Parish: Ward: Tangmere

TG/15/01510/FUL

Proposal New vehicle crossover.

Site 1 Corner Arundel Road Tangmere West PO18 0DU

Map Ref (E) 490651 (N) 106941

Applicant Mr Mark Sendall

RECOMMENDATION TO PERMIT

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

1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

1

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The application site is located to the northeast corner of Garland Square and comprises of open public land between the road and the dwellinghouses known as 1 and 2 Boxgrove Corner. 1 and 2 Boxgrove Corner are flint and brick built semi-detached two storey properties.

2.2 The application site includes land that currently forms a narrow unmaintained path that provide pedestrians and cyclists with access to the footbridge over the A27 (that connects Tangmere and Boxgrove) north of the application site.

2.3 The land between Garland Road and 1 Boxgrove Corner is owned by the Hyde Group and there is no designated Public Right of way (PROW). The land slopes gently upwards as it progresses north and levels off as it approaches the northwest corner of the residential curtilage of 1 Boxgrove Corner.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The scheme has been amended during the application process and now proposes a vehicular access that would also retain the public path, resulting in a shared driveway and path. A parking and turning area to the front garden of 1 Boxgrove Corner is also proposed. The existing drop kerb would be widened as part of the proposal.

3.2 The shared driveway is currently proposed to be surfaced with a geotextile material, Cellweb, the honeycomb of the Cellweb would be filled with stone and surfaced with tarmac.

4.0 History

07/03538/FUL REF Provision of 3 no. terraced houses and new access way.

08/03305/FUL REF Provision of 3 no. terraced houses in rear garden areas and new access way.

12/04531/DOM PER Retrospective approval for shed built in June 2011.

2

5.0 Constraints

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

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Parish Council

OBJECT due to insufficient information, the plans being inconsistent /of poor quality. The plans do not show likely gradients affecting pedestrians and the disabled.

6.2 WSCC - Highways

West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under this planning application, to which further information was requested.

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

The proposal is for a vehicular crossover and hardstanding with access onto Garland Square. From an inspection of the plans alone, there is no apparent visibility issue at the point of access onto Garland Square. The applicants have submitted a plan that appears to show an area within which to turn a car, thereby allowing it to enter, turn and exit using a forward gear.

The most recently available verified accident records reveal there have been no personal injury accidents in the vicinity of the existing point of access, indicating a low risk of highway safety issues with this proposal.

Subject to the maintenance of the following conditions, there are no anticipated Highway safety concerns with this proposal.

CONDITION

No part of the development shall be first occupied until the vehicle parking and turning spaces have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained for their designated use. Reason: To provide adequate on-site car parking and turning space for the development.

3

INFORMATIVE

The applicant is advised to contact the Community Highways Officer covering the respective area (01243 642105) to obtain formal approval from the highway authority to carry out the site access works on the public highway.

6.3 CDC - Environmental Health

No comments with respect to contaminated land or air quality issues.

6.4 CDC Tree Officer

I refer to our discussion on the proposed new vehicle crossover and re-site existing public footpath. Ownership is Hyde Group. The 2 no. Lime trees are part of a Group order/TPO G1 subject to TG/OB/00192/TPO.

The proposed methodology for the construction of the drive seems reasonable and would help to reduce the impact on the southern Lime tree's rooting system by using a geosynthetic construction. The Arb method statement does state how this could be achieved but I consider that the extent of the protective fencing should be widened to protect more of the southern Lime tree's root protection area.

If acceptable the Arb method statement should be conditioned but the protective fencing should be extended wider around the southern Lime tree and all activity and installing of the new drive should be carried out by hand. No machinery or vehicles should be within the tree's root protection area until the access drive is fully installed.

6.5 One third party objection has been received in respect of the original plans, raising concerns about the position of a public footpath on a blind bend.

6.6 The applicant has submitted additional information during the application process to address the parking, turning and gradient concerns.

7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan

7.1 The Development Plan for District comprises the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 and all adopted neighbourhood plans. The Tangmere Neighbouring Plan (NP) is currently at examination, and therefore carries significant weight.

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

Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 (CLP) Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 3: The Economy and Employment Provision Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity

4

National Policy and Guidance

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

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

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

7.5 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles), together with paragraph 32 which amongst other considerations requires safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people.

Other Local Policy and Guidance

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

B1 - Managing a changing environment

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 The main issues arising from this proposal are:

i. Impact on highway safety ii. Impact on pedestrians and cyclists iii. Impact on TPO tree iv. Design and visual impact v. Impact upon neighbouring properties vi. Other matters

Assessment i) Impact on highway safety

8.2 The shared driveway would be formed over land between the front garden of 1 Boxgrove Corner and the road (this land is owned by the Hyde Group and there is no designated PROW here). The owners have been served notice and certificate B submitted with the planning application. There is no pavement to this side of the road (running parallel with the curve of the road) and pedestrians are currently required to cross over from the other side of the road, where there is a pedestrian pavement. There are drop kerbs on each side of the road.

5

8.3 The proposed shared driveway would be open for the public to use alongside the users of 1 Boxgrove Corner. This interrelationship is not uncommon in a residential environment and the driveway would be of a sufficient size for cars, pedestrians and cyclist to pass one another without causing safety concerns.

8.4 Access to the shared driveway would be close (south of) to a 90 degree bend in the residential road that services Garland Square. This is a residential road where traffic speeds are slow and the bend in the road reduces speeds further. The most recently available verified accident records reveal there have been no personal injury accidents in the vicinity of the existing point of access, indicating a low risk of highway safety issues with this proposal. The Highway Authority has commented that the proposed development would have adequate visibility to Garland Square and that sufficient parking and turning space would be made available in order for a vehicle to turn and thereby allowing it to enter, turn and exit using a forward gear.

8.5 Having regard to the considerations outlined above the proposed development would provide suitable parking and on site turning arrangements and appropriate visibility already exists to ensure that the proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the safety or function of the highway network. The proposal is therefore acceptable in respect of these matters. A condition is suggested in order to ensure on-site parking and turning and retention of such in perpetuity. ii) Impact on pedestrians and cyclists

8.6 There is no designated PROW and the land is owned by Hyde Group. The existing pedestrian path is unmaintained and narrow. The development would result in the introduction of slow moving vehicles and therefore it would result in a further inter- relationship between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. This inter-relationship is not uncommon in a residential environment and the driveway would serve a single dwellinghouse meaning that vehicular movements would be limited and the driveway would be wide enough for all modes of the pass one another in a safe manner. Vehicles would also be manoeuvring in a forward gear (as sufficient space would be made available for on- site turning).

8.7 The quality of the existing path is unmaintained and narrow and the proposal would result in an improvement of the existing footpath.

8.8 Having regard to the considerations outlined above the proposed development would provide suitable space, turning arrangements and appropriate visibility already exists to ensure that the proposal would not have an adverse impact upon the safety of pedestrians and cyclists. The proposal is therefore acceptable in respect of these matters. iii) Impact on TPO tree

8.9 The proposed driveway would be within the root protection area of a nearby TPO Lime tree. The Council's tree officer has not raised an objection given the proposed mitigation within the submitted Tree Report, although some amendments to the proposed mitigation should be secured through conditions i.e. the siting of the protection fence should be to the western edge and running parallel with the proposed shared driveway.

6

8.10 It is proposed to implement protection fencing and a Cellweb system in order to avoid harm to the roots from compaction and to form a protection area to be created during implementation of the development that would be free from works, preparation and storage of materials. No works to the limbs of the tree are proposed.

8.11 Having regard to the considerations outlined above the proposed development would be able to mitigate the impact of the development on the root system of the TPO tree in a sympathetic manner, and the proposal is therefore acceptable in this respect. iv) Design and Visual Impact

The shared driveway would be formed level with the existing gradient and the western amenity grass verge would remain unaffected by this proposal. In this residential area there are roads, paths and driveways. Therefore, the visual amenities and character of the locality would not be harmed. v) Impact on neighbouring amenities

8.12 There would be no harmful additional impact to the amenities of the neighbouring properties and gardens as a result of this development. vi) Other matters; construction, drainage and accessibility

8.13 The shared drive would be formed with a Cellweb system, a no dig system. A geosynthetic material is laid and the Cellweb put on top of this. The honeycomb of the Cellweb is then filled with stone and covered in a surface material. In this case tarmac is proposed. In this case minimal levelling off of the existing ground level would be required - meaning that the existing northward sloping gradient would be retained.

8.14 The Cellweb would have the benefit of providing a porous surface (subject to detailed condition - to mitigate surface water run-off) and would provide a stable and firm enough surface for all users (cars, pedestrians, cyclists, prams and wheelchairs (motorised and un- motorised)), ensuring that the shared driveway would be suitable to all users as encouraged by the NPPF.

8.15 Overall, the proposed Cellweb system is considered to be the most suitable approach for this development, the surface materials and surface water drainage facilities will need to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority via a planning condition.

Significant Conditions

8.19 Conditions are proposed to mitigate the impact on the nearby TPO tree and to ensure the existing gradients are retained, porous materials are used and the surface is suitable for all users. Surface water drainage conditions are also proposed. Conditions are also suggested in order to ensure the parking and turning area is provided as retained in perpetuity.

Conclusion

8.20 Based on the above it is considered the proposal complies with the development plan and therefore the application is recommended for approval.

7

Human Rights

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

RECOMMENDATION PERMIT

1) Time Limit 2) Plans 3) Implementation of Parking and Turning 4) Surface Materials TBC 5) Surface Water Management 6) Tree Protection

INFORMATIVES

1) WSCC Consent Required

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

8