E-mail: CommitteeServices@horsham.gov.uk
Direct line: 01403 215465
Development Control (South) Committee TUESDAY 16TH JULY 2013 AT 2.00p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBER, PARK NORTH, NORTH STREET, HORSHAM
Councillors: David Jenkins (Chairman) Sheila Matthews Vice-Chairman) Roger Arthur Liz Kitchen Adam Breacher Gordon Lindsay Jonathan Chowen Brian O’Connell Philip Circus Roger Paterson Roger Clarke Sue Rogers George Cockman Kate Rowbottom David Coldwell Jim Sanson Ray Dawe Diana van der Klugt Brian Donnelly Claire Vickers Jim Goddard
Tom Crowley Chief Executive
AGENDA
1. Apologies for absence
2. To approve as correct the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 18th June 2013
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 following reports and to take such action thereon as may be necessary
Head of Planning & Environmental Services Appeals Applications for determination by Committee - Appendix A
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
Item Ward Reference Site No. Number
A1 Chantry DC/13/0752 Land North of South Wood Melton Drive Storrington
A2 Chantry DC/13/0730 Orchard Gardens Church Street Storrington
A3 Chantry DC/13/0796 Orchard Gardens Church Street Storrington
A4 Steyning DC/13/0903 Steyning Leisure Centre Horsham Road Steyning
A5 Chanctonbury DC/12/1276 Westlands Farm Billingshurst Road Ashington
A6 Chantry SDNP/13/00104/ Mobile Home 492 Sullington Lane FUL Storrington
A7 Cowfold,Shermanbury DC/13/0859 Brightstone Construction Limited and West Grinstead Star Road Partridge Green
A8 Chanctonbury DC/13/0827 Southway Stud Harbolets Road West Chiltington
A9 Henfield DC/13/1073 Marnor West End Lane Henfield
A10 Chantry DC/13/0380 Springwood Sandgate Lane Storrington
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
DCS130618
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 18th June 2013
Present: Councillors: Roger Arthur, Jonathan Chowen, Philip Circus, Roger Clarke, George Cockman, David Coldwell, Ray Dawe, Brian Donnelly, Jim Goddard, David Jenkins, Gordon Lindsay, Sheila Matthews, Brian O’Connell, Kate Rowbottom, Diana van der Klugt, Claire Vickers
Apologies: Councillors: Adam Breacher, Liz Kitchen, Roger Paterson, Sue Rogers, Jim Sanson
DCS/1 ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN
RESOLVED
That Councillor David Jenkins be elected Chairman of the Committee for the ensuing Council year.
DCS/2 APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIRMAN
RESOLVED
That Councillor Sheila Matthews be appointed Vice-Chairman of the Committee for the ensuing Council year.
DCS/3 TIME OF MEETINGS
RESOLVED
That meetings of the Committee be held at 2.00pm for the ensuing Council year.
DCS/4 MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21st May 2013 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.
DCS/5 INTERESTS OF MEMBERS
Member Item Nature of Interest
Councillor DC/13/0783 Personal and Prejudicial – he is the Jonathan Chowen applicant
DCS/6 ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.
Development Control (South) Committee 18th June 2013
DCS/7 APPEALS
Appeals Lodged Written Representations/Household Appeals Service
Ref No Site Appellant(s)
DC/12/1298 Nettlecombe, West End Lane, Ms J Irving Henfield DC/12/1581 Our Lady of England RC Church, The Norbertine Order Monastery Lane, Storrington in Storrington DC/13/0152 1 The Birches, West Chiltington Mr Duncan P Driver DC/12/1997 4A West Street, Storrington Mr Ray Kwok DC/13/0059 28 Station Road, Billingshurst Mrs N Van De Braam
Appeal Decisions
Ref No Site Appellant(s) Decision
DC/12/0133 Barn, Rackham Street, Ms Jane Claxton Allowed Rackham DC/12/2357 Ivy View, Mill Lane, Mr Charles Allowed Coolham Woodward DC/12/2333 2 Nutcroft, Pulborough Janet Weir Dismissed
DC/12/2288 Whitefoots, Dial Post, Mr Tim Dismissed Horsham Wonnacott DC/12/0342 24 Oakfield Rd, Cowfold Mr Joe Dorman Dismissed DC/12/1573 Thistleworth Farm, Mr Mitchell Dismissed Worthing Rd, Dial Post DC/12/1575 Thistleworth Farm, Mr Mitchell Dismissed Worthing Rd, Dial Post
DCS/8 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/0430 – DEMOLITION OF EXISTING VACANT BUILDING, FORMERLY A CARE HOME, ERECTION OF 20 LOCAL NEEDS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRIORITISING OLDER PEOPLE, FLATS AND COMMUNAL LOUNGE, ARRANGED IN BLOCKS OF FOUR AROUND A CENTRAL SPINAL ROAD, WITH ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING, BIN STORAGE, PRIVATE AND COMMUNAL GARDENS SITE: BRITONS CROFT CHARLTON STREET STEYNING APPLICANT: SAXON WEALD HOMES LTD
The Head of Planning & Environmental Services reported that this application sought planning permission for the demolition of 44 vacant units which comprised a former care home, and the erection of 20 local needs affordable housing for older people arranged in blocks of four around a central road, with communal lounge, associated car parking, bin storage, private and communal gardens.
2
Development Control (South) Committee 18th June 2013
DCS/8 Planning Application: DC/13/0430 (Cont.)
The units would comprise two 1- bedroom wheelchair accessible flats, ten 1- bedroom flats and eight 2-bedroom flats. The car park would provide 29 parking spaces arranged into smaller areas to integrate it with soft landscaping.
The site was located within the built up area of Steyning to the west of the Conservation Area. A tree to the front of the site and trees to the north of the site would be retained. There was a bungalow to the east and a Grade II listed dwelling to the north east. Steyning Fire Station was to the north and a terrace of residential dwellings and an industrial building to the west of the site.
The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP5, CP12, and CP13; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC9 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.
There was no relevant planning history to this application.
The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. It was reported at the meeting that the Landscape Officer had raised no objection to the proposal, subject to more detail being added to Condition 7 regarding hard and soft landscaping, and subject to the addition of two conditions regarding landscape management and trenches & underground services. The applicant had requested that Condition 19 requiring the use of natural slate rather that artificial slate on Blocks A and E be deleted.
One letter of comment had been received. The applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal.
Members considered the principle of the development and noted that the site was located close to a range of services and facilities and would be appropriate for sustainable development. Each ground floor flat would have a garden or patio and most first floor flats would have a balcony. There would be a communal garden to the northern end of the site.
Amended plans had been received removing the solar panels from Blocks A and E, which were adjacent to Charlton Road and more prominent in the street scene, at the Conservation Officer’s request. Blocks B, C and D would have solar panels on the western roof elevations. Members requested that the decision to omit solar panels from the two blocks be reconsidered. Members noted that the buildings were required to achieve Code Level 3.
It was noted that Steyning Parish had a high proportion of residents aged over 65 compared to other areas and Members welcomed a tenure mix of affordable rented and shared ownership units on a 60:40 split and that the units were all designed to meet the Lifetime Homes Standard and would be accessible to a wide range of people.
3
Development Control (South) Committee 18th June 2013
DCS/8 Planning Application: DC/13/0430 (Cont.)
Members noted the extent to which the applicant had engaged with the community through public consultation and the level of support for the proposal.
Members noted the applicant’s request to make the development available to all ages and considered that the legal agreement to restrict the development for those of 60 years plus from Steyning and the wider Horsham District, should be extended to include people of any age in housing need with a local connection to Steyning on a cascade system that prioritised those aged 60 years plus. Prior to the meeting, the Local Member had requested that Ashurst be added to the cascade system of prioritising occupants in addition to Bramber and Upper Beeding. It was also requested that Wiston be considered for inclusion in the cascade system.
Members considered concerns regarding highway and traffic, and the need for the submission of a robust construction management plan prior to commencement of the development was noted.
It was noted that there were no toilet facilities near to the communal lounge and Members requested that they should be included. The omission of lifts for the first floor flats was also noted and Members considered that there should be an Informative to the applicant regarding the provision of stair lifts for occupants where required.
Members considered that the proposal would make efficient use of land without causing harm to the amenity of nearby residents, was in keeping with the character of the area, and would provide for a local housing need in a sustainable location.
Members therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable.
RESOLVED
(i) That a legal agreement be entered into to restrict the occupancy of the dwellings to over 60’s from within the Horsham District on a cascade system to include Ashurst and Wiston, and securing the provision of affordable units.
(ii) That subject to the completion of the legal agreement in (i) above, application DC/13/0430 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services to reconsider Condition 19 regarding the use of slate, to reconsider the omission of solar panels from Blocks A and E, and to consider the inclusion of toilet facilities within the communal lounge. Conditions with regard to landscape management; trenches & underground services are to be added and Condition 7 to be re-worded. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.
4
Development Control (South) Committee 18th June 2013
DCS/9 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/0753 – ERECTION OF SHELTERED HOUSING COMPRISING 25 FLATS AND COMMON FACILITIES SITE: ADUR VIEW DAWN CRESCENT UPPER BEEDING APPLICANT: SAXON WEALD HOMES LTD
The Head of Planning & Environmental services reported that this application sought permission for the erection of 25 sheltered housing flats comprising twenty- one 1-bedroom flats and four 2-bedroom flats for elderly people with a common room, buggy store, plant room and office. Parking for 19 cars, including two disabled parking bays, was proposed. The previous accommodation of sixteen bedsits and six 1-bedroom flats had been demolished. A private garden would be provided for the residents along with replacement soft landscaping incorporating native species and flowering plants.
The site was located within the built up area of Upper Beeding and accessed via Dawn Crescent which consisted of chalet style bungalows. It was adjacent to the Conservation Area and close to the South Downs National Park. The River Adur and public footpath were to the south of the site.
The Kings Head Public House (Grade II Listed Building) and gardens were to the west, the Coach House and Pond Farm House (both Grade II Listed Buildings) to the north and two bungalows were to the east of the site.
The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1, CP3, CP5, CP12 and CP13; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC9 and DC40 were relevant to the determination of this application.
Relevant planning history included:
UB/40/68 Residential development for aged persons Granted with wardens accommodation UB/67/68 Erection of 22 aged persons flat Granted DC/12/1050 Demolition of 23 sheltered housing bedsits Withdrawn and associated accommodation and construction of 25 sheltered housing flats and associated accommodation (Full Planning) DC/12/1052 Demolition of 23 sheltered housing bedsits Invalid and associated accommodation. Application - Construction of 25 sheltered housing flats Withdrawn and associated accommodation (Conservation Area Consent) DC/12/1883 Demolition of 1-23 Adur View - Sheltered Invalid housing building and common facilities Application - Withdrawn DC/12/1897 Prior notification for the demolition of 1 - 23 Granted Adur View and common facilities
5
Development Control (South) Committee 18th June 2013
DCS/9 Planning Application: DC/13/0753 (Cont.)
The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. It was reported at the meeting that the Landscape Officer had considered that the revised proposal had addressed concerns regarding scale, bulk and height and raised no objection, subject to more detail being added to Condition 6 regarding hard and soft landscaping, and subject to the addition of two conditions regarding landscape management and trenches & underground services. The Highways Authority had considered that the proposal would not generate a significant increase in on-street parking and raised no objection. The South Downs Society commented on the application and thirteen letters of objection had been received. Two members of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant spoke in support of the proposal.
Members considered the principle of the development, the effect of the development on the amenity of nearby occupiers and the visual amenities and character of the area. It was noted that the site was located close to a range of services and facilities and would be appropriate for sustainable development.
A distance of 13 metres would be retained to the southern boundary and this area would be used as the communal garden. Members considered that the distance of the building from the boundaries of the site were acceptable and the proposal would not cause harm to the amenity of nearby residents.
The proposal had been revised since the withdrawal of planning application DC/12/1050 by reducing the proposal from three to two storeys.
Members noted the extent to which the applicant had engaged with the community through public consultation. The proposal would provide sheltered accommodation for the over 60’s within the Horsham District. Members requested that a Condition be added to include a Cascade System that prioritised local residents. It was requested that Small Dole be included within this system.
It was noted that the buggy park was located at the edge of the site some distance from the parking area and Members considered that its location should be reviewed.
Members noted that the large Sycamore tree in the south east corner would be protected, with no dig construction over its root protection area.
With regards to parking provision, the agent had provided an additional car parking space, bringing the total to 19, in response to concerns raised by neighbouring occupiers. Whilst Members noted that the Highway Authority raised no objection, there was concern that the development could lead to an increase in traffic movements and on-street parking from occupiers and visitors. It was noted that the former care home had had nine parking places. Members requested that the possibility of increasing parking provision, including the use of grass-crete under the tree, should be investigated during delegation.
6
Development Control (South) Committee 18th June 2013
DCS/9 Planning Application: DC/13/0753 (Cont.)
Members considered that, on balance, concerns regarding parking did not outweigh the benefits of the proposal, and that the design of the units would not adversely affect the nearby conservation area and would provide a local housing need in a sustainable location.
Members therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable.
RESOLVED
(i) That a legal agreement be entered into to restrict the occupancy of the dwellings to over 60’s from within the Horsham District on a cascade system to include Small Dole.
(ii) That subject to the completion of the legal agreement in (i) above and the expiry of the consultation period, application DC/13/0753 be determined by the Head of Planning & Environmental Services, to reconsider the position of the buggy store, to investigate the possibility of increasing parking provision through the use of grass- crete under the tree, and to allow for the forming of conditions regarding landscape management and trenches & underground services, and the rewording of Condition 6. The preliminary view of the Committee was that the application should be granted.
DCS/10 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/0375 – RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION TO PAINT THE WOODWORK OF THE SHOP IN DULUX RUBY FOUNTAIN NO.1 (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT) SITE: 86 HIGH STREET STEYNING APPLICANT: MISS SIMONE TIPLER
The Head of Planning & Environmental services reported that this application sought retrospective listed building consent to paint the bay windows, fascia, the strip along the base of the frontage, shop doorway, side gate and window frames on the shop front of Simone Hairdressers, 86 High Street, in bright red.
The site was located in the built up area of Steyning, within the designated Conservation Area, and comprised the north side of a double storey 14th Century timber frame Grade II listed building which also included 84 High Street. The shop front had previously been painted grey.
The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policy CP1; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC12, DC13 and DC14 were relevant to the determination of this application.
7
Development Control (South) Committee 18th June 2013
DCS/10 Planning Application: DC/13/0375 (Cont.)
Relevant planning history included:
DC/05/2316 Use of first floor for A3 use (Lawful Refused Development Certificate) DC/07/1630 Change of use of first floor and back rooms Granted to A1 Hair Salon
The response from the Council’s Design and Conservation Officer, as contained within the report, was considered by the Committee. The Parish Council objected to the application. Twelve letters of support had been received.
Members considered the impact of the repainting on the character of the building and noted that the Grade II listed building was prominently positioned in the High Street and contributed to the historic significance of the Conservation Area.
Listed building consent was required in cases where the painting of a building would change its character and Members considered that the colour of the new paint had altered the character of the building. It was noted that the shop front and windows of the adjoining premises was painted in a traditional muted green colour.
Whilst the level of support for the re-painting was noted, and Members had some sympathy with the intended upbeat impact of the repainting, Members considered that a more muted colour would be more appropriate for the Listed Building and Conservation Area, as required by planning policy, and were concerned that the paintwork would set a potentially damaging precedent.
Members therefore considered that the proposal was unacceptable.
RESOLVED
That application DC/13/0375 be refused for the following reason:
The retrospective painting of the shop front of a Listed Building to Dulux Ruby Fountain no.1 (bright red) fails to respect the Listed Building and its setting, fails to use a finish that is appropriate to the local context and is not a muted colour sought in Conservation Areas. This conflicts with Policies DC12, DC13 and DC14 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies 2007 and Chapter 12 of the NPPF.
8
Development Control (South) Committee 18th June 2013
DCS/11 PLANNING APPLICATION: DC/13/0783 – REPLACEMENT OF WINDOWS ON THE FRONT WESTERN ELEVATION & REAR SOUTH & EASTERN ELEVATIONS (LISTED BUILDING CONSENT) SITE: OLD LOCK HOUSE LOCK PARTRIDGE GREEN APPLICANT: MR JONATHAN CHOWEN (Councillor Jonathan Chowan declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application as he was the applicant. He withdrew from the meeting and took no part in the determination of the application.)
The Head of Planning & Environmental services reported that this application sought listed building consent for 19 replacement windows within this Grade II* listed building.
The site was located in the countryside off Bines Road. It comprised a two storey dwelling in the southern half of a large plot and was accessed via a private lane within the Lock Estate.
The National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies CP1 and CP3; and Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies DC9 and DC13 were relevant to the determination of this application.
Relevant planning history included:
WG/68/02 Prior notification to erect a pole barn Granted
WG/30/89 Conservatory Granted
WG/5/98 Double Garage Granted
DC/06/2153 Garage and stable complex Granted
DC/07/2376 127mm ventilator through outside wall for Granted a solid fuel stove (Listed Building Consent) DC/10/0837 Services store and summer house of Granted above ground swimming pool
The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee. The Parish Council had not commented on the application. No letters of representation had been received.
Members considered the impact of the proposed works upon the character of the grade II* listed building. It was noted that the 19 windows, located on the front and rear elevations were dilapidated in appearance and had suffered from weather damage.
9
Development Control (South) Committee 18th June 2013
DCS/11 Planning Application: DC/13/0783 (Cont.)
The windows were generally designed with a central mullion with three panes either side divided by slender horizontal glazing bars. They were not the original windows and as such English Heritage considered them to have limited significance. Whilst English Heritage suggested that any replacement windows should be sash, on the assumption that this would match the original design of the house, there was no evidence to confirm the house’s original appearance. Members therefore considered that it would be appropriate to use a similar design to the current windows.
Members considered that the proposed replacement windows would reflect the character of the listed building and improve energy efficiency within the house and therefore considered that the proposal was acceptable.
RESOLVED
That application DC/13/0783 be granted subject to the following conditions:
01 LB1 Listed building consent 02 M6 Prescribed Materials 03 LB4 Protection from Damage 04 LB5 Remedial Works 05 Prior to commencement of development, 1:2 sections of the windows shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.
REASON
ILBC1B The proposal would preserve the character of the Listed Building
The meeting closed at 3.30pm having commenced at 2.00pm. CHAIRMAN
10
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL (SOUTH) COMMITTEE 16TH JULY 2013 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/12/1997 To use as cafe/restaurant mainly from existing kitchen in next door unit. Sale of guitars and equipment and recording music as existing (Certificate of Lawful Development - Proposed). 4A West Street, Storrington, Pulborough, West Sussex, RH20 4EE. For: Mr Ray Kwok
DC/12/2332 Change of use of annexe for short term tenancy let. The Annexe, The Hollies, Nightingale Lane, Storrington, RH20 4NU. For: Mr Patrick and Mrs Vivien Ong
3. Appeal Decisions
I have received notice from the Department of Communities and Local Government that the following appeals have been determined:-
DC/13/0059 Lowering of curb on side of road to allow vehicular access for parking facility for one car at front of house in purpose built redesigned space. 28 Station Road, Billingshurst, West Sussex, RH14 9SE. For: Mrs Natalie Van De Braam Appeal: ALLOWED (Delegated)
DC/12/1905 Amendment to replacement dwelling granted under DC/06/1529. The Orchard, Storrington Road, Thakeham, West Sussex For: Mr J Mills Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)
DC/13/0152 Garden shed, potting cupboard and wood store (under construction). 1 The Birches, West Chiltington, Pulborough, West Sussex, RH20 2PH. For: Mr Duncan Paul Driver Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)
DC/12/0791 Erection of 5 dwellings (3 x 2 bed chalet bungalows and 2 x 3 bed bungalows), garages and access to land at rear of Rose Cottage, Springfield and Windrush with retention of Heatherdene modified to facilitate internal access road realignment (Revised application further to permission granted under DC/06/0633). Heatherdene, Shoreham Road, Small Dole, Henfield, BN5 9YG. For: Mr and Mrs S Bailey Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)
DC/12/1275 Retrospective application for the erection of 6 sq.m covered storage area. 60 Acorn Avenue, Cowfold, Horsham, West Sussex, RH13 8RT. For: Mr Malcolm Etherton Appeal: DISMISSED (Delegated)
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 16th July 2013 Erection of up to 102 dwellings, including 40% affordable housing, with DEVELOPMENT: associated access (Outline Planning) SITE: Land North of South Wood Melton Drive Storrington West Sussex WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/13/0752 APPLICANT: Wates Developments
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development
RECOMMENDATION: To Refuse Planning Permission
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks outline consent for the erection of up to 102 dwellings, which includes 40% affordable housing. Consent is sought for the means of access to the site with all other matters reserved for future determination.
1.2 Whilst the application is in outline form the applicant has indicated that the proposed development could comprise the following mix of units: 12 x 2 bed flat (3 of which over a garage), 21 x 3 bed house, 20 x 4 bed house, 8 x 5 bed house in private housing and 8 x 1 bed flat, 9 x 2 bed flat, 9 x 2 bed house and 15 x 3 bed house in affordable housing. This totals 61 dwellings in private housing and 41 dwellings in affordable housing.
1.3 The primary access to the site is proposed at the south-west corner to Fryern Road from a new priority junction with splitter island and a new 2m wide footway along the south flank to run along the eastern side of Fryern Road to the existing bus stop further south of Melton Drive. An additional service access is located towards the north of the site on Fryern Road for vehicles associated with the pumping station. A further 3m wide pedestrian/ cycle/ emergency access is proposed to the south-east corner leading onto Melton Drive.
1.4 The indicative plans suggest a total of 223 parking spaces, which includes visitor parking. The proposed landscaping includes indicative buffer planting along the boundaries, informal open space and play area planting, and street trees within grass verges. More
Contact Officer: Hazel Corke Tel: 01403 215177 APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2
recently, additional illustrative plans have been received which provides information on the impact of buildings heights and potential revised landscaping proposals to help inform the Local Planning Authority’s assessment of the principle of the proposal. This additional material has been made available on the public access system.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.5 The application site (the site) lies to the north of Storrington on the east side of Fryern Road adjoining the rear of properties fronting Melton Drive. The site is 4.7 hectares in area and is generally rectangular in shape. It has a frontage of approximately 152m to Fryern Road and depth of approximately 296m (south boundary) and 325m (north boundary). At the south-east corner, the site extends to the south via an approximately 10m wide section that establishes a connection with Melton Drive.
1.6 The site currently comprises a large open agricultural field with landscape buffers along its northern, eastern and southern sides. A single large Oak tree is located to the western boundary with Fryern Road, also defined by a post and wire fence and overgrown weeds. There is a cluster of trees at the north-east corner of the site.
1.7 The south of the site provides the only physical connection with the edge of the built up area of Storrington. The site borders 8 properties fronting Melton Drive. All but one of the plots are in excess of 2,000m² and each contains a detached dwelling, which are mostly single storey but also contain some double storey forms. The dwellings are set within large gardens and are consistently set back from the front boundary by at least 30m.
1.8 To the east of the site are open agricultural fields and a single storey dwelling at 16 Melton Drive. To the north of the site, there are further fields and associated farmhouses and buildings. To the west of the site beyond the avenue of Oak trees on the western side of Fryern Road are more agricultural fields with hedgerows and windbreaks.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 National Planning Policy Framework 2012 – Delivering Sustainable Development - Sections 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 & 11 are relevant to the proposal.
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP9, CP12, CP13 & CP19 of the Core Strategy are relevant to the determination of the application.
2.4 Policies DC1, DC2, DC3, DC5, DC6, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC18, DC22 and DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document are relevant to the determination of the application.
2.5 Guidance contained within the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD and the Planning Obligations SPD is also relevant to the determination of the application.
PLANNING HISTORY
2.6 No relevant planning history. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Strategic & Community Planning has commented on the proposal and has highlighted the key policy principles. Given the South East Plan was revoked on the 25th March 2013 it is considered appropriate that the consultation response is set out in full below:
Under paragraph 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchases Act 2004 determination of planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The order to revoke the South East Plan (SEP) has been laid before Parliament and the Plan was formally revoked on the 25th March 2013. Therefore, for the purposes of consideration of this application, the development plan consists of the Core Strategy (CS) (2007), the General Development Control Policies (2007) DPD, the Site Specific Allocations of Land (2007) DPD and the Proposals Map (2007). Other relevant local development documents are the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) SPD (May 2009) and the Planning Obligations SPD. National policy in the form of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is also a key material consideration.
Five year supply The Council is required, through the NPPF (paragraph 47) to ‘identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional 5% (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land’. This requirement to be able to show a five year housing land supply is similar to that required by previous guidance (PPG3 and PPS 3). In order to accord with this requirement, the Council publishes the Housing Trajectory and the five year supply position within the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) each December. The AMR 11/12 (published December 2012 and amended on the 13th March 2013) contains the latest housing trajectories and reports on the housing position against both the CS and the SEP.
Paragraph 5.39 of the 2011/12 AMR (as amended 13th March 2013) indicates that the Council currently has a 107.7% five year housing land supply against the CS. This equates to 3,016 net completions projected against a requirement of 2,800 over the next 5 years. The requirement includes an additional 5% buffer required under paragraph 47 of the NPPF to ‘ensure choice and competition in the market for land’ (5% of 439 x 5 = 110). The projection takes into account the 2011/12 monitoring year and large sites (6+ dwellings) granted permission from the 1st April 2011 to 31st October 2012 as set out in Table 13.
However, although the CS is the most up to date element of the Development Plan, it is acknowledged that the evidence which fed into the CS, from the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001 – 2016, is considered out of date and therefore policy CP4, Housing Provision, is out of date. In light of this, the SEP figures represent the most up to date tested figure, having gone through examination and therefore still remain a key material consideration for you to take into account. In respect of the SEP housing targets, the Council is achieving a 77.1% housing land supply. This equates to 3,270 projected net completions against a five year requirement of 4,243 (including a 5% buffer); a shortfall of 973. This has been seen to be a significant shortfall in appeal decisions since 2009.
The Inspector in his decision on the recent Daux Avenue appeal confirms the above and concluded that ‘Although the SEP has been revoked, its housing requirement figures are the most recent figures that have been tested through an examination process’, and that just ‘because a regional spatial strategy has been revoked does not necessarily mean that the evidence base which underpinned its policies is no longer applicable.’ The Inspector APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4 drew attention to the fact that the evidence base for the Core Strategy housing provision figures is considerably older than the evidence base used in the SEP for its housing requirement figures.
The Inspectors decision is a material consideration. The decision clearly indicates that the Council’s housing requirement figure should be derived from the requirements contained within the SEP and that the Council’s housing land supply should be assessed against these figures rather than those in the Core Strategy.
It is noted that there is new emerging evidence using new Office of National Statistics (ONS) and 2011 Census data, which suggest that a different requirement will follow in the review of the Core Strategy (known as the Horsham District Planning Framework). This evidence suggests local need could result in lower numbers than originally projected using the old data. However, until this data is tested, it is acknowledged that it will carry little weight.
Sustainability The Core Strategy (2007) sets the spatial vision for the District and along with the other LDF documents delivers the spatial planning strategy for the future of the District. The strategy was based around two large scale strategic locations: west of Crawley and west of Horsham, with limited provision for small scale ‘greenfield‘ allocations elsewhere. Policy CP 5: Built-Up Areas and Previously Developed Land, sets out a settlement hierarchy by which to prioritise development in sustainable locations. The policy identifies those more sustainable towns and villages as Category 1 settlements. Storrington is a Category 1 settlement, therefore considered more suitable for development under the hierarchy of policy CP5.
Notwithstanding this, the application site falls outside of the Built-Up Area Boundary (BUAB) of Storrington as defined on the Proposals Map (2007) and is therefore classified as countryside. The application would therefore normally be considered contrary to planning policy – Policy CP1, Landscape and Townscape Character of the Core Strategy and Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies (2007). Due to the Council’s current lawful position in relation to 5 year housing land supply and the sites sustainable location adjoining a Category 1 settlement, the Council’s approach is to consider the proposal in light of the criteria based approach set out in the FAD SPD.
Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD The Facilitating Appropriate Development SPD allows for flexibility to ensure that there is sufficient housing supply during the life of the CS. To be considered under the FAD, the proposal must be capable of delivering housing completions in the short term to assist with the Council’s current housing land supply position. The case officer must therefore be satisfied that appropriate evidence has been submitted to demonstrate a desire and willingness to develop in the short term.
The other criteria in the FAD SPD refer to the Core Strategy (2007) and General Development Control Policies (2007) and need to be considered by the case officer; along with specialist advisors. I have touched on some of the main issues below.
Affordable Housing The proposal appears to comply with criterion 15 of the FAD SPD and policy CP12 of the Core Strategy as it proposed to deliver 40% affordable housing on site. The Housing Development & Strategy Manager should be consulted regarding the mix and type of dwellings.
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 5
Renewable Energy & Climate Change In order to satisfy policy DC8 of the Development Control Policies DPD and therefore criterion 14 of the FAD, the proposal must incorporate measures to achieve a 10% reduction in the schemes predicted carbon dioxide emissions. It is understood that the scheme intends to use enhancements to the fabric standards of the homes and photovoltaic panels to achieve the required 10% reduction in CO2 emissions; you as case officer are best placed to assess whether the proposals are sufficient to meet the aims of the policy.
Landscape Character The site falls outside the BUAB of Storrington and as such is classified as countryside under policy CP5 of the Core Strategy. One of the Core Principle's of the NPPF is that planning should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Policy DC1 of the Core Strategy seeks to protect this by preventing development unless it is considered essential to its countryside location. Similarly to the previous point, you, along with the Design & Conservation Officer and Landscape Officer, are best placed to assess whether the scheme accords with the districts landscape policies, specifically the criteria in Policy DC 9, Development Principles.
Conclusion This proposal comprises the erection of 102 dwellings, including 40% affordable housing in a countryside location (as defined by policy CP5 of the Horsham District Core Strategy) which is contrary to the Councils current adopted policies CP1 & DC1.
However, the District cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply (5YHLS) against the South East Plan housing target of 650 homes per year. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF indicates that, in the absence of a demonstrable five year housing supply, relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date. The proposal should therefore be considered in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development given in paragraph 14 of the Framework.
The site is located adjacent to the BUAB of Storrington, a Category 1 settlement, meaning the application is able to be considered under the FAD SPD guidance. The proposal is considered to be in broad compliance with the criterion listed within this policy, therefore I from a policy perspective, I see no objection in principal to this proposal.
There are of course other development management issues to address, which are covered by planning policy. I will leave you as case officer to make a judgement on those and balance the issues when coming to your decision.
3.2 The Arboricultural Officer (Development) has examined the submitted plans and reports pursuant to arboricultural matters on the site. They have no objection to the proposal for the following reasons:
None of the proposed buildings appear to foul the RPA's of any retained trees on the site. There is a line of large trees along the southern boundary of the site, many of which are subject to TPO. Given their position to the south of the development, there is a clear possibility that these trees could come under pressure for injudicious pruning or removal should they be perceived to be causing intolerable shading over the properties along this boundary. Plots 74, 81, 82, 89, 90 and 102 could be suspect in this matter. However, the points made at Para. 4.4 of the submitted Arboricultural Implications Report appear compelling, and primarily I agree with the point that these plots have relatively very large gardens, areas of which will not suffer from deep shading from the trees in question. Plots 102, 89 and 81 are perhaps the most problematic, as the APPENDIX A/ 1 - 6
dwelling-houses themselves will shade out their rear gardens during afternoons and evenings; but again, the plot sizes appear to alleviate this. In overall terms, the proposal to place these largest sized properties along this potentially problematic boundary appears to me to be a good one.
The provision of hard standing attendant to the development does, in a small number of cases, foul the RPA's of some of the retained trees on the site. However, I note that provision has been made within the Arboricultural Implications Report to manage this in line with BS 5837 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations' (2012).
The proposals appear to conform to the noted BS and meet the provisions of policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Local Development Framework (December 2007). Accordingly I register NO OBJECTION to them.
3.3 The Landscape Architect objects to the proposed development due to its size/extent, the intended scale of the built form and its proposed character and consider it is likely to give rise to a number of cumulative adverse landscape character and visual amenity impacts both on the site itself and its surroundings. It is located on a sensitive site in terms of its open character on rising ground, which is locally visually prominent and has a predominantly rural character. It is also bounded to the west, north and east by attractive countryside of a strong rural character. It does not seem to me to represent a logical, organic extension to the existing settlement of Storrington in the form proposed. I also consider insufficient attention has been paid to local distinctiveness and sense of place.
Finally despite some visibility of the existing settlement edge from Fryern Road and from within the site itself I consider the nature of this proposed development is more likely to be perceived as an isolated extension into the countryside. Whilst, during the course of the application discussions held resulted in some very limited minor amendments, overall I do not consider this would be a sensitive development. I appreciate the case officer will be balancing a wider range of issues, including that of the 5 year housing supply to formulate a recommendation, but in my view the long term likely adverse impacts I have identified are sufficient to override such a consideration.
3.4 The Landscape Architect has provided more detailed comments explaining his concerns as summarised above and the full consultation response is appended to this report.
3.5 Leisure have reviewed the illustrative site layout plan 2071-C-1005-H and have the following comments and recommendations:
The play space is shown as approx 200m² in area. The distance from the edge of the play space to the nearest dwelling is approx 13m. Our PPG17 standards state that a LEAP should have an activity area of at least 400m² and be placed in a space of approx 900m², with a distance of at least 20m between the activity zone and the nearest dwelling window.
We would therefore not recommend that this plan is accepted as the play space is too small and too close to the houses.
3.6 Environmental Health cannot support the application relating to the impacts during site clearance and construction, and with regard to the air quality issue, as follows:
Impacts during site clearance and construction
There is no mention or assessment of impacts during the site clearance and construction phases. During these activities it would be necessary to control adverse environmental impacts by means of a construction environmental management plan (CEMP). The CEMP APPENDIX A/ 1 - 7 should have regard to best practice measures to control noise, dust and waste. Useful guidance for appropriate noise controls can be found in the British Standard BS 5228-1: 2009 Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites; and guidance for dust control is found in the BRE publication Control of Dust from Construction and Demolition Sites (2003).
If you are minded to approve the application, the CEMP could be made a requirement by a suitable condition. It would be expected that construction/demolition hours are restricted to 0800-1800 Monday – Friday; 0800-1300 Saturdays and no activities on Sundays or Bank Holidays. These hours would also cover deliveries, loading and unloading activities. This would either be made explicit in the CEMP or as a stand alone condition.
A condition should be included prohibiting the open burning of waste.
Air quality
The application site lies approximately 1km to the north of the Storrington air quality management area (AQMA). This is an area where pollution levels exceed the UK air quality objectives due to elevated levels of nitrogen dioxide. Nitrogen dioxide is a by- product of combustion and is primarily attributable to road traffic emissions. The air quality objectives are health based standards based on evidence from the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards and the World Health Organisation.
The proposed development is for 102 new dwellings. The applicant has calculated that the development will generate an additional 533 vehicle movements between the hours of 07:00 – 19:00 each day. The applicant has submitted an air dispersion modelling assessment of air quality impacts associated with the increased road traffic associated with the proposed development.
The assessment uses data from monitoring sites in and around Storrington village and predicts pollutant concentrations at specified receptor locations close to the proposed development site and on the surrounding road network. The predicted pollutant concentrations are calculated for the year of ‘operation’ of the development (2018). The cumulative impact of this proposal together with 8 other committed developments in Storrington is also assessed.
The air quality assessment indicates that the current proposal will increase nitrogen dioxide concentrations at 16 of the 18 identified receptor locations when considered as a ‘stand- alone’ development, and at all receptor sites when the cumulative impact of other committed developments is assessed.
The applicant has assessed the predicted increase in nitrogen dioxide concentrations associated with the development against the Environmental Protection UK (EPuk) significance criteria as being ‘Imperceptible’ and therefore that air quality is considered to be a ‘low priority’ consideration for the proposed development.
However, in the context of Storrington, nitrogen dioxide concentrations within the AQMA are significantly in excess of the UK air quality objective and the cumulative impact of even small additional increases in pollution are counter to the objectives of the air quality action plan for Storrington, which is to bring pollution levels to within the air quality objective limits.
The National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) paragraph 124:
“Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local APPENDIX A/ 1 - 8
areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan.”
On this basis the Environmental Health section cannot support this application. However, should the planning authority be minded to approve the application the Applicant should be required, by means of a planning condition, to submit a ‘Low Emission Strategy’ scheme, specific to the proposal, to fully mitigate/off-set against the predicted increase in traffic emissions.
3.7 The Engineering Section from Corporate Support Services has commented in relation to the Flood Risk Assessment (April 2013) prepared by RSK Land & Development Engineering Ltd, as follows:
The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted has described how the flood risk from all sources of flooding to the proposed development site will be managed including taking into account climate change. I have no overall objections to the drainage strategy proposed therefore until detailed design information has been submitted at the appropriate planning stage, drainage conditions should be applied.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.8 The County Highway Authority has provided advice relating to traffic impacts, site access, provision for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled users, public transport access, emergency access, on-site parking and a travel plan, as follows:
The highway authority requires more information before giving a definitive response to the application. The authority’s requirements are:
Explanation of the use of 2001 Census information to derive traffic distribution and whether more up-to-date information is available. Provision of a dimensioned plan for the proposed site access at a scale of 1:500. Confirmation that adequate intervisibility can be achieved between the site access junction and Melton Drive on Fryern Road. Confirmation of whether a right turn lane is required at the proposed site access junction. A review of the costs and benefits of extending the 30mph speed limit on Fryern Road to include the site access. Details of walking and cycling routes between the proposed development site and facilities in Storrington. Comments on the ability of the narrow section of Fryern Road south of the site access to accommodate the additional traffic which the development will generate, including construction traffic. Confirmation of the availability of public transport to make journeys to and from work. Evidence that West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service has been consulted on the proposed emergency access to the site.
Traffic impact
The applicants have submitted a transport assessment which estimates the vehicle trip attraction of the proposed site, the way in which these trips could be distributed on the local transport network and the potential impact on five junctions in Storrington. Full details of the methodology used to estimate trip attraction are contained in the transport assessment. The assessment uses the Trip Rate Information Computer System (TRICS). Data from 22 development sites throughout England is used to derive the following trip estimates:
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 9
The transport assessment has used the correct TRICS methodology and the trip attraction figures derived from TRICS are likely to be the best available estimates. The estimates are consistent with those from committed development in the locality.
Trips from the site have been allocated to the local highway network using travel to work data from the 2001 Census published by the Office for National Statistics via the “Nomis” website for official labour market statistics. Nomis is run by the University of Durham on behalf of the Office for National Statistics. It is not clear from paragraph 3.23 in the transport assessment whether the results reported are in fact from the 2001 or 2011 censuses. If from 2001 it is regrettable that later data could not be used. The highway authority requests that the applicants make every effort to derive up to date local travel to work flows.
Traffic flows have been updated to 2018 (i.e. 5 years after registration of the planning application in line with WSCC guidance). Committed developments within Storrington have been included in the traffic assessment. The Department for Transport’s TEMPRO system, which models traffic flows across the UK and also takes into account proposed development, has been used to update the traffic figures.
The transport assessment uses accepted methods of assessing the impact of development traffic on the following junctions:
Fryern Road/Site Access; Fryern Road/Melton Drive; Fryern Road/Mill Lane; Fryern Road/B2139 (School Hill); B2139 (Thakeham Road)/Water Lane Mini-roundabout.
The analysis demonstrates that impacts without the proposed development are virtually equal to impacts with the development in terms of ratio of flow to capacity, queue lengths and delays. All these factors show limited traffic impacts with or without the development. The highway authority’s initial view of the analysis is that it has been carried out in line with accepted practice and is likely to give a reasonably accurate estimate of the traffic impact of the proposed development. 7-8 additional vehicle trips are estimated to use the West Street/North Street and West Street/Old Mill Drive/High Street junctions in the morning and evening peaks.
Impacts on air quality have been estimated through an Air Quality Assessment. The district council is the appropriate authority to assess air quality impacts.
Site access
The applicants propose that vehicle access to the development would be from Fryern Road via a major/minor priority junction approximately 80m north of the Fryern Road/Melton Road junction. The actual location is to the north of the 30mph speed limit boundary and APPENDIX A/ 1 - 10 the local speed limit is 60mph. A design audit, road safety audit and designer’s response have all been provided by the applicants. The design audit states that:
Speed survey data obtained in 2012 shows that 85th percentile speeds on Fryern Road were observed over a seven day period to be 48.5mph northbound and 44.3mph southbound...Visibility splays of 160 metres are achievable in both leading and trailing directions at a set back distance of 2.4 metres, which would meet the Design Manual for Roads & Bridges requirements for trunk roads with a design speed of 85kph (53mph).
This indicates that the proposal is intended to meet nationally-accepted highway design standards. The applicants are requested to comment on whether a right-turn lane is necessary at the junction. An unconventional traffic island in the middle of the junction is intended to accommodate a telecommunications facility.
The outline design for the proposed access may be adequate in terms of measured road speeds, etc. The highway authority considers that there may be merit in extending the 30mph limit northwards along Fryern Road. The applicants are requested to assess whether this would be feasible and what costs and benefits would be attached to such an extension.
The road safety audit did not raise any issues which would significantly impact on road safety and all issues raised were accepted by the scheme designer.
The applicants are requested to provide a dimensioned plan for the site access at a scale of 1:500 to enable the highway authority to fully review the proposal. A similar standard of drawing should be provided for the proposed pedestrian/cycle/emergency access to the south east of the site.
Provision for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled users
Fryern Road has no footway between “Serena” and Merryfield Road. The road between these points is narrow and widening may not be feasible.
The applicants propose to provide a footway to the southbound bus stop on Fryern Road (south of Melton Drive) which would also link with existing paths on Melton Drive. No crossing facility is proposed to the northbound bus stop on Fryern Road. The main pedestrian/cycle link for the proposed development would be from the south-east corner of the site to Melton Drive. Dropped kerbs would be provided at road crossings to accommodate buggies and wheelchairs. Footways on Melton Drive, Downsview Avenue and Wantley Lane would enable pedestrians to reach Storrington village centre in a walk of 10-15 minutes.
The authority considers that the proposed link could be focused more towards the centre of the development, rather than being in the extreme south-east corner of the site. Lighting should also be provided and any necessary measures put in place to encourage its use, e.g. an open design without dense or overhanging vegetation alongside.
A significant concern is that the most direct walking route from the site into the village centre is via Fryern Road. This is likely to make the road a preferred or obvious route for residents to access the village. In particular certain facilities such as Storrington First School or Chanctonbury Leisure Centre would be difficult to access on foot via a route which uses the proposed site pedestrian access.
Government guidance states that pedestrian facilities (including facilities for cyclists) should be:
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 11
Convenient Accessible Safe Comfortable and Attractive.
(Local Transport Note (LTN) 1/04)
The applicants are requested to demonstrate how journeys would be made on foot and by bicycle between the site and the facilities shown on the plan in Section 3.25 of the transport assessment. The isochrones shown on that plan indicate only crow-fly distances and do not provide information on the criteria in LTN 1/04. The applicants’ analysis should assess alternative walking/cycling routes with regard to the criteria and taking into account gradients, street lighting, etc. Comments should also be made on the suitability of this section of Fryern Road to accommodate construction and development traffic.
Access by public transport
Two main daily bus services pass the site and there are bus stops within walking distance of the proposed site access. No details are given of the usefulness of these bus services in providing access to essential facilities including employment. The applicants are requested to provide further details of how residents of the site could use public transport to access employment.
Emergency access
Emergency vehicle access would be provided via the proposed pedestrian/cycle link to Melton Drive. The applicants should consult West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service to ensure their agreement to the proposal.
On-site car parking
Car parking for the proposed development is proposed to be consistent with that calculated using the County Council’s residential parking calculator. This results in a total of 223 spaces or approximately two spaces per dwelling.
Travel plan
The applicants have provided a framework travel plan aimed at discouraging car use at peak periods. The plan generally accords with the County Council’s requirements. The following comments may assist when submitting the final travel plan:
1. The final travel plan should be approved before 3 months before first occupation of the site, in line with the commitment in the framework plan to include full contact details for the Travel Plan Coordinator. 2. The applicants may wish to use the County Council’s Travel Plan Map solution for site- specific multi modal travel information: http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/living/roads_and_transport/travelwise/travel_plan_guida nce/travel_leaflets_and_wall.aspx 3. The language used in section 5.26 (Recovery Measures) needs to be stronger. As a minimum, there should be a firm commitment to a second round of £150 travel vouchers for each dwelling if the 5-year target is not achieved. 4. The target in section 8.5 (Summary and Conclusion) should read " ... 480 movements ..." (i.e. 533 - 10%) as is stated earlier in Table 5.3. APPENDIX A/ 1 - 12
5. Given the significant air quality issues in Storrington, the applicants should consider whether provision can be made for the charging of electric vehicles for both residents and visitors.
Conclusions
The applicants have carried out their assessment of the traffic impacts of the proposed development in accordance with normally-accepted practice. The highway authority accepts the methodology employed by the applicants. However, the authority requests that further information be provided, as listed in the summary, to enable the authority to respond in full to the planning application.
3.9 NHS Property Services provided a response, being responsible for liaising with local authorities across East and West Sussex and with Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG’s), as follows:
We understand that you are considering the above planning application before you for this residential development of 102 units to be built on land to the north of South Wood, Melton Drive Storrington.
In this respect, we therefore very much appreciate being consulted in relation to the healthcare impact of this development. In essence, we would not be opposed to the granting of a planning consent unless NHS Property Services cannot receive a developer contribution towards healthcare infrastructure improvements in the area affected by the proposed development.
By way of background, the Department of Health – Health Building Manual (HBN-00-08) specifically directs NHS organisations that they should consult with their local planning authority to seek financial contributions for healthcare facilities as a consequence of a new development and a relevant extract from Section 2.70 states “NHS organisations should seek to require developers to provide facilities or pay monies for the provision of local healthcare services (where a new development affects local healthcare needs) so that existing healthcare needs are not overburdened”.
Incidentally, the developers in their initial pre-planning consultation have sought the views of local residents and besides a public presentation had a web site which gave the ability to make comments. Accordingly, NHS Property Services took the opportunity to do this but give an early notification that both GP practices in Storrington where already at or above capacity and that improvements were likely to enable further registration of new patients from housing developments.
We therefore consider that a Section 106 application for a developer contribution towards Healthcare Infrastructure improvements is justified in this connection as, applying the currently available West Sussex average occupancy figures, agreed with West Sussex County Council and using our District Valuer agreed formula, the site has the potential of Increasing the population of Storrington by a further 235 residents/patients. These are likely to register with the nearby Glebe or Mill Stream surgeries in the village.
We have assumed that this proposed development will incorporate all age groups and it needs to be noted that there are likely to be greater health and Social Care needs from units designated as affordable/social housing placing further pressure on all health services including GP and Community Services.
Overall, all potential new residents will utilise some or all of the health services the CCG commissions and put further pressure on medical services generally. In addition, we are APPENDIX A/ 1 - 13
mindful that new housing developments do not disadvantage the health services for existing residents/patients.
In recent years, Primary Care has taken on many additional roles such as the management of chronic conditions and screening that were previously provided in Secondary Care (Hospitals) and additional demand on these services will require investment in the infrastructure of practices and the services offered there and in the community.
Accordingly, we are seeking at this stage an indicative Section 106 developer contribution which amounts to £45,543 on a pro rata basis, in the absence of definitive housing types. (Once this detail is known we can firm up the Section 106 application). Meanwhile, we have amalgamated the Social/Affordable and Intermediate dwelling numbers into either 2 bed flats or 2, 3 or 4 bed houses as only totals are given at the stage in the planning application (This equates to an average of £466 per for houses and £263 for flats).
3.10 Sussex Police took the opportunity to examine the detail within the application. Their comments were made prior to the submission of the supplementary Illustrative Site Layout Plan received on 20 June 2013. In their advice it was noted that they are disappointed that the planning statement in place of the Design and Access Statement submitted in support of the application, failed to mention any crime prevention measures to be incorporated into the design and layout other than, secure cycle storage has been considered. However, a Design and Access Statement submitted on the 1 May 2013 contained a section 6.10 on ‘crime provision and community safety’ that outlines a number of initiatives in response to Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime Prevention.
In an attempt to reduce the opportunity for crime and the fear of crime Sussex Police offer the following comments:
The NPPF demonstrates the government’s commitment to creating safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion…The development in the main has outward facing dwellings which has created good active frontage with the streets and the public areas being overlooked. Parking in the main has been provided for within curtilage which should leave the street layout free and unobstructed. Where communal parking occurs it is important that they must be within view of active rooms within the property. An active room is where there is direct and visual connection between the room and the street or the car parking area. Such visual connections can be expected from rooms such as kitchens and living rooms, but not from bedrooms and bathrooms. Gable ended windows can assist in providing observation over an otherwise unobserved area.
It is important that the boundary between public space and private areas are clearly indicated. It is desirable for dwelling frontages to be open to view, so walls, fences and hedges will need to be kept low or alternatively feature a combination (max height 1m) of wall, railings or timber picket fence. As the first line of defence, perimeter fencing must be adequate with vulnerable areas such as side and rear gardens needing more robust defensive barriers by using walls or fencing to a minimum height of 1.8m. In circumstances that require a more open feature, 1.5m fencing topped by 300mm of trellis can achieve both requirements. Gates that provide access to the side of the dwelling or rear access to the gardens must be robustly constructed of timber, be the same height as the fence and be lockable. Such gates must be located on or as near to the front of the building line as possible. Consideration to be given to wooden palisade constructed gates that give observation in both directions.
It is important to avoid the creation of windowless elevations and blank walls adjacent to space to which the public have access. These can have the effect of attracting graffiti and inappropriate loitering. An addition of a first floor window or a buffer zone can assist in APPENDIX A/ 1 - 14
reducing these concerns. Buffer zones can take the form of railings or defensible planting or a combination of both i.e. the railing to indicate the private space and the planting to prevent direct access, this is also very affective on vulnerable windows.
The play space has good surveillance from the dwellings opposite but it will be necessary to keep the tree canopies no lower that 2m in order to maintain natural surveillance throughout the play space. Leisure areas including Local Areas of Play, Local Equipped Areas of Play and Neighbourhood Equipped Areas of Play require careful consideration when selecting their location. This must include inclusion of boundary fencing and landscaping of the area, but still provide natural surveillance and lighting as appropriate. The play areas should also reflect the differing age ranges: ensuring consideration has been given to all. The National Playing Fields Association has recommendations for particular areas of choice.
As a percentage of the development will be affordable I direct your attention to our website at www.securedbydesign.com for information on the SBD Scheme. Finally, lighting will be an important consideration, both in the car parking area, around the buildings and communal areas.
3.11 Natural England first provided a response on 16 May 2013 to notify Council that Bats and Great Crested Newts were identified as the European Protected Species that may be affected by the application. They asked that further survey effort was required in accordance with the relevant guidelines, before the determination of the application.
Natural England provided a secondary response on 20 June 2013 following the receipt of further Bat and Great Crested Newt surveys provided by the applicant on 17 June 2013. Their response is detailed in the following sections below.
Statutory nature conservation sites – no objection Based upon the information provided, Natural England advises the Council that the proposal is unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes.
Protected species Bats and Great Crested Newts It is noted that a survey for European Protected Species has been undertaken in support of this proposal. Natural England does not object to the proposed development. On the basis of the information available to us, our advice is that the proposed development would be unlikely to affect Bats and Great Crested Newts.
For clarity, this advice is based on the information currently available to us and is subject to any material changes in circumstances, including changes to the proposals or further information on the impacts to protected species.
The advice we are giving at the present time relates only to whether, in view of the consultation materials presently before us (including with reference to any proposed mitigation measures), the proposal is likely to be detrimental to the maintenance of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range (i.e. the ‘Favourable Conservation Status’ test). We have not considered whether the proposal satisfies the three licensing tests or whether a licence would be issued for this proposal.
This advice is based on the information currently available to us and is subject to any material changes in circumstances, including changes to the proposals or further information on the protected species.
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 15
Domestic species We have not assessed the survey for badgers, barn owls and breeding birds1, water voles, white-clawed crayfish or widespread reptiles. These are all species protected by domestic legislation and you should use our protected species standing advice to assess the adequacy of any surveys, the impacts that may results and the appropriateness of any mitigation measures.
Local wildlife sites If the proposal site is on or adjacent to a local wildlife site, e.g. Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI) or Local Nature Reserve (LNR) the authority should ensure it has sufficient information to fully understand the impact of the proposal on the local wildlife site, and the importance of this in relation to development plan policies, before it determines the application.
Biodiversity enhancements This application may provide opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site from the applicant, if it is minded to grant permission for this application. This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat’.
Landscape enhancements This application may provide opportunities to enhance the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding natural and built environment; use natural resources more sustainably; and bring benefits for the local community, for example through green space provision and access to and contact with nature. Landscape characterisation and townscape assessments, and associated sensitivity and capacity assessments provide tools for planners and developers to consider new development and ensure that it makes a positive contribution in terms of design, form and location, to the character and functions of the landscape and avoids any unacceptable impacts.
3.12 The Environment Agency has advised that the site is located in Flood Zone 1, defined by the NPPF as having a low probability of flooding. In this instance, they took a risk based approach and will not be providing bespoke comments or reviewing the technical documents in relation to this proposal.
It was noted that all applications between 0-5 hectares within Flood Zone 1 shall be left to the Local Planning Authority to provide comments.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.13 Storrington & Sullington Parish Council provided a detailed letter of objection on 4 June 2013. Those comments have been summarised as best as possible for the purpose of this report below:
The application is speculative and based on a generic set of documents. The site lies outside the built-up area of Storrington and is prime agricultural land. For this reason alone the application should fail.
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 16
The proposed development is not considered to “integrate with existing adjacent neighbourhoods” as described. Fryern Road consists of individual, mostly detached, houses in large gardens, as does Melton Drive. There is too small a distance between the proposed dwellings and the rear gardens of Melton Drive, where houses have the larger proportion of their garden to the front of their properties. The development would be totally out of keeping with its surroundings and change the nature of the area.
The development would have a significant detrimental effect on the Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) from the traffic generated by this development entering the village for shopping, schools, doctors, etc. The estimated 60 vehicle movements during weekday peak periods is disputed and the Parish Council suggest 102 houses are likely to generate a potential number of movements of over 200. The centre of Storrington can be gridlocked outside of peak times as there is no alternative to the A283. It is also considered the allocation of parking spaces at 2.19 per property is completely inadequate for a proposal of this size.
There is no established need for this type of housing – a Housing Needs survey recently completed for the PC established a need for 84 houses. There is a shortage of 2-3 bedroom properties not retirement or 4-5 bedroom properties.
Whilst the site is technically within walking distance from the village, there is no footpath and on the most dangerous section of Fryern Road, and nowhere to put one as there are steep banks to both sides of the road and dangerous bends. In particular this would be a treacherous walk for parents with children in prams to the First School. Furthermore, the development will not link with a wider network of footpaths as suggested by the applicant.
The PC consider that the application does not comply with Criteria 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 17 of the FAD requirements. The development contributes to coalescence as it closes part of the gap between Storrington and West Chiltington and would set a dangerous precedent for neighbouring fields. The proposal is completely out of keeping with the landscape and townscape character. Building on arable land does not enhance/preserve biodiversity. Residents will not walk/cycle into Storrington and will be reliant on cars. The residents of Melton Drive will be impacted by noise and light pollution. The installation of light columns would completely change the character of the area where there are no street lights on Fryern Road. Finally, the development is not high quality and gains access onto a busy, de- restricted speed limit road.
The local infrastructure cannot cope e.g. doctors, dentists, schools, etc. and with the developments already permitted and not yet built and there are only a limited number of places in our local schools. Transport connections are also not adequate at present and residents would be forced to use private vehicles, increasing congestion, traffic and again having a negative impact on air quality.
The development would be highly visible, from both near and far, and detrimental to the street scene. This is an important gateway into the village and development of this land leaves surrounding fields vulnerable, with attempts to screen insufficient.
Timber fencing completely contradicts the Parish Design Statement point 7.2 - Principles and Guidelines which states "Retention of hedgerows/trees wherever possible to encourage wildlife and for visual effect." and "Fences should be avoided wherever possible, preference being given to hedges in order to retain the rural feel and encourage wildlife." The urbanisation of a natural rural expanse of land and loss of trees and hedgerows will significantly change the street scene and nature of the site and have a huge impact on the local wildlife e.g. insects, various species of birds, badgers, foxes etc.
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 17
It is considered that a single exhibition, lasting 6.5 hours in total (over 1 day) was considered as inadequate consultation. Key points which were taken from the Feedback following the Exhibition state:
50% of respondents disagreed with access point on Fryern Road. 29% of respondents agreed with reservations. 72% felt that the site was not appropriate for development.
Members therefore do not consider 72% of respondents reporting the site was not appropriate, as the exhibition being “well received”.
There is some concern regarding a new electrical substation. Clarification is required to its location as the proposed entrance to the site from Fryern Road has already been compromised to avoid existing BT installation and the sewage pumping station and surface water drainage share space with the play area.
As far as the Flood Assessment is concerned, arrangements for the maintaining of the drainage systems need to be made. In the event that the design is inadequate, responsibility for providing a remedy should also be made clear. Finally, the placing of a play area next to the swales, which presumably will vary from full to bog, is very questionable.
We would also like to bring to your attention 2 decisions made recently in relation to the neighbouring property, Lionheart, immediately adjacent to the proposed site:
In 2010 an application for a 1.8 metre close-boarded fence was refused on the following grounds: “I consider that the long length of this fence, combined with its height and solid appearance makes in particularly intrusive in this countryside setting.” It “reduces the sense of openness and glimpses of the surrounding countryside”. The Inspector describes Fryern Road as “a rural road with scattered farms, stables and residential dwellings” and states that “The fence … appears to be suburban and an alien feature in this rural setting”.
A 2nd application for the retention of a log cabin was also refused at appeal on the following grounds: “I conclude that the retention and alteration of the outbuilding would harm the open appearance and rural character of this section of countryside. This would be contrary to the objectives of both national planning guidance (including PPS4 and PPS7) and the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (CS) and General Development Control Policies (DP). These seek to limit new development within the countryside for its own sake. Although the outbuilding proposed would not be essential to the needs of agriculture it would relate to the stewardship of the site and to use of the land for quiet informational recreational use. However, it has not been demonstrated that the additional building is essential in this countryside location and it would lead to a material increase in the overall level of building in the countryside and to piecemeal erosion of the open appearance and rural character of the landscape, contrary to the provisions of Policies DC1 and CP1.”
We are at a loss to understand why a fence and an outbuilding should “harm the open appearance and rural nature of this section of countryside” but an estate of 102 houses would not! Nor would it “protect the countryside for its own sake”. To quote the Inspector it would be “suburban and an alien feature in this rural setting”.
All of the above are detailed reasons as to why members feel that this application should not be permitted and they urge Horsham District Council to take their STRONG OBJECTIONS into consideration before making any decision.
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 18
3.14 West Chiltington Parish Council provided the following comments on 5 June 2013.
Although this proposed development is not in our parish we wish to object most strongly to this application. We have concerns that this will close the gap between Storrington and West Chiltington by building on one of only two fields which currently separate the two settlements. In view of the air quality in Storrington caused by the heavy traffic travelling through the village and the frequent congestion it is obvious that anyone travelling from the development north to Horsham or west to Pulborough will travel north on Fryern Road into West Chiltington, then either along Monkmead Lane towards Pulborough or north along Common Hill through the centre of West Chiltington. Both of these roads are heavily used and the route to the north becomes narrow and congested through the Hollow and along East Street. We cannot see how a footpath can be provided to enable pedestrians to access Storrington along Fryern Road as it is too narrow with steep banks, leading we suspect to many occupiers driving into Storrington.
This development can only further exacerbate the traffic congestion in Storrington with a negative impact on air quality and further development should be resisted until the completion of the Arundel section of the A27, which may address the congestion and air quality problems.
3.15 Thakeham Parish Council provided the following comments on 25 June 2013.
Although this application is outside Thakeham parish, as one of the network of villages that focuses on Storrington for shopping, banking, doctors’ surgeries etc and for access to the south, we would like to make known our strong objection to this outline planning application.
Several large housing developments have recently been permitted in the vicinity by HDC, one of which is for 146 houses in Thakeham. As the existing facilities for health and education are already operating at full capacity, another 102 houses will be very difficult to absorb. Congestion and air pollution in Storrington are well documented and until the Arundel section of the A27 is completed, there is little that can be done to significantly improve these problems. No major housing developments therefore should be considered until real improvements are made.
On a matter of planning principle, we strongly believe countryside should be protected and that agricultural land should be preserved. This, coupled with the undesirable move towards a coalescence of the settlements of Storrington and West Chiltington, is sufficient reason to make this a wholly inappropriate site for a major housing development.
3.16 210 letters of objection and 1 letter of support have been received, in addition to a petition of 200 signatures against the proposal and a survey conducted by Save Our Storrington with 116 responses. Overall, the objections can be summarised on the following grounds:
Overdevelopment of Storrington and strain on existing infrastructure i.e. schools, doctors Set precedence for urban sprawl, coalescing with West Chiltington etc. Increase in traffic and parking to Storrington, in particular the town centre Compounding the existing air pollution problem Out of keeping with the quiet rural residential and agricultural character Visual impact on the landscape and high density compared with existing density of abutting properties and other areas in Storrington Failure to utilising brownfield sites in Storrington before greenfield expansion Safety concerns with access to Fryern Road, in particular for pedestrians with the inability to construct new pavement in parts of Fryern Road APPENDIX A/ 1 - 19
Poor walkability through the estates (starting from Aldermoor Avenue) to the town centre Reliance on car use and poor public transport facilities i.e. long wait times for the bus Lack of employment in Storrington meaning residents will need to travel further to work Cumulative impact from other approved housing developments in Storrington Poor position of the site in Storrington relative to existing facilities Loss of agricultural land Unplanned nature of the application Increase in noise impacts from vehicles Impact on adjoining Listed Buildings Potential impact on protected species Overlooking to adjoining properties on Melton Drive Lack of local plan for Storrington
3.17 The letter of support favours the application due to the lack of affordable housing in Storrington as a young professional couple looking to purchase a first home.
3.18 No other representations have been received to public notification on the application at the time of writing this report. Any further comments received will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.
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 It is considered that the principal issues in the determination of the application are i) whether the proposal is acceptable in principle having regard to its location ii) whether the proposal is acceptable in principle having regard to central government and development plan policy iii) whether the density of the proposal is acceptable in principle given the character of the surrounding rural area and the abutting residential area at the edge of Storrington iv) whether the design and landscape elements of the proposal are acceptable in principle in the context of the location and character of the area and v) whether the proposed access is appropriate. The Council should also consider issues around the infrastructure that would be required to serve this proposed development.
6.2 The application has been submitted under the auspices of the Facilitating Appropriate Development (FAD) Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). This document has arisen from the need to provide ‘flexibility’ to ensure that there is sufficient housing supply during the life of the existing adopted Core Strategy. The document sets out the requirements against which those planning applications for development, put forward by landowners/developers as a response to the evolving circumstances, on greenfield and brownfield sites which adjoin defined settlement boundaries in the District, will be considered.
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 20
6.3 The approach put forward in the document is a criterion based one to enable all stakeholders to determine if sites may be considered suitable for development. Sites put forward under this policy approach should be ‘deliverable’ at the time that the site is put forward for planning permission. In the case of housing, there is likely to be a specific need in the short term. Therefore sites should be capable of delivering housing completions during the life of the Core Strategy.
6.4 A willingness to develop is not the only criterion which governs the permitting of potentially suitable sites. Local Development Framework (LDF) policy also requires that development is in ‘sustainable’ locations. Category 1 settlements are considered sustainable locations, as these are town and villages with a good range of services and facilities, as well as some access to public transport; they are also deemed capable of sustaining some expansion. Storrington is a Category 1 settlement.
6.5 The scale of development will impact on the deliverability and the sustainability of a development. The size of all developments that come forward under this approach will be considered in terms of their scale in relation to the settlement to which they are attached.
6.6 The three issues of deliverability, sustainability and scale form the basis for the approach to be taken in considering proposals on greenfield and brownfield sites which adjoin defined settlement boundaries.
6.7 The FAD SPD sets out 18 criteria, of which 15 are relevant to the application and against which the proposed development will be assessed. These include:
1. The site boundary is contiguous (at least one boundary must physically adjoin in whole or part) with an identified Built-Up Area Boundary to accord with policies CP5 and CP8 of the Core Strategy.
3. The scale of the development adjoining a Category 1 settlement does not exceed around 150 dwellings, individually or cumulatively, to accord with the aims of the policies CP1, CP3, CP8, CP9, CP15, CP19 and DC9. Any development adjoining a Category 2 settlement would be expected to be of a much smaller scale in accordance with policies CP3, CP5, CP8, CP15 and DC1, DC9.
4. The impact of the development individually, or cumulatively, around the edges of a settlement does not result in the actual or perceived coalescence of settlements in accordance with policy DC3.
5. The impact of the development individually, or cumulatively, does not prejudice comprehensive, long term development, in order not to conflict with the development strategy set out in the Core Strategy and/or not to prejudice the review of the Core Strategy.
6. The landscape and townscape character is protected, and conserved and/or enhanced, in accordance with policies CP1, DC2, DC4, DC9, DC11 and DC12.
7. Development complements the character of the settlement as defined in the relevant Town or Parish Design Statement, in accordance with policies CP3 and DC9.
9. The biodiversity of a site is protected, conserved and enhanced where relevant, in accordance with policies CP1 and DC5
10. Existing natural features, such as woodland, trees and hedgerows are retained wherever possible, in accordance with policies DC2, DC6 and DC9
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 21
11. The site and proposed development is sustainable in accordance with PPS1, PPS3, PPG13, and the Core Strategy (2007) in particular policies CP5, CP8, and CP9. A sustainability report must be submitted with any planning application following the criteria and scoring guidelines set out in the Appendix.
12. In order to assess and where necessary compare sites adjoining the same settlement, the advice in paragraph 75 of PPG13, that is, the length of short journeys that are likely to be replaced by walking are those under 2km, shall also be used. Sites where it is possible to walk to a wide range of facilities will be considered preferable to sites which are further away and make car journeys into town/village centres more likely.
13. Environmental quality is not compromised; appraisal is undertaken as to the effect on water quality, flood risk, pollutants including noise and light pollution, energy sources, sustainable construction and recycling of water and waste, as required by policies CP2 and DC9.
14. The development is of a high quality, in all aspects, including layout and design, to accord with policies CP3 and DC9. In addition, high standards of sustainable construction are expected as well as the inclusion of renewable and low carbon energy generation where feasible, in order to comply with policies CP2 and DC8.
15. Where housing is proposed there is a mix of housing sizes, types and tenures in accordance with policy CP12; on developments of more than 15 dwellings up to 40% of the dwellings are required to be ‘affordable’ dwellings, and a mix including smaller units is required by policy DC18.
17. The proposal satisfies the criteria relating to transport and access set out in policy DC40. Note that criteria b of Policy DC40 requires that the development is of an appropriate scale to the transport infrastructure in its location. Infrastructure contributions may be required. A Green Travel Plan will be required for developments that exceed Travel Plan thresholds.
18. The Council is satisfied that the site is deliverable and sufficient evidence is provided to demonstrate this. Applicants must be prepared to accept time limited permissions which have regard to new policy development.
6.8 It can be seen from the above criteria that, potentially, the application site falls within the remit of the FAD SPD and therefore could be considered as being suitable for development. However, it is necessary to meet the requirements of all the relevant criteria for support to be given for the development of up to 102 dwellings on a site outside of the Built-up Area.
6.9 The site lies in the countryside and outside of the Built-up Area Boundary of Storrington as defined in the Proposals Map of the Local Development Framework. As such, it would normally be considered contrary to Policy CP1 and DC1. However, in light of the Council’s current lawful position in relation to 5 year housing land supply (as outlined by the Head of Strategic & Community Planning at Para.3.1), the Council’s approach is to consider the proposal against the criteria outlined in the FAD SPD. Members will also be aware that planning permission has previously been granted for 78 residential units relating to Sandgate Country Park (DC/10/1457) on appeal. This recent appeal decision is a material consideration in the determination of this current application. Given the Council’s ‘substantial shortfall’ in housing supply of over 2,000 dwellings that he had identified, the Inspector considered that the development would make a modest but valuable contribution to meeting the shortfall. As such, the Inspector gave substantial weight to the contribution of the site to meeting the Council’s housing land requirements and very little weight to the requirements of the criterion. Members will also be aware that another Inspector took a APPENDIX A/ 1 - 22
similar view in relation to the appeal allowed for 46 dwellings at Daux Avenue (DC/11/2385).
6.10 Storrington is a Category 1 settlement as defined by Policy CP5 and is therefore potentially capable of accommodating some expansion, infilling and redevelopment. The proposal complies with Criteria 1 of the FAD which requires at least one boundary to physically adjoin in whole or part with the Built-up Area Boundary. The south boundary adjoins in whole the Built-Up Area Boundary running along the north side of the properties fronting Melton Drive.
6.11 However, there are other criteria which are of relevance when considering the principle of development. Criterion 3 requires that the scale of development adjoining a Category 1 settlement should not exceed around 150 dwellings, individually or cumulatively. The proposal seeks the development of 102 dwellings and does not form part of a cumulative development that exceeds 150 dwellings and hence complies with the criteria.
6.12 Another matter for consideration in terms of principle is whether the development individually or cumulatively prejudices the comprehensive, long term development strategy set out in the Core Strategy and /or the review of the Core Strategy. Criterion 5 of the FAD is relevant here. The Inspector in the Oddstones (87 dwellings) appeal decision (DC/09/0488) took the view that unless the development actually hinders or holds back other developments in the Core Strategy or prevents something being taken through the Core Strategy Review, it can not be considered contrary to this criterion. Whilst Storrington has been previously suggested as a strategic location for development in the Core Strategy review process, the Council has taken the decision to respond on an ad-hoc basis to planning applications (rejecting the draft Interim Statement approach) whilst working on the review. Therefore, there is no justification for a refusal of the proposal on this basis.
6.13 In terms of the general principle of development, it is your officer’s view that an objection could not be sustained as the proposal meets the first criterion of the FAD, also taking into considerations the comments of Strategic & Community Planning at Para.3.1 and the Inspector in the recent appeals for 78 residential units at Sandgate Country Park and 46 dwellings at Daux Avenue.
6.14 However, normal development management criteria must be fulfilled to ensure that the development complies with all the criteria set out in the FAD. In this regard, Criteria 6 requires that the landscape and townscape character be protected, and conserved and/or enhanced, in accordance with policies CP1, DC2, DC4, DC9, DC11 and DC12 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
6.15 More specifically, policy DC2 states:
Development will be permitted where it protects and/or conserves and/or enhances the key characteristics of the landscape character area in which it is located, including:
a. the development pattern of the area, its historical and ecological qualities, tranquillity and sensitivity to change; b. the pattern of woodlands, fields, hedgerows, trees, waterbodies and other features; and c. the topography of the area.
6.16 The site is in a location that is more sensitive to change than other areas of Storrington. The ‘Character Area Plan’ on page 11 of the Design and Access Statement (DAS) illustrates this, as the site is surrounded on its north, west and east sides by agricultural fields. There is a clear separation between the site and the Water Land Industrial Estate further east. Secondly, the site adjoins on its south boundary an area to the west of Aldermoor Avenue that is identified to have a different character to the area to the east of APPENDIX A/ 1 - 23
Aldermoor Avenue. On page 12 of the DAS it is noted to be “typified of wide, tree lined avenues with large single storey and two storey detached dwellings sitting on large plots”. It is considered to have a semi-rural character and the large size of properties result in a prevalence of ‘private over public’ with only two intersecting linear roads compared to the more compact cul-de-sac style further to the east.
6.17 It is considered the proposed residential subdivision fails to protect and/or conserve and/or enhance the key characteristics of the areas described above. The development pattern of the proposed development is at odds with its locally distinctive surroundings and will permanently and adversely change the character of the area. There is little relationship in plot size, road pattern and the density of housing to the abutting residential interface, which is an issue that can be considered in principle relative to the number of dwellings proposed. The Contextual Layout Plan (also titled Figure Ground Map) 2071-A-1010-A clearly shows the distinct change in development pattern from the proposed development site and the surrounding area to the south. It is considered that adequate spacing between buildings is important, which is broadly affected by density depending on the type and number of dwellings proposed. The proposed density is even greater than the more recent estates to the south-east and is similar to those residential areas in the centre of Storrington, which is clearly out of context in the site’s location.
6.18 Criteria 7 of the FAD requires that development complements the character of the settlement as defined in the relevant Town or Parish Design Statement, in accordance with policies CP3 and DC9. The Storrington and Sullington Parish Design Statement (July 2010) contains Principles and Guidelines at Section 7.2 which states that future planning requirements should preserve the character and landscape of the area and retain character properties referred to in Section 2 of the statement. In addition, on page 30 it also states there should be no over-densification of land. It is considered the proposed development fails to respect these principles.
6.19 Policy CP3 states, amongst other things, that development is expected to “contribute a sense of place both in the buildings and spaces themselves and in the way they integrate with their surroundings and the historic landscape in which they sit”. The proposed residential development appears isolated and does not integrate and contribute to the sense of place of its surroundings. The accommodation of up to 102 dwellings on the site would result in a density that does not sit comfortably within the existing setting. There should be a balance between the delivery of housing to meet 5 year housing land supply and the implications that individual proposals have on character, particularly in sensitive locations on the edge of the Built-up Area.
6.20 The Landscape Architect objects to the proposed development due to its size/extent, the intended scale of the built form and its likely character and considers it is likely to give rise to a number of cumulative adverse landscape character and visual amenity impacts both on the site itself and its surroundings. The above concerns are indicative of the excessive amount of development proposed on the site and this adds to the overall concerns about the proposal.
6.21 The consultation response from Environmental Health at Para.3.4 considers the air quality issue in relation to the proposed development. The air quality assessment submitted by the applicant found that the current proposal will increase nitrogen dioxide concentrations at 16 of the 18 identified receptor locations when considered as a ‘stand-alone’ development, and at all receptor sites when the cumulative impact of other committed developments is assessed. In their response, Environmental Health referred to Para.124 of the NPPF, which states:
“Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality APPENDIX A/ 1 - 24
Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan.”
6.22 It is considered that in the context of Storrington, nitrogen dioxide concentrations within the air quality management area (AQMA) are significantly in excess of the UK air quality objective and the cumulative impact of even small additional increases in pollution are counter to the objectives of the air quality action plan for Storrington, which is to bring pollution levels to within the air quality objective limits. This adds weight to the view that this application should not be supported.
6.23 In relation to site access, the consultation response from the County Highways Authority at Para.3.7 indicates that further information is required in order for them to give a definitive response to the application. At the time of writing this report this information had not been received. The highways authority initial view of the proposed site access is that it is intended to meet nationally-accepted highway design standards, but in order to fully review the proposal a dimensioned plan for the site access at a scale of 1:500 is required. Further comment is also required on whether a right-turn lane is necessary at the junction and as to the feasibility, cost and benefits of extending the 30mph limit northwards along Fryern Road.
6.24 In terms of the provision for pedestrians, cyclists and disabled users the highway authority raised significant concern that Fryern Road is the most direct walking route from the site into the village centre. In particular certain facilities such as Storrington First School or Chanctonbury Leisure Centre would be difficult to access on foot. It is proposed to provide a footway to the southbound bus stop on Fryern Road (south of Melton Drive) but the response from the highway authority indicates that Fryern Road has no footway between “Serena” and Merryfield Road and the road between these points is narrow and widening may not be feasible.
6.25 Criteria 12 of the FAD requires that sites where it is possible to walk to a wide range of facilities will be considered preferable to sites which are further away and make car journeys into town/village centres more likely. The plan shown in Section 3.25 of the Transport Assessment only indicates crow-fly distances to key local amenities and does not demonstrate how journeys would be made on foot and by bicycle and fails to provide alternative walking/cycling routes. Given the comments relating to the safety of Fryern Road, some further information needs to be provided and evaluated before this scheme could be supported in highway terms.
6.26 Furthermore, Criteria 17 of the FAD requires that the proposal satisfies the criteria relating to transport and access set out in the policy DC40. It is considered that it has not yet been demonstrated that the proposed development does not provide a safe and adequate means of access as it does not sufficiently integrate with the wider highway network.
6.27 In relation to possible Section 106 contributions that would be required to support this development, at the present time we do not have a completed legal agreement. This is something which would form the basis of more detailed negotiations, if the Council was to be minded to approve the application.
6.28 In relation to affordable housing, the applicant has indicated in the proposal to provide 40% affordable housing and this would satisfy the Council’s policies in this regard. This would form part of any future legal agreements that would cover overall infrastructure contributions.
6.29 In summary, it is accepted that there is a need for more housing land to be identified and given planning permission in order to help meet the shortfall in the 5 year supply and it is APPENDIX A/ 1 - 25
accepted that this site (in principle) could make a contribution. However, this needs to be balanced against other factors. In this case, there are concerns about the excessive density and its impact on the townscape, the potential adverse impacts on the landscape, the possibility of the development compounding existing problems in relation to air quality, and the uncertainty about the suitability of the site for the number of dwellings proposed in highway terms. In balancing these considerations, it is considered that in this case the potential harm outweighs any potential benefits and the application is recommended for refusal accordingly.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Outline planning permission be refused.
8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The proposed development fails to protect the townscape character of the area due to the excessive number of dwellings and the density proposed, which is out of keeping with the development pattern of adjoining residential development. It consequently fails to integrate with the locally distinctive surroundings and as such it is contrary to policies CP1, CP3, DC2 and DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework and the Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document
2. The proposed development, due to its extent, the intended scale of the built form and its potential adverse impacts on the landscape would result in a development which fails to protect and/or conserve and/or enhance the key characteristics of the landscape and as such is contrary to policy CP1 and DC2 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies and the Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document.
3. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed development would provide a safe and adequate highway solution to serve the proposed development as required by Criteria 12 and 17 of the Facilitating Appropriate Development Supplementary Planning Document and policies DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies.
4. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed development would not exacerbate existing air quality problems in the Storrington Air Quality Management Area.
5. The proposed development has not made provision for contributions towards relevant infrastructure improvements and affordable housing and is thereby contrary to policy CP13 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy 2007 as it is not been demonstrated how infrastructure needs for the development would be met.
Background Papers: DC/13/0752
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 26
Blank
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 1
Land North of Melton Drive- Landscape comments
Summary
I object to the proposed development due to its size/extent, the intended scale of the built form and its proposed character and consider it is likely to give rise to a number of cumulative adverse landscape character and visual amenity impacts both on the site itself and its surroundings. It is located on a sensitive site in terms of its open character on rising ground, which is locally visually prominent and has a predominantly rural character. It is also bounded to the west, north and east by attractive countryside of a strong rural character. It does not seem to me to represent a logical, organic extension to the existing settlement of Storrington in the form proposed. I also consider insufficient attention has been paid to local distinctiveness and sense of place. Finally despite some visibility of the existing settlement edge from Fryern Road and from within the site itself I consider the nature of this proposed development is that it is more likely to be perceived as an isolated extension into the countryside. Whilst, during the course of the application discussions some very limited minor amendments overall I do not consider this would be a sensitive development I appreciate the case officer will be balancing a wider range of issues, including that of the 5 year housing supply to formulate a recommendation but in my view the long term likely adverse impacts I have identified are sufficient to override such a consideration.
Illustrative Layout and the Design and Access Statement
Size/extent of and Dwelling Layout/Means of Access to the development
By locating development close to much of the eastern and northern boundaries of the site, all be it with some new landscape buffers proposed, and the fact that it will be sited on open, locally prominent and rising ground I believe the impression will be created of urban sprawl into the countryside. Whilst certain aspects of the illustrative layout may have followed some generally recognised good design principles I do not consider sufficient attention has been placed to local sense of place and distinctiveness. By way of example I would highlight there is not a balance between more urban and rural built forms e.g. potential for individual or small terraces of cottages, with a lack of any transition to the edges that might be appropriate on this sensitive site, nor sufficient variation in plot sizes at the proposed northern edge, with a preponderance of large detached/semi detached dwellings with narrow gaps between them. The design and access statement gives some attention to the potential for use of local materials in the future dwelling design and the proposed layout takes account of existing contours but it would not respect attractive rural views from the site, including a long view westwards to hills on the western side of the Arun Valley with Leith Hill the highest point in southern England also visible. (I would highlight the considerable difference in the quality of information supplied with this outline application and the consideration of views and local distinctiveness) compared with that received for a very sensitive site in Stane St Pulborough which was granted permission). Whilst at this stage approval is only being sought for up to 102 dwellings, rather than for a specific layout I would call into question how anything like this number of dwellings could be achievable on the site, if the layout was redesigned in a more sensitive manner. The position of the access to the site is not questioned as such, but the layout shown in the transport assessment, and on the illustrative layout does not appear sensitive and looks as if it will be very urban in character with a splitter island and white line hatching.
Open Space
I note and support Leisure Services comments about the inadequacy of the size of and buffers to the LEAP Play area provision in the south east corner of the site. I am also not convinced that the likely design of the ' open space ' in the south west corner of the site will be to provide useable attractive informal open space as opposed to a fully planted area for visual mitigation reasons. Whilst the application is in outline this layout does not give confidence if reserve matters were to be submitted that a satisfactory open space design will result.
Footpath Connections
The provision of pedestrian footpath connections to adjoining development/to Storrington town centre in the south east and south west corners of the development are acknowledged. However there are no footpath connections to the wider countryside north of the development. Pedestrians from the site would be forced APPENDIX A/ 1 - 2 onto Fryern Road to reach an existing footpath north of the development which is may well get busier as a result of the development. The opportunity to negotiate with an adjoining landowner to achieve a better link along an old hollow way has not been taken. This does not seem like effective integration of the development without a more attractive route being provided.
Indicative Parameter Plan-Scale
This has been produced to assist the assessment of the outline application. Firstly I consider it is a contradiction to produce a parameter plan (which in my experience can enable a planning authority to exercise a degree of control over future reserve matters submissions) but then call it indicative. It should have been titled just a Parameter Plan-Scale. Furthermore, even if it was to be followed in a reserve matters submission the indicative plan showing 3 different zones of building height is not considered sufficiently sensitive to the site. The principle in design terms of introducing a range of roof ridge heights makes sense. However In my view towards the countryside edges development should have been restricted more to max 6-7m ridge height i.e. 1.5 storey development, not 8m two storey and development in the centre of the site restricted to 8m not up to 9m. Also with reference back to the illustrative layout I do not consider it is appropriate to have 2 blocks of flats on this site, all be it restricted to two storey, due to their massing and urbanising effect. This all adds to adverse landscape and visual impact-see below.
The logic of the proposed development as a settlement extension
Whilst the proposed development will be rounded off where it will form a new settlement edge in the north west corner of the site adjoining Fryern Road fundamentally in my view it will be perceived as an awkward extension into the countryside/wider landscape at one point, rather than part of a more logical planned extension. I believe through urbanising effects in the local landscape it could then create the risk that arguments will be made for additional development of a similar nature in the immediate vicinity to the east, west, and north.
Landscape and Visual Mitigation /Enhancement
Although the application is accompanied by a comprehensive landscape strategy and the verified views- photomontages have also been provided to assist with the assessment. I am not convinced that the development of the strategy has been guided sufficiently by an approach to reflect the pattern and character of hedgerow, trees and woodlands in the surrounding area and therefore to fully integrate the development, as opposed to an attempt more to cosmetically screen the development. This is born out by the photomontages. In any case I doubt if virtually full screening of the development from the two most prominent viewpoints on Fryern Road and from the public footpath to the south is achievable within 15 years, as these attempt to show, especially bearing in mind reliance is placed in the earlier years on the use of semi mature size trees to assist in screening and softening the development which will be slower to establish. Also members should bear in mind these only show summer views as opposed to the worst case scenario in winter. The photomontages also do not show the proposed electricity sub station adjoining Fryern Road. Nor I consider, in so far as any limited landscape enhancement results from new landscape features eg a new line of oak trees along the eastern side of Fryern Road that this outweighs the adverse landscape impacts identified below.
Landscape Character Impact
I consider the predominantly rural character of the site will be inevitably significantly changed. Furthermore due to the likely scale and form of the development it will erode the perceived rural character/have urbanising effects on adjoining strongly rural character of fields to the north, west and east, particularly through some visual overtopping of/gaps in existing hedgerows. It will lead to the loss of attractive rural views west and north from the site, all be it these are currently private views. In any case by not taking the opportunity to respect some of these in the illustrative layout there is a failure to respect the character of the site. Urbanising effects also by their very nature will also erode the tranquillity of areas away from Fryern Road.
APPENDIX A/ 1 - 3
Visual Amenity Impact
The submitted in depth landscape and visual impact assessment has identified that the likely visibility of the development is localised/limited. However for the reasons identified above I do not consider the visual mitigation from two key close views will be mitigated to the extent illustrated and of course the visual mitigation in any case will take a very long time to be effective. There are no/few existing significant landscape features from these viewpoints that will provided pre-existing mitigation. I believe there could be some longer distance views of the site/potentially of the development from higher land to the north outside the study area of the assessment. From the viewpoints on the public footpath to the north and from Fryern Road the new development will break the skyline provided by the line of existing mature trees adjoining properties on Melton Drive, which in themselves are largely not visible.
Impact on the Storrington-West Chiltington Strategic Gap
Whilst it is considered that the proposal will not result in the actual or perceived coalesance of settlements it is considered that it will represent an erosion of the attractive rural qualities of the strategic gap in its vicinity. Nor in my view will it make a ' positive contribution to protecting, conserving or enhancing the landscape and amenity of the gap'.
Relevant NPPF Policy and Guidance
It is considered the proposal is contrary to the National Planning Framework particularly in respect of:
- Para 7- an environmental role in achieving sustainable development, protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment; - Para 9- seek positive improvements in the quality of the built and natural environment - Para 17-take account of the different roles and character of different areas.., recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside - Para 58-planning decisions should aim to ensure that developments respond to local character and history and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, promote local distinctiveness - Para 61 - address the connections between people and places and the integration of the new development into the natural, historic and built environment - Para 64- permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions
Relevant Local Development Framework Core Strategy Policies
CP 1: Landscape and Townscape Character. Activities ….. should only take place where: a. Landscape and townscape character is protected, conserved or enhanced taking into account key landscape and settlement characteristics, including maintaining settlement separation:
It is considered that the proposal fails to meet the requirements of this policy.
CP 3: Improving the quality of new development…..development will be expected to b. complement the varying character and heritage of the District… c. contribute a sense of place both in the buildings and spaces themselves and in the way they intergrate with their surroundings and the historic landscape in which they sit . d. help secure a framework of high quality open spaces which meets the identified needs of the community
It is considered that the proposal fails to meet the requirements of this policy.
CP 15: Any development should: APPENDIX A/ 1 - 4 c. result in substantial environmental improvement and reduce the impact on the countryside particularly where, exceptionally, new or replacement buildings are involved.
It is considered that the proposal fails to meet the requirements of this policy.
Relevant Development Control Policies
DC 1: Countryside Protection and Enhancement. Outside built-up area boundaries, development will not be permitted unless it is considered essential to its countryside location and in addition meets one of four stated criteria. 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
The proposal fails to comply with the overall wording of the policy in and specifically with criteria a,b,d
DC 2: Seeks to protect, conserve and enhance the key characteristics of the landscape character area, including: a. the development pattern of the area…..tranquillity and sensitivity to change.
The proposal fails to meet the requirements of this policy.
DC 9: Development Principles: This policy sets out 11 criteria to be met by every development.
It is considered that the proposal does not meet several of the stated criteria, including: c: ensure the scale, massing of the development is of a high standard of design and layout and where relevant relates sympathetically with open spaces and routes .. and adjoining the site, including any impact on the skyline and important views d are locally distinctive in character, respect the character of the surrounding area.....and takes account where applicable of relevant design statements and character assessments d: are locally distinctive in character, respect the character of the surrounding area (including its overall setting….views) and takes account where applicable of relevant design statements and character assessments f: development must relate sympathetically to the local landscape….
FAD Criteria
All of the criteria have to be met, but I consider criteria 6 and 14 are specifically not met.
Recommendation
That planning permission should be refused on account of the identified conflicts with the above policies and guidance.
Matthew Bright
HDC Landscape Architect
DC/13/0752
Land North of South Wood
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 04 July 2013
SLA Number 100023865 blank APPENDIX A/ 2 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 16th July 2013 Amendments to partially completed development DC/12/0747 (Demolition of existing derelict greenhouses and parts of the existing boundary wall (to provide access) and the erection of 41 new (2-bed dwellings) for DEVELOPMENT: retired people (including 16 affordable flats) plus garages and parking on land adjacent to St Joseph's Abbey) involving changes to the south elevation of block B, sun rooms for units 17 - 22 to be revised and doors added to the garden store SITE: Orchard Gardens, Church Street, Storrington West Sussex WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/13/0730 APPLICANT: Beechcroft Developments
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development
RECOMMENDATION: To approve the application subject to the completion of a legal agreement restricting the occupancy of the buildings, securing the provision of affordable units, the use of the car park and garden for public purposes, the restoration of the Burmese Gate and securing financial contributions towards community facilities, fire and rescue services and transport infrastructure.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks a material amendment involving changes to the roofs and balconies on the south elevation of Block B (units 17 – 22) and doors to be added to the garden store. These are amendments to the partially implemented development permitted under DC/12/0747 (Demolition of existing derelict greenhouses and parts of the existing boundary wall (to provide access) and the erection of 41 new (2-bed dwellings) for retired people (including 16 affordable flats) plus garages and parking on land adjacent to St Joseph's Abbey).
1.2 The consented proposal includes ground floor sun rooms for 6 units within Block B of the development with balconies above set into a series of catslide roofs which extend the main slope of the roof downwards. The developer has found faults with the permitted balconies / roof structure which has caused leaks if the normal drainage is blocked while the amenity
Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler Tel: 01403 215175 APPENDIX A/ 2 - 2
area on the balconies is small. This proposal seeks to overcome these problems, making no changes to the ground floor layout or to the ridge of the main roof but removing the catslide roof slopes and introducing flat roof balconies with timber balustrades.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.3 The majority of the application site (and all of the proposed housing) is within the defined built-up area as defined within the Local Development Framework but an additional area of land, south east of the proposed dwellings is outside of the built-up area. This area is to be used for ecological mitigation and does not contain built development proposals.
1.4 The part of the site within the built-up area has been allocated for development under policy AL10 of the Site Specific Allocations of Land Document. The policy relates specifically to St Joseph’s Abbey and states that land amounting to 1.1 hectares is allocated for residential development, open space and car parking. Storrington is classified as a ‘Category 1’ settlement which is defined as a town or village with a good range of services and facilities as well as some access to public transport and therefore capable of sustaining some expansion, infilling and redevelopment.
1.5 The western extent of the site is within the Storrington Conservation Area and an Area of Archaeological Importance. The application site is to the east of Church Street and south of Browns Lane and is situated on higher ground than the former.
1.6 St Josephs Abbey a grade II Listed Building is located to the south west of the site. The residential curtilage of the Abbey is approximately 58 metres from the application site. Their tennis court and open fields are located directly to the south of the application site and there are fir trees located on this boundary directly to the north of the tennis court which screen views. These trees are outside the application site boundary. The rest of the fir trees along the southern boundary have been removed by the developer but are to be replaced with native species.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 Relevant policy is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP12, CP13, CP16 & CP19 of the Core Strategy of the Horsham District Local Development Framework are relevant to the determination of the application.
2.4 Policies DC2, DC5, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC12, DC18, DC31 & DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework are also relevant to the determination of the application.
2.5 Policy AL10 of the Site Specific Allocations of Land Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework relates specifically to St Joseph’s Abbey and states that land amounting to 1.1 hectares is allocated for residential development, open space and car parking.
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 3
PLANNING HISTORY
DC/08/0238 Erection of 3 x 2-storey buildings comprising 26 x 2-bed, 13 WDN x 3 - bed and 1 x 4-bed dwellings plus managers flat with 2-bed and guestroom and access
DC/08/0239 Demolition of existing outbuildings and parts of the WDN boundary wall (Conservation Area Consent)
DC/09/2025 Demolition of existing derelict buildings and part of PER boundary wall (to provide access) and the erection of 40 new dwellings and 1 unit of managers accommodation (comprising 10 x 2-bed, 13 x 3-bed, 1 x 4-bed, 1 x 2-bed flat and 16 x 2-bed units of sheltered accommodation) for retired people, garaging and access (Full Planning)
DC/09/2028 Demolition of existing derelict buildings and part of PER boundary wall to provide access (Conservation Area Consent)
DC/12/0747 Demolition of existing derelict greenhouses and parts of the PER existing boundary wall (to provide access) and the erection of 41 new (2-bed dwellings) for retired people (including 16 affordable flats) plus garages and parking on land adjacent to St Joseph's Abbey
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Public Health & Licensing has no objections.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.2 Natural England has commented that the proposed amendments to the original application relate largely to design and are unlikely to have significantly different impacts on the natural environment than the original proposal.
3.3 The Environment Agency has no comments to make.
3.4 Southern Water has commented that the proposed foul and surface water drainage details are acceptable.
3.5 Sussex Police has commented that the garden store doors should be lockable with a thumb turn release lever internally to reduce the opportunity of accidental locking in.
3.6 The Highway Authority has no objection to the proposal.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.7 Storrington Parish Council has objected to the application as the vast expanse of roof space is unattractive and out of character / keeping.
3.8 6 letters of objection have been received on the grounds of:
Loss of privacy as these balconies will overlook the communal tennis court; APPENDIX A/ 2 - 4
The balconies appear to have larger sliding doors; The fir trees on the boundary have been removed; What will be planted along the southern boundary; The foundations for the sun rooms have already been laid; Plant machinery is started at 7am; Where is the wheel washing facility;
3.9 No other representations have been received to public notification on the application at the time of writing this report. Any further representations received will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS
6.1 The main issues in determination of this application are considered to be the alterations proposed to that on the consented permission DC/12/0747 and their effect on the amenity of nearby occupiers and the visual amenities and character of the area.
6.2 Planning permission was granted in November 2012 under DC/12/0747 for the demolition of the derelict greenhouses and parts of the existing boundary wall (to provide access) and the erection of 41 new (2-bed dwellings) for retired people (including 16 affordable flats) plus garages and parking. The development is in the process of being built and foundations and walls are being erected. Therefore, the principle of the main development has been established and the amendments proposed are the only matters to be assessed under this application.
6.3 This application seeks amendments to 6 units within Block B of the development which is located on the southern boundary of the site. The consented proposal includes ground floor sun rooms with balconies above set into a series of catslide roofs which extend the main slope of the roof downwards. This proposal seeks to make no changes to the ground floor layout or to the ridge of the main roof but to remove the catslide roof slopes and introduce flat roof balconies instead with timber balustrades. A double door is also proposed on the southern elevation of the bin and garden store.
6.4 A number of objections to the application have been received on the grounds of overlooking and the loss of the trees to the southern boundary. The principal of balconies was established through the original planning permission where French doors were permitted onto balconies created through the catslide roof. This permission allowed the occupiers of the dwellings to sit out on the balconies which would have given rise to a degree of overlooking to the south. This current application removes the catslide roof element from the application which reduces the bulk of the roof.
6.5 There is consent for the sun rooms on the ground floor level, therefore it is purely the balcony element that has been altered. It is considered that given balconies were permitted under DC/12/0747 a degree of overlooking was established and it is considered APPENDIX A/ 2 - 5
that the balconies now proposed would not give rise to a greater degree of overlooking than already permitted that would justify refusal of the application.
6.6 The Arboricultural Officer has no objection to the loss of the existing fir trees along the southern boundary in arboricultural terms but replacement trees/landscaping along the southern boundary will be sought through the imposition of a landscaping condition.
6.7 Therefore, it is considered that the amendments sought would not give rise to a greater degree of overlooking than already permitted, the amendments to the roof are considered to be in keeping with the character of the development and local area and the insertion of a door to the bin and garden store is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 It is recommended that the application be approved subject to completion of a legal agreement restricting the occupancy of the buildings, securing the provision of affordable units, the use of the car park and garden for public purposes, the restoration of the Burmese Gate and securing financial contributions towards community facilities, fire and rescue services and transport infrastructure and the following conditions:
01 A2 Full Permission
02 No development, hereby approved, shall be commenced until the highway authority have granted approval for a Traffic Regulation Order to prevent vehicle parking along the Church Street site frontage, to provide adequate visibility splays at the proposed site access road junction onto Church Street. Reason: In the interests of road safety in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
03 No sheltered dwelling shall be occupied until the proposed works within the public highway have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and engineering details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with West Sussex County Council as highway authority. For clarity these works comprise of the provision of the new site access road junction onto Church Street, the footway widening works along Church Street and the provision of a dropped pedestrian crossing point at the Browns Lane junction.
Reason: In the interests of road safety in accordance with Policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
04 No development shall commence until a temporary vehicular construction access has been provided in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
05 No sheltered dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied until the site access road and the service vehicle turning area has been provided in accordance with the approved plans and engineering details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 6
Reason: To provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the dwellings in accordance with Policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
06 No sheltered dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied until the public car park within the site has been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved site plan and a car park management plan to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.
Reason: To provide compensatory off road car parking spaces for the residents of Storrington in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
07 No sheltered dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied until the onsite car parking / garaging space (s) allocated to the dwelling has been provided in accordance with the approved site plan. The car parking / garaging space shall thereafter be retained at all times for its designated use.
Reason: To provide on site car parking spaces for the dwellings in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
08 No sheltered dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied until visitor cycle parking spaces have been provided outside the sheltered dwellings in accordance with a plan and details to be submitted to and approved by the planning authority. These cycle parking spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated use.
Reason: To provide cycle parking spaces for visitors to the sheltered dwellings in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
09 No development, hereby approved, shall be commenced until a plan showing where construction vehicles, plant and operative vehicle parking will be kept within the site has been submitted to and approved by the planning authority. This parking and storage compound will thereafter be kept available for its designated use throughout the construction period.
Reason: To contain operative vehicles and plant within a designated area within the site to avoid unnecessary on-street car parking to the detriment of local residents and the environment in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
10 An archaeological investigation of the site shall be carried out at the expense of the developer in accordance with a specification and timetable to be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing following the demolition of any existing buildings and before the commencement of any building works.
Reason: The site is of archaeological significance and it is important that it is recorded by excavation before it is destroyed by development in accordance with policy DC10 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
11 No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision and management of compensatory habitat creation has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and implemented as approved. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 7
Reason: Development that encroaches on this habitat has a potentially severe impact on its ecological value. Policy NRM5 – “Conservation And Improvement of Biodiversity” of the South East Plan state that where proposed development would cause significant adverse impacts on biodiversity interests, which cannot be prevented or adequately mitigated against, appropriate compensatory measures should be sought.
12 Construction of the development shall not commence until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water
Reason: To ensure there is suitable drainage infrastructure provision to serve the development in accordance with policy CP14 of the Core Strategy of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
13 None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied before the completion of the approved drainage scheme.
Reason: To ensure that the approved details after provided satisfactorily prior to the commencement of development in accordance with policy CP14 of the Core Strategy of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
14 E3 Fencing 15 G6 Recycling 16 J10 Removal of Permitted Development – Dwellings 17 J13 Removal of Permitted Development – Windows 18 M1 Approval of Materials add after roofs ‘entrance doors and car park surfacing and landscaping’
19 O1 Hours of Working 20 O2 Burning of Materials add “in connection with the construction of the development hereby approved”
21 D10 Floodlighting 22 Prior to the commencement of development, a schedule of works outlining the maintenance and upkeep of the Burmese gate shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be maintained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that this important visual feature is maintained satisfactorily in accordance with policies DC9 & DC13 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
23 The site shall not at any time be accessed via Abbey Lodge and shall only be accessed via the approved access points as shown on the approved plans.
Reason: In the interests of road safety in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
24 The dwellings hereby approved 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.
APPENDIX A/ 2 - 8
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).
25 Prior to the commencement of development full details of hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall be submitted concurrently as a complete scheme, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority, and shall comprise:
A detailed plan and specification for topsoil stripping, storage and re-use on the site in accordance with recognised codes of best practice Planting and seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers Tree pit and staking/underground guying details A written hard and soft specification (National Building Specification compliant) of planting (including ground preparation, cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) Existing and proposed levels, to include those for the access road and the adjacent open space Hard surfacing materials: layout, colour, size, texture, coursing and levels Walls including retaining walls, fencing and railings: location, type, heights and materials Minor artefacts and structures – location, size and colour and type of street furniture, play equipment, signage, refuse units and lighting columns and lanterns
The approved scheme shall be implemented in full accordance with these details. Planting shall be carried out according to a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development.
Any plants which within a period of 5 years 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 in the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)
26 H6 Wheel Washing
Note to Applicant
The applicant is advised to enter into a legal agreement with West Sussex County Council, as Highway Authority to cover the off site highway works, which include the provision of a new access onto Church Street, the building out of the footway along Church Street and the provision of a dropped crossing point at the junction of Browns Lane and Church Street. The applicant is requested to contact The Implementation Team Leader, West Sussex County Council, County Hall, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1RQ (Tel no 01243 642105).
Note to Applicant
The developer is advised to contact the Traffic Regulation Order Team, West Sussex County Council, County Hall, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1RH to enable the Traffic Regulation Order to prevent vehicle parking along the Church Street, Storrington site frontage to be processed in accordance with statutory procedures. APPENDIX A/ 2 - 9
8. REASONS
ICAB1 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
ICAB3 The proposal does not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene or locality.
IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.
Background Papers: DC/12/0747 and DC/13/0730
Case Officer: Kathryn Sadler APPENDIX A/ 2 - 10
Blank DC/13/0730
Orchard Gardens
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 04 July 2013
SLA Number 100023865 blank APPENDIX A/ 3 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 16th July 2013 Amendment to DC/12/0747 (Demolition of existing derelict greenhouses and parts of the existing boundary wall (to provide access) and the DEVELOPMENT: erection of 41 new (2-bed dwellings) for retired people (including 16 affordable flats) plus garages and parking) to include the addition of a refuse store to serve block C SITE: Orchard Gardens, Church Street, Storrington, West Sussex WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/13/0796 APPLICANT: Beechcroft Developments
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development
RECOMMENDATION: To approve the application subject to the completion of a legal agreement restricting the occupancy of the buildings, securing the provision of affordable units, the use of the car park and garden for public purposes, the restoration of the Burmese Gate and securing financial contributions towards community facilities, fire and rescue services and transport infrastructure.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks a material amendment to include the addition of a refuse store for Block C following the approval of application DC/12/0747 (Demolition of existing derelict greenhouses and parts of the existing boundary wall (to provide access) and the erection of 41 new (2-bed dwellings) for retired people (including 16 affordable flats) plus garages and parking).
1.2 The refuse store would measure 3.9m by 3.9m with an eaves height of 2.5m and a ridge height of 4.4m. The roof of the building would be fully hipped. The bin store would be sited 2.7m away from the eastern boundary of the site.
Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler Tel: 01403 215175 APPENDIX A/ 3 - 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.3 The majority of the application site (and all of the proposed housing) is within the defined built-up area as defined within the Local Development Framework but an additional area of land, south east of the proposed dwellings is outside of the built-up area. This area is to be used for ecological mitigation and does not contain built development proposals.
1.4 The part of the site within the built-up area has been allocated for development under policy AL10 of the Site Specific Allocations of Land Document. The policy relates specifically to St Joseph’s Abbey and states that land amounting to 1.1 hectares is allocated for residential development, open space and car parking. Storrington is classified as a ‘Category 1’ settlement which is defined as a town or village with a good range of services and facilities as well as some access to public transport and therefore capable of sustaining some expansion, infilling and redevelopment.
1.5 The western extent of the site is within the Storrington Conservation Area and an Area of Archaeological Importance. The application site is to the east of Church Street and south of Browns Lane and is situated on higher ground than the former.
1.6 St Josephs Abbey a grade II Listed Building is located to the south west of the site. To the north of the site lies two residential properties Smaley Thorn and Maryland and to the east of the site lies Orchard Cottage (a bungalow). There is a 2m high close boarded fence to the eastern boundary of the site. The site has been cleared and development has commenced with foundations and walls of the dwellings being erected. The show home has been completed on site.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 Relevant policy is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework.
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 Policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4, CP5, CP12, CP13, CP16 & CP19 of the Core Strategy of the Horsham District Local Development Framework are relevant to the determination of the application.
2.4 Policies DC2, DC5, DC7, DC8, DC9, DC10, DC12, DC18, DC31 & DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework are also relevant to the determination of the application.
2.5 Policy AL10 of the Site Specific Allocations of Land Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework relates specifically to St Joseph’s Abbey and states that land amounting to 1.1 hectares is allocated for residential development, open space and car parking.
PLANNING HISTORY
DC/08/0238 Erection of 3 x 2-storey buildings comprising 26 x 2-bed, 13 WDN x 3 - bed and 1 x 4-bed dwellings plus managers flat with 2-bed and guestroom and access APPENDIX A/ 3 - 3
DC/08/0239 Demolition of existing outbuildings and parts of the WDN boundary wall (Conservation Area Consent)
DC/09/2025 Demolition of existing derelict buildings and part of PER boundary wall (to provide access) and the erection of 40 new dwellings and 1 unit of managers accommodation (comprising 10 x 2-bed, 13 x 3-bed, 1 x 4-bed, 1 x 2-bed flat and 16 x 2-bed units of sheltered accommodation) for retired people, garaging and access (Full Planning)
DC/09/2028 Demolition of existing derelict buildings and part of PER boundary wall to provide access (Conservation Area Consent)
DC/12/0747 Demolition of existing derelict greenhouses and parts of the PER existing boundary wall (to provide access) and the erection of 41 new (2-bed dwellings) for retired people (including 16 affordable flats) plus garages and parking on land adjacent to St Joseph's Abbey
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Public Health & Licensing has no objections to the proposal.
3.2 The Refuse Team has commented that there appears to be enough space to get the bins to the refuse lorry.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.3 The Highway Authority has no objection to the proposal.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.4 Storrington & Sullington Parish Council has no objection to the proposal.
3.5 1 letters of objection has been received on the grounds of:
The bin store will be very close to Orchard Cottage; The building will be smelly and noisy in close proximity to Orchard Cottage; The allotments have been removed from the plans and replaced by a seating areas which will create more noise;
3.6 No other representations have been received to public notification on the application at the time of writing this report. Any further representations received will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.
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.
APPENDIX A/ 3 - 4
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS
6.1 The main issues in determination of this application are considered to be the alteration proposed to that on the consented permission DC/12/0747 and their effect on the amenity of nearby occupiers and the visual amenities and character of the area.
6.2 Planning permission was granted in November 2012 under DC/12/0747 for the demolition of the derelict greenhouses and parts of the existing boundary wall (to provide access) and the erection of 41 new (2-bed dwellings) for retired people (including 16 affordable flats) plus garages and parking. The development is in the process of being built and foundations and walls are being erected. Therefore, the principle of the main development has been established and the amendment proposed is the only matter to be assessed under this application.
6.3 A letter of objection has been received from the occupiers of Orchard Cottage which is the nearest bungalow to the bin store. The concerns of the occupier are that the bin store will be very close, the building will be smelly and noisy and the allotments have been removed from the plans and replaced by a seating area which will create more noise.
6.4 In order to try and address the neighbours concerns, amended plans were requested and received moving the bin store further into the site. The bin store has been moved further to the west by 1.5m thus increasing the gap to the eastern boundary from 1.2m to 2.7m. This then provides an area of land for soft landscaping between the building and the existing 2m high close boarded fence. The soft landscaping would provide screening to the building. It is considered that this distance is enough to mitigate against the visual impact of this building and given that the building is modest in size is not considered to harm the amenities of the neighbouring occupier.
6.5 Public Health & Licensing has no objection to the proposal and therefore it would be very difficult to justify a refusal based on noise and / or smell from the bin store. The plans also show that the permitted allotments would be replaced by a seating area. This area measures 7m by 7m and therefore it is a very confined area in which to provide allotments. It is considered that a seating area is a more appropriate use for this restricted space and is unlikely to generate any more noise than an allotment use would. A distance of 2.6m would be retained to the eastern boundary for soft landscaping.
6.6 The concerns of the neighbouring occupier are acknowledged, however it is considered that the Local Planning Authority could not justify a refusal on amenity grounds. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and would be in accordance with Policy DC9 of the general Development Control Policies 2007.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 It is recommended that the application be approved subject to completion of a legal agreement restricting the occupancy of the buildings, securing the provision of affordable units, the use of the car park and garden for public purposes, the restoration of the Burmese Gate and securing financial contributions towards community facilities, fire and rescue services and transport infrastructure and the following conditions:
01 A2 Full Permission APPENDIX A/ 3 - 5
02 No development, hereby approved, shall be commenced until the highway authority have granted approval for a Traffic Regulation Order to prevent vehicle parking along the Church Street site frontage, to provide adequate visibility splays at the proposed site access road junction onto Church Street. Reason: In the interests of road safety in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
03 No sheltered dwelling shall be occupied until the proposed works within the public highway have been constructed in accordance with the approved plan and engineering details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with West Sussex County Council as highway authority. For clarity these works comprise of the provision of the new site access road junction onto Church Street, the footway widening works along Church Street and the provision of a dropped pedestrian crossing point at the Browns Lane junction.
Reason: In the interests of road safety in accordance with Policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
04 No development shall commence until a temporary vehicular construction access has been provided in accordance with plans and details submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
05 No sheltered dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied until the site access road and the service vehicle turning area has been provided in accordance with the approved plans and engineering details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the dwellings in accordance with Policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
06 No sheltered dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied until the public car park within the site has been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved site plan and a car park management plan to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing.
Reason: To provide compensatory off road car parking spaces for the residents of Storrington in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
07 No sheltered dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied until the onsite car parking / garaging space (s) allocated to the dwelling has been provided in accordance with the approved site plan. The car parking / garaging space shall thereafter be retained at all times for its designated use.
Reason: To provide on site car parking spaces for the dwellings in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
APPENDIX A/ 3 - 6
08 No sheltered dwelling, hereby approved, shall be occupied until visitor cycle parking spaces have been provided outside the sheltered dwellings in accordance with a plan and details to be submitted to and approved by the planning authority. These cycle parking spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated use.
Reason: To provide cycle parking spaces for visitors to the sheltered dwellings in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
09 No development, hereby approved, shall be commenced until a plan showing where construction vehicles, plant and operative vehicle parking will be kept within the site has been submitted to and approved by the planning authority. This parking and storage compound will thereafter be kept available for its designated use throughout the construction period.
Reason: To contain operative vehicles and plant within a designated area within the site to avoid unnecessary on-street car parking to the detriment of local residents and the environment in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
10 An archaeological investigation of the site shall be carried out at the expense of the developer in accordance with a specification and timetable to be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing following the demolition of any existing buildings and before the commencement of any building works.
Reason: The site is of archaeological significance and it is important that it is recorded by excavation before it is destroyed by development in accordance with policy DC10 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
11 No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision and management of compensatory habitat creation has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and implemented as approved. Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: Development that encroaches on this habitat has a potentially severe impact on its ecological value. Policy NRM5 – “Conservation And Improvement of Biodiversity” of the South East Plan state that where proposed development would cause significant adverse impacts on biodiversity interests, which cannot be prevented or adequately mitigated against, appropriate compensatory measures should be sought.
12 Construction of the development shall not commence until details of the proposed means of foul and surface water sewerage disposal have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority in consultation with Southern Water
Reason: To ensure there is suitable drainage infrastructure provision to serve the development in accordance with policy CP14 of the Core Strategy of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
13 None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied before the completion of the approved drainage scheme.
Reason: To ensure that the approved details after provided satisfactorily prior to the commencement of development in accordance with policy CP14 of the Core Strategy of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
APPENDIX A/ 3 - 7
14 E3 Fencing 15 G6 Recycling 16 J10 Removal of Permitted Development – Dwellings 17 J13 Removal of Permitted Development – Windows 18 M1 Approval of Materials add after roofs ‘entrance doors and car park surfacing and landscaping’
19 O1 Hours of Working 20 O2 Burning of Materials add “in connection with the construction of the development hereby approved”
21 D10 Floodlighting 22 Prior to the commencement of development, a schedule of works outlining the maintenance and upkeep of the Burmese gate shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be maintained thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that this important visual feature is maintained satisfactorily in accordance with policies DC9 & DC13 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
23 The site shall not at any time be accessed via Abbey Lodge and shall only be accessed via the approved access points as shown on the approved plans.
Reason: In the interests of road safety in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
24 The dwellings hereby approved 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).
25 Prior to the commencement of development full details of hard and soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall be submitted concurrently as a complete scheme, unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority, and shall comprise:
A detailed plan and specification for topsoil stripping, storage and re-use on the site in accordance with recognised codes of best practice Planting and seeding plans and schedules specifying species, planting size, densities and plant numbers Tree pit and staking/underground guying details A written hard and soft specification (National Building Specification compliant) of planting (including ground preparation, cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) Existing and proposed levels, to include those for the access road and the adjacent open space Hard surfacing materials: layout, colour, size, texture, coursing and levels Walls including retaining walls, fencing and railings: location, type, heights and materials APPENDIX A/ 3 - 8
Minor artefacts and structures – location, size and colour and type of street furniture, play equipment, signage, refuse units and lighting columns and lanterns
The approved scheme shall be implemented in full accordance with these details. Planting shall be carried out according to a timetable to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the development.
Any plants which within a period of 5 years 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 in the interests of amenity in accordance with Policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007)
26 H6 Wheel Washing
Note to Applicant
The applicant is advised to enter into a legal agreement with West Sussex County Council, as Highway Authority to cover the off site highway works, which include the provision of a new access onto Church Street, the building out of the footway along Church Street and the provision of a dropped crossing point at the junction of Browns Lane and Church Street. The applicant is requested to contact The Implementation Team Leader, West Sussex County Council, County Hall, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1RQ (Tel no 01243 642105).
Note to Applicant
The developer is advised to contact the Traffic Regulation Order Team, West Sussex County Council, County Hall, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1RH to enable the Traffic Regulation Order to prevent vehicle parking along the Church Street, Storrington site frontage to be processed in accordance with statutory procedures.
8. REASONS
ICAB1 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
ICAB3 The proposal does not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene or locality.
IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.
Background Papers: DC/12/0747 and DC/13/0796
Case Officer: Kathryn Sadler
DC/13/0796
Orchard Gardens
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 04 July 2013
SLA Number 100023865 blank APPENDIX A/ 4 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 16th July 2013 Construction of a concrete skatepark in the car park at rear of Steyning DEVELOPMENT: Leisure Centre and installation of 15 replacement car parking spaces SITE: Steyning Leisure Centre Horsham Road Steyning West Sussex WARD: Steyning APPLICATION: DC/13/0903 APPLICANT: Friends of Memorial Playing Field
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: More than 5 letters contrary to recommendation received
RECOMMENDATION: To Refuse Planning Permission
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks consent for the erection of a skate park within the existing car park of Steyning Leisure Centre and the installation of 15 replacement car parking spaces. The skate park facility would measure 20m by 18m and would be set into the existing ground level by approximately 1m with the quarter pipe approximately 0.2m and 0.4m higher than the existing ground level. The railings on the wall would be set on the top of the quarter pipe and would be 1.1m in height. The fencing around the site would measure 2.8m in height. The proposal would provide grinding rails, boxes, a bowled quarter pipe with various slopes and benches to the side of the site.
1.2 The proposal also involves the loss of 15 of the existing car parking spaces on site and the provision of 15 replacement parking spaces. 11 of these spaces would be provided within the western grass bank which separates the leisure centre from Horsham Road, the rest would be sited within the confines of the existing car park.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.3 Steyning Leisure Centre is located within the built up area of Steyning, however the playing fields to the north are located outside the built up area boundary. The site is located to the east of Horsham Road where vehicular access is achieved. The access road runs parallel
Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler Tel: 01403 215175 APPENDIX A/ 4 - 2
to Horsham Road and there is a grass bank to the western boundary of the site where numerous trees are sited. This bank separates the leisure centre from Horsham Road. The application site is currently used as the main car park for the leisure centre. The main leisure centre building is sited to the south of the site, with tennis and games courts directly to the south and east and playing fields for the schools to the north. Steyning Grammar School is located to the south of the leisure centre and St Andrew’s Primary School is located to the east.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework 2012
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 The following policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character, CP3 – Improving the Quality of New Development and CP14 – Protection and Enhancement of Community Facilities and Services.
2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Policies Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC2 – Landscape Character, DC9 – Development principles, DC21 – Protection of Existing Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facilities, DC22 – New Open Space, Sports and Recreation and DC40 – Transport & Access.
PLANNING HISTORY
ST/67/01 2-storey extension PER Site: Steyning Sports Centre Horsham Road Steyning
ST/47/90 Sports centre and floodlighting to external multi-sport area PER Site: Steyning Grammar School Shooting Fields Horsham Rd Steyning
ST/10/97 Erection of community swimming pool with link to dry PER sports centre service area and car parking (outline) Site: Sports Centre Horsham Road Steyning
ST/63/97 Single storey community swimming pool with link to PER existing dry sports centre and parking Site: Sports Centre Horsham Road Steyning
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has objected to the proposal on the following grounds:
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 3
1. The position of the proposed skate park is on land already set to hard standing; I see no arboricultural issues here.
2. However, I note the proposed provision of up to 11 extra car parking spaces using the land between the existing access roadway and the public highway to the west.
3. This is a seriously bad idea. Within the narrow strip of land is a line of trees which, despite their young to semi-mature size, have become of high amenity value from the busy highway to the west. The land is at a higher elevation than that of the access road, and indeed is already revetted to a height in excess of 750mm by the use of timber posts. The land rises further beyond the line of posts, the bases of the trees being around 1m higher than the datum of the access road. I have to assume that it is intended to construct the new parking spaces flat and at the elevation of the access road.
4. This will result in the loss of all of the trees along this strip of land. Hard surfaces can be constructed within the RPA’s of trees using specialist ‘no-dig’ techniques, but this technology can only be used where the land selected for the surfacing is at a similar elevation to the parent land and no ground excavation is required. In this case, the use of the techniques is impossible, given the difference in elevation between the access road and the base height of the trees, and the breadth of excavation needed.
5. To construct the parking spaces as proposed, a great deal of the earth bank on which the trees are growing would need to be excavated and mucked away. This is wholly within the RPA’s of the trees, and will result in root severance to such a degree that the trees have minimal chance of survival. Clearly the applicants have paid little heed to the requisite British Standard, BS 5837 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations' (2012), as this part of the proposal is wholly contrary to it.
As this proposal will clearly lead to the unjustified loss of trees of high amenity value, it fails the test at policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Local Development Framework (December 2007).
3.2 Public Health & Licensing have commented that “Installation of the skate park in this location has the potential to cause noise impacts on nearby residents. The closest residential boundary is approximately 42m from the proposed footprint of the skate park facility. It is noted that Horsham Road lies between the proposed facility and the residential properties and will be another source of noise in this location. However, although road traffic noise is likely to be a significant component of the background noise levels in the vicinity, the noise impacts from the facility, particularly in the evening, have not been assessed and therefore insufficient information has been provided in the application to make comment on the effect it may have on residential amenity.
3.3 The Council’s Leisure and Community Development Department’s have the following comments:
“A joint response seems sensible as the Steyning Leisure Centre is operated by DC Leisure under contract to the District Council, with the contract managed and monitored through the Council’s leisure services department. The Community Development function encompasses a number of separate but interconnected services including Sports Development, Health and Wellbeing and Community Safety Functions.
For information, the current Head Of Housing and Community Development was the Council’s lead in establishing the Horsham Skate Park and has worked with a range of partners including Parish Councils, Community Partnerships, Police, Youth Services, wardens, users and other interested partners over a period of 15 years in connection with
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 4
streetsports facilties that exist at Rudgwick, Southwater, Billingshurst, West Chiltington, Ashington, Small Dole, Henfield and Partridge Green a skate ramp that was ultimately removed at Pulborough other organisations who have investigated, or who are investigating skateparks but who as yet have been unable to bring their aspirations to fruition
He has twice helped the Parish Council in explorations of a potential skate park at the school site, the last of which was approximately 6 years ago.
From a leisure and community development perspective we support the efforts to establish a skatepark facility in Steyning. Section 6 of the design and access statement fully captures the virtue and value of street sports in terms of its contribution to child development, exercise, recreation and positive activity.
However, we think an application on this site may be premature.
Section 7.03 of the design and access statement says ‘The chosen site is on the Steyning Leisure Centre and Swimming Pool car park site within the control and ownership of Horsham District Council’. This is not the case.
The land identified is owned by the County Council and leased to the District Council who in turn lease it to DC Leisure under the Leisure Services Agreement.
There is a legal restriction that prevents the use of this area for anything other than car parking and whilst it may be possible to seek a variation to the lease to accommodate the skate park, we would not be optimistic about a positive response to this proposal from the County Council or the school governors.
This is because we have previously helped the Parish Council to explore the possibility for a skate park facility on WSCC owned school site and the school has provided considered responses as to why they felt unable to allow this.
As the proposal also requires for new parking spaces to compensate for those lost by this proposal, additional support from the County Council or the school governors would be required.
The applicant is aware of these issues and was advised to re-approach the school before progressing this proposal. Additionally (and as with the Parish Council approach) the District Council has offered to support any meetings between the applicant and the school. To date this offer has not been taken up.
We therefore find ourselves in the position of commenting on an application which even if approved would appear to have little chance of progressing.
Given this caveat, and our previous experience in relation to the tensions between the priorities of access, impact, safety and cost which existed in the development of skate parks in other parishes, these are our views regarding a skatepark facility at the Leisure Centre.
Virtues of site and the proposal
The site has strengths as a formal (governed) setting for street sports and could provide good access to toilets, first aid and quick time management support.
The site has parking for users/parents. APPENDIX A/ 4 - 5
The site could provide good access across the school site to the facility.
The construction appears to be concrete which limits noise generated and minimises maintenance costs.
Potential acoustic impact on neighbours would be ameliorated by the proximity of the Horsham Road and existing background noise levels.
Visual impact would be limited as there are already fenced facilities in close proximity.
There is regular movement within the car park which would help with natural surveillance.
The plan is indicative and will be subject to changes following detailed discussions with potential users.
The site is fenced which means that the hours of use can be managed if so desired.
Concerns about the site and the proposals
Based on historical precedent, we believe that the school and the County Council will have concerns about the possible impact of the facility. These have not been identified or addressed within the proposal.
Any formal provision (expectation) of first aid provision will have an annual cost implication.
Any formal provision of on site supervision will have an annual cost implication. It should also be noted that access to the Centre’s facilities may need to be controlled at times due to programming requirements and shared use arrangements with the School.
Whoever undertook management responsibilities for the site would be asked to bear any additional costs. Rather than this being an open access facility, as in other parishes, it may need to be ‘pay and play’.
The proposal states that the facility will be supervised by the new youth worker working out of the Cuthman Centre. The new youth worker is employed by Horsham Matters and funded by a number of parish councils. Having spoken to Horsham Matters we have established that they know nothing of this proposal and have not been approached. As the worker will be expected to cover four parishes we think this proposal is unrealistic and anticipate that the parish council funders would be resistant.
DC Leisure has concerns about car park congestion and vehicle access to the rear of the leisure centre which is essential for operational issues. It is seeking express clarity regarding where its responsibilities would start and finish with respect to this proposal. A more detailed assessment of the impact of changing the current parking arrangements at the Centre will be required as DC Leisure have identified concerns about the affect on current users.
Whilst the facility is fenced we feel there is potential for intermittent conflict between skate park users and car park users and an enhanced potential for accidents.
The design, although indicative, appears to show the construction as below existing ground level. There is no mention of drainage or assessment of any services that may lay beneath the existing car park.
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 6
Whilst we support the idea of lighting the facility the lighting plan is not clear. Skateparks are prone to ‘shadowing’ which creates health and safety concerns and using ‘leaked’ lighting from adjoining facilities can encourage use of the park when visibility is limited. As the park location generates on site management expectations we would not recommend that the park is accessible outside of daylight hours unless a proper lighting plan is agreed.
Possible remedial actions
Whilst a number of remedial actions to address concerns are possible they will require a collective buy in from all partners, including the County Council as land owners and the school.
Conclusion
As leisure and community development champions we would love to see a skate park in Steyning and we believe that this site offers some potential. However, we would wish to see more consultation between the applicant, the school, the potential users and particularly the agency that would ultimately be responsible for the facility.”
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.4 West Sussex County Council as freehold owner of that part of Steyning Leisure Centre Car Park object to the planning application. We have granted a lease of the car park land to Horsham District Council by way of a lease dated 21st July 2000 and made between West Sussex County Council, The Foundation Governors of Steyning Grammar School and Horsham District Council.
The main objections are:
1) The car park area which forms the subject of the application is regularly used by the users of the Leisure Centre and they cannot afford to lose the facility. The application purports to provide replacement car spaces elsewhere in the car park but these are poorly positioned and impractical at the entrance to the car park. The replacement car parking spaces have not been subject of consultation with the County Council or the current site user. The replacement spaces will block access to the car park from road users from Horsham Road and this in turn will lead to further traffic queues and hazards in Horsham Road.
2) The County Council granted the lease in 2000 with the express intention that the car park would be put to use as a car park for the Leisure Centre users and did not intend that the car park would be put to any other use. There is a user clause in the lease specifying that the car park area only be used for the permitted use which is defined as “car parking for vehicles on that part of the premises used for the parking of vehicles only”.
3) The presence of the skateboard park adjacent to Steyning Grammar School will cause considerable noise and disturbance to the school and will prevent students from studying quietly at the school. This would represent a breach of one of the lease covenants.
4) The applicant has no method of implementing the planning application and has no rights of entry onto West Sussex’s land to carry out any works to construct a skateboard park even if the planning application is approved.
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 7
5) Any construction of a skateboard park would be an alteration to the demised premises in the lease and under the terms of the lease no alterations whatsoever may be made to the premises without the landlords consent.
3.5 West Sussex Highway Authority has commented that “A site visit was undertaken on the 26th June 2013. No exact dimensions of the parking areas have been provided within the supporting information. The additional parking areas should be 6m x 2m parallel and 2.4m x 4.8m for perpendicular spaces. In addition the LPA should be satisfied that the car parking spaces are an adequate size. Taking into account the existing vehicular activity already associated with the Leisure Centre, it is not anticipated that the proposal would result in a material intensification in use.”
3.6 Sussex Police has commented that the location of the skate park within the leisure facilities boundary provides good open surveillance from the all weather pitches and surrounding areas. Lighting is available and additional lighting is proposed. However, there are a number of concerns:
The safety and security of vehicles using the remaining car parking spaces would increase; The safety of the users of the skate park when entering and exiting the facility due to its location within a vehicle manoeuvring area; There are proposed viewing areas located along both sides of the skate park, these facilities will impinge further upon the pedestrian verses vehicle problem; There should be no sound deadening walls (as proposed) on which to mount the wire mesh link fencing as these will act as a surveillance barrier and provide an unobserved area which may be used for loitering. Fencing should be from the ground upwards; Locking the facility may encourage unauthorised scaling of the wire mesh fences to access the skate park. The fence should be of weld mesh construction, designed to reduce climbing;
3.7 Sport England has no objection to the proposal as the proposal would be built on an existing car park rather than playing fields. Sport England would oppose the granting of planning permission for any development which would lead to the loss of, or would prejudice the use of, all or any part of a playing field, or land last used as a playing field or allocated for use as a playing field in an adopted or draft deposit local plan, unless in the judgement of Sport England, one of the specific circumstances applies.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.8 Steyning Grammar School has objected to the application on the following grounds:
School based learning will be negatively affected through noise and disturbance as language, maths and PE lessons would be close to the skate park; Having unsupervised open access to a skate park adjacent to our school students creates a significant safeguarding risk; The skate park will require additional supervision from school staff that is not available; There would be no supervision of the skatepark from Leisure centre staff; There will be no caretaking provision, first aid or toilet facilities; The replacement car parking arrangements present a safety risk to school students; The lack of lighting would provide a significant health and safety risk; Access to the site along Horsham Road would create safety risks for children; The freehold landowners (West Sussex County Council and Steyning Grammar School Foundation Trust) are not supportive of this application; APPENDIX A/ 4 - 8
Future expansion plans of the school would be compromised by this development; The proposed skate park is too small;
3.9 Steyning Leisure Centre has objected to the application on the following grounds:
No consultation has been undertaken regarding the specific responsibility that would need to be undertaken by leisure centre staff on behalf of HDC to deliver the promises made in the planning application that include the use of lavatories, first aid, security and supervision of the facility; It is unclear where responsibility for maintenance and insurance are expected to fall; This could cause impacts on the operations of the leisure centre due to vandalism, anti social behaviour, graffiti and first aid provision. This may act as a deterrent to existing leisure centre users and increase the ongoing running costs of the facility; DC Leisure would expect to be consulted and have the opportunity to consult experts in skate park and car park design on the risk assessment and control measures for any new facility that would fall under their responsibility; Locating a skate park within a car park increases the risk of collisions; The replacement car parking spaces are poorly positioned along the entrance road; Parking for deliveries of chemicals to pool plant room, bin collections and other large deliveries would add to the congestion in the entrance road as opposed to the existing hatched area designed for this purpose;
3.10 43 letters of objection have been received on the grounds of:
The application has been put forward by the objectors of DC/12/0940 in order to stop the Parish Council building the skatepark at the Memorial Playing Field; This skatepark is half the size of the other park proposed; Even if this application got consent, the proposal could not be built; The skatepark is too small with no run off area; The skatepark is caged so will put off younger children; The youth worker will not have time to be in attendance at the site; There are no definitive plans of what the facility would look like; There is ample space on the Memorial Playing Field for the facility; FoMPF are ignoring the vote of the young people of Steyning who have already voted for a Skatepark Facility on the Memorial Playing Field in an official public vote; Horsham Road is dangerous for children; It’s in an isolated location behind the leisure centre; Staff at the Leisure Centre and School would be adversely affected by the noise; The car park is really busy with cars and would be quite dangerous for children;
3.11 111 letters of support have been received on the grounds of:
This application solves all the problems with the other site; There are adequate provisions for parking and dropping off; The site would not affect any surrounding neighbours; There are toilets and first aid facilities on site; The protection of children from predators; There is natural surveillance at the leisure centre; There is already lighting at the leisure centre;
3.12 Chief Executive of Horsham Matters has commented that within the Design & Access Statement the applicant has stated that the proposed facility “will be supervised by the new APPENDIX A/ 4 - 9
Youth Worker working out of the Cuthman Centre on the site.” Horsham Matters as the employer of the Youth Worker has not had any discussion with the applicant about supervision of the site.
3.13 No other representations have been received to public notification on the application at the time of writing this report. Any further comments received will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS
6.1 The main issues in determination of this application are considered to be the principle of the development, the parking and access arrangements, the effect of the development on the existing trees, on the amenity of nearby occupiers and the visual amenities and character of the area.
6.2 This planning application has been submitted by The Friends of Memorial Playing Field as an alternative location for a skate park to that proposed under application DC/12/0940 on Memorial Playing Field in Steyning. The Memorial Playing Field application proposed a skate park measuring approximately 29.5 metres by 22.5 metres and therefore had a floor area of 600 square metres. Earth bunds were also proposed within the proposal which took the development to a floor area of up to 1200 square metres. It is understood that there has been an identified local need for a street sports facility within Steyning for a number of years.
6.3 The application seeks consent for the erection of a skate park within the existing car park of Steyning Leisure Centre and the installation of 15 replacement car parking spaces. The skate park facility would measure 20m by 18m giving a floor area of 360 square metres. The skate park would be set into the existing ground level by approximately 1m with the quarter pipe approximately 0.2m and 0.4m higher than the existing ground level. The railings on the wall would be set on the top of the quarter pipe and would be 1.1m in height. The fencing around the site would measure 2.8m in height. The proposal would provide grinding rails, boxes, bowled quarter pipe with various slopes and benches to the side of the site.
6.4 The facility would be used for skating and BMX use and would have 1m high sound deadening walls constructed on the north and west sides of the skatepark to attenuate any sound. A wire mesh fence would be mounted on top of the wall and a lockable metal frame wired gate would be included doe control of use purposes. The facility would be made from concrete which the applicant says provides a quieter surface. The applicant states that there may be one additional floodlight column but additional lighting will be borrowed from the adjoining hard court areas and tennis courts and existing carpark streetlamps. The applicants have stated that the facility will be open during Leisure Centre opening hours (6.30am till 10pm) for use by all.
APPENDIX A/ 4 - 10
6.5 The proposal also involves the loss of 15 of the existing car parking spaces on site and the provision of 15 replacement parking spaces. 11 of these spaces would be provided within the western grass bank which separates the leisure centre from Horsham Road and the other four spaces would be sited within the confines of the existing car park.
6.6 The applicant’s have stated that they have selected the site at Steyning Leisure Centre as:
The site is close to public transport bus services; The site has good pedestrian and cycle links; It is at a sufficient distance from residential areas so as not to cause a nuisance; The site has a reasonable level of natural surveillance from adjacent paths and by users of the car park; The site has good access to first aid facilities and toilets;
6.7 There are numerous letters of objection and support to this current application which have been summarised within paragraphs 3.8 and 3.9 within the report. It is also acknowledged that the applicant’s do not have the support of the freehold owners of the site (West Sussex County Council and Steyning Grammar School Foundation Trust) to actually implement this application should planning permission be granted.
6.8 Public Health & Licensing has raised concerns as the skate park in this location has the potential to cause noise impacts on nearby residents. The closest residential boundary is approximately 42m from the proposed footprint of the skate park facility. It is acknowledged that Horsham Road lies between the proposed facility and the residential properties and will be another source of noise in this location. However, although road traffic noise is likely to be a significant component of the background noise levels in the vicinity, the noise impacts from the facility, particularly in the evening, have not been assessed and therefore insufficient information has been provided in the application to make comment on the effect it may have on residential amenity.
6.9 The Council’s Arboricultural Officer has objected to the proposal on the basis of the location of the replacement car parking spaces within the grass bank to the west of the site. Within the narrow strip of land is a line of trees which, despite their young to semi-mature size, have become of high amenity value from the busy highway to the west. The land is at a higher elevation than that of the access road, and indeed is already revetted to a height in excess of 750mm by the use of timber posts. The land rises further beyond the line of posts, the bases of the trees being around 1m higher than the datum of the access road. It is assumed that it is intended to construct the new parking spaces flat and at the elevation of the access road as no detail has been submitted showing the proposed levels. The proposal will result in the loss of all of the trees along this strip of land. Hard surfaces can be constructed within the RPA’s of trees using specialist ‘no-dig’ techniques, but this technology can only be used where the land selected for the surfacing is at a similar elevation to the parent land and no ground excavation is required. In this case, the use of the techniques is impossible, given the difference in elevation between the access road and the base height of the trees, and the breadth of excavation needed. In order to construct these replacement parking spaces, a great deal of the earth bank on which the trees are growing would need to be excavated. This is wholly within the RPA’s of the trees, and will result in root severance to such a degree that the trees have minimal chance of survival. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to BS 5837 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations' (2012) and policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Local Development Framework (December 2007).
6.10 The Highway Authority has stated that “taking into account the existing vehicular activity already associated with the Leisure Centre, it is not anticipated that the proposal would result in a material intensification in use. However, no exact dimensions of the parking APPENDIX A/ 4 - 11
areas have been provided within the supporting information. It is not considered that a highway refusal reason could be justified, however the applicant has not provided information to demonstrate that the parking spaces proposed would be of the required size.
6.11 In conclusion, it is noted that a high volume of letters of support and opposition to this skate park facility have been received. It is clear that the application lacks information on the potential noise impacts that this proposal will generate and it is also evident that the location of the replacement car parking spaces would lead to the unjustified loss of high amenity trees through roof severance contrary to policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Local Development Framework (December 2007) and BS 5837 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations' (2012).
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that planning permission be refused on the following grounds:
1) The replacement car parking spaces will result in the unjustified loss of trees of high amenity value through root severance, contrary to policy DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Local Development Framework (December 2007) and BS 5837 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations' (2012).
2) It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority through the information submitted that the skate park will not have an adverse impact upon the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and uses through noise and disturbance contrary to Policy DC9 of the Development Control Policies 2007.
Background Papers: DC/13/0903
Case Officer: Kathryn Sadler APPENDIX A/ 4 - 12
Blank DC/13/0903 Steyning Leisure Centre
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 04 July 2013
SLA Number 100023865 blank APPENDIX A/ 5 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 16th July 2013 Demolition of existing buildings, provision of second access and DEVELOPMENT: formation of an equine hospital and associated facilities SITE: Westlands Farm Billingshurst Road Ashington West Sussex WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/12/1276 APPLICANT: Mr Robert Van Pelt
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development
RECOMMENDATION: To Refuse Planning Permission
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks consent to demolish the existing agricultural buildings, provide a second access to the site and create an equine hospital which would involve the erection of the main building comprising of the reception, waiting room, operating theatre, examination rooms, x ray rooms, offices, pharmacy, MRI, CT and Gamma rooms and within the roof space of the building would be a staff rest room, bedsits and dormitory. There is also a main stable building, bone scan stables, hay and feed store, waste building, clinical waste store, trot up lanes, sandschool, lung ring, 43 car parking spaces, horse unloading quai and a fully landscaped area to the east of the site.
1.2 The front part of the main building on site would measure 33m by 41.4m and would have a ridge height of 6.7m – 7.2m depending on ground levels. The rear element would comprise of a higher middle element which would measure 8m by 36.5m with a ridge height of 8.8m and two single storey elements either side measuring 4.5m by 35m and with ridge heights of 5.4m and 5.8m. The main stable building would consist of two blocks measuring 11m by 21m each with ridge heights of 4.26m. They would be attached to each other via a nurses station link building. There would be two isolation stables on the end and a farrier’s forge. There is also a smaller stable building (small bone scan stables) proposed which would measure 11.6m by 11.6m and would have a ridge height of 4.4m. The proposed hay and feed store building would measure 7m by 15m and would have a ridge height of 4.15m. The waste storage building would measure 5m by 8m and would have a ridge height of 5m.
Contact Officer: Kathryn Sadler Tel: 01403 215175 APPENDIX A/ 5 - 2
The sandschool would measure 41m by 21m and would have post and rail fencing around the periphery of the site. The lunging ring would measure 11m by 11m and would also be surrounded by post and rail fencing.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.3 The application site is located within a countryside location and to the south of Billingshurst Road. The site currently consists of Three agricultural buildings of varying sizes measuring approximately 32m x 15m, 30m x 18m and 20m x 15m giving a total floor area of approximately 1340 square metres. The highest building has a ridge height of approximately 7.3m. The buildings were all part of Westlands Farm with the farm house being located to the north west of the site. However, the farm buildings have recently been sold off separately to the farmhouse. The yard area around the existing buildings has hard standing, the rest of the site is down to pasture.
1.4 There is currently a vehicle access point to the north west corner of the site. The front boundary of the site consists of a native hedgerow and there are numerous mature oak trees within the highway verge.
1.5 The site is fairly flat but does drop away to the south. The field boundaries consist of native hedgerows with the occasional oak tree. To the east of the site is Priors Barn a grade II residential listed building and its associated curtilage. The original Westlands Farmhouse is located to the north west of the site and Bennetts Farm a Grade II listed building is located on the northern side of the B2133 (Billingshurst Road).
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework 2012
Paragraph 18 states “The Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths and to meeting the twin challenges of global competition and of a low carbon future.”
Paragraph 19 states “The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Planning should operate to encourage and not act as an impediment to sustainable growth. Therefore significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth through the planning system.”
Paragraph 28 states “Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should:
Support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings;
APPENDIX A/ 5 - 3
Promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses;
Support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres.”
Chapter 12 (Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment)
Paragraph 132 states “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting”.
Paragraph 133 states “Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss.”
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 The following policies of the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (adopted February 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character and CP15 – Rural Strategy.
2.4 The following policies of the Local Development Framework, General Development Control Policies Document (December 2007) are relevant in the assessment of this application: DC1 – Countryside Protection and Enhancement, DC2 – Landscape Character, DC9 – Development principles, DC13 – Listed Buildings, DC26 – Replacement Buildings for Commercial Uses in the Countryside, DC29 – Equestrian Development and DC40 – Transport & Access.
PLANNING HISTORY
AS/5/66 Extension of existing dutch barn PER Comment: Outline (From old Planning History)
AS/26/95 Prior notification to erect barn REF Site: Westlands Farmhouse Billingshurst Road Ashington
AS/30/95 Prior notification to erect an agricultural building REF Site: Westlands Farm Billingshurst Road Ashington
AS/22/96 Prior notification - erection of agricultural barn REF Site: Westlands Farmhouse Billingshurst Road Ashington
AS/28/96 Erection of a barn PER Site: Westlands Farm Billingshurst Road Ashington
APPENDIX A/ 5 - 4
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Strategic & Community Planning has stated “This proposal seeks the demolition of existing buildings on the Westlands Farm site to accommodate the development of an equine hospital and associated facilities.
Policy CP15 of the Core Strategy, 2007 sets out the Councils overarching Rural Strategy. It is generally supportive of rural economic development, provided it is in keeping with the quality and character of the local area and contributes to the wider rural economy. Policy CP15 also states that development should be contained wherever possible in buildings which are appropriate for conversion or within the existing boundaries of the estate.
Policy DC29 of the General Development Control Policies DPD outlines the Councils position on equestrian development. The proposal appears to be in compliance with this policy, provided you as Case Officer are satisfied that the existing buildings could not be used for the proposed use. The proposal should also be in keeping with its location and surroundings and not result in an intensification of the countryside.
To conclude, the application appears to be acceptable from a policy perspective, however the need to protect the rural character of the Districts countryside is noted. You as the Case Officer should be satisfied that the application meets the requirements of the policies noted above, together with the criteria set in Policy’s DC1, DC9, DC23, DC26, DC39 and DC40.”
3.2 The Design & Conservation Officer has objected to the proposal as cumulatively, the size and scale of the barns, the car park and the main stable block proposed would cause harm to the heritage asset (Priors Barn) by negatively affecting its setting.
The application affects the setting of two listed buildings, Bennett’s and Priors’ Barn and thus should be determined in accordance with the above policies.
The agent has included a letter dated the 3rd June with regards to the requirements of para. 128 of the NPPF which states the applicant should “ identify and assess the particular significance of a heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal, including development affecting its setting”.
Significance is considered to be the sum of the cultural and natural heritage values of a place, as defined by its evidential value (the potential of a place to yield evidence about past human activity), historical value (the ways in which past people, events and aspects of life can be connected through a place to the present), aesthetic value (the ways in which people draw sensory and intellectual stimulation from a place) and communal value (the meanings of a place for the people who relate to it, or for whom it figures in their collective experience or memory.) (English Heritage; Conservation Principles, policies and guidance 2008). The letter of the 3rd June assesses some of the context of the listed buildings and includes a copy of the list descriptions of both Priors’ Barn and Bennett’s, but does not fully address the requirements of para. 128 of the NPPF.
Setting is defined as “the surroundings in which [the asset] is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral”. (English Heritage “The Setting of Heritage Assets” 2011). This guidance concentrates on a five step assessment process and has been carried out for these observations. APPENDIX A/ 5 - 5
Bennett’s Farm
Bennett’s Farm is a grade II listed former farmhouse described as 19th century it is list description, although as with many locally found 19th century building may contain an older timber frame. The house was the farmhouse for the immediately adjacent set of barns, converted during the 1990s. Together these have group value as being a typical traditional farmstead courtyard with farmhouse. They are separated from the application site by a mature hedgerows and the B2133, although can be glimpsed from the road. Historically the buildings do not appear to be connected to the application site (i.e. there are no ownership links or ancillary estate type buildings) and this with the separated nature of the site and limited opportunities of views to and from the site from the general vicinity of Bennett’s’ Farmhouse would mean that the setting of the assets would be altered by the development, but are unlikely to be harmed. Thus no objection to the application would be raised as in relation to the setting of Bennett’s Farm, the application would be compliant with DC13.
Priors Barn
Priors Barn is a two storey three bay timber frame building, with some minor extensions to the rear. It is grade II listed and is typical of low Weald timber framed buildings. It sits within a domestic garden, off a short country lane leading from the B2133. It is immediately adjacent to Westlands Farm and can be viewed from numerous parts of the site. From the garden to the front, side and rear of Priors Barn, the majority of the application site can also be viewed, including the existing large agricultural barns. The outlook to the south and west of Priors Barn is largely of uninterrupted views of fields and hedgerows, with the large agricultural buildings on the site in view for part of the western outlook.
The countryside setting and views over hedgerows and fields contribute positively to the significance of the heritage assets and the views of listed building from the site are also through agricultural buildings, through a green paddock. The site is currently tranquil and although some machinery noise may have been appreciated from previous agricultural uses, currently the area is in quiet semi-dereliction.
The proposed development would include a substantial main barn building which would be closer to Priors Barn than the existing agricultural barns by almost ten metres and in one building, rather than afford the benefit of break up of the currently existing three main barns. The proposed horse unloading quai would be adjacent to the garden of Priors Barn, and would be visible in close range views. Also adjacent to the garden of the listed building a 37 space car park is proposed. A new entrance through an existing hedge would erode the character of the countryside at this point. There is proposed some landscape screening of the garden of Priors Barn, however the amount of development, especially in relation to the car park would urbanise the area. These elements of the development would be appreciably closer and more prominently viewed from the listed building, causing harm by negatively affecting the setting.
The currently uninterrupted views and tranquillity of the setting of Priors Barn would also be harmed by the development of the main stables to the south of the site. These would be large buildings in an area where currently no built development exists. The utilitarian appearance of the buildings in countryside setting, including their bulk, scale and siting would negatively impact on the listed building by causing harm to its setting. Concern is also raised as to the amount of lighting proposed.
In conclusion, cumulatively, the size and scale of the barns, the car park and the main stable block would proposed would cause harm to the heritage asset by negatively affecting its setting. This would not meet the requirements of a,b,c,d of DC13, and would APPENDIX A/ 5 - 6
not sustain and enhance the setting of the heritage asset and be in conflict with chapter 12 of the NPPF.”
3.3 The Landscape officer has raised an on balance objection to this development proposal due to the cumulative adverse impact of the proposal on landscape character grounds, namely the impact of:
The new access from Billingshurst Road resulting in the loss of a section of hedgerow (that in any case could be considered worthy of protection under the hedgerow regulations, due to the number of species found within a 30m stretch) The urbanising impact of a fairly large 37m space carpark The scale and bulk of the main building and new buildings extending beyond the existing farm building footprint and associated adverse impact/erosion of the rural character and setting of Priors Barn Sand school and trotting lanes on land of distinctive and attractive character of land at the southern edge of the farm which in itself has very attractive views southwards to the downs There will also be adverse visual amenity impact on the residents of Priors Barn Furthermore I note the lack of any existing and proposed levels to demonstrate how the the main building will be set down/cut into the site as shown on the amended illustrative street scene plan. Indeed I am doubtful this is a true representation as this does not seem to be born out by the elevations The bunding shown on one of the plans ( it does not appear to have superseded) is most inappropriate to the landscape character of the area With regard to the planting as currently proposed it will take at least 15 years before it begins to afford any kind of effective screening No details have been provided of the associated reed bed treatment plant I would just finally advise that I would be willing to explore alternative solutions with the applicant that may be could reduce the adverse impact identified
3.4 Public Health & Licensing have no objection subject to conditions.
3.5 Public Health & Licensing’s comments on the lighting proposed: “The installation report would appear to support the assertions made by the consultant in the Obtrusive Light Report.
This Department has had confirmation from the Agent that all external light installations will be on movement sensors over night to provide illumination as and when needed, e.g. emergency admissions. Due to the rural location where motion sensor lighting could be triggered unnecessarily, this department would suggest therefore that the hours of operation of the external illumination are restricted to 08:00 to 18:00 (surgery hours), and only activated as needed outside of these hours to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties. (i.e. deactivate the motion sensors between 18:00 and 8:00, and switch on periodically for emergency admissions).
The applicant is further advised that compliance with planning conditions does not necessarily prevent action from being taken by the Local Authority or members of the public to secure the abatement, restriction or prohibition of statutory nuisances actionable under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or any other statutory provisions.
The Environmental Health Commercial Team supports the application provided the above conditions, as well as those contained in previous responses, are adhered to.”
APPENDIX A/ 5 - 7
3.6 The Arboricultural Officer has no objection to the proposal and comments that:
The new proposal sites the access some 25m or so to the east, between two smaller trees, numbered T10 and T11. The ground levels in this area are roughly equitable each side of the existing hedgerow; I found a variance of less than 300mm. The gap between the trees is 12.7m, allowing plenty of space for the 5m driveway proposed. All that is accordingly required is suitable provision for the protection of the lateral surface roots of each of these two trees, and to do this a standard above-ground construction will be required. Please note, this precludes the installation of underground services to the site in this area. I am happy in this case for the matter to be dealt with by condition, and accordingly recommend the use of standard condition L11 'Works under canopies of retained trees', the specific wording suitably amended.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.7 The Highway Authority has stated that “In summary, based on the additional information provided, no highway objection would be raised. The Highway Authority has previously provided comments on this proposal. On the 10th August 2012 traffic flow information for the existing and the proposed use on Westlands Farm was sought. A Stage One Road Safety Audit was also sought. Further information was produced and the Highway Authority made further comments on the 6th March 2013. The additional information did include traffic flow information and a Stage One Road Safety Audit. However, the Highway Authority questioned whether the traffic flow data for both the existing and proposed uses were representative. Issues were also raised in respects of the Designers Response in connection with the submitted Road Safety Audit.
The Applicant has now provided further information. The following additional comments would be offered.
The main concern with this proposal relates to the retention and continued use of the existing access to Westlands Farm. This access has very limited visibility although improvements are proposed. Even with improvements visibility would still be substandard viewed against current design standards given the speed limit of the B2133 in this location. Whilst recognised that a new access is to be constructed, the Highway Authority’s concern is that the current application would result in a more intensive use of this existing access with potential detriment to highway safety.
Estimates of traffic movements for the proposed use have been provided. These are based upon surveys of the existing hospital located near Arundel. The Applicant has also detailed how the existing and proposed accesses serving the proposed use would operate. The existing access point is being retained to provide access for servicing purposes primarily for large vehicles, for vets and as necessary for segregation purposes. The surveys submitted from the existing site indicate a low number of servicing movements by large vehicles (presumably courier movements would be made by small vans and could use the proposed access), totalling no more than 1 movement per day. For vets again, there seems no reason why the majority of these cannot use the proposed access. It is accepted that operationally the existing access would need to be used. Notwithstanding the concerns regarding the information for previous uses on the Westlands Farm site, it is accepted that this proposal would result in relatively few movements through the existing access. All other movements will use the proposed vehicular access, which is recognised as having significantly better visibility compared with the existing access.
The use of the accesses would be potentially difficult to control via condition. Measures could still be implemented to manage vehicular access to the site. This is pertinent given APPENDIX A/ 5 - 8
the comments of the Safety Auditor in relation to the continued use of the existing access. It would not be unreasonable, for example for signage to be included at the two access points or for information for visitors and deliveries to be contained on the website (detailed access information is already available for the existing site). Given that the existing access is to be used on a low key basis, for the purposes of site security it may well be that this would be gated for the majority of the time. As stated within the supporting statements, for operational purposes it would seem to be in the Applicants interests to attempt to introduce some form of control on the use of the accesses.
References are made to the provision of a gate way feature. Gate way features can influence vehicle speeds and are typically sited on the entrance to the built up area. However the proposed gate way would be sited some distance away from the built up area of Ashington. The gate way as shown would therefore have limited purpose. The Highway Authority are aware of the accident cluster on the B2133 and investigations are being undertaken as to the feasibility of an accident injury prevention (AIP) scheme. It is recommended that a contribution is sought towards a possible AIP scheme as opposed to a specific gate way feature.
In conclusion, the existing access serving Westlands Farm is recognised as being very substandard. The Applicant is proposing a new access point and this would be used by the majority of vehicles visiting the proposed hospital. Whilst it would be desirable for the proposed hospital to be served via the new access point only, the current proposal would result in a relatively few vehicle movements though the existing access. Given former uses that have operated on the site, it is not considered that this proposal would give rise to any significant intensification.”
3.8 Southern Water has commented that “There are no public sewers in the area to serve the development. The applicant is advised to examine alternative means of foul and surface water disposal.”
3.9 Natural England has commented that the description and location of the development suggest that an assessment for biodiversity interests needs to be considered.
3.10 WSCC Ecologist has commented that “Whilst there is no ecological objection to the principle of development in this location there is some concern regarding the impact of retained trees. The proposed access will run over the root plates of two trees and there does not seem to be any arboricultural assessment in accordance with BS5837:2012 and Q15 of the application form. There are a number of other impacts on tree roots within the Root Protection Area. Consequently, I would ask that prior to the determination of this application HDC’s Tree Officer reviews these proposals.”
3.11 The Environment Agency has no comments.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.12 Ashington Parish Council support the application. There are a number of issues that the Parish Council would like addressed:
1. Lighting – there appears to be a large amount of lighting, some of which appears to be obstructing the path of vehicles. There are no details of operational hours for the 58 proposed external lights. The Council is concerned about light pollution in this rural location. 2. Highways – the Council is still concerned about highways safety, particularly with use of the existing access by staff and service vehicles. WSCC should advise on this aspect. 3. Given that the roof height is higher because the main building is APPENDIX A/ 5 - 9
now not proposed to be dug into the ground it is suggested that the colour of the roof be in sympathy with the environment otherwise it will be highly visible. 4. No details of proposed drainage have been supplied.
3.13 4 letters of support have been received on the grounds of:
The existing facilities are cramped; The veterinary requires purpose built facilities; Getting to Ashington would be much easier than travelling to Arundel as you wouldn’t get stuck on the A27 at Arundel; They offer an extremely high level of professional and caring service to equines and their owners alike. The veterinary facility will not have any effect on the number of accidents on this road. It makes a huge difference to have your horse/pony treated quickly and professionally and I am sure that every effort will be made by the Partners of The Arundel Equine Hospital to take into account and carefully consider the views of their immediate neighbours in this new location; Increase economic benefits; Increased road signage will help slow traffic down;
3.14 1 letter of comment has been received stating:
To date the applicant has taken our interests into account notably in the siting of the units to avoid spoiling our privacy;
3.15 5 letters of objection have been received on the following grounds:
Highway Safety; The existing and the new second access onto the B2133 is dangerous; Insufficient Visibility Splays; Increase in Traffic; Loss of Privacy to Priors Barn; The scale of the project would be out of keeping with the immediate neighbourhood; Increase in noise and smells; The proposed landscaping bund to screen the car park is welcomed; Large Car park; Drainage; Impact on Trees; Concern at the number of outside lights proposed (58); Impact on Listed buildings; The amended plans show the building on a higher ground level thus increasing the overall height by 1m; The amended plans show the removal of 2 mature oak trees to increase visibility splays; Impact on countryside;
3.16 No other representations have been received to public notification on the application at the time of writing this report. Any further comments received will be reported verbally at the committee meeting.
APPENDIX A/ 5 - 10
4. HOW THE PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION WILL PROMOTE HUMAN RIGHTS
4.1 Article 8 (Right to respect of a Private and Family Life) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Property) of the Human Rights Act 1998 are relevant to this application, Consideration of Human rights forms part of the planning assessment below.
5. HOW THE PROPOSAL WILL HELP TO REDUCE CRIME AND DISORDER
5.1 It is not considered that the development would be likely to have any significant impact on crime and disorder.
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENTS
6.1 The main issues in determination of this application are considered to be the principle of the development, the effect of the development on the amenity of nearby occupiers, highway safety, trees, the adjacent listed buildings and the visual amenities and character of the rural area.
6.2 The applicant currently operates from premises at Ford in West Sussex as The Arundel Equine Hospital with the practice benefiting from accreditation by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The business was established in the 1950’s, the three directors are currently supported by an additional twelve veterinary surgeons. Only two are permanently based at the hospital with the other thirteen visiting clients’ horses at their stables. There is a nursing and clinic team of eleven, five laboratory technicians, a reception team of five and six administrative staff.
6.3 The hospital continues to develop and improve its services and currently includes full in patient facilities with 24 hour veterinary supervision and nursing care, digital radiography, high resolution ultrasonography, video endoscopy, scintigraphy, operating theatre and an onsite laboratory. The applicant has stated that as the services have expanded, it has become clear that the existing facilities are now less than ideal because they occupy former agricultural buildings that are not ideally suited to the needs of the equine equipment, patients or the staff.
6.4 The applicant has been searching for several years for alternative premises more suited to the needs of the business and more centrally located to its catchment area. The catchment area stretches from Chichester to Peacehaven up to Midhurst and Crawley. The applicant states that the majority of clients are located to the north of the A27 and therefore the business is troubled by travel difficulties associated with congestion on the A27. Animal welfare issues are also emerging as it is impossible to make a prompt emergency admission during the day due to congestion around Arundel. There is a need to turn some horses out into paddocks for rest or for controlled exercise in the sandschool or trot up lanes following surgery there is also a need for a quiet tranquil environment in order for the horses to make the best recovery. Therefore, the search has been limited to rural areas. The applicant has attempted to locate the business where existing buildings could be converted to serve the needs of this specialised business but none have been found and it was concluded that purpose built premises would be required.
6.5 There are a number of large agricultural buildings currently on the site which have more recently been used for equestrian purposes and the previous owner’s trawler business. The new replacement buildings would provide a new state of the art equine hospital accredited by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS). The services on offer would include denistry, diagnostic services, hospitalization facilities, internal medicine, laboratory services, lameness evaluation, stud medicine, surgical and associated facilities. The RCVS regulates the standards required to be maintained in respect of the facilities on offer for equine patients and staff before businesses are accredited. The applicant states APPENDIX A/ 5 - 11
that this has influenced the layout of the buildings and the facilities proposed. There is also a requirement for facilities to have an educational role for university students and they must be able to stay at the premises to experience emergency admissions that may involve night work.
6.6 The Highway Authority originally raised an objection to the proposal due to highway safety concerns. However the applicant submitted a Transport Planning Statement, traffic flow information, Stage One Safety Audit and a revised plan moving the position of the new access further to the east which allows for increased visibility to the west. The Highway Authority are satisfied with the information submitted and now have no objection to the proposal. The applicant has also removed the bund on the eastern boundary in response to the concerns raised by the adjoining neighbour although landscaping in this area would still be proposed. The artificial insemination building has been deleted at the request of officers as this building was directly behind Priors Barn and affected their outlook.
6.7 Public Health and Licensing have no objections to the proposal provided the lighting scheme for the car park is restricted to 08:00 to 18:00 (surgery hours), and only activated as needed outside of these hours to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties. (i.e. deactivate the motion sensors between 18:00 and 8:00, and switch on periodically for emergency admissions).
6.8 The Arboricultural Officer has raised no objections to the proposal as the amended plans sites the access some 25m to the east, between two smaller trees, numbered T10 and T11. The ground levels in this area are roughly equitable each side of the existing hedgerow. The gap between the trees is 12.7m, allowing plenty of space for the 5m driveway proposed.
6.9 The Landscape Officer has raised concerns at the proposal due to the loss of a section of hedgerow at the new access, the urbanising impact of a fairly large 37 space car park, the scale and bulk of the main building and new buildings extending beyond the existing farm building footprint and associated adverse impact/erosion of the rural character and setting of Priors Barn. The application also lacks existing and proposed levels to demonstrate how the main building will be set down/cut into the site. However, it is considered that these concerns could be overcome through a re-design of the scheme and a more comprehensive landscape proposal to integrate the buildings into the landscape.
6.10 The Conservation Officer has objected to the proposal as the main barn building would be closer to Priors Barn (a grade II listed building) than the existing agricultural barns by approximately ten metres and in one building, rather than afford the benefit of break up of the currently existing three main barns. The proposed horse unloading quai would be adjacent to the garden of Priors Barn, and would be visible in close range views. Also adjacent to the garden of the listed building is a 37 space car park which is considered to urbanise the area. These elements of the development would be appreciably closer and more prominently viewed from the listed building, causing harm by negatively affecting the setting. The horse unloading quai would also be sited within close proximity to Priors Barn and this has the potential to cause harm to the amenities of the occupiers of the dwelling.
6.11 The Conservation Officer also considers that the main stables to the south of the site would harm the setting of Priors Barn. The stable building is a large building in an area where currently no built development exists. The utilitarian appearance of the buildings in this countryside setting, including their bulk, scale and siting would negatively impact on the listed building by causing harm to its setting contrary to Policy DC13 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 and Chapter 12 of the NPPF.
6.12 It is acknowledged that the applicant has spent a long period of time trying to find an appropriate site for the relocation of this equine hospital and throughout the course of the APPENDIX A/ 5 - 12
application, has removed the AI building from within the outlook of Priors Barn and has amended the proposal in order to address the Highway Authority’s comments regarding the provision of the new access. It is considered that the principle of this development on this site could be supported as the NPPF and Policy CP15 seeks to support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings. However, the concerns of the Landscape Officer and the Listed Building Officer need to be addressed in order for the Local Planning Authority to support such an application.
6.13 As the application stands, it is considered that the proposal would have a cumulative landscape and visual impact on the character of this rural area and would harm the setting and residential amenities of Priors Barn a Grade II Listed Building contrary to policies CP1 of the Core Strategy 2007 and policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC13 of the General Development Control Policies 2007.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be refused on the following grounds:
1) The proposal by reason of the size and scale of the barns and stable block, the location of the horse loading quai and the size and location of the car park and access would cumulatively cause harm to the heritage asset (Priors Barn, a Grade II Listed Building) by negatively affecting its setting and residential amenities contrary to Policies DC9 and DC13 of the General Development Control Policies 2007 and Chapter 12 of the NPPF.
2) The proposal due to its size, design and siting would have an adverse impact on the character and visual amenities of this rural landscape contrary to policies CP1, CP3 & CP15 of the Core Strategy and policies DC1, DC2 and DC9 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
Background Papers: DC/12/1276
Case Officer: Kathryn Sadler DC/12/1276
Westlands Farm
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 04 July 2013
SLA Number 100023865 blank APPENDIX A/ 6 - 1
Agenda Item Report PC Report to Development Management Committee South Date of Committee 16th July 2013 By Head of Planning and Environmental Services Local Authority Horsham District Council
Application No: SDNP/13/00104/FUL Validation Date 14 January 2013 Applicant: Mr Grahame Kittle Proposal: Retention of existing mobile home to the rear of 492 Sullington Lane Site Address Mobile Home, 492 Sullington Lane, Storrington, West Sussex, RH20 4AE Purpose of Report The application is reported to Committee for a decision
Recommendation: That the application is refused for the reasons set out in paragraph 9.1 of this report.
Executive Summary
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site is located outside of the defined built up area boundary as defined in the Horsham District Local Development Framework Proposals Map. The site is situated in a rural location on the western side of Sullington Lane. The application mobile home is sited to the south west of 492 Sullington Lane, which is a two storey semi detached property. The mobile home the subject of the application has been clad with wooden cladding and a decking area created. The mobile home has an area of garden area provided for its use and shares the access and parking with 492 Sullington Lane.
2. Relevant Planning History
2.1 DC/09/2000 – Temporary permission was granted in March 2010 for the removal of the existing caravan and the siting of a mobile home to the rear of the property.
SG/21/59 – Permission was granted in November 1959 for the renewal of consent for a caravan.
SG/21/58 – Permission was granted in February 1959 for the siting of a caravan for a year
Development Management, Horsham District Council, Park North, North Street, Horsham, RH12 1RL Tel: 01403 215187 Email: [email protected] APPENDIX A/ 6 - 2
3. Proposal
3.1 This application seeks full planning permission for the retention of the existing mobile home. The mobile home is some 3.5m wide and 9.2 metres long with a height of approximately 2.5 metres. The mobile home is traditional in form although it has been clad with boarding by the current occupier. A terraced area has been provided to the side of the unit. The mobile home would be occupied by a part time farm worker. Due to the open nature of the immediate vicinity the mobile home can be viewed from Sullington Lane.
4. Consultations
4.1 The Councils Agricultural Consultant has noted that in her view there is no essential need for a second worker to live on site to provide for the welfare requirements of the stock.
5. Representations
5.1 Storrington and Sullington Parish Council has objected to the application and have noted that whilst members sympathise with the reasons behind the application they are concerned that the caravan would become permanent and therefore set a precedent.
5.2 Two letters have been received supporting the application (one from the current occupier of the mobile home) on the grounds that the occupier is able to assist on the farm and as a neighbour.
5.3 One letter has been received raising no objection to the application.
6. Policy Context
6.1 Applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The statutory development plan in this area is the Horsham District Local Development Framework 2007. The relevant policies to this application are set out in section 7, below.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Circular 2010
Government policy relating to National Parks is set out in English National Parks and the Broads: UK Government Vision and Circular 2010 and The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which was issued and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The Circular and NPPF confirm that National Parks have the highest status of protection and the NPPF states at paragraph 115 that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the National Parks and that the conservation of wildlife and cultural heritage are important considerations and should also be given great weight in National Parks.
6.2 National Park Purposes
The two statutory purposes of the SDNP designation are:
APPENDIX A/ 6 - 3
To conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their areas; To promote opportunities for the public understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of their areas.
If there is a conflict between these two purposes, conservation takes precedence. There is also a duty to foster the economic and social well being of the local community in pursuit of these purposes.
6.3 Relationship of the Development Plan to the NPPF and Circular 2010
It is considered that the Local Development Framework is broadly comparable to the policies set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
7. Planning Policy
The following policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework are relevant to this application:
Core Strategy – Policies CP1 – Landscape and Townscape Character, CP2 – Environmental Quality, CP3 – Improving the Quality of New Development, CP13 – Infrastructure Requirements, CP15 – Rural Strategy. General Development Control Policies – DC1 – Countryside Protection and Enhancement, DC2 – Landscape Character, DC9 – Development Principles, DC27 – Essential Rural Workers Dwellings, DC40 – Transport and Access.
8. Planning Assessment
8.1 This application seeks planning permission to retain the existing mobile home on the site. The mobile home was originally granted temporary planning permission in March 2010 (DC/09/2000). The application was approved for a period of three years with the occupier of the mobile home restricted to a person solely or mainly working or last working in the locality in agriculture as defined in Section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, or in forestry, or a widow or widower of such a person and to any resident dependants. The following informative was also added to the decision notice;
“The developer's attention is drawn to the advice set out in Planning Policy Statement 7 and the Horsham District Local Plan regard residential accommodation in connection with the agricultural use of land. In particular attention is drawn to the repercussions of not maintaining, in particular, a functional need for on site residential accommodation or not implementing a business plan for expansion or other proposals put forward in support of this temporary planning permission. If you are in any doubt about what is required then you should write to the Local Planning Authority immediately. Failure to implement any expansion proposals etc might result in residential presence on the site being resisted at the end of this temporary permission.”
8.2 Following the end of the three year temporary permission the current application was submitted to retain the mobile home. As the justification for the mobile home related to its occupation by an agricultural worker the comments of the Councils Agricultural Adviser are considered key to the application. The Agricultural APPENDIX A/ 6 - 4
Adviser visited the site and her report is attached as an appendix to the report for member’s information.
8.3 The site is located within the South Downs National Park, in a rural countryside location. The application needs to be considered under the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework which advises that; “To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities…. Local Planning Authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside.”
8.4 It is considered that the test of essential need as required in the policy above requires evidence to indicate that it is essential for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside. The information submitted with the application indicates that Mr Kittle is the main stockman on the holding, with a worker who lives in Ashurst working Tuesday to Thursday each week, and the occupier of the subject mobile home providing ad hoc work at weekends and when needed, whilst running his own fencing and tree work business. A further worker helps out occasionally on the farm with tractor driving and lives at 492 Sullington Lane. The Adviser has stated that there is a need for a worker to be available to meet the welfare requirements of the cattle. After taking into account the labour requirements of the unit she has noted under the current stocking levels there would be a requirement for 1.2 workers. The Adviser has concluded that she is satisfied that Mr Kittle is able to provide for the needs of the enterprise and there is no essential need for a second worker to live on site to provide for the welfare requirements of the stock.
8.6 Although the Agricultural Adviser has indicated that there is no essential need for a further part time worker on the site, if such a role was required there are a number of dwellings within the holding which could be used if a second worker was required. Within the holding is 491 Sullington Lane, 492 Sullington Lane, Stable Cottage, the main farmhouse and five holiday cottages. 491 and Stable Cottage are currently rented out although there is an extant condition restricting the occupation of Stable Cottage to an agricultural worker. 492 Sullington Lane is occupied by a semi retired farm worker who still helps out occasionally on the farm. It is therefore considered if there had been found to be a justified essential need for a further worker, they could be accommodated within the existing housing stock.
8.7 It is consequently your officer’s view when considering the application that from the information submitted and the advice given by the Agricultural Adviser that there is not an essential need for a mobile home for an agricultural worker in this location. The evidence submitted does not show an essential need for an agricultural worker, and the applicants themselves in their submissions indicate that the current occupier works on an ad hoc basis whilst running his own business which would not fall within the criteria of an agricultural worker. It is considered that the mobile home is located in a visible location within the South Downs National Park and, without due justification to balance its retention would appear visually prominent, and out of keeping with the established special quality of this part of the National Park.
APPENDIX A/ 6 - 5
Conclusion
8.8 It is considered that the application for the retention of the mobile home does not meet the requirements of Development Plan policy in that no essential need has been established for an agricultural worker in this location. Furthermore if an agricultural need had been established it is considered that there is existing housing stock on the unit. It is therefore considered that the provision of an independently occupied mobile home as proposed is out of keeping with the character of the locality and is not required for the essential operation of the farm unit.
9. Recommendation
9.1 It is recommended that the application be refused for the following reason:
The Local Planning Authority are not satisfied from the information provided that there is an essential need for the retention of a mobile home for an agricultural worker in this location. Therefore it is considered that the proposed mobile home being not considered essential to its rural location would harm the special quality of its countryside location and would constitute an undesirable element of sporadic development in the rural area. The proposal therefore conflicts with policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC29 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007), and policies CP1 and CP15 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007).
10. Crime and Disorder Implications
10.1 It is considered that this planning application does not raise any crime and disorder implications.
11. Human Rights Implications
11.1 This planning application has been considered in light of statute and case law and any interference with an individual's human rights is considered to be proportionate to the aims sought to be realised.
12. Equalities Act 2010
12.1 Due regard, where relevant, has been taken of the National Park Authority's equality duty as contained within the Equalities Act 2010.
Tim Slaney Director of Planning South Downs National Park Authority
Case Officer Details Name: Nicola Mason Tel No: 01403 215289 Email: [email protected] APPENDIX A/ 6 - 6
Blank
APPENDIX A/ 6 - 1
Your Ref: SDNP/13/00104/FUL Our Ref: 5873/NM1
13 May 2013
For the attention of Ms N Mason
Horsham District Council Planning Department Park North North Street Horsham West Sussex RH12 1RL
Dear Ms Mason Site: Mobile Home, 492 Sullington Lane, Storrington, West Sussex RH20 4AE (part of Sullington Manor Farm) Application: SDNP/13/00104/FUL Proposal: Retention of existing mobile home to the rear of 492 Sullington Lane, Storrington Thank you for your letter of instruction dated 21 March requesting our comments on the above application. In order to gain the necessary information, I attended a site visit on 8 May when I met the applicant, Mr Grahame Kittle, his wife Gail, and viewed the land and buildings and discussed the existing enterprise in operation on the holding. You were also present. In preparing this response I have also had regard to: • the Design and Access Statement, undated; • a Supporting Planning Statement, undated; • an email to Lynn Major from Michael Townsend dated 3 March 2013; • a document titled “Mobile home – 492 Sullington Lane” dated 14 March prepared by Mr Kittle; • a document titled “Mobile home – 492 Sullington Lane” dated 22 March prepared by Mr and Mrs Kittle; and • additional financial management information provided by Mr Kittle in an email dated 9 May relating to 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2013. Relevant Planning History Planning permission was granted for the siting of a caravan on the holding for one year in 1958 (application SG/21/58) and renewed for a further year in 1959 (SG/21/59). No further applications were submitted until 2009 when the applicants submitted an application to remove the existing caravan and site a mobile home to the rear of property (application DC/09/2000). This application was permitted on 11 March 2010 for a three-year period, expiring on 11 March 2013. APPENDIX A/ 6 - 2
DC/09/2000 limited the occupancy of the mobile home to ‘a person solely or mainly working or last working in the locality in agriculture as defined in Section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, or in forestry, or a widow of such a person and to any resident dependants.’ Notes to the applicant also formed part of the decision letter and stated: “The developer’s attention is drawn to the advice set out in Planning Policy Statement 7 and the Horsham District Local Plan regarding residential accommodation in connection with the agricultural use of the land. In particular attention is drawn to the repercussions of not maintaining, in particular, a functional need for on site residential accommodation or not implementing a business plan for expansion of other proposals put forward in support of this temporary planning permission.” Background Sullington Manor Farm has been family owned for more than sixty years and the applicant took over the management of the farm about twenty years ago. The holding comprises some 200ha (500 acres) of land, of which about 149.8ha (370 acres) is permanent pasture (40.5ha of which is unimproved downland grazing), 12.1ha (30 acres) is temporary grassland and 45ha (100 acres) has recently been reverted to arable production. The holding is in the South Downs National Park. The main agricultural activity in operation is a suckler herd of 100 cows plus progeny with all cattle reared through to 14-15 months of age, when they are sold on for finishing. The herd is spring- calving, with calving taking place between March and May - all cows calve outdoors and heifers calve inside. Mr Kittle advised that the recent introduction of the arable land, which effectively reduced the available grazing land, will give rise to a change in the management of the livestock enterprise. From 2013, the youngstock will now be sold at weaning which will effectively reduce cattle numbers to a maximum of 200 at any one time. The cattle spend the majority of their time at grass, with only youngstock being yarded over-winter and heifers housed during calving. Mr Kittle is the main stockman on the holding, supported by two part-time workers. The arable work is undertaken by contractors. Buildings There are a number of buildings on the holding comprising: • a tythe barn which is currently being renovated, sited to the east of the main farmhouse; and • an old barn (in need of renovation) to the south of the tythe barn which is currently used as a workshop. There is an access road which cuts through the yard, with a collection of agricultural buildings sited to the south of that road and comprising (all measurements are approximate); • a small, three-bay cart shed; • a dutch barn (14m x 9m) used for hay/straw storage; • a hay barn (19m x 20m) used for hay/straw storage; • a tractor shed (9m x 13m); • a machinery store (18m x 9m); and • a stock barn (9m x 21m) which was erected about ten years ago as permitted development. There is also a yard area about 500m to the south of the main yard (at Hill Barn), which is used to over-winter the stores.
5873 appraisal This is page 2 of a letter dated 08/07/2013 APPENDIX A/ 6 - 3
Apart from the stock barn, the majority of the buildings are old and provide limited facilities. Mr Kittle advised that the age of the buildings makes them difficult to work with in a modern farming system. Existing Dwellings There are a number of existing dwellings on Sullington Manor Farm, comprising: • the main house occupied by Mr and Mrs Kittle and their family with a separate annex occupied by Mrs Kittle Snr; • Stable Cottage – sited to the east of the main farmhouse – permitted under planning application SG/27/79 – which is currently rented out on a rolling 6-month tenancy; • 491 Sullington Lane – rented out on a rolling 6-month tenancy; • 492 Sullington Lane – currently occupied by John Bendall (semi-retired farm worker) and his two adult children; and • the mobile home (the subject of this application) sited to the rear of 492 Sullington Lane – currently occupied by Mr Townsend (part-time farm worker) and his wife. There are also five holiday cottages (permitted under applications SG/47/88 and SG/26/00) which are located to the north of the farmyard. Workers Mr Kittle is the main stockman on the holding and he is supported by: • a worker who lives in Ashurst (6 miles from the application holding) and who works from Tuesday to Thursday each week; and • Michael Townsend who works on an ad-hoc basis at weekends and when needed. He has his own business undertaking fencing and tree-work in the area; and • John Bendall, who starting working on the farm in 1965 but still helps out occasionally with some tractor driving. At the time of the 2009 application, Mr Kittle employed one full-time worker. However, he has experienced problems retaining a reliable full-time worker and has now changed the management to include the employment of two part-time workers, which he advised gives greater flexibility. Proposal It is not clear from the description provided on the application form whether this application is for the permanent retention of the mobile home or for a temporary permission. However, you have advised me to assess the application as a temporary dwelling for a period of three years. The mobile home would continue to be sited to the rear of 492 Sullington Lane and would be occupied by Mr and Mrs Townsend. Relevant Planning Policies The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) came into effect on 27 March 2012. Paragraph 28 states: “planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should: support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings; promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses;”
5873 appraisal This is page 3 of a letter dated 08/07/2013 APPENDIX A/ 6 - 4
In respect of new housing in the countryside, paragraph 55 advises: “To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities....Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside;” Paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. Policy CP15 of the Horsham Core Strategy (adopted in 2007 and currently under review) is of relevance and states: “Sustainable rural economic development within the District will be encouraged in order to deliver economic, social and environmental benefits for local communities. Appropriate development within the smaller towns and villages will be considered positively where it can be shown to support their role in acting as a focus for meeting rural community needs. In the countryside, development which maintains the quality and character of the area whilst sustaining its varied and productive social and economic activity will be supported in principle. Any development should be appropriate to the countryside location and should: a. contribute to the diverse and sustainable farming enterprise within the District or, in the case of other countryside-based enterprises and activities, contribute to the wider rural economy and/or promote recreation in, and the enjoyment of, the countryside; b. be contained wherever possible within suitably located buildings which are appropriate for conversion or, in the case of an established rural industrial estate, within the existing boundaries of the estate; or c. result in substantial environmental improvement and reduce the impact on the countryside particularly where, exceptionally, new or replacement buildings are involved.” Policy DC27 deals with essential rural workers’ dwellings and states: “Outside the defined built-up areas new housing for rural workers will be permitted in accordance with national planning policy (PPS7), which would include that in connection with the breeding and care of horses on a commercial basis. The occupation of the dwelling will be tied by a condition to the established business use. Such conditions will only be removed when it can be proven that the dwellings are no longer required for essential rural workers and the property has been appropriate marketed for at least 18 months.” Paragraph 3.118 goes on to state: “The need for such development will be considered in detail when determining the application. Viability will be tested in accordance with the functional and financial tests set out in Planning Policy Statement 7 Annex A.” It is evident that there is a degree of conflict with the framework in that Policy DC27 relies on the test contained within Annex A to PPS7 which has been replaced by the Framework and therefore only limited weight can be afforded to Policy DC27.
5873 appraisal This is page 4 of a letter dated 08/07/2013 APPENDIX A/ 6 - 5
Appraisal Essential Need The test of essential need is very similar to the functional test in PPS7 and requires evidence that it is essential for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside. Such a requirement might arise, for example, if workers are needed to be on hand day and night in case animals or agricultural processes require essential care at short notice or to deal quickly with emergencies that could otherwise cause serious loss of crops of products. Any livestock enterprise gives rise to supervisory demands arising from: • the general welfare of the animals involved; • the management of breeding stock; • the management of housed or confined stock. Agricultural legislation requires that all farm animals are managed in a manner which accords them freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition; appropriate comfort and shelter; the prevention, or rapid diagnosis and treatment of injury, disease or infestation; freedom from fear; and freedom to display most normal patterns of behaviour: and it is accepted that, without good stockmanship, animal welfare can never be adequately protected. The current needs of the enterprise relate mainly to the calving of 100 suckler cows and the provision of increased care both up to, during and after, calving. The cattle spend the majority of their time at grass and for much of the time require only general checks and feeding. I am satisfied that, for an enterprise of this scale and nature, it is necessary for a worker to be readily available to meet the welfare requirements of the cattle. Where a functional need exists regard must be had to the scale and nature of the enterprise in determining how many workers need to be available to meet it. A useful guide would be an indication as to the level of labour required to support the cattle enterprise. The labour requirements of the holding can be assessed using Standard Man Day (SMD) coefficients such as those published in the Agricultural Budgeting and Costing Book (75th Edition). One full-time worker can provide 275 SMDs. An enterprise of this scale would give rise to the need for:
numbers SMDs Total SMDs Suckler cows and calves 100 2.13 213 Grassland management 150 0.5 75 Sub total 288 Management Plus 15% 43 Total SMD 331
It is evident from the above that current stocking levels (assuming that all stock are sold at weaning as is proposed by the applicant), would have the requirement for 1.2 workers. From the information available I am satisfied that Mr Kittle is able to provide for the needs of the enterprise and there is no essential need for a second worker to live on site to provide for the welfare requirements of the stock. Other dwellings Even if there were a need a second worker to live on site, it is evident that there are already a number of other dwellings on the holding which could be used to house that worker.
5873 appraisal This is page 5 of a letter dated 08/07/2013 APPENDIX A/ 6 - 6
Whilst it is accepted that 491 Sullington Lane and Stable Cottage are currently rented out, and this arrangement has been in place for some time, there is no doubt that either property could be made available to provide for a second worker’s dwelling if needed. Furthermore, I understand that Stable Cottage was originally granted permission as an agricultural worker’s dwelling, and that there remains an agricultural occupancy condition in place on that dwelling. Furthermore, there are five holiday cottages on the holding which, whilst there are currently restrictive occupancy conditions in place, could potentially become available if the applicants sought a variation of condition from your Local Authority. There are plenty of alternative existing dwellings which could be available to accommodate workers on the holding. Financial Viability Mr Kittle has provided some basic financial information, which he has requested remain confidential and out of the public domain. From this, it is evident that the livestock enterprise relies heavily upon the HLS payment received and it would appear that, without this payment, the profit from the cattle enterprise would not have generated a reasonable return to Mr Kittle’s labour. In order to evaluate the financial viability and sustainability of the enterprise fully, I would need to assess the accounts for the enterprise in detail. However, as I am satisfied that there is no essential need for an additional worker to live on site, a more detailed analysis has not been undertaken. Even so, a common sense approach would suggest that an enterprise of the scale and nature at Sullington Manor Farm should be financially sustainable, taking into account the area of owned land and the longevity of the enterprise operated. I trust the above comments and observations aid in your deliberations. Yours sincerely
Jill Scrivener
5873 appraisal This is page 6 of a letter dated 08/07/2013 Ashleigh House
The Sullington Stud
57.4m Sullington Cottage Sullington Rookwood Shaw
Sullington Old Rectory
Pond 70.6m
Byre Cottage Sullington Manor Farm Stable Cottage Sullington Manor 2 3
Produced using ESRI (UK)'s MapExplorer 2.0 - http://www.esriuk.com blank APPENDIX A/ 7 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 16th July 2013 Application for a new planning permission to replace extant permission DC/09/1729 (Proposed development of 15 no. commercial (B8) and office DEVELOPMENT: (B1) use units arranged in 4 no. blocks with associated parking provision) in order to extend the time limit for implementation SITE: Brightstone Construction Limited Star Road Partridge Green Horsham WARD: Cowfold,Shermanbury and West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/13/0859 APPLICANT: Phillips and Son (Alton) Ltd
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that planning permission be GRANTED subject the completion of an updated legal agreement securing a financial contribution towards transport infrastructure in the Parish of West Grinstead.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 This application seeks an extension of the time limit for the implementation of a previously approved application for 15 no. commercial (B8) and office (B1) units arranged in 4 no. blocks with associated parking provision previously approved in May 2010 under reference DC/09/1729.
1.2 The scheme remains as previously approved, and the earlier report is attached at appendix A for member’s information.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.3 The application site is within the built-up area as defined by the Horsham District Local Development Framework and is also within a defined Employment Protection Zone.
1.4 The site area is some 0.76 hectares and is located within the Star Road Trading Estate. The site previously accommodated a large factory, as well as a commercial coal yard. The site has subsequently been cleared.
Contact Officer: Nicola Mason Tel: 01403 215289 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 2
1.5 The surrounding area comprises a mixture of uses with the Star Road Trading Estate to the north, east and west and open countryside and a sewage treatment works to the south. The nearest residential properties are some distance away to the north (Meyers Wood) from which part of the application site can just be glimpsed between gaps of intervening commercial uses) and to the east (Hazelwood Road) which is almost completely obscured by other existing commercial uses.
1.6 The Star Road Trading Estate is directly accessed from the B2135 and access within the Trading Estate to the application site itself is provided by an existing bellmouth centrally located within the site frontage and a concrete and tarmac access road along the western boundary of the site.
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 The relevant policies of the Core Strategy are CP1, CP3, CP10 & CP11.
2.4 The relevant policies of the General Development Control Policies (2007) Document are DC9, DC19, DC20 & DC40
PLANNING HISTORY
DC/05/2797 Commercial development of 5,698 sq metres comprising 27 REF business units for B1,B2 and B8 uses
DC/06/1878 Commercial development of 4,627 sq metres comprising 17 PER business units for B1 and B8 uses
DC/08/0619 Commercial development of 15 units for B8 and B1 use PER arranged in 4no. blocks along with associated parking
DC/09/1729 Proposed development of 15 no. commercial (B8) and office PER (B1) use units arranged in 4 no. blocks with associated parking provision (amendment to previously approved (DC/08/0619)
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 The Councils Public Health and Licensing Officer has noted that the comments made on the previous application remain valid and that the conditions placed on DC/09/1729 should be restated in any new decision notice. For members information the comments from the Public Health and Licensing Officer relating to the previous application are outlined below:
“I have no objections to this proposal. However I make the following comments which are similar to those made in response to the previous applications for development of the site. APPENDIX A/ 7 - 3
1. A small number of the units on the Star Road Trading Estate have been the subject of noise and odour complaints brought to the attention of this Department by nearby residents. In fact one of the units, albeit one of the closest to residential properties, was served with a noise abatement notice in November 2004 prohibiting certain noisy activities before 7.30am on weekdays and 8.00am on Saturdays. For the above proposal I would therefore suggest a restriction on the hours of operation, including deliveries, loading and unloading, to the following:
0730 – 1800 Monday to Friday 0800 – 1300 Saturdays No activities on Sundays or Bank Holidays
2. I would recommend that steel stockholding is prohibited as this ordinarily falls within B8 use class.
3. A noise assessment in accordance with BS4142 should be carried out on inherently noisy fixed plant positioned outdoors.
4. No burning of waste materials on site.
5. Given the past uses of the site and the fact that it has been used more recently for fly- tipping, this Department recommended an assessment into the condition of the land by means of a site investigation. A Phase II Site Investigation and Remediation Strategy has been carried out by Environ and the report has been submitted in support of this application. Implementation of the remediation strategy should be conditioned with a requirement to provide a validation report at the end of the development phase.”
3.2 The Councils Strategic and Community Planning Team have made no comment on the application.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.3 The County Surveyor has noted that the Highway Authority in considering a current renewal application need to be mindful as whether there have been any significant changes in conditions on the local highway network that would alter the Highway Authorities comments on the permitted application. The Highway Authority would confirm that there have been no significant changes. As such no highway objection would be raised. The conditions and informatives previously recommended would remain applicable and should be carried over to any renewed permission. A Transport Access Demand (TAD) contribution of £88,438 would be required to mitigate the impacts of the proposal in terms of demand on Highways and Sustainable Transport that would arise in relation to the proposed development.
3.4 Southern Water has raised no objection to the extension of time of the planning permission.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.5 West Grinsted Parish Council has raised no objection to the application.
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. APPENDIX A/ 7 - 4
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 This application seeks an extension to the timelimit for implementing application DC/09/1729 for the development of 15 no. commercial (B8) and office (B1) units arranged in 4 no. blocks with associated parking provision (amendment to previously approved (DC/08/0619). Since the approval of the original planning application there has been a material change in planning policy with the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework which was published in March 2012 and has replaced guidance contained within PPG’s and PPS’s. Within the site the area remains in a similar condition to 2009 with no material change.
6.2 At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) there is the presumption in favour of sustainable development and this is a golden thread which runs throughout the document. A core planning principle of the NPPF relates to supporting a prosperous economy, and states that to support a strong, responsive and competitive economy local plans should set out a clear economic vision and strategy for their area which positively and proactively encourages sustainable economic growth.
6.3 This application seeks an extension of the time limit for implementing DC/09/1729. Government guidance requires that local planning authorities should take a positive and constructive approach towards applications for the extension of time limits, as this may improve the prospect of sustainable development being taken forward quickly. The development proposed has by definition already been judged to be acceptable in principle at an earlier date, when the application was first considered. Therefore whilst these applications need to be determined in accordance with s.38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, guidance states that local planning authorities should, in making their decisions, focus their attention on development plan policies and other material considerations which may have changed significantly since the original grant of permission.
6.4 As previously noted there has been a material change in planning policy since the original approval of the scheme with the introduction of the National Planning Policy Framework. However it is your Officers view that the economic policies of the Horsham District Local Development Framework used to determine the original application are generally compliant with the core planning principles of the NPPF. It is therefore considered that the policies used to previously determine the application are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework and therefore whilst government guidance may have changed in the interim the thread and content of planning policy remains constant in this instance. Therefore given the permission on this site, and the need to promote and encourage a strong, and competitive economy as part of the core planning principles of the NPPF, it is considered that there has been no material change in circumstance that would warrant a refusal of the application for the extension of the timelimit.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions and the completion of an updated legal agreement securing a financial contribution towards transport infrastructure in the Parish of West Grinstead. APPENDIX A/ 7 - 5
1 A2 Full Permission 2. G6 Recycling 3. V1 Hours of Working 4. V3 Storage …unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority… 5. J1 Use Limitation …33% B1 & 66% B8… 6. K1 Contamination add “The approved details shall be maintained thereafter and a validation report also submitted and approved upon the completion of the development hereby permitted’ 7. L1 Landscaping 8. L2 Protection of trees and landscape features 9. M1 Materials 10. N5 Control of Noise 11. O1 Hours of working 12. There shall be no burning of any waste materials on the site at any time. Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure the use of the site does not have a harmful environmental effect and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 13. None of the units hereby permitted shall be used as a scaffold business for the storage of scaffolding or scaffold poles or for steel stockholding. Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure the use of the site does not have a harmful environmental effect and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 14. There shall be no amalgamation of any the units hereby permitted without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority via an application on that behalf. Reason: To ensure that a range of small business units remains available and to protect the amenities of nearby residential occupiers in accordance with Policy NE5 of the Structure Plan and Policy CP11 of the LDF Core Strategy (2007) document.
15. The developer must advise the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Southern Water) of the measures which will be undertaken to divert the public sewers prior to the commencement of the development. Reason: To protect drainage apparatus and the sewerage system in accordance with policy CP13 of the Core Strategy of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
16 No business unit, hereby approved, shall be occupied until the site access road junctions with Star Road have been provided in accordance with the approved site plans and construction details to be submitted to and approved by the planning authority in consultation with the highway authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety and highway maintenance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
17 No development, hereby approved, shall be commenced until visibility splays of 2.4 metres x 70 metres have been provided at the site access road junctions with Star Road in accordance with the approved site plans. These splays shall thereafter be kept clear of all obstructions to visibility over a height of one metre above the adjoining carriageway level. Reason: In the interests of road safety in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework. APPENDIX A/ 7 - 6
18 The business units, hereby approved, shall not be occupied until the road / footway serving the unit has been constructed, drained and lit in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to and approved by the planning authority. Reason: To provide satisfactory standards of access to the business units in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
19 The business units, hereby approved, shall not be occupied until the on-site car parking spaces, allocated to the unit, have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved site plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated use. Reason: To provide restrained on-site car parking in accordance with maximum car parking standards units in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
20 No business unit, hereby approved, shall be occupied cycle parking stands have been provided within the unit in accordance with the approved plans and cycle stand details to be submitted to and approved by the planning authority. These cycle stands shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated use. Reason: To provide on-site cycle parking spaces for the business units in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
21 No business unit, hereby approved, shall be occupied until a Travel Plan framework document has been agreed with the Local Planning Authority after consultation with the local Highway Authority. The Travel Plan framework document covering all the business units will indicate the content, implementation timeframe and monitoring programme to support sustainable transport policies. The Travel Plan will thereafter be implemented in accordance with the agreed document. Reason: To accord with sustainable transport policies units in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
Note to Applicant: Access works on the public highway: The developer is advised that they will be required to enter into a highway works agreement to be made under the provisions of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1972, Section 111 for the execution of the site access works onto Star Road. The applicant is requested to contact the Agreements Officer, West Sussex County Council, County Hall, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 1RQ (Tel no: 01243 777565) in order that the necessary documentation may be prepared for inclusion in the legal agreement.
Note to Applicant: A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Southern Water's Network Development Team (Wastewater) based in Otterbourne, Hampshire.
Note to Applicant: A formal application for connection to the water supply is required in order to service this development. Please contact Southern Water's Network Development Team (Water) based in Chatham, Kent
APPENDIX A/ 7 - 7
8. REASONS
IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.
ICAB1 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
ICAB3 The proposal does not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene or locality.
IECO1 The proposal would make a positive contribution to the local economy and local job opportunities.
ITHP3 The vehicular traffic associated with the development would not adversely affect the safety and convenience of other highway users.
Background Papers: DC/13/0859, DC/09/1729 and DC/08/0619 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 8
Blank APPENDIX A/ 7 - 1. Appendix DC/13/0859
DEVELOPMENT abcd MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning & Environmental Services DATE: 15 December 2009 DEVELOPMENT: Proposed development of 15 no. commercial (B8) and office (B1) use units arranged in 4 no. blocks with associated parking provision (amendment to previously approved (DC/08/0619) SITE: Brightstone Construction Limited, Star Road, Partridge Green WARD: Cowfold, Shermanbury & West Grinstead APPLICATION: DC/09/1729 APPLICANT: Mr J Ormond
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development
RECOMMENDATION: To GRANT planning permission subject to the completion of an amended legal agreement updating previous requirements to secure financial contributions towards transport infrastructure in the Parish of West Grinstead.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 This application seeks an amendment to a previously approved application for the same number of units (DC/08/0619). The proposal differs from that previously approved in the following respects:
- Proposed Block C has been realigned to ensure it is a sufficient distance from a public sewer which runs across the front of the site. - Following scrutiny of the legal boundaries of the site by the applicant, it was found that the southern and south eastern boundaries were not correctly indicated. Proposed block D has been reduced in size realigned to co- ordinate with block C.
1.2 The total floorspace of the scheme is given as 3780 square metres (1306 for B1 use & 2474 for B8 use). The previously approved scheme sought permission for 3910 square metres and accordingly this proposal represents a reduction of 130 square metres. The number of proposed car parking spaces has also reduced from 69 to 62 spaces.
1.3 As with the previous proposal, on the northern section of the site, 6 units would be provided to the frontage with Star Road with a single unit behind on the southern
Contact: Gary Peck Extension: 5172 APPENDIX A/ 7 - 2 Appendix DC/13/0859
boundary. To the southern part of the site, a tandem type development would be provided with 4 units fronting Star Road and 4 units to the rear.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.4 The application site is within the built-up area as defined by the Horsham District Local Development Framework and is also within a defined Employment Protection Zone.
1.5 The site area is given as 0.76 hectares and is located within the Star Road Trading Estate. The site previously accommodated a large factory which is understood to have closed about 15 years ago, as well as a commercial coal yard. The site was subsequently cleared and is therefore does not now contain any buildings. Preparatory setting out has taken place on the site, although this is said to relate to the parts of the scheme granted under the previous permission rather than the amendments sought under the current proposal.
1.6 The surrounding area is comprised of a mixture of uses on the Star Road Trading Estate to the north, east and west and with open countryside and a sewage treatment works to the south. The nearest residential properties are some distance away to the north (Meyers Wood) from which part of the application site can just be glimpsed between gaps of intervening commercial uses) and to east (Hazelwood Road) which is almost completely obscured by other existing commercial uses.
1.7 The conifer trees which were previously situated to the front of the application site have now been removed, some screening remains on the eastern side of the site following the line of the old railway.
1.8 The Star Road Trading Estate is directly accessed from the B2135 and access within the Trading Estate to the application site itself is provided by an existing bellmouth centrally located within the site frontage and a concrete and tarmac access road along the western boundary of the site.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 PPS1, PPG4 and PPG13
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 The relevant policies of the Core Strategy are CP1, CP3, CP10 & CP11.
2.4 The relevant policies of the General Development Control Policies (2007) Document are DC9, DC19, DC20 & DC40
APPENDIX A/ 7 - 3 Appendix DC/13/0859
PLANNING HISTORY
2.5 Planning permission was granted in 2009 following the completion of a legal agreement for commercial development of 15 units for B8 and B1 use arranged in 4no. blocks along with associated parking (DC/08/0619). Work has commenced in connection with that part of the proposal not to be amended under the current proposal although no buildings have been constructed as yet.
2.6 Planning permission was granted in April 2007 following the completion of a legal agreement for the erection of 17 business units for B1 and B8 uses (DC/06/1878)
2.7 In February 2006, planning permission was refused for a commercial development of 5698 square metres comprising 27 business units for B1, B2 & B8 uses. The reasons for refusal included overdevelopment of the site, that the inclusion of B2 uses would adversely affect the amenities of nearby residential occupiers and that there was no provision for contributions towards transport infrastructure requirements (DC/05/0797).
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 The Head of Strategic Planning & Performance has no further comments to add beyond those made at the time of the last application which stated that that the scheme is appropriately located and that the proposal accords with the findings and recommendations of the Council’s Employment Land Review. Any proposal should adhere to the General Development Control Policies Document especially with regard to policies DC11 & DC40
3.2 The Public Health & Licensing Officer comments:
I have no objections to this proposal. However I make the following comments which are similar to those made in response to the previous applications for development of the site.
1. A small number of the units on the Star Road Trading Estate have been the subject of noise and odour complaints brought to the attention of this Department by nearby residents. In fact one of the units, albeit one of the closest to residential properties, was served with a noise abatement notice in November 2004 prohibiting certain noisy activities before 7.30am on weekdays and 8.00am on Saturdays. For the above proposal I would therefore suggest a restriction on the hours of operation, including deliveries, loading and unloading, to the following:
0730 – 1800 Monday to Friday 0800 – 1300 Saturdays No activities on Sundays or Bank Holidays
2. I would recommend that steel stockholding is prohibited as this ordinarily falls within B8 use class.
APPENDIX A/ 7 - 4 Appendix DC/13/0859
3. A noise assessment in accordance with BS4142 should be carried out on inherently noisy fixed plant positioned outdoors.
4. No burning of waste materials on site.
5. Given the past uses of the site and the fact that it has been used more recently for fly-tipping, this Department recommended an assessment into the condition of the land by means of a site investigation. A Phase II Site Investigation and Remediation Strategy has been carried out by Environ and the report has been submitted in support of this application. Implementation of the remediation strategy should be conditioned with a requirement to provide a validation report at the end of the development phase.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.3 West Grinstead Parish Council comments “the amendment is to take out fire doors from the back of Block D. Surely there should be escape routes from the rear of the building?”
3.4 Southern Water states that they are unable to make substantive comments on the application but the development appears to be low risk.
3.5 West Sussex County Council comments that, in highway terms, these changes would have no consequences and the principle of the approved scheme remains unchanged. Financial contributions are required to mitigate the impacts of the subject proposal in terms of demand on Highways and Sustainable Transport that would arise in relation to the proposed development.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.6 1 letter has been received stating that the soil tests showed asbestos was present in the samples taken. The removal of asbestos, it is stated, will therefore have to be monitored.
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 the 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 proposal will have an adverse impact upon crime and disorder.
APPENDIX A/ 7 - 5 Appendix DC/13/0859
6. PLANNING ASSESSMENT
6.1 It is considered that the principle of development has already been established by the previous permissions and therefore the main issue is the effect of the proposed alterations to the previously approved scheme upon the character and appearance of the area.
6.2 The applicant’s agent states that the need to amend the proposal has arisen firstly from the need to build away from the public sewer that runs across the front of the site and secondly following investigation of the legal boundaries of the site, it was found that the southern and south eastern boundaries had been incorrectly drawn during consideration of the previous application.
6.3 The revised scheme represents a reduction in 130 square metres from that previously granted permission and, therefore, would result in a reduction in built form on the site. When viewed from Star Road, it is considered that the proposed development would have less impact as part of the development would be set back further from the road by about a metre to avoid any effect upon the public sewer. In general, other industrial units in the vicinity are set back from the road to varying degrees and therefore it is not considered that there can be objection in the reduction in floorspace in visual terms.
6.4 By setting back the development further from the road, the available space for a landscaping strip to the rear of the site is reduced. Previously, at its widest point, the landscape strip was 4.6 metres in width but as a result of this proposal it would be reduced at its widest to 1.9 metres. While the reduction in the area available for landscaping is regrettable, it has to be considered against the potential for improving the setting of the buildings when viewed from within the trading estate itself (by their set back further from the road). Additionally, while there is a public footpath to the south, it is about 250 metres away from the application site. The southern part of the Trading Estate, which follows the line of the old railway, runs adjacent to the footpath and so is far more easily viewed at present than the application site. In this respect, therefore, it would be difficult to argue that the reduction in the landscape strip would have a materially detrimental impact upon the character of the area to warrant a refusal of permission, particularly given that the scheme would provide employment floorspace on an existing industrial site which has been vacant for sometime and, as a result, could be said to adversely affect the visual character of the area in its current undeveloped state.
6.5 The letter of representation is noted. As with the previous approvals on the site, a contamination condition is proposed and detailed remediation strategies for the site have already been submitted. It is considered, therefore, that the re-imposition of the condition and the submission of the required details can adequately deal with the concerns raised. The comments of the Parish Council are also noted in respect of the proposed fire doors. A Building Regulations application has already been submitted and plans approved conditionally. It is understood that the applicant’s agent has already discussed the matter directly with the Building Control section. While fire doors are necessary, they need not be at the back of the building and could be provided to the front or side additionally to the existing entrance door. Having regard to BS9999, though, it is possible for additional doors to be omitted and still comply with Building Regulations. Accordingly, it is not considered that any objection could be raised on planning grounds to this part of the proposal. APPENDIX A/ 7 - 6 Appendix DC/13/0859
6.6 As with previous applications, a legal agreement will be required to secure financial contributions towards financial infrastructure in West Grinstead. The required payment is £73600. The provisions of previous legal agreements will need to be updated to reflect the submission of the current application.
6.7 In conclusion, therefore, it is considered that the proposal represents amendments to a previously approved scheme that do not a material impact in planning policy terms and accordingly it is recommended that permission be granted.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 It is recommended that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions and the completion of a legal agreement securing a financial contribution towards transport infrastructure in the Parish of West Grinstead.
1 A2 Full Permission 2. G6 Recycling 3. V1 Hours of Working 4. V3 Storage …unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority… 5. J1 Use Limitation …33% B1 & 66% B8… 6. K1 Contamination add “The approved details shall be maintained thereafter and a validation report also submitted and approved upon the completion of the development hereby permitted’ 7. L1 Landscaping 8. L2 Protection of trees and landscape features 9. M1 Materials 10. N5 Control of Noise 11. O1 Hours of working 12. There shall be no burning of any waste materials on the site at any time. Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure the use of the site does not have a harmful environmental effect and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 13. None of the units hereby permitted shall be used as a scaffold business for the storage of scaffolding or scaffold poles or for steel stockholding. Reason: In the interests of amenity and to ensure the use of the site does not have a harmful environmental effect and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007). 14. There shall be no amalgamation of any the units hereby permitted without the prior permission of the Local Planning Authority via an application on that behalf. Reason: To ensure that a range of small business units remains available and to protect the amenities of nearby residential occupiers in accordance with Policy NE5 of the Structure Plan and Policy CP11 of the LDF Core Strategy (2007) document.
APPENDIX A/ 7 - 7 Appendix DC/13/0859
15. The developer must advise the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with Southern Water) of the measures which will be undertaken to divert the public sewers prior to the commencement of the development. Reason: To protect drainage apparatus and the sewerage system in accordance with policy CP13 of the Core Strategy of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
16 No business unit, hereby approved, shall be occupied until the site access road junctions with Star Road have been provided in accordance with the approved site plans and construction details to be submitted to and approved by the planning authority in consultation with the highway authority. Reason: In the interests of road safety and highway maintenance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
17 No development, hereby approved, shall be commenced until visibility splays of 2.4 metres x 70 metres have been provided at the site access road junctions with Star Road in accordance with the approved site plans. These splays shall thereafter be kept clear of all obstructions to visibility over a height of one metre above the adjoining carriageway level. Reason: In the interests of road safety in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
18 The business units, hereby approved, shall not be occupied until the road / footway serving the unit has been constructed, drained and lit in accordance with plans and details to be submitted to and approved by the planning authority. Reason: To provide satisfactory standards of access to the business units in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
19 The business units, hereby approved, shall not be occupied until the on-site car parking spaces, allocated to the unit, have been provided, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved site plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated use. Reason: To provide restrained on-site car parking in accordance with maximum car parking standards units in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
20 No business unit, hereby approved, shall be occupied cycle parking stands have been provided within the unit in accordance with the approved plans and cycle stand details to be submitted to and approved by the planning authority. These cycle stands shall thereafter be retained at all times for their designated use. Reason: To provide on-site cycle parking spaces for the business units in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
21 No business unit, hereby approved, shall be occupied until a Travel Plan framework document has been agreed with the Local Planning Authority after consultation with the local Highway Authority. The Travel Plan framework document covering all the business units will indicate the content, implementation timeframe and monitoring programme to support sustainable APPENDIX A/ 7 - 8 Appendix DC/13/0859
transport policies. The Travel Plan will thereafter be implemented in accordance with the agreed document. Reason: To accord with sustainable transport policies units in accordance with policy DC40 of the General Development Control Policies Document of the Horsham District Local Development Framework.
Note to Applicant: Access works on the public highway: The developer is advised that they will be required to enter into a highway works agreement to be made under the provisions of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1972, Section 111 for the execution of the site access works onto Star Road. The applicant is requested to contact the Agreements Officer, West Sussex County Council, County Hall, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 1RQ (Tel no: 01243 777565) in order that the necessary documentation may be prepared for inclusion in the legal agreement.
Note to Applicant: A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development. To initiate a sewer capacity check to identify the appropriate connection point for the development, please contact Southern Water's Network Development Team (Wastewater) based in Otterbourne, Hampshire.
Note to Applicant: A formal application for connection to the water supply is required in order to service this development. Please contact Southern Water's Network Development Team (Water) based in Chatham, Kent
8. REASONS
IDP1 The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan.
ICAB1 The proposal does not materially affect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers.
ICAB3 The proposal does not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene or locality.
IECO1 The proposal would make a positive contribution to the local economy and local job opportunities.
ITHP3 The vehicular traffic associated with the development would not adversely affect the safety and convenience of other highway users.
Background Papers: DC/09/1729 Contact Officer: Gary Peck DC/13/0859 Brightstone Construction Limited
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 04 July 2013
SLA Number 100023865 blank APPENDIX A/ 8 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 16th July 2013 Retrospective application for change of use from agricultural to equestrian stud farm including retention of mobile field shelters and mess DEVELOPMENT: room/mobile home, and the proposed erection of hay barn in lieu of existing mobile containers and external storage SITE: Southway Stud Harbolets Road West Chiltington Pulborough WARD: Chanctonbury APPLICATION: DC/13/0827 APPLICANT: Ms Melanie Edwards
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: Category of Development
RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission and authorise enforcement action to remove unauthorised structures, hardstanding and cessation of uses
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks retrospective permission for the change of use of the land from agricultural to equestrian stud farm, including the retention of mobile field shelters and mess room/ mobile home together with the proposed erection of a barn in lieu of existing mobile containers and external storage.
1.2 The proposal seeks to retain two of the existing field shelters which allow for up to four horses to be stabled at any one time. The proposal also seeks to replace the existing storage containers and remaining field shelters with a barn measuring 30metres by 13 metres with a maximum height of 5.5metres. The proposed barn would have double doors on each end and would be one open space internally. A mess room is also included in the application which is 9.3 metres wide, 4.5 metres deep at its furthest point and 3.3 metres high. The structure is a timber clad mobile home and contains a lounge, kitchen, boot room, bathroom and bedroom.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.3 The application site is accessed via a single track road approximately 250metres in length along the northern side of Harbolets Road outside of the built up area boundary. There is a
Contact Officer: Emma Greening Tel: 01403 215122 APPENDIX A/ 8 - 2
public footpath which runs through the site. The site itself is enclosed with hedging on the eastern and southern boundaries and open fields to the north and west.
1.4 At the time of the site visit, there was a large hard standing area with a mobile home located at the southern end. The eastern boundary of the site contains 4 containers, and two stables arranged in a linear fashion. Parallel to this on the western side of the hardstanding is currently 2 stable blocks arranged on skids and a kennel block.
1.5 There is a stallion pen located to the north west of the hard standing area. The wider area is used for grazing and has been subdivided into paddocks.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 Relevant Government Policies are contained within the National Planning Policy Framework published in March 2012.
2.3 Relevant parts include section 1 (Building a strong and competitive economy), Section 3 (Supporting a prosperous rural economy) and Section 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment)
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.4 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007): 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) and CP19 (Managing Travel Demand and Widening Choice of Transport) are considered relevant to this application.
2.5 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007): DC1 (Countryside Protection and Enhancement), DC2 (Landscape Character), DC6 (Woodland and Trees), DC9 (Development Principles), DC27 (Essential Rural Workers Dwelling), DC29 (Equestrian Development), DC40 (Transport and Access)
PLANNING HISTORY
DC/07/0710 Agricultural prior notification to re-build and harden Prior Approval existing farm track Required
DC/12/0851 Retrospective application for change of use from Withdrawn agricultural to equestrian stud farm, keeping of horses including retention of mobile field shelters, dog breeding and associated mobile kennelling, stationing of mobile containers and retention of mess room/mobile home
DC/13/0315 Erection of portal framed barn for storage of hay, straw and Prior Approval agricultural plant and machinery (Agricultural Prior Required Notification)
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS APPENDIX A/ 8 - 3
3.1 Environmental Health: I have no objection to the application in principle, but if the permission is to be granted, I recommend that more detail is required of the applicant to ensure that the disposal of sewage does not cause pollution to the surrounding area. I can give further advice on receipt of this information.
The application implies that the mobile home is not for residential accommodation, so I recommend that a condition is attached to ensure that this is the case. If it is to be used for residential accommodation, further conditions will be required and the caravan will be subject to a Caravan Site Licence. I can provide more detail on this to the applicant on request.
The Mess Room must be provided with a wholesome water supply.
No burning should be permitted on site, and stable waste should be stored or composted in an area distant from adjacent properties.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.2 Reading Agricultural Consultants: Full comments on application file, but in summary: I have a number of concerns which need to be addressed before a detailed assessment of the application can be undertaken. These are: a. The applicant advised that she has rights of access over the track to the holding and has been asked to provide documentary evidence to support this. However, one of the letters of objection states that a Mrs D Bray owns the entrance off the B2133 (Harbolets Road) and has done so since 2012. From the comments made, it would appear that the applicant does not have access rights over this entrance for any business use – such as is currently in operation at the Southway Stud. b. There is an existing footpath which traverses the proposed development site. The applicant advised that this footpath has not been used for many years and that walkers now use an alternative path, outside of their owned land. However, this situation must be regularised prior to the grant of planning permission on an existing right of way. c. There appear to be overhead power cables that traverse the development site and that could be affected by the erection of the proposed barn. The provision of more accurate drawings, which show the pathway taken by the overhead cables, are necessary in order to demonstrate that it is possible to site the barn in the proposed location. d. The hardstanding appears to have been constructed without the benefit of planning permission and its retention is not included in this current application. This aspect may need regularising. e. From the information available on GoogleEarth and the information provided during the site visit, I am not clear that the proposed building actually fits in the area proposed without impinging on the mature oak tree which grows near the access. I would suggest that more accurate and detailed plans are required to enable an accurate assessment of this element of the application.
3.3 Highways Authority: This proposal appears comparable to the previous application in 2012 at the site under application number DC/851/12, to which no objections were raised from the highway point of view.
3.4 Rights of Way Officer: Objection. The proposal would have a direct impact on the definitive line of an existing public footpath. It has not been made clear within this application how the footpath will be accommodated as a result of the development and therefore the WSCC Rights of Way team shall need to raise an objection to this application APPENDIX A/ 8 - 4
due to the development being over the legal line of the public footpath 2350. The granting of planning permission does not authorise obstruction of, interference to, diversion or stopping up of any public right of way across the site. An application would need to be made to divert the footpath. (Full Consultation response available online.)
3.5 Environment Agency: No Comment
3.6 Southern Water: Environment Agency should be consulted directly regarding the use of a septic tank drainage which disposes of effluent to sub-soil irrigation. The owner of the premises will need to empty and maintain the septic tank to ensue its long term effectiveness. The Council’s Building Control officers or technical staff should be asked to comment on the adequacy of soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.7 West Chiltington Parish Council: We object most strongly to this unauthorised development on previously open agricultural land. The development took place behind high fencing to hide from neighbours what was being done so it was clear the applicant knew they required planning permission. This application with the omission of the dog breeding element and the inclusion of a barn to store hay and the various equipment they have brought onto the site is virtually identical to that submitted twelve months previously which was withdrawn prior to the Development Control Committee meeting in December 2012, at which the officers report recommended “To refuse planning permission and authorise enforcement action to remove unauthorised structures and cessation of uses”. Since that time various applications and notices have been put forward we believe as a delaying tactic against enforcement action being taken.
Most of the planning assessment of the previous application still applies and we would like to see this application refused and enforcement action taken without further delay. If this unauthorised use is allowed to continue it will encourage similar developments nearby and elsewhere to the detriment of the countryside and those who live there. Other sites have been available in the area which would be more suitable to equestrian use and which have buildings already on site so this is definitely not the only site in the district on which they could set up a business. With the falling prices of horses due to high feed costs it is almost certain this enterprise cannot be profitable and we suspect that we would then be faced with an application to build a permanent home on the site, as by then the use of the mobile home will be continuous as the neighbours fear.
3.8 Neighbour Comments: 12 letters have been received, with the following comments: 8 letters in support Yard is clean and tiled and the horses are kept to a high standard Applicants have knowledge and experience Security issues at the site Need for horses to be under close supervision especially when a horse is in foal and appropriate facilities are required for this constant level of monitoring Building which is used for the management of the business is essential for discussion of recording of required treatments especially during inclement weather
4 letters of Objection Contravenes local policy Applicants have installed water, electricity and the numerous buildings onto what has always been fields Believe the applicants are living on the site, and the use has become more intensive over time APPENDIX A/ 8 - 5
Contradictions in the applicants supporting statement Application is very similar to previously withdrawn application, the only change being the omission of dog breeding The structures and hardstanding has resulted in a form of development which is out of keeping with the rural appearance of the area and would result in sporadic development in the countryside Concerns over highways safety Other properties in the area which are better equipped for this business Number of sites which have been available for sale or rent over last two years which are more suitable
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 application seeks retrospective permission for the change of use of the land from agricultural to equestrian stud farm, including the retention of mobile field shelters and mess room and the proposed erection of hay barn in lieu of the existing mobile containers and external storage. As the application site is located outside of any built up area boundaries, the application will need to be assessed against countryside policies.
6.2 Policy DC1 of the General Development Control Policies states that: “Outside the Built up Area boundary, development will not be permitted unless it is considered essential to its countryside location and in addition meets one of the following criteria: a. Supports the needs of agriculture or 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 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”.
6.3 Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed equestrian stud farm may need a rural site to operate from, it has been set up on what were previously agricultural fields. It is considered that the location of the stud farm well set back from the road on an agricultural field does not represent sustainable development of the rural area and has resulted in a significant increase in the level of activity on a previously undeveloped rural area.
6.4 Policy DC29 of the General Development Control Polices refers to applications for Equestrian Development and states that the re-use of existing buildings should be considered prior to applications for new buildings. The policy also requires that the proposal is appropriate in scale and level of activity and in keeping with its location and surroundings and does not result in sporadic development leading to an intensification of buildings in the countryside.
APPENDIX A/ 8 - 6
6.5 It is considered that the proposed change of use of land to equestrian in this location would have an adverse impact on the rural character of the area. The site is set back from the road by some 250 metres and is accessed via a narrow track which appears to have been made more permanent in the recent past. The site due to its distance from the roadway does not reflect the pattern of surrounding development which is linear in form following the pattern of the road network. The current site was open agricultural land prior to occupation by the applicant and consequently all facilities have had to be brought onto the land to enable it to be used as a stud farm. Having looked at the aerial photographs for the site it would appear the hardstanding which the existing buildings are currently located on has been constructed without the benefit of planning permission and its retention is not included in this current application.
6.6 The proposed use of the land for equestrian purposes has involved the provision of a mobile home and the accumulation of structures on the site for the storage of feed, tack, machinery and for the shelter of the animals themselves. It is considered that the structures together with the hardstanding has resulted in development which is of a level and form which is out of keeping with the rural appearance of the area gives rise to sporadic development in the countryside. It is considered that the number of existing structures on the site is inappropriate in scale to the undeveloped nature of the land and that the level of activity would be inappropriate in this rural, quiet location.
6.7 Whilst the proposal currently under consideration seeks to remove some of the existing structures and replace these with one barn (measuring 30metres by 13 metres with a maximum height of 5.5metres), it does not overcome Officers concerns relating to sporadic development in the countryside. During the course of the application the design of the barn has been amended to reflect the layout of the site by removing the open bay on the west elevation and having two large double doors at either end to try to incorporate the barn onto the existing hardstanding. However your Officers having measure the proposed location of the barn whilst on site are concerned that it would not fit on the existing hardstanding and additional hardstanding would need to be created in order to enable year round access to the southern part of the site where the mobile home and stables are currently sited. As a result it is considered that the proposed barn would lead to further development which is out of keeping with the rural character of the area.
6.8 During the course of the application, additional information has been requested from the agent regarding the proposed siting of the development and elevations showing the stable block. Whilst some of this information has been submitted, there are concerns that the plans are still inaccurate in relation to the siting and size of the proposed barn in relation to the existing development on the site as well as the barns proximity to overhead power cables. With regards to the proposed elevations of the stable block, these have not been submitted, and the Agent has suggested that these do not require planning permission although permission for the retention of these structures is being sought within the application.
6.9 The Local Planning Authority has sought the advice of an Agricultural Advisor to give a view at to whether the development is essential to the countryside location. The Agricultural Advisor carried out a site visit with the Case Officer and Applicants and also had sight of all the documents submitted as part of the application. The Agricultural Advisor has advised that there are a number of issues which need to be addressed before an accurate appraisal can be made and therefore at this present time the Local Planning Authority is unable to accurately assess the proposal. Based on the information supplied, it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposal is essential to its countryside location.
6.10 In terms of the impact on the existing footpath. The proposal seeks to erect a barn on the eastern boundary of the site over the existing hard standing area. The official line to the APPENDIX A/ 8 - 7
existing footpath runs through the field to the west of the application site and through into the field which contains the development on the application site. As it currently stands the official line of the footpath is blocked in part by the existing structures on the site. The proposal seeks to erect a barn parallel to the existing eastern boundary sited north-south. The proposed barn would obstruct the official line of the footpath.
6.11 The Rights of Way Officer has been consulted and raised an objection to the proposal; they state that “although the definitive line is now obstructed by a hedge at its southern end and a hedge and fence immediately south of the proposed development, the definitive route must be considered in the application”. The application fails to mention the footpath on the site, although the Rights of Way Officer suggests that the applicants are aware of the legal line following correspondence with the Rights of Way team in 2012.
6.12 The Rights of Way Officer has suggested that although the legal line of the footpath has already been obstructed that retrospective consent should not be given until, and unless, the path has been accommodated. An objection is therefore raised to the proposal because to date, the applicant has not officially had the footpath diverted and the proposed barn would further block the official line of the footpath.
6.13 Overall, it is considered that the proposed change of use and development of the site to a stud farm would have an adverse impact on and result in sporadic development of the countryside in which it is located. In addition to this, it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed development is essential to its countryside location and that the barn can be satisfactorily accommodated within its proposed location. Furthermore the proposal would block the definitive footpath line and to date, no measures have been taken to officially divert the footpath. As a result it is considered that the proposal fails to meet the aims of planning policy and it is recommended that planning permission is refused and enforcement action is authorised.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 That planning permission is refused and enforcement action is authorised to remove unauthorised structures, hardstanding, track and cessation of uses
1. The proposed development and changes of use is considered to have a detrimental impact on the rural character and visual amenities of the countryside location in which it sits. Furthermore it is considered that the proposed development by virtue of its size, siting, design and level of activity would represent sporadic development and intensification in the level of activity within the countryside. As a result it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to policies CP1, CP2, CP3, CP5, CP15 and CP19 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DC1, DC2, DC6, DC9, DC27, DC29 and DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007)
2. It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed development is essential to its countryside location and that the development proposed could be accommodated satisfactorily within the proposed location. As a result it is considered that the proposal is contrary to Policies CP1, CP2 and CP3 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC29 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007)
3. The proposed development would lead to the obstruction of the definitive line of the public footpath which has not been subject to an adopted diversion order. The development would therefore be detrimental to the users of the adopted public right of way. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies CP1, CP3 and CP15 of the Horsham APPENDIX A/ 8 - 8
District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DC1, DC2, DC9 and DC40 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007)
Background Papers: DC/13/0315, DC/12/0851 DC/13/0827 Southway Stud
Scale : 1:10000
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 04 July 2013
SLA Number 100023865 blank APPENDIX A/ 9 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 16 July 2013 DEVELOPMENT: Replacement of existing mobile home with new dwelling and garage SITE: Marnor West End Lane Henfield West Sussex WARD: Henfield APPLICATION: DC/13/1073 APPLICANT: Mr and Mrs Ron Richardson
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: 5 Letters of support received
RECOMMENDATION: To refuse planning permission
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 The application seeks permission to replace the existing mobile home on the site with a single storey dwelling and a double garage.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.2 The application site is along the northern side of West End Lane and is outside the built up are boundary as defined by the Local Development Framework. The character of the area can be described as rural with sporadic development along this part of the lane, though 5 dwellings are located to the east of the site.
1.3 To the north of the application site is the residential dwelling of Marnor, which is occupied by the applicant. To the immediate west of the site is the former nursery site, which is now occupied by a new dwelling, currently under construction. The former nursery site is where the original mobile home was located and was granted a Certificate of Lawful Use in 1999 (HF/105/97).
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Contact Officer: Doug Wright Tel: 01403 215522 APPENDIX A/ 9 - 2
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 National Planning Policy Framework – Section 7, Requiring good design
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.3 The relevant Local Plan Policies are CP1 & CP3 of the Core Strategy (2007) and DC9 & DC28 of the Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007).
PLANNING HISTORY
2.4 HF/105/97 Certificate of lawful use for mobile home used as ancillary residential accommodation - Permitted HF/85/03 Removal of agricultural occupancy restriction on HF/69/67 & condition 3 on HF/23/67 - Permitted DC/04/0804 Removal of condition 3 on HF/85/03 relating to the demolition of derelict glasshouses Refused DC/06/0657 Conversion of existing building to single dwelling - Refused (Allowed on Appeal)
DC/07/1812 Clearance and reclamation of site and erection of 4-bed detached dwelling - Refused (Allowed on Appeal) DC/07/2885 Conversion of nursery building to a single dwelling (amendment to DC/06/0657) - Permitted DC/09/1014 Erection of 2 x 4 bed dwellings and garage(outline) – Refused (Dismissed on Appeal) DC/10/1128 Revisions to previously approved scheme (DC/07/1812) for a new 4-bed house on land adjoining Marnor – Permitted DC/11/0305 Revision to approved house design – Permitted DC/11/0801 Non-material amendments to previous permission DC/11/0305 consisting of 2 No. additional windows on North elevation - Permitted
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 No internal consultation received
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.2 Henfield Parish Council object to the application, stating the Committee is not satisfied that Policy DC28 has been complied with.
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.3 27 letters of representation have been received, which is comprised of 19 letters of objection and 8 letters of support. The following comments and reasons for objection are noted as follows:
Development is outside of the built up area Insufficient justification of need for a dwelling APPENDIX A/ 9 - 3
Overdevelopment of the site Increase in traffic
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 It is considered that the principal issue in the determination of this application is the effect of the proposal upon the character of the area having regard to the planning history of the site.
6.2 The site was originally a nursery but this use ceased in approximately 1995 and has since been the subject of an extensive planning history. In 1999 (HF/105/97) a Certificate of Lawful Use was granted for a mobile home for the use as ancillary accommodation within the site. The nursery buildings, along with the original mobile home have long been removed and a new dwelling is near completion following several planning applications.
6.3 The current proposal is to replace an existing mobile home with a 3 bed dwelling, which is presently occupying the application site along with a redundant stable building. The proposal includes the removal of the stable building with the replacement dwelling to be located on the footprint of the existing mobile home.
6.4 The proposed dwelling itself is a single storey building measuring 24.5m by 6.2m with a pitched roof to a height of 5.5m. The proposed dwelling being single storey would have no overbearing impact upon the nearest neighbouring dwelling of ’Bysel’ to the west and the eastern boundary is heavily screened, thereby having no detrimental impact upon the dwellings to the east or vice versa.
6.5 In respect of the plot, this comprises a narrow strip of land, which has resulted from the division of the larger nursery site, through the approval of the new dwelling of ‘Bysel’ and by virtue of the existing driveway serving the dwelling of ‘Marnor’, which dissects through the southern half of the larger site. The existing driveway, which runs along the western side of the application site would provide a shared access serving both ‘Marnor’ and the proposed dwelling with a separate driveway from West End Lane due to be created for ‘Bysel’. The presence of the driveway within the site provides an even narrower plot which also significantly decreases in width running south to north from approximately 15m down to 5m. With a double garage and parking area located in the southern part, the proposed dwelling centrally located, this leaves a long narrow plot. This is at odds with the gardens of neighbouring dwellings and layout of the surrounding development in this countryside location.
6.6 Whilst in principle the Council’s planning policies would allow the replacement of a residential dwelling with another, the current proposal provides concerns over the siting of the existing mobile home. It is argued by the applicant that the Certificate of Lawful use granted in 1999 allowed for the siting of a mobile home anywhere within the red edged area, as defined by the location plan for the Certificate of Lawful Use, which included the APPENDIX A/ 9 - 4
larger site. Thereby following the Inspectors appeal decision to allow a new dwelling, subject to the removal of the lawful mobile home by way of a Unilateral undertaking, the applicant claims the removal only related to the application site for DC/07/1812 and as a consequence allowing the mobile home to be sited elsewhere within the original red edged area.
6.7 The mobile home which was granted a Certificate of Lawful use was a timber structure and incidentally allowed as ancillary accommodation, due to its occupancy by relatives and employees of the then owner of ‘Marnor’, as well as being used as a staff ‘mess’. It is considered that the application made clear that the use applied for was "siting of a mobile home" which was clearly identified in a specific area on site.
6.8 It was clearly the intention of the Inspector in granting planning permission for the new dwelling of ‘Bysel’, to totally remove the mobile home from existence within the boundaries of the whole site and who stated “Thus the current proposal for a new dwelling, which would entail the removal from the site of all these existing buildings and structures, would not involve any net increase in the number of dwelling units”.
6.9 Upon visiting the site, it was clear that the current mobile home within the application site was unoccupied with no sign of having been recently occupied, given the overgrown nature of the site. The length of time the current mobile home has been onsite is unclear, however is considered to be no longer than 2 years.
6.10 In conclusion, it is considered that the size of the application site does not reflect the general character and size of plots within the immediate vicinity, resulting in a cramped overdevelopment of the site, to the detriment of the visual amenity and rural character of the area. Furthermore the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied on the information available that the current mobile home relates to the previous certificate of Lawful use, such to constitute a dwelling suitable for replacement under DC28.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 It is recommended that permission be refused.
7.2 Permission should be refused for the following reasons:
1) It has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the existing mobile home relates to the previously granted Certificate of Lawful use (HF/105/97) and in this respect the proposed replacement dwelling would be contrary to policies DC1 & DC28 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
2) Having regard to the siting of the dwelling and its relationship with site boundaries together with the pattern and character of the surrounding development it is considered that the proposal represents an unsympathetic form of development out of character with the rural locality contrary in particular with policies CP3 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and DC1 & DC9 of the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
Background Papers: HF/105/97, DC/06/0657, DC/07/1812, DC13/1073 DC/13/1073
Marnor
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 04 July 2013
SLA Number 100023865 blank APPENDIX A/ 10 - 1
DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT
TO: Development Management Committee South BY: Head of Planning and Environmental Services DATE: 16 July 2013 Approval of Reserved Matters following outline permission DC/12/1022 DEVELOPMENT: (Erection of detached 3-bed dwelling with detached garage) SITE: Springwood Sandgate Lane Storrington Pulborough WARD: Chantry APPLICATION: DC/13/0380 APPLICANT: Mrs H Amand
REASON FOR INCLUSION ON THE AGENDA: 5 letters received contrary to Officers recommendation
RECOMMENDATION: To Grant Planning Permission
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
To consider the planning application
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
1.1 This reserved matters application seeks permission for the erection of a detached dwelling house with integral garage. At outline stage the principle of a dwelling on the site was approved with all matters (access, appearance, layout and scale) being reserved for consideration at the reserved matters stage. This application for reserved matters indicates that the proposed dwelling would be located relatively centrally in the plot, approximately 4metres from the eastern boundary, 5metres from the front and rear boundary and 14.5metres from the western boundary.
1.2 The proposed dwelling would have a maximum ridge height of approximately 7.3metres, reducing to 7.1metres in height over the proposed garage and 5.3metres over the single storey dining room. The proposed dwelling would have a maximum width of 20metres including both the garage and single storey element and a maximum depth of 10.5metres. There would be a glazed gable on the front elevation and three dormer windows. On the rear there would be a rear gable and dormer window.
1.3 The proposed accommodation would consist of kitchen/ sitting room and dining room with fourth bedroom and en-suite on the ground floor. At the first floor level there would be three bedrooms (one en-suite), bathroom and study.
Contact Officer: Emma Greening Tel: 01403 215122 APPENDIX A/ 10 - 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE
1.4 The application site is located within the built up area boundary and the Heath Common Character Area. The application site comprises one of three residential plots situated within the loop at the easterly end of Sandgate Lane.
1.5 Outline permission has been granted for a dwelling on the site under DC/12/1022. The application site is accessed along the southern boundary of the site. The site slopes up northwards and the neighbouring property. At the time of the site visit, post and rail fencing had been erected on the northern boundary, and much of the site had been cleared of vegetation although hedging remains on the existing southern and western boundaries, there are there large trees on the eastern boundary.
1.6 Presently there is an existing detached garage, to the front of the site. The property to the north sits at a higher level to the application site. The property to the east is chalet style in appearance and the property to the west is a single storey dwelling.
2. INTRODUCTION
STATUTORY BACKGROUND
2.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
RELEVANT GOVERNMENT POLICY
2.2 Relevant National Policy is contained within the National Planning Policy Framework published in March 2012
2.3 The relevant sections are 1, (Building a Strong and Competitive Economy), 6 (Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes), and 7 (Requiring Good Design)
RELEVANT COUNCIL POLICY
2.4 Horsham District Council Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007): CP1 (Landscape and Townscape Character), CP2 (Environmental Quality), CP3 (Improving the Quality of New Development), CP5 (Built Up Areas and Previously Developed Land), CP13 (Infrastructure Requirements) and CP19 (Managing Travel Demand and Widening Choice of Transport) are considered relevant to this application.
2.5 Horsham District Local Development Framework General Development Control Policies (2007): DC2 (Landscape Character), DC6 (Woodland and Trees), DC9 (Development Principles), DC15 (Heath Common and West Chiltington Character Areas) and DC40 (Transport and Access) are considered relevant to this application.
PLANNING HISTORY
DC/12/1022 Erection of detached 3-bed dwelling with detached garage PERMITTED (Outline)
3. OUTCOME OF CONSULTATIONS
INTERNAL CONSULTATIONS
3.1 Arboricultural Officer: Raises no objection in principle stating: As you are aware, I have previously visited this site in regard to the outline planning application DC/12/1022. I have now examined the full details submitted, and comment accordingly. APPENDIX A/ 10 - 3
A number of trees on the site at the time of my last site visit on 24th July 2012 have been removed, perfectly legitimately. The only specimens remaining in proximity of the proposed new dwelling are the 3 Scots pine trees on the eastern boundary bordering the adjacent property Hurst Lodge. Despite being semi-mature specimens, I have commented previously that they are not in my view particular or especial, and do not meet the criteria for protection under a Tree Preservation Order. I remain of this view. However, I note from the layout plans that the easterly flank wall of the proposed dwelling will be sited only 3.4m from this eastern boundary. Given the relative sizes of the 3 trees, this appears to fall foul of the respective RPA's of one or more of the trees as defined under BS 5837 'Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations' (2012). To ensure that their rooted areas remain undamaged, the building should be placed no closer than approximately 6m from the base of the closest tree. Additionally, the BS notes at para. 5.3.4 (d) that the "relationship of buildings to large trees can cause apprehension to occupiers", and this appears to be a case in point. The trees will of course tower above the new dwelling wherever it is sited; but at the proximity proposed they will appear overly dominant.
In summary, I register NO OBJECTION to this proposal, but advise that the building is sited a little further away from the eastern boundary.
OUTSIDE AGENCIES
3.2 Highways Authority: Raises no objection stating: This proposal has been considered by means of a desktop study, using the information and plans submitted with this application, in conjunction with other available WSCC map information. A site visit can be arranged on request.
I refer to your consultation in respect of the above planning application and would provide the following comments.
West Sussex County Council was consulted previously on Highway Matters for this location under the outline planning application DC/12/1022 for a 3 bed detached bungalow to which no objections were raised. This application seeks approval of reserve matter of this application.
This proposal as described above will be accessed from Sandgate Lane, which is a private road. Consequently, these comments are for your advice only.
From inspection of the plans the proposed dwelling (4 bedrooms) is larger in scale than that indicated within the outline consent (3 bedrooms), however it would not be anticipated that this would result in a significant increase in vehicular movements over what has been approved, therefore no highway safety objections would be raised.
Using the WSCC car parking demand calculator it would be anticipated that a dwelling of this size in this location would create the demand for 3 vehicular car parking spaces. From inspection of the site plan provided (Drawing 19/03/05) it would be anticipated that this provision can be accommodated on site. Cycle parking for 2 cycles should also be provided in the interest of sustainability.
Vehicular visibility splays of 2.0 x 17 metres have been indicated to the centre line of Sandgate Lane. This would be considered appropriate for approaching vehicle speeds of 14.5 mph on a lane where vehicle adopt a central point in the lane. From visiting the site APPENDIX A/ 10 - 4
previously under DC/12/1022, I would consider theses splays appropriate for a location such as this.
From the information provided no anticipated highway safety concerns would be raised.
If the LPA are minded to grant planning consent it would be advised to secure the following via conditions.
Access (as per drawing 19/13/05) Construction plant and materials Cycle Parking Parking Visibility (2 x 17 metres as per drawing 19/13/05)
INFORMATIVE The applicant is advised to contact the proprietor of Sandgate Lane to obtain formal approval to carry out the site access works on the highway.
3.3 Southern Water: No objection to the application, but have made the following comments:
The applicant has not stated details of means of disposal of foul drainage from the site. Southern Water requires a formal application for a connection to the public sewer to be made by the applicant or developer.
We request that should this application receive planning approval, the following informative is attached to the consent: A formal application for connection to the public sewerage system is required in order to service this development, please contact Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH, or www.southernwater.co.uk) . The Council’s Building Control Officers should be asked to comment on the adequacy of the soakaways to dispose of surface water from the proposed development.
Southern Water’s current sewerage records do not show any public sewers to be crossing the site. However due to changes in legislation that came into force on 1st October 2011 regarding the future ownership of sewers it is possible that a sewer now deemed to be public could be crossing the above property. Therefore, should any sewer be found during construction works, an investigation of the sewer will be required to ascertain its condition, the number of properties served, and potential means of access before any further works commence on the site. The applicant is advised to discuss the matter further with Atkins Ltd, Anglo St James House, 39A Southgate Street, Winchester, SO23 9EH, (Tel 01962 858688).
PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS
3.4 Storrington and Sullington Parish Council: No Objection
3.5 Neighbour Comments: 6 letters of objection received from 5 addresses which raise the following concerns: Sandgate Lane cannot support the current traffic levels and any increase in traffic will further exacerbate the problem Lane is regularly used by dog walkers, hikers and children and further development will be detrimental to those users on foot Proposal significantly bigger than what was proposed at outline stage Proposed construction by virtue of its height, scale, bulk and design would be an incongruous development APPENDIX A/ 10 - 5
Design statement is for a bungalow, it is elevated from the lane and the roof line is some 8.2metres above the road and it will be imposing in such a small lane Proposed dwelling remains significantly above the level of the southern part of the Sandgate Lane and therefore opportunity exists to potentially lower the ground floor to counteract the increase in height Living areas now extend significantly further towards the neighbours to the east and west Concerns about the extent of glazing and level of privacy Western element will overlook ‘Little Stoke’
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 application seeks reserved matters permission for the erection of a detached dwelling house on land to the south of Springwood in Sandgate Lane. Outline planning permission for a proposed three bedroom dwelling was granted under DC/12/1022 with all matters reserved. Whilst it is noted that this application contained some indicative plans, the previous application simply sought to test the principle of the development on the site.
6.2 The proposed dwelling would be located relatively centrally on the plot close to the eastern boundary. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed dwelling is relatively large in size, it would sit at a lower level to the neighbouring properties around it and the impact of the proposed dwelling has been reduced in part by the lower ridge line of the garage and single storey dining room element and the gables front and rear.
6.3 The design of the proposed dwelling house is relatively traditional with dormer windows set into the roof, whilst there is a more modern glazed element on the southern elevation, the general appearance of the building is traditional. Within the wider area, there is a mix of properties of different styles and design, and the proposed dwelling is considered to be in keeping with properties in close proximity to the application site. A condition should however be attached requiring levels to ensure that the proposed dwelling does not over power the neighbouring properties.
6.4 The impact on neighbour amenity of the proposal is a key consideration and the three properties most likely to be affected by the proposals are ‘Little Stoke’, ‘Springwood’ and ‘Hurst Lodge’. Taking each of those properties in turn, the proposed dwelling would be located approximately 18metres from Springwood and 5 metres from the rear garden of Springwood to the north. Given the change in levels, it is not considered that the proposed dwelling would have a significant impact on this property in terms of overshadowing. There is one dormer window and two roof lights proposed on the rear elevation which would serve a bathroom, en-suite and would be a secondary bedroom window. It is therefore considered appropriate to attach a condition requiring these windows to be obscured glazed and non-opening below a certain level to protect amenity.
APPENDIX A/ 10 - 6
6.5 ‘Hurst Lodge’ is located to the north east of the application site and the proposed dwelling would be located approximately 12metres from this property and 4metres from the boundary. There are no windows which would directly face this property and so the proposal is not likely to result in any overlooking, a condition can be applied to the application to restrict any windows in the future being added to this elevation. Whilst the proposed dwelling would be clearly visible from ‘Hurst Lodge’, given the orientation of the site of this property in relation to the application site it is not considered to give rise to significant levels of overshadowing.
6.6 The final area of consideration in terms of neighbour amenity is the impact of the proposal on ‘Little Stoke’ which lies to the west of the application site. ‘Little Stoke’ sits at a lower level to the other neighbouring properties and the proposed dwelling would be located approximately 14.5metres from the boundary with ‘Little Stoke’. There are windows proposed on the ground floor which would serve the dining room and kitchen. There is already screening on the boundary and given the separation distances, it is therefore considered that the impact on ‘Little Stoke’ is limited.
6.7 Overall it is considered that the proposed siting of the dwelling house would not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and on balance the proposal is considered acceptable.
6.8 In terms of the impact on trees, there are three large Scots Pines located on the eastern boundary of the site. The Arboricultural Officer has commented on the proposal and has suggested that these trees do not meet the criteria for a Tree Protection Order. He has however suggested that the proposed dwelling should be moved slightly further away from the trees on the eastern boundary.
6.9 Amended plans have been submitted showing the proposed dwelling approximately 1metre further from the trees on the eastern boundary. Whilst this is not as far as recommended by the Arboricultural Officer, it would be difficult to object given that the trees are not protected. On balance the proposal is therefore considered acceptable in this regard.
6.10 The proposal seeks to access the site from the southern part of Sandgate Lane, where there is an existing garage. The garage would be removed as part of the proposal and the access created in the same location. The Highways Authority has been consulted on the proposal and suggested that the visibility splays of 2.0 x 17 metres are acceptable on this occasion given that the lane is private and speeds are likely to be relatively low given the unmade nature of the road.
6.11 Given that the Highways Authority has not raised an objection to the proposal, the access is considered acceptable subject to conditions.
6.12 In terms of the impact on the street scene the proposed dwelling is located on the southern part of the loop within Sandgate Lane, and would be the only dwelling accessed from this point. It is noted that the private track sits at a lower level to the application site and therefore the house will be visible from the road. However the proposed dwelling would be set back from the road and there is screening along the front which would minimise the impact.
6.13 Sandgate Lane is generally made up of a variety of different dwellings built over a period of time and set in plots of irregular sizes. There is no common building line and there is mature screening between the majority of the plots which help to minimise the impact of built form. It is considered that whilst the proposed dwelling would be visible from the street scene, with appropriate landscaping the impact could be limited and on balance this is considered acceptable.
APPENDIX A/ 10 - 7
6.14 The application site is located within the Heath Common Character Area, which is defined by low density development which is set in woodlands and commons. The dwelling would be located opposite a Site of Nature Conservation Importance and located within an area close to other development. Given that the proposed dwelling would be located close to other dwelling houses and would be set relatively centrally in the plot, the impact on the wider area is considered limited.
6.15 Overall, it is considered that the proposed dwelling house would be in keeping with the surrounding properties and subject to conditions would not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties or the wider street scene. As a result it is considered that the proposal meets the aims of planning policy and it is recommended that planning permission is granted.
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 That planning permission is granted
1. The dormer window and roof lights in the north elevation of the building shall at all times be glazed with obscured glass precise details of which, together with details of any opening, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing before installation. The approved glass and any agreed opening details shall be maintained at all times. Reason: To protect the amenities and privacy of the adjoining property and in accordance with policy DC9 of the Horsham District Local Development Framework: General Development Control Policies (2007).
2. 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 first floor north, east and west 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).
Note to applicant: The conditions applicable to the outline planning permission ref. DC/12/1022 are applicable to this development.
8. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
IDP1: The proposal is consistent with the provisions of the development plan
Background Papers: DC/12/1022 APPENDIX A/ 10 - 8
Blank DC/13/0380 Springwood
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 04 July 2013
SLA Number 100023865