights Commission - Equality Information and the Equality Duty: A Guide for Public Authorities

PLANNING HISTORY 2.5 DC/13/0176 Proposed two storey extension and Application Refused on 28.03.2013 alterations Appeal Dismissed

DC/14/0457 Raising of existing roof and creation Application Refused on 02.12.2014 of first floor to provide additional living accomodation

ENFORCEMENT HISTORY

2.6 September 2013 Two reports were received stating that scaffolding had been erected on site following the refusal and subsequent appeal dismissal for DC/13/0176. Following investigation by the Compliance team, the case was closed it was determined that the works involved permitted development alterations to the chimney.

2.7 June 2014 Further 2 complaints received stating that further works had been commenced in regards to demolition of the roof with the start of works to install a first floor. The second application under reference DC/14/0457 remained pending at this point. The planning agent was allegedly informed by the previous Case Officer that planning permission would be forthcoming, and based upon that information, the owner continued with the development, notwithstanding that a decision had not been issued. The application was subsequently refused and the case was passed back to the Compliance team.

2.8 November 2014 and December 2014 Meeting held in Council offices on 21st November 2014 and followed by a site visit on 10th December 2014 in order to discuss the way forward. The owner explained in detail the reasoning behind the development and the officers explained the available options. Subsequently the new planning agent advised that they wished to submit a further planning ITEM A3 | 4

application in order to explain the medical reasons behind the development in line with the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equality Act 2010, which they felt had not been dealt with adequately by the previous application.

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

The following section provides a summary of the responses received as a result of internal and external consultation, however, officers have considered the full comments of each consultee which are available to view on the public file at: www.horsham.gov.uk

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 No internal consultations undertaken.

OUTSIDE AGENCIES

3.2 Parish Council Consultation, consulted on the 1 April 2015. Their comments dated 21 April 2015 can be summarised as follows: Objection on the following grounds: · The proposed size, scale, character, design and prominent position would result in an unsympathetic addition to the character of the dwelling. · Visual harm to the visual amenities of the street scene and character of the area · Particular and significant detriment to the visual amenity, loss of light and quality of outdoor life to the neighbouring residents · Proposal does not address or change the reasons for the original rejection of the application · Whilst much weight is attached to the characteristics of the applicant and her requirement for a particular type of accommodation, this cannot be a reason to override the normal principles of planning · Committee did not agree that the Equality Act 2010 was material, nor did it override the rights of the occupants of Walscombe

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.3 Three letters of representation were received, which can be summarised as follows: · Balanced judgement between needs of applicant and planning considerations required · Over development of the site and associated overlooking · Development overhangs boundary · Overshadowing · Overbearing impact · Loss of light

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

4.2 The Human Rights Act 1998 seeks to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals, and includes the protection of property, the right to respect of a private life, and the right to enjoy the property peacefully. The Human Rights Act 1998, as interpreted by the Courts, makes clear that the effect on the rights of an individual (and their personal circumstances) ITEM A3 | 5

as a result of any decision within the planning process, must be a necessary and proportionate response to a legitimate public interest consideration. This should have regard to evaluating whether a particular decision does not contravene the applicant’s rights to home and family under the Act when balanced against specific and contravening factors such as the protection of the character of the surrounding area and the amenity of adjacent residential properties, with particular reference to policy considerations, ie. the Core Strategy (2007) and Horsham District General Development Control Policies (2007).

4.3 The Equality Act 2010 applies to local planning authorities and the planning decision process of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under S.149 (1) of the Act. It is necessary to set out the PSED for the purpose of this report.

4.4 The authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard: (a) to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and any other conduct prohibited under the Act; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not share it; and (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. Disability is a protected characteristic for the purposes of the Act.

4.5 A recent court case refers to six principles in discharging the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), demonstrating that any decision is reached in a fair, transparent and accountable way that is compliant with the Act. The public authority is directed to properly analyse all relevant material by reference to a proper evidence base. There must be due regard to identified Equality policy objectives of the Council, as found within the adopted Single Equality Scheme, in taking any decisions that may affect disabled persons in terms of those policies. This is to be discharged (and in the mind of the Committee) at the time when the decision which is being made may impact on such policy objectives. This duty is to be carried out with an open mind, and with reference to any non-statutory guidance that may be applicable, and is not a duty that can be delegated to a non-Council body to discharge. It is a continuing duty and hence will be further engaged in any further process which may result from the Committee decision. Finally, it is stated to be good practice to keep proper and adequate records of all decisions which are relevant to the Council’s duties as stipulated via the Equality Act 2010. The purpose of this is to assist with future review of the Council’s Equality policy (Single Equality Scheme).

4.6 An Equality Impact Assessment is the process of assessing the impact of existing or proposed functions, policies or services in relation to their consequences for residents with different protected characteristics. This includes looking for both positive and negative consequences, and involves anticipating these and making sure that, as far as possible, any negative consequences are minimised and opportunities for promoting equality are maximised. A formal equality assessment is not a necessary requirement of the Public Sector Equality Duty obligation to have due regard, although one may be commissioned voluntarily.

4.7 The medical analysis in this matter, through obtaining an independent medical opinion on the evidence of the applicant’s disablement and needs, and through assessing the consequences of any decision in this application, is in practice similar to such an Equality Impact Assessment. The planning outcome in this matter should subsequently feed through as a datum to the reviews of the Council’s policies and practices in the Single Equality Scheme 2013-2015, with particular reference to priority 4.01 of the Council’s ITEM A3 | 6

Action Plan, enabling adjustment thereafter in order to refine Development Control and Enforcement policies if considered appropriate. 4.8 Thus, in applying the foregoing process to any decision in terms of the impact on the Council’s ability to discharge its PSED, regard should be had to the need for an understanding of the impact on individuals so affected by the decision, and to the effect of any mitigation to reduce such adverse impact, with possible consequential effect on Council Equality policies (Single Equality Scheme). However, it is clear from recent case law that the PSED is only one factor in coming to a decision, and thus can be balanced against other relevant factors including countervailing policy considerations and the weight to be given to them. Thus, in a 2013 case, the courts regarded a planning decision as being justified by the benefit on the wider community, which was achieved by that decision outweighing the adverse impact on those with protected characteristics.

4.9 Further, it has been submitted by the agent that there is a duty on the Council to take positive action in this case under S.158 of the Equality Act 2010, in order to alleviate the disadvantage experienced by the applicant. Firstly, such provision is discretionary and not in the nature of a duty. Secondly, it is directed to enable Councils to allow measures to be targeted to particular groups, such as providing training to enable employment, or the provision of specific health services to address their needs. It is considered that this provision is not applicable to the circumstances of this case.

4.10 In conclusion, it is appropriate in this case to assess the impact of any decision on the Council’s Equality policy objectives (Single Equality Scheme), held under the Equality Act 2010, when discharging the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), and to otherwise have regard to the rights of the applicant under the Human Rights Act 1998, measured against local amenity and the interest of neighbouring residential occupiers, and other relevant Council policy considerations.

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6 PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

The key issues for consideration in relation to this proposal are:

· The principle of the development · Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area · Amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties · Consequences for the applicant should planning permission be refused

Design of Development and Character of the Street Scene

6.1 Policies CP3 and DC9 promote development which is of high quality and design, and is sympathetic to the character of the dwelling and surroundings. In addition, policy DC28 states that development should be proportionate in scale to the host dwelling, whilst policy DC15 states that planning permission will only be granted for proposals that retain the unique character of the area, presently created by predominantly low density development set on the woodlands and common.

ITEM A3 | 7

6.2 The original dwelling was a modest single storey bungalow, set within the context of Hampers Lane which is predominantly characterised by low level, single storey properties. The previous applications under reference DC/13/176 and DC/14/0457 were both refused, with the first application dismissed at appeal, on the basis that the scale, bulk and mass of the addition would be out of character with the localised area, resulting in a visual imbalance that would have harmful visual consequences on the appearance of the dwelling and visual amenities of the street scene. A copy of the Inspector’s report is attached under Appendix B.

6.3 The current application proposes no alterations to the design or form of the dwelling, but rather seeks retrospective approval for the extensions as built, along with the addition of obscure glazing to the first floor windows on the southern elevation. The provision of the first floor, incorporating a flat roof with pitched roof around, along with other overhanging elements, has significantly altered the character and appearance of the modest dwelling. The first floor extension across the entire breadth has introduced a bulk and mass that completely subsumes the character and appearance of the dwelling, which although set back from the public highway, is still considered to result in a detrimental impact within the localised setting.

6.4 The additions have resulted in a property that extends across the majority of the width of the plot, and is considered to be of a scale, bulk, mass and height that overwhelms the existing property. The impact of this is considered to result in an unacceptable form of overdevelopment, where the original character of the dwelling has been lost and replaced with a building that has little resemblance with its original form or character of the Heath Common area.

6.5 Therefore, the mass and bulk of the additional provisions are considered to be poorly related to the context of the area and wider street scene, resulting in an unacceptable visual imbalance that is to the detriment of the character of the dwelling and surroundings, contrary to policies CP3, DC9 and DC15.

Amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties

6.6 Policy DC9 states that development should consider the scale, massing and orientation between buildings, respecting the amenities and sensitivities of neighbouring properties.

6.7 As outlined within the previous refusals and appeal decision, the first floor and two storey extensions were considered to lead to a significant loss of light and overshadowing to the neighbouring property of Walscombe, and would especially harm the enjoyment of the sitting area created by the residents. Furthermore, the provision of the dormers within the southern elevation was also considered to result in a degree of overlooking to the neighbouring property of Weaversden.

6.8 The current proposal retains the scale of the first floor addition, and proposes to install obscure glazing to the three dormer windows within the southern elevation. Furthermore, additional tree and hedge planting is proposed along the southern boundary to restrict the views to the neighbouring property to the south. However, the ownership of the land is not under the control of the applicant, so a condition to secure such planting could not be controlled and would not be enforceable.

6.9 The incorporation of the obscure glazing to the first floor windows of the southern elevation, as suggested by the Inspector and within the report of the previous application, is considered to mitigate the potential overlooking to the neighbouring property of ITEM A3 | 8

Weaversden. Therefore, this aspect of the proposal is considered to mitigate the potential impact on the amenities of the neighbouring property to the north.

6.10 However, although the incorporation of these elements are considered to mitigate the potential of overlooking to the neighbouring property to the south, there is still concern regarding the scale, mass and bulk of the extensions, and their impact on the amenities of the neighbouring property of Walscombe to the north.

6.11 The application dwelling is positioned to the north of the site, directly adjacent to the neighbouring property, which is also sited along the boundary. Whilst it is recognised that other properties within the wider street scene extend along the width of their plots, these properties are modest, single storey dwellings, with hipped roofs that are considered to mitigate any visual impact upon the neighbouring properties.

6.12 Issues relating to the impact of the first floor extensions on this neighbouring property have been raised within the previous applications, and it is considered that these concerns are still relevant. In particular, the raised height of the dwelling, extending to 6.1m and positioned directly adjacent to the boundary with a total eaves height of 4.3m, is considered to have a significant impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring property to the north.

6.13 In particular, the siting of the application dwelling, and the northern elevation in particular, extends directly adjacent to the boundary. The provision of the first floor has provided a two storey addition along this boundary, to a total height of 6.1m, and projecting to a depth of 4.5m to the rear. This extension to the rear projects in line with the detached shed of the neighbouring property.

6.14 The additional scale and bulk provided by this addition is considered to lead to a loss of outlook, resulting in a dominant and intrusive structure when viewed from various aspects of the neighbouring property of Walscombe. This is further emphasised due to its siting along the common boundary.

6.15 Furthermore, the positioning of the extended property in relation to the neighbouring property of Walscombe to the north, coupled with the additional height caused by the extension, is considered to block sunlight and create additional overshadowing to the neighbouring property to the north at certain times of day.

6.16 Therefore, the additional mass and bulk of the dwelling, coupled with its siting and orientation, is considered to result in an unacceptable degree of harm to the neighbouring property to the north, with an unacceptable loss of light and overbearing impact, contrary to policy DC9 of the Horsham District General Development Control Policies (2007).

Consequences for the applicant should planning permission be refused

6.17 The current application has been submitted in order that the Council is fully aware of the medical needs of the applicant, and the possible consequences which may result if planning permission is refused. In support of the application, additional information has been submitted which sets out in more detail the medical impairments of the applicant, and the level of accommodation considered necessary for her treatment. In addition, confidential financial information has been submitted in order to demonstrate that no additional funding is available to make alterations to the dwelling.

6.18 The premise of the current proposal thus stands on the medical needs and associated accommodation needs of the applicant, who as outlined within the supporting statements, has permanent impairment in cognition, behaviour and physical function. ITEM A3 | 9

6.19 The Equality Act 2010 states that protection from discrimination for disabled people applies in a range of circumstances, covering the provisions of goods, facilities and services, the exercise of public functions, premises, work, education, and associations. However, the PSED is scoped to an assessment of the impact on corporate policy objectives of the Council, by reason of any planning decision, and any discretion under the Act as directed to take positive action opposite groups of individuals who have ‘protected characteristics’ e.g. disability.

6.20 The plans submitted have been supplemented by additional annotated floor plans outlining the space requirements to meet the special needs of the applicant. This includes space to accommodate a carer, a physiotherapy room, a wet room, and study spaces. In addition, a number of confidential reports have been submitted for consideration by an external medical advisor, in order to assess the level of accommodation and the needs of the applicant.

6.21 In addition to the originally submitted confidential medical reports, further information has been submitted. The views of an external medical advisor and psychiatric advisor were sought in order to assess the reasonableness and need of the additional accommodation in regard to the medical needs of the applicant.

6.22 An independent medical advisor undertook an assessment of the reports and plans originally submitted, and this same advisor was later re-consulted following the receipt of the additional information.

6.23 The medical advisor undertook an assessment of the accommodation needs of the applicant - a summary of which can be found below.

6.24 It was acknowledged that it is important for the applicant to undertake activities at home, but it was not considered essential that an extra physiotherapy room be provided for this purpose. In particular, it was noted that the accommodation has four available rooms on the ground floor which might be used for this purpose, and as such an additional fifth room does not therefore appear essential. The provision of a wet room is supportable for the needs of the applicant, however this does not need to be an exclusive facility, and there is no reason why this could not be a shared facility with the rest of the family.

6.25 Following re-consultation, it was stated by the medical advisor that his views remained unchanged.

6.26 In addition, following the receipt of the additional reports and information, the Council consulted an independent psychiatric advisor – a summary of which can be found below.

6.27 It is self-evident that additional space has a positive impact upon mental health and general well-being, and that this would be the case with any individual whether disabled or not. It is noted that the additional information refer to complications such as maladaptive behaviours, including withdrawal and major depressive disorder; although no precedence information has been found that the applicant has experienced such symptoms, or that she would necessarily come to harm or experience deterioration in the accommodation as status quo. In addition, the reports find that the applicant is in good general health and aside from risk of falls, which requires intensive monitoring and care, the applicant does not require any specialist equipment. In summary, whilst it is acknowledged that extra facilities would be advantageous and beneficial to well-being for the applicant, it is difficult to find evidence to suggest that a number of extra rooms for the exclusive use of the applicant are medically essential in this case.

ITEM A3 | 10

6.28 Therefore, following advice from the external medical and psychiatric advisors, the level of accommodation provided as a result of the development, when assessed against the reasonable needs of the applicant, the accommodation provided in its current formation, is not considered to be essential, with sufficient space provided for such activities elsewhere.

6.29 However, it is considered that a different form and configuration of the proposal could take place to meet the needs of the applicant, which would have less of a harmful visual and amenity impact of the occupiers of the neighbouring property and street scene.

6.30 Financial aspects and hardship to the applicant are considered to be a relevant factor in coming to a decision in this application, but this should be balanced against countervailing factors, which the Committee as the decision maker, should accord appropriate weight to the various factors when directing its considerations under the Human Rights Act 1998 and, to the extent to which it is material, the Equality Act 2010 as explained in this report.

Conclusions

6.31 As provided within the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equality Act 2010 consideration should be given to the special needs and protected characteristics of individuals recognised as disabled, in order to meet the needs of the individual where these are different from the needs of other people, whilst giving due regard to the Equality policy objectives of the Council, an appropriate assessment of the human rights of the applicant in terms of countervailing factors, and the proportionality of any decision and any outcome.

6.32 Although recognised that the applicant has a special medical need that should be taken account of, in accordance with the legislative requirements as explained in this report, from the information provided and the medical advice sought, the level of additional accommodation provided is not considered essential, in the current form, for the quality of life and needs of the applicant.

6.33 In assessing the application, the medical needs and consequences to the applicant should planning permission be refused must be balanced against the identified and demonstrable harm to the amenities of the neighbouring occupier. In this respect, and having regard to the independent medical and psychiatric advisors, whilst the level of accommodation may well be beneficial to the applicant, it is not necessarily considered essential to her needs.

6.34 Although recognised that the applicant has a medical need that should be taken account of, on balance, the level of accommodation, to the scale, mass and bulk provided, is considered to have resulted in an unacceptable level of harm on the character of the dwelling and surroundings. Furthermore, the siting and level of development, particularly in regards to its scale and bulk adjacent to the common boundary, is considered to result in a level of development that has an unacceptable degree of harm on the amenities of the neighbouring property to the north.

7. RECOMMENDATION

7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused for the following reasons.

1 The first floor and two storey extensions, due to their scale, bulk, mass and height, represents overdevelopment of the site, creating a substantial addition that subsumes the character of the dwelling, and is out of context with the character of the surroundings. As a ITEM A3 | 11

result, the development is contrary to policy CP3 of the Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC2, DC9 and DC15 of the Horsham District General Development Control Policies (2007).

2 The development, due to its scale, bulk and height, results in an overbearing and intrusive addition that causes an unacceptable degree of overshadowing, resulting in an adverse impact on the amenities of the neighbouring property to the north. As a result, the development is contrary to policy DC9 of the Horsham District General Development Control Policies (2007).

Background Papers: DC/14/0457 Committee Report DC/13/0176 Appeal Decision

Appendix to Item A3 DC/15/0698 18th August ITEM A4 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee BY: Development Manager DATE: 17th November 2014 Raising of existing roof and creation of first floor to provide additional DEVELOPMENT: living accomodation SITE: Lupin Cottage Hampers Lane Storrington Pulborough WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/14/0457 APPLICANT: Ms Annie Davis

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA:

RECOMMENDATION:

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

The current proposal seeks permission to increase the existing footprint of the bungalow along the southern side elevation by a width of 1.5m and along the rear wall of the house by 2.3m, along with infilling the recess between the existing rear wall of the bungalow and the existing single-storey rear extension. These ground-floor additions would be set alongside supporting columns for the new overhanging roof above.

A new first-floor extension would be added to the bungalow, set within a hipped /crowned roof with inset dormers to front, rear and south elevations. The new first-floor footprint would take advantage of the ground floor recesses along the front, southern side and to the rear, which project 1.5m and 2.3m, in order to gain increased floor space.

A new chimney would be located along the northern side wall, and would terminate about 2m above the cat-slide roof with a steel flue, forming a side-ways brick projection from the existing building line of some 0.9m. There would be a total of three similar steel flues and one chimney set within the new roofscape.

The proposed internal accommodation would allow for a total of 4 bedrooms and a studio at first-floor, and a workroom, snug, dining area, kitchen and living area at ground floor.

Contact Officer: Nicola Pettifer Tel: 01403 215167 Appendix to Item A3 DC/15/0698 18th August ITEM A4 - 2

The layout does not indicate a main entrance location as there are three potential access doors to the extended property.

There are personal justifications provided for the works, relating to the needs of the applicant / owner who requires the additional space to provide for potential future care / support.

The proposal is ostensibly the same proposal as previously refused by Horsham District Council (DC/13/0176) and dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate with the exception of the following details: 1) Reduction in roof-height by 0.4m 2) Amended / reduced chimney design along the northern boundary 3) New first-floor eaves height of the rear / north addition reduced by about 0.4m 4) Amended fenestration design and positions 5) Removal of two south-facing first-floor windows and new roof-lights shown in comparable positions 6) Removal of 2 bedrooms and introduction of new room functions (ground-floor snug and workshop)

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

The application site comprises a detached dwelling set on the eastern side of Hampers Lane. It was formerly a white rendered diminutive bungalow with a hipped roof and a single-storey flat-roofed rear extension. Additionally, there is a detached garage located in front of the building line. Lupin Cottage, along with its three northern neighbours ‘Walscombe’, ‘Marigold Cottage’ and ‘Pickwell’ are aligned approximately 20m back from their front boundaries with Hampers Lane, whilst the southern neighbour, ‘Weaversden’, is set further back on its plot with a longer front garden, some 50m deep.

These neighbouring properties are bungalows.

Building works are currently in progress at the property, with works underway to extend and erect a first-floor addition to the property, along with ground-floor increases to the footprint. There is no planning consent for these works which are under way, as they are still subject to the application currently being considered.

Background History There has been a previous planning application on this property, comprising alterations, side and rear extensions and first-floor living accommodation under a new roof structure (DC/13/0176). This application was refused under delegated authority in March 2003 for the following reason:

"The proposed development by virtue of its scale, bulk, height and mass would be an unsympathetic and substantial addition which would represent overdevelopment of the application site. In addition to this it is considered that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by overbearing and overshadowing of the property to the north of the application site and overlooking the property to the south of the application site. As a result it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to policy CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC9 and DC15 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)."

Appendix to Item A3 DC/15/0698 18th August ITEM A4 - 3

The decision was subsequently appealed and dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate in August 2013.

With regard to the character and appearance, the Inspector found the proposal would: ‘transform Lupin Cottage from a two-bed cottage into a substantial 6-bed detached dwelling. The original structure would be subsumed virtually without trace within the remodelled property. The original character would be lost and replaced with a building of substantial bulk on a fairly restricted site, with a two-storey development taking place very close to the plot’s side boundaries.

The proposed dwelling, in view of its mass and bulk, would relate poorly to the immediately adjacent bungalow to the north, resulting in a harmful visual imbalance. All in all, I consider the development would appear cramped and would comprise overdevelopment of a restricted site with harmful visual consequences.’

The Inspector noted the verdant surroundings and screening offered by trees, but still considered that the development would be clearly noticeable from the lane and across adjoining front gardens.

Furthermore, the Inspector considered that the development to be: ‘misconceived on this restricted plot and to constitute a clear example of poor design.’

The NPPF was referred to, quoting paragraph 64 which states that development should be refused when proposals fail to take opportunities to improve the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

In concluding the impacts on the character, the Inspector stated:

‘I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the immediately surrounding area, thus conflicting with those provisions of policies CP3…and DC9…that, in combination, seek to promote high quality design and to ensure that the scale, massing and appearance of the development is of a high standard.’

The Council also considered that the proposal would lead to adverse overlooking of the southern neighbour (Weaversden), along with having an overbearing and overshadowing effect on the northern property (Walscombe).

In addressing these issues, the Inspector noted that the four proposed first-floor windows in the southern elevation would directly overlook the front garden of Weaversden at a close distance. The use of obscure-glazing was considered to provide some mitigation of these impacts, with habitable rooms, such as bedrooms also being provided with clear-glazing to the front and rear. The Inspector did also note that the existing front garden of Weaversden was not currently considered to be ‘private’ on account of the low and open nature of the boundary fence between the applicant property and the southern neighbour, and the large clear-glazed windows in the southern elevation.

In turning to the potential impact arising along the northern side of the proposed development, the Inspector noted that the elevation would be fairly bland apart from the projecting chimney.

‘..by reason of its increased height, almost 3m at the rear, it would be perceived as a dominating, intrusive and monolithic structure when viewed from parts of the front Appendix to Item A3 DC/15/0698 18th August ITEM A4 - 4

and rear gardens of Walscombe. That it would be built so close to the common side boundary would accentuate the harm.

Given the height increase involved, the closeness of the development to the boundary and that Walscombe is situated to the north, the proposed development would block sunlight and therefore create additional overshadowing to that property at certain times of the day. This would prove especially harmful in respect of the enjoyment of the sitting-out area created by Walscombe’s residents immediately adjoining the rear wall of the bungalow.

I conclude that the proposal would prove un-neighbourly because of its harmful visual impact and effect on sunlight for the residents of Walscombe…’

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF)

· NPPF7 - Requiring good design · NPPF12 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

Local Development Framework (Core Strategy 2007):

· CP1 - Landscape and Townscape Character · CP3 - Improving the Quality of New Development

Local Development Framework (GDCP 2007):

· DC1 - Countryside Protection and Enhancement · DC2 - Landscape Character · DC9 - Development Principles · DC15 – Heath Common and West Chiltington Character Areas

The emerging Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was approved by Council on 30th April 2014 as the Council’s policy for planning the future of the District for the period 2011-2031. Following a six week period of representations, the plan was submitted to the Government on 8th August 2014 for independent examination under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. A Planning Inspector has commenced the examination of the HDPF. The outcome of the Examination is expected in early 2015 and Adoption of the HDPF by the Council is currently programmed in the Local Development Framework to be April 2015. The emerging plan is therefore a material consideration however it may overall, only be afforded limited weight in the assessment of this planning application.

Appendix to Item A3 DC/15/0698 18th August ITEM A4 - 5

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/13/0176 Proposed two storey extension and alterations REF

WS/12/82 New garage and access. PER (From old Planning History)

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

Washington Parish Council: The Parish Council were concerned that works had commenced on the site despite an earlier planning application having been refused.

· Members had visited the site and reviewed the proposal and could see no discernible difference between current and previous plans. Councillors agreed to OBJECT to the application on the same grounds as their objection to the previous application, which were upheld by the Appeal Inspector. Their objections were based on concern regarding the increased bulk and height of a property on a relatively small plot, and the resulting impact upon the amenity of neighbours.

Neighbours: There have been seven letters received in relation to this application, three of which are recent notifications to the Council that the works are underway despite no apparent planning decision having been granted.

Four letters of representation have also been received, with three letters of objection and one letter of support.

Objections: · Marginal difference to roof height from previous refusal and appeal decision · Unclear if issues of overlooking have been addressed to ‘Weaversden’ · Personal circumstances of occupant appears to be only justification for current proposal – these should not outweigh the harm identified in the appeal decision · Amended boundary line in front of the garage in the front garden of ‘Weaversden’ – unclear how this accords with the Land Registry records or HDC records · Unclear which sections of the bungalow have been extended under permitted development rights · Bulk · Undesirable form of development · Impact on street-scene · Concerns relating to contractor’s parking given the restricted nature of Hampers Lane, a private lane and public bridleway. Passing place installed as part of original permission for ‘Woodgate’ in 1976 was never intended to be a parking place, yet is located on private land and can therefore be fenced off · Overshadowing of ‘Walscombe’ from new first floor · Oblique views and overlooking over ‘Walscombe’ from proposed first-floor dormers in front and rear – similarly the north-facing roof-lights · Inaccuracy as the kitchen / boiler would require a flue, adding a 5th chimney to the proposal – detrimental to the appearance of the building · Use of slate tiling would not be in keeping with the buildings in the immediate vicinity Appendix to Item A3 DC/15/0698 18th August ITEM A4 - 6

· Proposal has no regard plot size which is small with existing building sitting close to lane · Proposed height and size would have a ‘tremendous’ impact on surrounding properties and street-scene

Support: · Proposed works will enhance location · Use of reclaimed materials add charm not previously present and lacking from other recent additions to the Lane · Current proposal with lower roof form and reduced back section address previous concerns

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The key issues for consideration in relation to this proposal are:

· The principle of the development · Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area · Amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties · Highway safety and capacity

Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area

Local Plan policies CS1 and CS3 require development to enhance and maintain the townscape character as well as to provide attractive, functional, safe, accessible and adaptable environments, which complement the varying character of the District.

Policy DC9 also states that development should be locally distinctive in character and should respect the character of the surrounding area (including its overall setting, townscape features, views and green corridors), and retain existing important landscaping and natural features.

Furthermore, policy DC15 refers specifically to the ‘Heath Common and West Chiltington Character Areas’, with the applicant property being situated within the Heath Common Character Area. This policy states that ‘planning permission will only be granted for proposals that retain the unique character of the area, presently created by predominantly low density development set on the woodlands and commons.’ This ambition is reinforced by the NPPF in para 60 which seeks to promote and reinforce local distinctiveness. Appendix to Item A3 DC/15/0698 18th August ITEM A4 - 7

In considering this current planning application, the previous appeal decision is material consideration, particularly given the similarities between the dismissed scheme and the current proposal.

In this instance, the resulting size and mass of the proposed development, extending the property to nearly full width across the plot and over two-storeys, would still lead to a significant change of the localised character of Hampers Lane, which is one of low-level properties of a single-storey nature with gaps to the sides enhancing the spacious qualities.

Officers note that the current proposal only addresses the previously raised concerns by reducing the height of the proposed development, and does not address in any way its depth into the plot or its width across the plot. The Inspector’s comments referring to the fact that the original property would be ‘virtually subsumed without trace’ would therefore still be relevant.

By reducing the height of the roof only, Officers consider the proposal to be more misconceived and of a poor design than that previously proposed, now resulting in a contrived design which leads to an awkwardly stunted development with mismatched doors and windows.

Accordingly, Officers consider that the current proposal still presents an unacceptable form of development, one which would be overbearing and out of character for the plot size and the immediate vicinity. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the provisions of local and national policies and would lead to a harmful addition in this semi-rural character area.

Residential Amenities

LDF policy DC9 (General Development Control Policies) 2007 states that planning permission will be granted for developments which’ do not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers / users of nearby property and land, for example through overlooking or noise, whilst having regard to the sensitivities of surrounding development’.

In order to overcome the previous concerns raised by the Inspector, the current planning proposal has reduced the roof height across the development by some 0.4m, which attempts to reduce the harm to the residential amenities at Walscombe. The submitte Planning Statement sets out that windows have been omitted where these could overlook the northern property at Walscombe, whilst any south-facing windows which are perceived to be an issue are stated could be obscure glazed.

The proposed scheme still includes two north-facing roof-lights to the new first-floor landing, which appear to be above head height. Officers do not consider these north- facing roof-lights to occasion any undue threat of overlooking towards the occupants at Walscombe.

However, in considering the proposed mass and bulk of the current application, including the reduced roof-height of around 0.4m and the reduced eaves height to the rear element, Officers still conclude that the proposed design would lead to an adverse impact on the amenities of the adjacent occupants at Walscombe. The overall massing and nature of development has not been significantly reduced from that which was previously refused and later dismissed at appeal. The proposal, still set close to the common boundary with Walscome, would not only extend past the rear building line of Walscombe by around 5m at two-storeys, but would introduce a two-storey bulk along the entire flank of the applicant property, a total depth of some 15m.

Appendix to Item A3 DC/15/0698 18th August ITEM A4 - 8

Officers conclude that the potential harmful overlooking arising from the proposed first-floor dormer windows along the southern elevation could be adequately mitigated by way of obscure-glazing, and also concur with the Planning Inspector that this area of land still remains a front garden to Weaversden, which is currently subject to a degree of overlooking from the lane and neighbouring properties.

In terms of the potential neighbour impact, Officers consider that the proposed scheme would still present an un-neighbourly form of development, which would lead to significant overshadowing and loss of light to the occupants of Walscombe to the north.

Highways Impact

Officers acknowledge the highways-related concerns expressed by neighbours relating to the site construction vehicles. However, the plot includes off-street parking clear of the private Lane, whilst the works would be of a temporary nature.

The proposed increase in floor size is not considered to lead to an increase in parking need at the property which could not be adequately accommodated within the forecourt.

Therefore, the proposed development would raise no adverse impacts to the safety or efficiency of the public highways.

Conclusion:

Officers have assessed the current proposal against the site context and have also had regard to the previous proposal which was refused by the Council in March 2013, and subsequently dismissed at Appeal in August 2013. Given the limited changes which have been included in the current planning application, largely involving a reduction of the roof height by some 0.4m, Officers do not consider that there have been sufficient attempts made to reduce the scale and bulk of the proposed development in order to address the previously raised concerns.

The proposal would therefore still represent an unwelcome and overdominant form of development and would lead to significant harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the immediately surrounding area. Furthermore, the proposed development would result in a significant level of harm to the amenities of the neighbouring properties to the north, at Walscombe, by way of bulk, loss of light and overshadowing.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation: Application Refused

Reasons:

The proposed development by virtue of its scale, bulk, height and mass would be an unsympathetic and substantial addition which would represent overdevelopment of the application site. As a result it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to policy CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC2, DC9 and DC15 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Appendix to Item A3 DC/15/0698 18th August ITEM A4 - 9

The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring property to the north (Walscombe), by reason of an overbearing and overshadowing impact. As a result it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to policy DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).

Background Papers: DC/14/0457

Appendix to Item A3 DC/15/0698 18th August Appendix to Item A3 DC/15/0698 18th August Appendix to Item A3 DC/15/0698 18th August DC/15/0698

Lupin Cottage

For Business use only - not for distribution to the general public

Scale: 1:2,782

Date 06/08/2015 MSA Number 100023865 ITEM A4 | 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee (South) BY: Development Manager DATE: 18th August 2015 Demolition of existing garage and conservatory and construction of two side extensions at rear with additional first floor over. Alterations to DEVELOPMENT: existing roof to front elevation and form gables, and enlarge current loft rooms and addition of dormers. External treatment and window changed SITE: Dell Cottage Heather Lane West Chiltington Pulborough WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/15/1376 APPLICANT: Mrs Amanda McGillivray

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Cllr Blackall and Cllr Circus request

RECOMMENDATION: Refuse planning permission

1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

To consider the planning application.

DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION

1.1 The application is seeking planning permission for the erection of 2no. side extensions, on the north and south side of the main dwelling house together with front (west) and side (south) dormer windows, following the demolition of an existing detached garage, located on the north side of the house and a conservatory located on the south side of the house. The proposal would include forming barn hip detail to the front gable roof of the main house as well as raising the ridge height of the roof.

1.2 Currently the main house measures 14.0metres by 7.8metres (excluding the conservatory which extends out from the side of the house by 4.0metres by 4.6metres wide), resulting in a floor of 127.6sq.m. The dwelling as extended would have dimensions of 14.0metres in length by 15.5metres wide resulting in a total floor area of 217sq.m. This would equate to a 70% increase in floor area. Furthermore the height of the roof ridge of the dwelling would increase from 6.0metres to 7.0metres.

1.3 The proposal would provide three en-suite bedrooms at first floor level and facilitate a reconfiguration of the ground floor accommodation, to provide an integral garage, utility and larger kitchen/diner, a large entrance hall, together with relocated stairs to provide access to the bedrooms and a ground floor cloakroom.

Contact Officer: Pauline Ollive Tel: 01403 215424 ITEM A4 | 2

DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE

1.4 The application site comprises a modest C1950’s single storey dwellinghouse (bungalow) with single pitch roof detached garage that occupies an almost rectangular plot on the east side of Heather Lane, in the built up area of West Chiltington Common. The bungalow has first floor accommodation in the existing roof void of the existing house that is lit by an eyebrow dormer window situated on the southern roof slope of the building. Also on the southern side of the house, and overlooking the main garden area of the house is a conservatory. The single pitch roof garage on the northern side of the house is accessed via a driveway from Heather Lane. The plot is bounded on all sides be hedges and there are some ornamental trees located adjacent to the southeast corner of the house. On the southern side of the vehicular access is a large Copper Beech tree.

1.5 Heather Lane is also a Public Right of Way that runs north to south along its length. On the opposite side of the road is land at Monkmead, which is a heavily treed area that is located outside the built up area boundary, thus giving the road a rural feel. Properties in the area are generally well spaced occupying relatively large plots with an eclectic mix of house types and sizes.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

National Planning Policy Framework: NPPF7 - Requiring good design NPPF14 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

Local Development Framework (Core Strategy 2007): CP1 - Landscape and Townscape Character CP3 - Improving the Quality of New Development

Local Development Framework (GDCP 2007): DC9 - Development Principles

The emerging Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) was approved by Council on 30th April 2014 as the Council’s policy for planning the future of the District for the period 2011-2031. Following a six week period of representations, the plan was submitted to the Government on 8th August 2014 for independent Examination under Regulation 22 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. The Examination of the HDPF was undertaken by an independent Planning Inspector in November 2014, and the Inspector published his Initial Findings on 19th December 2014. The Inspector considers the overall strategy of the plan to be sound as is made clear in paragraph 4 of his Initial Findings:

with Neighbourhood Plans (NP), is also justified and accords with government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). As will be explained in some more depth in my final report, the alternative strategy of greater dispersal to smaller settlements would be likely to lead to a less sustainable pattern of development with regard to transport patterns related to provision of employment opportunities, retail facilities and social and community services..’

The Inspector suspended the Examination of the HDPF, after the initial round of Hearing sessions, for a 6 month period to allow time for the Council to show how the annual housing provision can be increased to provide for a minimum of 750 dwellings per annum (15,000 over the plan period). The representation period for the HDPF Main Modifications ran from 23rd March 2015 until 5th May 2015. Following the receipt of representations, the Inspector has decided to resume Hearings to discuss the issues raised. The Hearing was re-opened on 3rd July 2015 to consider only the issues outlined in the Initial Findings. Given the Inspector’s Initial Findings, the emerging plan is therefore a material consideration of considerable weight in terms of the overall strategy.

PLANNING HISTORY

WC/141/02 Conservatory PER Site: Touchdown Heather Lane West Chiltington

SR/16/49 Bungalow PER (From old Planning History)

SR/43/57 Bungalow and garage REF (From old Planning History)

SR/52/57 Bungalow and garage PER (From old Planning History)

SR/59/57 Bungalow and garage PER (From old Planning History)

WC/8/99 Double garage PER Site: Touchdown Heather Lane West Chiltington

DC/04/0062 Conservatory PER

DC/15/0806 Demolition of existing garage and conservatory - 2 storey WDN front/rear extensions - loft conversion including hip to gable and side/rear dormers together with insertion of 7no. roof lights

DC/15/1376 -Demolition of existing garage and conservatory and PDE construction of two side extensions at rear with additional first floor over. Alterations to existing roof to front elevation and form gables, and enlarge current loft rooms and addition of dormers. External treatment and window changed

3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS

INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS

3.1 West Chiltington Parish Council – The Parish Council seek referral to HDC Planning Committee if there is a likelihood of Officer refusal on delegated authority due to ridge height concern.

ITEM A4 | 4

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

3.2 Cllr Blackhall emailed via the Principle Planning Officer (Majors Team) for the application to be to the Development Control Planning Committee (south)

3.3 Cllr Circus emailed on the 19/07/15 - In view of the strength of feeling by local residents and by the Parish Council about the acceptability in principle of this application, I would be grateful if this application could be referred to the Development Control (South) Committee for decision.

My colleague, John Blackall, joins me in this request but he will send you, separately, an e- mail to confirm his support for this request

3.4 1 letter has been received from the occupier of Little Brow (to the northeast – rear) raising concerns in respect of possible loss of privacy by overlooking their private garden and in particular their pool

4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.

6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS

6.1 The main issues are the principle of the development in the location and the effect of the development on:

- The character of the dwelling and the visual amenities of the streetscene in this location

6.2 LDF Policy DC9 states that; planning permission will be granted for developments which make efficient use of land, do not cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, ensures that the scale, massing and appearance is of a high standard of design and is locally distinctive in character

6.3 Heather Lane is a cul-de-sac of 7 properties, which ends with Pond Cottage to the southwest. This property is located outside the built up area and is some 272metres further along the lane beyond Kestrels, which is effectively the last in the line of properties and occupies a corner position with Sunset Lane, (within the built up area boundary). The application site itself is accessed from the south side of Monkmead Lane which also branches of into Westward Lane, on the southeast side of the lane before it reaches the application property. It is acknowledged that the general area is one of an eclectic mix of two-storey houses within relatively large spacious plots, which are largely bounded by hedges of varying heights and also populated by trees, which provides a degree of screening between the properties.

6.4 The application is a resubmission of a similar scheme DC/15/0806, which was withdrawn due to concerns expressed in respect of its size, increased height and its resulting overbearing and dominating impact, which was considered to have a serious detrimental ITEM A4 | 5

impact upon the existing dwelling as well as the surrounding area, as it would be seen from public vantage points from the lane. Following the withdrawal of the original application, a meeting took place with the applicants and their agent to discuss a way forward in the form of a smaller more acceptable scheme. However, the applicant has resubmitted the application in its original form.

6.5 The application property is a typical modest 1950’s bungalow with its own defined character, which is nestled in the northeast corner of the plot, and overlooking the gardens to the south which are mainly laid to lawn with hedged boundaries and some ornamental trees.

6.6 The proposed extensions to the sides, would substantially increase the ridge height of the dwelling from 6.0metres to 7.0metres, which would create 3 bedrooms all en-suite, (1 with dressing room) at first floor level. The proposal also includes three dormer windows on the west (front) and one on the south (side) elevations. The existing single detached garage on the north side of the house would be replaced by an integral garage, which would be flush with the front elevation of the new extension.

6.7 The proposed increase in the roof height to provide further living accommodation creates an additional mass, which is considered to be overly large in comparison to the existing single storey dwelling and would therefore have a detrimental impact upon both the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area. The proposal fails to accord with Policy DC9 in this respect.

6.8 There is no objection in principle to modest extensions and/or raising the ridge to provide accommodation within the roof space of the existing dwelling. However, the design, scale and massing of the proposed development, which includes extensions which completely subsume the original dwelling are considered unacceptable, as previously advised by Officers following the withdrawal of the original application.

6.9 Proposed extensions should normally respect and reflect the form, scale and architectural style of the original building and area and should be subservient in proportion, both in its own right and in relation to the original building. The height of an extension should normally be lower than the height of the original building and it is important to ensure that extensions do not detract from the continuity of the streetscene. In this instance the extension would appear overly dominant and an incongruous feature on the dwellinghouse, detracting from its pleasant appearance, that due to the site specific circumstances, including higher ground level of the site from the road, would be out of keeping with the streetscene and detrimental to the visual amenity.

6.10 In conclusion, it is considered overall that the proposed development would materially affect the existing character of this modest bungalow, and would as a result of its increased height and mass, that completely subsumes the original dwelling, results in an unacceptable degree of harm. In particular the raised height of the extension is considered to have an overbearing and dominating impact, resulting in a prominent addition that visually detracts from the character and appearance of the host dwelling. The proposal is therefore contrary to LDF Policies CP3 and DC9

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1 The proposed development, by virtue of its height, scale and massing does not reflect the scale and character of the existing dwelling, and would thus result in an overbearing and overly dominant form of development that would not be in keeping ITEM A4 | 6

with the scale and character of the existing dwelling and would be visually prominent within the locality to the detriment of the visual character of the area. The proposal therefore conflicts in particular with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) and Policy CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy 2007

Background Papers: DC/15/1376 Contact Officer: Pauline Ollive DC/15/1376

Dell Cottage

For Business use only - not for distribution to the general public

Scale: 1:2,782

Date 06/08/2015 MSA Number 100023865

ITEM A5 - 1

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT

TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Development Manager DATE: 18th August 2015 Variation of S106 Agreement to amend trigger point for provision of affordable housing and update the mortgagee in possession clause and DEVELOPMENT: nominations process for affordable housing

Abingworth Nurseries Storrington Road SITE: Thakeham West Sussex WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION DC/10/1314, DC/12/0841 and DC/15/1242 REFERENCES: APPLICANT: Vanilla Thakeham

REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: To consider the proposed variation of the S106 agreement

RECOMMENDATION: Agree to delegate the variation of S106 Agreement to the Development Manager

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 In April 2010 Planning Permission was granted under reference DC/10/1314 for demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the Abingworth Nursery site for 146 dwellings, comprising of open market dwellings, 51 dwellings for the 55 plus age group, 12 affordable dwellings, 20 key worker dwellings, village hall building (including shop and doctor's surgery), pre-school facility, community workshops/studio (957.5 sq metres), sports pitches and changing rooms, cricket pitch and pavilion, children's play area, access roads, open space and landscaped areas (including footpaths).

1.2 DC/10/1314 was subject to a S106 Legal Agreement which secured a number of financial contributions and on- and off-site works, as well as linking the Abingworth Nurseries development as enabling development to assist in ensuring the viability of the adjacent Chesswood Farm site.

1.3 Members will note that at the last meeting of this Committee, application DC/15/1242 was considered, which proposed a Minor Material Amendment to application DC/10/1314 to amend the layout of the development. Members resolved to grant permission subject to a Legal Agreement and conditions. As noted in the report of DC/15/1242, permitting a Minor

Contact Officer: Rosemary Foreman Tel: 01403 215561 ITEM A5 - 2

Material Amendment results in two separate permissions, and the developer then has the choice of implementing either the original or amended scheme. The Legal Agreement in connection with DC/15/1242 will address only those matters relating to the revised layout, i.e. the substitution of plans and any changes in wording arising from that substitution. That Legal Agreement will apply only to the scheme proposed as part of the Minor Material Amendment.

1.4 In considering the amended Legal Agreement in connection with DC/15/1242, the Applicant has proposed further changes, and seeks for these to be applicable to both the original scheme as permitted by DC/10/1314 and to the amended scheme DC/15/1242, namely increasing the number of open market units that can be completed prior to the completed affordable housing units being transferred to the Affordable Housing Provider and amending the ‘Mortgagee in Possession’ clause, which deals with the process by which the District Council has the opportunity to purchase or nominate a registered housing provider or other suitable purchaser of the affordable housing units and local worker units in the event that a lender takes possession of the dwellings.

2. INTRODUCTION

STATUTORY BACKGROUND

2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF)

RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY

2.4 Policies CP4, CP12, CP13 and CP16 of the Core Strategy are relevant to the determination of this proposal.

related to provision of employment opportunities, retail facilities and social and community services.’

2.6 The Inspector suspended the Examination of the HDPF, after the initial round of Hearing sessions, for a 6 month period to allow time for the Council to show how the annual housing provision can be increased to provide for a minimum of 750 dwellings per annum (15,000 over the plan period). The representation period for the HDPF Main Modifications ran from 23rd March 2015 until 5th May 2015. Following the receipt of representations, the Inspector has decided to resume Hearings to discuss the issues raised. The Hearings took place on 3rd July 2015 to consider only the issues outlined in the Initial Findings. Given the Inspector’s Initial Findings, the emerging plan is therefore a material consideration of considerable weight in terms of the overall strategy.

PLANNING HISTORY

DC/10/1314 Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of the Permitted Abingworth Nursery site for 146 dwellings, comprising of open market dwellings, 51 dwellings for the 55 plus age group, 12 affordable dwellings, 20 key worker dwellings, village hall building (including shop and doctor's surgery), pre-school facility, community workshops/studio (957.5 sq metres), sports pitches and changing rooms, cricket pitch and pavilion, children's play area, access roads, open space and landscaped areas (including footpaths)

DC/12/0841 Demolition of existing growing rooms and surrounding Permitted (Chesswood ancillary buildings, removal of compost production on site. Farm, Erection of new growing rooms (farms) required for the adjacent to cultivation of mushrooms, a replacement office building, site) staff cafeteria, pack house building, ancillary plant structures and provision of open space and landscaped areas (including re-directed footpaths). Refurbishment and extension of existing production and package buildings including alterations to entrance of the site.

DC/14/2160 Hybrid application consisting of two parts. Full application Invalid for the revised layout of the football and cricket pitches and Withdrawn associated changing rooms, pavilion, village hall and shop. An outline application for layout and access for 21 dwellings surrounding the pitches following the grant of planning permission on 19th April 2014 (Application Ref DC/10/1314) for the provision of 146 dwellings on the larger Abingworth Nursery Site

DC/14/2161 Hybrid: Part A) Full planning permission for the revised Withdrawn layout of the football and cricket pitches and associated changing rooms, pavilion, village hall and shop. Part B) Outline permission for layout and access for 21 dwellings surrounding the pitches as a revision to part of approval DC/10/1314 (for the provision of 146 dwellings on the Abingworth Nursery Site).

DC/15/1242 Minor Material Amendment to planning permission Members DC/10/1314 (Demolition of existing buildings and resolved to redevelopment of the Abingworth Nursery site for 146 grant ITEM A5 - 4

dwellings, comprising of open market dwellings, 51 permission dwellings for the 55 plus age group, 12 affordable subject to Legal dwellings, 20 key worker dwellings, village hall building Agreement and (including shop and doctors surgery), pre-school facility, conditions at community workshops/studio (957.5sqm), sports pitches the meeting of and changing rooms, cricket pitch and pavilion, childrens 21 July 2015. play area, access roads, open space and landscaped areas (including footpaths)) for a revised layout for 21 dwellings in the northern part of the site, relocation of the approved local equipped area for plan (LEAP), sports fields and associated facilities, village hall and shop, amendment to the approved village hall and shop to separate the facilities into two buildings and remove the dedicated doctors surgery space and amendment to the approved football changing room building

3. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 8 (right to respect of a private and family life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to the application. Consideration of Human Rights forms part of the planning assessment below.

4. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER

It is not considered that the proposed development would have any impact on crime and disorder.

5. PLANNING ASSESSMENT

5.1 The original application permitted 12 affordable units, 20 ‘local worker units’ and 114 open market units. The original Legal Agreement sets the number of open market units that can be occupied prior to transfer of the affordable units to the affordable housing provider at 39 units (34% of the 114 open market units permitted).

5.2 As set out in section 1.4, above, the Applicant proposes to increase the number of open market units that can be occupied prior to transfer of the affordable housing units to the affordable housing provider. Officers would not normally expect more than 50% of open market units to be occupied prior to the transfer of affordable units. This is to ensure that construction of the affordable units is not left too late in the process, which could risk non- delivery in the event that development were to cease or not be completed. Ensuring that at least 50% of the market units cannot be occupied until the affordable units are provided gives incentive to the developer to ensure that these are completed in a timely fashion in the context of delivery of the development overall. Officers are satisfied that the increase of this trigger point from 39 open market units to no more than 57 open market units is reasonable, and will allow the Council to secure the delivery of the affordable housing provision at an appropriate stage in the development.

5.2 The Applicant also seeks to amend the ‘Mortgagee in Possession’ clause, which deals with the process by which the District Council has the opportunity to purchase or nominate a purchaser of the affordable housing units in the event that a lender takes possession of the dwellings. This clause currently requires the landowner to use its ‘best’ endeavours to facilitate the Council’s preferred transfer of the affordable housing units. The Applicant seeks to change this to ‘reasonable’ endeavours. This proposal is in line with current practice in the wording of such clauses and Officers consider this amendment to be reasonable. ITEM A5 - 5

5.3 In considering the above changes, Officers also seek to amend the nominations procedure contained within the Legal Agreement to bring it in line with the Council’s current process and current housing policy. The Applicant has not raised objection to this change, which is proposed by Officers.

5.4 In conclusion therefore, Officers raise no objection to the proposed amendment of the S106 Agreement. Officers therefore seek delegated Authority to amend the Legal Agreement in connection with DC/10/1314. In addition, Officers seek delegated authority to make any amendments considered to be reasonable and necessary which arise through the final drafting of the variation to the Legal Agreement. For clarity, these amendments will also apply to DC/15/1242, should the developer chose to implement the amended scheme rather than the original permission.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Agree to delegate the variation of S106 Agreement to the Development Manager

Background Papers: None

DC/10/1314

Abingworth Nurseries

For Business use only - not for distribution to the general public

Scale: 1:4,510

Date 06/08/2015 MSA Number 100023865