E-mail: CommitteeServices@horsham.gov.uk
Direct line: 01403 215465
Development Control (North) Committee TUESDAY 4TH MARCH 2014 AT 5.30p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM
Councillors: Liz Kitchen (Chairman) Roy Cornell (Vice-Chairman) John Bailey Ian Howard Andrew Baldwin David Jenkins Peter Burgess Christian Mitchell John Chidlow Josh Murphy Christine Costin Godfrey Newman Helena Croft Jim Rae Leonard Crosbie Stuart Ritchie Malcolm Curnock David Sheldon Laurence Deakins David Skipp Duncan England Simon Torn Frances Haigh Claire Vickers David Holmes Tricia Youtan
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 4th February 2014 (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
5. To consider the reports of the following officers and to take such action thereon as may be necessary:
Head of Planning & Environmental Services Appeals
Horsham District Council, Park North, Horsham, West Sussex RH12 1RL Tel: 01403 215100 (calls may be recorded) www.horsham.gov.uk Chief Executive - Tom Crowley Applications for determination by Committee – Appendix A
Item Ward Reference Site No. Number
A1 Rudgwick DC/13/2170 Sussex Topiary, Naldretts Lane, Rudgwick
A2 Rusper and DC/13/2183 Durrants Drive, Faygate Colgate A2 Rusper and DC/13/2184 Durrants Drive, Faygate Colgate
A3 Denne DC/13/1829 53 Guildford Road, Horsham
A4 Forest DC/13/1794 112 Brighton Road, Horsham
A5 Itchingfield, DC/13/2288 Griffiths and Neilsen, The Business Park, Slinfold and Maydwell Avenue, Slinfold Warnham
A6 Rusper and DC/13/2446 Land South of Buchan Hill Reservoir, Buchan Hill, Colgate Pease Pottage
A7 Nuthurst DC/13/2451 Land Rear of 21 Woodlands Walk, Mannings Heath
6. 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.
DCN140204
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 4th February 2014
Present: Councillors: Liz Kitchen (Chairman), Roy Cornell (Vice-Chairman), John Bailey, Andrew Baldwin, Peter Burgess, John Chidlow, Leonard Crosbie, Malcolm Curnock, Laurence Deakins, Duncan England, Frances Haigh, David Holmes, Ian Howard, Christian Mitchell, Josh Murphy, Godfrey Newman, Jim Rae, Stuart Ritchie, David Sheldon, David Skipp, Simon Torn, Claire Vickers, Tricia Youtan
Apologies: Councillors: Christine Costin, Helena Croft, David Jenkins
DCN/107 MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 7th January 2014 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
DCN/108 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS
Member Item Nature of Interest
Councillor Tricia DC/13/2029 Personal - she knows the applicant Youtan Councillor David DC/13/1829 Personal – he knows one of the Sheldon public speakers
Simeon Manley, Interim Planning Manager, declared a personal interest in Item DC/13/1890 as he used to live in Ringley Road.
DCN/109 ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.
DCN/110 APPEALS
Notice concerning the following appeals had been received:
Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service
Ref No Site Appellant(s)
DC/13/1765 14 Peary Close, Horsham Ms Shelley Vickers
DC/13/1465 115 College Road, Southwater Mrs Emma Beckford
Development Control (North) Committee 4th February 2014
DCN/110 Appeals (Cont.)
Informal Hearings
Ref No Site Appellant(s)
DC/13/0103 Buchan Hill Reservoir (land south of), Rural Eco Ltd and Buchan Hill, Pease Pottage Hyde Housing Association
Appeal Decisions
Ref No Site Appellant(s) Decision
DC/13/1230 8 Six Acres, Slinfold Mr & Mrs Erik Dismissed Sorensen
DCN/111 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1890 – DEVELOPMENT OF 33 DWELLINGS AND ASSOCIATED ACCESS, PARKING AND LANDSCAPE ARRANGEMENTS SITE: LAND NORTH OF RINGLEY ROAD, HORSHAM APPLICANT: HILLREAD HOMES LTD
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the erection of 33 dwellings, including 40% affordable housing, on land that formed part of the Parsonage Farm commercial site. The dwellings would include: 13 affordable units comprising six 1-bedroom flats, five 2-bedroom houses and two 3-bedroom houses; and fourteen 3-bedroom houses and six 4-bedroom houses. The density of the site would be approximately 37 dwellings per hectare. The houses and flats would be two storeys high, some with accommodation in the roof space.
The application included access, parking and landscaping. Access would be from Ringley Road, which was a cul-de-sac, through an extension of the existing turning head at the end of the road. There would be a total of 75 parking spaces. 54 parking spaces would serve the 20 open market houses and 19 parking spaces would serve the 13 affordable dwellings.
The application site was located within the built up area of Horsham and was open land used in connection with the Parsonage Farm commercial site. There was currently no vehicular access onto Ringley Road. The site was to the east and south of the Parsonage Farm site. It was west of properties to the rear of properties fronting onto Rusper Road, and also west of properties in Naldrett Close and Foxleigh. Bungalows in Ringley Road were to the south of the site.
2 Development Control (North) Committee 4th February 2014
DCN/111 Planning Application: DC/13/1890 (Cont.)
The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP9, CP12, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC9, DC18 and DC40; Site Specific Allocations of Land 2007 Policy AL3; and the Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy were relevant in the determination of this application.
There was no planning history relevant to this application.
The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.
With regards to access for construction traffic, which would currently be restricted to using Ringley Road, it was reported at the meeting that the applicant was in discussion with the owner of the Parsonage Farm site regarding potential access for construction traffic via the commercial site.
With regards to contamination and noise, the Public Health and Licensing Officer had raised no objection, subject to conditions. The Officer was satisfied that the land was unlikely to be contaminated but further investigation and a validation report would be required prior to construction.
The Parish Council raised no objection to the application. Thirty letters of objection, some from duplicate addresses, 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 principle of the development in the context of local and national policies. Whilst the proposal was in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, Members expressed disappointment that an application for this parcel of land was being considered in isolation from the wider Parsonage Farm brownfield site.
Concerns regarding access were noted and Members discussed the effect of the proposal on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and in particular the impact on residents in Ringley Road caused by increased traffic movements. The Highways Authority had raised no objection to the proposal and Members concluded the proposal could not be refused on these grounds alone. Members also considered whether the design and scale of the buildings would be in keeping with the surrounding area.
Members noted the comments of the Public Health and Licensing Officer and sought reassurance that contamination issues would be comprehensively addressed through conditions. It was confirmed that there would be a full investigation of the site and any contamination issues identified would be resolved prior to the commencement of works.
3 Development Control (North) Committee 4th February 2014
DCN/111 Planning Application: DC/13/1890 (Cont.)
Should contamination be subsequently found, work would be required to cease until all contamination issues were satisfactorily resolved.
It was noted that an Environmental Management Plan would be required prior to commencement of works, which would help to protect residential amenity, including the management of the sewer construction. Members remained concerned at the potential impact of construction traffic on the residents of Ringley Road should access via the Parsonage Farm site prove unviable.
After careful consideration, Members concluded that the impact of the proposal would not provide sufficient justification to override the presumption in favour of sustainable development and agreed that the proposal was acceptable in principle.
Officers confirmed that a condition to ensure that garages continued to be used as garages would be added during the determination of the application.
Members requested that there should be no vehicular access from the proposed development to the Parsonage Farm site to prevent through traffic in Ringley Road. It was agreed that this could be controlled through a legal agreement.
RESOLVED
(i) That a legal agreement be entered into to: secure infrastructure contributions and affordable housing requirements; to prevent access from the development to the wider Parsonage Road site for purposes other than pedestrian, cvcle and emergency access in perpetuity; and to secure the acoustic fence and its future management.
(ii) That, on completion of the agreement in (i) above, and receipt of satisfactory comments from consultees, application DC/13/1890 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with Local Members, the Chairman and Vice Chairman for the framing of conditions to include: the construction environmental management plan (including controls on the routing of construction traffic and hours of working); contamination; the design of the access to the adjacent site; the use of garages for parking only; and a management plan for the whole of the site . The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.
4 Development Control (North) Committee 4th February 2014
DCN/112 PLANNING APPLICATIONS: DC/13/2183 – VARIATION OF CONDITION 4 OF DC/08/0316 (DEVELOPMENT OF RETIREMENT VILLAGE) TO RELATE TO NEW INDICATIVE SITE LAYOUT PLAN; AND DC/13/2184 – THE ERECTION OF 2 NO. APARTMENTS IN ADDITION TO APPROVED VILLAGE SHOP AND WARDEN'S ACCOMMODATION SITE: DURRANTS DRIVE, FAYGATE APPLICANT: IWAN JONES
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that application DC/13/2183 sought permission for a variation of Condition 4 attached to the outline permission which had been allowed on appeal for the retirement village. This condition required the development to conform to various plans approved under reserved matters application DC/10/0088, which had shown a Medical Centre in the frontage buildings along Faygate Lane (Minute No. DCN/150 (13.04.10) refers). The applicant wished to relocate the Medical Centre within the Central Facilities building in the middle of the site instead. The relocation of the Medical Centre would require a revised layout plan, subject to approval of this application.
Application DC/13/2184 sought permission for one 2-bedroom flat on the ground floor, in place of the Medical Centre, and one 1-bedroom flat on the first floor above the shop. The first floor area had been proposed storage space for the shop, but this was now to be provided on the ground floor. The applicant had submitted a draft Unilateral Undertaking that these flats would be affordable housing. The shop and refuse store on the ground floor and the warden’s flat on the first floor in the original plans would be retained.
The application site was located to the north of Faygate village and was accessed off Faygate Lane. It had had a number of uses over many years. The previous buildings had been demolished and the retirement village units were under construction.
The southern boundary of the site was adjacent to a public footpath, beyond which were fourteen industrial / commercial units within Faygate Business Centre. Faygate Railway Station and the railway line were to the south-west. There were four residential dwellings to the south-east, north of the railway line and south of the access road, and four detached dwellings fronting onto Faygate Lane to the north of the main site.
The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP12, CP13, CP15 and CP16; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC1, DC3, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC18 and DC31; and the Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy were relevant in the determination of this application.
5 Development Control (North) Committee 4th February 2014
DCN/112 Planning Applications: DC/13/2183 and DC/13/2184 (Cont.)
Planning history relevant to the development of a continuing care retirement community included:
DC/08/0316 Demolition of existing buildings, Refused construction of 148 retirement units, eight Granted on affordable housing units, one warden’s flat, Appeal 52 bed care home, visitor accommodation, central facilities building, shop, medical centre, provision of formal ‘open space’, balancing pond, associated landscaping and access works. S106/1728 A Unilateral Undertaking completed by the applicant in respect of the appeal relating to: the provision of permitted footpaths and open space, public art, together with village shops, surgery/medical centre, library, each of which will be made to fit the residents of Faygate as well as residents of the development; the provision of a community bus service to serve the development and the wider community of Faygate and provides a total of £128,000 towards the off- site highway, footpaths, cycle and public transport infrastructure improvements; the provision of eight affordable housing units on the site and the payment of a contribution of £3.26M towards the provision of affordable housing off-site DC/10/0088 Reserved matters relating to DC/08/0316 Granted DC/11/1229 Non-material amendment to outline Granted permission DC/08/0316 consisting of revised access design pursuant to Condition 07
6 Development Control (North) Committee 4th February 2014
DCN/112 Planning Applications: DC/13/2183 and DC/13/2184 (Cont.)
DC/12/0178 Erection of six retirement dwellings and a Granted triple bay garage S106/1918 Unilateral Undertaking completed by the applicant in relation to DC/12/0178 to integrate the development as part of the retirement village only; that the further 6 units are occupied as extra care units only; to deliver all the other elements of the package of measures set out in the original obligation (provision of open space and permitted footpaths, highways and transport works, community facilities and on site public art, landscape and bio-diversity management plans and financial contributions for off-site affordable housing [£3.96M]); and that the commencement/ development/occupation of the 6 units count towards the trigger points of the obligations established in the existing planning obligation DC/13/1062 Non-material amendment to DC/10/0088 to Pending redesign part of the ground floor of the consideration central facilities building to accommodate medical centre which will be relocated from previously approved location, addition of 3 car parking spaces and various external alterations
The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council had raised no objection to the applications and commented on the control of ownership of the flats and use of contributions.
Whilst the development was in a countryside location and contrary to the Development Plan, the significant need for housing for the elderly in the District had been taken into consideration by the appeal Inspector and the principle of the development had been established with the granting of outline permission for the retirement village. The Highway Authority had raised no objection to access details.
Members considered the relocation of the Medical Centre and introduction of two flats. A Unilateral Undertaking to guarantee a price of the flats at 65% of the open market value and limiting them to local purchasers for a period of time was noted.
7 Development Control (North) Committee 4th February 2014
DCN/112 Planning Applications: DC/13/2183 and DC/13/2184 (Cont.)
Members discussed the impact of the proposals on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and were concerned that the removal of the Medical Centre to a more central location would reduce its accessibility for Faygate residents. Members also discussed the impact of relocating the Medical Centre on the layout of the Central Facilities building, and questioned whether the Medical Centre would retain the same dimensions and layout.
After discussion of the proposals and their impact on the wider development, and on the residents of Faygate, it was agreed that Members were unable to determine the applications without taking into consideration the design of the relocated Medical Centre, and any resulting changes to the amenity size of the Central Facilities building.
Members therefore agreed that the proposal should be deferred.
RESOLVED
That planning applications DC/13/2183 and DC/13/2184 be deferred until the next meeting of the Committee to enable more information to be provided regarding the size of the Medical Centre and the impact of the facilities in the Central Facilities building.
DCN/113 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/2029 – ERECTION OF A 3 BEDROOM DETACHED DWELLING AND GARAGE AND WIDENING OF ACCESS ON PARK STREET (OUTLINE) SITE: THE COTTAGE, PARK STREET, SLINFOLD APPLICANT: MR AND MRS NORDGREEN (Councillor Tricia Youtan declared a personal interest in this application as she knew the applicant.)
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought outline permission for the erection of a detached 3- bedroom cottage style dwelling within the side garden of the property known as The Cottage.
Matters for consideration were the principle of the development and access, with all other matters reserved for future determination. The applicant had indicated that the dwelling would be two storeys and measure 10 metres by eight metres and 6.5 metres high. There would also be a detached garage.
The application site was located within the built up area of Slinfold on the north side of Park Street between South View Cottages and The Cottage. The junction of Park Street and the A29 (Stane Street) was approximately 90 metres to the east of the site.
8 Development Control (North) Committee 4th February 2014
DCN/113 Planning Application: DC/13/2029 (Cont.)
Park Street was characterised by late 19th century and early 20th century residential development of detached and semi-detached design. Open countryside lay to the north.
The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC2, DC6, DC8, DC9, DC18 and DC40; the Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy; and Slinfold Parish Design Statement were relevant in the determination of this application.
Relevant recent planning history included:
DC/09/1159 Replacement 2-storey side extension, link Granted and double garage with 1st floor accommodation SF/24/99 Erection of one dwelling (outline) Refused Appeal Dismissed
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. Seven letters of support and four letters of objection had been received. Both applicants and the applicants’ agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.
A representative of the Parish Council spoke in objection to the application. The site had been in a countryside location prior to 2007 when the boundary had changed and it had become part of the built up area of Slinfold. The Parish Council representative questioned the reason for this boundary change and stated that they had not been consulted or advised when the boundary had been changed.
Members considered the principle of the proposal and its impact on the character and amenities of the area. The site was within the built up area and as such the development of the site was in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
Concerns regarding the impact of the proposed new access on the streetscene were noted. The hedge would be replanted once the new access and sight lines were introduced.
Members noted the proposal’s indicative scale and discussed the impact of a building of this scale and design on the streetscene and amenity of neighbouring properties. Members concluded that the site was of sufficient size to accommodate a single detached dwelling without having a material
9 Development Control (North) Committee 4th February 2014
DCN/113 Planning Application: DC/13/2029 (Cont.)
adverse impact on the wider locality. Concerns regarding design, scale and landscaping would be considered as part of any reserved matters application.
Members noted the Parish Council’s concerns regarding the boundary change and requested an investigation into the decision to extend the built up area boundary to include the site. Officers agreed that an investigation would be arranged and a response sent to the Parish Council and Local Members.
RESOLVED
That application DC/13/2029 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, in consultation with the Local Members, to allow for the framing of additional conditions relating to levels, visibility splays, access, recycling facilities, Code Level 3 construction and hours of working. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.
DCN/114 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1829 – ERECTION OF A DETACHED THREE BEDROOM HOUSE SITE: 53 GUILDFORD ROAD, HORSHAM APPLICANT: BIDDY O’CONNOR (Councillor David Sheldon declared a personal interest in this application as he knew one of the public speakers who addressed the Committee on this item.)
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the erection of a detached 3-bedroom two storey dwelling within the rear garden of 53 Guildford Road. The dwelling would have a maximum width of 17.5 metres and a depth of up to nine metres. Access to the dwelling would be via the existing access off Hills Cemetary Lane.
The application site was within the built up area of Horsham on the corner of Guildford Road and Hills Farm Lane. There was a row of mature trees along the border with Hills Cemetery Lane, which included a lime tree protected by a TRO. The surrounding area was characterised by detached dwellings on long narrow plots.
The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13 and CP14; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC2, DC6, DC9 and DC40; and the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy were relevant to the determination of this application.
10 Development Control (North) Committee 4th February 2014
DCN/114 Planning Application: DC/13/1829 (Cont.)
Relevant planning history included:
DC/06/0378 Erection of 1 dwelling Refused HU/246/03 Erection of 1 house (outline) Refused Appeal Allowed HU/388/02 Erection of 1 house (outline) Refused HU/287/97 New vehicular access Granted
Planning permission HU/246/03 expired in 2008.
The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. Eight letters of objection had been received. Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.
There had been a material change in the planning framework since permission had been granted on appeal in 2008 regarding the development of gardens, which were no longer defined as brownfield sites. The site was in a sustainable location within convenient walking and cycling distance of local amenities and Members considered that the principle of development in the context of national and local policies was acceptable.
Members noted that officers had identified matters of concern within the original application and had negotiated with the applicant who had made amendments to address those concerns to ensure good design and the safeguarding of trees.
Members discussed the design and location of the proposed dwelling within the site in the context of its impact on the character of the area and on the amenity of neighbouring residents.
The proposed access was from the driveway off Hills Cemetery Lane and would lead to off-street parking for two vehicles. Concerns regarding parking and its potential impact on visitors to Hills Cemetery were noted. Members noted that the Highway Authority considered the access to be acceptable in terms of highway safety.
The Parish Council’s consultation response to the application was reported at the meeting. This information had been omitted from the report and Members had therefore been unable to take the Parish Council’s comments into account prior to the determination of the proposal.
It was therefore agreed that the application should be deferred to give Members the opportunity to consider the comments from the Parish Council.
11 Development Control (North) Committee 4th February 2014
DCN/114 Planning Application: DC/13/1829 (Cont.)
RESOLVED
That application DC/13/1829 be deferred until the next meeting of the Committee to give Members the opportunity to consider the Parish Council’s consultation response.
DCN/115 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/1794 – ERECTION OF 6 NO. 2- STOREY, 3-BEDROOM HOUSES WITH ASSOCIATED GARDENS, REFUSE, RECYCLING AND CYCLING STORES, TOGETHER WITH THE RETENTION OF THE EXISTING VACANT COTTAGE AND DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING DERELICT COTTAGE AT 112 BRIGHTON ROAD SITE: 112 BRIGHTON ROAD, HORSHAM APPLICANT: MR LUKE CARTER
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought permission for the erection of six 3-bedroom semi- detached houses with associated gardens. There was a vacant cottage on the site that would be retained, and a derelict cottage that would be demolished.
The access from Brighton Road would be retained and widened and there would be ten car parking spaces, including 1 disabled space, and an additional two parking spaces for the existing cottage. Covered storage for 12 cycles would also be provided.
The application site was located within the built up area of Horsham to the west of Brighton Road. It was served by an access approximately 35 metres long which ran adjacent to 110 Brighton Road and close to the junction of Brighton Road and Athelstan Way. The site was between the rear gardens of 106-110 Brighton Road to the south east, 10 Athelstan Way to the north east, and 2 - 8 Weald Close to the north west.
The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13 and CP19; Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC2, DC6, DC8, DC9, DC18 and DC40; and the emerging Horsham District Planning Framework Preferred Strategy were relevant to the determination of this application.
12 Development Control (North) Committee 4th February 2014
DCN/115 Planning Application: DC/13/1794 (Cont.)
Relevant planning history included:
DC/12/1200 Erection of six 2-storey, 3-bedroom houses Refused with associated gardens, refuse, recycling Appeal and cycling stores, together with the Dismissed retention of the existing vacant cottage and demolition of the existing derelict cottage at 112 Brighton Road
The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. Horsham Society had objected to the application and eleven letters of objection had been received. One member of the public spoke in objection to the application.
It was considered that the principal issues in the determination of the application were: whether the proposal was acceptable in principle; highway safety; and the effect of the development upon the character of the area and on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
It was noted that the application was identical to DC/12/1200 which had been dismissed on appeal due to the lack of a completed legal agreement in respect of infrastructure contributions.
Members discussed the volume of traffic on Brighton Road and concerns regarding safety and capacity of the local network. It was noted that the inspector at the appeal of DC/12/1200 had raised no objection to the proposed access arrangements and that the Highway Authority had raised no objections.
The Neighbourhood Council’s consultation response to the application was reported at the meeting. This information had been omitted from the report and Members had therefore been unable to take the Neighbourhood Council’s comments into account prior to the determination of the proposal.
It was therefore agreed that the application should be deferred to give Members the opportunity to consider the comments from the Neighbourhood Council.
Members requested that, during the deferral of the item, the potential for amending the proposed access arrangements be investigated, and that additional information be provided regarding the allocation of funds secured in respect of the legal agreement. Conditions in addition to those proposed within the report would be added to include materials, hours of working, levels and sustainable construction.
13 Development Control (North) Committee 4th February 2014
DCN/115 Planning Application: DC/13/1794 (Cont.)
RESOLVED
That application DC/13/1794 be deferred until the next meeting of the Committee to give Members the opportunity to consider the Neighbourhood Council’s consultation response.
The meeting closed at 8.58pm having commenced at 5.30pm.
CHAIRMAN
14 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (NORTH) COMMITTEE 4TH MARCH 2014 REPORT BY THE HEAD OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
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
DC/13/1672 Retrospective change of use of The Coach House to the rear of 12 Wellington Road to an independent unit of residential accommodation. 12 Wellington Road, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1DD. For: Mrs Kristina Awad
3. Informal Hearings
DC/13/0255 Redevelopment of 92 - 98 Hurst Road to form 33 sheltered apartments for the elderly including communal facilities (Category II type accommodation), access, car parking and landscaping. 92 Hurst Road, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 2DT. For: Churchill Retirement Living
4. Appeal Decisions
I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been determined:-
DC/12/1547 Change of use of land for valeting cars. Little Park Farm, Charlwood Road, Ifield, Crawley, RH11 0JZ. For: Mr Mark Vickers Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)
DC/13/1465 Retention of boundary fence. 115 College Road, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex, RH13 9TJ. For: Mrs Emma Beckford Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 4th March 2014 Change of use of land for the stationing of caravans for residential DEVELOPMENT: purposes for 4 No. gypsy pitches along with the formation of hardstanding and 4 No. utility/dayrooms ancillary to that use SITE: Sussex Topiary Naldretts Lane Rudgwick Horsham WARD: Rudgwick APPLICATION: DC/13/2170 APPLICANT: Mr Tom Wenman
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Number of letters of representation received differing in view to the Officer’s recommendation
RECOMMENDATION: That the application is APPROVED subject to conditions
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
The application seeks full planning permission for the change of use of the land from its most recent horticultural nursery use to provide 4 No. gypsy pitches for residential use. It is proposed that each pitch would include 1 No. mobile home, 1 No. utility/day room and space for 1 No. touring caravan. It is proposed that the 4 No. pitches would be spaced around the existing site, with 2 No. against the western boundary, 1 No. against the northern boundary and 1 No. against the southern boundary. The proposed utility/day rooms would accommodate a day room/kitchen and a bathroom and are shown to measure 3.4m in depth by 6.5m in width. They would be single storey with pitched roofs to a height of 3.9m. It is proposed that these structures would have a rendered exterior and interlocking clay tiled roofs.
It is proposed that the existing boundary screening around the site would be retained and additional planting would be provided, mainly along the western boundary, but also some within the site. Each of the proposed pitches would be largely hardsurfaced with this connecting to the existing access driveway, to allow for access and turning. The central area of the site is shown to be provided as a communal amenity space. It is proposed that each of the pitches would be defined by means of post and rail or close boarded fencing within the site.
Contact Officer: Helen Lowe Tel: 01403 215346 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
The site lies outside any built-up area boundary as defined on the Horsham District Local Development Framework Proposals Map (2007). The site is located to the south of Naldretts Lane, which in turn lies to the south of the village of Rudgwick. The site was formerly used as a horticultural nursery and still contains the remnants of 6 No. large polytunnels, a portacabin and 2 No. caravans. These structures are set around the edge of the site with the central area remaining largely open. The site is partially hardsurfaced although this is somewhat overgrown by low level vegetation. The ground level of the site slopes gently down towards the north.
The site is accessed from Naldretts Lane by means of an existing gravelled driveway leading in a southerly direction. The site is enclosed by means of an existing line of trees to the south, by a 1.8m high panel fence and line of trees (including conifers) to the western side, by a line of trees to the north and by a number of trees and post and rail fencing to the east. The surrounding area is largely open, except that to the immediate west lies a Public Right of Way bordered by mature trees and vegetation. This Public Right of Way leads from Naldretts Lane in the north to Haven Road in the south.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF):
- Section 4: Promoting sustainable transport - Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes - Section 7: Requiring good design - Section 8: Promoting healthy communities - 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 Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (2012) (PPTS)
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) policies:
- CP1: Landscape and Townscape Character - CP2: Environmental Quality - CP3: Improving the Quality of New Development - CP5: Built-Up areas and Previously Developed Land - CP15: Rural Strategy - CP16: Inclusive Communities - CP19: Managing Travel Demand and Widening Choice of Transport APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3
2.5 Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) policies:
- DC1: Countryside Protection and Enhancement - DC2: Landscape Character - DC5: Biodiversity and Geology - DC9: Development Principles - DC10: Archaeological Sites and Ancient Monuments - DC32: Gypsies and Travellers - DC40: Transport and Access
2.6 The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy was approved by Council for consultation on 25th July 2013. The consultation period ended on 11th October 2013 and a summary of the responses received was considered by Council at its meeting on 11th December 2013 for information.
The next stage in the plan preparation, the Proposed Submission, is due to be considered by Council in April 2014. Until this time, the Preferred Strategy is a material consideration in the assessment of this planning application in accordance with paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which confirms that weight can be given to policies in emerging plans following publication.
PLANNING HISTORY
RW/90/96 Erection of 1 house (outline) REF Site: Bucks Green Nursery Naldretts Lane Billingshurst
RW/2/99 Stationing of a caravan REF Site: Bucks Green Nursery Naldretts Lane Billingshurst
DC/10/1490 Residential occupation of a mobile home at Sussex Topiary REF for the more than 10 years (Certificate of Lawful Development - Existing)
DC/10/2632 The residential occupation of a building at Sussex Topiary REF (certificate of lawful development - existing)
DC/11/1203 Erection of a storage/office/sales building with ancillary REF facilities and the relocation of a polytunnel
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Design and Conservation Officer (summarised): No objection It has been suggested that the application site lies on land that once belonged to Warhams and Warhams Cottage (both grade II listed buildings). The proposal is likely to have a neutral impact on the setting of these heritage assets and those of Naldretts House and Hurstlands (also both grade II listed), to the extent that it is unlikely to affect the setting of such assets, and the isolated and rural character of the land surrounding the assets will remain. This opinion has been formed using English Heritage’s best practice guidance “The Setting of Heritage Assets” (2011).
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4
3.2 Environmental Health (summarised): No objection subject to conditions No objection subject to conditions relating to foul drainage and water supply for the site, restriction on the hours for the installation of mobile homes and deliveries, details of external lighting and the prevention of the burning of waste.
3.3 Strategic Planning (summarised): No objection From a strategic perspective, ideally all sites would come forward through a plan led approach, and would accord with current adopted development plan policy and recent Government guidance. Although new policies are emerging through the HDPF and are considered a material consideration, the Council is currently reliant on Policy DC32 as the most up-to-date development plan policy and NPPF policies through the Planning policy for traveller sites. It is considered that the Council cannot currently meet the identified backlog of unmet gypsy and traveller accommodation need or future need in accordance with Policy DC32 of the General Development Control policies and emerging policies in the HDPF. Although the Council is proposing to allocate sites through the Horsham District Planning Framework this is yet to be tested through examination. Overall it is considered that although the application site is located within the countryside it is considered to be within a reasonable distance from services and facilities and can be suitably accommodated on an existing untidy site, therefore it is considered that the principle of development for 4 gypsy and traveller pitches and associated amenity blocks is considered acceptable and in accordance with Policy DC32 of the General Development Control Policies DPD, emerging Horsham District Planning Framework and the Planning policy for traveller sites.
3.4 Technical Services (Drainage) (summarised): Comment The site is likely to be positioned on clay and as such the proposed soakaway may not be suitable. Appropriate testing to the site’s suitability for such means of surface water drainage would be required. It is not clear how foul water will be drained from the site. The drainage layout should conform to current Building Regulations. Recommends conditions relating to both foul and surface water drainage.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.5 Southern Water (summarised): Comment The applicant should contact the Environment Agency directly regarding the use of a package treatment plant, which would need to be maintained for its long term effectiveness. The proposal refers to the use of SuDS and the applicant would need to ensure that arrangements existing for the long term maintenance of such facilities. Good management will avoid flooding from the proposed surface water system.
3.6 WSCC Access Ranger (summarised): No objection The site lies adjacent to Rudgwick Restricted Byway No. 3715. It is not considered that the proposal will impact on the restricted byway and its users when built. There is some concern of unlawful use of the route by motorised vehicles, however, this would constitute a criminal offence if done so without permission. The proposed drainage of the site should discharge into an existing or new drainage system away from the surface of the PROW.
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5
3.7 WSCC Archaeology (summarised): No objection The site is located about 150m to the south of a previously reported finding, in 2006 or before, of a single Roman tessera, as may have formed part of a tessellated pavement or floor, close to Naldretts Lane. This single find may or may not have been associated with a buried structure: a single find is not good enough evidence on its own. At 0.3 hectares or less in area, the proposal is not large. I would not expect substantial ground excavation for creation of the utility/dayrooms and expect ground excavations for the hardstanding to the fairly shallow, so the only sizeable and deep excavation would be the soakaway. Given the very small expected amount of new deep excavation, the distance of the site from the nearest known and definitively identified and reported archaeological fins, and the only slight weight that can be placed on the single find, I do not anticipate any significant archaeological impact from this development.
3.8 WSCC Ecology (summarised): No objection subject to conditions Over the last 2+ years the site has been neglected and common weed species associated with fertile land are colonising. The site appears to be largely dominated by coarse grasses, nettle and bramble with some teasel, hogweed and wild carrot. It is possible that reptiles historically present in the margins of the site are present within the site. I would expect their population to be at a low level. The margins will almost certainly be used by bats in some manner and there remains the possibility of use by dormice. In responding to the merits of this application, as none of these features will be affected there is no likelihood of an offence being committed. However, some issues remain to be controlled in order for the proposed development to be compliant. Inappropriate lighting can have a detrimental impact on bats. Lighting must be kept to a minimum and cowled to prevent light spill upwards and onto adjacent vegetation. The probable presence of reptiles on site demands that a control is placed on site clearance. Recommends conditions for reptile mitigation measures and control of lighting.
3.9 WSCC Strategic Planning (summarised): No objection Initial response dated 23/12/13 A provision of 2 No. car parking spaces would be available per pitch, which would be sufficient for this type of development and turning on site looks achievable, therefore allowing for vehicles to exit on to the highway in a forward gear. It is assumed that no works to the actual highway are necessary and the visibility at the point of access with the highway would appear suitable to support the proposal. No concerns would be raised to this application from a highway safety perspective.
Additional response dated 13/02/14 Naldretts Lane is a no through road ending approximately 160m to the east of the site. With this in mind it was noted that traffic movements were light in the area. It was observed that vehicular speeds in the area were predominantly low with speeds unlikely to exceed 30mph given the width of the road and the tight bend to the west. It was noted that visibility in each direction out of the access was not ideal, however, given the lightly trafficked area with restricted speeds and the fact that it is an existing access, no concerns would be raised from a highway perspective. Although tight for large vehicles to access the site, there does appear to be scope to do so with this part of the highway being wider than the rest, enabling larger vehicles to manoeuvre in to the site using existing hardstanding.
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS 3.10 Rudgwick Parish Council (summarised): Objection The site lies outside a built-up area boundary and the proposal would not comprise agricultural, forestry or recreational uses, or sustainable development in the rural area; The access to the site is down a narrow unlit single track lane with no passing places and ditches to either side; The proposal would significantly increase the number of vehicular movements along the lane; The are is poorly drained and there is frequent flooding in the locality; The scale and design of the proposal would not be appropriate to the rural setting and would change the character of the area; Five previous applications have been refused on the grounds of a lack of justification and being detrimental to the visual amenities and character of the area, these reasons still apply; The need for the development has not been demonstrated, the site does not form an identified site through the Development Plan; Only limited information has been submitted and further details of drainage and access should be provided; The development would be inappropriate to this rural area and contrary to both local and national policies, in particular Policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies and policies CP1 and CP15 of the Core Strategy; There is no Parish need for this development.
3.11 A total of 35 No. letters of objection have been received, which raise the following summarised concerns: The proposal is contrary to national and local planning policy; The local need for traveller sites has been identified and would be provided for through the sites identified through the Horsham District Planning Framework: Preferred Strategy and further sites are not needed; The site is outside the built-up limits of Rudgwick and would result in a loss of agricultural land; The proposal would add to ribbon development in Bucks Green; The site is poorly located for community facilities, such as schools, shops and health services; The proposal is an inappropriate use for the site, in a countryside location; The application does not consider alternative sites; The applicant does not have a local connection; Traveller sites should not be located in open countryside or rural areas; The existing access and Naldretts Lane are inadequate for the additional traffic, particularly large vehicles; Access to the site would be dangerous as it is narrow and dark with no footpaths and no passing places and is heavily used by walkers, cyclists and horse-riders; The visibility from the site access onto Naldretts Lane is questionable; The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the rural area and would not enhance the landscape; The landscape character and visual appeal of the area would be compromised; Proposed additional planting around the site would not provide an effective permanent screen; The proposed utility/day rooms would be harmful to the surrounding area;
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7
The design and layout of the proposal would be unsympathetic to its surroundings; The site cannot be considered in a sustainable location and there are no easy public transport links; The reasons for refusing previous applications on this site are all still relevant; The information submitted with the application is insufficient; The site is prone to flooding and unsuitable for this type of development; Additional hardstanding would exacerbate the existing problems of water run-off; The site is not sufficiently drained; The scale of the proposed site could lead to noise disturbance within the local area; Light pollution from the site would be detrimental to the area; No ecological evaluation of the site has been submitted with the application and there is a potential for harm to habitats and endangered species; The development would impact upon the amenities of nearby residents; The development would adversely impact upon the setting of nearby listed buildings; The site has archaeological potential; The proposal could lead to additional development at the site in future; The need for traveller sites does not outweigh the harm that the proposal would cause
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 key issues for consideration in the determination of this proposal are:
The principle of the development Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area Impact upon the amenities of nearby residents Highway implications Ecology, archaeology, flooding and drainage issues
Principle of the development
6.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that this should run through both plan-making and decision-taking. Paragraph 7 of the NPPF sets out that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. In terms of the determination of planning applications this should mean the approval of developments that accord with the development plan without delay, and that where the development plan is silent or relevant policies are out of date, that permission be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or policies of the NPPF indicate otherwise. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8
6.3 In addition to, and alongside, the NPPF, the Government published specific ‘Planning policy for traveller sites’ (PPTS) in March 2012. This PPTS sets out the Government’s planning policy for traveller sites and identifies that the ‘overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers, in a way that facilities the traditional and nomadic way of life of travellers while respecting the interests of the settled community.’ Policy H of the PPTS relates to the determination of applications for traveller sites and clarifies that applications should be determined in accordance with the adopted development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise, and that such proposals should be assessed and determined in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
6.4 Paragraph 22 of this policy also identifies a number of issues which should be considered, amongst others, for proposed traveller sites, these are as follows:
a) the existing level of local provision and need for sites (see paragraphs 6.5 to 6.9); b) the availability (or lack) of alternative accommodation for the applicants (see paragraph 6.10); c) other personal circumstances of the applicant; d) that the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans should be used to assess applications that may come forward on unallocated sites (see paragraphs 6.12 to 6.16 and 6.31 to 6.32); e) that they should determine applications for sites from any travellers and not just those with local connections (see paragraph 6.11).
Criteria a) and b) of paragraph 22 of this policy H of the PPTS are reflected in policy DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). In relation to criterion c) above, the applicant has not submitted information detailing specific personal circumstances and as such this has not been considered further.
6.5 Policy B of the PPTS states that Local Planning Authorities should set pitch targets for gypsies and travellers which address the likely permanent and transit site accommodation needs of travellers in their area. Paragraph 9 of this policy, states that plans should identify and update annually, a supply of specific deliverable sites for gypsies and travellers sufficient to provide five years worth of sites against their locally set targets. In addition, this paragraph also seeks the identification of specific developable sites or broad locations for growth for years six to ten and ideally for years eleven to fifteen.
6.6 In accordance with this requirement, the Council commissioned a ‘Gypsy/Traveller, Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessment’ from WS Planning & Architecture, the December 2012 report of which has been used to inform the draft policies within the Horsham District Planning Framework: Preferred Strategy (HDPF). Whilst this HDPF is not currently an adopted Development Plan Document (DPD) and can therefore only have limited weight attached, the findings of the ‘Gypsy/Traveller, Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessment’ represent the most recent and up-to- date study of existing and likely future need for gypsy and traveller pitch provision across the District. The Inspector’s decision on the Kingfisher Farm, West Chiltington Lane, Billingshurst appeal (DC/10/1041) makes it clear, at paragraph 8, that the appropriate basis for the assessment of local needs in accordance with policy DC32 is over the entire District and not across smaller or more discrete geographical areas. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 9
6.7 The ‘Gypsy/Traveller, Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessment’ concluded that there is an existing shortfall of 29 No. pitches across the District, comprised of existing households seeking permanent site accommodation, overcrowding and concealed households, unauthorised developments and temporary planning permissions. This Assessment also establishes a projected need for an additional 10 No. pitches across the District over the five year period to 2017 (five years from the date of the study), based upon expected new family formations over this period and an anticipated further 39 No. pitches by 2027. It should be noted that these figures exclude any requirements for both travelling showpeople and new age travellers.
6.8 Draft policy 22 of the HDPF identifies 5 No. locations that could be allocated to provide a total of 32 No. gypsy and traveller pitches and that a further 5 No. pitches are identified on sites that are the subject of a current application for planning permission, or have been granted permission since the study was undertaken in 2012. Therefore, should these sites all be allocated through the HDPF process, the Council would be providing for a total of 37 No. pitches, an undersupply of 2 No. and with no provision for sites beyond 2017.
6.9 However, despite the identification of sites for upto 37 No. pitches through the HDPF, as mentioned above, this is not currently an adopted DPD as it has not been tested through examination, and can only therefore be given limited weight. On the basis of this the Council cannot currently meet the identified backlog of unmet gypsy and traveller accommodation needs, or future anticipated needs, and is still some way off being able to allocate sites through the HDPF. Given the above identified need and accepted lack of supply of pitches over the next 5 years it is considered that this current application would meet criterion a) of policy DC32 and policy H of the PPTS.
6.10 The ‘Gypsy/Traveller, Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Needs Assessment’ identified that of the existing pitches provided within the District there was only 1 No. vacant pitch and that there was a potential for 1 No. additional pitch to be vacated in the next five year period. The application seeks the provision of a total of 4 No. pitches and whilst these one or two potential pitches could partially meet the needs of the applicant, this does not overcome the general established need for more sites in the District, as concluded by the Inspector in paragraph 40 of their decision on the appeal at Land north of 1 Juniper Cottages, Littleworth Lane, Littleworth (DC/12/0551). It is therefore considered that there are not suitable existing alternative sites, as specified in criterion b) of policy DC32 and policy H of the PPTS.
6.11 Whilst it is noted that the application has not been submitted with information detailing any specific local connection between the applicant and Rudgwick or the wider Horsham District, criterion e) of paragraph 22 of policy H of the PPTS (set out above in paragraph 6.4) states that applications should be determined from all applicants, and not just those with local connections. It is considered that this is a clear indication within Government policy that the issue of whether applicants for gypsy and traveller pitches have a connection with the local area in which the application is made, can no longer be taken as material in the determination of such proposals. Therefore, the lack of such information in this instance does not warrant a reason for refusal of this application.
6.12 PPTS policy H paragraph 22 criterion d) requires that applications for development on unallocated sites should be assessed against the locally specific criteria used to guide the allocation of sites in plans. Whilst draft policy 20 of the HDPF sets out the criteria to be taken into account when determining the allocation of land for gypsies and travellers, this is currently not an adopted policy and therefore the most appropriate means of assessing the suitability of unallocated sites is contained within policy DC32 criteria 1. to 3. These criteria state: APPENDIX A/ 1 - 10
1. the site must be reasonably located for schools, shops and other local services and community facilities; 2. a satisfactory means of access can be provided and the existing highway network is adequate to serve the site; and, 3. the proposed site accommodates adequate space for parking and turning of vehicles and provides easy access for service and emergency vehicles.
Criterion 1. is discussed here and criteria 2. and 3. are discussed below within the highway implications section at paragraphs 6.31 and 6.32.
6.13 The site is located in the open countryside to the southern side of Naldretts Lane, which is to the south of the village envelope and identified built-up area boundary of Rudgwick and Bucks Green. Rudgwick and Bucks Green are identified as category 2 settlements, which are described through policy CP5, as those with a more limited level of services in comparison with category 1 settlements. However, Rudgwick does benefit from a primary school, doctor’s surgery, post office and a convenience store.
6.14 The application site would be situated approximately 1 mile (1.6km) from Rudgwick Primary School by road and approximately 1.1 miles (1.7km) from the doctor’s surgery, post office and convenience store. These distances are within a range where car trips could realistically be replaced by either travelling on foot or by bicycle. Whilst it is acknowledged that such trips would require the use of rural lanes, it is considered that these are not atypical of such a rural area.
6.15 The Inspector in the aforementioned Kingfisher Farm appeal (DC/10/1041), which also concerned a site located approximately 1.6km from the nearest school and stores, concluded at paragraph 27:
‘whilst private car use is likely to remain the predominant mode of transport future site occupiers would have a degree of choice. The site is not in a remote or isolated location as some services are quite close at hand. In the context of the provision of gypsy sites the proposed pitches would be reasonably located for schools, shops and other local services and community facilities in line with criterion 1 of Policy DC32.’
And at paragraph 28:
‘Issues of sustainability should not only be considered in terms of transport mode and distance from services. A settled base for gypsies would bring about general and wider benefits of easier access to GPs and other health services and allowing any children to attend school on a regular basis. It would also potentially reduce the need for long-distance travel and environmental damage caused by unauthorised encampment.’
6.16 The site subject to this application would provide a similar degree of choice over modes of transport to reach some facilities and services and would provide a settled base for the gypsy families accommodated there. It is therefore considered that the proposed site would be reasonably located and can be considered to be sustainable, thereby meeting the requirements of criterion 1. of policy DC32, criterion d) of draft policy 20 of the HDPF and the aims of policy B of the PPTS.
6.17 In summary, the Council has an existing backlog of unmet gypsy and traveller accommodation need (29 No. pitches) and an anticipated additional need (of a further 10 No. pitches) within the period to 2017. There are not considered to be any suitable alternative sites that could accommodate the pitches proposed and therefore the application accords with both criteria a) and b) of policy DC32. The site is considered to be APPENDIX A/ 1 - 11
reasonably well located in terms of its access to services and facilities and as such accords with criterion 1. of policy DC32. Therefore, in this instance, it is considered that the use of the site for 4 No. gypsy pitches is acceptable in principle, subject to all other material considerations.
Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area
6.18 Policy DC2 of the General Development Control Policies (2007) requires that development protects and/or conserves and/or enhances the key characteristics of the landscape character area in which it is located, and policy CP1 of the Core Strategy (2007) states that activities that may influence character should only take place where the landscape character is protected, conserved or enhanced.
6.19 The site is located within a rural area with no other permanent buildings located within the immediate vicinity. There are sporadic individual dwellings situated further to the east along Naldretts Lane/Pensfold Lane and to the south along Haven Road, there is a cluster of dwellings at the Naldretts Lane/Haven Road junction, to the north of the site. The area is characterised by its rural setting with trees and hedgerows lining both Naldretts Lane and Haven Road in the proximity of the site.
6.20 The site is accessed by means of an existing gravelled driveway which slopes gently upwards from the level of the road towards the site. Looking south, from the access point on Naldretts Lane, the gravelled driveway extends between a low post and rail fence and runs just to the west of a line of mature conifers. The application site is situated just to the west of the driveway and these conifers and is enclosed to this northern side by a line of mature trees, including a number of further conifers. The southern boundary of the site is also formed by a line of mature conifers and hedgerow.
6.21 Immediately to the west of the application site lies a public right of way (Rudgwick Restricted Byway No. 3715) which leads from Naldretts Lane to Haven Road. The application site is well screened from this adjacent right of way by the existing hedgerow, line of trees and fencing which run along the shared boundary. Whilst the eastern boundary of the site is more open to the adjacent field, the eastern boundary of this adjacent field is largely enclosed with vegetation. Given the nature and landscaping of the locality the site is not highly visible within the surrounding area and no objection to the proposal has been raised by the County Council’s Access Ranger in terms of any impacts upon the adjacent public right of way.
6.22 The site comprises of a former horticultural nursery site with a number of redundant polytunnels, a portacabin and a couple of existing caravans stationed here. In addition, the site is partially covered with hardsurfacing. The former horticultural use of the site has ceased and the site has been left in a somewhat rundown and untidy state. Policy H paragraph 24 of the PPTS states that Local Planning Authorities should attach weight to the effective use of previously developed (brownfield), untidy or derelict land.
6.23 The application proposes 4 No. pitches, each of which would comprise space for a mobile home, a touring caravan and a utility/day room. The proposed utility/day rooms would measure 6.5m in width by 3.4m in depth and are shown to have a shallow pitched roof to a height of 3.9m. The mobile homes and touring caravans would, by their very nature, be only single storey in height. It is considered that the scale of the proposed utility/day rooms and the mobile homes and caravans would be such that they would be well screened from the surrounding area and would not appear unduly prominent with the rural landscape. Whilst policy H of the PPTS looks to ensure that sites aren’t so enclosed as to deliberately isolate them from the rest of a community, the application site is largely enclosed by soft landscaping rather than high walls or fences and this existing screening forms an important part of the character of the area. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 12
6.24 In addition to the existing screening around the site the application indicates that additional native planting will be provided along the western side of the site and also within the site, in order to provide some subdivision between the pitches. It is considered that the proposed use of the site to provide 4 No. pitches, which would sit within the existing fenced off and largely screened site, would maintain the existing landscape character of the area and would not adversely detract from it. The proposal therefore accords with policies CP1 and DC2.
6.25 The site lies within 0.5km of a number of listed buildings. Warhams and Warhams Cottage (both grade II listed) lie to the north east, Naldretts House (grade II listed) lies to the east and Hurstlands (grade II listed) lies to the south of the site. Although these heritage assets lie within relatively close proximity to the application site, this does not, in its self, mean that the setting of these assets would be impacted upon by the proposed development. The advice within ‘The Setting of Heritage Assets: English Heritage Guidance’ is that the extent of a heritage asset’s setting embraces all of its surroundings from which it can be experienced. It also makes clear that settings of heritage assets do not have fixed boundaries, and elements of a setting may have a positive or negative contribution to the significance of the asset.
6.26 The aforementioned listed buildings of Warhams, Warhams Cottage and Naldretts House are all accessed from Naldretts Lane to the east of the site access. It is considered that part of Naldretts Lane contributes to the setting of these heritage assets, as it forms their approach, but that this setting does not extend as far as the site for the proposed development. As discussed above, the application site is well screened from the north and only limited views of the proposed development would be possible from Naldretts Lane, at the point of the existing vehicular access driveway. These nearby heritage assets are not experienced from the application site and as such it is not considered that the proposal would cause harm to their significance.
6.27 Hurstlands to the south of the application site and accessed from Haven Road, is considered quite separate from the proposed development. This heritage asset is accessed from Haven Road and as such the approach to this property does not pass by or near to the application site access point. There is existing screening to the southern side of the application site and the land rises gently in this direction before levelling out towards Hurstlands. Given the level of screening, the separation distance and the change in levels, it is not considered that the proposal would impact upon the setting of this heritage asset. Therefore it is considered that the proposal would accord with the advice of the NPPF and with policy DC13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
Impact upon the amenities of nearby residents
6.28 The nearest residential properties to the application site are those of Quince Farm, Upper Barn and Mill Cottages, Naldretts Lane and the Roundabouts Cottages, Haven Road. The closest of which (Quince Farm) lies approximately 180m to the north east of the site. Due to the existing screening of the site by considerable vegetation, including evergreen species, it is not considered that any significant or substantial views of the proposed development would be afforded from these nearest residential properties.
6.29 In addition, the separation distance between the proposed development and those residential properties in the locality, would be sufficient that any disturbance through noise or general activities is unlikely. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not cause a loss of amenity to nearby residents and would accord with the requirements of policy DC9. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 13
6.30 The proposal seeks permission for the creation of 4 No. pitches. There is not considered to be a proliferation of sites for gypsy pitches in the immediate locality and it is not therefore considered that the proposal would dominate the nearest settled communities of either Bucks Green or Rudgwick. The proposal therefore accords with this aspect of the PPTS policy H.
Highway implications
6.31 The site is accessed from Naldretts Lane, which is accepted to be a relatively narrow rural lane without street lighting. However, such characteristics are not uncommon for roads in rural areas. There is an existing access driveway leading from Naldretts Lane to the application site and this is proposed to be retained. West Sussex County Council as Highways Authority have commented that although the visibility at the site access is not ideal, the low levels of traffic using Naldretts Lane and the restricted speeds of vehicles means that this does not raise a concern. Although access for larger vehicles would be tight, the Highways Authority have not raised any objection to the proposed development from a highway safety perspective. As stated in the NPPF, at paragraph 32, ‘development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.’ Whilst this refers specifically to developments that generate significant amounts of movements, which it is not considered this current proposal would, the premise behind this assertion remains pertinent.
6.32 The application proposes to provide a hardsurfaced space within each of the 4 No. pitches to allow for the parking of 2 No. vehicles. In addition, as there would be sufficient circulation space provided within the site, vehicles would be able to turn within the site and would therefore be able to enter and exit the site in a forward gear. It is therefore considered that the proposal would accord with the requirements of criteria 2. and 3. of policy DC32.
Ecology, archaeology, flooding and drainage issues
Ecology
6.33 Some concern has been raised by local residents that the proposed development would cause harm to the ecological value of the site. Whilst no ecological survey has been submitted with the application, the application site does not lie in a designated area, and the development proposed does not necessitate the submission of such details prior to its validation. The submitted plans and design and access statement show that the existing substantial vegetation around the site would be retained and augmented where possible.
6.34 Whilst the site is currently unused, at the time the previous application was considered in 2011 it was being used for some horticultural and animal rearing purposes. The County Council’s Senior Ecologist has advised that since this time the site appears to have become dominated by common weed species and that there is a possibility that reptile species may be present. It is recommended that site clearance works should therefore be controlled. In addition, the vegetated margins of the site are likely to be used by bats and there is a possibility that dormice may also be present. As the development does not propose the removal of existing vegetation around the site, it is recommended only that forms of external lighting are controlled to minimise any spillage to the surroundings. No objection has been raised in relation to the proposal and potential impacts upon protected species and it is considered that suitable mitigation measures relating to site clearance and external lighting can be satisfactorily controlled by conditions. The proposal therefore accords with policies CP1 and DC5 and with the advice of the NPPF. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 14
Archaeology
6.35 The site does not lie within an identified area of archaeological potential. Whilst a single find relating to a Roman tessera was found close to Naldretts Lane, this is some distance from the site. In addition, the site has previously undergone some ground disturbance given the level of hardstanding that currently exists and it is not considered that the proposed development would necessitate significant additional ground works to a level that would be likely to reach archaeological features. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not be likely to cause harm to archaeological heritage assets and as such a condition requiring the undertaking of investigative works would not be appropriate or proportionate in this instance. It is considered that the proposal would not conflict with policy DC10 or the advice of the NPPF.
Flooding and drainage
6.36 The site lies within Flood Zone 1, as identified by the Environment Agency’s flood map, and is therefore considered to be at low risk from flooding. The Environment Agency’s flood map identifies Flood Zone 3 as having a high probability of flooding, Flood Zone 2 as having a medium probability and Flood Zone 1 as having a low probability. Flood Zone 1 represents all land outside Zones 2 and 3. As the site lies entirely within Flood Zone 1 it complies with the Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.
6.37 The Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework classifies caravans, mobile homes and park homes for intended permanent residential use as falling within the ‘highly vulnerable’ category and that applications for the change of use of land for the stationing of such facilities will need to satisfy the Sequential and Exception tests as applicable. The NPPF outlines the Sequential Test as aiming to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. As stated above, the proposed development would be situated within Flood Zone 1, an area with a low probability of flooding and an area where, as identified by Table 3 of the Technical Guidance, ‘highly vulnerable’ uses are appropriate. It is therefore considered that the proposal would meet the requirements of the Sequential Test, the Exception Test would not therefore be required and the development would not be at risk from flooding, in accordance with policy DC7.
6.38 Concern has been raised that the proposed development would result in additional surface water run-off leaving the site and causing problems of flooding in the vicinity and along Naldretts Lane. The existing site contains a degree of hardsurfacing and although it is proposed to increase this, the use of permeable surfaces can be ensured through a condition. This will ensure that the run-off rate from the proposed development is minimised. Whilst no detailed information relating to either foul or surface water drainage from the site has been submitted, there is sufficient space within the site and within the control of the applicant that such information can be satisfactorily controlled through appropriate conditions. It is therefore not considered that there is any evidence to suggest that the proposed development could not be adequately controlled to ensure compliance with policy DC7.
Conclusion
6.39 In conclusion, there is an established and accepted need for gypsy and traveller accommodation across the District arising from an existing unmet backlog for 29 No. pitches and a future demand for a further 10 No. pitches by 2017. Although the HDPF seeks to allocate sites for 37 No. pitches this would not provide for the full 39 No. pitches required to 2017 and would make no allowances for further demand for the remainder of the five year period or beyond, as required by the PPTS. As confirmed by the Inspector in APPENDIX A/ 1 - 15
the Kingfisher Farm appeal (DC/10/1041), who stated ‘the prospect is that the significant need for sites is unlikely to be met soon and this weighs strongly in favour of the proposal’, this identified need is a material consideration that should be given significant weight.
6.40 The site would be located approximately 1 mile from the nearest primary school, doctor’s surgery and convenience store and whilst trips by private motor vehicle would still be likely, residents at the site would have a degree of choice. It is not considered that the proposal would be situated in an isolated location, but rather that it would be reasonably well located for services and facilities, as required by criterion 1. of policy DC32. It is considered that the proposal would also accord with the general presumption in favour of sustainable development advocated by the NPPF.
6.41 The nature of the site is such that it is well screened from most directions and only glimpsed views of the proposed structures would be possible. Given this existing screening and the separation of the site from nearby residential properties, including a number of listed buildings, it is not considered that the proposal would cause harm to the landscape character or appearance of the surrounding area, or the setting of heritage assets. The Highways Authority have not raised concerns in relation to highway safety matters, neither are there considered to be archaeological constraints to the development. It is also considered that the development can be satisfactorily controlled by conditions to ensure no adverse impacts in terms of biodiversity and drainage.
6.42 Taking all issues into account, it is considered that the undisputed need for additional gypsy and traveller pitches in the District and the lack of a five year supply of sites is a material consideration of significant weight. As the site is considered to be reasonably well located, would not cause harm to the landscape character of the surrounding area or raise other issues that would warrant refusal on that basis, it is not considered that the weight to be attributed to this need should be diminished. Therefore it is concluded that the overall merits of the proposal are such that the application should be permitted.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 That the application is approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The site shall not be occupied by any persons other than gypsies and travellers, as defined in Annex 1 of the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (Department for Communities and Local Government 2012).
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the use of the site and in accordance with policy DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
3. There shall be no more than 4 No. pitches on the site with no more than two caravans (as defined in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 and the Caravan Sites Act 1968) stationed on each pitch at any time, of which only one shall be a residential mobile home.
Reason: To avoid an overcrowded appearance and to secure satisfactory standards of space and amenity in accordance with policy DC1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 16
4. The utility/dayrooms hereby permitted shall not be used for sleeping accommodation and shall only be used for purposes ancillary to the use of the land at Sussex Topiary, Naldretts Lane, Rudgwick as a caravan site.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the use of the site and in accordance with Policy DC32 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
5. No commercial activities shall take place on the site, including the storage of materials.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
6. No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored 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. No development shall take place until details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the utility/dayrooms hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007.
8. No development shall take place until the details of height and materials of the proposed fences, or other means of enclosure, to be erected within the site have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved prior to the occupation of the site.
Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
9. No development shall take place until full details of measures for reptile mitigation and conservation have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Mitigation shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timing of works.
Reason: In order to safeguard and reptile species in accordance with policy CP1 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007), policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007) and the advice of the NPPF.
10. No external lighting shall be installed on the site unless details of the position, height and type of lights have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The external lighting shall be installed and operated in accordance with the approved scheme and no other lighting shall be installed or operated.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and to minimise any impacts upon local bat populations, in accordance with policies DC5 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 17
11. No development shall take place until details of a scheme for the disposal of foul drainage has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented as approved prior to the occupation of the site.
Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained in accordance with policy DC7 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
12. No development shall take place until details of a scheme for sustainable surface water drainage, to include the disposal of surface water run-off from buildings and structures and the use of permeable surfacing materials for the site, has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented and the hard standing constructed as approved prior to the occupation of the site.
Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained in accordance with policy DC7 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
13. The parking and turning areas shown on drawing No. 13_565_003 shall be provided prior to the occupation of any of the pitches and thereafter shall be retained solely for that purpose.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient space exists on site for the parking and turning of vehicles in accordance with policies DC32 and DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
14. No development shall take place until a scheme of landscaping has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted scheme shall indicate all proposed additional planting within and around the site and details of measures to protect existing trees and hedgerows around the site during development works. The protection measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the commencement of development and retained and maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. The additional planting shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details in the next planting season following the occupation of the development. Any plants 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 a similar size and species.
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).
15. No development shall take place until details of storage provision for refuse and recycling have been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the pitches.
Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of refuse and recycling facilities in accordance with policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 18
16. No works for the installation of mobile homes, construction of buildings or hardsurfacing, or the receipt of deliveries shall be carried out on site outside the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays. No works or deliveries shall take place on Sundays, Bank or public holidays.
Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
17. No burning of waste or waste materials shall take place on site at any time.
Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
18. Plan numbers condition
Notes to Applicant:
1. Mobile homes will need to be issued with a caravan site licence. It is recommended that the applicant pays regard to the conditions on such a licence before works start to avoid having to re-site buildings or hardstandings. The applicant is advised to contact the Council’s Environmental Health department for details.
2. The mobile homes should be provided with a wholesome water supply prior to occupation.
Background Papers: DC/13/2170 DC/13/2170 Sussex Topiary
Scale : 1:2500
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments O/S EXTRACT Date 20 February 2014
SLA Number 100023865 Blank APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 4th March 2014 DC/13/2183 - Variation of Condition 4 of DC/08/0316 (Development of retirement village) to relate to new indicative site layout plan. DEVELOPMENT: DC/13/2184 - The erection of 2 No. apartments in addition to approved village shop and warden's accommodation SITE: Durrants Drive Faygate West Sussex WARD: Rusper and Colgate APPLICATION: DC/13/2183 and DC/13/2184 APPLICANT: Iwan Jones
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development and Officer referral – applications deferred from meeting of 4th February 2014.
RECOMMENDATION: To delegate the decisions to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services for the completion of appropriate Unilateral Undertakings and thereafter to grant planning permission subject to conditions.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 These applications were deferred from the meeting on 4th February 2014 ( item A2) in respect of the following:
to clarify the size of the surgery as approved and as now proposed to consider the impact on the facilities in the clubhouse building
1.2 The previous report is attached.
Contact Officer: Val Cheesman Tel: 01403 215163 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATIONS
1.3 DC/13/2183 - this application relates to a variation of one of the conditions attached to the outline permission ( DC/08/0316) which was allowed on appeal for the retirement village. The condition is no. 4 which requires the development to conform to various plans including an ‘indicative site layout plan’. The condition is worded thus:
‘ Plans and particulars of the reserved matters submitted pursuant to Condition 1) above shall conform to the ‘Table of Heights, Widths and Depths of Buildings; the ‘Description of Built Development’; Drg 04’Indicative Site Layout’ and Drg 05 ’Building Scale Parameter Plan’ submitted as part of the application. ’
1.4 The plan submitted and approved for Drg 04 – the ’Indicative Site Layout’ - at the time of the outline appeal showed blocks of colour denoting the general position of various buildings/activities on the overall site. These included the location of the retirement apartments and cottages, the care home, the central facilities building and the ‘local centre’ ( containing the shop and medical centre), as well as the areas of parkland and open space, and the communal formal garden area. The ‘local centre’ was to be located in the frontage buildings along Faygate Lane.
1.5 The subsequent reserved matters application DC/10/0088 then contained detailed plans (siting, floor plans and elevations) for all the buildings on the site including the doctors’ surgery at the frontage of the site.
1.6 As set out in the previous report the applicant no longer wishes to site the surgery at the frontage of the site, but within the central facilities ( club house) building, which is in the middle of the site. The application is thus to vary the condition on the outline approval to allow for a new site layout plan ( Drg 04A) to show the new arrangement.
1.4 DC/13/2184 - This full application is for 2 flats to be provided in the frontage building. Details are as set put in the previous report at paragraph 1.4.
2. CURRENT POSITION AND ANALYSIS
2.1 The approved surgery was to be provided within the ‘local centre’ building on Faygate Lane which comprised this medical facility together with a shop, warden accommodation and a refuse store.
2.2 The applicant no longer wishes to site the surgery at this point of the site, but proposes to provide it within the central facilities building, or ‘club house’ which is in the middle of the site. It should be noted that whilst the previous Unilateral Undertakings contain an obligation to provide a GP Surgery within the development, the siting and scale of such a facility are not specified in the Unilateral Undertakings. Thus the proposals as now submitted would therefore correspond with the obligation in the Unilateral Undertakings to provide such facilities for the overall development. The detail of the facilities (such as their location and the scale and specific type of facilities) are contained within the relevant applications.
2.3 Looking at those details, the gross internal floorspace of the approved surgery is 80.94 sqm. The approved floor plans just show the provision of this area within the building as a whole. They do not show the detail of the facilities or how they would be subdivided, i.e. the APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3
provision of a reception area, waiting area or consulting room or other internal facilities which may be required within this overall area such as sanitary facilities or a kitchenette facility for staff.
2.4 The approved central facilities building provides social, welfare and administrative functions for the retirement village, comprising a kitchen and dining room, bar, pool and fitness room, treatment /physiotherapy room with nurses room, lounges, meeting room, snooker room and a library. In addition there are 9 flats and one guest room on the upper floors. These facilities would be for the benefit of the residents of the development, with the library also being able to be used by residents of Faygate, as set out in the Unilateral Undertakings.
2.5 In order to facilitate the proposed changes, part of the ground floor layout of the central facilities building is to be revised to accommodate a GPs consulting room with nurses room.
2.6 Looking at the internal changes in detail, the southeast corner of the ground floor layout as approved showed a reception area and manager’s office, a waiting area, nurse’s room and a treatment/physiotherapy room.
2.7 The current proposal (as shown in the non material amendment application DC./13/1062 which is being dealt with under delegated powers), is to remodel this corner of the building at ground floor level and to have a revised layout for the main office, managers office and reception area, accessed directly from the entrance hall of the building. The nurse’s room is unaffected and the treatment room/physiotherapy room is enlarged slightly and becomes the GP consulting room. The agent has confirmed that the floor area of the proposed doctor’s surgery (i.e. the GP consulting room and nurses room) would extend to approximately 27 sqm , but this would be exclusive of any waiting area, staff facilities or reception.
2.8 Thus a direct comparison between the size of the approved surgery area with that now proposed is not completely possible as these new plans are more detailed, itemising specific uses and subdividing the floorspace to these different activities (i.e. reception, waiting area, consulting room) for the area as a whole; whereas the approved plans just show a gross floorspace area. Also the revised proposals would allow for the sharing of ancillary facilities (reception, sanitary facilities, a waiting area, and a kitchenette facility for staff) that are already to be provided in the Central Facilities Building and so would make more efficient use of the space. Furthermore, the reception area would have a dual purpose by serving the building as a whole and not just the medical facilities
2.9 All other facilities in the club house building are unaffected and would be as previously approved, including the library. The agent considers that ‘there is no appreciable impact on the facilities in Central Facilities Building as a result of incorporating the doctor's surgery. The reception desk has now been marginally enlarged to fulfil its dual function and the physiotherapy room has been amended to the GPs consulting room. However, there is nothing prohibiting the GPs consultation room or the nurse’s room from being used for physiotherapy or other treatments when the rooms are not in use. As above the dual use of the facilities make the most efficient use of the space available given that the development is not of a size where a room in constant use for physiotherapy would be required. No facilities are therefore lost to the building as a result of the changes, but rather the proposals ensure the most efficient use of the space available.’
2.10 The concern at the loss of the medical facility from the frontage of the site and the ease of access that this would have afforded is acknowledged, but it should be noted that the proposal is not to delete these the facilities as they would still be provided as part of the overall development. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4
2.11 It is considered that the new proposed location in the central facilities building, would mean that the GPs consulting room would be conveniently sited with other the facilities available in that building, including the library which also can be used by residents of Faygate. Thus access for residents of Faygate into this particular building has already been established in the approvals which have previously been granted. It is therefore considered that the application to relocate the medical facilities is acceptable and would continue to allow for the provision of this particular community facility as part of the overall development.
2.12 In addition, the impact on the layout and facilities provided in the central facilities (club house) building) would not be adversely affected by the proposals as the revisions relate to a relatively small part of the internal layout of this building.
2.13 The agent also states that by relocating the GP Surgery within the Central Facilities Building this enables two additional affordable units to be provided on site which would otherwise not be secured.
2.14 A completed Unilateral Undertaking would be required to ensure the obligations in the previous Unilateral Undertakings apply to this proposal.
3. RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 DC/13/2183 - variation of condition 4 (new site layout plan) - It is recommended that subject to the completion of an appropriate Unilateral Undertaking, to ensure the obligations and contributions for the retirement village as set out in the previous Unilateral Undertakings are carried forward, that planning permission be granted subject to appropriate conditions to reflect those imposed on the original permission for the whole development and any other additional conditions considered to be appropriate.
3.2 DC/13/2184 – 2 apartments - It is recommended the application be delegated to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services with a view to approval subject to the completion of an appropriate Unilateral Undertaking in respect of the price and occupancy of the flats and that the matters relating to the earlier agreements are not prejudiced and that thereafter permission is granted subject to the following conditions:
1. Full Permission
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. Finished floor levels
Before development commences precise details of the finished floor levels of the development in relation to a nearby datum point be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To control the development in detail in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5
3. External Lighting
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.
Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
4. Fencing
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.
Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
5. Hard and soft landscaping
No works or development shall take place until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any plants 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 the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
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).
6. Materials
No development shall be commenced unless and until a schedule of materials and samples of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for external walls and roofs of the proposed buildings(s) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved.
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).
7. Scheme of remediation
7.1 Prior to the commencement of development (other than development required to carry out remediation) the approved scheme of remediation [the details of which are those as approved under condition 6 of DC/08/0316] shall be completed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6
7.2 In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority.
7.3 A monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the long-term effectiveness of the proposed remediation, and the provision of reports on the same must be prepared, both of which are subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority. Following completion of the measures identified in that scheme and when the remediation objectives have been achieved, reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of the monitoring and maintenance carried out must be produced, and submitted to the local planning authority.
This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s “Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11”.
Reason: To ensure that any pollution is dealt with in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
8. Access
The access to the proposed development from the public highway shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details [the details of which are those as approved under DC/08/0316 and DC/11/1229]. Thereafter the visibility splays as approved shall be kept free of any obstruction in excess of 0.6m above the level of the adjoining carriageway.
Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)
9. Car parking/cycle parking
No dwelling for which planning permission is hereby granted shall be occupied until the vehicular and cycle parking has been provided as shown on the approved plans. Thereafter the car parking spaces and the facilities for cycle parking shall be retained and made available for their designated purpose at all times. Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the accommodation of vehicles and cycles clear of the highways in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 10. Construction and environmental management plan
The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the Construction and Environmental Management Plan [the details of which are those as approved under condition 9 of DC/08/0316]. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7
Reason: In the interest of controlling the impact of the development during construction and to comply with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
11. Tree protection
No development shall take place until details of the fencing and/or other measures proposed to protect the retained trees and hedges during construction (which shall generally accord with BS5837: Trees in Relation to Construction (2012)) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter no machinery, materials or equipment shall be brought onto any area of the site for the purpose of the development (including equipment required for ground clearance works and demolition) until the approved fences and other measures for the protection of all retained trees and hedges in that area of the site have been completed. Once installed, the fences within each area of the site shall be maintained during the course of the development until all machinery and surplus materials have been removed from that area of the site. Areas so fenced off shall be treated as zones of prohibited access, and shall not be used for the storage of materials, equipment or machinery in any circumstances before, during or after the erection of the protective fencing. No mixing of cement, concrete, or the use of other materials or substances shall take place within any tree protection zone, or close enough to such a zone that seepage or displacement of those materials and substances could cause them to enter the zone.
Reason: To ensure the successful and satisfactory retention of important trees and hedgerows on the site in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
12. Code for Sustainable Homes
The dwelling(s) shall achieve a Code Level 3 in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (or such national measures of sustainability for house design that replaces that scheme). No dwelling(s) shall be occupied until a Final Code Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code Level 3 has been achieved.
Reason: To ensure the dwelling makes the most efficient use of renewable energy and to comply with policy DC8 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
13. Archaeology
The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved programme of archaeological works [the details of which are those as approved under condition 12 of DC/08/0316].
Reason: To enable items of archaeological interest to be recorded in accordance with the policy DC10 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
14. Drainage
No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until it has been connected into the approved site-wide surface and foul water drainage system [the details of which are those as approved under condition 13 of DC/08/0316] in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8
Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained in accordance with Policy DC7 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)
15. Protected species/ecological mitigation and enhancement
The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme and programme of ecological mitigation and enhancement [the details of which are those as approved under condition 15 of DC/08/0316].
Reason: To safeguard the ecology and biodiversity of the area in accordance with policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), and in the interests of protected species as listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to ensure that a habitat remains for them during and after development.
16. Travel plan
The measures set out in the approved Travel Plan [the details of which are those as approved under condition 16 of DC/08/0316] shall be extended to benefit occupiers of the dwellings hereby approved. Thereafter the provisions of the approved travel plan shall be complied with.
Reason: To promote sustainable modes of transport for the site in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
17. Removal of permitted development rights
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No2) (England) Order 2008 (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 F G and H 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).
Background Papers: DC/13/2183 and DC/13/2184
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1 APPENDIX A2 – DC/13/2183 DC/13/2184 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 4th February 2014 DC/13/2183 - Variation of Condition 4 of DC/08/0316 (Development of retirement village) to relate to new indicative site layout plan. DEVELOPMENT: DC/13/2184 - The erection of 2 No. apartments in addition to approved village shop and warden's accommodation SITE: Durrants Drive Faygate West Sussex WARD: Rusper and Colgate APPLICATION: DC/13/2183 and DC/13/2184 APPLICANT: Iwan Jones
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development and Officer referral
RECOMMENDATION: To delegate the decisions to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services for the completion of appropriate Unilateral Undertakings and thereafter to grant planning permission subject to conditions.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning applications.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 DC/13/2183 - this application relates to a variation of one of the conditions attached to the outline permission which was allowed on appeal for the retirement village. The condition is no. 4 which requires the development to conform to various plans including an ‘indicative site layout plan’. The plan submitted and approved at that time showed a doctors surgery to be located in the frontage buildings along Faygate Lane. The subsequent reserved matters application DC/10/0088 then contained detailed plans for the doctors surgery at the frontage of the site.
1.2 The applicant no longer wishes to site the surgery at the frontage of the site, but within the central facilities building, which is in the middle of the site. The application is thus to vary the condition on the outline approval to allow for a new site layout plan to show the new arrangement.
Contact Officer: Val Cheesman Tel: 01403 215163 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2 APPENDIX A2 – DC/13/2183 DC/13/2184 1.3 A draft Unilateral Undertaking has been submitted to tie the obligations in the previous planning obligations given by way of Unilateral Undertaking to this revised permission.
1.4 DC/13/2184 - This full application is for 2 flats to be provided in the frontage building. These would be 1 x 2 bed flat on the ground floor to replace the medical centre and 1 x 1 bed flat on the 1st floor above the shop. This first floor area was originally proposed as storage space for the shop, but this is now to be provided on the ground floor. This results in part of the first floor area being vacant and available to be developed as a 1 bed flat. The applicant advises that these are to be low cost ‘affordable’ units and has submitted a draft Unilateral Undertaking to this effect. The building would still provide the shop and refuse store on the ground floor and the warden’s flat on the first floor.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.5 The overall site extends to some 12.19 hectares and lies to the north of Faygate village and is accessed off of Faygate Lane. The overall site has contained a number of uses over many years. The previous buildings have been demolished and the construction of the retirement village units are underway.
1.6 The southern boundary of the overall site abuts the Faygate Business Centre consisting of 14 industrial/commercial units. Public Footpath No. 1593 lies along this boundary. Beyond this is Faygate Railway Station and further to the south-west the site boundary abuts the railway line. To the south-east, north of the railway line and south of the access road to the station, are four residential dwellings. To the north of the main site are four detached dwellings fronting onto Faygate Lane.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 National Planning Policy Framework (2012) – - paragraph 14 : presumption in favour of sustainable development - section 6, paragraphs 49 , 50,54 and 55 : delivering a wide choice of high quality homes,
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007: CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP12, CP13, CP15 and CP16.
2.3 Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies 2007: DC1, DC3, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC18, DC31.
2.4 Horsham District Planning Framework: Preferred Strategy (August 2013) - The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy was approved by Council for consultation on 25th July 2013. The consultation period ran from 16th August to 11th October 2013. The planning application will be considered following this consultation period and therefore the emerging Preferred Strategy is a material consideration with limited weight in the assessment of this planning application.
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3 APPENDIX A2 – DC/13/2183 DC/13/2184
PLANNING HISTORY
2.5 There is an extensive planning history relating to previous uses of the site. With regard to the development of a continuing care retirement community the following applications are relevant:
DC/08/0316 Demolition of existing buildings, construction of 148 retirement units, eight affordable housing units, one warden’s flat, 52 bed care home, visitor accommodation, central facilities building, shop, medical centre, provision of formal ‘open space’, balancing pond, associated landscaping and access works. This was refused and was the subject of a Public Inquiry in March/April 2009. Outline planning permission was granted by the Inspector.
Section 106/1728 A Unilateral Undertaking was completed by the applicant in respect of the appeal. This relates to the provision of permitted footpaths and open space, public art, together with village shops, surgery/medical centre, library, each of which will be made to fit the residents of Faygate as well as residents of the development. It further secures the provision of a community bus service to serve the development and the wider community of Faygate and provides a total of £128,000 towards the off-site highway, footpaths, cycle and public transport infrastructure improvements. In respect of affordable housing, it relates to the provision of eight affordable housing units on the site and the payment of a contribution of £3.26M towards the provision of affordable housing off-site.
DC/10/0088 Approval of reserved matters relating to DC/08/0316 was permitted on 5th August 2010.
DC/11/1229 Non-material amendment to outline permission DC/08/0316 consisting of revised access design pursuant to Condition 07 – permitted on 5th July 2011.
DC/12/0178 Erection of six retirement dwellings and a triple bay garage – permitted.
Section 106/1918 Unilateral Undertaking completed by the applicant in relation to DC/12/0178 to integrate the development as part of the retirement village only; that the further 6 units are occupied as extra care units only; to deliver all the other elements of the package of measures set out in the original obligation ( provision of open space and permitted footpaths, highways and transport works, community facilities and on site public art, landscape and bio-diversity management plans and financial contributions for off-site affordable housing [£3.96M]); and that the commencement/development/occupation of the 6 units count towards the trigger points of the obligations established in the existing planning obligation. . DC/13/1062 Non-material amendment to DC/10/0088 to redesign part of the ground floor of the central facilities building to accommodate medical centre which will be relocated from previously approved location, addition of 3 car parking spaces and various external alterations – under current consideration. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4 APPENDIX A2 – DC/13/2183 DC/13/2184
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
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
DC/13/2183 – variation of condition 4 – new site layout plan
3.1 West Sussex County Council ( Highways) – no objection.
3.2 Colgate Parish Council – no objection in view of the background and that the surgery will still be available. Comment about concerns about long term access to the medical facilities as there may be security issues with non-Durrants village residents in the main complex building.
DC/13/2184 – 2 apartments
3.3 Strategic and Community Planning – the site is in a countryside location as defined by policy CP5 of the LDF and as such is contrary to the adopted policies regarding development in the countryside. However, it is recognised that this is an existing large extension to the settlement of Faygate. In addition the proposal may satisfy the criteria of policy DC30 (exception housing schemes) relating to affordable housing. The case officer and housing officer are best placed to assess whether the apartments are considered affordable. Policy DC8 (sustainable construction) and DC9 (development principles) are also relevant.
3.4 Housing Services Manager - The apartments will be sold at 65% open market value and at the same percentage on resale, for a period of 80 years. The applicant is not suggesting that the apartments are acquired by a Housing Association, but will market the homes to local purchasers for a period of time. Horsham District Council will not be involved in the selection of purchasers, either on first sale or resales.
It is the view of housing officers that the units cannot be classed as low cost market housing as the 35% ‘subsidy’ is built into the lease and applies on all future resales. Therefore, on balance, the units could be considered as ‘intermediate’ affordable housing, defined thus:
…homes for sale and rent provided at a cost above social rent, but below .market levels subject to the criteria in the Affordable Housing definition above. These can include shared equity (shared ownership and equity loans), other low cost homes for sale and intermediate rent, but not affordable rented housing.
It is recommended that an open market value for the apartments is based on the value of similar apartments offered for general sale locally and not 2 bed apartments in the retirement village
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5 APPENDIX A2 – DC/13/2183 DC/13/2184 3.5 West Sussex County Council ( Highways) – no objection. With regard to vehicle movements and traffic generation these changes from a medical centre to 2 flats would not be considered significant enough to cause a highway safety concern. Each flat will be provided with one vehicular car parking space which would be considered an appropriate level for dwellings of this size in this location. These spaces are already proposed in the approved site layout as they would have previously served the medical centre which will now be relocated. No anticipated highways safety concerns. Contributions sought for libraries, fire and rescue and transport infrastructure.
3.6 Colgate Parish Council – query ownership and occupation of the flats and how this will be Controlled initially and in the future ( by HDC/Parish/other body?). One parking space for each flat would be required. PC would like to be involved in decision on s106 monies.
3.7 Southern Water – Environment Agency to be consulted on use of a private waste water treatment works. The SUDS drainage system should include arrangements for long term maintenance.
3.8 Environment Agency – have screened the planning application with regard to the development type and location of the proposal, and have no comments to make.
Note – the development will connect into the drainage system agreed for the retirement village which includes a private wastewater treatment plant.
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 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The National Planning Policy Framework has a golden thread running through it which seeks to ensure a presumption in favour of sustainable development The National Planning Policy Framework seeks to ensure that the planning system performs an economic, social and environmental role. The Framework requires applications to be determined in accordance with the development plan. It is considered that the policies contained within the Horsham District Local Development Framework are still relevant in this case.
6.2 The main issues in the determination of this application are:
i) the principle of the development in this location ii) relocation of the medical centre/doctors surgery iii) change from the medical centre as part of the retirement village to low cost ‘affordable’/ local accommodation iii) design and appearance iv) access and parking arrangements v) amenities of neighbouring and future occupiers, APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6 APPENDIX A2 – DC/13/2183 DC/13/2184 vi) contributions and planning obligations.
Both applications DC/13/2183 and DC/13/2184 will be considered under issue i); application DC/13/2183 is considered under issue ii); application DC/13/2184 is considered under issue iii) and both applications are considered under issues iv), v) and vi).
i) The Principle of the Development in this Location
6.3 The principle of the development of the whole site as a retirement village was established with the appeal decision which granted the outline planning permission under DC/08/0316. Thus issues in respect of the principle of the development as a whole , its compatibility with the spatial strategy for the District, the release of land for housing and housing need and the need for additional greenfield development and protection of employment sites, infrastructure provision and the overall rural and landscape impact, were examined at the Public Inquiry and were approved by the Inspector. The access arrangements were agreed following the submission of details to the Highway Authority. With regard to the need to make infrastructure contributions to mitigate the impact of the development, this was addressed by the Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking. Similarly, the Inspector did not feel that sustainability reasons were valid, given the nature of the occupation of the facilities.
6.4 The Appeal Inspector considered that whilst the development would conflict with the Development Plan as it was in the countryside adjacent to a Category 2 Settlement, he considered there was currently a significant need for extra care or other similar housing for the elderly and inform in the district and that in the absence of the appeal scheme, this is not likely to be met elsewhere in the district for several years. He further concluded that the scheme would not be unsustainable to the extent that that would be the case were the site to be developed for normal market housing, given the nature of the proposed development and various measures proposed to enhance its sustainability in the Section 106 undertaking. He gave these two matters significant weight in the overall planning balance. He further commented that the proposal would secure eight houses for affordable housing on site plus a significant financial contribution to be used to secure some 54 affordable housing units elsewhere in the District. He considered that these matters should be attributed some weight in the overall planning balance, alongside the clear support for the scheme by the Parish Council.
6.5 The key issues therefore in the consideration of these 2 applications are the relocation of the medical centre to a new position on the overall site, the policy implications of the change from the medical centre on the frontage of the site to 2 apartments, together with the impact of the revised proposals on the character and visual amenities of the street scene and locality, access and parking arrangements, residential amenities and need for s106 planning obligations to be given by way of Unilateral Undertaking.
ii) Relocation of the medical centre/doctors surgery
6.6 The approved plans (outline and reserved matters) show the doctors surgery to be provided to the front of the site, to the south of the access road. The approved building was to accommodate this medical facility together with a shop, warden accommodation and a refuse store.
6.7 The Unilateral Undertaking refers to the medical centre as part of the outline permission and has clauses requiring that no more than 100 extra care units are to be occupied until the medical centre is provided and available for use by residents of the development and to permit residents of Faygate to have access to the facilities.
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7 APPENDIX A2 – DC/13/2183 DC/13/2184 6.8 The applicant no longer wishes to site the surgery at this point of the site, but proposes to provide it within the central facilities building, which is in the middle of the site.
6.9 The approved central facilities building provides social, welfare and administrative functions for the retirement village, comprising a library, kitchen and dining room, bar, pool and fitness room, treatment /physiotherapy room with nurses room, lounges, meeting room and snooker room. In addition there are 9 flats and one guest room on the upper floors.
6.10 In order to facilitate the proposed changes, part of the ground floor layout of the central facilities building is to be revised to accommodate a GPs consulting room with nurses room. All other facilities are unaffected.
6.11 Application DC/13/2183 is to thus to vary the condition on the outline approval to allow for a new site layout plan to show the new arrangement for the overall site. The details of the physical changes to the central facilities building are included in the non-material amendment application DC/13/1062, which is being dealt with under delegated powers.
6.12 Whilst there is limited concern at the loss of the medical facility from the frontage of the site and the ease of access that this would have afforded, the facilities would still be provided in the development and it is acknowledged that in their new proposed location in the central facilities building the GPs consulting room would be conveniently sited with other the facilities available in that building, including the library which also can be used by residents of Faygate. It is therefore considered that the application to relocate the medical facilities is acceptable and would allow for the provision of community facilities as part of the overall development.
6.13 A completed Unilateral Undertaking would be required to ensure the obligations in the previous Unilateral Undertakings apply to this proposal.
iii) Change from the medical centre as part of the retirement village to low cost ‘affordable’/local accommodation
6.14 With regard to the principle of the retirement village, the Inspector’s reasoning for the appeal decision on the whole of the site is relevant and is set out above. Whilst he considered that the scheme would conflict with policy, (as it was development within the countryside adjacent to a Category 2 settlement), he placed significant weight to the need for extra care of similar housing for the elderly and infirm in the district. He also referred to the various measures proposed to enhance the sustainability of the proposal as set out under Section 106 Undertaking, including the proposals to make the community bus, the shop, the library and the surgery/medical centre available for all residents in Faygate to use in perpetuity. Existing ground contamination would be remediated and the ecological value of the site would be improved by long term management. The public footpath along the site would be improved and further permitted paths and open space on the site provided for the public to use. It would also provide employment for some 70 people.
6.15 Accordingly he granted permission for the scheme as a whole, and with the package of benefits provided via the planning obligation given by way of a Unilateral Undertaking.
6.16 With regard to this application for 2 apartments, on part of the site, but not for retirement units or as other facilities to complement the overall development, then the principle of such a development for open market residential accommodation would be contrary to the restrictive countryside policies that apply in this location. Furthermore, in themselves the provision of 2 residential units would be unlikely to carry sufficient weight to outweigh this policy conflict. Neither would such a scheme achieve or be able to justify the package of benefits and measures secured with the whole scheme. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8 APPENDIX A2 – DC/13/2183 DC/13/2184
6.17 However, the proposal has been submitted on the basis the units would be low cost ‘affordable’/local accommodation. The draft Unilateral Undertaking that has been submitted sets out the detail of the mechanisms that would restrict the occupation of the flats. Such mechanisms relate to the price of the units and local occupancy clauses and the time periods that would apply.
6.18 Whilst the 2 flats would not be additional retirement units, which could be justified as part of the overall development, and neither would they be affordable housing, owned/managed by a Housing Association, the low cost ‘affordable’ /local occupancy proposals would go some way to meeting the housing needs of the local community and the restrictions of the s106 agreement would be such that the units would not be open market units. The Housing Services Manager considers that the units can be considered as ‘intermediate’ affordable housing as the subsidy is built into the lease and applies on all future resales.
6.19 In addition, it should be noted that whilst 8 affordable units were originally agreed to be provided as part of the overall development of this site, permission has now been granted for 6 retirement units in their place (DC/12/0178). Whilst the financial contributions for off- site affordable housing are then increased as set out in the Unilateral Undertaking to compensate for this, no affordable units are to be provided on the overall site itself.
6.20 In these circumstances it is considered that this small development of 2 low cost ‘affordable’/local occupancy flats is acceptable and would address some needs of the local community, albeit to a limited extent.
iv) Design and Appearance
6.21 Support for good design is reflected in the Council’s own Development Plan Policies which require that new development should be of a high standard of design and layout in keeping with the character of nearby developments and the surrounding area (Policies CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character, CP3 – Improving the Quality of New Development, DC9 – Development Principles).
6.22 The NPPF places a great importance on the design of the built environment. At section 7 it states that ‘good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people. ‘
6.23 The details of the change to the central facilities building are included in the non-material amendment application DC/13/1062, which is being dealt with under delegated powers. The 2 flats will be accommodated within the approved frontage building. There is no change to the footprint and the overall bulk, massing, architectural approach and materials remain as approved. The only change to the external appearance is to the southern (rear) elevation of the shop whereby 3 windows have been deleted following consideration of the internal layout of the shop. The appearance and layout of the flats is considered to be acceptable in the context of the locality and in compliance with the aims of policy DC9.
iv) Access and Parking Arrangements
6.24 The access to the site is via Faygate Lane using the approved access drive. Parking for the relocated medical facilities will be to the front and north side of the central facilities building, with 3 additional spaces shown ( total of 24 spaces) adjacent to the front entrance of the building. Parking for the 2 flats (one space per unit) will be to the immediate rear of the APPENDIX A/ 2 - 9 APPENDIX A2 – DC/13/2183 DC/13/2184 frontage buildings which is serviced by 6 spaces in total. These spaces are on the approved site layout as they were to previously serve the medical centre.
6.25 The access and parking facilities are considered to be appropriate for the scale of development proposed and accord with the requirements of Policy DC9.
v) Amenities of Neighbouring and Future Occupiers
6.26 The relocation of the medical facility to the central facilities building is not considered to have any adverse impact on residential amenities given its central location on the site and the other communal facilities that are sited within this building.
6.27 The 2 apartments to the front of the site are considered to be appropriately sited with regard to existing residential properties. The internal layout of the flats and their positioning within the building and relationship with other uses is similarly considered to be acceptable and provides for an appropriate residential environment.
6.28 It is thus considered that these schemes have an appropriate layout with regard to residential amenities and the schemes accord with Policy DC9 in this respect.
vi) Contributions and Planning Obligations
6.29 DC/13/2183 - variation of condition 4 (new site layout plan) - in approving the application to vary the condition it results in a new permission being issued for the whole site. A completed Unilateral Undertaking would thus be required to ensure the obligations and contributions for the retirement village as set out in the previous legal agreements are carried forward.
6.30 DC/13/2184 – 2 apartments - the applicant advises that these are to be low cost ‘affordable’/local units and has submitted a draft Unilateral Undertaking to this effect to control the price and occupancy of the flats in this way. Subject to these objectives being achieved, and that the matters relating to the earlier agreements are not prejudiced, it is considered that such a Unilateral Undertaking would be acceptable.
6.31 With regard to contributions, WSCC have requested amounts for libraries £197, fire and rescue £84 and transport £ 838. In addition this development would give rise to HDC contributions for community centres and halls £302, open space, sport and recreation £1,265 and local refuse and recycling £151.
6.32 It should be noted that the overall retirement scheme is accompanied by a package of contributions and facilities secured by the Unilateral Undertakings, which include the provision of a library, village shop, surgery/ medical centre, provision of a community bus, permissive footpaths , cycle paths, bus shelters, and open space, to serve the residents of the development and residents of Faygate.
6.33 Given this situation and in light of the relatively small amounts involved, plus the three tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy 2010, i.e. that contributions have to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonable related in scale and kind to the development, it is not considered that these additional contributions are justified and no CIL compliant projects have been identified.
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 10 APPENDIX A2 – DC/13/2183 DC/13/2184
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 DC/13/2183 - variation of condition 4 (new site layout plan) - It is recommended that subject to the completion of an appropriate Unilateral Undertaking, to ensure the obligations and contributions for the retirement village as set out in the previous Unilateral Undertakings are carried forward, that planning permission be granted subject to appropriate conditions to reflect those imposed on the original permission for the whole development and any other additional conditions considered to be appropriate.
7.2 DC/13/2184 – 2 apartments - It is recommended the application be delegated to the Head of Planning and Environmental Services with a view to approval subject to the completion of an appropriate Unilateral Undertaking in respect of the price and occupancy of the flats and that the matters relating to the earlier agreements are not prejudiced and that thereafter permission is granted subject to the following conditions:
1. Full Permission
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. Finished floor levels
Before development commences precise details of the finished floor levels of the development in relation to a nearby datum point be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To control the development in detail in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
3. External Lighting
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.
Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the locality and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
4. Fencing
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.
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 11 APPENDIX A2 – DC/13/2183 DC/13/2184 Reason: In the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
5. Hard and soft landscaping
No works or development shall take place until full details of all hard and soft landscaping works have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All such works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any plants 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 the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
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).
6. Materials
No development shall be commenced unless and until a schedule of materials and samples of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for external walls and roofs of the proposed buildings(s) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved.
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).
7. Scheme of remediation
7.1 Prior to the commencement of development (other than development required to carry out remediation) the approved scheme of remediation [the details of which are those as approved under condition 6 of DC/08/0316] shall be completed unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
7.2 In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority.
7.3 A monitoring and maintenance scheme to include monitoring the long-term effectiveness of the proposed remediation, and the provision of reports on the same must be prepared, both of which are subject to the approval in writing of the local planning authority. Following completion of the measures identified in that scheme and when the remediation objectives have been achieved, reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of APPENDIX A/ 2 - 12 APPENDIX A2 – DC/13/2183 DC/13/2184 the monitoring and maintenance carried out must be produced, and submitted to the local planning authority.
This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s “Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11”.
Reason: To ensure that any pollution is dealt with in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
8. Access
The access to the proposed development from the public highway shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details [the details of which are those as approved under DC/08/0316 and DC/11/1229]. Thereafter the visibility splays as approved shall be kept free of any obstruction in excess of 0.6m above the level of the adjoining carriageway.
Reason: In the interests of road safety and in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)
9. Car parking/cycle parking
No dwelling for which planning permission is hereby granted shall be occupied until the vehicular and cycle parking has been provided as shown on the approved plans. Thereafter the car parking spaces and the facilities for cycle parking shall be retained and made available for their designated purpose at all times. Reason: To ensure that adequate and satisfactory provision is made for the accommodation of vehicles and cycles clear of the highways in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
10. Construction and environmental management plan
The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the Construction and Environmental Management Plan [the details of which are those as approved under condition 9 of DC/08/0316].
Reason: In the interest of controlling the impact of the development during construction and to comply with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
11. Tree protection
No development shall take place until details of the fencing and/or other measures proposed to protect the retained trees and hedges during construction (which shall generally accord with BS5837: Trees in Relation to Construction (2012)) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter no machinery, materials or equipment shall be brought onto any area of the site for the purpose of the development (including equipment required for ground clearance works and demolition) until the approved fences and other measures for the protection of all retained APPENDIX A/ 2 - 13 APPENDIX A2 – DC/13/2183 DC/13/2184 trees and hedges in that area of the site have been completed. Once installed, the fences within each area of the site shall be maintained during the course of the development until all machinery and surplus materials have been removed from that area of the site. Areas so fenced off shall be treated as zones of prohibited access, and shall not be used for the storage of materials, equipment or machinery in any circumstances before, during or after the erection of the protective fencing. No mixing of cement, concrete, or the use of other materials or substances shall take place within any tree protection zone, or close enough to such a zone that seepage or displacement of those materials and substances could cause them to enter the zone.
Reason: To ensure the successful and satisfactory retention of important trees and hedgerows on the site in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
12. Code for Sustainable Homes
The dwelling(s) shall achieve a Code Level 3 in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide (or such national measures of sustainability for house design that replaces that scheme). No dwelling(s) shall be occupied until a Final Code Certificate has been issued for it certifying that Code Level 3 has been achieved.
Reason: To ensure the dwelling makes the most efficient use of renewable energy and to comply with policy DC8 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
13. Archaeology
The development hereby approved shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved programme of archaeological works [the details of which are those as approved under condition 12 of DC/08/0316].
Reason: To enable items of archaeological interest to be recorded in accordance with the policy DC10 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
14. Drainage
No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until it has been connected into the approved site-wide surface and foul water drainage system [the details of which are those as approved under condition 13 of DC/08/0316] in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that the development is properly drained in accordance with Policy DC7 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)
15. Protected species/ecological mitigation and enhancement
The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved scheme and programme of ecological mitigation and enhancement [the details of which are those as approved under condition 15 of DC/08/0316].
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 14 APPENDIX A2 – DC/13/2183 DC/13/2184 Reason: To safeguard the ecology and biodiversity of the area in accordance with policy DC5 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), and in the interests of protected species as listed under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, to ensure that a habitat remains for them during and after development.
16. Travel plan
The measures set out in the approved Travel Plan [the details of which are those as approved under condition 16 of DC/08/0316] shall be extended to benefit occupiers of the dwellings hereby approved. Thereafter the provisions of the approved travel plan shall be complied with.
Reason: To promote sustainable modes of transport for the site in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
17. Removal of permitted development rights
Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (No2) (England) Order 2008 (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 F G and H 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).
Background Papers: DC/13/2183 and DC/13/2184 DC/13/2183 & DC/13/2184
Durrants Drive
Scale : 1:5000
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments O/S EXTRACT Date 20 February 2014
SLA Number 100023865 Blank APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 4th March 2014
DEVELOPMENT: Erection of a detached 3 bedroom house.
SITE: 53 Guildford Road, Horsham, West Sussex WARD: Denne APPLICATION DC/13/1829 APPLICANT: Biddy O’Connor
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Number of representation letters exceeds 5 – deferred from 9th February 2014 meeting
BACKGROUND
This application was previously on the agenda for the Committee Meeting in February 2014. The application was deferred in order to consider the comments of the Dene Neighbourhood Council (received on the 21st October 2013), which were omitted from the reporting Officer’s report. The original report is appended to this updated report.
The comments of Dene Neighbourhood Council have been appended to this report and have been summarised below. With respect to the issues raised by the Neighbourhood Council, that were not covered in the original report, this has been subsequently addressed.
RECOMMENDATION: To approve planning permission.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the acceptability of the planning applications.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The proposed development is for the erection of a detached two storey dwelling which is to be situated on the rear garden of no. 53 Guildford Road. The proposed dwelling would have 3 bedrooms and would be accessed of the existing access off Cemetary Lane.
Contact Officer: Christopher Peters Tel: 01403 215174 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.2 The application site forms the rear garden of no.53 Guildford Road. No.53 Guildford Road is on the corner of Guildford Road and Hills Farm Lane, which is proposed to be sub- divided to form its own plot and will house the new residential dwelling. The proposal site will be accessed via Hills Cemetary Lane. The site has a row of mature Trees are situated Along the site fronting Hills Cemetery Lane is. Out of these trees the Lime Tree is protected by a TPO. The surrounding area is characterised by detached dwellings on long narrow plots.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 National Planning Policy Framework:
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Local Development Framework (Core Strategy 2007):
CP1 - Landscape and Townscape Character CP3 - Improving the Quality of New Development CP5 - Built-Up Areas and Previously Developed Land CP12 - Meeting Housing Needs CP13 - Infrastructure Requirements CP14 - Protection and enhancement of Community Facilities and Services
2.4 Local Development Framework (GDCP 2007):
DC2 - Landscape Character DC6 - Woodlands and Trees DC9 - Development Principles DC40 - Transport and Access
Horsham District Planning Framework: Preferred Strategy (August 2013) - The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy was approved by Council for consultation on 25th July 2013. The consultation period ran from 16th August to 11th October 2013. The planning application will be considered following this consultation period and therefore the emerging Preferred Strategy is a material consideration with limited weight in the assessment of this planning application.
2.4 PLANNING HISTORY
DC/06/0378 Erection of 1 dwelling (rear of 53 Guildford Road) REF
HU/246/03 Erection of 1 house (outline) Appeal Allowed
HU/388/02 Erection of 1 house (outline) REF
HU/287/97 New vehicular access PER
APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
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 CONSULTEES
Tree Officer – No objection
EXTERNAL CONSULTEES
Highways – No objection
Southern water – No objection
PUBLIC CONSULTEES
Dene Neighbourhood Council – Breach of DC9 and CP3, unacceptable harm to amenity; overlooking; noise and vehicles; out of character with the locality; doesn’t have community support; orientation of dwelling facing and impact on Hills Cemetery Lane (narrow approach); doesn’t compliment the heritage of the immediate area of District or the historic landscape; unwelcome precedent; traffic generation and intensification of vehicular movements and impact on funeral corteges on Hill Cemetery Lane.
Neighbours: Letters were sent to neighbouring properties on 28th October 2013, and an advertisement was placed in the West Sussex County Times on 17th October 2013. Following this notification 8 letters of representation were received. The main issues raised were as follows:
Highway access and parking Overdevelopment Design Trees and landscaping Disturbance and parking Inappropriate form of development Overlooking and privacy loss
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. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
The main issues in the determination of this application are:
Principle of the proposed development Design and Character of the rural area The amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties Limitation on number of pupils Travel plan and other highways matters
Background
6.1 In October 2005 an appeal was allowed (APP/Z3825/1/04/114781) for outline permission for the erection of a detached dwelling. In considering the appeal the inspector commented that:
‘the proposed plot would, in principle, be sufficiently large to accommodate a two-storey dwelling. ‘The sketch design shows that the low height of the building would not interfere with the branches of the TPO trees and that it is possible to build sufficiently far from the base of the trees as to be unlikely to cause material root damage.’
6.2 With regard to possible overlooking the inspector commented that the separation distances to the boundaries of adjoining properties are restricted by the plot depth, however the suggested sketch indicated that with careful design and by not having windows to habitable rooms facing sensitive boundaries, an acceptable level of privacy for neighbours can be obtained, whilst still maintaining reasonable living conditions for the occupiers of the proposed dwelling.
6.3 With regard to amenity space the inspector commented that: Private amenity space within the plot is limited however, the plot was deemed large enough to provide a moderate level of private garden, sufficient for the reasonable enjoyment of the dwelling, whilst still maintaining an acceptable amount of rear garden for the donor dwelling.
6.4 In considering the width of the dwelling, use of modern materials and low profile of the resultant building when viewed from Cemetery Road, the inspector agreed that its presence would give a different perception compared to the traditional houses in the locality, however the change in design form is not harmful and would simply add an element of diversity that would not materially affect the character of the area. The inspector concluded that the character of an area is not determined by plot size, but by the retention of the trees and hedges.
6.5 The concluding comments of the appeal decision were that the appeal site is capable of accommodating a two storey dwelling without affecting the established character of the locality of Cemetary Road, or the tress covered by the TPO. The proposed dwelling would not be harmful to the established character and appearance of this locality and thus allowed the appeal.
6.6 In considering the appeal reference was also made to the Councils 2002- 2003 Housing Development Monitoring report which indicated a shortfall for the number of houses to be built in the period after 2006. With this in mind the Council is aware of a number of recent appeal decisions in Horsham wherein the inspectors have concluded that there was an overriding need for new housing in the District resulting from a ‘substantial shortfall in the Council’s 5 year housing land supply for 2011 – 2017. These findings are material considerations and give weight to the proposal. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5
6.7 In addition to this Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that housing proposals should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and relevant policies should not be considered up- to- date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing sites.
6.8 The principle of the development in terms of the lack of any material harm to the character and appearance of the area, together with the housing land supply issue, are considered to weigh in favour of the proposal.
Principle
6.9 The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be the principle of the development in this location and its effect on; the character and amenities of the area; the amenities of neighbouring and future occupiers; highway safety, parking, turning and access; together with existing trees.
6.10 The principle of development on this site has previously been established on appeal reference HU/246/03, which was for outline permission for the erection of a two storey house on the plot with siting and access being approved at outline stage.
6.11 This permission expired in 2008 and on this basis the applicant does not have a fallback position. The previous application was considered under Horsham District Local Plan 1997 and the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-2016. In the context of the prevailing relevant planning policy in force at that time, there has been a material change in the planning framework. The current application has to be considered under the prevailing policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework (Core Strategy 2007) and the Local Development Framework (GDCP 2007), and the National Planning Policy Framework.
6.12 The application site lies within the Horsham built-up area, a category 1 settlement, within convenient walking and cycling distance of local amenities. The key policies in determining whether the principle of the development is acceptable are policies CP3 and CP5 which encourage new development to take place within defined built-up areas. The development would however be in accordance with local plan policy and additionally the NPPF where there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. As the proposal is located within the Horsham built-up area, the proposal would meet both the Council’s requirements and national policy guidance.
Design, Scale and layout
6.13 The proposed development is for the erection of a detached part single part two storey, three bedroom dwelling. The proposed dwelling would have a maximum width of 17.5m’s, and a depth of between 7.5m’s and 9m’s.
6.14 The applicant states that the design of the proposed dwelling is based on a coach house to suit the ‘semi-rural’ nature of the lane. The house has been sited to the rear of the site, towards the back garden of ‘Hunters’, with a single story sloping roof over the kitchen, to minimise the appearance of the building from the view of occupants of adjoining properties. The orientation facing onto Hill Cemetery Lane would add additional character to the Lane and would be preferable to a blank gable wall.
6.15 In arriving at this current design, the applicant has been in joint discussions with the Councils planning department and tree officer since 2006 to conceive a scheme that would be both of a good design whilst safeguarding the retaining trees. The tree and building relationship is assessed in paragraph 6.21 - 6.24. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6
6.16 The current proposal is considered to be of a suitable design and character which is appropriate for the setting of the area and would relate well to the existing properties. The proposal is thus considered to accord with Local Development Framework policies, in particular DC9 and DC13, and is acceptable.
Amenity
6.17 This current proposal will provide a side garden (to the north) 9m x 16m with additional amenity space directly to the front of the dwelling. Following advice from the Council’s tree officer five low grade trees have been removed from the site in order to allow for more natural light into the house and garden. The proposed amenity space is considered sufficient private amenity space for the future occupants of this dwelling. This advice is consistent with the guidance set out within BS 5837 – Trees in relation to construction, as set out in paragraph 6.16.
Neighbour amenity
6.18 The proposed dwelling would have no windows above ground floor level facing north to ensure that the privacy of the future occupants of the donor property no.56 Guildford Road are protected by way of overlooking and privacy loss. The high level southern side facing windows are not considered to have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the adjoining properties to the south. The first floor high level rear windows (east) are to serve bathrooms and on this basis would naturally be fitted with obscure glazing. For this reason the privacy enjoyed by the occupants of the properties to the east and primarily those enjoyed by the occupants of ‘Hunters’ are considered to be respected.
6.19 No other properties are considered to be adversely affected by privacy loss, overbearing presence or overlooking. The proposed development would result in a small increase in vehicular movements along Cemetery Hill Lane. This increase would be extremely minor and would not give rise to a significant increase in noise or disturbance for the neighbouring properties.
6.20 In terms of the quality of the resultant residential environment, it is considered the revised layout would not give rise to any poor relationships between properties. On this basis the proposed development is considered to be acceptable on amenity grounds.
Arboricultural assessment
6.21 The proposal has been assessed by the Arboricultural Officer, particularly as there is a Tree Protection Order (TPO) on the site fronting Hills Cemetery Lane.
6.22 The Councils tree officer has had involvement with the site over many years with a number of potential development schemes at this site and has provided advice on the site dating back to September 2003.
6.23 The site has a number of important trees along the access way to Hills cemetery and the main concern of this application is to ensure that these trees are not damaged, either directly by construction, or from post development pressures to lop, top and fell as a result of a perception of inadequate light and sunshine onto the plot. The dwelling has been designed in a way that the windows serving habitable rooms have been positioned to eradicate future pressure to prune or fell with regard to light loss or overbearing presence. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 7
6.24 Having examined the proposal, The councils tree officer has confirmed that he is satisfied that suitable account has been taken of these matters, and accordingly the scheme appears consistent with BS 5837 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations' (2012). It also, therefore, meets the requirements, in arboricultural terms, of policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Framework document (December 2007).
Highway safety, parking and turning
6.25 The proposal site will be accessed via the existing driveway off Hills Cemetery Lane which was granted consent in 1997 under HU/287/97. The plans provided show provision for off street parking of a minimum of 2 cars.
6.26 County Highways has been consulted on the proposal and has confirmed that there is no apparent visibility issues at the point of access onto Guildford Road. 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.
6.27 The Highway authority also noted that the proposal has previously been accepted and that there are passing opportunities along the access road, which has been finished to a good standard, for regular sized cars. This proposal would represent only a minor increase in movements once finished and would not have an adverse impact on the operations of the cemetery.
6.28 In confirming there is no objection to the proposal, County Highways has requested conditions are imposed to ensure that provision is made for the secure parking of cycles and a Construction Management Plan is received prior to the commencement of the development. The proposed development is considered acceptable on highway safety grounds.
Infrastructure
6.29 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations were introduced in April 2010 which state that it is unlawful to take a planning obligation into account unless its requirements are (i) relevant to planning; (ii) necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms; and (iii) directly related to the proposed development.
6.30 As such only contributions that are directly required as a consequence of development can be requested and such requests must be fully justified with evidence including costed spending plans to demonstrate what the money requested would be spent on.
6.31 It is considered that seeing infrastructure contributions in this particular case are not justified and should not be sought. In such circumstances it is considered that any request for infrastructure contributions would be contrary to CIL Regulation 122.
Conclusion
2.5 The proposed development is considered to be acceptable and fully accord with the relevant national and local planning policies, namely Local Development Framework (Core Strategy 2007): CP1. CP3, CP5, CP12, CP13, CP14 and Local Development Framework (GDCP 2007): DC2, DC6, DC9, DC40. APPENDIX A/ 3 - 8
2.6 The additional issues raised by Dene Neighbourhood Council have been fully assessed in this updated report. After assessing these issues it is considered that the development is still acceptable.
7. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that permission be approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. No development shall be commenced unless and until a schedule of materials and samples of such materials and finishes and colours to be used for external walls and roofs of the proposed buildings(s) have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and all materials used shall conform to those approved.
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. The use hereby permitted shall not be commenced 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.
Reason: To ensure the adequate provision of recycling facilities in accordance with policy CP2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007).
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 or Orders amending or revoking and re-enacting the same, no windows or other openings (other than those shown on the plans hereby approved) shall be formed in the northern or eastern elevations of the development without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority pursuant to an application for the purpose.
Reason: To protect the amenities of adjoining residential properties and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
5. No development, including works of any description, including demolition pursuant to the permission granted, ground clearance, or bringing equipment, machinery or materials onto the site, shall take place until the following preliminaries have been completed in the sequence set out below:
All required arboricultural works, including permitted tree felling and surgery operations and above ground vegetative clearance within such areas set out for development as indicated on the approved site layout drawing to be completed and cleared away; APPENDIX A/ 3 - 9
All trees on the site targeted for retention, as well as those off-site whose root protection areas ingress into the site, shall be fully protected by tree protective fencing affixed to the ground in full accordance with section 6 of BS 5837 'Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - Recommendations' (2012). Once installed, the fencing shall be maintained during the course of the development works and until all machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Areas so fenced off shall be treated as zones of prohibited access, and shall not be used for the storage of materials, equipment or machinery in any circumstances. No mixing of cement, concrete, or use of other materials or substances shall take place within any tree protective zone, or close enough to such a zone that seepage or displacement of those materials and substances could cause them to enter a zone. No alterations or variations to the approved tree works or tree protection schemes shall be carried out without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the successful and satisfactory retention of important trees and hedgerows on the site in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
6. No part of the development shall be first occupied until covered and secure cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To provide alternative travel options to the use of the car in accordance with current sustainable transport policies.
7. 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.
8. No trenches or pipe runs for services, drains, or any other reason, [further to those indicated on the submitted drawings hereby approved] shall be excavated anywhere within the root protection area of any tree or hedge targeted for retention on or off the site without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To protect roots of important trees and hedgerows on the site in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). APPENDIX A/ 3 - 10
9. The burning of any materials from site clearance or from any other source shall not take place within 10m of the furthest extent of the canopy of any tree, group of trees, or hedgerow, targeted for retention on the site or on land adjoining.
Reason: To protect trees and vegetation from fire damage in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
10. 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.
Reason: To control the development in detail in the interests of amenity and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
Note to applicant
1. A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development, Please contact Southern Water, Southern House, Sparrowgrove, Otterbourne, Hampshire SO21 2SW (Tel: 0330 303 0119) or www.southernwater.co.uk”. The planning application form makes reference to drainage using Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS).Under current legislation and guidance SUDS rely upon facilities which are not adoptable by sewerage undertakers. Therefore, the applicant will need to ensure that arrangements exist for the long term maintenance of the SUDS facilities. It is critical that the effectiveness of these systems is maintained in perpetuity. Good management will avoid flooding from the proposed surface water system, which may result in the inundation of the foul sewerage system. Thus, where a SUDS scheme is to be implemented, the drainage details submitted to the Local Planning Authority should: - Specify the responsibilities of each party for the implementation of the SUDS scheme - Specify a timetable for implementation Provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development. This should include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.
The Council’s Building Control officers/technical staff or Environment Agency should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.
8. POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT
The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.
Background Papers: DC/13/1829 Contact Officer: Christopher Peters
DC/13/1829
53 Guildford Road
Scale : 1:1250
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments O/S EXTRACT Date 20 February 2014
SLA Number 100023865 Blank APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 4th March 2014 Erection of 6 No. 2-storey, 3-bedroom houses with associated gardens, refuse, recycling and cycling stores, together with the retention of the DEVELOPMENT: existing vacant cottage and demolition of the existing derelict cottage at 112 Brighton Road. SITE: 112 Brighton Road, Horsham, West Sussex, RH13 5DE WARD: Itchingfield, Slinfold and Warnham APPLICATION: DC/13/1794 APPLICANT: Mr Luke Carter
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Application deferred from 9th February 2014 meeting to report all consultation responses, the s106 position and allocation of funds and to explore the alternative access.
BACKGROUND
This application was previously on the agenda for the Committee Meeting in February 2014. The application was deferred in order to consider the following –
Point 1 – Comments made by Forest Neighbourhood Council (received on the 11th October 2013 and omitted from the reporting officers report). Point 2 – Confirmation of the s106 contributions to specific projects. Point 3 – The exploration of an alternative access on to the application site in order to avoid the proposed access alongside 110 Brighton Road.
The comments of Forest Neighbourhood Council have been appended to this report and have been summarised below. Assessment of the issues raised is contained within the Planning Assessment section of this report.
Confirmation of the s106 contributions and the exploration of an alternative access have also been added to Planning Assessment section of this report.
Contact Officer: Christopher Peters Tel: 01403 215174 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2
RECOMMENDATION: The application be approved.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 Erection of 6 No. 2-storey, 3-bedroom houses with associated gardens, refuse, recycling and cycling stores, together with the retention of the existing vacant cottage and demolition of the existing derelict cottage at 112 Brighton Road.
1.2 Permission is sought for 6 x 3 bed two storey dwellings (3 pairs of semi detached properties), with refuse, recycling and cycle stores, together with the retention for the existing vacant cottage and the demolition of the existing derelict cottage at 112 Brighton Road. The application includes a Design and Access Statement, Site waste Management Statement and a Transport Report. The site density is 39.84 dwellings per hectare.
1.3 The site area is 0.176 hectares. Each of the six dwellings would comprise a living / dining room, kitchen and cloakroom to the ground floor with three bedrooms including the master bedroom and shower room and a family bathroom on the first floor.
1.4 It is proposed that the existing access from Brighton Road will be retained and widened as part of the development proposals, 10 car parking spaces (including 1 disabled space) and turning facilities would serve the parking needs of the 6 proposed dwellings. Cycle storage would also be provided to serve the development - 12 secure covered cycle storage spaces in total (2 per unit). The proposal also includes the retention of the existing vacant cottage and the provision of two additional parking spaces to serve it.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.3 The application site is located off of the west side of Brighton Road, within the Built up Area Boundary of Horsham,
1.4 The site, currently occupied by two existing although derelict residential properties, is located between the rear garden areas of residential properties at 106-110 Brighton Road to the south east, 10 Athelstan Way to the north east, and 2 - 8 Weald Close to the north west. The site is served by an existing access approximately 35 metres long which runs immediately adjacent to the common boundary with number 110 Brighton Road. To the north east of the site is the old Laundry building.
1.5 Immediately to the south east of the access is the junction of Brighton Road with Athelstan Way. There are a number of trees on site, although despite being abutted on two sides by a Tree Preservation Order, there is no such Order on this site.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3
2.2 National Planning Policy Framework
NPPF11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment NPPF14 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Local Development Framework (Core Strategy 2007):
CP1 - Landscape and Townscape Character CP3 - Improving the Quality of New Development CP5 - Built-Up Areas and Previously Developed Land CP12 - Meeting Housing Needs CP13 - Infrastructure Requirements CP19 - Managing Travel Demand and Widening Choice of Transport
2.4 Local Development Framework (GDCP 2007):
DC2 - Landscape Character DC6 - Woodlands and Trees DC8 - Renewable Energy and Climate Change DC9 - Development Principles DC18 - Smaller Homes / Housing Mix DC40 - Transport and Access
Horsham District Planning Framework: Preferred Strategy (August 2013) - The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy was approved by Council for consultation on 25th July 2013. The consultation period ran from 16th August to 11th October 2013. The planning application will be considered following this consultation period and therefore the emerging Preferred Strategy is a material consideration with limited weight in the assessment of this planning application.
PLANNING HISTORY
DC/12/1200 Erection of 6 No. 2-storey, 3-bedroom houses with Application associated gardens, refuse, recycling and cycling stores, Refused on together with the retention of the existing vacant cottage 17.01.2013 and demolition of the existing derelict cottage at 112 Appeal Brighton Road, dismissed.
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
The following section provides a summary of the responses received as a result of the consultation process, 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 CONSULTEES
3.1 Strategic Planning – No objection
EXTERNAL CONSULTEES
3.2 Southern Water – No objection APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4
3.3 The Horsham Society - Object to this application on the grounds that the proposed access to the site is inadequate and would result in a dangerous new access point onto the already busy Brighton Road. If the access was instead via Athelstan Way the development would be acceptable. We note the Inspector's assessment when rejecting an earlier identical application (APP/Z3825/A/13/2195951 - DC/12/1200) and his references to the view of WSCC. We submit that the WSCC traffic assessment was made prior to the opening of the nearby Tesco store in Brighton Road which has increased traffic movements, particularly turning movements, since the original application. There can surely be no doubt now that any increase in traffic accessing this site by the proposed route would create a dangerous situation given the volume and speed of traffic on the Brighton Road and the closeness to the Athelstan Way junction. There is no practical reason why access to the site should note be from Athelstan Way.
3.8 West Sussex Highways - No objection
3.9 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
Letters were sent to neighbouring properties on 20th September 2013, an advertisement was placed in the West Sussex County Times on 19th September 2013.
3.10 Forest Neighbourhood Council
The comments from Forest Neighbourhood Council were received on the 11th October 2013, and their representations are summarised as follows:
“Despite the fact that the Applicant states that there have been improvements to the previously refused application DC/12/1200, Forest Neighbourhood Council continue to object with similar comments” (Officer’s Note: These comments are summarised below and appended in full to this report).
Summary of objection received:
Over intensification, design: cramped, proximity to boundaries and invasion of privacy: width of access lane and proximity to junction with Athelstan Way, the pedestrian crossing and Higgins Way; increase in traffic and safety concerns; waste disposal and collection and insufficient arrangements and impact on highway safety; insufficient parking on site and impact on surrounding roads (reference made to new Tesco Express store and the Mid Sussex Area Professional Centre and parking concerns).
3.11 Neighbours
Following this notification a total of 11 letters of representation were received. The main issues raised were as follows:
- Traffic safety and access - Site landscaping and trees - Drainage - Overdevelopment - Noise and disturbance - Character - Privacy APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5
- Bats - Restrict working hours on the site between 8.00am and 6pm Mondays to Fridays with no work to take place on weekends.
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.
MAIN ISSUES
The main issues in the determination of this application are considered to be the principle of the development in this location and its effect on; the character and the visual amenities of the area; the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties; the parking, highway safety and traffic conditions in the area and the quality of the resulting residential environment for future occupiers
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
Principle
6.1 The NPPF adopted in 2012 is considered to be relevant to the application, specifically paragraph 53 which states that ‘Local Planning Authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area’.
6.2 The application site is located within the built-up area of Horsham, a Category 1 settlement and as such LDF Policy CP5 is considered relevant to the application. The site is located within a sustainable location within walking and particularly cycling distance of local amenities and is also easily accessible to the town centre, and is therefore located within a sustainable location and therefore the principle of residential development on the site is generally considered acceptable subject to a thorough assessment against all other development management criteria and consideration of the site constraints and whether the proposal is considered acceptable within the context of the character of the area.
6.3 LDF Core Strategy policy CP12 Meeting Housing needs advises that development should provide a mix of housing sizes types and tenures to meet the needs of the Districts Communities. Provision should be particularly made for smaller homes to meet the needs of existing and new households.
6.4 The requirements of this policy are amplified by LDF Policy DC18 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 which relates to smaller homes and housing mix and states that for development of 5 or more, planning permission will be granted in appropriate locations provided that the housing mix and type meets an identified need for smaller homes (1 and 2 bed properties). Policy DC18 also states that all proposals will be expected to make efficient use of land (over 50 dwellings per hectare for town and village centres, in some cases) however; it also states that development must respect the local character into which it is placed. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6
6.5 The Council’s adopted LDF Core Strategy and Development Control Policies, specifically CP3 and DC9 requires that new residential development should be to a high standard of design and layout, in keeping with the character of the nearby development and the surrounding area and also states that development should not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of occupiers of nearby property.
Appeal Decision considerations:
6.6 The current proposal is an identical submission to DC/12/1200 which was refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal. However, the inspector only refused the proposal on the grounds on a lack of a completed S106 agreement. The planning considerations remain as set out in the appended appeal decision and there have been no changes to planning policy since the appeal decision (APP/Z3825/A/13/2195951).
6.7 The applicant has provided a satisfactorily completed legal agreement and has successfully entered into a S106 agreement in respect of infrastructure contributions. The application is recommended for approval as regard to the recent appeal decision, which is a material consideration of considerable weight, that the proposal is compliant with local and national planning policies. For these reasons there is no justification for refusal.
6.8 The appeal decision is a material consideration and on this basis the considerations of this re-submission will be as to whether the inspector’s reasons for refusal have been overcome.
Design and layout 6.9 The pairs of semi detached dwellings are located with the frontages facing towards the rear gardens of 106 -110 Brighton Road, at this point the separation distance from the front elevations of the proposed dwellings and the rear elevations to properties fronting Brighton Road is approximately 27- 33 metres. The separation distance between the rear elevations of the proposed dwellings and the rear of 2 – 8 Weald Close is between approximately 20 -23 metres.
6.10 The separation distance between first floor windows to bedroom two of each dwelling and those to the rear of properties in Weald Close is considered acceptable and thus there are no concerns regarding overlooking.
6.11 Windows to bedroom three in the projecting rear two storey elements are at a 45 degree angle to those in bedroom two and thus either face south east or north west. The fenestration arrangement and siting of the proposed dwellings is such that windows to bedroom three of plots 2-3 and plots 4-5, all directly face one another and only have a separation distance of 6 metres between them.
6.12 There are two windows in the north- west elevation and south east elevations, a ground floor window serving the kitchen areas and a first floor window serving bathroom areas. The bathroom window to the north- west elevation faces 1-8 Arun Way. Concerns were previously raised relating to the scale of the development and the relationship with surrounding residential development, it was considered that the degree of built form and parking facilities on this site was considered to be excessive and would result in an unsatisfactory relationship between the boundaries of the site and the surrounding residential dwellings. However in considering the appeal the inspector did not share these concerns and took the view that the:
‘’ it would not display any of the usual symptoms of an over-intense development’’. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 7
The inspector went on to say:
‘’the development, because of its sheltered position, would largely go unnoticed in the public realm and that the proposed development would sit acceptably in its visual context without harming the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Accordingly, no conflict arises with those provisions of policies DC9 & DC18 of the HDC LDF.’’
‘’The bulk of the site would be occupied by three pairs of semi-detached dwellings, laid out so as to be virtually parallel to the properties fronting them on Brighton Road and behind Weald Close. The distances between the proposed and existing properties in the adjacent streets, front and rear, are acceptable and relatively normal for a modern housing development. All the proposed dwellings would have acceptable garden areas, and the proposed density is such as to make as to make an efficient use of land.’’
6.13 As the inspectors decision is a material planning consideration and the inspector did not raise any objection insofar as these reasons for refusal were not upheld and thus the proposal is considered acceptable on these grounds. It is considered that the development would not be an overdevelopment of the site and would not lead to a cramped form of development.
Highways 6.14 Access to the site is via an existing unmade track to the south of 110 Brighton Road which passes directly adjacent to the ground and first floor windows within the two storey extension which abuts the common boundary and northern edge of the access track.
6.15 In considering the appeal the inspector raised no objection to the site layout and did not consider that the increase in traffic movements along the access road arising from the proposal would result in a negative effect to personal living conditions of adjacent residential occupiers and further commented:
‘‘The highway authority is satisfied with the proposed access and parking arrangements, and that the site could be safely accessed by larger service vehicles that may need to enter.’’ 6.16 The inspector did not raise any objection to the proposal on highway matters and therefore the proposed development is considered acceptable in highway terms. A number of highway conditions are to be imposed in the interest of highway safety and to ensure sufficient levels of car parking within the site. This would reduce the potential for on street car parking. 6.17 The concerns raised by the Neighbourhood Council and The Horsham Society with regard to the increase in traffic movements as a result of the opening of the Tesco store in Brighton Road, have been taken into consideration in the determination of this application. WSCC have been consulted on the application and have not raised any highway concerns due to the presence of the new Tesco store. Concerns relating to waste disposal and collection have also been assessed and are considered to be acceptable. 6.18 The application was deferred from the previous Committee Meeting in order to explore the opportunity for the applicant to provide an alternative access to the site other than from Brighton Road. 6.19 The applicant has confirmed that the applicant’s land ownership extends to that shown within the area defined as the application site on the submitted drawings. It is therefore not possible to provide an alternative access into the site. In any case, the access from the APPENDIX A/ 4 - 8
application site onto Brighton Road has been assessed by the County Highway Engineers and the results of this assessment are that the proposal is acceptable in its present form, and subject to conditions. Furthermore, the same access serving the same number of units has previously been considered to be acceptable in the appeal against the refusal of DC/12/1200, and there has been no material change in circumstances since that time. 6.20 The application has been submitted with the access shown on the submitted drawings, and the Local Planning Authority has a duty to determine the application on this basis. There is no sustainable reason to require the applicant to reconsider this arrangement and provide details of alternative access points. Neighbour amenity 6.21 In considering the appeal the inspector acknowledged the fact that many local residents had expressed concern as to the potential for noise and disturbance arising from the development, but commented that the site is within a backland location, and those residents backing onto the site ‘appear to have enjoyed relative peace and tranquillity at the rear of their houses for a considerable period of time’, and that the development of the site for housing would inevitably change existing resident’s perception of their surroundings. However the limited sounds and activity that would be generated by the residents of seven dwellings would not be untypical of most residential areas, and certainly not such that could be described as harmful. Due to the location of the proposed windows and the orientation of the property, the development would not have an adverse impact on the privacy of the neighbouring properties. 6.22 With regards to the possible ill-effects feared by the Neighbourhood Council, especially in relation to the use of some of the proposed parking spaces and access, this would be acceptably mitigated through the use of conditions in relation to screen planting and fencing. 6.23 In assessing the relationship of the access drive with 110 Brighton Road, the inspector commented that the drive was historically used to access two dwellings. The inspector acknowledged the fact that the increased use would lead to more activity on the drive, which is to be widened, but concluded that he was not persuaded that the degree or intensity of the increased usage, which was considered to be ‘relatively modest’ would cause. On this basis the proposed development is acceptable in highway terms.
Infrastructure contributions 6.20 The s.106 agreement already in place on this application comprises of planning contributions to mitigate the impact of this development on public infrastructure. There are divided into two sections: West Sussex County Council (WSCC) contributions, and Horsham District Council (HDC) contributions, and are based on the quantum and mix of units proposed.
6.21 The former of these categories (WSCC) includes planning contribution towards: Eduction Primary - £16,966; Eduction Secondary - £18,260; Libraries £1,521; Fire and Rescue £660; TAD £11,100. All of which total £48,506.
6.22 The latter of these categories (HDC) includes planning contributions towards: Community Centres and Halls - £2,376; Open Space and Recreation: £10,758; Refuse and Recycling: £1,188. All of which £14,322.
6.23 The executed s.106 agreement establishes that the Community Centre and Halls contribution, as well as the Open Space and Recreation contribution, would be used to provide and/or improve a necessary new building at Bennett’s Field. This would include APPENDIX A/ 4 - 9
changing facilities and social facilities. There is an identified demand and lack of capacity for these facilities, and as such this planning contribution meets the tests of the CIL regulations (2010).
6.24 On this basis the applicant has successfully overcome all reasons for refusal of the previously refused application and on this basis the proposed development is now considered acceptable and can be approved.
Conclusion
6.25 In considering the recently dismissed appeal the inspector considered the proposal to be an acceptable development raising no issues relating to the design, layout of the buildings, access road, parking or impact upon neighbour amenity. In light of the applicant successfully entering into a S106 agreement and taking into consideration the appeal inspectors comments within the associated appeal dismissed by inspector which is a material planning consideration. The previous reasons have been overcome and the proposed development is now considered acceptable in all other regards.
6.26 The additional issues raised by Forest Neighbourhood Council have been fully assessed in this updated report. The additional information relating to the s.106 contributions and an assessment of alternative access has also been added to this report. After assessing these issues it is considered that the development is still acceptable.
7. RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions as follow;
1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.
Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2 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 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).
3 Any walling shall conform with a sample panel which shall be erected on site and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before work to walling is commenced.
Reason: To preserve the special character of the building for the future and in accordance with policy DC13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). APPENDIX A/ 4 - 10
4 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 in accordance with policy DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
5 No part of the development shall be first occupied until covered and secure cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To provide alternative travel options to the use of the car in accordance with current sustainable transport policies in accordance with policy DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
6 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 in accordance with policy DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
8. POSITIVE AND PROACTIVE STATEMENT
The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.
Background Papers: DC/13/1794
DC/13/1794 112 Brighton Road
Scale : 1:1250
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments O/S EXTRACT Date 20 February 2014
SLA Number 100023865 Blank APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 4th March 2014 Proposed extensions to existing B2/B8 buildings with ancillary B1 office DEVELOPMENT: and associated car parking SITE: Griffiths and Neilsen, The Business Park, Maydwell Avenue, Slinfold WARD: Slinfold APPLICATION: DC/13/2288 APPLICANT: Griffiths and Neilson Ltd
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of development
RECOMMENDATION: That the application be delegated for approval subject to conditions
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider planning application DC/13/2288.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 This is a Full planning application that seeks permission for a two storey extension to the south of Building 1 for G + N to provide an additional 193 sq. metres of B8 warehouse at ground floor level with ancillary office at first floor. The extension to Building 1 would have external measurements of 11.968m x 16.135m and would have a maximum height of 9.040m.
1.2 A two storey extension to the south of Building 2 would also be constructed to provide an additional 663 sq. metres of either B2 or B8 floorspace at ground floor with ancillary office space at first floor level. The extension to Building 2 would have external measurements of 26.910m x 24.640m and would have a maximum height of 7.720m.
1.3 An additional 50no. car parking spaces would also be provided to serve both buildings 1 and 2.
1.4 The application is supported by a number of associated documents which include:-
1. Planning application forms and notices
2. Planning Statement
Contact Officer: Mr S Booth Tel: 01403 215169 APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2
3. Design and Access statement
4. Acoustics assessment
5. Transport Assessment
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.8 The site comprises an existing employment site located outside the village of Slinfold to the south west. The site was formerly an ink manufacturer and prior to that had comprised a brickworks which began operations in 1895.
1.9 The site is bound to the north by the internal access road, Maydwell Avenue and a unit occupied by Southern Cranes. To the west lies an industrial unit owned by AJW and to the south lies an internal access road and further afield, Cherry Tree Farm. To the east lies an area of scrub land sandwiched between the Business Park and the rear of residential properties on Hayes Lane.
2.0 The site is well contained within the existing landscape due to the substantial screening afforded by the mix of planting and earth mounding. Internally, the site consists of a number of traditional industrial buildings, interspersed with parking areas and turning areas.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 National policy in the form of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration. The following sections are of particular relevance in the assessment of this application, 1) Building a strong, competitive economy, 4) Promoting sustainable transport, 7) Requiring good design and 10) Meeting the challenge of climate change and flooding.
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 The development plan consists of the Core Strategy (CS) (2007), the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD. Another relevant local development document is the Planning Obligations SPD.
2.4 In relation to the Core Strategy, Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP10, CP11, CP13 and CP15 are of particular relevance to this proposal. In relation to the General Development Control Policies, Policies DC1, DC2, DC6, DC8, DC9, DC25, DC26 and DC40 and considered to be of particular relevance.
2.5 The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy was approved by the Council for consultation on 25th July 2013. The consultation period started on 16th August 2013 and continued until 11th October 2013. This planning application will be considered following the consultation period and therefore the emerging Preferred Strategy is a material consideration in the assessment of this planning application, albeit one which can carry only very limited weight. APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3
PLANNING HISTORY
2.8 There is no relevant planning history associated with the land forming the application site.
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
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 Environmental Health No objections to the development subject to conditions relating to noise management and control of demolition. .
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.3 West Sussex County Council Raise no objection subject to conditions
3.4 Parish Council No objections received.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.11 A total of 2 letters of support have been received. These are summarised below
Support the fact that a business is expanding in this economic climate The extension offers no detrimental impact on the surrounding area The development will improve the area.
3.12 No letters of objection have been received.
4. 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.
5. 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. APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the government’s planning policy. In this regard, the NPPF has the presumption in favour of sustainable development running through it as a golden thread. Para.7 of the NPPF explains that there are three dimensions to sustainable development:- an economic role, a social role and an environmental role. Para.8 advises that these roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. Economic growth can secure higher social and environmental standards, and well designed buildings and places can improve the lives of people and communities. Therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. Whereas previously the concept of sustainability in relation to development has been widely interpreted to relate purely to transport sustainability, in fact, the concept should be applied on a much wider basis to encompass all aspects of sustainability. This broader view, now encompassed in the NPPF, requires an assessment at the overall impact of a development on the community.
6.2 Specific advice for decision taking is set out in Para.14 which requires that development which accords with the development plan should be approved without delay and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, to grant permission unless any adverse impacts of so doing would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
6.3 In assessing the current application it is considered that the following sections of the NPPF are of particular relevance 1) Promoting a strong economy 4) Promoting sustainable transport, 7) Requiring good design, Meeting the challenge of climate change. There are a number of issues to consider in this case as follows and those that require particular consideration are as follows:- Principle, scale and design, impact on neighbouring land users, access.
6.4 Principle of the development Policy DC25 allows for the expansion of rural commercial sites and intensification of uses whilst acknowledging that there are a number of well established industrial estates or single employment users in the Districts rural areas, where some important local companies are located. Policy CP11 states that efficient use of existing employment sites should be used for expansion and redevelopment.
6.5 Previously, approval has been given from redevelopment and expansion at two adjoining industrial sites within The Business Park (Plot 1 AJW and Plot 3 Southern Cranes). The principle of redevelopment and expansion within this site has therefore been established.
6.6 The proposed extensions are for a B2/B8 use within an existing site of B2/B8 use. The development would help to further strengthen and support a local business in the current economic climate. It is therefore considered that the principle of the development accords with Policy DC25 and Policy CP11 in that the development would take place within an existing commercial site.
APPENDIX A/ 5 - 5
Scale and design
6.7 A core principle of the National Planning Policy Framework is to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all for all existing and future occupiers of land and buildings, and to ensure that developments add to the overall quality of an area creating a strong sense of place, promoting or reinforcing local distinctiveness. Policy DC9 states that; planning permission will be granted for developments which ensure that the scale, massing and appearance is of a high standard of design and is locally distinctive in character. Policy CP3 places an emphasis on ensuring high quality and inclusive design for all new development.
6.8 Around the site the existing properties are an eclectic mix of industrial and business units of differing sizes, styles and designs. The proposed extensions are relatively minor in comparison to the host buildings and would be located well within the existing site. The materials to be used would match the existing buildings and would help to ensure a uniform appearance.
6.9 The form and character of the development together with its overall density, seeks to reflect the nature of development within the application site and in the wider Business Park is considered appropriate. The design and scale of the development is considered to accord with the provisions of the NPPF and Policy DC9. The scale and design of the proposed extensions are therefore considered acceptable in this location.
Impact on neighbouring properties
6.10 LDF General Development Control Policy (2007) DC9 states that development will only be approved if they do not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the neighbouring residents in terms of privacy and overbearing impact. This policy is also used to assess the impacts on the future residents within the proposed development
6.11 The closest residential property to the development is Cherry Tree Farm, to the south east of the application site. The dwelling is separated from the application site by a large belt of mature vegetation. Residential properties are also located 146 metres to the east of the application site, again separated by mature vegetation.
6.12 A noise assessment has been submitted in support of the planning application. The two main concerns with regard to noise are the noise from activities within the buildings and the noise from delivery vehicles. The site currently operates unrestricted in terms of timings and deliveries can take place 24/7.
6.13 Paragraph 123 of the NPPF states that development should not have a significant impact upon health and quality of life. Currently there is unrestricted use of the buildings at present and deliveries, loading and unloading is permitted 24 hours a day. This application represents a small addition to a large industrial use and would not result in a significant change to the levels of noise and disturbance to the nearby residential receptors. Environmental Health has requested that a noise management plan be submitted but it is considered that due to the nature of the development, in comparison to the size of the site, this would not be reasonable.
6.14 It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity and privacy of the neighbouring properties. It is therefore considered that the proposed development accords with Policy DC9 and the NPPF.
APPENDIX A/ 5 - 6
Access, Traffic and Parking
6.15 LDF General Development Control Policy (2007) DC9 states that developments should provide adequate access and parking and should not result in a generation of traffic that would have an adverse impact on the surrounding highway network.
6.16 Access would be along Maydwell Avenue which is a purpose built road of an acceptable standard to serve the existing industrial users. West Sussex County Council Highways Department have confirmed that the junction of Maydwell Avenue with Slane Street is adequate to accommodate the likely traffic from the proposed development.
6.17 Overall, subject to conditions, to it is considered that the proposed development would not have a significant detrimental impact on the highway network. The existing access is considered to be of a sufficient width, the car parking levels (50 additional spaces) are considered to be acceptable and the increase in traffic levels on Maydwell Avenue are not considered to be significant enough as to warrant an objection from WSCC Highways Authority. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would accord with Policy DC9.
Contaminated land issues
6.42 The NPPF states that adequate investigation needs to be carried out to ensure that development sites are not contaminated land. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has assessed the scheme and the information submitted by the applicant and has confirmed that the information is acceptable. The proposed development would be considered to be acceptable and would fully accord with the guidance laid out in the NPPF.
Conclusion
6.43 Overall, it is therefore considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties. The development would be of an acceptable size and scale and would relate well to the existing industrial unit and the surrounding area.
6.44 The extension to the existing industrial units would help support a local business and could lead to the creation of more jobs in the region. The development is therefore considered to accord with Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP10, CP11, CP13 and CP15, General Development Control Policies, Policies DC1, DC2, DC6, DC8, DC9, DC25, DC26 and DC40 and the National Planning Policy Framework.
7. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 That the application be delegated for approval, subject to the following conditions;
1) A2 Full Permission
2) M1 Approval of Materials
3) No part of the development shall be first occupied until the proposed car parking has been constructed in accordance with the approved site plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated purpose. APPENDIX A/ 5 - 7
Reason: In the interests of road and site safety and in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
4) No part of the development shall be first occupied until covered and secure cycle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of road and site safety and in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
5) No part of the development shall be first occupied until the vehicle turning space has been laid out 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 and site safety and in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
6) No development shall take place until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Plan shall provide for:
(i) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors (ii) Loading and unloading of plant and materials (iii) Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development (iv) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding (v) Turning on site of vehicles (vi) The location of any site huts/cabins/offices
Reason: In the interests of road and site safety and in the interests of amenity in accordance with policy DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
Positive & Proactive Statement
Statement pursuant to Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012. The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.
Background Papers
All documents relating to this application DC/13/2288 DC/13/2288
Griffiths and Neilsen
Scale : 1:5000
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments O/S EXTRACT Date 20 February 2014
SLA Number 100023865 ITEM A06 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 4th March 2014 Erection of 50 new dwellings (including 22 affordable dwellings); DEVELOPMENT: formation of access, parking and landscaping (Outline Planning) Land South of Buchan Hill Reservoir Buchan Hill Pease Pottage West SITE: Sussex WARD: Rusper and Colgate APPLICATION: DC/13/2446 APPLICANT: Rural Eco Ltd and Hyde Housing Association
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of development
RECOMMENDATION: That outline planning permission be refused
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
BACKGROUND
1.1 The application site is subject to a current appeal following the refusal of outline planning permission for 52 No. dwellings under application DC/13/0103. This previous application was refused on the grounds: that it constituted unsustainable development within the countryside; did not demonstrate that the development would meet a specific local need; would be detrimental to the landscape character of the area; and, did not have a mechanism to ensure the provision for affordable housing or infrastructure improvements.
1.2 The current application differs from the previous refusal in that there is a reduction in the number of dwellings proposed from 52 to 50; a change in the type and mix of dwellings proposed; the addition of a 15 metre buffer adjoining the ancient woodland; and, the omission of the community centre previously proposed.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.3 The application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of 50 dwellings of 2 Storeys in height, comprising 23 flats and 27 houses in total. The matters subject to consideration at this stage relate to the formation of the access, site layout (including parking), the scale of development and landscaping. Details relating to design would be
Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes Tel: 01403 215521 ITEM A06 - 2
subject to a separate and subsequent application should outline permission be granted. However, indicative elevations and street scene drawings have been submitted for information purposes only.
1.4 The development comprises a mix of both private market dwellings (56%) and affordable dwellings (44%). The mix of private dwellings comprises a total of 28 private units including 4 x 1 bed flats (51sqm) 7 x 2 bed houses (80sqm), 6 x 3 bed houses (88sqm) 6 x 3 bed houses (100sqm) and 5 x 4 bed houses (115sqm). The mix of affordable units comprises a total of 22 affordable housing units including 18 x 1 bed flats (51sqm), 1 x 2 bed flats (71sqm), 1 x 3 bed house (80sqm) and 2 x 3 bed houses (88sqm).
1.5 The private internal arrangements within the site comprise a mix of a 5.5m carriageway with a 1.8m footway along with shared surface areas of varying width. Parking requirements have been provided in accordance with the anticipated requirements of West Sussex County Council Car Parking Demand Calculator. The proposal thereby includes 107 car parking spaces (including 9 visitor spaces) which are in excess of the 97 parking spaces forecast when considered against the WSCC Parking Demand Calculator. Secure parking for cycles is proposed within cycle stores / sheds within the rear garden areas or within communal stores for flats.
1.6 Pedestrian footway improvements to the private road towards Cottesmore School and to Horsham Road are proposed. A two metre wide footway would be provided along the access road and also along the northern side of Horsham Road extending eastwards across the golf club frontage (subject to ownership) to connect with the existing footway to the southern side of Horsham Road which terminates 200m east of the site.
1.7 Highway improvements to Horsham Road and to the existing access road towards Cottesmore School are also proposed. The access would be relocated 1m eastwards to create a buffer between the access road and the residential dwelling known as South Lodge, and the width of the access road to the school would be increased to 5.5m to allow two way flow as well as sightline improvements.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.8 The site lies outside any defined Built up Area Boundaries and thus lies within the Countryside where the council’s normal restrictive countryside policies apply. The site is identified as being within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
1.9 The site itself is irregular in shape and is currently a mixture of coppice trees and open scrub land, although has been recently partially cleared. The site has a site area of approximately 1.55 hectares. The site is bounded by mature trees on three boundaries and is largely clear in its centre. The site frontage faces Horsham Road.
1.10 The site is accessed off of Horsham Road, at the point immediately opposite Grouse Road, via an existing private spur road with no residential footpath which leads directly to Cottesmore School, and the existing isolated residential dwellings along the western boundary of the access road including South Lodge, Silver Birches and Barbeeches. Buchan Hill Forest lies to the west of these dwellings.
1.11 To the north of the site and accessed from the western boundary of the access road leading towards Cottesmore School, there is an Anemometer (common weather station instrument), Radio Telescope and Water Tower. Further north is the Buchan Hill Reservoir. ITEM A06 - 3
1.12 The private access road towards Cottesmore School also follows the route of the Bridleway1546 that leads through to Broadfield on the southern edge of Crawley, approximately 2km from the site. To the west of the access road, Horsham Road turns into Forest Road.
1.13 The site lies within the administrative boundaries of Horsham District Council, the nearest villages within the District being Colgate and Faygate located approximately 2 Km away.
1.14 The site is located to the west of the existing built up area boundaries of Pease Pottage which is located within the adjoining District of Mid Sussex.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (specifically paragraphs 55, 64, 115 and 116).
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: CP1 - Landscape and Townscape Character; CP2 - Environmental Quality; CP3 - Improving the Quality of New Development; CP4 – Housing Provision, CP5 Built-up Areas and Previously Developed Land, CP8 – Small Scale Greenfield Sites, CP12 – Meeting Housing Needs, CP13 – Infrastructure Requirements & CP15 – Rural Strategy.
2.4 Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies 2007 - the following policies are of particular relevance: DC1 - Countryside Protection and Enhancement; DC2 - Landscape Character; DC4 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB’s); DC5 – Biodiversity & Geology, DC6 – Woodland & Trees, DC7 – Flooding, DC8 - Renewable Energy and Climate Change; DC9 - Development Principles; DC18 - Smaller Homes/Housing Mix; DC30 – Exceptions Housing Schemes & DC40 - Transport and Access.
2.5 Horsham District Council Planning Obligations SPD 2007
2.6 The Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) Preferred Strategy was approved by Council for consultation on 25th July 2013. The consultation period ran from 16th August to 11th October 2013. This will seek to build upon the earlier consultations and the new data; drawing together the selected housing requirement and preferred strategic site(s) to produce a comprehensive strategy covering the period 2011 to 2031. The Council continues to aim for adoption in late 2014 or early 2015. The Preferred Strategy is a material consideration with limited weight in the assessment of this planning application.
PLANNING HISTORY
DC/13/0103 Erection of 52 new dwellings (including 26 affordable dwellings) REF comprising 12 x 1-bed flats, 6 x 2-bed flats, 9 x 2-bed houses, 17 x 3-bed houses and 8 x 4-bed houses and a community building (Subject to including access, parking and landscaping (Outline Planning) Appeal)
ITEM A06 - 4
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
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
3.1 Strategic and Community Planning (summarised): Comment
It is recognised that the Council does not have a 5 year housing supply against the South East Plan and as such the NPPF states that the relevant housing policies of the Horsham District Local Plan should not be considered up-to-date. It is recognised that the proposal would make some contribution, if limited, to the five year housing land supply, as well as meeting some of the affordable housing needs of Colgate as identified in the 2012 housing needs survey which is welcomed. However, the Needs Survey did not identify a need for market housing which is proposed here. Sustainable development is a ‘golden thread’ running through the NPPF, and as such the NPPF still requires that all development be considered sustainable. It is considered that due to the countryside location of this site and the lack of services and facilities in the area, there is concern as to whether the proposal should be considered to be a form of sustainable development.
3.2 Housing Strategy & Development Manager (summarised): Comment
Over the past 2-3 years, Housing officers have worked closely and helpfully with Colgate Parish Council to bring forward an affordable housing scheme for the parish. A housing needs survey was carried out by Action in Rural Sussex in January 2012, showing 22 households in need, and work has been undertaken to look for a potential site. However, the application site is not well related to either Colgate itself, or Faygate, and the views expressed by Slaugham Parish Council are relevant to this application.
3.3 Arboricultural Officer: Verbal advice given to refer to the comprehensive advice within the Landscape Officers comments
3.4 Landscape Architect (summarised): Objection
The overall effects of the development would essentially be largely indistinguishable from the previous proposal (referred to above). However, the linearity of the eastern side of the development would be somewhat less severe but this is offset to a large degree by the imposed linearity arising from the presence of the water main easement.
The proposals for safeguarding the 15m ancient woodland "cordon sanitaire" are unclear and private amenity / garden space is very pinched, especially at the northern end of the eastern run of properties.
Even more tree clearance is shown at the Horsham Road frontage than on the first layout.
The supporting visualisations indicate a 3 storey property close to the proposed site entrance from the bridleway. This would be very prominent locally.
The landscape strategy has been prepared by someone other than the scheme's landscape designer and contains conflicting objectives. It is unclear how these could be resolved. Insufficient unambiguous detail has been submitted to demonstrate that a satisfactory landscape scheme could be delivered. ITEM A06 - 5
3.5 Public Health and Licensing Department (summarised): Comment
The application site is close to a National Air Traffic Service (NATS) radar installation. The applicant has not submitted an assessment into the impacts from the noise produced by this facility on amenity at the proposed residential units. It would be expected that any such assessment also considers the potential noise disturbance from the radar installation’s back up generators. Without such an assessment, there is insufficient information to fully consider the noise impacts and therefore to determine the application.
3.6 Building Control: Access roads to be suitable for fire service appliances.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.7 West Sussex County Council Highways: No objection
No highway objection would be raised to this proposal in terms of safety or capacity. Matters of accessibility do need to be considered on balance by the Planning Authority against other planning matters.
If the Planning Authority is minded to approve this proposal conditions would be recommended.
3.8 West Sussex County Council Ecologist (summarised): No objection subject to conditions
3.9 Natural England (summarised): Comment
Protected Landscape: We advise that the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) does not fully address the likely impacts of this development, in that the scale of development within the context of the AONB setting is underestimated, and the LVIA should use the high sensitivity to change of a nationally designed landscape (such as an AONB) as a starting point. Advises that the High Weald AONB Unit be consulted.
The site is surrounded by ancient woodland which has a high priority in the NPPF and Natural England’s standing advice on this is referred to. Similarly, standing advice in relation to protected species is also referred to.
3.10 AONB Unit: Objection
The development appears to affect the character and quality of the AONB contrary to the High Weald AONB Management Plan.
The development is considered to be contrary to national policy as it is a major site in open countryside outside of development boundaries. The development does not appear to conserve or enhance the AONB and does not give due weight to the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty as required by policy. The lack of overriding justification of the need for the development in this location, fails to meet the test under para116 of the High Weald AONB Management Plan and the proposal fails to fully and appropriately assess the impacts on the AONB.
3.11 Environment Agency (summarised): No Objection ITEM A06 - 6
3.12 Gatwick Airport Limited (summarised): No Objection subject to conditions
3.13 National Air Traffic Services (NATS) Safeguarding (summarised): No Objection
3.14 Colgate Parish Council (summarised): Objection
The objections are the same as those for the original application, those being: landscape impact concerns; the isolated position of the site; highway implications; lack of need for market dwellings; health concerns relating to the proximity of a long range radar; concerns over the proximity of a mains water pipe; risk of flooding; lack of integration of the affordable units; and, density and design of properties out of character with rural area.
The Parish Council have also raised additional comments, which consider that the development may jeopardise and pre-empt the Neighbourhood Plan as it currently contains a fair number of affordable houses and as a Parish Council they would wish to see these homes nearer the centre of Colgate Village, instead of two miles away on the Eastern Parish boundary extremities.
They also raise the following specific concerns: design to radical; number of units would overload infrastructure including roads, schools and drainage facilities; lack of integration between private and affordable housing; reduction in the number family homes proposed; too many 1 bed flats; no community building; and, sufficient private housing in Kilnwood.
3.15 Sussex Police (summarised): Comment
Sussex Police noted that pre application comments sought from them have been included in the Design and Access Statement submitted with the application. Further advice has been given with regards to design in respect of crime prevention measures. A copy of their comments have been sent to the applicants for their information.
3.16 Southern Water (summarised): Comment
The exact position of the public water main must be determined on site by the applicant before the layout of the proposed development is finalised. No excavation, mounding or tree planting should be carried out within 6 metres either side of the public water main without consent from Southern Water.
3.17 Thames Water (summarised): Comment
Waste Comments – Thames Water would advise that with regard to sewerage infrastructure capacity, we would not have any objection to the above planning application.
Surface Water Drainage - With regard to surface water drainage it is the responsibility of a developer to make proper provision for drainage to ground, water courses or a suitable sewer. In respect of surface water it is recommended that the applicant should ensure that storm flows are attenuated or regulated into the receiving public network through on or off site storage. When it is proposed to connect to a combined public sewer, the site drainage should be separate and combined at the final manhole nearest the boundary. Connections are not permitted for the removal of groundwater. The developer is advised to contact Thames Water. ITEM A06 - 7
3.18 Mid Sussex District Council: Objection
The site is considered to be visually remote from the nearby settlement of Pease Pottage and therefore is likely to have a detrimental visual impact on the open/rural character of the area. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed development would not create a high quality built environment given the lack of accessible local services that reflect the community's needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being. Future residents would be reliant upon the private car and as such the proposal would therefore fail to constitute sustainable development as defined by the NPPF.
3.19 Slaugham Parish Council: Objection
Slaugham Parish Council wish to strongly object to the planning application to build 50 new dwellings at the above site.
Although the proposed development is in Colgate Parish, it is on the very western border of their Parish with Slaugham, and will have a much greater impact on Slaugham Parish and Pease Pottage in particular.
The site is part of the High Weald Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and as such is given specific protection under paras. 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which states that ‘Planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated that they are in the public interest’ (AONBs being a designated area development would not be in the public interest. The scheme would also seriously impact the designated Ancient Woodland at the Site.
Local residents are seriously concerned about the implications of the significant traffic that this development would generate exiting onto Horsham Road/Forest Road, both because of safety at this junction and because of serious implications that it would have on Pease Pottage. Already residents of Pease Pottage have their views significantly impacted by traffic at peak times trying to access the A23/M23. Permission has already been granted for other developments at the Woodhurst Hospital Site, the former Grapes Public House, and an appeal is pending for a significant development at Land North of Black Swan Close, all of which are yet to be completed but could add very significantly to the current congestion within this village. The impact of traffic from a further 52 dwellings makes the proposed scheme unsustainable in NPPF terms.
We recognise that Colgate Parish has identified a need for some 20 affordable houses in this Parish, but would point out that local people in the villages of Colgate and Faygate will not be provided with affordable housing in their villages, since for all practical purposes they will look to Pease Pottage and Handcross for local facilities such as school, shops, public transport. For this reason, if the development is granted planning permission SPC would ask that a very significant portion of the CIL / s106 money associated with the development is directed towards traffic calming, community transport provision, provision for school paces etc within Slaugham Parish (and the Mid Sussex District).
SPC are always glad to see environmental issues taken seriously in proposed developments, and recognise that in this scheme the proposed buildings exceed minimum standards. This does not, however, compensate for the scheme being in the wrong place. We are also aware from the reaction of local residents at exhibitions held that there is a strong feeling that the ‘innovative’ design and appearance of the houses is completely at odds with a rural Sussex setting. While the NPPF does encourage new design where it is ‘truly outstanding or innovative’, it requires such design to be ‘sensitive to the defining ITEM A06 - 8
characteristics of the local area’ (para 55) which the scheme is not. In terms of design, we were surprised to see that all affordable housing was clustered in one area of the development, rather than integrated into the scheme as a whole.
SPC would like it noted and bought to your attention that an application for a site adjoining the application site (again demonstrating the proximity to Pease Pottage) was recently refused by MSDC due to it being a designated Area of Development Constraint. Allowing this application would completely go against the principle of this designation resulting in nothing but a break between the existing houses in Pease Pottage and the proposed site.
In accordance with ‘Localism’ and the core principles of the NPPF, SPC has produced A Neighbourhood Development Plan, which is currently at the advanced stage prior to public referendum – examination. The NHP is therefore at a stage where decision makers should give weight to the NHP as directed by the NPPF, planning guidelines and recent statements from Government Ministers. Although this development is in Colgate Parish, it is immediately adjacent to the NHP boundary (being the boundary of Slaugham Parish Council) and will have a significant impact on the area covered by the NHP. The NHP provides options for housing in our Parish, which we believe would meet the needs and wants of out parishioners over the next 20 - 30 years. If this application is granted, future residents would inevitably feel part of and use the facilities of Pease Pottage and Slaugham Parish rather than those of Colgate. Providing appropriate sites in accordance with local needs and wants is one of the core principles of the NPPF and this application is directly at odds with these principles and our NHP.
We ask Horsham District Council to refuse this planning application as it is inappropriate both because of its situation within the High Weald AONB, its unsustainable nature in terms of impact on infrastructure and quality of life of local people, its inappropriate design and the negative impact on SPC’s Neighbourhood Plan.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.20 A total of 35 No. letters of representation have been received. These raise the following summarised objections to the proposed development: The site is not in and is isolated from Colgate; Overdevelopment, Design; Impact on AONB & Ancient Woodland, Highway Safety and Access; Noise, increased traffic generation and time taken to leave the village; Loss of Wildlife; No Local Amenities; Out of Character; Doesn’t Address Local Housing Need; Relationship with Radar and Water Tower; Archaeological Implications; Impact on Pease Pottage; Trees and landscaping, drainage and local flooding; Insufficient Infrastructure; Insufficient public transport service; Local Schools at Capacity; Impact on Bridleway; Speculative development, urbanisation of Rural Area; Kilnwood Vale Development; Bus Stops not in vicinity of site; Private Land where Proposed Footpath is; ITEM A06 - 9
No Exceptional Circumstances; Impact on SPC Neighbourhood Plan; Pollution.
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 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that this should run through both plan-making and decision-taking. In terms of the determination of planning applications this should mean the approval of developments that accord with the development plan without delay, and that where the development plan is silent or relevant policies are out of date, that permission be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or policies of the NPPF indicate otherwise.
6.2 The issues in this case are considered to be the principle of the development in this location; the impact and scale of the development on the character and visual amenities of the rural area and the AONB, the amenities of neighbour and future occupiers, ecology, landscape and trees, parking and highway safety issues, together with sustainability.
6.3 The site is located outside of any defined Built up Area Boundary and thus is located within the Countryside. The site is identified as being within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
6.4 Local Plan policies, specifically CP5 of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2007 advises that new development should be located within defined built up areas in accordance with the hierarchy as set out within Category 1 settlement areas (identified as town and villages with a good range of services and facilities as well as some access to public transport – capable of sustaining some expansion, infilling and redevelopment) or Category 2 settlement areas (identified as being villages with a more limited level of services which should accommodate only small scale development or minor extensions that address specific local need).
6.5 The application site falls outside the identified Category 1 and Category 2 areas as identified above and is thus located within the Countryside where the Council’s normal restrictive countryside policies apply. The application is therefore considered to be contrary to the overarching sustainable development policies, particularly housing and countryside protection policies, which seek to focus housing development within the main built up areas and control development in the countryside to that which meets essential rural needs.
6.6 LDF Policy DC1 – Countryside Protection and Enhancement advises that development will not be permitted outside built-up area boundaries unless it is considered essential to its countryside location and meets one of the following criteria: ITEM A06 - 10
a. supports the needs of agriculture and forestry b. enables the extraction of minerals or the disposal of waste c. provides for quiet informal recreational use or d. ensures the sustainable development of rural areas.
6.7 Amplification to the policy advises that any development permitted must be of a scale appropriate to its countryside location and must not lead either individually or cumulatively, to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside.
6.8 Thus this scheme for residential development is contrary to policy DC1 as it is not related to a rural activity nor does it meet any essential rural need. It therefore constitutes inappropriate development in the countryside and thus is unacceptable in principle.
6.9 Notwithstanding that the proposal fails the requirements of LDF policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies document, by being inappropriate and non-essential development in the countryside and thus unacceptable in principle, it is also necessary when considering the harm caused to consider the specifics of the scheme and the impact of the proposal on the rural area in which it is located and whether it complies with the other policies of the Development Plan which have been formulated to retain the character of Horsham District. These detailed considerations are examined in more depth later in the report.
6.10 LDF policy D4 - Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) states that planning permission will not be granted for proposals in or near to the Sussex Downs or High Weald AONBs that would adversely affect the character, quality, views, distinctiveness or threaten enjoyment of the landscapes. Where exceptionally development is necessary, landscape enhancements, mitigations or compensation measures must be provided.
6.11 Amplification to this policy states that the Sussex Downs and High Weald AONBs are designated for their national importance in terms of landscape quality. The main aim of the designation is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape. It is essential that the AONB’s landscapes are conserved and enhanced. It further states that development particularly if it is of a large scale, has the potential to harm these areas and lead to damage to the landscape. It is however acknowledged that the High Weald and Sussex Downs AONB’s are ‘living’ landscapes which need to be able to meet the needs of people who live there and there may be cases therefore where development, particularly at a more local level, that helps maintain an economic or social well-being of the area is necessary. In this case however, your Officers consider that the principal of residential development in this location for 50 dwellings is unacceptable and that it would result in harm to or threaten enjoyment of the landscapes, resulting in an adverse affect on the character, quality, views, and distinctiveness of the countryside and this AONB area.
6.12 LDF policy CP1 - Landscape and Townscape Character of the Core Strategy requires the landscape character of the District, including the settlement pattern be maintained and enhanced.
6.13 These policies set out that any development must ensure the sustainable development of rural areas and should maintain and enhance the landscape character of the District’s countryside, villages and towns. Where development is essential it must not lead to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside and therefore, accessibility to transport other than the private car will be of particular relevance in meeting sustainability objectives. ITEM A06 - 11
Housing Supply & the Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD
6.14 Notwithstanding the principle objections to the location of the development outlined above, it is necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which would outweigh this objection. In particular, whether the delivery of housing, in light of the Council’s housing supply shortage, would warrant the development in this location.
6.15 It is recognised that the Council does not have a 5 year housing supply against the South East Plan and as such the NPPF states that the relevant housing policies of the Horsham District Local Plan should not be considered up-to-date. However, sustainable development is a ‘golden thread’ running through the NPPF, and as such the NPPF still requires that all development be considered sustainable. It is considered that due to the countryside location of this site and the lack of services and facilities in the vicinity, there is concern as to whether the proposal should be considered to be a form of sustainable development.
6.16 The Ministerial Forward to the NPPF states that the purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development; with development meaning ‘growth’. The ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ theme runs throughout the NPPF document and is specifically highlighted in paragraph 14. This paragraph sets out what this means for decision-taking when the policy for housing supply is out-of-date; the position the Council is currently in with regard to five year housing land supply. It states:
‘For decision takers this means…granting permission unless:
- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or - specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.’
6.17 The latter point relates to European and national designations, such as, National Park and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This site is located within the designated High Weald AONB, paragraph 115 of the NPPF states that ‘Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations in all these areas’. Policy DC4 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework states that planning permission will not be granted in or near to the designated AONBs that would adversely affect the character, quality, views, and distinctiveness or threaten public enjoyment of these landscapes. The designation of the site, coupled with the impact on the landscape (as discussed below) weigh against the proposed development.
6.18 The applicants make reference to the Council’s Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document May 2009 in their Planning Statement, as a means of justifying the proposed development.
6.19 Whilst the site is outside the built up area and is thus the principle of residential development on this site contrary to policy DC1 as stated above, in the light of the situation with regard to the housing land supply position supply numbers, the Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document May 2009 (FAD SPD) is considered relevant in some cases to the determination of applications. ITEM A06 - 12
6.20 This document has been produced arising from the need to provide ‘flexibility’ to deal with changing circumstances to ensure that there is sufficient housing supply during the life of the existing adopted Core Strategy. It essentially provides for housing development to be allowed as an exception to policy DC1, provided that various tests are met.
6.21 The FAD SPD gives a structured framework against which to consider sites not allocated through the Local Development Framework, which lie outside the built up area. This document taken together with the Core Strategy and General Development Control policies of the LDF allows for a more rigorous analysis of these sites, along the usual development control criteria, rather than purely assessing such proposals against housing supply issues alone.
6.22 The FAD document sets out the requirements against which those planning applications for development outside the built up area boundaries on greenfield and brownfield sites, but which adjoin defined settlement boundaries in the district, will be considered. As the application site does not lie adjacent to or adjoining an identified settlement boundary, the application of the FAD SPD is not applicable. The proposal would result in an isolated development that could not be considered to be sustainably located and it is not considered that the District’s housing need outweighs the unsustainable development of this site.
Affordable Housing Provision & Local Need
6.23 It should be noted that the Council’s policies do allow for ‘exceptions housing schemes’ under Policy DC30 for small, often greenfield sites well related to the existing built up areas adjacent to rural villages; however proposals are required to incorporate 100% affordable housing provision. The current outline application proposes a housing scheme which would provide 56% private housing (28 private market units) and 44% affordable housing (22 affordable housing units). Whilst some affordable housing will be provided, the proposal would not conform to Policy DC30 Exceptions Housing Schemes.
6.24 Colgate has a population of less than 3,000 people and policy CP12 states that in these smaller settlements, planning permission will only be granted for schemes providing 100% affordable housing, unless it is demonstrated that market housing is required under policies CP5 or CP8. Whilst some affordable housing will be provided, the proposal would not conform to Policy CP12 - Meeting Housing Need.
6.25 On behalf of Colgate Parish Council, Action in Rural Sussex (AirS) carried out a Housing Needs Survey in January 2012. The report identified both existing and future housing needs of residents in Colgate (located 2 km to the west of the application site) and particularly those on low and modest incomes. The results of the study identified that there were 22 households in housing need who have a local connection and who cannot afford to either purchase or rent on the open market.
6.26 A total of 416 questionnaires were sent out in November 2011 and 151 were returned. The Housing Needs Survey had a response rate of 38%. Of the responses to the survey 63% (93 households) were in favour of small affordable housing development, 35.14% (52 households) stated that they would not support an affordable housing development. The remaining 3 respondents did not answer the question. With regards to the provision of open market dwellings 33.57% of households who responded to the survey were in support and 66.43% were against open market dwellings. ITEM A06 - 13
6.27 From the information submitted, it is considered that the need for this market housing has not been established as the proposal does not demonstrate how the open market housing would address an identified housing need in the parish. The applicant puts forward that the open market housing is required in order to facilitate the proposed affordable housing element. It is noted that the applicant makes reference to this approach being supported by the NPPF, paragraph 54 of the NPPF does state that ‘Local planning authorities should in particular consider whether allowing some market housing would facilitate the provision of significant additional affordable housing to meet local needs’. It is considered that this implies that the NPPF advocates the approach of allowing a small amount of market housing in order to provide for a significant number of affordable housing units to meet an identified local need. This is not the case here with a proposal for a large amount of market housing proposed (total 28), and thus the proposals are considered to be contrary to established Local Development Framework policies as set out above.
6.28 Policy CP12 also sets out that development should provide a mix of housing sizes, types and tenures to meet the needs of the District’s communities and that provision should particularly be made for smaller homes. Policy DC18 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 adds detail and sets out that for developments of 5 or more homes, planning permission will be granted in appropriate locations provided that the housing mix and type meets the identified need for smaller homes and that the percentage of smaller homes should generally be taken to mean at least 64% within which a range of 1 and 2 bed dwelling types should be provided. The current proposal comprises 22 x 1 bed flats, 1 x 2 bed flats 7 x 2 bed houses, 15 x 3 bed houses and 5 x 4 bed houses (total 50). This amounts to 60% of proposed homes that are smaller than three bedrooms and does not fully conform to the requirements of Policy DC18 (Smaller Homes/ Housing Mix) which requires at least 64% of homes on the site to consist of one and two bed dwellings. It is recognised in this policy, however, that this situation may change. The most recent Strategic Housing Market Assessment (October 2012) recommends that within the overall housing mix a proportion of 30% - 45% of new homes on larger sites should be three or more bedroom properties to adequately cater for family housing needs. The current outline application seeks 20 three to four bed dwellings which equates to 40% of the dwelling mix being comprised of larger dwellings.
6.29 It is noted from the consultation exercise carried out by the Council that the proposed development has limited support from local residents who have responded to the notification of the development. Furthermore, Colgate Parish Council do not support the current application given that it is an isolated site on the edge of the Colgate Parish borders and is also within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. They also have concerns relating to the sites accessibility, and the urban feel of the design amongst other areas of concerns as set out in their response to the Council. It is further noted that Slaugham Parish Council (Mid Sussex District) whose administrative boundaries adjoin the site also object to the proposals. The site lies approximately 200m from the built up area settlement of Pease Pottage which lies within Mid Sussex District.
Sustainability
6.30 The application site is located outside of any defined built up area boundary and is within an area identified as being within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
6.31 The NPPF states that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that achieving sustainable development requires protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment. In terms of development in the countryside the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has already been developed (brownfield land), and that the aim should be to minimise pollution and other adverse effects on the local and natural environment. ITEM A06 - 14
6.32 The site is clearly not a brownfield site and is not a site that is closely related to any built up area boundary (Category 1 Settlement Area), or adjacent to any identified Category 2 Settlement Area. The application site is in an isolated location within the countryside and is within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, approximately 2 km away from the nearest village within Colgate Parish.
6.33 The applicants refer to the sites proximity to Pease Pottage (within Mid Sussex District) which is approximately 200m from the east of the application site. Whilst this might be the case, Pease Pottage itself contains a very limited range of services and amenities, and it is considered that the majority of these services are not services that would be required on a day to day basis. Those limited services that do exist comprise a small M&S food retail store, a WH Smith, and a fast food and coffee outlet. It is considered that these very limited services do not adequately provide for the essential needs of the local residents in the vicinity.
6.34 It is noted that there is a bridleway (1546) which leads through to Broadfield on the southern edge of Crawley, approximately 2km away from the site. There is no lighting to the bridleway and furthermore the surface condition is likely to make it a fair weather option only. Notwithstanding this, it is unlikely to be a desired route for residents for their essential retail trips given the walking and carry distance to and from Crawley. Furthermore schools in Crawley are generally outside of the Horsham catchment area and as such it is unlikely to be used by parents / children taking their children to school.
6.35 Faygate train station (which has very limited daily stopping services) and parts of Crawley are within 5 km cycling distance, however there are no identified cycle routes or pedestrian pavements along Forest Road and there is very limited lighting and given its nature, it is considered unlikely that cycling would appeal to those but the most experienced cyclists.
6.36 Whilst it is recognised that there are some bus services which serve the area, the services are very limited. The services include bus routes 633 along Horsham Road to Horsham and Crawley as well as routes 271 and 273 to Brighton, Burgess Hill and Crawley (these services are located at Pease Pottage Village 750m from the site). However, the identified bus stops in the village far exceed the 400m recommended walking distance.
6.37 In view of the rural location of the site and with consideration to the above, it is likely that any future residents would be dependant on the private motor car to carry out most of their journeys in order to access basic daily needs and as such the car would be the most dominant form of transport. Thus the proposal is likely to generate a significant increase in the level of activity associated with this site, in this special countryside area, and would be contrary to the aims and objectives of promoting sustainable development.
6.38 The unsustainable location of the proposed development goes against the core principles of the NPPF, which sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to the advice of the NPPF.
Highway Safety
6.39 Stilwell Partnership (on behalf of the applicants) has produced a Transport Statement dated December 2013 to support the planning application for 50 residential units. An Automated Traffic Counter was laid on Horsham Road to record speed and volume of vehicular movements in the vicinity of the application site. The average speed limit along Horsham Road /Forest Road is 40mph with part of Forest Road increasing to the national speed limit of approximately 50mph west of the site access. The 85% ile speed recorded was 46.5mph in relation to westbound traffic and 45.2mph in relation to eastbound traffic. ITEM A06 - 15
6.40 The applicants advise that the ATC results confirmed that the number of HGV’s in the vicinity of the site is low with an average of 15 two way flows in the AM peak hour and 10 two way in the PM peak hour. The Transport Statement provides details in relation to the anticipated impact of the proposed development in the peak hours when the combination of the existing traffic and the proposed is at its highest. The applicants have provided a ‘trip prediction’ exercise, to show the number of vehicular trips that could be generated by the proposed development in the two one hour peak periods.
6.41 The submitted documentation anticipates that the proposal would result in a maximum of 35 trips in the AM peak hour and 36 trips in the PM peak hour. It is estimated by the applicants, based on existing traffic flow on Horsham Road, that 50% of these will turn right and 50% will turn left. The maximum number of departures anticipated by the applicants would be 26 vehicles (AM peak hour). The maximum number of arrivals anticipated by the applicants would be 22 vehicles (PM peak hour). It is advised by the applicants that 11 of these (50%) would turn right into the site access (estimated as 1 every 5 minutes).
6.42 The applicants have submitted a Stage One Road Safety Audit and also a designers response (appendix e) in addition to their Transport Statement, as requested by the West Sussex County Council Highways Department. Full comments are provided by West Sussex County Council Highways and are set out in their consultation response. Subject to matters to be resolved through the detailed design the Safety Audit is considered to be acceptable.
6.43 With regards to the Transport Statement provided by The Stilwell Partnership on behalf of Rural Eco Limited, West Sussex County Council Highways have stated that there are few comparable sites on the TRICS database. WSCC state however that given the quantum of development proposed, the proposal would not be expected to generate any significant increase in traffic that would in turn result in capacity concerns on the local highway and have raised no highway safety concerns subject to the detailed design being submitted and mitigation measures being secured via condition, S106 agreement and a Section 278 agreement. However, it should be noted that whilst no objection is raised in relation to total highway capacity levels, it is acknowledged that these additional vehicular trips would not exist on the local highway network without development in this location.
Landscape & Trees
6.44 The application site comprises an area of land approximately 1.55 hectares and is located within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The site lies in the lee of the NATS radar tower close by to the north. A thin band of trees mainly comprising regenerating birch woodland flanks the eastern boundary of the site. This area is indicated on Map 7 of the Revised Ancient Woodland report for West Sussex as Ancient Woodland. A public bridleway lies to the sites western boundary. The western boundary to the site comprises a good belt of tree cover with rhododendron under-storey. Mature trees mark the southern boundary with Horsham Road. Elsewhere the site is fringed by birch thickets around the central portion of the site which has recently been cleared.
6.45 The Council’s Landscape Architect has advised that the current proposal raises essentially the same matters of concern that were raised in relation to the previously refused development (considered under reference DC/13/0103). These being that whilst the site is relatively well contained visually, it is considered to be poorly related to the existing settlement pattern and there is little landscape or visual logic to its choice as a site for housing development. Its well vegetated appearance seen from public vantage points along the southern and western boundaries would be significantly affected should development take place, the access proposals and the works to the road frontage would ITEM A06 - 16
also result in an urbanisation of the surroundings by a footway and local widening of the bridleway resulting in a markedly detrimental effect on the character of the southern end of the public bridleway and the Horsham Road.
6.46 In addition, the Landscape Architect previously raised concerns regarding the housing layout, considering it to be rather stark, with the plots appearing regimented along the eastern side of the site thus appearing ‘almost a wall of development’ with little permeability to the wooded eastern backdrop. In terms of the current proposal, the Landscape Architect notes that the proposed linearity of the eastern side of the development would be somewhat less severe then as previously proposed, but that this is offset to a large degree by the imposed linearity arising from the presence of the water main easement.
6.47 With regards to the proposals for safeguarding the 15m ancient woodland "cordon sanitaire" it is considered that these are unclear and furthermore that private amenity / garden space is very pinched, especially at the northern end of the eastern run of properties.
6.48 The Landscape Architect previously advised in respect of the landscape proposals relating to DC/13/0103 that the site appeared relatively well contained visually, however in relation to the current scheme it now appears that even more tree clearance is shown at the Horsham Road frontage than on the first layout.
6.49 The site is locally prominent from the Horsham Road at the southern boundary and from the adjacent bridleway. The development would be exposed to views from these boundaries; furthermore, there would be likely views of the northern edge of the development, albeit through a fringe of trees, in views south from the bridleway as it passes Cottesmore School, adding to the intrusive effects of the already skylined radar tower.
6.50 There are concerns that the development plots encroach significantly into the regenerating woodland to the north west towards the radar tower and to the south west and south where the majority of the larger trees are found. Views from the public vantage points to the south and west would be dramatically altered by local tree clearance and the loss would be detrimental to the character of the area as viewed from the adjacent bridleway that serves the vehicular entrance from Cottesmore School.
6.51 The Council’s Landscape Architect expresses concern that the future of the remaining belt of woodland to the north west of the development site is unclear in terms of both ownership and management and that this along with the extensive woodland clearance are considered to be significant landscape failings irrespective of its AONB designation.
6.52 The landscape strategy has been prepared by someone other than the scheme's landscape designer and contains conflicting objectives. It is unclear how these could be resolved. Insufficient unambiguous detail has been submitted to demonstrate that a satisfactory landscape scheme could be delivered.
6.53 Issue’s relating to lighting have been briefly addressed within the Design and Access statement where it is proposed that low impact street lighting be provided with PIR entrance lights to each dwelling. Given the Countryside and AONB location, your officers are concerned that any form of lighting would result in a sub-urbanisation of this area, detrimental to it rural character.
6.54 The proposed development would result in significant tree clearance along the Horsham Road frontage and it is not considered that the 15m buffer to the nearby ancient woodland ITEM A06 - 17
would be adequately safeguarded. In addition, the proposed development would be prominent within views locally and would detract from the rural character and landscape setting of the area.
Ecology
6.55 This current application with its ecological surveys, mitigation and proposed layout satisfies the ecological concerns raised in relation to the previous application. There are a number of matters which could be controlled through condition should that be necessary and these are largely presented in Section 5 of the ecological report.
Private and Visual Amenities
6.56 The nearest residential properties to the application site are South Lodge, Silver Birches and Barbeeches. The proposed new access to the application lies just to the north east of South Lodge, and thus even with the proposed realignment of the southern end of the existing private road leading up to the new site access, it is likely that the increased level of activity would lead to some loss of private amenity to the residents of South Lodge resulting from the increased traffic movements and the associated disturbance this would cause.
6.57 With regards to separation distances there are a number of dwellings proposed that would sit adjacent to the three existing dwellings located on the west side of the existing access road off Horsham Road. The nearest of the proposed dwellings on the west side of the application site (Plots 49 and 50) would be located immediately to the east to South Lodge approximately 15 metres away, the proposed flats (identified on plan as numbers 44 – 47) are indicated as being approximately 36 metres from the nearest point of South Lodge although associated parking areas are closer at approximately 19m. At the nearest point, the proposed dwellings at Plots 5 and 6 on the western corner of the application site would be between approximately 18m and 21m from the dwelling known as Silver Birches. Whilst the detailed design and scale of the dwellings are not being considered under this outline application, the layout is for consideration and given the distance involved and planting proposed it is considered that the proposed development would be unlikely to have any material adverse impact in terms of loss of privacy or light to the existing neighbouring properties. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would not be likely to cause unacceptable harm to the amenities of nearby residents and as such would accord with this aspect of policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
6.58 Of greater concern however is the group of flats ‘Cluster Type F’ numbers 37- 43, which are located approximately 16 metres from the south west boundary of the site facing the private access road. The development overall is described by the applicants as being two storey, however, this group of flats is in fact a three storey building with a large three dimensional mass in comparison to the other buildings proposed and the dimensions of those existing sporadic dwellings in the immediate locality. The three storey element of the building measures approximately 11 metres in height to the ridge height (7m to eaves level), is 10.5 metres wide and 8.9 metres deep. By comparison the largest of the proposed houses ‘Type D’ measures 8 metres to the ridge height (4m to eaves level). The existing buildings in the locality are bungalows. In this respect, this cluster of flats in close proximity to the proposed site entrance from the bridleway, would be very prominent locally and would result in appreciable harm to the visual amenities of the locality. There are no existing three storey buildings in the locality and notwithstanding the objection in principle to the proposed development within the AONB such a dominant building would not be considered appropriate in this countryside location.
ITEM A06 - 18
6.59 In regards to the revised layout it is considered that the proposed linearity of the eastern side of the development would be somewhat less severe then as previously proposed, but this is offset to a large degree by the imposed linearity arising from the presence of the water main easement which constrains the proposed site layout. However, the south- eastern end of the site stills appears relatively tight with limited views through to the woodland screen behind.
6.60 Whilst indicative drawings have been submitted indicating the intended design of the proposed units, this is not a matter for consideration at this stage and would fall to be considered under the relevant reserved matters submission, should outline permission by granted.
Conclusion
6.61 In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed residential development of 50 dwellings located outside the built up area in this isolated countryside location would be contrary to both local and national planning policy and guidance. It has not been demonstrated with sufficient supporting evidence that there is an identified need for 28 open-market dwellings in this location. The site is located away from community facilities and services and is not well served by means of public transport. The countryside location of the site is therefore considered to be unsustainable. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies CP1, CP5 and CP19 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and the advice of the NPPF. Whilst it is accepted that Horsham District does not currently have a 5 year supply of identified sites for housing development, the presumption (at paragraph 14 of the NPPF) that this renders the development plan as silent, is not accepted as the specific and overarching aim of the NPPF to promote sustainable development is not accorded with for this proposal.
6.62 In addition, the proposed development would be detrimental to the landscape character of the surrounding area, which is designated as part of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and would therefore conflict with policies CP1, CP3 and CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC2, DC4 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 That planning permission be REFUSED subject to the following reasons:
1. The proposed development is located outside any built up area as defined in the Horsham District Local Development Framework where there is a strong presumption against additional residential development in the countryside and there are no overriding reasons to justify the harm the development would cause or to justify a departure from Development Plan policies. The proposal is therefore considered to be unacceptable development contrary to the principles of sustainable development and conflicts with Policies CP1, CP5 and CP19 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007); Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC4 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
2. It has not been adequately demonstrated how the development would meet specific local needs on the basis of the contribution to meeting identified local requirements for housing including affordable housing, the retention or enhancement of community facilities and services and the extent to which the addition of new development would not reinforce unsustainable patterns. The layout of the affordable and market housing ITEM A06 - 19
provision is not integrated or appropriately sited within the development. The proposal therefore conflicts with policies CP5 & CP12 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007), and policies DC1, DC18 and DC40 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
3. The development by reason of its location within the High Weald Area of Outstanding natural Beauty and siting outside of the built up area boundary of Horsham would be detrimental to the landscape character and trees of the site and would have an adverse impact on the rural character of the area. As such, the proposal is contrary to policies CP1, CP3, and CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (2007) and policies DC2, DC4, and DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
4. The proposed development has no mechanism for the provision and tenure of affordable housing and makes no provision for contributions towards improvements to transport infrastructure, education provision, library services, fire and rescue services and community facilities and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy and the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document as it has not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.
Background Papers: DC/13/2446 and DC/13/0103 Contact Officer: Amanda Wilkes
DC/13/2446
Land South of Buchan Hill Reservoir
Scale : 1:2500
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments O/S EXTRACT Date 20 February 2014
SLA Number 100023865 APPENDIX A7/ 1 . DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee North
BY: Development Manager
DATE: 4th March, 2014
DEVELOPMENT: Fell 1 beech tree.
SITE: Land rear of 21 Woodlands Walk, Mannings Heath.
WARD: Nuthurst.
APPLICATION: DC/13/2451
APPLICANT: Horsham District Council.
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: Application by Horsham District Council.
RECOMMENDATION - To grant consent.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application proposes the felling of a beech tree.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.2 The tree is part of a line of trees on a narrow strip of land to the north of 21 Woodlands Walk, Mannings Heath.
PLANNING HISTORY
1.3 The tree is protected under Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. 947, confirmed on 24th August 1998.
1.4 An application for surgery to the tree was permitted under DC/11/2517.
1.5 The land on which the tree is growing is owned and managed by Horsham District Council Leisure Services.
Contact: Will Jones Extension: 5515 APPENDIX A7/ 2 .
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 As a tree subject to a TPO, it is a legal requirement that any person wishing to undertake works to any live part make an application to the Local Planning Authority under the Town & Country Planning (Trees) Regulations 1999.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 Members are advised of the principles of good practice set out in the publication TPO’s - A guide to the Law and Good Practice (DETR, March 2000).
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Nuthurst Parish Council has stated no objection to this proposal.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION PROMOTES HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is relevant to this application. Human rights issues form part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
Not applicable in this case.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 The tree in question is one of a line of trees in the locality, and has modest amenity value only.
6.2 For some time the presence of the pathogenic decay fungus Ganoderma resinaceum has been noted growing at the base of the tree on the northern side. As this fungus causes a white-rot which can ultimately result in catastrophic failure, investigations have been pursued to ascertain the extent of the decay.
6.3 In November 2011 the tree was inspected using specialist internal decay detection equipment. This inspection showed that the tree’s structural condition has been impaired by the actions of the decay pathogen.
6.4 As the tree is close to a driveway to a private residential dwelling, it is clearly prudent to ensure action is taken to minimise the risk of it suffering catastrophic failure. Despite surgery carried out in 2011 under DC/11/2517, the tree remains a concern and requires further expensive inspection likely to simply confirm the spread of the pathogenic decay fungus. Further surgery would be disfiguring, and would make no difference to the spread of the fungus. It is accordingly now considered prudent to remove the tree on safety grounds.
6.5 Given the density of the narrow woodland strip in question, it is not considered necessary to secure a replacement tree.
APPENDIX A7/ 3 .
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that the application be granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. TR2 Time limit INF8 Wildlife protection.
Background Papers: DC/13/2451 Contact Officer: Will Jones.
DC/13/2451
Land Rear of 21 Woodlands Walk
Scale : 1:1250
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the permission Organisation Horsham District Council of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright 2000. Department Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Comments O/S EXTRACT Date 20 February 2014
SLA Number 100023865